Biodiversity Strategy - Gosford City Council - NSW Government

Gosford City Council
BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
APRIL 2008
1

Biodiversity Strategy Page 1

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 6
1.1 What is Biodiversity? ......................................................................................... 6
1.2 Why is Biodiversity Important? .......................................................................... 6
1.3 Who is this strategy for?.................................................................................... 7
1.4 Climate Change................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Purpose of the Biodiversity Strategy ................................................................. 9
1.7 Objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy............................................................ 11
2 EXISTING SITUATION ............................................................................................ 12
2.1 Biodiversity in Gosford .................................................................................... 12
2.2 Threats to Biodiversity..................................................................................... 16
2.3 Biodiversity Management ................................................................................ 17
3 VISION ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Community Biodiversity Values....................................................................... 19
3.2 Biodiversity Principles ..................................................................................... 19
3.3 Biodiversity Strategy........................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Protect and Conserve Biodiversity and Maintain Ecological
Processes.................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Integrate Biodiversity Conservation & Natural Resource
Management................................................................................ 22
3.3.3 Educate & Involve/Consult the Community ................................. 23
3.3.4 Collect Information and Improve Knowledge and Research ....... 24
3.3.5 Identify, Prevent & Mitigate Bio-Threatening Processes ............. 25
3.3.6 Allocate Resource and Develop a Biodiversity Operational Plan 26
4 REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 27
Biodiversity Strategy Page 2

CONTENTS
APPENDIX GOSFORD CITY COUNCIL
BIODIVERSITY TECHNICAL REPORT
A - 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 33
A - 1.1 Purpose and Scope................................................................................ 33
A - 1.2 What is Biodiversity? .............................................................................. 33
A - 1.3 Why does Conserving Biodiversity Matter?............................................ 34
A - 1.4 References ............................................................................................. 37
A - 2.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 38
A - 2.1 Federal and State Legislation, initiatives and Biodiversity Planning ...... 38
A - 2.2 Regional context for Biodiversity Conservation...................................... 40
A - 2.2.1 Catchment Management Authorities ........................................... 40
A - 2.2.2 Regional Planning ....................................................................... 41
A - 2.2.3
The Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental
Management (LHCCREMS) Biodiversity Strategy ..................... 42
A - 2.3 Local Government role and responses ................................................. 43
A - 2.3.1 Local Government Role............................................................... 43
A - 2.3.2 Council Corporate Reporting and Vision 2025 ............................ 44
A - 2.3.3 Gosford City Council Biodiversity Response to date ................... 44
A - 2.4 Discussion of Comparable Plans and Strategies - NSW and elsewhere ..
............................................................................................................... 48
A - 2.5 Stakeholders and Consultation .............................................................. 48
A - 2.6 References ............................................................................................. 52
A - 3.0 REVIEW OF RECENT BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMS ............................................. 53
A - 3.1 Biodiversity studies, projects and reports............................................... 53
A - 3.2 Appraisal of biodiversity projects undertaken 2000 – 2004.................... 56
A - 3.2.1 Gosford Biodiversity Action Plan ................................................. 56
A - 3.2.2 Systematic and Targeted Fauna Biodiversity Surveys 2000/2001
..................................................................................................... 56
A - 3.2.3 Pilot Corridors Project 2002 -2004 .............................................. 57
A - 3.2.4 Gosford City Vegetation Mapping Project 2004 .......................... 59
A - 3.2.5 Backyard Wildlife Survey 2003 - 2004......................................... 60
A - 3.2.6
Regional Fox Management Strategy and Coastal Fox Baiting
Program....................................................................................... 63
A - 3.2.7 Specific Threatened Species Programs ...................................... 63
A - 3.3 Related biodiversity programs................................................................ 67
A - 3.3.1 Bushcare Program....................................................................... 67
A - 3.3.2 Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study................................... 68
A - 3.3.3 Ecological Research Projects...................................................... 68
A - 3.3.4 Mangrove Creek Catchment Biodiversity Projects ...................... 70
A - 3.3.5 Kincumber Creek Riparian Rehabilitation Project ...................... 74
A - 3.3.6 No Mow Trails.............................................................................. 75
A - 3.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.......................................... 75
A - 3.3.8 Cats Indoor Program ................................................................... 76
A - 3.3.9 Weed Control Programs .............................................................. 77
A - 3.4 References ............................................................................................. 78
A - 4.0 BIOPHYSICAL AND LAND USE FEATURES.......................................................... 79
A - 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 79
A - 4.2 Geology .................................................................................................. 82
A - 4.3 Geomorphology...................................................................................... 83
A - 4.4 Soils........................................................................................................ 84
Biodiversity Strategy Page 3

A - 4.5 Climate ................................................................................................... 88
A - 4.6 Catchment Boundaries........................................................................... 89
A - 4.7 Aboriginal History ................................................................................... 89
A - 4.8 European Settlement.............................................................................. 90
A - 4.9 Current Landuse..................................................................................... 92
A - 4.10 Population and Trends ........................................................................... 92
A - 4.11 References ............................................................................................. 95
A - 5.0 TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................. 96
A - 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 96
A - 5.2 Native Vegetation Communities ............................................................. 97
A - 5.2.1 Distribution of Native Vegetation ................................................. 97
A - 5.2.2 Vegetation Mapping.................................................................... 98
A - 5.2.3 Significant Vegetation Communities.......................................... 104
A - 5.2.4 Rainforest Communities ............................................................ 109
A - 5.2.5 Wetland Communities .............................................................. 109
A - 5.2.6 Riparian or Riverbank Communities.......................................... 109
A - 5.2.7 Recommendations arising from Previous Mapping Projects ..... 110
A - 5.3 Terrestrial Flora .................................................................................... 111
A - 5.3.1 Diversity of Gosford Flora.......................................................... 111
A - 5.3.2 Threatened and Rare Plant Species ......................................... 112
A - 5.4 Terrestrial Fauna .................................................................................. 114
A - 5.4.1 Diversity of Gosford Fauna........................................................ 114
A - 5.4.2 Threatened Fauna Species ....................................................... 114
A - 5.4.3 Invertebrates.............................................................................. 116
A - 5.4.4 Fauna Species of Particular Interest ......................................... 116
A - 5.5 Fungi and Microbial Biodiversity........................................................... 120
A - 5.6 Significant Habitat ................................................................................ 121
A - 5.6.1 Tree Hollows and other ‘Old Growth’ Values............................. 121
A - 5.6.2 Wildlife Corridors and Linkages................................................. 122
A - 5.6.3 Regional Corridor Planning ....................................................... 123
A - 5.6.4 Local Corridor Mapping ............................................................. 125
A - 5.7 References .......................................................................................... 126
A - 6.0 AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................... 129
A - 6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 129
A - 6.2 Aquatic Habitats ................................................................................... 130
A - 6.2.1 Estuaries.................................................................................... 130
A - 6.2.2 Marine Habitats ......................................................................... 145
A - 6.2.3 Freshwater Habitats .................................................................. 147
A - 6.3 References ........................................................................................... 152
A - 7.0 ISSUES FOR BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................... 153
A - 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 153
A - 7.2 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation of Native Vegetation......................... 154
A - 7.3 Weeds .................................................................................................. 155
A - 7.4 Feral and Introduced Pest Animals ...................................................... 156
A - 7.4.1 Foxes........................................................................................ 156
A - 7.4.2 Feral Deer.................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.3 Feral Pigs .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.4 Aquatic Pests............................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.5 Feral Cats .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.5 Wild Dogs .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.5 Diseases............................................................................................... 157
A - 7.6 Companion Animals ............................................................................. 158
A - 7.7 Human Interactions with Native Species.............................................. 159
A - 7.8 Fire Management ................................................................................. 160
Biodiversity Strategy Page 4

A - 7.9 Hydrological Changes and Environmental Flows................................. 161
A - 7.10 Degradation of Aquatic and Riparian Habitat and Water Quality ......... 163
A - 7.11 Authorised and Unauthorised Landuse Impacts .................................. 165
A - 7.12 Recreational and Commercial Use of Natural Resources.................... 165
A - 7.13 Climate Change.................................................................................... 166
A - 7.14 References ........................................................................................... 168
Biodiversity Strategy Page 5

1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Council's adopted Biodiversity Management Policy, Council is aiming to
"Conserve the diversity and abundance of locally occurring native plants and animals and
micro-organisms in Gosford City at the genetic, species and ecosystem level. This is to be
achieved through forming active partnerships between the community, relevant
government authorities and within Council to manage this natural heritage for present and
future generations." (Gosford City Council Policy R0.18, 2008)
This strategy has been developed to allow Council to implement its Biodiversity Management
Policy in line with National and State objectives for Biodiversity Management. The various
strategies and actions have been developed based upon the knowledge and information
presented in the Biodiversity Technical Report (see attached appendix).
This strategy is a component of Council's highest level planning document titled Gosford
Community Strategic Plan 2031.
1.1 What is Biodiversity?
Biodiversity or biological diversity is defined as:
"The variety of life forms, the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes
they contain, and the ecosystems they form. Biodiversity is usually considered at three
levels: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity." (Commonwealth of
Australia 1996)
These three levels work together to create the complexity of life on earth.
"Genetic diversity is the variety of genes within a species. Each species is made up of
individuals that have their own particular genetic composition. This means a species may
have different populations, each having different genetic compositions. To conserve
genetic diversity, different populations of a species must be conserved.
Species diversity is the variety of species within a habitat or a region. Some habitats,
such as rainforests and coral reefs have many species, while others, such as mud flats
have fewer.
Ecosystem diversity is the variety of ecosystems in a given place. An ecosystem is a
community of organisms and their physical environment interacting together. An
ecosystem can cover a large area, such as a whole forest, or a small area, such as a
pond." (NPWS 1999)
1.2 Why is Biodiversity Important?
Biodiversity is necessary for the successful functioning of ecosystems and is essential for the
maintenance of clean air, clean water and healthy soils. Some of the primary benefits of
biodiversity include:
• Maintenance of the quality of the atmosphere;
• Controlling and regulation of climate (moderation of temperature, wind and rainfall);
• Regulation of fresh water supplies;
Biodiversity Strategy Page 6

• Generation and maintenance of topsoil and mitigation of erosion;
• Disposal of wastes and recycling of nutrients;
• Provision of a genetic store for the future;
• Provision of all food and pollination of crops;
• Provision of many medicines;
• Provision of renewable resources such as building materials, clothing, paper and
leather;
• Creation of tourism and recreation resources;
• Maintains viability of industries such as forestry, fishing and agriculture;
• Enhancement of landscape and aesthetic amenity;
• Enhancement of the overall health of the community.
"Biodiversity is also valued by many Australians for aesthetic, scientific, recreational and cultural
reasons" (NSW Biodiversity Strategy 1999). There are also many economic benefits to
biodiversity, including tourism and employment in national parks. The costs associated when
biodiversity is not protected can also be economically devastating.
Despite the rich natural diversity that is currently enjoyed by its residents and visitors to the
area, the natural environment of Gosford City is under enormous pressure. Of the 1400 or so
plant species found in the local government area, over 340 are introduced and known to
become weeds in bushland areas. Of the 70 or so known mammals, 10 are introduced and
almost 40% of our native mammals are at risk of becoming endangered in the future.
Increasing pressures also impact on natural resources including water quality. There are
increasing threats from introduced plants and animals in bushland, waterways and other natural
areas. These compete with native species for habitat and resources. Our natural areas need to
be actively protected and managed to conserve biodiversity for now and for future generations.
Measuring biodiversity is difficult; we just don’t know enough about the native plants, animals
and micro-organisms around us, or about the complex interrelations that exist between them.
Because we don’t have definite measures for biodiversity, the extent and condition of native
vegetation communities is often used as a ‘surrogate’ measure for biodiversity. The Gosford
Biodiversity Strategy is underpinned by qualitative and scientific data that provides the basis for
conservation priorities and actions. (see attached appendix titled Gosford city Council -
Biodiversity Technical Report)
1.3 Who is this strategy for?
The Biodiversity Strategy is intended for:
• The people of Gosford - to engage the community in biodiversity conservation and
to demonstrate Council's commitment to this aim and future strategies to achieve it.
• Council staff – to assist in developing policy, informing strategic planning and
improving management activities and procedures.
• Land managers and business and industry groups of all scales - to involve other
land managers and all sectors of the business community in conservation initiatives.
• Government and non government agencies that have natural resource
management roles and that Council works in partnership with – to ensure clear
direction for partnership activities and definition of roles, responsibilities and future
directions.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 7

• Local interest groups such as Bushcare, progress and environmental associations
and schools - to provide a valuable resource for these groups, especially tools,
databases and other resources to assist in biodiversity conservation measures.
1.4 Climate Change
Global atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are rising resulting in an enhanced greenhouse
effect. The increased concentration of such greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is seen by the
majority of the world's leading scientists as contributing to the warming of the Earth's surface.
This warming can affect rainfall and storm intensity and sea levels. A rise in sea level together
with severe weather events has the potential to significantly impact the coastline. Low-lying
coastal terrain may become inundated, beaches eroded, coastal infrastructure damaged and
coastal ecosystems affected.
The implications of climate change upon biodiversity cannot be underestimated. As discussed
in the National Biodiversity and Climate Change Nation Plan 2004-2007 produced by the
Commonwealth government:
"Biodiversity underpins the ecosystem processes that makes life possible and is critical to
the ecological sustainability of our nation. Healthy ecosystems contribute positively to the
air we breathe, the water we drink and the ability of our land to sustain production from
agriculture, fisheries and forestry…
Over the 21 st century, human-induced climate change may result in large-scale
biodiversity loss on a global scale. In particular, climate change could cause dramatic
shifts in species distributions and species extinctions, particularly across fragmented or
vulnerable ecosystems…
In the 21 st century, biodiversity conservation has to address the challenges from past
environmental degradation with a new overlay of pressures from climate change. These
challenges are great, but they also provide us with new opportunities to improve
stewardship of our biodiversity…
Temperature and rainfall play major roles in determining where individual species of plants
and animals can live, grow and reproduce…
The effects of climate change on species and ecosystems can be both direct and indirect.
Direct impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems:
• Reduction in the geographic range of species:
• Change to the timing of species' lifecycle:
• Change in population dynamics and survival:
• Change in the location of species' habitats:
• Increase in the risk of extinction for species that are already vulnerable:
• Increased opportunity for range expansion of invasive species:
• Change in the structure and composition of ecosystems and communities:
• Change in coastal and estuarine habitat due to rising sea levels:
Climate change is also expected to exert an indirect effect by influencing the intensity and
magnitude of existing stresses, such as invasive species and fire regimes, on biodiversity
and ecosystem structures, functions and processes. For example, change in climate can
influence fire regimes by altering the frequency, intensity and extent of fire events".
(Australian Government 2004)
Biodiversity Strategy Page 8

As plants absorb carbon dioxide it is essential that plants are conserved and opportunities taken
to revegetate land. According to the Draft Central Coast Regional Strategy, most future growth
will occur around Gosford City Centre and on the Peninsula because the urban footprint has
been set. This concentration of urban development in the existing urban footprint assists in
biodiversity conservation and management by minimising disturbance to the natural vegetated
areas.
Although Council by maintaining its urban development in the existing urban areas is a
significant step towards addressing some aspects of Climate Change the introduction of further
population within our local government area will result in the consumption of more resources
and increased pressure on natural resources. Consequently Council needs to be proactive in
all aspects and activities that contribute to climate change.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 9

GOSFORD VISION 2025
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
Biodiversity
Ecologically Sustainable Development
Government
Strategies
• State
• Metropolitan
• Regional
Gosford Community
Strategic Plan 2031
NATIONAL FRAMEWORK and LEGISLATION
National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity 2001-2005
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
STATE FRAMEWORK and LEGISLATION
NSW Biodiversity Plan
Local Government Planning Guide
Natural Resources Commission – Statewide Standards and Targets
Local Government Act,
Environmental Assessment and Planning Act,
Threatened Species Conservation Act and others.
DELIVERY PLANS
REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental Management
Strategy (Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy)
Regional Biodiversity Management Plan
Directorate and Unit
Operational Plan
LOCAL
GOSFORD BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
Figure 1 Diagram summarising the relationship of the Gosford's Biodiversity Strategy to international, national, state, regional and local
biodiversity frameworks.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 5
s

1.5 Purpose of the Biodiversity Strategy
The purpose of the Gosford Biodiversity Strategy is to provide a framework and guide for the
management of biodiversity in the Gosford local government area that is consistent with
regional, state, national and international strategies, plans and policies (see Figure 1).
This Strategy has been developed to provide a strategic direction for the development of four
(4) yearly Delivery Plans and annual Operational Plans that will play an important part in
managing biodiversity in Gosford City. Policies, plans of management, works programs and
other actions will continue but will be developed and implemented in accordance with this
Strategy.
Managing and conserving biodiversity is a key role for local government in NSW and this
charter is set out in Section 8, Local Government Act, 1993:
"to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of
the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent with and promotes the
principles of ecologically sustainable development".
Council is responsible for protecting, conserving and rehabilitating the natural environment,
whilst providing the community with opportunities to consider applications that provide jobs and
housing, plus consideration for the cultural and social character of our local government area.
The decisions and activities of people have a significant impact on the local and regional
ecological systems. The current and future generations will depend upon these ecological
systems for their survival and enjoyment.
In developing this and future plans Council needs to identify strategies and actions that promote
partnerships with the community, other government organisations and within Council's own
structure.
1.6 Placing the Biodiversity Strategy in Context with Council's Draft Gosford
Community Strategic Plan 2031
Council's Biodiversity Strategy is part of Draft Gosford Community Strategic Plan 2031. This
plan provides Council's future strategic directions by considering regional and state priorities
and legislation; the community's Gosford Vision 2025 for the city; and how current trends and
drivers influence the context in which the city exists.
Council's roles in delivering a sustainable community vary from direct service provision, to
advocating on behalf of the community by lobbying government for required changes in policy,
services and infrastructure.
Strategic plans are not static and must be monitored to assess whether the assumptions made
were correct, whether the city is moving in the direction envisaged, and whether the city is
achieving the community's Gosford Vision 2025. Reviews at four-yearly intervals by the newlyelected
Council will allow for adjustments to be made if circumstances or assumptions alter.
The Draft Gosford Community Strategic Plan 2031, provides a transparent planning process
illustrating Council's leadership and governance. The plan therefore provides the foundation
upon which the new Gosford Citywide Local Environment Plan (LEP) is based. It also provides
Council with one strategic document to use in discussions and negotiations with the state
government over funding and policy deliberations.
Incorporating the Biodiversity Strategy into the Draft Gosford Community Strategic Plan 2031
will provide more integrated outcomes and strengthen the role biodiversity plays in the future of
our City as summarised in Figure 2.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 9

Council is placing the information documents such as this Biodiversity Strategy and the Quality
of Life Strategy on public exhibition for endorsement prior to the presentation of the full Draft
Gosford Community Strategic Plan 2031. It is recognised that Council's Biodiversity Strategy
may need to be updated upon release of the Department of Environment and Climate Change's
Central Coast Regional Conservation Strategy.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 10

1.7 Objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy
The objectives of this Strategy are to:
• Ensure biodiversity management is a critical consideration in Council’s strategic
Planning process that informs the City Wide Local Environmental Plan.
• Ensure Council’s decision-making processes and operations have an outcome
whereby biodiversity is appropriately protected and managed in consideration of the
existing social and economic environment.
• Maintain or improve Gosford’s Biodiversity for present and future generations.
• Ensure all Council’s development controls identify biodiversity conservation issues and
provide protection for biodiversity.
• Conserve the diversity of locally occurring native flora and fauna in the Gosford City
Council area at the genetic, species and ecosystem level and ensure actions support
recovery of species which have become threatened
• Identify threats to biodiversity and develop management strategies to address the
threats and to protect, enhance and recover biodiversity
• Invest in future research that aims to address key biodiversity issues in Gosford Local
Government Area (LGA).
• Improve management of biodiversity by identifying opportunities for partnerships and
co-operation with other government and non-government organisations; the
community and management within Council.
• Educate and encourage the community to be involved in maintaining biodiversity
• Ensure Council owned land that retains natural ecosystems is managed in a way that
protects and enhances biodiversity.
• Identify and implement wildlife corridors that are important for biodiversity and develop
actions for their protection, management and enhancement.
• Ensure that Council’s biodiversity strategies and future actions align with all relevant
State & National Policies.
• Identify priorities and allocate resources to implement the strategy.
• Work with partner organisations to develop a comprehensive, adequate and
representative (reserve) system for terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity.
• Implement environmental monitoring and reporting to support these objectives.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 11

2 EXISTING SITUATION
2.1 Biodiversity in Gosford
Gosford City covers an area of 1,029 square kilometres (102,900 hectares) and is located on
the east coast of Australia. The Local Government Area (LGA) extends from the Hawkesbury
River and Broken Bay in the south to Bucketty, Lisarow and Forresters Beach in the north, and
from Wisemans Ferry and the Great North Road in the west to the Tasman Sea in the east.
The location and boundary of the Gosford LGA is illustrated in Figure 2
Figure 2: Location of Gosford LGA
The Gosford LGA is situated in the Sydney Basin Bioregion which has one of the most diverse
floras in Australia (DECC 2008). This diversity results from the variations in geology,
topography and climatic conditions across the bioregion (DECC 2008). The native vegetation of
Gosford includes species whose population is restricted to the Gosford region. Endemic species
include Astrotricha crassifolia, Darwinia glaucophylla, and Grevillea shiressii (Bell 2004). Those
that have limited regional distribution include Prostanthera junonis and Prostanthera askania
which are restricted to parts of Gosford and Wyong LGAs (Bell 2004). More widespread
species include those that generally occur in the sub-tropical and tropical rainforests of New
South Wales and Queensland such as the White Beech, Gmelina leichhardtii, (RBG 2008), and
those such as Silver Banksia, Banksia marginata, that tends to occur in cooler regions such as
South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the south coast of NSW and the tablelands and slopes of
NSW (RBG 2008). The Rose Walnut, Endiandra discolor, is a species for which the most
southerly record is in the Gosford LGA (RBG 2004).
Biodiversity Strategy Page 12

In addition to the overlapping of tropical and temperate zones the local geology has evolved to
provide a range of ecosystem and habitats in a relatively small geographical area. The diversity
of ecosystem and habitats is further enhanced by the geological formation of the area and the
pattern of river and creek systems that have been cut into the underlying geology. (GCC 1988)
As a general rule the major river and creek systems along the NSW Coast line run in a
west/east direction across broad flood plains. This means that as one travels in a west to east
or east to west direction there is a gradual succession from one habitat area to another. (GCC
1988). Conversely, in the Gosford LGA all the major creek systems of Mangrove, Mooney
Mooney, Mullet, Patonga, Narara and Erina run in a north south direction. Therefore as one
travels in an east west direction there is a sharp contrast from one habitat area to another. The
proximity of different habitats in a small area has lead to a diversity of species when compared
to other areas of Australia of a similar size. (GCC 1988)
Reflecting this diversity of habitats there are five (5) National Parks and four (4) Nature
Reserves.
Each national park and nature reserve has its own character
• Dharug National Park is recognised as containing a multi-coloured sandstone
landscape with pristine clear-water tributaries;
• Popran National Park conserves spectacular stone cliffs and gullies with many
Aboriginal sites;
• Brisbane Water National Park contains a rugged sandstone country that is covered
in hundreds of native wildflowers;
• Wyrrabalong National Park contains rocky cliffs that are bounded by the sea;
• Bouddi National Park accommodates a number of small secluded beaches and the
first marine park in NSW.
• Wambina Nature Reserve which protects the local flying fox colony.
• Wamberal Lagoon Nature Reserve encompasses one of the best remaining
examples of a coastal lagoon, wetland and barrier sand dune on the Central Coast;
• Cockle Bay Nature Reserve protects an estuarine habitat succession from sea
grasses to fringing mangroves to swamp forest; and
• The series of small islands in Brisbane Water include Riley's Island and Pelican
Island Nature Reserves.
The variety of landscapes in the national parks and nature reserves protects an outstanding
natural beauty and is valued for its beaches, bushland and recreational opportunities, such as
fishing, sailing, surfing and bushwalking. Much of the LGA remains vegetated (72.6%) with
urban development and bushland reserves existing in close proximity to each other. Of the total
LGA, 31.7% is National Park or Nature Reserve and 6.9% is State Forest. Natural bushland is
also protected on a number of Council reserves, particularly through the Coastal Open Space
System (COSS), which accounts for 1.8% of the total LGA or approximately 1,850 hectares.
Native vegetation also occurs on other land tenures, most notably, the Mangrove Creek Dam
and Mooney Dam catchments which represent 10.2% of the total LGA or 10,500 hectares.
Refer Figure 3: Native Vegetation by Land Ownership. (GCC GIS)
One of the unique features of Gosford LGA is the development of the Coastal Open Space
System which commenced in 1984. The COSS compliments the national parks and nature
reserves within the local government area as it provides a continuous reserve system of
interconnected vegetated landscapes linking the ridge-top lands and provides habitat linkage
between various national parks and nature reserves. The COSS has been historically funded
through the bonus provisions and land dedications under Gosford's Interim Development Order
No 122. The COSS is a critical component of the City’s biodiversity as it currently protects over
1,850 hectares of natural bushland in close proximity to urban areas. It provides a scenic
Biodiversity Strategy Page 13

ackdrop to areas of the City, conserves habitat for native animals and plants, as well as
providing recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to Gosford.
Gosford City has a rich diversity of terrestrial and aquatic native flora and fauna species and
communities. There is almost 74,700 hectares (72.6% of LGA) of native vegetation in the LGA,
comprising 83 distinct vegetation communities ranging from warm temperate rainforest, tall
moist forest, open woodland scrub, heath, hanging swamps, coastal wetland and saltmarsh.
Table 1 provides a summary of Gosford's terrestrial flora and fauna.
Table 1: Quick snap shot of Gosford City’s natural features.
How much is native vegetation?
• Almost 74,700 hectares of native vegetation remain. (Gosford City Council
Geographical Information System - GCC GIS)
How much is cleared?
• 3,360 hectares are mapped as cleared or underscrubbed lands supporting only canopy
trees either with agricultural landscapes or in urban areas.
• over 600 hectares are mapped as previously cleared areas now undergoing natural
regeneration and over 170 hectares are exotic vegetation /plantations (ie pine
plantations and stands camphor laurel). (GCC GIS)
83 distinct vegetation communities have been identified as occurring in Gosford City, this
includes 28 local variants. (Bell 2004)
Approximately 1400 plant species are identified in Gosford City of which over 330 are
introduced plants known to occur as weeds in bushland areas. (Bell 2004)
There are at least 430 native vertebrate animals and 20 introduced animals found in the
Gosford LGA. (DECC Atlas)
There are 11 endangered ecological communities (Supplementary Sustainability Report 2007)
Within the Gosford LGA there is a diversity of aquatic habitats. The area includes freshwater
and marine wetlands, rivers, creeks, estuaries, lagoons, beaches, coastal reefs and rock
platforms. The majority of these habitats support a healthy diversity of aquatic flora and fauna.
However, a few habitats, such as the coastal lagoons and urban streams, are under huge
pressure from development and other land use activites. The natural beauty of the region,
particularly its waterways; coupled with its proximity to both Sydney to the south and Newcastle
to the north, attracts thousands of visitors each year. Table 2 provides a summary of Gosford's
aquatic flora and fauna. Almost 10,000 hectares or 9.7% of the local government area consists
of waterways which provide a range of habitats from exposed open beaches to quite secluded
estuarine bays and inlets.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 14

Figure 3: Native Vegetation by Land Ownership
Biodiversity Strategy Page 15

Table 2: Statistics on Gosford's waterways
There is approximately 60 km of major tidal waterways that cover an estimated area of 10,000
ha. This estimate does not include ephemeral streams or those that have been piped to
accommodate development. (GCC GIS)
There is 50 km of beaches and rocky coastline. There is approximately 100 ha of sandy
beaches on the open coast and approximately 30 ha of inter-tidal rock platforms. (GCC GIS)
There is approximately 900 ha of mangrove habitat, which is protected under NSW Fisheries
legislation. (Bell 2004)
There is approximately 200 ha of saltmarsh, which is listed as an endangered ecological
community. (Bell 2004)
There is over 700 ha of seagrass meadows, including the protected Posidonia australis, or
strap weed. Seagrass meadows in Brisbane Water support a high diversity of Signathid fishes
which includes pipe fish and seahorses. (Technical Report 2008)
Gosford LGA currently contains a large number of species and ecosystem diversity with some
plants and animals occurring at the southern or northern extent of their natural distribution in the
area. At the same time there are over eighty five (85) threatened animals, approximately twenty
(20) threatened plants and eleven (11) endangered vegetation communities known to occur in
the LGA. These are recognised as being at risk of extinction unless the circumstances
threatening their survival are addressed. The benefits of conserving biodiversity are evident
and will allow Gosford to also continue to be a beautiful and diverse area that enriches the lives
of residents and attracts visitors to the area.
2.2 Threats to Biodiversity
Like coastal areas within close proximity to major cities, Gosford continues to experience
population growth with the resultant development pressures that in turn can place pressure on
biodiversity. Land subdivision (in particular of Rural and Environmental zoned lands), the desire
for larger dwellings and associated works and the need for bushfire protection all have the
potential to place pressure on the local native species and ecosystems.
The Draft Central Coast Regional Strategy proposes an increase in Gosford City's population,
with an increase of 13,000 residential dwellings with an increase of 23,000 additional people by
2031 (Department of Planning 2004). Should the Region's water supply be secured in the long
term this population threshold may increase and it is noted that within the existing urban zones
there is potential to accommodate approximately 34,200 people.
The urban fringe areas are generally zoned for rural small holdings which permits a minimum lot
size of 2 hectares. This zone is generally located on land adjoining the urban areas and can
acts as a buffer between the independent coastal settlements and the vegetated Conservation
zoned land and/or public COSS reserves. The erosion of this buffer zone for urban
development could have an adverse impact on the biodiversity if not managed appropriately.
There are a range of Key Threatening Processes that are applicable to Gosford and may
reduce biodiversity if not appropriately managed. The key threatening processes identified by
the Federal Government that are potentially relevant to our area include:
• Competition and land degradation by feral animals such as rabbits and possibly
other domestic animals such as goats and pigs.
• Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)
• Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis
• Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement
in, harmful marine debris
• Land clearing
Biodiversity Strategy Page 16

• Loss of climate habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
• Predation by feral cats
• Predation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
(Australian Government 2008)
The key threatening processes identified by the State Government that are potentially relevant
to our area include:
• Bushrock removal
• Clearing of native vegetation
• Competition and grazing by the feral European rabbit
• Competition and habitat degradation by feral goats
• Completion from feral honeybees
• Ecological consequences of high frequency fires
• Entanglement in or ingestion of anthropogenic debris in marine and estuarine
environments
• Exotic vines and scramblers
• Feral pigs
• Hebivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer
• Human caused climate change
• Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid causing the disease chytridiomycosis
• Infection of native plants by Phytophthora cinnamomi
• Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush
• Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses
• Invasion of native plant communities by Lantana camara
• Loss of hollow-bearing trees
• Predation by feral cats
• Predation by the European red fox
• Predation by the plague minnow (Gambusia holbrooki)
• Removal of dead wood and dead trees
(Department of Environment and Climate Change 2008)
While all the above processes are important, the ones that will have the greatest impact are
climate change; loss or disturbance of important habitats; changes to water quality via
stormwater runoff; changes to the natural water drainage and flow; fragmentation of native
vegetation; and inappropriate land clearing.
2.3 Biodiversity Management
Establishment of protected areas remain a priority for state government. Therefore national
parks and reserves continue to be created to protect biodiversity in areas of need.
The majority of Gosford's native vegetation (57.9%) is located in areas under Council or State
Government (National Parks and State Forests) control which is an advantage for biodiversity
management. However, native vegetation also remains on private properties and should not be
excluded from the biodiversity strategy. At the most strategic level maintaining the substantial
portion of native vegetation within the total LGA (noting currently 72.6% of total LGA) is a
significant way to protect our biodiversity (GCC GIS).
Protection and management of biodiversity cannot however be achieved solely by the
establishment of protected areas. The remnant vegetation on private land (which represents
14.7% of the total LGA) needs to be preserved where it provides important habitat in its own
right and/or linkages between the reserves and National Parks. The national parks, nature
reserves and COSS do not protect all of the areas of important biodiversity in Gosford. For
Biodiversity Strategy Page 17

example, of the approximately 83 different vegetation communities in the Gosford LGA six (6)
are not represented in reserves; three (3) are very poorly (

3 VISION
3.1 Community Biodiversity Values
What the community advised Council in regard to their environment was captured in the
Gosford Vision 2025. Council undertook extensive community consultation to develop a set of
Vision Statements that have been considered and adopted by Council in 2006 to guide strategic
direction. The Vision 2025 long term goals for the environment that relate to biodiversity
include:
• "Actively manage and enhance natural environment, including wetlands and
riparian corridors.
• Maintain thriving diversity of plants and animal species.
• Provide COSS corridors links and natural connectivity.
• Growth permitted which preserves natural environment and sustainable
agricultural activity.
• Retain unspoilt bushland in proximity to suburbs to enhance the quality of local
life.
• Support education program to foster community involvement in protecting the
natural environment and cultural heritage.
• Protect air and water resource.
• 'Closed loop' for energy, water and waste.
• Reduced reliance on automobiles."
The community through its vision also developed potential strategies to achieve the long term
goals. Those specifically relating to biodiversity issues are:
• "Continue to protect the region's ridgelines from urban development.
• Protect and enhance COSS reserves with appropriate buffer zones and create
natural linkages across the landscape.
• Protect and actively manage the region's existing natural habitats; protect and
conserve corridors for wildlife migration so that a diversity of native plants and
animals thrive across the region.
• Maintain all of Gosford's waterways - including coastal lagoons, estuaries,
beaches and dunes - as pollution-free, natural habitats to enable the
continuance of their healthy function.
• Maintain Gosford's village character within designated green zones to retain
the character and identity of local communities.
• Develop a tree planting program that promotes the use of local native species.
• Develop public education programs that foster community involvement in
stewardship of Gosford's natural environment."
3.2 Biodiversity Principles
The Biodiversity Strategy has incorporated the long term goals relating to Biodiversity and the
following set of principles as contained in Council's Biodiversity Management Policy R 0.18
have been applied in developing this Strategy.
• Biodiversity conservation is a key role for Council and part of its core business.
• Council will apply a precautionary approach where there is a chance that a
plan or activity may lead to irreversible biodiversity consequences.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 19

• Biodiversity is best conserved insitu (ie where it occurs) and relocation of
species and tradeoffs are not generally considered appropriate conservation
outcomes.
• Biodiversity conservation objectives must consider and balance broader
environmental, social and economic considerations.
• Maintenance and enhancement of existing biodiversity is a key priority (ie with
an aim to have no net loss).
• Highest priority should be given to the conservation and recovery of threatened
species, populations and communities.
• Wherever possible reducing fragmentation of remnant vegetation and
protection of corridor linkages should be major goals.
• When restoring ecosystems, the aim will be to represent those ecological
communities and systems that originally existing at that site.
In addition to the above adopted principles Council is expanding the principles to include:
• Council to consider giving a high priority to the conservation and recovery of
threatened species, populations and communities.
• Council to examine ways of reducing the threatening processes that result in a
loss of biodiversity.
• When undertaking ecosystem restoration programs, Council will aim to work
towards a sustainable ecosystem that represents the ecological community
prior to European settlement.
• Council's Citywide LEP 2009-2013 should concentrate future development
within the existing urban footprint to minimize disturbance to natural bushland
and conserve biodiversity.
In addition to the Vision 2025 values Council has conducted an extensive community
wildlife survey. The community survey was undertaken to find out what the community
valued about wildlife in their local area and what were priority issues for the community
and local government in protecting native animals. The Backyard Wildlife survey was
distributed to over 120,000 residents in the Gosford and Wyong local government areas
and over 11,000 Central Coast residents participated in the survey. In Gosford City, over
7,150 survey responses were received, representing over 10% of all households. In
addition, hundreds of extra letters of support and valuable additional information about
local wildlife were received demonstrating the strong community interest in native wildlife
in the Central Coast.
The five priority actions for local council and government to look after native animals were
(1) Responsible cat ownership
(2) Feral animal control
(3) Tougher controls on land clearing
(4) Reporting of the Wildlife Survey result to the community
(5) More public land for conservation
Biodiversity Strategy Page 20

3.3 Biodiversity Strategy
To protect and promote biodiversity Council needs to adopt a multi-facetted approach. The
following six key strategies are aimed at providing this framework. The include:
3.3.1 Protect and Conserve Biodiversity and Maintain Ecological Processes
3.3.2 Integrate Biodiversity Conservation & Natural Resource Management
3.3.3 Educate & Involve/Consult the Community
3.3.4 Collect Information and Improve Knowledge and Research
3.3.5 Identify, Prevent & Mitigate the Cause of Bio-Threatening Processes
3.3.6 Allocate Resource and Develop a Biodiversity Operational Plan
3.3.1 Protect and Conserve Biodiversity and Maintain Ecological Processes
One of the primary objectives of the conservation assessment is to identify areas and
features of high biodiversity significance and to advise on appropriate conservation
measures.
This approach includes:
Actions
• Providing ways to identify and protect high conservation areas such as
wetlands, endangered ecological communities, hanging swamps, regional and
locally significant vegetation.
• Incorporating conservation measures for reserves and Coastal Open Space
System (COSS) and protection of ecologically significant areas and identified
wildlife corridors and vegetated linkages.
• Encompassing a full range of ecosystems capable of maintaining biodiversity
in the public reserve systems.
• Developing biodiversity management plans for the reserve systems. These
plans are to be implemented and regularly reviewed to work towards providing
a representation and viable samples of all major ecosystems.
• Work towards biodiversity conservation to be considered as part of Council's
strategic planning, operations and controls.
• Take into consideration the objectives, strategies and actions of the National
Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan 2004 - 2007
1 Enable biodiversity conservation to be taken into consideration in Council's
strategic planning.
2 Require development consent for vegetation clearing/underscrubbing on all
non-urban land.
3 Environmental zoned lands need to be retained with current minimum lots area
standards to enable the lot sizes to allow sufficient space for land uses to
occur without loss of biodiversity.
4 The land zoning and permitted land uses within identified vegetation and
wildlife corridors and riparian habitats need to reflect the biodiversity values.
5 Consider biodiversity criteria for conserving areas of high biodiversity working
towards maintenance and enhancement of existing biodiversity as a key priority
with the aim of no net loss in development assessments and future LEPs.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 21

6 Council to consider the development of an offset policy in accordance with
Department of Environment and Climate Change - biobanking.
7 Focus development around existing urban centres to maintain the urban
development in the existing urban footprint to protect agricultural and
environmental sensitive lands.
8 Undertake 4 year periodic reviews of City Wide LEP and all DCPs to take into
consideration biodiversity conservation issues and provide protection for
biodiversity
9 Enable Council's operations and procedures to include adequate biodiversity
consideration and incorporate effective controls, codes of conduct and
procedures.
10 Identify, protect and manage wildlife and vegetation corridors to maintain
biodiversity.
11 Review and continually upgrade the environmental development assessment
checklist and part 5 assessment procedure to ensure conditions of consent and
approvals address impacts of development on threatened species
3.3.2 Integrate Biodiversity Conservation & Natural Resource Management
A primary objective is for Council to integrate biodiversity conservation into its day to day
operations programs, procedures and plans of management.
This approach includes:
Actions
• Identifying and mapping biodiversity on a local scale and developing
management plans to protect environmentally sensitive land and to promote
ecological sustainability.
• Developing procedures and management controls of Council operations and
functions to improve biodiversity outcomes.
• Preparing and implementing management plans to protect water because
water remains the most critical and highly variable natural resource in NSW
and human activities can affect the health of our rivers.
• Creating and implementing multi-functional (cross directorate) teams to enable
appropriate strategies and plans to be actioned.
1 Enable and maintain effective partnerships and collaboration with agencies
and community groups to maximise co-ordination of natural resource programs
and efficient use of resources.
2 Working in collaboration with the community, develop and implement a
comprehensive framework to achieve long term sustainable water resource
management and clean, healthy, productive river systems, lakes, groundwater
and wetlands.
3 Develop and implement a policy for foreshore management and riparian
habitat to address vegetation protection to maintain and improve water quality.
4 Work closely with the Department of Environment and Climate Change to
address issues affecting biodiversity in Nature Reserves and National Parks
within Gosford.
5 Work closely with other relevant government authorities (such as the
Catchment Management Authorities), community groups and adjoining
Council's to conserve and protect biodiversity across the Local Government
Area.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 22

6 Council work with relevant stakeholders to identify, protect, manage and
enhance wildlife corridors across the region.
7 Participate and implement recommendations arising from the Regional
Biodiversity Strategy and Regional Biodiversity Management Plan.
8 Improve the biodiversity values of Council managed natural reserved lands by
developing management plans and actions that include bush regeneration,
weed control, pest control, and habitat enhancement.
9 Develop and implement plans and strategies to reduce the volume of
stormwater, the level of water borne pollutants, sediments and nutrients
entering natural areas and waterways in accordance with the principles of
Water Sensitive Urban Design.
10 Prepare and implement management plans on Council managed lands to
address the impact of companion animals on biodiversity.
11 Maintain Council records systems (such as 149 certificates and GIS) to contain
the latest information of threatened species and biodiversity management.
12 Enable Council's owned land that retains natural ecosystems to be managed in
a way that protects and enhances biodiversity.
13 Undertake periodic review flood levels around Brisbane Water and all coastal
lagoons to account for climate change predictions for sea level rise and
increasing frequency of storm events.
14 Develop and implement a roadside vegetation management plan that identifies
vegetation of high conservation values and develop environmental
management procedures and protocols.
15 Identify the location of invasive weed species and develop priorities and
options for their control.
16 Review all Plans of Management to enable the consideration of biodiversity
principles to be included within the plan.
17 Identify opportunities to enhance COSS through partnerships with private
landholders to create linkages and improve management practices.
18 Implement the recommendations for threatened species and develop specific
management plans in accordance with relevant State Plans such as Recovery
Plans.
19 Council consider the expansion and capacity to undertake on ground works
including bush regeneration, bush fire management and habitat restoration in
high priority areas.
20 Develop and implement assessment checklists involving the clearing of natural
vegetation for bushfire protection and vermin control.
3.3.3 Educate & Involve/Consult the Community
The primary objective of this strategy is to educate the community about biodiversity and
its importance for human life, and well-being and to consult with, involve and gain
community support for its protection and enhancement.
This approach includes:
• Educating the community on all facets of biodiversity, including protecting
threatened species, but noting it is more effective if the strategy commences
before species become endangered.
• Working towards our community to be aware of how they can conserve,
monitor and sustain biodiversity.
• Embracing community opinions when developing or reviewing the Biodiversity
actions.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 23

Actions
• Enhancing community education by providing incentives to encourage
biodiversity conservation actions including, but not limited to, Voluntary
Conservation Agreements and Property Vegetation Plans.
1 Council to develop, implement and promote a broad range of educational tools
to involve the broad community in maintaining biodiversity.
2 Council to continue to support and consider its expansion of the volunteer
Bushcare Program and acknowledge the volunteers contribution.
3 Develop and promote voluntary conservation incentives to private landholders
and public land managers to encourage the retention and management of
habitat for significant flora and fauna in association with Voluntary
Conservation Agreements and Property Vegetation Plans..
4 Encourage community involvement in biodiversity conservation via monitoring
programs and restoration of targeted areas.
5 Develop and implement an education strategy to raise awareness in the
community of the threats to biodiversity through all available means.
6 Involve schools in biodiversity conservation through integration with Schools'
Environment Management Plans, support for teacher in-service training and
curriculum materials.
7 Provide staff and councillor training to equip them with an understanding of
biodiversity values and issues facing Gosford.
8 Develop a companion animals program to address the impacts on biodiversity
particularly in relation to pets such as cats and dogs in reserves and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
3.3.4 Collect Information and Improve Knowledge and Research
The primary objective of information collection is to improve the knowledge and
management of biodiversity. A key to achieving biodiversity conservation is the
acquisition and application of well-founded knowledge.
This approach includes:
Actions
• Implementing and refining our inventory and monitoring system for biodiversity.
• Biodiversity conservation is based on the application of scientific research and
best practice.
• Undertaking monitoring and adaptive management to improve biodiversity
conservation
1 Collect further biodiversity information to fill in necessary data gaps as
identified in Council's commissioned reports and Council's Biodiversity
Technical Report.
2 Continually upgrade, enhance and make available information to assist staff in
environmental assessment and management.
3 Identify and undertake future research that addresses key biodiversity issues
in Gosford and that will improve environmental monitoring and management.
4 Continue to enable and support staff access to Council's Geographical
Information System (GIS) that identifies the location of environmentally sensitive
lands and high conservation areas to assist in future decision-making to protect
these areas.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 24

5 Conduct training on the identification of typical habitat of threatened species
and vegetation communities that are likely to be encountered during Council
operations.
6 Continue to encourage and fund both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity
scientific research projects that will benefit Council and its management
decisions.
7 Identify priorities for research and seek support from universities and other
research institutions.
8 Use and report on the practical biodiversity indicators for Sustainability
reporting.
9 Undertake monitoring to assess the effectiveness of Council's operations on
biodiversity conservation including such activities as implementation and
effectiveness of management plans, consents and approvals.
3.3.5 Identify, Prevent & Mitigate Bio-Threatening Processes
The primary objective of the identification, recovery and rehabilitation of threatened
species is that critical habitats need to be identified and declared with recovery plans
prepared and implemented by recovery teams. (The Director - General, National Parks &
Wildlife is responsible for identifying land that comprises the critical habitat of endangered
species, populations and ecological communities.)
This approach includes:
Actions
• Actively seeking community participation in all phases of recovery planning.
• Considering social and economic consequences and including community
involvement in the threat abatement plans.
• Identifying the key processes that jeopardise species survival.
• Effectively managing weeds, pest animals and introduced species. Emphasis
should be placed on vertebrate pests such as foxes and cats and the noxious
weed such as bitou bush and the environmental weeds such as lantana,
camphor laurel and privet. Noxious weeds are those weeds declared under the
Noxious Weeds Act 1993.
• Preventing, reducing and controlling pollution noting human activities cause
pollution to biodiversity, particularly to our river and estuarine system.
• Maintaining adequate flows is essential to facilitate water quality.
• Monitoring Climate change because it has the potential to significantly affect
biodiversity.
1 Research, identify and develop management plans to minimise the impact of
threatening processes on biodiversity.
2 Research and develop guidelines for fire regimes that maintain biodiversity on
Council lands while protecting nearby residents.
3 Council to continue to support the allocation of resources for the management
of threatening processes including weeds and pest animal control.
4 Examine the range and ongoing potential impacts from climate change on
biodiversity in Gosford and develop and implement appropriate strategies.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 25

5 Develop and implement strategies for the control and management of regional
weeds.
3.3.6 Allocate Resource and Develop a Biodiversity Operational Plan
The primary objective of resource allocation is to develop Operational and Delivery Plans
that integrate across all of Council's roles and responsibilities to achieve biodiversity
conservation.
This approach includes:
• Preparation of Delivery Plans and Operational Plans to address biodiversity
objectives
• Review of relevant Council policies and procedures to ensure that biodiversity
objectives are achieved.
• Management of Council owned and controlled land such as Coastal Open Space
System (COSS), riparian corridors, natural foreshore reserves, crown reserves
and other environmental sensitive lands
• Preparation of Delivery and Operational plans to address Council's roles and
responsibilities to implement biodiversity strategy
Actions
1 Develop delivery plans and operational actions that incorporate the
conservation of biodiversity in Gosford's Local Government area.
2 Develop and implement the Delivery and Operation Plans in collaboration with
the community, relevant landholders and appropriate government
departments.
Biodiversity Strategy Page 26

4 REFERENCES
Australian Government, 2008 Department of the Environment and Water Resources
Website URL www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetheythreats.pl as at 14
February 2008
Australian Government, 2004, National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan 2007-2007
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
Australian Museum, 2005, www.amonline.net.au/biodiversity
Bell, S. A. J. (2004(a)) The natural vegetation of the Gosford Local Government Area, Central
Coast, New South Wales: Technical report. Unpublished report to Gosford City Council, April
2004. Eastcoast Flora Survey.
Bell, S. A. J. (2004(b)) The natural vegetation of the Gosford Local Government Area, Central
Coast, New South Wales: Vegetation Community profiles. Unpublished report to Gosford City
Council, April 2004. Eastcoast Flora Survey.
Commonwealth of Australia, 1996, The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's
Biological Diversity, Commonwealth of Australia
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2002, Climate Change and
Australia's Coastal Communities, CSIRO
Department of Planning NSW, 2006 Draft Central Coast Regional Strategy
Eco Logical Australia, 2003, Liverpool City Council Biodiversity Strategy, Liverpool City Council
Eco Logical Australia, 2003, Liverpool City Council Biodiversity Strategy Part B: Strategies and
Actions, Liverpool City Council
Environment Australia, 1996, Australia State of the Environment 1996, An Independent Report
Presented to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment by the State of the Environment
Advisory Council.
Environmental Protection Authority NSW, 2000, NSW State of the Environment 2000 Reports
and Backgrounders, Sydney
Gosford City Council 1988. Central Coast Heritage Inventory
Gosford City Council, 2006, Gosford Vision 2025: A Strategic Direction for the Future, Gosford
National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1999, NSW Biodiversity Strategy, NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Sydney
Parramatta City Council, 2003, Parramatta City Council Biodiversity Plan, Parramatta Council
Penrith City Council, 2004, Penrith Biodiversity Strategy, Penrith City Council
Biodiversity Strategy Page 27

Appendix
Gosford City Council
BIODIVERSITY TECHNICAL REPORT
Biodiversity Strategy Page 28

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 29

CONTENTS
APPENDIX GOSFORD CITY COUNCIL
BIODIVERSITY TECHNICAL REPORT
A - 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 33
A - 1.1 Purpose and Scope................................................................................ 33
A - 1.2 What is Biodiversity? .............................................................................. 33
A - 1.3 Why does Conserving Biodiversity Matter?............................................ 34
A - 1.4 References ............................................................................................. 37
A - 2.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 38
A - 2.1 Federal and State Legislation, initiatives and Biodiversity Planning ...... 38
A - 2.2 Regional context for Biodiversity Conservation...................................... 40
A - 2.2.1 Catchment Management Authorities ........................................... 40
A - 2.2.2 Regional Planning ....................................................................... 41
A - 2.2.3
The Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental
Management (LHCCREMS) Biodiversity Strategy ..................... 42
A - 2.3 Local Government role and responses ................................................. 43
A - 2.3.1 Local Government Role............................................................... 43
A - 2.3.2 Council Corporate Reporting and Vision 2025 ............................ 44
A - 2.3.3 Gosford City Council Biodiversity Response to date ................... 44
A - 2.4 Discussion of Comparable Plans and Strategies - NSW and elsewhere ..
............................................................................................................... 48
A - 2.5 Stakeholders and Consultation .............................................................. 48
A - 2.6 References ............................................................................................. 52
A - 3.0 REVIEW OF RECENT BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMS ............................................. 53
A - 3.1 Biodiversity studies, projects and reports............................................... 53
A - 3.2 Appraisal of biodiversity projects undertaken 2000 – 2004.................... 56
A - 3.2.1 Gosford Biodiversity Action Plan ................................................. 56
A - 3.2.2 Systematic and Targeted Fauna Biodiversity Surveys 2000/2001
..................................................................................................... 56
A - 3.2.3 Pilot Corridors Project 2002 -2004 .............................................. 57
A - 3.2.4 Gosford City Vegetation Mapping Project 2004 .......................... 59
A - 3.2.5 Backyard Wildlife Survey 2003 - 2004......................................... 60
A - 3.2.6
Regional Fox Management Strategy and Coastal Fox Baiting
Program....................................................................................... 63
A - 3.2.7 Specific Threatened Species Programs ...................................... 63
A - 3.3 Related biodiversity programs................................................................ 67
A - 3.3.1 Bushcare Program....................................................................... 67
A - 3.3.2 Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study................................... 68
A - 3.3.3 Ecological Research Projects...................................................... 68
A - 3.3.4 Mangrove Creek Catchment Biodiversity Projects ...................... 70
A - 3.3.5 Kincumber Creek Riparian Rehabilitation Project ...................... 74
A - 3.3.6 No Mow Trails.............................................................................. 75
A - 3.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.......................................... 75
A - 3.3.8 Cats Indoor Program ................................................................... 76
A - 3.3.9 Weed Control Programs .............................................................. 77
A - 3.4 References ............................................................................................. 78
A - 4.0 BIOPHYSICAL AND LAND USE FEATURES.......................................................... 79
A - 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 79
A - 4.2 Geology .................................................................................................. 82
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 30

A - 4.3 Geomorphology...................................................................................... 83
A - 4.4 Soils........................................................................................................ 84
A - 4.5 Climate ................................................................................................... 88
A - 4.6 Catchment Boundaries........................................................................... 89
A - 4.7 Aboriginal History ................................................................................... 89
A - 4.8 European Settlement.............................................................................. 90
A - 4.9 Current Landuse..................................................................................... 92
A - 4.10 Population and Trends ........................................................................... 92
A - 4.11 References ............................................................................................. 95
A - 5.0 TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................. 96
A - 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 96
A - 5.2 Native Vegetation Communities ............................................................. 97
A - 5.2.1 Distribution of Native Vegetation ................................................. 97
A - 5.2.2 Vegetation Mapping.................................................................... 98
A - 5.2.3 Significant Vegetation Communities.......................................... 104
A - 5.2.4 Rainforest Communities ............................................................ 109
A - 5.2.5 Wetland Communities .............................................................. 109
A - 5.2.6 Riparian or Riverbank Communities.......................................... 109
A - 5.2.7 Recommendations arising from Previous Mapping Projects ..... 110
A - 5.3 Terrestrial Flora .................................................................................... 111
A - 5.3.1 Diversity of Gosford Flora.......................................................... 111
A - 5.3.2 Threatened and Rare Plant Species ......................................... 112
A - 5.4 Terrestrial Fauna .................................................................................. 114
A - 5.4.1 Diversity of Gosford Fauna........................................................ 114
A - 5.4.2 Threatened Fauna Species ....................................................... 114
A - 5.4.3 Invertebrates.............................................................................. 116
A - 5.4.4 Fauna Species of Particular Interest ......................................... 116
A - 5.5 Fungi and Microbial Biodiversity........................................................... 120
A - 5.6 Significant Habitat ................................................................................ 121
A - 5.6.1 Tree Hollows and other ‘Old Growth’ Values............................. 121
A - 5.6.2 Wildlife Corridors and Linkages................................................. 122
A - 5.6.3 Regional Corridor Planning ....................................................... 123
A - 5.6.4 Local Corridor Mapping ............................................................. 125
A - 5.7 References .......................................................................................... 126
A - 6.0 AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................... 129
A - 6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 129
A - 6.2 Aquatic Habitats ................................................................................... 130
A - 6.2.1 Estuaries.................................................................................... 130
A - 6.2.2 Marine Habitats ......................................................................... 145
A - 6.2.3 Freshwater Habitats .................................................................. 147
A - 6.3 References ........................................................................................... 152
A - 7.0 ISSUES FOR BIODIVERSITY ............................................................................... 153
A - 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 153
A - 7.2 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation of Native Vegetation......................... 154
A - 7.3 Weeds .................................................................................................. 155
A - 7.4 Feral and Introduced Pest Animals ...................................................... 156
A - 7.4.1 Foxes........................................................................................ 156
A - 7.4.2 Feral Deer.................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.3 Feral Pigs .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.4 Aquatic Pests............................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.5 Feral Cats .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.4.5 Wild Dogs .................................................................................. 157
A - 7.5 Diseases............................................................................................... 157
A - 7.6 Companion Animals ............................................................................. 158
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 31

A - 7.7 Human Interactions with Native Species.............................................. 159
A - 7.8 Fire Management ................................................................................. 160
A - 7.9 Hydrological Changes and Environmental Flows................................. 161
A - 7.10 Degradation of Aquatic and Riparian Habitat and Water Quality ......... 163
A - 7.11 Authorised and Unauthorised Landuse Impacts .................................. 165
A - 7.12 Recreational and Commercial Use of Natural Resources.................... 165
A - 7.13 Climate Change.................................................................................... 166
A - 7.14 References ........................................................................................... 168
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 32

A - 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gosford City Council Biodiversity Technical Report describes the context of why Council
should prepare a biodiversity strategy; background information on the human and
natural features of our area; and discusses the key biodiversity issues facing Gosford
City Council
The first question that needs to be considered is
"What is biodiversity and why do we need to protect it ?"
The answer to this question is provided in the following sections.
Key points
• Biodiversity refer to the rich diversity of all living things.
• Biological diversity occurs at three levels: genetic, species and ecosystem diversity.
• Biodiversity is necessary for maintaining functioning ecosystems, to provide clean
air, water and healthy soils, and to retain the natural features and wildlife that we
value in Gosford City.
A - 1.1
Purpose and Scope
Biodiversity conservation is a key role for local government and is set within a broader
framework of biodiversity planning policy and guidelines that operate at local, regional, state,
national and international levels.
Actions to conserve biodiversity are required at a range of scales and by all members of the
community; and that an understanding and appreciation of the interrelationships between
humans and their environment is critical to achieving biodiversity conservation.
Gosford City Council builds on previous environmental initiatives and programs such as
Council's Coastal Open Space System (COSS).
Key issues for Council that are identified and discussed are development pressures, that
changing characteristics of the region including the need for local employment opportunities,
sustainable resource use and budget limitations. It is noted that local government is
increasingly being required to extend its scope of responsibilities and operations, including
threatened species management.
A - 1.2
What is Biodiversity?
Biodiversity or biological diversity is defined as:
"The variety of life forms, the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the
genes they contain, and the ecosystems they form. It is usually considered at three
levels: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity" Commonwealth
of Australia (1996)
The NPWS Biodiversity Strategy further describes these levels
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 33

Genetic diversity is the variety of genetic information contained in all individual plants, animals
and micro-organisms.
Species diversity is the variety of species on earth, usually a measure of the number of
species (richness) and their relative abundances for a given area at a given point in time.
Ecosystem diversity is the variety of habitats, biotic communities and ecological processes. An
ecosystem consists of plant, animal, fungal and micro-organism communities and the
associated non-living environment interacting as an ecological community” (NPWS 1999).
These three levels of diversity are interrelated and interdependent as described in the NSW
State of the Environment 2000 (EPA 2000). For example, increasing loss of vegetation across
the landscape leads to the declining health of ecosystems and results in decreasing populations
sizes and genetic variability. This eventually results in species extinctions.
Figures 1.1 to 1.3 These illustrate the three levels of biodiversity, that is genetic diversity, (as
demonstrated in differing shell colours and shapes within the one species), species
diversity (a Six Spined Leatherjacket (Meushenia freycineti) and ecosystem
diversity (rock platforms at Pearl Beach). (R. Lonie, D. Harasti and R. Lonie)
A - 1.3
Why does Conserving Biodiversity Matter?
Biodiversity is necessary for the successful functioning of ecosystems. Human beings rely on
biodiversity for food, medicines and materials. Some of the primary benefits of biodiversity
conservation include:
• Economic benefits for industries such as agriculture, tourism, forestry, fisheries and
aquaculture with boosted local productivity by maintaining the foundations of a
healthy and sustainable environment and ‘ecosystem services’ (such as healthy
soils, clean air, clean water, and ecosystem, species and genetic diversity);
• Mitigation of potentially devastating and costly environmental problems, including
salinity and erosion
• Tourism and recreation resources (natural beauty, range of recreational activities
including swimming, bushwalking, boating);
• Overall improved environmental health including water and air quality, influencing the
health of local communities;
• Conservation of heritage values, particularly relevant to indigenous communities and
their close cultural association with the land;
• Landscape/ aesthetic amenity;
• Scientific values (such as genetic material for commercial uses, micro-organisms for
contaminated site remediation);
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 34

• Intrinsic and social values;
• Regulation of climate (moderation of temperature extremes and the forces of wind
and waves, rainfall).
(Adapted from New South Wales State of Environment Report 2000 (Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) 2000)).
This means that
CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY = CONSERVING OUR OWN SPECIES
FOR THE FUTURE
FOR THE FUTURE
Many benefits are intangible or not easily measured. Natural capital/resources have been
traditionally undervalued or not given an economic value (EPA 1995; Davidson 2000 quoted in
EPA 2000). A report by the World Resources Institute (Constanza et al. 1997 quoted in NPWS
1999) values the ‘free’ ecosystem services at over $33 trillion to the global economy annually.
Costs of not protected biodiversity may be easier to quantify, for example the cost of lost
agricultural productivity as a result of weeds that is estimated to cost Australia $3.3 billion per
year (Commonwealth of Australia 1997). Benefits such as aesthetic amenity and intrinsic value
remain hard to quantify but are strongly expressed by the community.
At the national level, Australia has a high number of endemic species and a great diversity of
ecosystems. It is estimated that there are nearly a million species (NPWS quoted in EPA 2000)
and that the vast majority of these are insects and invertebrates (44%) and fungi (44%) (Prime
Minister’s Science Council 1992 quoted in EPA 2000). However, it has been estimated that only
15% of these species have been formally described (EPA 2000). Vertebrates represent a mere
1.5% of this total number of species.
Despite this rich diversity, there are real reasons for concern. The first national State of the
Environment Report identified the loss of biological diversity as "perhaps our most serious
environmental problem. Whether we look at wetlands or saltmarshes, mangroves or bushland,
inland creeks or estuaries, the same story emerges. In many cases, the destruction of habitat,
the major cause of biodiversity loss, is continuing at an alarming rate." (Environment Australia
1996). Over 900 species are nationally threatened with extinction. In NSW, over 80 native
species of plants and animals are known to be extinct and nearly 700 plant and animal species
are seriously threatened with extinction (NPWS 1999). It is estimated that more than 70% of
native vegetation in NSW has been removed or significantly modified. Up to one third of
terrestrial plants and animals in NSW are considered to be under threat (EPA 2000).
Gosford City currently contains significant species and ecosystem diversity. At the same time, a
relatively high number of plants, animals and communities known to occur in the areas are
recognised as being at risk of extinction in the next five to ten years. Also some plants and
animals occur at the southern or northern extent of their natural distribution in the Gosford LGA.
Conserving the biodiversity of Gosford City is important not only to retain what we currently
know and enjoy, but also to retain it for future generations. Benefits of conserving biodiversity
will be that the area continues to be a beautiful and diverse area that enriches the lives of the
people of Gosford and attracts visitors and new residents to the area.
Conclusion
Biodiversity loss is a major concern for Council and actions are required to address this loss.
Biodiversity provides a great range of benefits to the area and is considered essential to the
healthy functioning of our natural systems. This strategy has been developed to ensure that
Council meets its obligations for environmentally sustainable development and to retain the
features of Gosford City that make it unique and biologically diverse.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 35

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 36

A - 1.4
References
Commonwealth of Australia (1997) The National Weeds Strategy: A strategic approach to weed
problems of national significance. Commonwealth of Australia Canberra.
Constanza R, d’Arge R, Faber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naaeem S, O’Neill R V, Paruelo J,
Raskin R G, Sutton P and van den Belt M (1997) ‘The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and
Natural Capital’. Nature (London) 387:253 – 60.
Davidson S. (2000) ‘What price biodiversity?’ Ecos, vol. 102 pp.10-13.
Environmental Protection Authority NSW (EPA) (2000) New South Wales State of the Environment 2000
Reports and Backgrounders, Sydney NSW.
Environment Australia (1996) Australia State Of The Environment 1996 An Independent Report
Presented To The Commonwealth Minister For The Environment By The State Of The Environment
Advisory Council ISBN 0 643 05830 3.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (1999) NSW Biodiversity Strategy, NSW National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Prime Minister’s Science Council (1992) Scientific Aspects of Major Environmental Issues:
Biodiversity papers presented by two independent working groups for consideration by the Prime
Minister’s Science Council at its sixth meeting 18 May 1992, Office of the Chief Scientist, Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 37

A - 2.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
The development of any Biodiversity Strategy needs to fit within the framework of
national, state and regional biodiversity agreements, legislation, plans and other
initiatives.
Key Points
• The Gosford Biodiversity Conservation needs to be considered within the framework of
international biological conventions and federal, state and regional biodiversity plans,
policies and legislation.
• Local government has a key role in biodiversity conservation, and actions for biodiversity
conservation need to occur across all areas of Council.
A - 2.1
Federal and State Legislation, initiatives and Biodiversity Planning
The Australian Government is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity that was one
of the key agreements made at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. This has three main goals; the
conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources. The Convention on
Biological Diversity requires countries to develop and implement strategies for sustainable use
and protection of biodiversity and to report on these actions (see
http://www.unep.ch/seas/main/legal/lcbd.html, http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/guide,
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/international/index.html).
The Convention emphasises in-situ conservation measures, with ex-situ conservation
complementing these, and contains measures on the identification and monitoring of important
components of biological diversity, establishment and management of protected areas,
sustainable management of biological resources both within and outside protected areas,
rehabilitation and restoration of degraded ecosystems, recovery of threatened species, control
of pest species, control of threatening processes and activities, involvement of indigenous and
local communities, sustainable customary use of biological resources, and research and
training.
The Commonwealth Government set National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity
Conservation for 2001-2005 (Environment Australia 2001) under ten 'priority outcomes'for the
Australian Government, States and Territories. These are yet to be reviewed by the Department
of EnvironmenT and Heritage to determine if they have or have not been met.
At the state level, the NPWS Biodiversity Strategy (NPWS 1999) identifies the following broad
objectives with local government in a support role:
• Establish community partnerships.
• Provide opportunities and incentives to the community to conserve biodiversity.
• Work with local communities and existing conservation networks (including
established Landcare, TCM groups, local government and Aboriginal Land
Councils and other Aboriginal groups) to protect, repair and restore biodiversity.
• Implement bioregional assessment and planning throughout NSW.
• Implement mechanisms for the identification, recovery and rehabilitation of
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 38

threatened species, populations, and ecological communities and protection of
critical habitat.
• Implement mechanisms for identifying and managing threatening processes.
• Minimise the modification of natural ecosystems, habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Improve fire management regimes.
• Effectively manage water resources to conserve biodiversity and meet
environmental, economic, social and community needs.
State government has identified local government as a lead organisation for the development
and implementation of policies and management practices to achieve ecological sustainable
development and conserve biodiversity (i.e. to develop local biodiversity action plans). Local
government is also identified as a lead organisation along with other key agencies to improve
cooperative approaches to weed and pest management.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service Division of DECC is currently revising the NPWS
Biodiversity Strategy. It is based on the 2001-2005 Commonwealth plan and provides
information under the general themes of land, freshwater, ocean/estuaries, weed/pest disease
threats, natural resource management, human induced threats such as climate change, fire and
soil degradation, Aboriginal heritage, knowledge and governance/partnerships and incentives.
The strategy incorporates actions identified under the NSW Fisheries Aquatic Biodiversity
Strategy and this is a significant change as the previous plan only considered terrestrial
biodiversity. The strategy will have performance indicators and a timetable for implementation.
Statewide targets and indicators are also being developed by the Natural Resources
Commission (NRC) that was established in 2004 (see http://www.nrc.nsw.gov.au for more
information on the NRC). These will guide the work of the CMAs including investment in natural
resource projects. They aim to provide a basis for the regional auditing of Catchment Action
Plans (CAPs) and to ensure transparency and consistency in funding allocation and reporting. A
final report on the recommendations for State-wide standards and targets is not yet publicly
available.
Specific legislation to achieve biodiversity conservation is summarised in Part 2 of the
Biodiversity Planning Guide for NSW Local Government (Fallding et al. 2001).
Since publication of the Biodiversity Planning Guide (Fallding et al. 2001) some legislation has
been superceded, relevant changes are presented in Table 2.1. An important amendment to the
Threatened Species Conservation Act provides for biocertification of LEPs.
Table 2.1 Updates to Relevant Environmental Legislation.
Legislation Main feature Local government roles and
responsibilities
Environment Protection
and Biodiversity
Conservation (EPBC) Act
1999
• List nationally extinct,
endangered and vulnerable
species and communities.
• Assessment of Matters of
May need to refer actions or
proposals for approval to the
Commonwealth.
Native Vegetation Act
2003(replaces the Native
Vegetation Conservation
Act 1997)
Threatened Species
National Significance.
• Property Vegetation Plans
(PVPs).
• Provisions for Routine.
Agricultural Management
actions (RAMAs).
• Biocertification of
Dual consent role in some
cases for vegetation removal.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 39

Amendment Act 2004
Standard Instrument
(Local Environmental
Plans) Order 2006
Environmental Planning
Instruments such as LEPs.
• Priorities Action Statement.
• Recovery Plans not
mandatory.
• New enforcement provisions.
• New test of significance (a 7
part test).
• Assessment guidelines and
certification scheme.
• Stand Instrument Template.
• Requires a local strategic
plan to implement the
Central Coast Regional
Strategy.
• Council to prepare Gosford
Community Strategic Plan
2031. This plan includes
Council's Biodiversity
Strategy which is part of a
suite of strategies
influencing the strategic
direction of Gosford. Other
strategies include
Residential Strategy;
Centres Study; Quality of
Life and Corporate Plan
2008 - 2010
A - 2.2
Regional context for Biodiversity Conservation
A - 2.2.1
Catchment Management Authorities
The Gosford local government area lies within two catchment management boundaries, these
are the Hunter Central Rivers and the Hawkesbury Nepean. Catchment Action Plans (CAPs)
have been adopted by the relevant Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs).
The Hawkesbury - Nepean Catchment Action Plan 2007 - 2016 aims for biodiversity is to ensure
that biodiversity is retained and enhanced in the long term.
The Catchment Management Action Plan identifies that:-
"Conservation and restoration of native biodiversity needs to be actively encouraged and
supported across the landscape as a whole, as an integral element of all property
planning. The importance of regional and local planning is supporting sustainable
conservation of biodiversity is acknowledged and reflected in the range of complementary
targets included in this section.
The target of no net loss of existing native vegetation across the landscape and the
beginnings of an increase in quality and extent of biodiversity is achievable through an
integrated suite of management tools. This can be achieved through:
Improved planning mechanisms
Effective implementation of regulatory tools
Integration of biodiversity targets in urban development areas
Some expansion of the current reserve system and
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 40

Better incentives for private landholders.
Maintenance of the catchment's biodiversity requires more than just maintenance of the
extent and improvement of the quality of native vegetation cover. The recognition and
protection of catchment biodiversity corridors will be a key mechanism is sustainable
conservation of biodiversity and many species that are threatened. It will also demand
targeted action for active interventions to support threatened species and management
action to reduce threats posed by threatening processes, particularly those associated
with invasive plant and animal species (HNCAP 84:2007.
The Hunter - Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan has the aim to maintain or improve
biodiversity. To achieve this aim they have identified a number of guiding principles.
The first ten (10) guiding principles are:-
1. Protection biodiversity should be achieved through regulatory and planning controls
to prevent species and habitat decline, forming conservation areas for long-term
protection (e.g. parks, reserves and aquatic reserves) and appropriate planning that
considers future impacts (such as climate change and population increase) on
biodiversity.
2. The CMA will support in principle planning measures, which reduce and avoid
impacts of development on threatened species and communities such as Regional
Conservation Plans and the Biodiversity Offsets and Banking Scheme.
3. Broadscale clearing of native vegetation as defined by the Native Vegetation Act
2003 should end.
4. Regionally significant vegetation (RSV) should be protected and all representative
vegetation communities be retained.
5. The habitat of threatened species, communities and populations should be protected
and, where possible, improve. Key threatening processes should be taken into
consideration in planning landuse change.
6. Where practical, future development (e.g. residential, industrial) should be restricted
to primarily cleared land. Where loss of vegetation is unavoidable, native vegetation
offsets should be used.
7. Strategic planning should be guided by a regional approach to biodiversity
management which co-ordinates policies from the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and
other relevant legislation.
8. Local environment plans should aim to manage native vegetation to be consistent
with a regional approach to biodiversity management which co-ordinates policies
from the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and other relevant legislation.
9. Landscapes should be managed to improve (or at least not threaten) biodiversity.
This should include minimizing pollution and soil erosion, maintaining soil health
pressure, water use and recreation (e.g. recreational fishing). The appropriate
landuse must be specific to each particular site.
10. Planning for biodiversity should improve the health of ecosystems by increasing the
connectivity and the size of habitat remnants."
Catchment Management Authorities allocate Natural Heritage Trust funding and will report on
environmental programs in accordance with the state targets being developed by the Natural
Resource Commission.
A - 2.2.2
Regional Planning
The Department of Planning (DoP) is responsible for broad regional strategic planning and is
preparing a Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. This will include separate regional strategies for
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 41

areas within the Greater Metropolitan Region that includes the Central Coast region. The
Regional Strategies will "set directions for managing growth and change in the regions and will
complement the directions for Sydney" (http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev. Key regional
centres will be identified such as Gosford where more compact and dense urban development
is planned (pers. comm. Stephen Higham DoP 2005).
A previous strategic plan, The Shaping the Central Coast report (DUAP 1999), contains a
number of biodiversity related desired outcomes. Of these, two are for stronger integration of
biodiversity issues into decision making and a strengthened ability to make land use decisions
in an integrated way, at all levels of government from strategic to operational roles. The strategy
provides the following vision for the Central Coast region; that it:
"be noted and cherished for its environmental quality and that population growth and
development needs be managed to protect and enhance this significant regional attribute. "
Development of the Metropolitan Strategy will need to effectively incorporate biodiversity
protection and conservation measures, whilst balancing the objectives for locating future urban
development and meeting expected future population growth.
A - 2.2.3
The Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental Management
(LHCCREMS) Biodiversity Strategy
As a member of the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management
Strategy (LHCCREMS), Council along with the other six member councils participated in the
development of a Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (RCBS) in 2002/03. The RBCS
project sought to develop a strategy and implementation plan to protect the natural, biological
diversity of the Lower Hunter and Central Coast in order to maintain existing ecological
processes for future generations. It aimed to enhance integration of biodiversity information into
the current and future land use planning processes, providing greater clarity to all land
managers.
The Principles that guide the implementation of the RCBS were:
• Biodiversity is best conserved in its natural environment.
• Successful biodiversity conservation will require the cooperation and support of all
levels of government and the whole community.
• Conserving biodiversity requires management of threatening processes by
identifying, preventing and mitigating the causes of biodiversity loss.
• Biodiversity issues need to be incorporated into planning and management
processes.
• Action can be taken now to ensure the conservation of biodiversity in the region and
future actions should be implemented on the basis of upgraded information as it
becomes available.
• A regional system of protected areas or lands dedicated to conservation
management should be comprehensive, adequate and representative.
• Corridors should link the elements of such a system wherever possible.
The Regional Conservation Assessment 2003 and Recommended Regional Conservation
Strategy & Implementation Plan 2003 (Morison and House in LHCCREMS 2003) provides a
comprehensive regional strategy for Council to consider. As summarised in Table 1.2 it
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 42

provides a range of mechanisms for integrating and funding biodiversity conservation outcomes
and categories for identifying regionally significant lands.
The conservation assessment determined that the current level of formal protection in national
parks and COSS reserves within the region did not meet the lowest conservation scenario of
15% (LHCCREMS 2003). Further, that half of the 58 communities mapped within the region did
not meet this most basic conservation requirement (JANIS criteria). Critical areas identified were
the Hunter Valley and Coastal Plains. These are where vegetation communities associated with
flat fertile environments conflict with coastal development zones. The authors concluded that
the communities are “largely cleared, poorly reserved and continue to face significant
development pressures”. The authors identified several priority areas for further investigation, in
the Gosford LGA these being Erina Creek, Somersby, and Somersby Plateau Gullies.
A - 2.3
Local Government role and responses
A - 2.3.1
Local Government Role
Council’s charter under the Local Government Act 1993 includes the following:
• to properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the
environment of the area for which it is responsible, in a manner that is consistent
with and promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and
• to have regard to the long term and cumulative effects of its decisions.
The concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) is a key one for biodiversity
management. It includes the following principles:
1. The precautionary principle (lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a
reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation).
2. Inter-generational equity (the present generation should ensure that the health,
diversity and productivity of the environment is preserved and enhanced for future
generations.
3. Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity.
4. Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms (environmental factors to be
included in the valuation of assets and services). (Ferrier 1999).
Other legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act
1999 and various State Acts also prescribe the roles and responsibilities of councils to conserve
biodiversity in their local area, including its roles in managing public lands, assessing and
regulating development, project development (such as roads and other infrastructure and
landuse planning) and pollution controls.
Key documents including the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biodiversity
and the National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy recognise that local government has
an important part to play in biodiversity conservation. For example, the Department of
Environment and Heritage states that: “Of all tiers of government within Australia, councils have
the greatest opportunity to interact directly with the community. This gives local government the
opportunity to show leadership within the community, and to offer vital support and
encouragement to local land and property owners to conserve native flora and fauna.”
(http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/toolbox/localgov.html)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 43

A - 2.3.2 Council Corporate Reporting and Vision 2025
There are several important guiding documents and statements of intent for Council that inform
this plan and implement the principles of ESD. These are provided below:
Council’s vision for the City:
An excellent quality of life based upon minimum population growth, ecologically sustainable development,
the provision and maintenance of effective services and the creation of new employment opportunities.
Council’s corporate vision:
Together with the community we strive to create a place we are proud of.
Council’s mission statement: Leading to the future whilst serving for today.
Council's Statements of Intent are:
1. A Vibrant and Healthy Economy
To encourage a diverse range of ecologically sustainable industries and services including tourism that generate
and foster employment opportunities within the City.
2. Dynamic and Nurtured Communities
To foster a sense of community spirit incorporating community pride, responsibility and identity, whilst achieving a
safe and accessible environment catering for the social needs and expectations of the community.
3. Efficient and Supportive Services
To undertake efficient and effective management of resources in the provision and maintenance of basic
infrastructure accessible to all.
4. A Diverse and Sustainable Environment
To ensure ecologically sustainable development that is compatible with and protective of our sensitive and unique
natural, built and cultural environments.
5. Leadership and Management
To ensure open government by providing information services, effective consultation and communication with the
community and close cooperation with government, private sector and the community in the delivery of service.
Council is required to specify long term goals for all of Council’s principal activities through its
Management Plan. The Management Plan must include statements on objectives and
performance targets for these principal activities, describe how the targets will be met and how
performance will be assessed.
Gosford Vision 2025 is a strategic planning initiative that aims to create a vision for the City and
a plan for the future. Visioning is a process in which a community thinks about the future it
wants, develops a shared vision and plans how to achieve it. It has been successfully
undertaken by many other local governments in Australia such as by the Blue Mountains and
Wyndam Councils. Council undertook extensive consultation to develop a set of Vision
Statements that will be considered by Council for incorporation into strategic planning
documents.
A - 2.3.3
Gosford City Council Biodiversity Response to date
Gosford City Council's response to biodiversity issues to date is summarised in the Biodiversity
Toolbox (see Box below). Council initiated a Financial Strategy in 1998 that funded in part
environmental projects. The environmental levy projects were administered through a "Project
12 Committee" established to review and oversee the budget expenditure (Council resolution on
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 44

20/01/98 in Review Committee Report). Part of the funding was dedicated to the development
and implementation of a Biodiversity Management Strategy. The remainder was used for
several related projects and acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands.
Council adopted a Biodiversity Management Policy (EO.11) in February 2001. From the policy a
Biodiversity Action Plan was developed and presented to Council’s Project 12 Committee in
2001. The plan identified 21 high, 51 medium and 6 low priority tasks and allocated funding
where applicable to high and medium tasks. The time frame for implementation high priority
tasks was to 2002 and for medium priority tasks to the end of 2004. Low and unassigned tasks
were to be reviewed at the end of the five year period.
Since the Action Plan was adopted the majority of high and medium priority projects have now
been implemented.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 45

Biodiversity Toolbox
The Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage has provided a Biodiversity Toolbox
(see http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/toolbox) containing a number of benchmarks for local
government to consider. The steps identified in the Toolbox and Council’s responses so far are
considered below:
Benchmark One is to establish a firm political and policy commitment towards achieving Biodiversity
Conservation and is committed to a positive change through incorporation of biodiversity conservation
and enhancement in Council’s overall Corporate Plan or Management Plan or policies. This strategy
will establish Council commitment to participating in the Benchmarking Biodiversity Conservation
program.
Council response
Council's vision statement and statements of intent reflect its commitment to achieving balanced
environmental outcomes for Gosford City. Council has committed to achieving biodiversity
conservation through its adoption of a Biodiversity Management Policy in 2001. As a result of this a
Draft Biodiversity Action Plan was developed in 2001 that identified a number of actions for Council.
The majority of the high and medium priority actions were implemented through funding provided by
Council’s Financial Strategy (Environmental Levy). These actions are discussed further in Chapter 3.
Council has also developed an Integrated Management Strategy (IMS) integrating occupational
health, safety and environmental management. This management system provides an integrated
systematic framework for Council to manage its impact on the environment from its activities, products
and services. The guiding document for this management system is the IMS Corporate Policy, which
has two major objectives; one of which is:
"to effectively integrate the principles of ecological sustainability into all Council functions so as
to achieve a clean, healthy and ecologically sustainable environment."
This management system is supported by way of a permanent staff member and recurrent funding for
implementation.
Benchmark Two concerns establishing baseline data.
Council response
Council has achieved this milestone (this action was identified in the Draft Biodiversity Action Plan)
and now has the following baseline data:
- Comprehensive and detailed vegetation community mapping at a scale of 1:8,000;
- Threatened species profiles for the local government area;
- Lists of all known flora and fauna species;
- Mapped data layers on Council’s corporate Geographic Information System (GIS) and
- A list of threatened species, ecological communities and threatening processes for the
LGA updated regularly including global updates for staff.
- Reports on two targeted and systematic fauna surveys
Information that is still required includes:
- List of invertebrate and aquatic fauna species
- Estuarine biodiversity (no comprehensive species lists or mapping is available)
- Riparian vegetation and waterways assessment and mapping
- Vegetation condition and ‘old growth’ mapping
- Local Scale pre 1750 vegetation community mapping
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 46

- Weed mapping
- Other biodiversity 'hot spots'identified
- Further refined fauna modeling
Benchmark Three concerns development of a strategic approach such as a Local Biodiversity Action
Plan or Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. The purpose of this benchmark is to outline immediate
actions to be commenced, and to plan for the longer term changes to council activities and
responsibilities. It should include actions, timeframes, indicators and responsible officers.
Council response
Development and adoption of a Biodiversity Strategy, Delivery and Operational Plans will work
towards achieving this benchmark.
Benchmark Four concerns the implementation of actions and measurement of indicators. Once the
objectives and priorities have been identified in an action plan, Council must implement activities and
monitor their outcomes using previously selected performance indicators.
Council response
This benchmark will be attained once Council commences implementation of its Delivery and
Operation Plans
Benchmark Five concerns the annual review and evaluation of implementation of a Local
Biodiversity Action Plan and progress of benchmarking process.
Council response
This benchmark will be implemented through corporate reporting on the implementation of the
Gosford's Community Strategic Plan 2031 and as part of Council's Annual Sustainability Report
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 47

A - 2.4
Discussion of Comparable Plans and Strategies - NSW and elsewhere
Development of this strategy has included a review of comparable plans and strategies, both in
Australia and abroad, to ensure that Council draws on relevant experience and develops a plan
that is in keeping with contemporary practice (see Table 2.2).
Many councils in NSW and elsewhere have prepared biodiversity plans (such as Penrith,
Camden and Parramatta) or have in place, or are in the process of developing, biodiversity
strategies (including Port Stephens and Newcastle Councils). In a national survey of local
governments (Australian Local Government Association 2005) over 65% of respondents (or 55
councils Australia wide) reported that they had a biodiversity strategy and that it was being
implemented. Overseas examples include the Mayors'Biodiversity Strategy for London
(www.blacklondon.org.uk/gla/biodiversity), Scotland's Biodiversity: Its in Your Hands (ref) and
the United Kingdom Biodiversity by Design - A guide for Sustainable Communities (URBED
2004), the latter seeking to integrate town planning with biodiversity conservation. Most provide
broad principles, objectives and a range of actions for local government. There is also a growing
number of councils that have incorporated biodiversity conservation into comprehensive local
environment plans (such as Pittwater, Sutherland and Lake Macquarie Councils). Others have
foc used on vegetation management (such as Coffs Harbour) as a means of achieving broader
conservation outcomes.
Lessons learnt from this review are:
• Planning controls are a critical tool for councils to implement biodiversity
conservation. Mostcomprehensive plans included development of new zonings or
refinements to existing conservation zones.
• Many councils utilised some form of decision tree or matrix to determine the most
significant or environmentally sensitive lands that required protection.
• Most plans presented a range of mechanisms to achieve biodiversity outcomes
including financial and non financial incentives, education, in house training and
external funding opportunities.
• There may be some innovative options that could be applied in Gosford LGA such
as the threatened plant arboretum proposed for Byron Shire.
• Community consultation was an important component in developing most plans,
where consultation was not part of the development of the plan it may have
contributed to lack of council support for plan.
• Most plans included an action plan, some included timeframes and partner
organisations.
A - 2.5
Stakeholders and Consultation
A critical component biodiversity management is the involvement of the community in
information gathering, consultation, decision making, initiating action and evaluation (NPWS
1999).
For these reasons, effective and meaningful community consultation is a key component of the
strategy. At the same time it is recognised that other initiatives of Council such as its Vision
2025 project and the development of a comprehensive Local Environment Plan will engage the
community at the broader level and that biodiversity outcomes will only be one of many
objectives for these major projects.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 48

Table 2.2 Review of Comparative Biodiversity Conservation Strategies and Plans
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 49

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 50

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 51

A - 2.6
References
Australian Local Government Association (2005) Discussion Paper - Increasing Coastal Councils
apacity to Manage the Natural Resource Base, (ALGA website at http://www.alga.asn.au/index).
Environment Australia (2001) National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001-2005
Commonwealth Government, ISBN 0 642 547432.
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (1996) National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia's Biological Diversity, Commonwealth Government ISBN 0642244278.
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) (1999) Shaping the Central Coast, Department of
Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney NSW.
Fallding M, Kelly A.H.H., Bateson P and Donovan I (2001) Biodiversity Planning Guide for NSW Local
Government prepared by Land and Environment Planning and Environs Australia for the NSW National
Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney NSW.
LHCCREMS (2003) Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Comprehensive Project Report 2002, Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental
Management Strategy, Callaghan NSW.
Planning NSW (2002) Draft Action Plan Shaping the Central Coast – Version 11, Planning NSW, Sydney
NSW.
Thorman Rob (Editor) (1998) National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy Australian Local
Government Association in conjunction with Biological Diversity Advisory Council Mayor Mike Berwick.
URBED (2004) Biodiversity by Design A guide for sustainable communities URBED (The Urban and
Economic Development Group) on behalf of the Town and Country Planning Association, Manchester,
UK.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 52

A - 3.0 REVIEW OF RECENT BIODIVERSITY PROGRAMS
This section reviews the available data on Gosford City's natural resources and
previous biodiversity surveys and projects. It evaluates and reports on previous
biodiversity programs in the light of stated objectives. In addition, it identifies data
gaps and further ecological assessments that may be required to better inform
future decisions.
Key points
• Council has undertaken a range of biodiversity related projects over the last five
years. These include systematic fauna surveys, local scale vegetation mapping, a
pilot Corridors Project, a city-wide Backyard Wildlife Survey and targeted
threatened species programs.
• Council has a range of ongoing programs that contribute to biodiversity
conservation, these include its Bushcare Program, Environmental Education Plan,
Cities for Climate Protection Program, an Integrated Management System,
development and implementation of Riparian Management Plans.
• The five top priorities for local councils and government listed by the community for
the Wildlife Survey were in order of priority: responsible cat ownership, feral animal
control, tougher controls on land clearing, reporting the results of the wildlife survey
and more public land for conservation.
• Local scale vegetation mapping provides a sound basis for future strategic planning
to identify and protect environmentally sensitive lands.
• Council has successfully undertaken several fox control program in its coastal
reserves and is broadening its feral animal management. Council participates in the
annual cooperative fox & wild dog control program in the Mangrove Creek
Catchment "Operation Broadbait" for the last four years and undertakes other feral
animal controls in the Mangrove creek catchment.
• Council continues to support ecological research projects that will directly benefit
Council in its knowledge of the local environment and in improving its management
and operations.
A - 3.1
Biodiversity studies, projects and reports
The list of projects and activities undertaken by Council include:
Database of biodiversity for the City
• List of threatened plants and animals compiled and updated with new listings
Gosford Vegetation Community Mapping (Bell 2004)
• Rainforest Report and Mapping (Payne 2002)
• Endangered Ecological Communities (Swamp Mahogany Forest and Saltmarsh)
encoded on Section 149 Certificates
• Identify regionally and locally significant vegetation communities and significant
flora species (Bell 2004)
Council management of its parks and reserves to ensure biodiversity is conserved
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 53

• Bushcare Program - ongoing
• Coastal Fox Baiting Program - ongoing
• Stage 2 COSS - review of existing boundaries completed and implementation is
ongoing.
• Natural Areas Bushfire Risk Analysis - completed and implementation is ongoing.
Manage development to ensure biodiversity is conserved
• Preparation of information for the development of a Vegetation and Landscape
Development Control Plan (DCP)
• Preparation of information on vegetation for inclusion in the Comprehensive Local
Environment Plan
• Development of a Threatened Species Checklist for environmental assessment
• Adoption of the Regional Flora and Fauna Survey Guidelines
• Participation in-house workshops of the training for Planning and Development
Assessment Staff on threatened species, sediment and erosion control.
• Provide input and training of Council's Environment Assessment Manual (Part 5) to
ensure Council activities consider biodiversity values.
• Environmental data provided on Council's GIS
• Threatened Species profiles developed and provided on Council's intranet
Monitor and research biodiversity
• The undertaking of systematic and targeted fauna surveys
• Council funded research grants
• Register developed for approved Site Rehabilitation and Bushland Management
Plans
• Catchment audits carried out
Educate and involve the total community in biodiversity
• Backyard Wildlife Survey
• Nature Watch Diary
• Bushcare Program - ongoing
• Bushcare Training Program - ongoing
• Cats Indoors Education Program - ongoing
Coordinate efforts, studies and programs for biodiversity conservation in
conjunction with the local community and relevant government authorities
• Council facilitated the Regional Fox Management Committee with other key
stakeholders
• Council participated in developing Catchment Blueprints and Action Plans
• Council participated in development of draft Recovery Plans (P.askania, Bush
Stone-curlew, Green and Golden Bell Frog)
Recover species which have become lost to the locality, or are at dangerously low
population levels
• Implemented recovery plan actions such as Green and Golden Bell Frog Plan of
Management and monitoring program
• Bush-stone Curlew investigation Brisbane Water area and monitoring program
Promote and maintain wildlife corridors as a basis for maintaining biodiversity
• Pilot Corridors Project 2002 to 2004
Identify threats to biodiversity and develop abatement plans
• Co-operative Wild Dog/ Fox Control Program for Mangrove Creek Catchment 2001
- ongoing
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 54

• Development and implementation of a Fox Control Program for council reserves
2004 - ongoing
• Indoor Cat Education Program commenced in 2004
• Environmental weeds list developed and included in Vegetation DCP
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy 2005-2009
The following data sets and reports provide the basis for Council’s biodiversity knowledge:
• List of endangered and vulnerable species, endangered ecological communities and
key threatening processes.
• Threatened flora and fauna species profiles for staff on intranet provide detailed
descriptions, photos and diagrams, locations found and where conserved,
management and survey issues.
• Comprehensive local scale vegetation mapping at a scale 1:8,000. This excludes
National parks and state forests and classification is consistent with regional
vegetation classifications.
• Environmental data layers on Council’s Geographic Information System include local
vegetation mapping, acid sulphate soils, threatened species locations (DEC Atlas
data), aerial photography, Aboriginal sites (DEC AHIMS).
• Flora and fauna species lists (see Appendices 3 and 4).
• Flora and fauna survey data for Western COSS (45 flora survey plots).
• Comprehensive Vegetation Mapping (50 flora survey plots).
• Targeted and systematic fauna surveys (27 survey sites) undertaken for GCC.
• Regional Biodiversity Strategy including fauna modelling and regional vegetation
mapping (HCCREMS).
• Coastal lagoons Data Compilation Study
• Brisbane Water Processes Study
• Targeted studies for flora Prostanthera junonis, P. askania, for fauna Bush Stonecurlew,
Green and Golden Bell Frog, Yellow-bellied Glider.
• Specific environmental studies such as for Davistown, Yattalunga, Bensville,
Western COSS Investigation
• Brisbane Water Estuarine Biodiversity and Estuary Plankton Study.
• Specific water quality and riparian management studies.
• Bush regeneration plans for Bushcare sites.
• Individual site assessments and environmental impact statements for development
applications and Council projects.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 55

A - 3.2 Appraisal of biodiversity projects undertaken 2000 – 2004
Council has initiated a number of key projects aimed at reducing impacts on native species,
improving conservation measures for native vegetation, increasing community awareness of the
importance of native wildlife and bushland areas and improved environmental assessment
under its Biodiversity Program. Many of these activities have been across different areas in
Council. In addition, many have been collaborative projects with key agencies and community
groups. This method recognises that biodiversity conservation requires a broad, strategic and
collaborative approach across all land tenures and areas of responsibility. Projects that have
been completed or substantially completed in the period 2000 – 2005 as part of the
implementation of the Biodiversity Management Program are reviewed below.
A - 3.2.1
Gosford Biodiversity Action Plan
Council developed a Gosford Biodiversity Management Action Plan in early 2002. This identified
high, medium and low priority actions for Council under eight themes. Actions included data
collation, environmental management and assessment, education, monitoring and research.
The majority of high and medium actions identified in this plan have been implemented (See
below). Further details on many of these projects are described in further detail in the following
sections.
A - 3.2.2 Systematic and Targeted Fauna Biodiversity Surveys 2000/2001
Council commissioned two systematic and targeted fauna surveys as part of the development of
the Biodiversity Plan. The aims of the study were to gain an understanding of the range of fauna
values present across the various ecosystems in the City and obtain a set of objective data to
establish a baseline systematic dataset for ongoing monitoring projects. Twenty seven sites
were selected across the City.
The first survey was undertaken in late summer-autumn 1999 by the Australian Museum
Business Services (2000). The second study was undertaken in winter and spring 2000 by
Conacher Travers (2001). The sites selected cover a range of ecosystems on different soil
landscapes. Estuarine and beach habitats were not surveyed. The methodology followed the
methods established under the Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) vertebrate surveys
(NSW NPWS 1999).
The major conclusions from the second study were that fauna species richness tended to be
higher within wetter habitats associated with gullies and lower in more exposed sandstone
ridges. The report found that the denser vegetation types and moister habitats tended to provide
habitat for a greater range of amphibians, reptiles, birds and terrestrial mammals. Overall,
twelve threatened species were found at 16 of the 27 sites. Generally this correlated with sites
that also had a higher number of common species. Habitat types containing older growth forest
trees were characterized by the presence of hollow dependent fauna.
Fauna species richness was found to be lowest in areas in close proximity to, or isolated by,
urban settlement and in areas where connectivity was poor. Edge effects such as weed
invasion, refuse dumping and entry of domestic animals were greatest at the sites that were
more isolated. Sites that showed greater connectivity to the coastal ridgelands reserves showed
moderate to high fauna values. Tall open forest types such as those at MacMasters Beach and
Cockrone Lagoon were found to provide specialist habitat for a number of arboreal mammals
such as the Yellow-bellied Glider and Greater Glider. Moderately high fauna values were found
within swamp forest at Avoca Lake whilst values were generally lower within sites at Somersby
and Niagara Park. It was suggested that although connectivity existed to areas such as
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 56

Strickland State Forest that the closer proximity of urban development to the east and the
expressway to the west had an influence on species richness.
A - 3.2.3 Pilot Corridors Project 2002 -2004
The Central Coast Corridors Project aimed to provide on-ground support to landholders seeking
to enhance and conserve private land for wildlife corridors and to increase participation in
voluntary conservation agreements. The project was initiated by the then Central Coast
Community Environment Network (now known as the Community Environment Network (CEN))
who employed a Corridors Coordinator in 2002 through Natural Heritage Trust grant funding
and then a Land for Wildlife Project Officer through an Environmental Trust grant and other
councils and government agencies.
Figures 3.1 - 3.2 Corridors Project Officer Jeff Drudge providing advice to landholders on site. Figure 3.3
Corridors workshop attended by local landholders involved in Land for Wildlife.
The CEN projects provided a regional focus and involved a number of key agencies through a
steering committee. Council actively participated in the project through participation in the
steering committee and the employment of a Gosford Corridors Officer from early 2002 to late
2004. The success of the project led to Council approving funding for a full time permanent
position to provided ongoing on-ground support to landholders and to continue to increase
participation in voluntary conservation agreements.
The project initially focused on the Matcham Holgate area and was then expanded into other
areas of the City as demand increased. The project introduced landholders to other
conservation incentive programs such as Land for Wildlife, Wildlife Refuges, Property
Agreements and Voluntary Conservation Agreements. The project has been considered a
strong success in terms of engaging landholders and providing practical and encouraging onground
advice. Results of the pilot program are provided in Tables 3.2 and 3.2 and in full in the
Corridors Pilot Program Report (Gosford City Council 2004).
Total number of
applications received
Applications for
properties of a least
0.1 hectares in size
Applications from
properties greater
than 0.1 hectares in
size
Total number of
property 152 24 128
Table 3.1 Total number of properties for which applications have been received.
Total area of property
Area of native
vegetation on
property
Area of native
vegetation managed
for conservation
Total area of
properties visited by
Corridors Project 300 ha 185 182 ha
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 57

Officer
Table 3.2. Area of properties registered with the Gosford Pilot Corridors Project and the areas of
these properties that are managed for conservation
Table 3.3 describes the participation in various conservation incentive programs and Figure 3.1
maps the locations of participating landholders. The highest participation has been in the
onbonding Land for Wildlife program. Uptake in the other programs such as Wildlife Refuges,
Property Agreements and Voluntary Conservation Agreements has been lower and reflect the
difficulty in achieving long term and formal conservation agreements. Voluntary Conservation
Agreements are approved by the Department of Environment and Conservation and are the
highest protection that can be afforded to a private property but properties must meet strict
guidelines to be eligible under this scheme. Since this time more landholders have taken up
conservation incentive programs.
Number
of
properties
Total
number
of
properties
visited
Working
towards
Land for Wildlife
Full
registration
Total
land for
Wildlife
applicants
Wildlife
Refuge
Property
Agreement
152 13 43 56 1 2 0
Voluntary
Conservation
Agreement
Table 3.3 Number of properties in Gosford City registered in Land for Wildlife and other
conservation incentives programs as part of Corridors Project (as of 30/06/04).
Figures 3.4 - 3.6 Fencing areas for regeneration, a Rivercare Workshop and Land for Wildlife property
owners collecting their signs at Land for Wildlife Field Day held at private property in
Wyong. (J. Drudge,unknown, S Ash DEC).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 58

Figure 3.1 Distribution of properties of properties involved with the Corridors Project in
Gosford City.
A - 3.2.4 Gosford City Vegetation Mapping Project 2004
Although regional vegetation mapping has been undertaken by LHCCREMS (NPWS 2000) and
updated by EcoLogical (LHCREMS 2003), local scale vegetation mapping was required to
validate it and provide a sound basis for Council’s future strategic planning and environmental
management activities. A comprehensive vegetation mapping project was undertaken for
Council by Stephen Bell of Eastcoast Flora Surveys in 2003/04. This project provided
vegetation mapping at a scale of 1:8,000 for all Council owned and managed lands and private
lands within the LGA, a technical report containing recommendations for Council and vegetation
community profiles. Mapping methodology and vegetation classifications were consistent with
the regional work. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 describes spatially the differences between the regional
and local scale vegetation community mapping.
The project provides valuable recommendations for Council that are considered in Chapter 5. A
major conclusion was that, despite Gosford having a diverse and rich coastal and sub-coastal
flora, that much of this diversity remained poorly conserved within the formal conservation
reserve system. The consultant also identified 42 significant flora species but concluded that
many are poorly conserved both within Gosford and the region. It was recommended that
Council’s COSS be expanded to ensure adequate representation of all vegetation communities
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 59

and sub-communities and to provide some level of protection to vegetation communities of
conservation significance.
Figures 3.2 and 3.3 Comparison of regional vegetation mapping (LHCCREMS 2003) and refined
localscale mapping (Bell 2004).
It was also recognised that conservation efforts needed to be expanded to other public and
privately owned land as the long term conservation of biological diversity requires a whole-oflandscape
approach. Importantly, the protection of all remaining riparian corridors and
associated wetlands and floodplain communities where native vegetation occurs or is at least
moderately well represented needs to be addressed. Further investigation was also required
into the status, distribution and abundance of significant plant species in the City to enable
better-informed decisions to be made in cases where development threatens known
populations.
A Rainforest Mapping Project was also undertaken by Robert Payne on behalf of Council in
2002. This provides species lists for 51 rainforest areas and mapping at a scale of 1:8,000. It is
noted that the more recent mapping supercedes previous mapping. Th e recommendations and
species lists are however still relevant and are considered in more detail in Chapter 5.
s
A - 3.2.5 Backyard Wildlife Survey 2003 - 2004
The “What Can You Find in Your Backyard?” Wildlife Survey project aimed to increase
community involvement and understanding of the diversity and value of native animal species
found in and around resident’s gardens and backyards. It also provided valuable information for
Council on what the community values about native animals and what actions Council, other
government agencies and the community may be able to take to help ensure the survival of
native wildlife in these areas.
The project was a collaboration between Gosford City Council (GCC), Wyong Shire Council
(WSC) and the then NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). Both councils jointly
applied for funding under the NPWS Urban Biodiversity Pilot Program to develop the program.
The NPWS Biodiversity Pilot Program presented an opportunity to work with NPWS and the
Backyard Buddies Program and to use research from this program to better target a broader,
previously ‘unengaged’ audience.
A widllife survey was suggested as a means of increasing broader awareness of the diversity of
native wildlife, and threats to native wildlife including fox predation. It was considered that this
increased awareness would form a basis for gaining broader support for regional fox
management and other biodiversity conservation initiatives. Wildlife surveys have been used
elsewhere by NPWS and others to gain valuable information about community attitudes to the
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 60

environment and species’ distributions. The survey format was adapted with permission from
Dan Lunney of the NPWS who conducted similar surveys elsewhere in NSW.
Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.7 The “What Can You Find in Your Backyard?” survey and Richard
Davies (DEC) who collaborated on the project holding one of the
survey forms.
Specific objectives of the Wildlife Survey project were to:
• Tap into local knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, local wildlife;
• Encourage family participation in identifying and recording local animals and prompt
further discovery and involvement in related environmental programs;
• Gain knowledge of community values and views on what councils and others should
bedoing to manage native species;
• Build an understanding of actions that might impact on native wildlife and affect
change in perceptions of individual responsibilities for biodiversity conservation;
• Increase awareness of the threat that foxes poses to native species; and
• Gain new locations for threatened and pest species for further investigation.
The survey was trialled and followed up with face to face interviews. A key finding was that
although residents did not necessarily complete and return the form that it was still had an
educative value. It was considered that the survey would be best to be ‘eye catching’ and
distinguishable from other mail. The survey was evaluated and redesigned in the light of this
trial. The councils also recieved valuable in kind contributions from NPWS such as advice on
survey design, and the actual layout design was done by NPWS including the use of
photographs from the NPWS photo library. The grant funding enabled the surveys to be printed
in colour, which increased the visual appeal and interest in the survey considerably.
The survey was distributed to over 120,000 residents in the Gosford and Wyong local
government areas. Over 11,000 Central Coast residents participated in the survey. In Gosford
City surveys were sent to over 67,500 residents in September 2003 and over 7,150 survey
responses were received; with hundreds of extra letters of support and valuable additional
information about additional wildlife species and how they contribute to the quality of living on
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 61

the Central Coast. The returned surveys were electronically scanned to capture all responses
including written text where it was requested. Mapped information was entered manually.
Survey results were provided back to the community through the following means:
• Direct mail to respondents who provided contact details
• A leaflet summarising the survey results (see Appendix 7)
• Articles in the local press
• If requested presentations for the community and interested groups
• Via Council internet
• Though environmental information newsletters and publications as opportunities
arise.
The project created a basis for delivering a range of environmental education and involvement
initiatives, integrated with a range of council management tools. Respondents who requested
further information received lists of local plant species and a site inspection from Council’s
Corridor Officer if their property qualified under the Corridors Project to provide plant
identification and advice on bush regeneration principles. Others requested a Nature Watch
Diary in order to be able to record the changes that they observe in the natural environment
over the course of a year.
Several issues emerged through the responses from the community that came through via
telephone calls, letters and photos. One is the issue of feeding of animals. Many people seem
to value this as a way of interacting with local wildlife. This confirmed the findings of market
research that had been undertaken by NPWS that there appears to be a need to care for native
animals in the community. This is an important area for future environmental education, as we
now know that there are some significant concerns for native species as a result of
inappropriate diet including disease.
Another issue that has emerged strongly is that many respondents identified control of domestic
cats as an important threat to native wildlife. Councils may consider future projects such as an
educational campaign on responsible pet ownership as a result of this response. The response
to the fox brochure was also significant with over 100 additional new sightings as a result of a
request to report foxes sightings. The project highlighted that some residents were not aware
that foxes were an introduced species and that they pose a threat to native animals.
The survey was considered to have been highly successful in engaging a considerable part of
the community in participation in a regional wildlife survey. Feedback to Council, both formal
and informal has been overwhelmingly supportive of this initiative. With over a ten percent
response to the survey in Gosford City and an eight percent response rate for Wyong Shire,
both councils gained a significant insight into the attitudes and concerns of the community
regarding native and introduced animals in our area. The large number of phonecalls, letters
and detailed species lists that have been received illustrated that there is enormous interest and
knowledge in the community on this issue. In terms of community consultation and education, it
is considered that the project has reached and involved a broad audience and that results of the
survey will have some far reaching and important lessons for Council to consider in future
biodiversity management programs and intiatives.
Future projects identified as a result of this project were:
• Need for a responsible pet/ companion animal program.
• Further environmental education, especially regarding feeding of native species.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 62

• Listing of reserve areas as “Protected Areas” under the Companion Animals Act.
• Need for a feral and pest species program including a council policy including
nuisance birds, pigs, deer and foxes
• Further research on Indian mynah problem (and other pest bird species) and
consideration of possible management actions.
• Further investigation of threatened species locations and links to specific recovery
plans and other actions.
A - 3.2.6
Regional Fox Management Strategy and Coastal Fox Baiting Program
As a result of community interest and concern regarding foxes, and their significant impact on
fauna species, Council developed a Central Coast Regional Fox Management Strategy (GCC
2005) with the support and contributions of members of the Regional Fox Management
Committee. This enabled the gathering together of relevant organisations involved in pest
management, more coordinated baiting programs and better data collection. The strategy
documents current fox management programs and makes recommendations for future
coordinated programs. It was endorsed by all members of the Central Coast Fox Management
Committee in 2005.
The Committee has now extended its role to address other vertebrate pests and has increased
its range into the Lake Macquarie local government area through the formation of a Central
Coast Vertebrate Pest Management Committee. One of the first tasks of this committee will be
to develop a list of priority vertebrate pests for the region and investigate opportunities for future
funding and collaborative management programs.
Council also applied for an off-label permit for the use of 1080 'Foxoff'baits in the coastal
reserves of the City. This was based on the success of a long running program in the northern
areas of Sydney that has been a collaborative project between councils and the National Parks
and Wildlife Service Division of DEC where an "off-label" permit is used to bait closer to
residences that would otherwise be permitted under the Pesticides Act. Council was successful
in its application and the first coastal fox baiting program took place in June and August 2004.
Council applied for a renewed permit in 2004 and has now been issued with a permit in force
until 2007. This will enable ongoing fox baiting in the coastal areas (i.e. Rumbalara, Katandra,
Kincumba Mountain and Kincumber Sewerage Treatment Works). Anecdotal information
received as part of Council’s ongoing collection of fox sightings is that there has been some
decline in fox numbers where coastal baiting has been carried out.
A - 3.2.7
Specific Threatened Species Programs
Management of threatened species continues to be a challenge for Council however improved
staff resources such as threatened species profiles, mapping of known locations of threatened
species on Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS) and improved assessment
procedures have led to more rigorous and informed environmental assessments for both
internal Council operations and development assessment. Council commissioned Threatened
Fauna and Flora Species Profiles in 2000 for use by planners and development assessment
officers. These are provided to Council staff via its intranet. In addition, Council adopted
Regional Flora and Fauna Assessment Guidelines in 2002. These set standards for survey
methodology and reporting and provide for greater consistency and a higher standard for
surveys undertaken for development proposals.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 63

Council received funding for developing a web based guide for threatened species in the
Central Coast region. This will be based on a number of existing sources such as the
Commonwealth and state species profiles and the Gosford Council profiles. Council is also
preparing a compact disc containing nocturnal animal calls to assist residents to more easily
identify animals that they hear calling around their properties. Council has been involved in a
number of specific threatened species Recovery Plans as described below:
Somersby Mintbush Prostanthera junonis
The Somersby Mintbush is a low growing plant with small pale mauve flowers only known
from the Somersby area near Gosford. The species is listed as endangered at both state
and federal level. A Recovery Plan has been approved that identifies nine populations and
provides management actions for Council. Council has worked with the Premier's
Department, Department of Environment and Conservation and landholders to develop a
management plan for the Somersby Industrial Estate that seeks to resolve development
issues and possible conflicts with the conservation of a number of the populations.
Tranquillity Mintbush Prosthanthera askania
The Tranquillity Mintbush is known only from the Wyong and Gosford LGAs and is listed
as
endangered at both state and federal levels. A draft Recovery Plan has been prepared
(DEC 2004) that identifies actions for Council including the preparation of a Plan of
Management for the Council owned reserve where it is known to occur. Council has
recommended support for the draft plan with some minor amendments. Property owners
known to have P.askania specimens on their properties were contacted in writing and the
affected properties now have Section 149 certificate message that alerts current and
potential property owners of the presence of the species. Funding is being sought for the
preparation of a Plan of Management for the identified Council owned lands.
Figure 3.8 The Somersby Mintbush is a low growing plant and is difficult to suvey for outside of its
flowering period. Figure 3.9 (on right) The Tranquillity Mintbush has soft felt like leaves
and is easier to identify although it can be confused with other mintbushes. (R. Lonie).
Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea)
The Green and Golden Bell Frog was once widespread but is now considered to be
endangered at both State and Federal levels. A draft Recovery Plan has been prepared
for the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) (DEC 2004). Council participates in the
ongoing monitoring program for the Green and Golden Bell Frog undertaken by Dr
Graham Pyke of the Australian Museum at North Avoca. A monitoring program has also
commenced in Davistown and is being co-ordinated by the Australian Reptile Park and
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 64

supported by Gosford City Council. Council was successful in obtaining a grant
application on behalf of the Friends of the Green and Golden Bell Frog through the WWF
Threatened Species Network. This provides funding for construction of Green and Golden
Bell Frog habitat ponds at Davistown and to support a community monitoring program.
Council engaged Arthur White of Biosphere Consulting to prepare a Green and Golden
Bell Frog Plan of Management for Davistown and North Avoca in late 2004. The Plan of
Management has been placed on public exhibition and funds have been allocated to
implement the plan's recommendations.
Figures 3.10 - 3.13
Community Green and Golden Bell Frog survey nights, recording frog
statistics, frogs released after recording, and identification of the Bell Frog -
note the blue thighs and golden stripe from eye to tail. Note that careful
hygiene protocols are observed in handling frogs to avoid the spread of
Chytrid fungus (R. Lonie).
Bush Stone- Curlew Investigation /Monitoring
The Bush Stone-curlew is a ground dwelling nocturnal bird that is endangered in NSW at
state level. It is a quirky looking bird with long legs and enlarged ‘knee’ joints, hence its
former name the Bush Thick-knee. It has a distinctive wailing call that still may be heard at
night around the Brisbane Water area, especially at Davistown. The bird is particularly at
risk as most of its habitat is not within protected areas such as national parks. As the birds
nest in open, often exposed, areas on the ground, its eggs and chicks are easy prey for
foxes, cats and dogs. The species currently remains widely distributed but at very low
densities and is extinct from many areas of its former range (DEC 2005). The Central
Coast supports a small population and this is one of the small number of coastal areas
where the birds are now found.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 65

Council commissioned the Bush Stone-curlew Investigation Report for Brisbane Water in
2002 (Morris 2002) from a local ornithologist Alan Morris. Morris estimated that there were
a minimum of eight and possibly ten pairs in the study area. The report contained
recommendations prepared in accordance with the draft Recovery Plan (DEC 2004). This
included the need to do further surveys utilising call play-back to monitor their abundance,
to work with landholders to maintain habitat and to raise awareness of the species in the
community.
Monitoring of the birds has been undertaken over the last few years and there are now
three individually colour-banded birds within the local population. Observations of banded
birds assist in working out the distances that birds will fly to feed, age of breeding, whether
chicks remain within the local population and how long wild birds live (DEC 2004).
Figure 3.14. The first banded Bush Stone Curlew chick – AA01. This chick was successfully raised
at the Bouddi Pony Club site at Kincumber in 2002. The leg bands can be easily seen
in photograph. Photo: N. Lazarus (courtesy DECC).
Results of 2003 Monitoring Program
Monitoring was undertaken by the then NPWS Recovery Officer Catherine Price with
assistance from local bird enthusiasts. Residents of the Kincumber Nautical Village and
the Bouddi Pony Club at Kincumber were involved in protecting the breeding site. Electric
fencing was used to protect the nest site. One chick was banded from the Kincumber
Pony Club.
Results of 2004 Monitoring Program
A Friends of the Bush Stone-curlew group was established in late August 2004 as a result
of a community meeting that demonstrated a strong level of interest in the birds. The
formation of a local group aims to assist in keeping track of curlew movements, especially
during the breeding season and to harness support for protecting and enhancing habitat
areas. The birds started nesting in late August, earlier than previous years. The nest sites
of four pairs of Bush Stonecurlews were located.
Bush Stone-curlews nested three times on Bouddi Pony Club in his season, with the first
two nesting attempts unsuccessful. The third time the pair were successful in raising a
chick. Unluckily however the chick appears to have been taken by a fox at night as local
residents were awakened to unusual and agitated curlew calls and one of the adults was
seen to be limping on the following day with no sign of the chick.
Bush Stone-curlews were reported calling from the Davistown - Illoura Reserve foreshore
around this area during the evenings but no nest sites were found. At Davistown –
Henderson Rd/Morton Crescent Bush Stone-curlews nested on private property and
hatched a chick in early September thanks to the efforts of local residents to ensure that
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 66

the birds were not disturbed. Despite this effort the chick disappeared shortly after and is
thought to have been taken by a fox, cat or dog.
The most successful and unlikely breeding site was the Woy Woy Waste Disposal Depot
where two chicks fledged after being banded by Alan Morris. Council staff at the tip site
ensured that the site was protected keeping vehicles well away from the birds and
generally keeping an eye out for them. The site is considered one of the best Bush Stonecurlew
sites in NSW as it offers a rich source of insects, there are few people walking
around to disturb the birds, it is fenced and fox and wild dog control is undertaken in the
adjoining Brisbane Water National Park.
A pair of birds nested near the high tide mark on a foreshore on private property at St
Hubert's Island in early September. Due to the risk of inundation, sand bags were used to
try and protect the eggs from incoming tides. This was only moderately successful and the
nest was inundated by the wash from a ferry. However, one chick managed to hatch but
died within a few days. An autopsy of this chick showed that it had died from
organochloride contamination (C. Price DECC pers.comm. 2005). There were reports of
birds calling from near Milson’s Island and off Mooney Mooney Creek and this site
requires further investigation. There were no reports of Bush Stone-curlews from around
or near Empire Bay in 2004.
2005 Monitoring Program
Pygmy Possum Consultants were engaged to undertake monitoring to determine nest
sites for the 2005 season and to undertake ongoing monitoring to investigate breeding
success. A meeting was held with the Friends group to plan the monitoring program for
the year. One of the adult pair at the Pony Club was killed, presumably by a fox, just prior
to the commencement of the breeding season. Its remains were found and DNA testing
found that it was a female.
Call play back was undertaken in Brisbane Water and along the Hawkesbury River where
a recent record existed. As a result a number of pairs were located but only one pair were
known to successfully breed this season whereby one chick was raised at St Huberts
thanks to the efforts of local residents who kept an eye on the birds and helped protect
them from local cats and dogs. This chick was banded in January 2006. The lack of other
known breeding incidences, despite concerted efforts, if of concern and may indicate that
the birds are seriously on the decline in the area.
A - 3.3
Related biodiversity programs
A number of biodiversity related programs have been undertaken across Council. These are
more fully documented in Council's Sustainability Report 2004 and include environmental
education programs such as the Little Green Steps program for primary schools, the Cities for
Climate Change program and environmental education and protection programs such as
undertaking catchment audits to increase awareness and compliance in environmental
protection. In the areas of water management, Council has implemented a number of water
saving initiatives and improved management of onsite sewerage. Council also develops and
implements riparian restoration and rivercare type plans with landholder assistance.
A - 3.3.1
Bushcare Program
Council's Bushcare program provides training and support for volunteer bush regenerators to
undertake bush regeneration on Council lands. In addition to the on-ground activities, a range of
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 67

education and training opportunities are provided from workshops on native plant propagation,
specific fauna (frogs, insects, mammals) to whale watching and rescue. The training program
not only raises the awareness of biodiversity issues in the community but also increases the
skills base of those wishing to take an active role in natural resource management.
A - 3.3.2
Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study
The Brisbane Water Estuary Process Study aims to identify enhancement, development and
management needs to ensure the long-term ecological sustainability of the estuary. It consists
of a Processes Study. Associated studies that have been undertaken are the Estuary
Biodiversity Study and Estuary Plankton Study.
A - 3.3.3
Ecological Research Projects
Council initiated an Ecologically Sustainable Research Committee as part of the Environmental
Levy. Ecological Research is now funded yearly, with biodiversity related project outlined below.
Completed projects
The Effect of Catchment Disturbance on Seston Quality and Quantity on
Sydney RockOysters in Brisbane Water
This research investigated the effect of anthropogenic activity within the catchment
on seston quality and quantity in Brisbane Water, and determined the impact on
Sydney rock oysters ability to feed efficiently. The results contributed to our
understanding of the factors controlling the ecological processes occurring in
Brisbane Water.
Spatial Modelling of Yellow-bellied Glider habitat
This research investigated habitat requirements and preferences of the Yellowbellied
Glider throughout Gosford. The project refined a habitat model that is
assisting in conservation planning for this vulnerable species.
Evaluation of ecological impacts from openings of coastal lagoons
This study assessed the effects of artificial openings of our coastal lagoons on the
density of individual species and the structure of macro-invertebrate assemblages
occurring in lagoon entrance barriers.
Impacts of urban development on urban stream invertebrate communities
This research used the rapid assessment system AUSRIVAS (Australian River
Assessment System) to assess the variability in macro-invertebrates present in
streams impacted on by urban development, and those in a natural state. This
information will correspond to water quality information from the same sites to get an
understanding of the impacts of urban development and poor water quality on the
biological side of the system.
Investigation of a fungal pathogen as a potential mycoherbicide to manage
Alligator weed
This research trialled a fungus native to Argentina and Brazil (where the noxious
weed Alligator weed originates) as a control agent for the weed. The development of
effective control measures for Alligator weed will greatly benefit the environment of
Gosford City, where there have already been significant infestations at Wyoming and
Everglades Lagoon, and chemical control is the only current control method.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 68

Factors influencing the Population Dynamics of Prostanthera junonis
(Somersby Mintbush)
Projects underway
This study aimed to increase the biological and ecological information about P.
junonis, specifically light requirements for the species, reproductive ability
germination characteristics.
Habitat Fragmentation and Disturbance in Hawkesbury Sandstone Inhabiting
Frogs
This project is investigating the impact of habitat fragmentation, disturbance and
maintenance on the Red-crowned Toadlet, Pseudophryne australis, and the Giant
Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Both are listed as vulnerable at state
level. The research will gather valuable information about where the frogs breed,
their population demographics, and population genetics to assist Council in making
management decisions which can potentially impact on these species.
Conservation of Central Coast Frog Communities through Restoration of
Riparian Zones
This project aims to establish the ecological value to frogs of restoration of riparian
corridors in urban and rural environments. Rates and modes of colonisation of
restored riparian zones by frogs in urban and rural areas will be investigated. The
effects of corridor length, shape and width, fragmentation and landscape matrix on
the usefulness of restored riparian zones to frog communities is also being
researched. This project is due to be completed in 2005
.
Examination of the Loss of Seagrass in areas of Gosford City
This project is extensive, including the detailed mapping of seagrass in all of
Brisbane Water, determining the amount of loss or gain of seagrass in this area, and
a survey of the invertebrates and fish utilising the seagrass beds. Preliminary results
indicate that there is minimal seagrass loss in much of Brisbane Water, and the
diversity of invertebrates and fish utilising the seagrass beds is large. This project
will be completed in 2005. The information generated will be utilised in the Brisbane
Water Estuary Process Study, which is currently under preparation.
The Health of Temperate Saltmarshes in Gosford LGA
The overall objective of this project is to design a rapid assessment technique to
assess the ecological health of coastal saltmarshes. The areas of remaining
saltmarsh in Gosford City were identified and quantified, and investigated in terms of
their disturbances and impacts. This project will be completed in 2005 and will be
invaluable information for Council, especially with regard to the recent determination
of this community as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Communication, Governance and Sustainability - Managing Sydney’s urban
expansion onto the Central Coast
The main aim of this project is to assess how effectively our statutory authorities are
balancing the competing demands of the urban expansion of Sydney onto the NSW
Central Coast with biodiversity conservation. Possible outcomes of the project will
include a sustainability framework and practical policy guidance for the assessment
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 69

of urban development applications within Gosford City. This work may also be
applicable to other local government areas. The project is due for completion in
2006.
Mangrove Encroachment into Saltmarshes
This project is addressing the increasing problem of invasion of saltmarshes by
mangroves. This problem is highlighted even further now that this community has
been determined as an Endangered Ecological Community. This research will look
at the factors that facilitate invasion and look at affected areas throughout Gosford
City. This study will be completed in 2005.
Conservation of the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litorea aurea through captive
propagation at The Australian Reptile Park
The Central Coast has two significant sites for the endangered Green and Golden
Bell Frog – North Avoca and Davistown, both of these populations are at risk of
extinction. This project will investigate the Davistown population more thoroughly,
and develop a captive breeding program with the potential to release individuals into
existing populations.
Population and Ecological Research of Long-Nosed Potoroo (Potorous
tridactylus) in Remnant Habitat in Gosford City
The Long-nosed Potoroo is listed as vulnerable at both state and federal levels. This
study will assess the local habitat requirements for this species, gather population
data, gather information on the potential effects of fire locally upon this species, and
recommend strategies for the long term management of this species. The project is
due for completion in 2006.
Investigations of Water Quality and Relationships with Planktonic Distribution
and Abundance in Brisbane Water
This research will assess the variability of phytoplankton and zooplankton throughout
Brisbane Water, and relate these to water quality measures and other variables. The
information generated will be utilised in the Brisbane Water Estuary Process Study,
which is currently in preparation
A - 3.3.4
Mangrove Creek Catchment Biodiversity Projects
Councils'Water & Sewerage Directorate manages the Mangrove Creek catchment area to
protect the Gosford & Wyong Communities water supply. The catchment includes approximately
11 620 hectares of native forests and former farmlands from Kulnera to Mangrove Mountain.
The Mangrove Creek catchment is bounded by Yengo and Dhurug National Parks to the west
with McPherson State Forest and rural industries in the east. The catchment is biologically
diverse, with a fourteen vegetation communities preserving eleven threatened flora and
provides a healthy potential habitat for twelve threatened and ten vulnerable fauna species
(Conacher Travers 2001).
Councils'Water and Sewerage Directorate adopt a holistic approach to catchment management
that includes preserving biodiversity by following legislation, developing community awareness
and implementing strategic projects.
Projects Preserving Biodiversity
1. Monitoring catchment water quality, aquatic & terrestrial biodiversity.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 70

2. Enhance the riparian habitat corridor links by strategically removing invasive
environmental weeds to encourage natural bush regeneration.
3. Develop and implement cooperative community feral animal management programs
to reduce the potential impacts on biodiversity & water quality.
4. Manage public access to protect the water supply catchment lands.
5. Develop & support community environmental awareness & education projects.
6. Strategic land purchases to preserve the riparian corridors.
Wild Dog and Fox Control Program in Mangrove Creek Catchment
A wild dog and fox control program was developed for the Mangrove Creek catchment area in
2001 from a series of meetings involving Council, NSW Government land managers, and
private landholders. This cooperative catchment wide program combines the skills, efforts and
knowledge of the local community, Department of Environment and Conservation (NPWS),
Forests NSW, Maitland Rural Lands Protection Board, and Gosford City Council’s Water and
Sewerage Directorate. The aim of the program is to reduce the environmental and economic
impacts of foxes and wild dogs on native animals in the local catchment area efficiently, utilising
the available resources.
This feral animal control program covers an extensive area of approximately 25,000 hectares of
Mangrove Creek catchment, parts of Yengo, Dharug and Popran National Parks, McPherson
State Forest, and includes the communities of Bucketty, Kulnura, Mangrove Mountain and
Peats Ridge. The program targets strategic areas for wild dog and fox control utilising best
practical methods including baiting, resource management and habitat manipulation. Mound
baiting technique has proven to be the most effective control option for wild dogs and foxes
currently available based on scientific research, as it has a negligible impact on non-target
native fauna species.
There is anecdotal evidence from the community that native animal populations are increasing
within the catchment area. Similarly, local veterinarian reports of livestock attacks from foxes
and wild dogs reduce after the winter baiting period. The decline in livestock attacks may also
be related to domestic dogs being the restrained by their owners during baiting period. Local
community support for this cooperative control program has continued and is growing over the
last four years. Accurate information relating to ecological cause and effect relationships are not
readily available. Long-term fauna monitoring will provide scientific evidence to highlight the
benefits of the cooperative program to threatened species such as the Parma wallaby, koala
and smaller mammals targeted by foxes and wild dogs.
Reducing available food resources can potentially reduce the population and health of wild dog
and foxes and their litters. A working party has been formed with relevant State Government
departments, local poultry growers and local government representatives to establish guidelines
for poultry disposal in the area.
Blackberry and lantana are known habitat and day resting places for foxes. Blackberry
infestations in the catchment have been mapped by Gosford City Council’s Water and
Sewerage Directorate and these fox habitats systematically reduced. Councils'weed control
team have controlled 3.3 hectares of blackberry (pers. comm. E Lanting) and Councils'bush
regeneration contractors have manually removed 405m2 of blackberry within the Mangrove
Creek Council Water Supply Lands area over the last three years.
Cattle Management Program in Mangrove Creek Catchment
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 71

Unmanaged cattle grazing can impact on water quality and reduce biodiversity. Over the last
thirty years nomadic herds of wild cattle have grazed in the Mangrove Creek catchment area.
Unmanaged cattle grazing in this area had increased erosion, sedimentation, and simplified the
native plant ecology; severely impacting on the creek edge vegetation (or riparian zone) (refer
to Figure 3.21).
A Cattle Management Plan was developed for Mangrove Creek, from a series of meetings
involving Council, NSW Government land managers and private landholders. The goal is to
increase the health of the riparian zone and adjacent areas of Mangrove Creek catchment by
reducing the wild cattle populations. Healthy creek edge vegetation reduces evaporation,
reduces water temperatures, filters sediments & absorbs nutrients to maintain high quality water
for the community as well as providing food, shelter and corridor for native fauna. Gosford City
Council Water Directorate and local community stakeholders formally implemented the plan in
2002.
The catchment area was surveyed to locate cattle populations, identify breeds and potential
ownership. Strategic areas were fenced, with 500m of bushfire-affected fences repaired to
restrict cattle movement. Wild and trespassing cattle were initially mustered and removed from
the area. Yards and temporary pound have been constructed specifically to trap and hold wild
cattle. Subsequent cattle herds have been trapped and impounded. A total of 160 wild cattle
have been removed from Council managed lands to date.
The reduction in cattle grazing in this area has resulted in the natural regeneration of eighteen
kilometers of Mangrove Creek riparian zone, adjacent wetlands and 10,700 hectares of
bushland. The regeneration of the understorey of the fourteen different vegetation communities
that occur in the catchment increases the overall health of these ecosystems and maintains the
diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats within in the Gosford City Councils'Water Supply
catchment areas. Refer to Figures 3.15 - 3.20.
Figures 3.15- 3.20 Upper Mangrove Creek before (left 1977) and after (2006) cattle management
Mangrove Creek Riparian Restoration Project
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 72

Invasive environmental weeds were identified as a potential long-term issue in the Dubbo Gully
Plan of Management, Gosford City Council 1999. Strategic priority areas were identified by
Councils Water & Sewerage Directorate staff and bush regeneration management plans were
developed and implemented with support of local community, the Local Government Advisory
Group, the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority & the DIPNR. The plans
involved selectively removing the most invasive weeds in the catchment by employing qualified
bush regenerators, assisted by supervised TAFE students and local community volunteers to
work along one kilometre of Mangrove Creek riparian zone and adjacent areas to favour native
bush regeneration.
Figures 3.21 – 3.22 Riparian zone lined with weeds before works. Privet control techniques being
demonsrated and community training and reforestation planting day (G. Woolcock).
An area of over 6.37 hectares of highly environmentally invasive weed trees were treated by
bush regeneration contractors and Councils weeds team. These strategic works have reduced
the spread of millions of invasive environmental & noxious weeds in the catchment over the last
three years.
Highly disturbed riparian areas were temporarily fenced by Wesley United Employment teams,
environmentally invasive weeds treated by qualified bush regeneration teams and key areas
planted out with endemic native trees such as Eucalyptus amplifolia and E. deanii to provide a
stable vegetated creek edge and extend the riparian habitat corridor. Refer to before and after
photos Figures 3.24 and 3.25. Investigations are underway for the feral animal control
programs.
Figures 3. 24 and 3.25 Mangrove Creek Riparian Corridor Reforestation Project: Site 1: 200m of
riparian fencing (left) in August 2003 and after tree planting of Eucalyptus sp.
saplings (2-3m height) (on right) along riparian zone in February 2005 (G.
Woolcock).
Community Education
1. Schools Waterwatch Program
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 73

Three public schools in the catchment area joined in the local streamwatch program. Students
and teachers were provided with training in water quality testing and invertebrate sampling
techniques. Mangrove Creek has one of the highest species diversity of the major rivers on the
central coast and contains invertebrates only found in high quality waterways. The schools were
provided with their own streamwatch kits by Council for analysing the health of their local
streams. Schools can upload the water quality research onto the streamwatch website and
compare results with other groups in NSW.
2. Community Flora and Fauna Surveys
Mangrove and Mooney Creek (photos: G. Woolcock).
Gosford Scouts and Rovers conducted flora and fauna surveys in the Mangrove Creek
Catchment. The surveys identified common and threatened species from animal call playback
and spotlighting. The Gosford Rovers were trained in vegetation sampling to assess the
potential changes along the riparian zone from bushfires, people and cattle.
A - 3.3.5
Kincumber Creek Riparian Rehabilitation Project
Stage 1 of the Kincumber Creek Riparian Rehabilitation Project was initiated in response to an
acknowledgement of the poor water quality in Kincumber Creek and the potential for
rehabilitation of the riparian zone as a means to not only improve water quality, but also to
create habitat for native animals, increase biodiversity and improve visual amenity. Kincumber
Creek was identified as being one of the worst creeks in Gosford City based on water quality
data and the degraded health of the riparian zone.
Through the Environmental Levy funds were allocated towards a riparian rehabilitation project
and Kincumber Creek was identified as a priority. Thus, the Kincumber Creek Riparian
Rehabilitation project was initiated in 2001, and a partnership was formed with the then Central
Coast Community Environment Network (CCCEN). The Kincumber community was consulted
throughout the project, which was implemented through a Council/Central Coast Community
Environment Network partnership and funded through Gosford City Council’s Environmental
Levy. Stage 1 of the project included the development of the Kincumber Creek Riparian
Management Plan, which outlined present conditions along the creek and made
recommendations in the form of an action plan for 2003.
A Kincumber Creek Riparian Management Plan (GCC and CCCEN 2003) was prepared which
outlined the current state of the creek, and problems and assets within each section. Strategies
to address priority sections and issues were outlined. These actions included professional bush
regeneration, seed collection and plant propagation, community workshops, and development
of educational material, initiating a Waterwatch group, installation of signs and fencing,
community planting days and tree giveaways. The evaluation report for Stage 1 of the project
(CCCEN 2004) found that most of the goals for the project were achieved.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 74

Council has since received further funding from the NSW Government Environmental Trust to
continue with Stage 2 of the project. Works will include further bush regeneration, formation of a
bushcare group, more fencing and tree planting and educational activities. The end result of this
project will be the long term restoration of a riparian corridor.
A - 3.3.6
No Mow Trails
A trial for “no-mow” areas was undertaken in June 2004-June 2005 to reduce mowing of lagoon
foreshores and encourage natural regeneration. Three sites were selected:
• the end of Farrand Crescent, Terrigal Lagoon;
• Heazlett Park at Avoca; and
• Illoura Reserve Davistown.
A local bush regeneration company was contracted to carry out bush regeneration, seed
collection and planting of native tubestock at the three sites. An education flyer was posted to all
residents adjoining wetland areas highlighting the need to protect riverbank and wetland
vegetation for water quality and other environmental benefits.
Despite the educational information, potential for natural regeneration at the sites and the
presence and labour from the bush regeneration team, the “no-mow” trial was not considered to
have been successful due to the lack of support from adjoining residents (Gleeson and
Wotherspoon 2005). Recommendations arising from the trial were the need for an education
campaign for local residents as well as fencing off regeneration sites.
A - 3.3.7
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program aims to use local government as a source for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus slow global warming. The CCP program is
managed in Australia by Environs Australia, and is delivered to councils in conjunction with the
Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO). Gosford City Council joined the CCP program in March
1999. The CCP program is broken up into five milestones, as summarised below:
Milestone 1 - Inventory and Forecast
The first part of Milestone 1 is to establish a base year inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
to identify and quantify the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the Council area.
Milestone 2 - Reduction Goal
The Council is able to set its own reduction target by which it aims to reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions on the base year amount calculated in Milestone 1.
Milestone 3 - Local Action Plan
The Action Plan is a public and formal commitment for Councils to meet their commitments to
CCP.
Milestone 4 - Implementation
Implementation will be an ongoing task that should be undertaken by all sections of Council and
the community.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 75

Milestone 5 - Monitoring and Reporting
Once measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been implemented continual
monitoring is required to judge how successful the measures have been.
1
Council has completed all five milestones. Council adopted both a corporate and community
greenhouse gas reduction goal of 20% of 1996 levels by 2010. Council adopted a Corporate
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy on 25 September 2001. The Community Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Strategy, including Council’s reduction goal, was adopted by Council on 4 June
2002. Milestone 4 was completed in October 2002. This resulted in a 5% reduction of the
corporate greenhouse gas reduction goal through the purchase of GreenPower and retrofitting
of lighting in the administration building. The inventory for Milestone 5 found that Council's
emissions for 2002, compared to the base year of 1996, were 65% higher.
As a result it is recognised that much greater effort needs to be made to meet the targets.
Inaccuracies were also discovered in the 1996 data that meant that before any other actions to
reduce emissions are undertaken, an effective and accurate data management system needs to
be incorporated. Council's CCP committee will undertake this as they move into the CCP Plus
Program. On 3 June 2003, Council resolved to join the CCP Plus program to be eligible for
further funding opportunities to undertake programs, and to continue the support networks
created with other CCP councils.
Council was awarded a Bronze Award in the Green Globe Awards in 2003 for achieving a 5%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions based on our 1999 emissions. The reduction was
largely due to the improvements in methane gas management at Kincumber Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP). There are also a number of projects that Council is currently undertaking which
should have a positive impact on corporate greenhouse gas emissions. These include a Landfill
Methane Recovery Facility to extract methane from landfill sites to be used in generating power.
The Kincumber Plant will receive methane piped in from the nearby Kincumber Landfill, as well
as the methane produced during waste processing procedures at the sewage treatment plant.
Methane will also be extracted at Woy Woy Landfill and used for the production of electricity.
The electricity will be exported to the grid.
A - 3.3.8
Cats Indoor Program
To raise awareness of the need for responsible pet ownership a Council web page, brochure
and stickers were prepared. The brochure and stickers were distributed to local veterinary
surgeries and made available to the public through its information displays such as at the Flora
Festival and via service centres. Also the images were used on the side of local buses as giant
stickers as part of the Council education campaign. The two slogans used are shown below:
Figure 3.28 Images and slogans from the Cats Indoors Education Campaign
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 76

A - 3.3.9
Weed Control Programs
As the Local Control Authority, Gosford City Council is responsible for the administration of the
NSW Noxious Weeds Act. Council has a dedicated weeds officer who administers the Act on
behalf of Council and receives some funding for noxious weed management through the
Department of Primary Industries. The administration of the Act involves at least 360 private
property inspections per year in order to assure that private landholders control or eradicate
noxious weeds as per the relevant category under the Act. It also includes the planning and
supervision of the Noxious Weed control programs on Council land and Crown land managed
by Council.
Council has two fully equipped weed control vehicles operated by qualified weed controllers
who carry out the control programs under supervision from the Chief Weeds Officer. These
controllers carry out the work using physical, mechanical or chemical means depending on the
weed or situation. The Chief Weeds Officer carries out education and training programs in
relation to Noxious Weeds such as field days at Tocal Agricultural Field Days, Mangrove
Mountain Fair and the Spring Time Flora Festival. In house training is also carried out.
Most control has been aimed at the control of Crofton Weed and a biological control agent has
been introduced for Salvinia molesta (Gosford City Council, 1996). Recently, Alligator weed has
had a high profile as a noxious weed and measures are carried out to control in where it is
reported.
Gosford City Council's Chief Weeds Officer is an active member of the Hunter and Central
Coast Weeds Management Committee, which is coordinated by the Regional Weeds
Coordinator who is based at Hunter Councils in Thornton. The Hunter Central Coast Regional
Weeds Strategy identifies significant regional weeds. This committee holds regular meetings
and has developed Regional Weed Management Plans for Alligator Weed, Water Hyacinth,
Salvinia, Blackberry, Bitou Bush and Green Cestrum. Local plans have recently been completed
for all the above and Crofton Weed. Local plans are still to be produced for other declared
noxious weeds such as Gorse, Spiney Emex, Peruvian Water Primrose and St John's Wort.
Conclusions
The scope and depth of the above environmental initiatives has done much to protect the
biodiversity values of Gosford City. Most of the projects reviewed have been considered
successful as compared to the stated objectives. Greater effort needs to be made though,
especially in meeting Greenhouse Gas emission targets and in implementing effective actions to
reverse the decline in threatened species survival. More action is also needed on companion
animal issues. Other programs deserve to have ongoing support and funding, such as Bushcare
and the Corridors/ Big Backyard landholder extension program. Pest management programs
also need to have ongoing funding, including adequate funding for monitoring.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 77

A - 3.4
References
Australian Museum Business Services (2000) Systematic and Targeted Fauna Surveys in the Gosford
City Area, unpublished report and mapping prepared for Gosford City Council.
Bell Stephen (2004) The natural vegetation of the Gosford Local Government Area, Central Coast, New
South Wales, unpublished report and mapping prepared for Gosford City Council.
Central Coast Community Environment Network (2004) Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation Project, Stage 1
Evaluation and Monitoring Project Central Coast Community Environment Network.
Conacher Travers (2001) Gosford City Council Biodiversity Project Winter-Spring 2000 Fauna Survey
Component, unpublished report and mapping prepared for Gosford City Council.
Gleeson R and Wotherspoon K (2005) Final Report for Bush Regeneration Works Undertaken at Gosford
City Council Riparian Foreshore Sites Avoca Lagoon, Davistown and Terrigal Lagoon. Unpublished report
prepared for Gosford City Council.
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DEC) (2005) Draft Recovery Plan for Prostanthera
askania, Hurstville Sydney.
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DEC) (2005) Draft Recovery Plan for the Bush
Stone Curlew (Burhinus grallarius), Hurstville Sydney.
Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DEC) (2005) Draft Recovery Plan for the Green
and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) (Lesson 1829), Hurstville Sydney.
Morris A (2002) Conservation Status of the Bush Stone-curlew in the Brisbane Water Area, unpublished
report and mapping prepared for Gosford City Council.
Gosford City Council (2004)(a) Sustainability Report 2004, Gosford City Council.
Gosford City Council (2004) (b) Corridors Evaluation Report unpublished report Gosford City Council.
Gosford City Council (2005) Central Coast Fox Management Strategy unpublished report Gosford City
Council.
Gosford City Council and CCCEN (2003) Kincumber Creek Riparian Management Plan, Unpublished
report prepared for Gosford City Council.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) NSW Comprehensive Regional Assessments -
Vertebrate Fauna Surveys (1996-97) Summer Survey Season Field Survey Methods. Amended January
1997. Prepared by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000) Somersby Mintbush Prostanthera junonsis Recovery
Plan. Prepared by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Payne Robert (2002) Rainforest Mapping Project Gosford Local Government Area with 17 map sheets
prepared by Trehy Ingold and Neate. Unpublished report and mapping prepared for Gosford City Council.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 78

A - 4.0 BIOPHYSICAL AND LAND USE FEATURES
This section provides an overview of the natural and human influenced features of the
Gosford local government area. It aims to establish the setting for future chapters that
address more specific aspects and issues for biodiversity conservation in the City.
Information in this section has been summarised from a number of key references as
noted.
Key points
• The City has changed from a holiday destination to being part of the Central
Coast, a region in its own right, with a population of over 160,000.
• The area is valued for its natural features such as clean beaches, bushland and
diverse and abundant wildlife.
• Gosford City has a great diversity of natural landscapes from dry open
woodlands on Hawkesbury sandstone on the plateau to vast saltmarsh and
mangrove areas on the coast.
• Over a third of the local government area consists of national park, state forest
and the catchment area for the City’s water supply.
• Council has a unique reserve system, its Coastal Open Space System (COSS)
that protects approximately 2,000 hectares of valuable bushland.
• Significant vegetation remains on private property
• Residential and commercial pressures are increasing on valuable land,
particularly close to the coast and on low lying areas near the waterways.
A - 4.1
Introduction
The area of Gosford City covers 1,029 square kilometres or 102,900 hectares, with an
estimated population of around 162,000. The local government area (LGA) extends to the
Hawkesbury River and Broken Bay in the south, to Wisemans Ferry in the south west and to
Bucketty in the north west, with the old Great North Road forming a boundary to the
Hawkesbury City local government area. To the north the LGA adjoins Cessnock City and
Wyong Shire LGAs with the boundary defined by George Downes Drive to just below Kulnura
and across to the coast north of Forresters Beach. The location and boundary of the Gosford
local government area is described in Figure 4.1. The area is well located between two major
cities, being only approximately 80 kilometres to Sydney and approximately 70 kms to
Newcastle. Together with Wyong Shire, the LGA forms the region now known as the Central
Coast.
The area has much outstanding natural beauty and is valued by residents and visitors for its
beaches, bushland and recreational opportunities such as fishing, surfing, sailing and
bushwalking. Much of the local government area remains vegetated with urban development
and bushland areas existing in close proximity. Of the total area approximately 32% is National
Park or Nature Reserve and almost 7% is State Forest. Natural bushland is protected in a
number of council reserves, particularly through Council’s Coastal Open Space System (COSS)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 79

(see Figure 4. 3) which accounts for almost 2% of the total area of the LGA or approximately 20
square kilometres. Native vegetation also occurs on other land tenures as described in Figure
4.3. Mangrove Dam catchment is approximately 116 square kilometres and Mooney Mooney
Dam is 38 square kilometres. Through the urban and residential areas there remains
fragmented bushland areas and particularly in some suburbs a canopy of mature native trees.
Protection of this remnant vegetation is important to retain connectivity across the landscape,
for visual amenity, local climate regulation and as habitat for native species.
Figure 4.1 Location of the Gosford City local government area.
The COSS commenced in 1984 and provides a reserve system to protect ridgetop and other
sensitive lands through a land acquisition scheme supported by development contributions. The
scheme protects over 2,000 hectares of natural bushland that provides a scenic backdrop to
areas of the City and conserves habitat for native animals and plants as well as providing
recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to the Central Coast. Despite the success of
the COSS, many environmentally sensitive areas remain unprotected and under-represented in
reserve areas. It is also noted that COSS reserves do not receive adequate resources for
ongoing maintenance and management, as a consequence many have serious weed issues.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 80

Figure 4.2 Native vegetation on private lands and National Parks, State Forests and COSS lands.
The coastal areas of the City are characterised by the surrounding hilly terrain that are mostly
fully vegetated with villages and urban development concentrated on the lower lying areas,
particularly around Brisbane Water and the coastal beaches. The major population area is the
Narara Valley in which the Gosford commercial business district (CBD) is situated. The other
main areas are the Woy Woy Peninsula, Terrigal, Erina, Kariong and Kincumber. Transport links
between these areas are largely by road which are often made more difficult due to the terrain
and waterways. The Sydney/Newcastle railway line links a number of villages and centres from
Wondabyne through to Niagara Park. The F3 Freeway is the major link from Sydney to
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 81

Newcastle and forms a major barrier for fauna corridors to the west as well as dividing the
coastal parts of the City from the mountain districts.
The Central Coast enjoys a rich diversity of native wildlife and terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
For example, over 130 threatened plants and animals are found in the local government area.
The high number of threatened taxa reflects the area’s diverse natural habitats. Like other
coastal areas within close proximity to major cities, the region faces strong development
pressures with a resulting decline in biodiversity. Urban areas can support native biodiversity
and at the same time have enhanced quality of life for residents and visitors.
Despite the relatively large reserve areas and Council’s Coastal Open Space System many
natural areas are not protected. Options need to be explored to conserve important bushland
remnants and biological diversity across a range of land tenures including private land
ownership. These are real and pressing reasons to engage the community in adopting
behaviours that help protect biodiversity and maintain the qualities of living on the Central
Coast. Strategies aimed at reducing pressure on endangered/threatened species through the
rehabilitation of selected corridors to join up remnants (as a part of a biodiversity plan), will
benefit the Gosford local government area environmentally and aesthetically. The long term
result could provide a huge potential for the city in terms of ecotourism and increased land
values.
A - 4.2
Geology
Gosford City’s geology formed nearly 300 million years ago in the geological period known as
the Permian period. At that time, Sydney lay at the mouth of a broad swampy river basin
covered in lush plant life ferns, ginkos, primitive conifers, seed ferns, horsetails and trees of
Glossopteris. Around 230 million years ago at the beginning of the Triassic period, rivers eroded
the inland mountains and began depositing enormous quantities of sand, silt and clay to coast.
The sediment layers buried the Permian swamps (these turned into organic coal layers around
Sydney and Newcastle) and the sediment layers were compacted into coarse sandstone
(Hawkesbury sandstone). The lower layers of finer silts and clays formed mudstone and shale
to became the Narrabeen group of sandstone and shales. The sandy middle beds became
Hawkesbury sandstones and the uppermost and youngest strata of compressed silt and clay
became Wianamatta shales. By the end of the Triassic period, 190 million years ago, sediment
accumulations almost stopped. However, Australia was still part of Gondwana supercontinent
and pressures began to split the continent. In the Sydney Basin the initial movements were
marked by explosive eruptions of small volcanic breccia pipes of diatremes through sedimentary
rock (such as at Dillons Farm in Brisbane Water NP).
As the continents slowly separated over the next 140 million years there was a movement
upwards which formed the Blue Mountains, and a lowering along the faultline of what is now the
Hawkesbury Nepean River resulting in the Cumberland plain. Over 50 million years of the
Tertiary period rivers cut deep gorges through sandstone. Uplift occurred and gave rise to
outcrops of Hawkesbury sandstone. In the last 1.8 million years Quartenary alluvium continued
to accumulate.
During the Pleistocene ice age the sea level was 100 metres lower than it currently is.
Consequently, the mouth of the Hawkesbury River was further east of its present location.
There was subsequent melting of the ice caps and the associated sea level rise led to the
Hawkesbury River 'drowning'itself resulting in Broken Bay and Brisbane Water. The coastal
lagoons were also formed at this time. Minor adjustments have occurred since with perched
dunes formed as a result of wind blown sand, an example of this is the sand on the tops of
coastal cliffs in Bouddi National Park (Fisher 1997).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 82

Gosford soils occur predominantly on Triassic age sediments of the Wianamatta and Narrabeen
Groups. These lie in the north-east part of a major tectonic unit known as the Sydney Basin.
Middle Triassic Hawkesbury Sandstone occurs extensively on the Somersby Plateau and
Macdonald Ranges. This overlies the Narrabeen Group and consists of medium to coarse
grained quartz sandstones with minor shales and laminite lenses (Murphy 1993). It also
outcrops on the Boudii peninsular, Kincumba Mountain and Mount Elliot.
The eastern part of the LGA is predominantly the Terrigal (formerly Gosford) Subgroup of the
Triassic Narrabeen Group. It consists of massive and coarse bedded lenticular beds of lithicquartz
sandstone, siltstone and claystone (Murphy 1993). An example of the Terrigal formation
can be seen at the Skillion in Terrigal which displays the distinctive fine sandstone with shale
lenses (Fisher 1997).
Small post Triassic diatremes outcrop at Peats Ridge and Kulnura on the Somersby Plateau.
These are basalt intrusions that were forced through the overlying Hawkesbury sandstone
during the Jurassic period (Fisher 1997). Quartenary alluvium occurs along major watercourses
such as Brisbane Water and around the coastal estuaries. It consists of unconsolidated sands,
silts, clays and gravels. Large deposits of Quartenary marine sediments are found along the
coast and include barrier beach systems that enclose Tuggerah and Munmorah Lakes as well
as the Umina/Ettalong/Woy Woy peninsular (see also 1:100, 000 geology sheet
http://www.geoscience.gov.au). The Umina Woy Woy peninsular consists of a large sandplain
with the remnants of its parallel dunes still evident in some places. Perched sand dunes occur
on cliff tops within Bouddi National Park and adjacent areas (Strom et al.1980).
A - 4.3
Geomorphology
The broad physiographic (or geomorphological) regions of the Gosford region are described in
Chapman and Murphy 1989 and Murphy 1993. These are:
• McDonalds Ranges incorporating Mangrove Dam Creek catchment area and
Kulnura in the north and Dharug National Park to the west. It consists of deeply
dissected rugged steep hills on Hawkesbury sandstone and Narrabeen Group
sediments.
• Somersby Plateau covering the Central Mangrove area, Mangrove Mountain and
Peats Ridge down to Somersby and Kariong on Hawkesbury sandstones. The
Somersby Plateau forms a northern extension of the Hornsby Plateau and is
described as an undulating plateau on Hawkesbury sandstone (Chapman and
Murphy (1989) and Murphy (1993). It includes the Woy Woy peninsular but this
would appear to be better described as per Bell(2004) as Coastal Floodplains and
Estuaries incorporating the major floodplains of Erina and Narara Creeks that feed
into Brisbane Water, the coastal estuaries and the Umina sandplain.
• Hawkesbury Valley covering the drowned river valleys of the Hawkesbury River
and its tributaries which dissect the rugged and distinctive Hawkesbury sandstone
and softer Narrabeen Group sediments, and
• Erina Hills covering the eastern parts of the LGA described as a low and undulating
topography below 30 metres above sea level on Narrabeen Sandstone geology. The
coastal plain has a low relief with a undulating to flat topography.
• The Watagan Mountains region covers a small section in the north of the LGA at
Niagara Park including Strickland State Forest.
Streams dissect the plateau area exposing the softer interbedded siltstone and Sydney
sandstone. Most flow in a southerly direction toward the Hawkesbury River and Broken Bay via
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 83

Mooney Mooney and Mangrove Creeks. Others cut into the eastern edge of the plateau flowing
in an easterly direction towards the coastal lake
A - 4.4
Soils
Soil landscapes of Gosford City area described on two landscape sheets Soil Landscapes of
the Gosford – Lake Macquarie 1:100,000 Sheet (Murphy 1993) and Soil Landscapes of the
Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet (Chapman G A and C L Murphy 1989) and are summarised for the
Gosford area with local examples in Table 2.1 and mapping in Figure 2.4.
Table 4.1 Soil landscapes in Gosford City (Source: Chapman and Murphy 1989 and
Murphy 1993)
Landscape Group Soil
Landscape
Description
Location
examples
Residual
Landscape
so Somersby Gently undulating to rolling rises of
deeply weathered Hawkesbury
Sandstone plateau, local relief to 40
m, slopes

Alluvial
Landscapes
Estuarine
Landscapes
near Mangrove Mtn. Low rolling and steep
hills, local relief 50 – 120m.
gy Gymea Undulating to rolling crests and slopes on
Hawkesbury Sandstone. Local relief 20-80
metres, slopes 10-25%. Broad convex
crests, moderately inclined sideslopes with
wide benches, rock outcrop on low broken
scarps. Extensively cleared openforest and
woodland
la Lambert Undulating to rolling hills on Hawkesbury
Sandstone. Local relief 20-120m, slopes
50%. Broad ridges,
gently to moderately inclined slopes with
wide rocj benches
with low broken scarps, small hanging
valleys and areas of poor drainage. Open
and closed heathland,
scrub and eucalypt open-woodland.
st Sydney Town Undulating to rolling low hills and
moderately inclined slopes on quartz
sandstone (Hawkesbury Sandstone and
Terrigal Formation: Narrabeen Group).
Along the edge of Somersby Plateau and
as ridges and crests in Macdonalds
Ranges and Watagan Mtns. Local relief to
80m, slope 5-25%. Ridges and crests
moderately broad, slopes moderately
inclined and drainage lines narrow.
Occasional rock benches present.
Extensively cleared low eucalypt openwoodland.
of Oxford Falls Hanging valleys on predominantly
Hawkesbury Sandstone. Local relief

Aeolian
Landscapes
Beach
Landscapes/Marine
Swamp
Landscapes
tidal waters. Mangrove open-scrub,
saltmarsh herbland, sedgeland and low
open-forest.
nr Norah Head Elevated undulating sandsheet plains of
windblown sand to rolling dunefields and
sandsheets of windblown sands on coastal
headlands. Local relief

Figure 4.3 Soil Landscapes (Source: (former) Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural
Resources) See Table 4.1 for Soil Landscape descriptions. Note that 'Xx'refers to disturbed
terrain.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 87

A - 4.5
Climate
Generally the climate of the LGA is mild in the coastal areas and slightly cooler in the plateau
areas and valley areas. Climatic data has been obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology
website. (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/). Mean maximum and minimum
temperatures are shown from three weather stations Kulnura, Peats Ridge and Gosford
(Horticultural Station) in Figure 2.4. The lowest mean daily average for Gosford was 4.5 0C and
the highest mean daily average was 27.5 0C. Highest median monthly rainfall generally occurs
in February and March and the lowest in July, August and September months. It is noted that
this data was collected for Kulnura between 1951 to 1981, for Peats Ridge for 1981 to 2004 and
for Gosford for 1916 to 2004.
Prevailing winds are generally from the west and local topographical features will impact on
rainfall and evaporation. For example the Katandra, Avoca and Bouddi hills have a NNE to
SSW aspect and receive higher rainfall as they face the south-easterlies that bring coastal
rainfall (Fisher 1997). Valley areas provide more shaded aspects with cool air drainage resulting
in different vegetation communities such as the moist rainforest communities in the Matcham
Holgate areas.
Figure 4.4. Mean daily average maximum and minimum temperatures. Source: Commonwealth Bureau
of Meteorology at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 88

Figure 4.5 Median Rainfall recorded at Kulnura, Peats Ridge and Gosford weather stations. Source:
Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/.
A - 4.6
Catchment Boundaries
Gosford City sits within two catchment management authority areas, these are the Hawkesbury
Nepean and the Hunter Central Rivers.
A - 4.7
Aboriginal History
Today Aboriginal people from a number of groups such as the Darkinjung live in the Gosford
area.
Their ancestors are thought to have inhabited the Central Coast area for around 6,000 years
prior to European settlement. Ross (1990) identifies a number of tribes in the Gosford area at
the time of European contact, these were the Dharginung (or Darkinjung) to the west on the
plateau area and the Guringai tribe (or Eora) in the eastern coastal area. The Guringai are
thought to have occupied an area that reached as far north as the lower shores of Port
Macquarie and to the south to Port Hacking. The Dharug tribe occupied the areas to the
southwest on the Cumberland Plain and around Spencer on the upper reaches of the
Hawkesbury. The boundary between the Dharug and Guringai tribes may have been a ridgeline
adjacent to Mangrove Creek (Ross 1990).
Early explorers describe a subsistence living with scarce food resources, especially fish in
winter. However, there were sufficient local resources that the indigenous peoples did not need
to travel long distances to search for food. The Guringai people lived a subsistence life focused
on shellfish and seafood, occasionally catching possums, birds and reptiles as well as local
plants. Records of the diet of the Guringai show that the fish consumed included jewfish,
snapper, mullet, mackeral, whiting, dory, rockcod, leatherjacket. Shellfish such as crayfish,
lobster were caught in traps and oyster, mussels and cockles collected (Ross 1990). Much of
this knowledge comes from the analysis of middens around Sydney Harbour and at Angophora
Reserve at Bilgola. The Darkinjung tribes further inland relied on hunting or trapping of small
marsupials, digging yams and other vegetables (GCC library website). Historical records show
that the tribes would meet to hold large ceremonial gatherings from time to time, often
coinciding with a whale beaching. Plants eaten included figs, the fruit of cycads and fern roots.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 89

Kangaroo, possums, flying squirrels (probably gliders) and parrots were also consumed.
Swamps may have been valuable for food resources such as eels, fish and shellfish and would
have supplemented a diet of possums and kangaroos. Wood duck, chestnut teal, brown quail,
black duck and black swans were all found on the Hawkesbury and were hunted. Grubs and
lizards were also eaten.
Tools used by the men included hunting spears tipped with fish teeth or fish bones, a multi
pronged "fish gig", boomerang, stone hatchet and net bags. Women carried fish hooks and line.
The sandstone caves that occur extensively in the area were used for hand stenciling and
painting and the rock plateaus for rock engravings and tool sharpening.
The tribes appeared to have been thinly distributed and to have been markedly affected by
European settlement. A census undertaken by the local magistrate Willoughby Bean in 1828
found only five family groups with a total of 65 people. With the plateau added total family
groups for the area would be around 12 with a total population of 360. This declined quickly due
to smallpox introduced by the white explorers. An 1848 census recorded about 50 aborigines
and by 1974 this was reduced to 13 (Fisher 1997).
A - 4.8
European Settlement
Captain Cook sailed north from Botany Bay on May 7th 1770 and named Broken Bay and Cape
Three Points (Bouddi Peninsular). Governor Phillip made two exploratory trips to the area on 2 nd
March 1788 and 5th June 1789 looking for reliable supplies of food and water for the new colony
at Sydney Cove. On the first vi sit Phillip briefly explored both sides of Broken Bay, discovering
the Hawkesbury River and a tributary of Broken Bay that was known as the ‘north-west’ arm
(later called the ‘north-east arm’ and now known as Brisbane Water). During his second visit,
Phillip made a more extensive investigation of this arm of Broken Bay (GGC library). However it
was discounted for agricultural use because of its rugged topography and Phillip reported that it
was difficult for boat access.
The Brisbane Water area remained unsettled for a considerable time due to these constraints.
Also fertile land existed along the Hawkesbury and there was better boat access to these areas.
The construction of the Great North Road from Dural by convicts in (date) in the north western
part of Sydney to Wollombi in the Hunter Valley via Wiseman's Ferry also focused travel away
from the Central Coast.
The Hawkesbury River became the lifeblood of the area as it provided boat access and
settlement occurred along it. Logging and boat building industries became established and most
of the timber was sent to Sydney by boat. Blue gum, blackbutt and ironbark were logged from
open forests, while turpentine and cedar were logged from closed forest areas. Settlement of
the Gosford district also began along the areas that were accessible by water, Brisbane Water
and Mangrove Creek. The shores tended to be occupied by small settlers including ex-convicts
whilst the timbered country on Erina and Narara Creeks was dominated by the gentry (GCC
library).
The first land grant on the Central Coast was at Orange Grove and was made to James Webb
in 1824. He commenced grazing but later turned to timber and ship building. Other settlers
managed to produce agricultural produce, with crops including citrus grown in the Wyoming
area. Corn and onions were grown in 1825 around Saratoga and around the 1830s tobacco,
sugar and bananas were grown at Gosford and Point Clare. The area was however generally
considered to be poor agricultural land.
Timber getting remained the primary industry for the area but a secondary industry of
shipbuilding using local timber became established and continued into the 20th century. A local
ship building industry developed in Gosford with the first boat built at Saratoga. The best known
shipbuilding family was the Davis family and family members established businesses in
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 90

Bensville and Davistown (Ben Davis), Blackwall (Rock Davis), Cockle Creek (Edward) and
Terrigal (Thomas Davis). Between 1829 and 1953, 500 vessels were built in the region (Fisher
1997). Also, from the 1830s on, shells were collected from aboriginal middens and large natural
shell deposits and were sent to the Sydney and Hawkesbury settlements for limeburner's
powder. This powder was mixed with lime and water to make mortar for building.
Figure 4.6 On the Mirror, Erina Creek (Central Coast Photo Library
¡ ¢ ¡£ ¢¤¦¥¨§©£ §¨ ¡£ ©¥¨£ ¨¨ ¨¥¨ ¥
At the head of Brisbane Water, on land between Erina and Narara Creeks, a government
township was laid out in the 1830s (GCC library). It was planned to be called Point Frederick but
when the survey plan was approved the then Governor decided it should be called ‘Gosford’.
Other early townships in the Gosford District were at East Gosford, Kincumber and Blackwall
(near Woy Woy) where the main shipbuilding yard was located.
From 1824, a citrus industry developed in the Narara Wyoming area with the produce
transported by sea to Sydney. Land developers promoted subdivisions in the area in the 1880s
such as one known as the Gosford Model Farms scheme. However the depression of the 1890s
led to limited sales. As roads were developed, farming spread to Somersby Plateau and this
area became important for citrus growing, producing over a third of the state’s citrus crop in
1928 (GCC library).
Until the late 1880s major transportation was by water. The establishment of a rail connection to
Sydney in 1889 required overcoming some major engineering challenges such as a crossing of
the Hawkesbury River and tunneling such as from Wondabyne to Woy Woy. After Sydney was
connected by rail a local tourist industry developed, particularly in the Woy Woy area.
Construction of the Pacific Highway commenced in 1920 and was completed in 1930. The
replacing of the Hawkesbury River car ferries by a new road bridge in 1945 made travel to and
from the city much easier and quicker and from then on weekenders began to flourish. The
electrification of the rail link in the early 1960s and construction of Sydney-Newcastle bypass
and expressway in 1965 further improved accessibility to the area.
In terms of local governance, Erina Shire Council was formed in 1907 and Woy Woy Shire was
formed in 1928. The Municipality of Gosford was formed in 1936 as a breakaway from Erina
Shire, this included the Gosford township, East Gosford, and settlements on West side of
Brisbane Water (Geoff Potter GCC pers comm. 13/12/05). In 1947, the Shires of Gosford and
Wyong were established, dissolving the previous shires. The City of Gosford was established in
1980.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 91

A - 4.9
Current Landuse
Since the 1940s areas east of the Pacific Highway, particularly along the coast, have become
increasingly developed and urbanised. Some semi rural areas remain such as sections of the
old Gosford Model Farms along The Entrance Road towards Erina Heights, and in the Erina
Valley Road area. These areas are however likely to come under pressure for more intensive
urban development as part of the State government’s plan for urban consolidation and to
accommodate projected population increases. The Central Coast region was recognised as
recently as 2005.
The Central Coast serves as a commuter area to nearby metropolitan centres with the local
workforce traveling to Sydney, especially western Sydney, and Newcastle/Hunter area for
employment. The area has a diverse economy, predominately based on manufacturing, retail,
health and community services, education, construction and business with tourism making a
valuable contribution (ref). The four biggest areas of employment in the region are retail trade
(16.2%), health and community services (12.1%), business services (11.2%), and
manufacturing (9.9%), however there is a wide diversity of industry providing employment
across the region (GCC).
The plateau areas of Mangrove Mountain, Somersby, Peats Ridge and Kulnura Plateau have
been traditionally used for agricultural uses such as vegetable crops, citrus production, cuts
flowers and broiler poultry production (GCC 1999). There are number of extractive industries
operating in the area, primarily sand for the building industry but also hard rock aggregate (blue
metal), clay/shale and sawn sandstone (GCC 1999). The importance of the area for its high
quality agricultural lands, favourable climatic conditions and the proximity to domestic and
export markets have been identified through a State Regional Environmental Plan (SREP) 8
that maps and protects prime agricultural lands. A review of planning provisions for this area
undertaken by Council (GCC 1999) concluded that agriculture continues to be a legitimate land
use and important for agricultural production, especially as similar lands in the Sydney Basin are
lost. However nearly all of the plateau has been identified as potential extractive resource by the
(former) Department of Mineral and Industries (GCC 1999). This potential conflict over landuse
is likely to continue given other mineral and extractive resources being exhausted elsewhere.
Groundwater extraction is also a major industry on the plateau areas and concerns have been
raised about potential depletion of groundwater resources.
Residential and commercial developments are the major forms of development in the coastal
areas. There are limited industrial and commercial zonings, major industrial areas are
concentrated in West Gosford along Manns Rd and in the Somersby Industrial Park, some other
areas are Lisarow, North Gosford and Kincumber. Major commercial areas are at Erina along
the Entrance Road and nearby including Erina Fair, Gosford CBD, Kincumber, Terrigal and Woy
Woy.
A - 4.10
Population and Trends
The City’s population was estimated to be 162,841 in 2004 (preliminary estimate) with a median
age at June 2003 of 39.6 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics report on website undated). The
vast majority of this population is located in the coastal precincts while only 2.4% of residents
are situated in the Mountains Planning Precinct.
With its close proximity to major cities with good transport linkages, the Central Coast is under
strong pressure for future population growth. Although, as noted in the Central Coast: Regional
Profile & Social Atlas (Wyong Shire Council et al. 2004), there has been a slowdown in
population growth from 1991 to 1996 to 1996 to 2001. Average annual growth rates for these
two periods differed from 2.4% per annum for the five year period to 1996 to 1.8% per annum
for the last five years and it was noted that most of the slowdown had occurred in Gosford City.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 92

The principal reason suggested for this was the limited land available in the Gosford LGA
compared to Wyong that is suitable for major residential development.
Key characteristics of the population profile are a high proportion of youth aged 0-18 years
(27.9%) and people aged 60 years and over (almost 21.7%), this is higher than the New South
Wales average of 17.3%. The population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living
in the Gosford LGA was 2,183 or (1.4%) in the 2001 Census. The number of people born
overseas in the 2001 Census was 21987 (14.3%) and the main country of origin was the United
Kingdom (6.6%) followed by New Zealand (1.7%) (Source:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@census.ns). Gosford has a lower than average
representation of peoples from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (ABS Census
2001 in Sustainability Report).
In 2001, the Central Coast had a higher percentage of separate houses (79%) than NSW
(64.1%), a marginally higher percentage that the state average. Over the longer term the area
has seen a decrease in holiday homes to permanent residences. Development trends are for
more townhouse and unit development around transport nodes. Although this assists with
housing increasing population in urban areas it has a negative aspect of decreasing areas for
gardens and mature trees.
Residential development is becoming increasingly denser in the coastal parts of the City with
increasing medium density, and some high rise, development in the last ten years. This creates
potential conflicts for biodiversity conservation as less areas are available as landscaped areas.
Also remnant vegetation including trees is removed, often because of conflicts regarding safety,
bushfire protection or simply due to space limitations. At the same time medium density
development, if well designed and located, can offer potential biodiversity gains as development
can be focused in existing urban areas close to transport and rural, semi-rural and conservation
value lands can be retained. The issue of determining where and how higher density
development will occur remains a challenge for Council's strategic planning as well as broader
regional planning initiatives.
Council’s Residential Strategy identifies that most future housing will be medium density and
some infill development to accommodate future population growth. Medium density is
considered most appropriate as it contains development within existing residential zones where
infrastructure is available and public transport generally accessible (Sustainability Report 2005).
No new low density housing areas are planned due to constraints such as environmental and
topographical features and infrastructure limitations.
For the plateau areas, Council has adopted a strategy for Rural Lands that acknowledges the
importance of protecting the area for sustainable agriculture but that allows for minor and
ancilliary activities that complement the rural nature of the area such as tourist development
(Sustainability Report GCC 2005). The rural lands study considered biodiversity objectives but
noted that there was limited ability to control inappropriate farm management through the
statutory planning process and that competing demand for resources and landuse competition
may result in a decline in resource quantity and quality (GCC 1999).
There are a number of strategies being developed by state government that will provide a
framework for the future development of the Central Coast region and that build upon previous
regional planning documents such as the Shaping the Central Coast (ref). Increasing population
pressures and the State Government’s direction that this will be partially accommodated outside
the Sydney metropolitan area means that the Central Coast will be likely to undergo a
significant population increase in the next several decades. At this stage, Gosford and Wyong
are considered to be part of the Sydney metropolitan area and are included in the metropolitan
plan being prepared by the Department of Planning.
The plan consists of a number of key documents such as Settlement Strategy that will identify
areas to accommodate an additional 30,000 people in the Gosford LGA by 2031. Greater
population increases are planned for Wyong to the north and parts of the Hunter region. The
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 93

State government is also preparing an Employment Lands Strategy that will identify future
needs for local employment and the availability of suitably zoned lands such as for industry.
There is also a study planned for retail and commercial centres.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 94

A - 4.11 References
Australian Bureau of Statistics undated Regional Population Growth, Australia and New Zealand, 2003-04
(ABS cat. no. 3218.0) and Population by Age and Sex (ABS cat. no. 3235.0-8.55.001) at Bureau of
Statistic site). (at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@census.ns).
Benson and Howell Taken for Granted. The Bushland of Sydney and its Suburbs Kangaroo Press in
association with Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney 1990.
Chapman G A and Murphy C L 1989 Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet C L Murphy Soil
Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.
Dundon, Gwen. The shipbuilders of Brisbane Water NSW. East Gosford. , The author, 1997. Gosford
District Historical Research Association 1981 Gosford Model Farms, 1885: a review. The Gosford District
Historical Research Association. Gosford.
Gosford City Council 1999 Report on the Rural Lands Study Steering Committee, unpublished report for
Gosford City Council.
Fenner R 2004 In hindsight Reflections on Past Planning and Development on the Central Coast
prepared by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems for the Catalyst Project, CSIRO Ourimbah.
Fisher D. G. 1997 The Central Coast of New South Wales Environment and People Darrell Fisher,
Tascott and Hobbs and Hobbs Publishing, E.Gosford.
Murphy C L 1993 Soil Landscapes of the Gosford – Lake Macquarie 1:100,000 Sheet Soil Conservation
Service of NSW, Sydney.
Ross A 'Aboriginal Life of the Lower Hawkesbury at the Time of European Settlement'in Powell J and
Banks L (eds) 1990 Hawkesbury River History Governor Phillip, Exploration and Early Settlement ,
Dharug and Lower Hawkesbury Historical Society Wisemans Ferry, Printed by Southwood Press,
Marrickville NSW.
Strom A, Goldstein W and Strom B 1980 Evaluating the Environment of a Region Central Coast, printed
by NSW Government National Parks and Wildlife Service for the Conference in Environmental Education
September 1978.
Uren R.E. 1974 The Geological Survey of New South Wales, the Geology and Low Cost Extractive
Resources of the Gosford - Lake Macquarie Area. Department of Mines, New South Wales.
Wyong Shire Council, Gosford City Council, The University of Newcastle, Central Coast Health (2004).
Central Coast: Regional Profile & Social Atlas. Wyong Shire Council.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 95

A - 5.0 TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY
This section outlines what we currently know about terrestrial biodiversity in Gosford
City. A major resource is the recently commissioned local scale vegetation community
mapping. Regional vegetation mapping also provides a valuable regional context. The
high number of threatened species is of particular importance in the area. Gaps in
current knowledge are identified, particularly for invertebrates which form a major group
of the animal kingdom but remain largely unstudied. This chapter discusses vegetation
communities, flora and fauna and significant habitat for Gosford City. It identifies
priorities for conservation of Gosford's terrestrial diversity based on available knowledge
and Council's responsibilities under relevant legislation.
Key points
• Local scale vegetation community mapping at a scale of 1:8,000 provides
the basis for strategic planning and environmental management.
• Over 130 threatened plants and animals occur in Gosford City and these are
found in a variety of habitats, including in remnant isolated paddock trees, under
road bridges, along road reserves, and even in suburban backyards.
• Little is known about the diversity of fungi and invertebrates although they
comprise the majority of all species and are important components of natural
ecosystems.
• Priority habitats and vegetation communities are described. These are:
1. Endangered Ecological Communities. These include saltmarsh, swamp
mahogany forests and freshwater wetlands. Lowland rainforest is likely to
be included shortly.
2. Regionally significant vegetation. These are communities that are
poorly represented in the region, that have a limited distribution, that have a
specialised habitat or that are considered vulnerable in the region.
3. Other significant vegetation and key habitat such as primary and
secondary corridors, riparian vegetation, mangroves, swamp mahoganies
and hollow bearing trees.
• Some fauna species such as the Yellow-bellied Glider and Large Forest Owls
are considered ‘umbrella species’ and measures undertaken for their
conservation are expected to benefit a range of other species.
A - 5.1
Introduction
Gosford City currently has a rich diversity of terrestrial ecosystems, with a correspondingly high
diversity of native plants and animals. The extent of national parks, state forest, nature reserves
as well as large natural areas reserved for water catchment protection and Council’s unique
Coastal Open Space System (COSS) protect much of the natural vegetation of the area. These
natural areas provide considerable benefits to Gosford City including protection of its natural
biodiversity, cleaner waterways and beaches, aesthetic values and recreational opportunities.
However, many areas of native vegetation, particularly in the coastal areas where development
pressures are greatest and the population is predominantly located, are not protected. In
addition, many plants and animals are now threatened with extinction as habitat is lost or
becomes degraded through pressures such as weed and feral animal invasion.
Council commissioned city-wide vegetation community mapping in 2003 (Bell 2004) and this
provides the basis for assessing the extent and significance of vegetation communities across
the City. There have also been many fauna surveys for specific sites and areas of interest.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 96

However, few that provide systematic data that enable a comparison of fauna composition over
time. Many threatened species are hard to survey for and, for many, little is known about them.
In addition fungi, invertebrates and microorganisms have not been well studied and remain
poorly understood. Table 5.1 provides a brief overview of the status of vegetation communities
and flora and fauna species in the local government area.
Table 5.1 Quick Snapshot of Gosford City’s Natural Features
QUICK SNAPSHOT GOSFORD LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA
How much of the local government area (LGA) contains native vegetation?
Almost 74,700 hectares of native vegetation remain. This represents around 72.6% of the
LGA. Of this 31.7% is within national park and nature reserves. 6.9% in state forests and
around 1.8% in the COSS.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
83 distinct vegetation communities have been identified as occurring in Gosford City, this
includes 28 local variants.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
There are 11 endangered ecological communities listed for Gosford City.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Of the 1400 or so plant species indentified in Gosford City over 330 are introduced plants
know to occur as weeds in bushland areas.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
4 plants are listed as endangered at the Commonwealth level and 8 plants listed as
endangered at the State level.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8 plants are listed as vunmerable at the Commonwealth level and 13 plants listed a
vulnerable at the State level.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
There are at least 430 native vertebrate animals and 20 introduced vertebrate animals found
in the Gosford LGA.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
8 animals are listed as endangered at the Commonwealth level and 16 animals are listed as
endangered at the State level.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
13 animals are listed as vulnerable at the Commonwealth level and 58 animals are listed as
vulnerable at the State level.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Of the 60 known native terrestrial mammals, 23 are listed as vulnerable (i.e. at risk of
becoming endangered in the next fifteen years.
A - 5.2
A - 5.2.1
Native Vegetation Communities
Distribution of Native Vegetation
Gosford City contains diverse vegetation communities, from woodlands, dry forest and hanging
swamps to rainforest, moist forest, heath and coastal and riverine wetlands and saltmarsh. The
natural vegetation of the area is described by Bell (2004) in accordance with the five
physiographic regions described in Chapter 4. The most northerly parts that occur on the
rugged hills of the MacDonald Ranges contain exposed woodlands on Hawkesbury sandstone
characterized by Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum), Corymbia gummifera (Red
Bloodwood) and Angophora costata (Smooth Barked Apple). This community is also
widespread across Kulnura, Mangrove Mountain, Somersby and southwards to the Hawkesbury
River on the Somersby Plateau landscape. Somersby Plateau Forest as described by Bell and
is characterised by E. sieberii (Silver-top Ash) in the canopy and Doryanthes exelsa (Gymea
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 97

Lily) was once relatively widespread but has been historically cleared for horticulture and
agricultural purposes. Small areas of heath associated with large expanses of sandstone rock
pavements and hanging swamp are scattered across the Somersby Plateau.
To the west within Dharug National Park on the MacDonald Ranges landscape exposed
woodlands on Hawkesbury sandstone are dominated by Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood)
and A. costata. Drainage lines in the west and Somersby Plateau area contain Hawkesbury
Peppermint-Apple Forest, characterised by E. piperita (Sydney Peppermint), A. costata,
Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak), Syncarpia gloumulifera susbsp. glomulifera (Turpentine),
C. gummifera, E. scias subsp. Scias (Large-fruited Red Mahogany) and E. umbra (Broad-leaved
White Mahogany).
On the coast, the Erina Hills region has relatively higher coastal rainfall and shale-enriched soils
supporting moist tall forest and coastal warm temperate rainforest in protected gullies,
particularly in the Holgate and Matcham valleys. These consist of a variety of rainforest species
including Acmena smithii (Lillypilly), Doryphora sassafras (Sassafras) and Ceratopetalum
apetalum (Coachwood). Coastal Narrabeen Moist Forest is relatively widespread in the north
eastern section of the LGA with a tall moist forest dominated by E. saligna (Bluegum), A.
torulosa, S. glomulifera and to a lesser extent E acmenioides (White Mahogany) and E. pilularis
(Blackbutt).
On higher ridges with deeper shales Coastal Narrabeen Ironbark Forest occurs dominated by E.
paniculata subsp. paniculata (Grey Ironbark), E. punctata (Grey Gum), S. glomulifera subsp.
glomulifera and E. acemenioides. Narrabeen Coastal Blackbutt Forest occurs on drier ridges
dominated by Blackbutt, Turpentine and Forest Oak with a shrubby understorey. On Kincumba
Mountain and Mount Elliot ridges the Hawkesbury Sandstone geology supports Katandra
Hawkesbury Woodland and further south on the Bouddi peninsular supports Killcare
Hawkesbury Woodland. Both are described by Bell as being variants of the more widespread
Exposed Hawkesbury Woodland that occurs across the Somersby Plateau.
Along the major creeks and estuaries in the eastern parts of the LGA as well as along the banks
of the Hawkesbury River around Spencer and along Mangrove Creek mangrove and saltmarsh
communities occur. These are generally fringed by Estuarine Swamp Forest dominated by C.
glauca (Swamp Oak) with an understorey of sedges and rushes. Furtherback on areas with
impeded drainage Swamp Mahogany-Paperbark forests occur characterised by E. robusta
(Swamp Mahogany) and a range of paperbark species such as Melaleuca biconvexa, M.
linariifolia (Snow in Summer), M. styphelioides (Prickly-leaved Paperbark) and M.quinquenervia
(Broad-leaved Paperbark).
A - 5.2.2
Vegetation Mapping
The extent and condition of native vegetation is considered to be a useful surrogate for
biodiversity conservation (NPWS 2000a) and vegetation mapping is therefore an important
resource for conservation planning. Vegetation mapping has been undertaken previously by
Benson (1986) for Gosford and Lake Macquarie, Benson and Fallding (1981) for Brisbane
Water and environs, and by Benson and Howell (1994) for the northern part of the LGA. These
provide broad vegetation community mapping; for example open and closed forest, scrub and
woodland.
Regional scale vegetation mapping was undertaken in 1999 on behalf of the LHCCREMS
(NPWS 2000a). This was modeled across the landscape based on environmental variables and
flora surveys and was at a scale of 1:25,000. The mapping was updated in 2002 by EcoLogical
on behalf of LHCCREMS when digitized aerial photography became available which enabled
more accurate linework. The mapping was however not at a scale that could be considered
accurate enough for local scale planning and assessment.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 98

As recommended by NPWS, Council undertook local scale vegetation community mapping,
adopting the methodology and classification system used in the regional study. This project was
undertaken by Eastcoast Flora Surveys and provided vegetation community mapping at a scale
of 1;8,000 for most of the local government area (Bell 2004) (see Figure 5. 1). Areas not
mapped at were national parks, state forests and flora reserves and this was due to budget
limitation and a higher priority on the mapping of council owned and private lands.
Bell (2004) found that despite a diverse and rich coastal and sub-coastal flora, that much of the
diversity in Gosford City remained poorly conserved within the formal conservation reserve
system. Bell also provided information on which vegetation communities were considered to be
well represented in reserve systems and which ones were poorly reserved.
Further regional mapping is now being undertaken by HCCREMS (formerly LHCCREMS). This
will provide a revised regional classification system across the broader Hunter Central Coast
region (the area covered under the Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Board) and
regional pre- 1750 mapping layer as well as an agreed definition of regionally significant
vegetation. Two specialized mapping projects have also been undertaken for Council for coastal
wetlands and rainforests by Payne in 1997 and 2002 respectively and these are discussed in
more detail below. Local scale pre-1750 is also being undertaken by Eastcoast Flora Surveys
on behalf of Council as Stage 3 of Council’s vegetation mapping project.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 99

Figure 5.1 Native vegetation communities in Gosford LGA as mapped by Bell (2004)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 100

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 101

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 102

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 103

There have been few quantitative studies of the condition of native vegetation in Gosford City. A
report on the COSS found that 20% of the total COSS lands (at that time 2,000ha) were
impacted by weeds (Manidis Roberts 1992). The Gosford Rainforest Study (Payne 2002) found
that lantana had increased significantly since 1987, and that where previously a few metres
existed at the rainforest edge, that this was now well over 100 metres in depth in some areas.
Condition mapping (i.e. extent of tracks and clearing, bush fire or other regrowth) is not
available for the Gosford study at this stage,
nor is there any mapping describing the extent of weed invasion.
A - 5.2.3
Significant Vegetation Communities
Vegetation mapping enables an assessment to be made about the extent and proportion of
native vegetation communities and their relative conservation significance, this is best done
within a regional context. The Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (LHCCREMS 2003)
provides a conservation assessment for the region, considering national, state and local
significant vegetation communities.
For national significance, no locally occurring vegetation communities have been listed so far
under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
However, Environment Australia provides criteria to identify communities that could qualify
under this category. The Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy assessed all regional
vegetation communities against national criteria (see Table 5.6) and identified a number of
communities that would qualify for national significance. Of the communities identified, only
Beach Spinifex (Map Unit 53) and Alluvial Tall Moist Forest (Map Unit 5) are not now likely to be
covered under the new determinations for endangered ecological communities at NSW State
level.
Figures 5.2 – 5.4
Dune vegetation protects foreshore dunes and provides habitat for species such as
the coastal pigface (Carpobrotus glaucescens) and coastal wattle (Acacia sophorae)
(R. Lonie).
Table 5.6 Criteria for assessing national significance
CRITERIA
Ctiterion 1
Critically endangered = very severe
decline = 95% or more (1C)
Endangered = a severe decline = 90% or
more (1E)
Vulnerable - substantial decline = 70% or
more (1V)
Criterion 2
REASON FOR SIGNIFICANCE
Decline in geographic distribution
Small geographic distribution coupled with
demonstrable threat. This category applies
only to vegetation communities with
distributions that are small on a national
scale.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 104

Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Criterion 6
Source : LHCCREMS 2003
Loss or decline of functionally important
species
Reduction in community integrity
Rate of continuing detrimental change
Quantitative analysis showing probability of
extinction
State significant vegetation was described as those communities listed under the Threatened
Species Conservation Act 1995 as being “endangered” or “vulnerable. There are currently 9
endangered ecological communities in the Gosford LGA (see Table 5.7). No vulnerable
communities have been listed at the time of publication as of February 2006.
For Regionally Significant Vegetation and Habitat Morison and House in LHCCREMS (2003)
developed three categories for vegetation and habitat of regional significance, as follows:
• Vulnerable Communities that have an extant distribution of less than or equal to
30% of their pre-1750 (original) distribution (i.e. they have been heavily cleared) or
less than or equal to 1000 hectares (i.e. they have a restricted distribution). This
included communities that met the criteria for EPBC Act listing as endangered,
vulnerable or severely restricted.
• Specialised Communities defined as communities that provide specialised habitat
for species including rainforest, rocky complexes, riparian, aquatic and estuarine
vegetation. This included communities that were often included in state legislation
such as SEPPs.
• At Risk Communities that have an extant distribution of greater than 30% and less
than or equal to 45% of their pre-1750 distribution. Also included were communities
that met the criteria for EPBC Act listing as having a limited distribution.
Communities in this category that are found in Gosford LGA are now listed as
endangered ecological communities (Map Units 40 and 43).
Bell (2004) undertook a further assessment to consider the degree of threat that each
community faced based on the new Gosford mapping and the relative conservation status of
each community. Bell identified Vulnerable and Specialised Communities for the Gosford LGA
and prioritised the communities in terms of future acquisition and protection. Based on his
assessment Tables 5.7 and 5.8 described Endangered Ecological Communities (or State
Significant Vegetation) and Regionally Significant Vegetation. Figure 5.5 maps these
communities’ distribution.
These take into account new determinations for endangered ecological communities that
occurred since the time of Bell’s report. For example, Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest in
the Sydney Basin Bioregion has now been replaced by Swamp Sclerophyll on Coastal
Floodplain and Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains,
Coastal Saltmarsh and Littoral Rainforest have now all been added to the list.
The Catchment Action Plan includes these categories:
• Listed native vegetation (TSC Act, FMA, EPBC ACT, Rare or Threatened Plants
(ROTAP)
• Vegetation communities (including limited distribution, low reservation status)
• Regional habitat and corridors,
• Old Growth Forest
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 105

• Rainforest
• Wetlands
• Dunes and Headland
• Riparian Vegetation
• Regional Areas of Significance (including Aboriginal Culturally Significant Areas).
The regional mapping program being undertaken by HCCREMS is expected to provide regional
mapping of many of these features at the end of 2006 including regional corridors.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 106

• *As listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 known to occur in
Gosford City at February 2006.
• # Bell (2004) recommended adding additional vegetation communities, all except
Coastal Sand Scrub are now considered to be likely to be included in listed communities.
• Note that Bell mapping is modelled and should not be used in isolation to determine whether a vegetation
community would qualify or not. Detailed site surveys are required for development assessment to determine
vegetation community composition and whether it would qualify or not as an endangered ecological
community.
Source: Based on Bell (2004).
Note: This table contains communities identified as vulnerable and specialised in LHCCREMS 2003,
and as having limited extent and being poorly represented from Bell 2004. It also includes
communities described by Bell 2004 as being Priority 1, 2, 3 or 4 for conservation. Some
communities that would qualify are already considered in the higher category of Endangered
Ecological Communities and are not listed in this table.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 107

Figure 5.5 Endangered ecological communities and other significant vegetation in Gosford City.
Wetlands, rainforest and riparian areas are often singled out for particular consideration in
conservation plans including the catchment action plans. A number of particular issues and
recommendations are associated with these types of vegetation communities and they have
had particular studies devoted to them over the last few years. These communities are
discussed in more detail below.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 108

A - 5.2.4
Rainforest Communities
Gosford City contains examples of littoral, warm temperate/subtropical and dry rainforest
communities. Most significant rainforest areas are already contained within national parks and
COSS reserves although there are still large rainforest remnants on private lands, especially in
the Matcham/ Holgate valley areas. A Rainforest Mapping Study for Gosford was undertaken for
Council in 2002 by Ecological Surveys and Management in association with Trehy Ingold and
Neate Consulting Surveyors (Payne 2002). It included flora lists for 51 sites and a number of
recommendations for Council (see below). Note that not all rainforest areas were mapped by
this study including narrow rainforest gullies. The study found that the majority of rainforest
remnants were infested with lantana and recommended that bush regeneration works be
undertaken as a priority in these areas.
There are very few examples of littoral rainforest in Gosford. Some littoral rainforest areas have
been identified at Little Bay, along the cliff edge north of Patonga, Maitland Bay, The Skillion at
Terrigal and at Spoon Bay north of Forresters Beach (A. Conus pers. comm. July 2005). These
areas need to be further investigated and where necessary mapping updated. Also dry
rainforest areas in the plateau area require further investigation and may have been cleared for
extractive industries (Payne pers comm.). There is a preliminary determination for Lowland
Rainforest to be listed as an endangered ecological community and this would include the
majority of remnant rainforest communities in the Gosford LGA and increase the level of
environmental assessments undertaken for these vegetation communities.
A - 5.2.5
Wetland Communities
Wetlands are considered to be important ecosystems for their role in providing breeding areas
for fish, habitat for migratory birds and other waders and for trapping nutrients that would
otherwise find their way into the adjacent waterways. These are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 6
All wetland communities are now all included in endangered ecological communities (EECs)
listings. There are two freshwater wetland EECs listed, these are Freshwater Wetlands on
Coastal Floodplains and Sydney Freshwater Wetlands. Coastal Saltmarsh is also now
recognised as an EEC Swamp Forest is also associated with wetland communities and in the
Gosford LGA many swamp forest contain the winter flowering swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus
robusta) that is a critical resource for native animals. Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest
has now been replaced by a newer determination, Swamp Sclerophyll on Coastal Floodplain.
Forest Oak is now also listed and is found on higher ground fringing wetland areas.
A - 5.2.6
Riparian or Riverbank Communities
The importance of riparian vegetation is well documented, for example it contributes significantly
to riverbank stability by “affecting resistance to flow, bank strength, sediment storage, bed
stability and stream morphology and is important for aquatic ecosystem function”. (Webb and
Erskine 2003).
Creeklines, gullies and other water sources are considered to be very important for native
animals. A targeted biodiversity study undertaken on behalf of Council (Conacher Travers 2001)
found that moist environments contained the greatest species diversity. Protection of native
vegetation along watercourses will assist native species by providing movement wildlife
corridors and also protect water quality and bank stability.
A report by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2003) recommended that standards
be adopted that aimed to conserve riparian vegetation 50 to 100 metres on either side of major
rivers and wetlands, 20 – 50 metres on either side of creeks and 10 – 20 metres on either side
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 109

of streams for water quality purposes. The Hunter Central Rivers CAP also provides guidelines
on riparian vegetation protection, recommending
A - 5.2.7
Recommendations arising from Previous Mapping Projects
As a result of the vegetation mapping projects that were undertaken for Council a number of
recommendations have been provided for Council.
Summary of Recommendations for Council Bell (2004)
Recommendation
1. Augmentation of the COSS system to ensure that adequate representation of all
vegetation communities and sub-communities are included.
2. Conservation efforts expanded to public and privately owned land outside of
conservation reserves managed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
(now DEC).
3. Expansion of conservation land use zoning to ensure important areas of vegetation
are protected from inappropriate forms of development, including use of
conservation incentives to encourage proper land management.
4. Development of a system to prioritise all remaining remnants of currently listed
Endangered Ecological Communities.
5. Protection of all remaining riparian corridors and associated wetlands and floodplain
communities where native vegetation occurs or is at least moderately well
represented. This would ensure that several significant plant species and vegetation
types (including EEC's) are protected.
6. Preparation of restoration plan for vegetation communities that are currently poorly
represented in a natural state, and for which former habitat under an appropriate
land tenure is available or can become available;
7. Investigation into the status distribution and abundance of significant plant species in
the City; in particular:
• Research on species in those situations where development conflicts arise with
particular species;
• Promote use of conservation incentives to encourage the retention and
management of habitat for significant vegetation types and plant species;
• Vegetation survey in poorly defined or poorly sampled vegetation types to
clarify floristic relationships between the various vegetation units within the
region.
Source: Bell (2004) and comments this report.
In addition, Bell (2004) recommended that a number of vegetation types that should be targeted
for future survey:
• Coastal Ranges Open Forest (Map Unit (E9)
• Wollombi Redgum – River Oak Woodland (E14)
• Hunter Range Grey Gum Forest (E21)
• Alluvial Floodplain Woollybutt Forest (E37b
• Alluvial Floodplain Redgum Forest (E37d)
• Phragmites Rushland (E40a)
• Swamp Oak Sedge Forest (E41)
• Umina Lepironia Sedgeland (E45)
• Freshwater Typha Wetland (E46a)
• Estuarine Saltmarsh/ Grassland (E47a)
• Coastal Sand Foredune Scrub (E50a)
• Coastal Sand Beach Spinifex (E53)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 110

Recommendations from Rainforest Mapping Project
Recommendations
1. Provide a 50 metre buffer for conservation 7(a) zoned lands where they adjoin
rainforest.
2. Where residential subdivision is planned for catchments that contain rainforest
provide a 100 metre buffer to Conservation 7(a) lands.
3. The presence of Eucalyptus saligna and Syncarpia glomulifera along edges of
drainage line should trigger a further search for Gully Rainforest within drainage line.
4. Remnant Littoral Rainforest at Heazlett Park Avoca may qualify under State
Environmental Planning Policy No 19.
5. Dry Rainforests at Peats Ridge Quarry and Glenworth Valley not mapped.
6. Separate zoning established for rainforest with appropriate zoning.
7. List of common indicator species (Included in Appendices).
8. Gullies and other areas with very large Small-leaved Figs Ficus oblique should be
given 'Special Conservation Protection'because of significant for suite of threatened
species.
9. All rainforest maps to be added to Council's fire Planning Maps.
10. GCC and NPWS to coordinate a plan to establish a reserve for the protection of
Prostanthera askania and Silver Aspen Archonychia wilcoxiana on Lot 2 DP 605505
and Lt 2 DP 605752.
11. Develop a conservation plan in co-ordination with Wyong Council's Conservation
Plan to protect large P. askania population at Dog Trap Gully in vicinity of Lots2, 3
and 5 DP 239201 and Lot 14 DP 261303.
12. All Das involving rainforest should include targeted search for threatened fauna
species.
13. Results of the survey re weed infestation
14. Study referred to Heritage Committee for comment regarding 'old road located at
Taylors.
Source: Payne (2002) with additional comments this report.
A - 5.3
A - 5.3.1
Terrestrial Flora
Diversity of Gosford Flora
The richness of terrestrial flora found in Gosford City reflects the diversity of ecosystems found
in the area as well as the LGAs location on the northern edge of the Sydney Basin with its richly
diverse Hawkesbury Sandstone vegetation. As part of the development of the Gosford
Biodiversity Strategy, a list has been compiled of all flora taxa likely to be found in Gosford City
(see Appendix 2 and Table 5.12 for a summary). This list is derived from DEC Atlas records,
specific studies and a database provided by the Society for Growing Australian Plants. This list
is considered to be a starting point only for data collection on known species and it is
recommended that it be reviewed, updated and revised as new information becomes available.
Of the total number of approximately 1400 plant species, at least 330 are introduced and likely
or known to be environmental weeds in bushland areas. Of the 1080 or so native plant species,
eight are considered to be endangered and thirteen are considered to be vulnerable at state
level (see below in Section 5.3.2. Plants such as Prostanthera junonis (Somersby Mintbush)
and P. askania (Tranquillity Mintbush) are only known to occur naturally (i.e. to be endemic) in
the Gosford and Wyong local government areas.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 111

Figures 5.5 - 5.7 Waratah (Telopea speciosissima) close up of flower, Kunzea capitata , Coastal
banksias (Banksia integrifolia). (R. Lonie)
A - 5.3.2
Threatened and Rare Plant Species
Bell (2004) listed 42 significant flora species and found that many are poorly conserved both
within Gosford and the wider LHCC region. In addition, Bell (2004) identifies several
undescribed taxa that have been recorded in the LGA (see Table 5.13) and additional
significant plant species that may potentially occur in the LGA (see Table 5.14). New species
are also be added to the schedules and further survey work will provide more details on the
distribution and population estimates of these species.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 112

Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 113

A - 5.4
A - 5.4.1
Terrestrial Fauna
Diversity of Gosford Fauna
An important feature of the Gosford area is its fauna species diversity, including the high
number of threatened species and animals that occur at the edge of their natural distribution.
There is also a large number of migratory birds that visit the area’s wetlands and threatened
species such as the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater that rely on food resources in the area
at certain times of the year.
As part of the development of the Gosford Biodiversity Strategy a list has been compiled of all
fauna species likely to be found in Gosford City (see Appendix 3). This list is derived from DEC
Atlas records, specific studies and local knowledge. It is noted that this list does not include
invertebrates or fish species. The list is considered to be a starting point only for data collection
on known species and it is recommended that it be reviewed, updated and revised as required
as new information becomes available.
Figures 5.8-5.10 Some popular and fairly common birds seen in Gosford City; the Pelican, King
Parrot and Lyrebird. (R. Lonie)
A - 5.4.2
Threatened Fauna Species
Council maintains a list of fauna species known or likely to occur in the area that are listed at
State level under the (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Fisheries Management
Act 1994 and at Commonwealth level under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 114

Conservation Act 1999 (see Appendix 4). Table 5.15 summarises the numbers of species in
each category.
Of the 60 or so native mammals found in Gosford City,
almost 40% are at risk of becoming endangered in the
next 15 years **.
Other regions such as the North Coast bioregion are
considered to be extremely high in biodiversity however a comparison with Byron Shire in terms
of threatened species numbers shows that Gosford has a comparable high number of
threatened species, reflecting the high biodiversity of the area (See Table 5.16)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 115

A - 5.4.3
Invertebrates
There continues to be a lack of knowledge regarding invertebrates despite this group
comprising an estimated 98% of the animal kingdom (Prime Minister’s Science Council 1992).
The largest group of animal phyla is the arthropods that includes insects, crustaceans and
arachnids. Other invertebrate groups include flatworms, sponges, annelids, molluscs and
echinoderms. This lack of knowledge is the likely reason that only one listed ‘threatened’
invertebrate species is currently known from the LGA, this is the Adams Emerald Dragonfly.
Actions for conserving invertebrates present difficulties. For insects conservation must include
consideration of all lifecycles of the species, for example the needs of the larval and adult form
of the Monarch Butterfly differ. Insects are generally highly mobile (at least in their adult
lifecycle) and have dynamic populations (responding to climatic and seasonal changes).
Samways (in Ponder and Lunney 1999) argues that for their conservation there is a need to
consider the interactions between insects and landscape patterns by considering changes in a
temporal as well as three dimensional way (for example relationships between topography and
geomorphology and climatic and microclimatic factors).
Underwood and Chapman in Ponder and Lunney (1999) state that any study of biodiversity
needs to include information about patterns (such as distribution and abundance) at many
scales, both temporal and spatial. The authors recommended nesting of sample sites and
replicate sampling to improve scientific knowledge in this area. Given this lack of knowledge
further study and consideration should be given to invertebrates when considering biodiversity
conservation.
Figures 5.11 to 5.13 Some examples of locally found invertebrates: a dragonfly, centipede and a
landdwelling gastropod or terrestrial native snail (R. Lonie, J Drudge and R. Lonie).
A - 5.4.4
Fauna Species of Particular Interest
The high species diversity, particularly for threatened species, presents a number of issues for
Council in biodiversity management, particularly with limited staff and budgetary resources. Key
species are selected as actions identified for their protection present the opportunity to offer a
range of benefits to other species. The following particular species are also considered
‘charismatic’ species that are likely to be more easily identified and more readily adopted as key
species for conservation.
Yellow-bellied Gliders
The Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) was identified as a vulnerable species in
1992. The factors identified as leaving the species particularly at risk were that its
population and distribution has been severely reduced, the processes threatening its
survival were considered to be particularly severe, it is an ecological specialist and it has a
poor recovery potential. (NPWS 2003a).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 116

The Recovery Plan for the species states that the major threat is through habitat reduction
and alteration. On the Central Coast localised threats are fragmentation of habitat and
isolation of populations due to urban development, such as through subdivisions in
suitable coastal habitat that have the potential to disrupt movement, isolate habitat and
remove food sources (NPWS 2003a).
Yellow-bellied Gliders have been identified as being a possible indicator or umbrella
species for effective management of forest-dependent fauna (Milledge et. al. 1991,
Kavanagh 1991, Goldingay and Kavanagh 1993, Kavanagh and Bamkin 1995) quoted in
NPWS 2003. The Recovery Plan states “The presence or absence of such species can
indicate habitat quality for a range of other species or communities and can be targeted
when managing and designing conservation reserves so that greater amounts of habitat
will be provided for species with smaller home ranges (Goldingay and Kavanagh 1991,
Goldingay and Possingham 1995). A further advantage of the Yellow-bellied Glider
as an indicator or umbrella species is that habitat requirements relate to measurable
features of the forest overstorey that are easily mapped (Kavanagh 1991).”
Kavanagh (1991) recommended that large gliders and owls be used as target or indicator
species for forest management and provides three main reasons for this. The first is that
there is not enough time, skilled people or financial resources to produce wildlife habitat
models for all species where they occur. Secondly that some species are more sensitive
than others to management regimes and there is a need to bias reserve considerations in
their favour (ie loss of old growth forest). Thirdly, he cites issues of practical
implementation and the fact that preferred habitat for these species can be readily
mapped.
Survey records and distribution modelling for the Yellow-bellied Glider have been
considerably advanced in Gosford City through a research project that was sponsored by
Council (Hawkins 2004). Surveys undertaken for this project resulted in 16 new presence
and 62 absence sites. This project provided a refined habitat model based on the
vegetation mapping prepared by Bell (2004) and the regional model (Whittle et. al. 2004).
This maps high probability of occurrence and known presence records in the eastern part
of the LGA with major areas being the Bouddi peninsular, Kincumba Mountain and
Katandra Reserve/Wambina Reserve and other areas in Matcham/Holgate. Linkages
between these areas and through to other major habitat areas is considered critical for the
species viability.
Koalas
The Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) was identified as a vulnerable species at State level
in. Major threats are habitat loss by clearing and tree dieback, and death and injury by
cars and dog attacks. Records for Koalas in the Gosford LGA are largely within the
Brisbane Water National Park although there are some records in Point Clare, Erina
Heights, Lisarow, Matcham and Kulnura. Recent sightings have been around Patonga
and Pearl Beach, along the National Park boundary to the west in Umina Beach and Woy
Woy and in the Kulnura area but there are other records in the broader peninsular area
(NPWS Atlas data). There is also a recent record at Erina Heights (D. Beckers pers
comm. 2004).
A NSW survey in 1986-87 (Reed et al. 1990) found that Koala distribution was closely
linked to tree species that were restricted to high nutrient soils such as river valleys which
have been extensively cleared for agriculture. A local Koala Survey and Habitat Mapping
project was carried out for Brisbane Water National Park and Popran National Park
(Ecotone 1996). The report stated that the Brisbane Water Koala colony could be
considered to possibly represent the largest coastal population between the Hunter River,
south to the Victorian border and should therefore be regarded as extremely significant.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 117

A draft Recovery Plan has been prepared for the species (NPWS 2003b). This includes
recommendations for identifying and conserving important Koala habitat, preparation of
Koalas Plans of Management, road design and signage, and surveys and further
research. State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 - Koala Habitat Protection also
applies to the assessment and protection of core Koala habitat. Potential Koala habitat is
described as areas of native vegetation where listed trees constitute as least 15% of the
total number of trees in the upper or lower strata of the tree component. In considering
development proposals Council must consider whether potential Koala habitat exists and
if so whether the area is core Koala habitat that is an area with a resident population of
Koalas, evidenced by attributes such as breeding females and recent and historical
records of a population.
The impact of fire including high intensity bushfire is identified as a threat to Koalas, both
through direct death or injury from fire in the canopy and reduced areas for foraging. Also
it may alter flora species composition. Ecotone note that a severe fire could kill a large
proportion of the Brisbane Water NP population, such as occurred in the Port Stephens
area in 1994 when 6,000 hectares of known or potential Koala habitat was burnt. After this
fire, volunteers found 46 dead and 53 live Koalas (NPWS 2003b).
Dogs and cars are identified as major threats, particularly in existing residential areas as
the animals come down at night-time to move to other feed trees. Dog attacks can also
occur in backyards as Koalas can climb fences and may cross yards to get to feed trees.
Even a quick bite from a dog may be enough to kill a koala as their skin is very pliable and
internal organs are easily punctured (The Australian Koala Foundation Newsletter June
1996).
Ecotone (1996) also note the importance of coastal flats which historically would probably
have provided prime feeding historically and the fact that these areas are not represented
in National Park estate. The report recommends planting of food trees in disturbed areas
such as the former sanitary depot near Ettalong Swamp within Brisbane Water National
Park. A combined tree planting campaign is recommended (DEC and GCC) in areas
known to be koala habitat. Areas in Patonga, Pearl Beach, Umina Beach and Woy Woy
may be identified. It is noted that recent works by Council along the Ettymalong or
Kahibah Creek involved tree removal within the creek bank but involved supplementary
tree planting on the higher banks and elsewhere in this area as well as extensive bush
regeneration (GCC 2003).
List of Koala browse trees for Gosford
Eucalyptus punctata - Grey gum (this appears to be the principal feed tree preferred by
Koalas in the Gosford area, see Ecotone 1996).
E. robusta Swamp Mahogany
E. tereticornis - Forest Red Gum
E botryoides - Bangalay
E. piperita - Sydney Peppermint
E. paniculata - Grey Ironbark
Native species that are rare in the area but may be food trees:
E amplifolia - Cabbage Gum
E. longifolia - Woollybutt
Planting of Swamp Mahoganies would also benefit other species as they are an important
food resource in the winter months. A migratory species from Tasmania, Swift Parrots ()
were recorded utilising swamp mahoganies in the Umina Beach area in xx. Swamp
mahoganies are known to be an important species for at least ten threatened species
including the Regent Honeyeater (), Grey Headed Flying Fox and
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 118

Large Forest Owls
The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenbricosa), Masked Owl (Tyto
novaehollandiae) are found in forests in coastal, escarpment and tableland areas and are
considered to be widespread although uncommon. Powerful Owl habitat extends to the
western slopes of NSW and Masked Owl habitat extends further west into the western
plains and is less common in heavily forested areas. Sooty Owls prefer the wettest and
most fertile areas along the coastal areas. All three are largely found in reserves and state
forest areas but are known to occur within large areas of forest on public lands and private
lands including suburban bushland (NSW NPWS 2005). Few records exist for Sooty Owls
on private lands.
Due to the apparently small size of the populations, their vulnerability to vegetation
clearing and intensive logging these species are considered to be vulnerable in NSW
(NSW NPWS 2005). All three owl species are associated with ‘old growth’ forests (i.e.
greater than 60 years old with significant tree hollows). For example, the owls’ prey
species require tree hollows that form in trees greater than 120 years and for nesting and
roosting the owls require tree hollows that form in trees greater than 165 –250 years of
age (Mackowski 1984, Lindenmayer et al. 1991, Milledge et al. 1991 quoted in NSW
NPWS 2005). It has been found however that the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl can forage
in forest that is greater than 20 years old provided that older-aged forest is nearby
(Kavanagh 1997 quoted in NSW NPWS 2005). An important prey species for the Powerful
and Sooty Owl in many areas is the Common Ringtail Possum and this prey species does
not require tree hollows provided that there is a dense shrub layer present in which they
can build a drey (NSW NPWS 2005).
Although able to disperse over tens of kilometres through a mosaic of forested and
cleared land (NSW NPWS 2005), clearing of vegetation and fragmentation permanently
removes foraging and breeding habitat for the owls. To address these issues the draft
Recovery Plan suggests that : “ It is likely that populations can be recovered through
habitat improvement in both forestry and nonforestry situations, by protecting strategic
habitat corridors across the landscape, by protection or improvement of the owls’ prey
base, and by control of introduced predators.“ (NSW NPWS 2005)
.
As these birds are at the top of the food chain, and are hollow dependant carnivores that
prey on species that are also hollow dependant, they are good “umbrella” or indicator
species. Implementation of the draft Recovery Plan is therefore argued to benefit all nontarget
species lower down the food chain (NSW NPWS 2005). Also, the large forest owls
are considered “management indicator species whose populations, as determined by
regular monitoring, reveal the health of forest ecosystems” (Milledge et al. 1991, Debus
1994a, b, Kavanagh 1991 and 1997 quoted in NSW NPWS 2005).
Recommendations in the draft Recovery Plan include adoption of conservation protocols
for development activities based on current accepted protocols for state forest lands such
as buffer areas, improved mapping of owl habitat and research on key aspects of their
biology and ecology, and improved community awareness and involvement in their
ecology. The plan also seeks to integrate actions with other recovery plans such as for the
Yellow-bellied Glider.
Regional surveys and habitat modelling have been undertaken for the owl species
although locations of owl territory have not been mapped and the distribution of owls on
privately-owned land and other areas remains poorly known (NSW NPWS 2005).
Regional habitat models for Powerful Owls, Sooty Owls and Masked Owls were prepared
by Wintle et. al. (2004) and lat er revised (Wintle et. al. 2005). For the Masked and
Powerful Owl, the habitat models were only considered ‘satisfactory’ only. Wintle
discusses the problems in the use of models including the limitations of the ‘equilibrium’
assumption and a static approach to wildlife habitat modelling. An example of this is the
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 119

assumption that occupancy of a site implies suitability of habitat as individuals may
survive in areas that will be unsuitable for the next generation.
A - 5.5
Fungi and Microbial Biodiversity
Very little is known about fungi species and microorganisms and their importance to biodiversity.
It has been estimated that there are 250,000 species of fungi in Australia, of which
approximately only 5% have been formally described (Australian State of the Environment
Committee 2001). At the present rate of 200 new species recorded each year it will take more
than 1000 years to catalogue all the species in Australia (May, T.W. 1997). It is unknown how
many species exist in the Gosford local government area.
Figures 5.15 – 5.17 Some examples of local fungi, Ghost Fungi Omphalotus nidiformis, Starfish Fungi
Aseroe rubra that attracts insects with its fetid smell, and a Bracket Fungi Trametes
sp. (photos N. Bennetts).
In 1996 the Fungimap program was established through the Field Naturalist Club Victoria. This
program is designed to map the distribution of 100 target species. Around forty of these species
can be found in the Gosford area. An annual foray to the area is held in peak fungi season
(March - May) by the Sydney Fungal Studies Group and many species are collected, identified
and recorded. Fungimap are sent details of any target species found. However, very little is
known about the species that occur in Gosford and no data or herbaria has been stored.
In 2004 an informal local fungi group was established to address the lack of information on local
fungi species. The Central Coast Fungi Group holds workshops and forays to introduce
bushcarers and other interested people to fungi and to begin to collect and record data on the
species found locally. However without adequate funding and support the group can only
operate at a basic level. Ideally, surveys should be conducted in all habitats throughout the year
and intensively in the peak season. A list of fungal species for Katandra Reserve has been
compiled and is constantly being updated, similarly for Mill Creek in Dharug National Park (see
Appendix 2). Regular surveys will begin at Katandra reserve in early 2006.
Little is known about fungi and the way they interact within the ecosystems they occupy or their
range. Ignorance of fungal diversity and biology is a significant threat that will contribute to the
loss or decline of species (Scott et al. 1997). One example of a complex relationship is a fungi
which grows in the rotten wood of decomposing logs and stumps and whose sporocarps (or
fruiting bodies) provide nutrients and energy to insects and mammals (Maser et al. 1979 quoted
in Scotts 1991).
Microorganisms are also important components in nutrient cycling but are also poorly studied
and understood. Conservation of natural bushland, including fallen timber and logs, is required
to protect fungi and micro-organisms and the complex interrelationships that they have with
other natural resources.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 120

A - 5.6
Significant Habitat
In addition to vegetation communities and individual species singled out for particular attention,
significant habitat features may be identified with corresponding recommendations for their
conservation. These are described below.
A - 5.6.1
Tree Hollows and other ‘Old Growth’ Values
Figures 5.18 and 5.19 Tree hollows are homes for lots of native animals including owls, bats and
gliders.
Hollows in living and dead trees provide homes for a large number of native animals. In studies
of the importance of hollows for fauna, Gibbons and Lindenmayer (2003) found that the
following percentages of all known species in Australia use hollows to nest in and shelter:
• 27 (or 13%) of amphibian species,
• 79 (or 10%) reptile,
• 114 (or 15%) birds, and
• 83 (or 31%) of mammals.
Gibbons and Lindermayer found that there was a concentration of hollow utilising species in
closed forest (32%) (a vegetation community that occupies 0.6 % of the continent) compared to
70% in woodland (covering 42% of the continent). This emphasizes the importance of closed
forest (or rainforest) communities.
Hollows form in mature trees and may be associated with areas of ‘old growth’ forest. In one
study it was shown that Blackbutts (Eucalyptus pilularis) take 150 years to develop hollows
(Mackowski 1984). Although definitions of old growth forest vary, Scotts (1991) provides some
important characteristics that include:
• Vertical diversity resulting from the presence of more than one tree age-class
• Individual live trees that are either old (i.e. over 150 years old) or large (greater than
1 metre diameter at breast height (dbh))
• Have stags (standing dead trees) and logs that are large (i.e. greater than 0.5m
diameter and greater than 6 metres in length) present in significant numbers.
• Protection of old growth forest was an important aspect of the regional forest
agreements to conserve important areas for biodiversity.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 121

Variables such as ‘proportion of old growth forest in 2km’, ‘hollows’ index and ‘decorticating
bark’ and other related variables have been shown to be good predictors of forest owl and
arboreal marsupial distributions (Kavanagh and Bamkin 1995).
One of the features of old growth areas is that there are fallen logs remaining in a forested area.
The value of logs is also discussed by Scotts (1991). Micro-organisms, invertebrates, vertebrate
and invertebrates all use logs for shelter, as a food resource, reproduction, basking, nesting and
lookout sites (Maser and Trappe 1984 quoted in Scotts). Reptiles, amphibians and small
mammals, in particular, utilise logs for shelter and they may become important refuges during
fire (Scotts 1991). Old growth forest is also important for nitrogen recycling and fixation in the
soil.
For many animals old growth forest is the optimum habitat for both foraging, or nesting, or both.
Some of the threatened species that occur in the Gosford LGA that utilise hollows include:
• Broad-headed Snake
• Pale-headed Snake
• Stephen's Banded Snake
• Glossy Black Cockatoo
• Swift Parrot
• Powerful Owl
• Barking Owl
• Sooty Owl
• Yellow Bellied Sheathtail Bat
• Greater Horseshoe Bat
• Large Eared Horseshoe Bat
• Large Footed Myotis
• Greater Broad Nosed Bat
• East Coast Freetail Bat
• Spotted Tailed Quoll
• Brush Tailed Phascogale
• Squirrel Glider
• Eastern Pygmy Possum
(List based on Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002 and DEC Atlas records).
Old growth mapping is not available locally or regionally. A regional fauna survey and mapping
project (Wintle 2004) recommended the collation of forest-growth stage information for the
region to improve the predictive performance of habitat models and provide information
regarding important areas of old-growth forest in the region. At a local scale, no mapping has
been done that identifies the age and condition of areas that would assist in identifying key
habitat. A regional vegetation mapping project currently being undertaken by HCCREMS aims
to provide regional vegetation condition mapping based on the interpretation of satellite imagery
however no products are yet available.
Important habitat trees remain around the Bensville/ Kincumber area (pers. comm. Payne and
pers.obs.) as isolated very mature trees containing multiple hollows. Some of these trees such
as large Angophora costata and Eucalyptus pilularis are estimated to be over 100 – 250 years
old. Retention of hollow bearing trees is an important action for biodiversity conservation.
A - 5.6.2
Wildlife Corridors and Linkages
Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat (such as remnant vegetation, feed or hollow bearing trees,
caves, roadsides, wetlands and waterways) that form connections between larger areas of
vegetation, particularly reserves and national parks. Corridors contribute to the protection of
biodiversity as they aid the movement of species. They do not necessarily form linear
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 122

connections but may provide “stepping stones” in an otherwise modified urban environment.
Corridors enable movement and interaction of plants and animals – both on a physical and
genetic level. Without these corridors some species, such as small ground dwelling mammals
would be unable to move between habitat areas, particularly in the event of natural disasters
such as through bushfire or flood and human disturbances.
Corridors are vital to species being able to maintain viable populations, enabling species to
cross pollinate or interbreed and maintain genetic diversity. Without adequate linkages species
evolve in isolation, perhaps unable to breed and in the longer term are likely to become extinct
in isolated areas. The long term result of not protecting linkages is that isolated patches of
vegetation become ‘sink habitats’. These are areas where the death rate of native species
exceeds the birth rate, ultimately resulting in declining species abundance and the risk of
extinction for these populations. One example of an island or sink habitat is Blackwall Mountain
Reserve, which is isolated by roads and lack of connectivity to other reserves in the area.
A considerable amount has been written about the value of corridors for native animals
(Saunders and Hobbs 1993, Saunders and Hobbs 1991 Hussey et al 1991, Lindemayer 1994)
including debate about their value (Bonner 1994 etc).
Not all areas of native vegetation may function as a wildlife corridor and not all species will
utilise the corridor in the same way. For example, Yellow-bellied Gliders (Petaurus australis) are
likely to require a minimum of 100 metre corridors plus tall trees to enable gliding as well as
adequate numbers of hollow bearing and feed trees. Studies done on invertebrates by Mader
indicate that < 6 metre roads can pose a total barrier which insects and spiders will not cross
(Bennett 1990). This needs careful consideration as invertebrates are an important food source
for small mammals and permanently limiting their range can limit the range of other species
which depend on it.
Condition may also be a disincentive or barrier to animal movement. Small mammals may
require good coverage such as a dense shrub layer before they will move across areas. A study
on radiotelemetry of tagged mice (Bennett 1990) demonstrated that they preferred to move in
fencerows rather than in more open landscape elements. Other studies have indicated that
gaps < 10 metres can inhibit their movement. (Bennett 1990). Barnett et al. (1978) showed that
gaps of more than 3 metres appeared to inhibit movements of Brown Antechinus and Bush Rat
(Bennett 1990).
A - 5.6.3
Regional Corridor Planning
Payne (2001) undertook field surveys on behalf of the CCCEN to investigate wildlife corridors in
the Gosford, Wyong and Lake Macquarie local government areas. Payne identified “keystone
habitats” that comprise resources that are essential to the survival of particular species. These
were sites that contained Swamp Mahogany forest (MU 37) that may support a suite of fauna
species including 10 threatened species; and Scribbly Gum Forest (MU 15) where a Banksia sp.
understorey is present and occurs in close proximity to Swamp Mahogany forest as a crucial
habitat for the Squirrel Glider (Smith 2000) and also for woodland. Bluegum Gully Forests and
Gully Rainforests that have a specialised understorey frugivorous component were considered
to be important for fruit eating pigeons. Sydney Bluegum and Swamp Mahogany are considered
important resources for the Yellow-bellied Glider.
Payne (2001) provides recommendations for where major regional corridors should occur noting
that Gosford was fortunate to have some of these areas protected as National Park and COSS
areas. It was observed that as the COSS lands are primarily on ridgelands that connectivity has
been lost with few connections along the valley floors such as Erina Creek to connect the major
ridges of Mount Kincumba, Rumbalara and Bouddi. Payne noted that it is important that the two
councils work together to maintain a connection over the Ridgeway from the Gosford LGA to the
Wyong LGA. Specific recommendations for connectivity are to link Rumbalara to the Ridgeway,
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 123

Mount Kincumba to Bouddi NP and Copacabana and Cockle Bay NR to Bensville and
Copacabana.
LHCCREMS (2003) mapped Regionally Significant Habitat and Regionally Significant Habitat
Linkages at a coarse regional scale. The Regionally Significant Habitat Linkages map identifies
six broad ‘linkages’ in Gosford LGA. The report states that “maintenance of these linkages will
facilitate the movement of species within and across the region assisting maintaining vital
ecological processes and routes”. HCCREMS is now mapping regional corridors as part of its
development of the Central Coast Regionally Significant Vegetation Mapping project.
A ‘Key Habitats and Corridors’ project undertaken by the Northern Zone of the then NPWS
(Scotts 2003) was based on 120 forest fauna species habitat models covering the NSW north
coast region. It provides a systematic conservation assessment across the landscape
determined by species habitat models rather than the extent and location of remaining
vegetation patches. Regional corridors were defined as those greater than 1,000 kms (based on
Bennett) with a threshold width of greater than or equal to twice the home range of the fauna
species. Land tenure was used as a weighting based on the judgement that fauna could move
more easily through national parks, then state forests and then private lands.
The Lower Hunter and Central Coast regions were also included in this study however the data
layers were considered to be coarser and more unreliable that elsewhere. Consequently the
published report does not include this area and mapping was not released to this region. The
HCCREMS has involved David Scotts who undertook the NPWS project in its regional mapping
project. At a forum in November 2005 the regional Corridors and Key Habitat Mapping was
presented and reviewed by Council staff from the Gosford, Wyong and Lake Macquarie
Councils.
It is expected that Scott’s mapping will form the basis for regional corridor mapping in the
Central Coast region. This will considerably improve the previous mapping and will incorporate
more recent data such as Gosford’s local vegetation mapping. It is noted that the Key Habitats
and Corridors mapping did not consider species that were not forest dependant and vegetation
communities such as wetlands were therefore not included.
The regional habitat models (Whittle et al. 2004) for seven priority threatened fauna species
may also assist in further refining a regional conservation assessment. It is noted though that
these cover only a small proportion of threatened fauna, and do not consider flora species or
aquatic flora and fauna. Population viability studies could also improve this conservation
assessment. A bio-forecasting tool being developed by DECC may also enable greater
consideration of future impacts as a result of landuse decision making and is being trialled in the
Hunter region.
Morison and House, on behalf of LHCCREMS (2003) previously mapped RSV. Noting the
limitations of modelling, as documented in the report and elsewhere, the report writers provide
modeled pre 1750 habitat and current habitat and some preliminary conservation targets based
on a 30% target. Limitations of this approach include uncertainty regarding pre 1750
distribution, growth stage information, connectivity and individual species requirements. The
study did not include population viability analyses for each species as it was outside the scope
of the study but it was recommended that this approach be explored as a future research
priority in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region. A further key recommendation was the
collation of forest-growth stage information for the region to improve the predictive performance
of habitat models and provide information regarding important areas of old-growth forest in the
region.
The use of vegetation communities as a surrogate for biodiversity has its limitations. The use of
fauna habitat models may assist in conservation planning by adding consideration of fauna
needs to the equation. Fauna habitat models were developed for some key regional fauna
species; these were the Koala, Tiger Quoll, Squirrel Glider, Yellow-bellied Glider, Masked Owl,
Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl (Whittle et. al. 2004). The authors of the report discuss issues
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 124

associated with setting targets such as the JANIS criteria (minimum 15%) and inherent trade
offs. For example, the report notes the need to consider what we want to conserve and what
degree of reliability we will adopt in terms of conservation protection. To increase the reliability,
increased reserved or protected lands will be required.
Whittle et. al. (2004) note that expectations and reliability are social not ecological judgements
and that explicit tradeoffs are required among social values; the comprehensive planning
process needs to make these trade-offs transparent. For this reason there is a clear need to
involve the community in a process that makes costs, benefits and uncertainties transparent
(p49 Whittle et. al. 2004). Also the best available information, including that of species experts,
and sound local knowledge must be used. Fauna models are discussed further under Section
7.4.3.
A - 5.6.4
Local Corridor Mapping
Draft corridor mapping was prepared for Gosford in c.1999 that identified primary and
secondary areas in the coastal parts of the City. A further draft has been prepared based on
local scale vegetation mapping (Bell 2004), parcel size, conservation and other landuse
zonings, riparian areas and proximity to other vegetated areas. It also considered a habitat
model for the Yellow-bellied Glider (Hawkins 2004). Where adequate vegetated areas no longer
exist areas are mapped as high priority for restoration and replanting.
Consideration was given to whether the use of the regional fauna habitat models (Whittle et. al.
2004) could be used to support the Gosford corridor mapping but they were considered to be
too broad and inaccurate to be a major determinate for corridors. Also habitat and possible
corridor requirements for these species varies greatly (such as for the Spotted-tailed Quoll).
Conclusions
The diversity of terrestrial plants, animals and ecosystems makes Gosford City a richly
biodiverse area. The high number of endangered ecological communities and species however
presents many management challenges. Resources such as local scale mapping assists
Council in setting strategic planning priorities, especially to conserve state and regionally
significant vegetation. However, effective biodiversity conservation requires other factors to be
considered, especially the connectivity and condition of bushland areas and wildlife corridors.
The use of ‘umbrella’ species is recommended to determine broad conservation objectives and
strategic objectives, as is obtaining further information on old growth areas and vegetation
condition. An emphasis should be given to retaining corridor linkages and hollow bearing trees
and to restoring degraded bushland.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 125

A - 5.7
References
Anon (1996) 'Seven Misconceptions about Koalas and Dogs'(Authorised by the Koala Action Group
Inc,Queensland) in the Australian Koala Foundation Newsletter June 1996
Australian State of Environment Committee (2001) Australia State of the Environment 2001 Independent
Reportto the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of
the Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra
Bennett, A.F. (1990) Habitat Corridors, Their role in wildlife management and conservation, Department
of Conservation and Environment, Victoria.
Benson, D.H. (1986) The vegetation of the Gosford and Lake Macquarie 1:100 000 vegetation map
sheet.Cunninghamia 1(4): 467-489.
Benson, D.H. (1981) Vegetation of Upper Mangrove Creek, Wyong, New South Wales. Cunninghamia 1
(1): 7-22.
Benson, J.S. & Fallding, H. (1981) Vegetation survey of Brisbane Water National Park and environs.
Cunninghamia 1(1):79-113.
Benson, D.H. & Howell, J. (1994) The natural vegetation of the Sydney 1:100 000 map sheet.
Cunninghamia 3(4): 679-787.
Biosis Research (2002) Western COSS Assessment, Natural and Cultural Heritage Consultants,
Chippendale.
Bonner, J. (1994) “Wildlife’s roads to nowhere” in New Scientist no.1939, 20 Aug 1994, pp.30-34.
Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. (1996) Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO, Canberra.
Byron Shire Council (2004) Byron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy , Byron Shire Council.
Central Coast Catchment Management Board (2003) Central Coast Catchment Blueprint NSW
Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Ecotone Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd (1996) Brisbane Water National Park and Popran National Park
Koala Survey and Habitat Mapping, unpublished report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Ecotone Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd, Waratah.
Ecotone Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd (2001) Final Report Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Fauna Survey And Mapping Project - Module 1 - Fauna Surveys
Ecotone EcologicalConsultants Pty Ltd on behalf of the Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional
Environmental Management Strategy,Waratah.
Gosford City Council (2003) Kahibah Creek Riparian Management Plan and Sub Plan for North Pearl
Estate,unpublished report for Council.
Hussey, B.M.J., Hobbs R.J. and Saunders, D.A. (1989) Guidelines for Bush Corridors, from
Workshop/Conference organising committee on “Nature Conservation : the role of corridors”, W.A.
LHCCREMS (2003) Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy
Comprehensive Project Report 2002, Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental
Management Strategy, Callaghan NSW.
Mackowski C M (1984) ‘The ontogeny of hollows in blackbutt Eucalyptus pilularis and its relevance to the
management of forests for possums, gliders and timber’ in Possums and Gliders A P Smith and I D Hume
(Eds) Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 126

Milledge et. al. (1991), Kavanagh 1991, Godlingay and Kavanagh 1993, Kavanagh and Bamkin 1995)
quoted inYBG TAP.
Murphy, C.L. & Tille, P.J. (1993) Soil landscapes of the Gosford-Lake Macquarie 1:100 000 sheet -
Map.Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Murray, M., Bell, S., & Hoye, G. (2001) Lower Hunter and Central Coast Flora and Fauna Survey
Guidelines. Version 1.0. Prepared for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental
Management Strategy.November 2001.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Forest ecosystem classification and mapping for the
Hunter sub -region in the Lower North East Comprehensive Regional Assessment. A project undertaken
for the Joint Commonwealth-NSW Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee as part of the NSW
Comprehensive Regional Assessments.Project No. NL 10E/H & NL 02/ EH. CRA Unit, Sydney Zone
NPWS. March 1999.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000a) Vegetation survey, classification and mapping - Lower
Hunter and Central Coast Region. A project undertaken for the Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional
Environmental Strategy by CRA Unit, Sydney Zone NPWS.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000b) Mapping potential habitat of threatened flora species
occurring in the Lower Hunter and Central Coast region. NPWS CRA Unit, Sydney Zone.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000c) Somersby Mintbush Prostanthera junonis Recovery
Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, November 2000.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003a) Recovery Plan for the Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus
australis) NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003b) Draft Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos
cinereus) NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2005) Draft Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls Powerful
Owl Ninox strenua, Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa, Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae, NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
Payne, R. (1997) Wetland mapping survey of coastal wetlands. Unpublished report and mapping for
Gosford City Council.
Payne, R. (2002) Rainforest Mapping, Gosford City. Unpublished Report and Mapping to Gosford City
Council.
Ponder W and Lunney D (eds) (1999) The Other 99% The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates
Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Prime Minister’s Science Council (1992) Scientific Aspects of Major Environmental Issues: Biodiversity
papers presented by two independent working groups for consideration by the Prime Minister’s Science
Council at its sixth meeting 18 May 1992, Office of the Chief Scientist, Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet, Canberra.
Reed P C, Lunney D and Walker P (1990) “A 1986-87 survey of the koala Phascolarctos cinereus
(Goldfuss) in Nw South Wales and an ecological interpretation of its distribution” in Biology of the Koala
ed. by A. K Lee, K. A Handasyde and G D Sanson Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney .
Saunders, D.A and Hobbs R.J. (eds) (1991) Nature Conservation 2 the role of corridors Surrey Beatty
and Sons, Chipping Norton New South Wales.
Saunders, D.A and Hobbs R.J. and Ehrlich, PR (eds ) (1993) Nature Conservation 3 reconstruction of
fragmented ecosystems , global and regional perspectives Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton New
South Wales.
Scott, G.A.M, Entwisle, T.J, May, T.W & Stevens, G.N. (1997) A Conservation Overview of Australian
NonmarineLichens, Bryophytes, Algae and Fungi, Environment Australia, Canberra. ISBN 0 642 21399 2
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 127

Scotts D (1991) “Old-growth forests: their ecological characteristics and value to forest-dependent
vertebrate fauna of south-east Australia” in Lunney D (1991) Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna,
The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman Australia.
Webb A and Erskine W (2003) “A practical scientific approach to riparian vegetation rehabilitation in
Australia”, Journal of Environmental Management Vol 68/4 pp 329-341.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2003) A New Model for Landscape Conservation in New
South Wales, February 2003 (at http://www.clw.csiro.au/new/)
Wintle B, Elith J and Potts J (2005) HCCREMS Fauna survey and mapping project. Module 2. Habitat
modeling and conservation requirements: Revision of fauna models and final report, unpublished report
prepared for HCCREMS by the University of Melbourne.
Wilson, A and Lindenmayer, D. (1996) “Wildlife Corridors - Their potential role in the conservation of
biodiversity in rural Australia”, Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol.9, No.2, May.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 128

A - 6.0 AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY
This section describes aquatic habitats in the Gosford Local Government Area. It collates
information from a variety of documents and reports prepared to address coastal
resource management, locally and regionally. It highlights important gaps in our
knowledge of local aquatic biodiversity and processes that impact it.
Key points
• Estuarine ecosystems contain critical habitats that require greater conservation
effort.
• There is little information available about the marine environments.
• The coastal lagoons are suffering from urban development, which needs to be
addressed with a review of management practices.
• The major tributary creeks of Brisbane Water are polluted.
• Smaller creeks are choking up with weeds and sediments.
A - 6.1
Introduction
Within the Gosford City Council local government area there is an incredible diversity of aquatic habitats.
The area includes freshwater and marine wetlands, rivers, creeks, estuaries, lagoons, beaches, coastal
reefs and rock platforms (Figure 6.1). The majority of these habitats are in relatively good condition and
support a healthy diversity of aquatic flora and fauna. Other habitats, such as urban streams and
particularly the coastal lagoons, are under huge presure from development.
The Gosford LGA is located within the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion, which extends
south from the Hunter River at Newcastle to Shellharbour. This bioregion is one of 65 marine
bioregions that cover the Australian coast (Breen et al. 2005). Brisbane Water and the
Hawkesbury River are of particular importance because of their extensive stands of mangroves
and saltmarsh, which are the second largest, within this bioregion, after Port Stephens.
Brisbane Water is the major feature of the area with Gosford situated on the northern shore.
This waterway includes many bays, islands and the large Kincumber Broadwater to the east. It
has a fairly narrow and restricted channel to Broken Bay which provides limited tidal flushing.
The Hawkesbury River meets Broken Bay near Lion Island and Mangrove, Popran, Mooney
Mooney, Mullet and Patonga Creeks all flow into it. Coastal estuaries (or intermittently closed
and open lakes and lagoons (ICOLLS)) are found at Wamberal, Terrigal, Bulbararing Lagoon
and Avoca Lake and Cockrone Lagoon. These have restricted sea connection and would
naturally, over considerable time, close completely.
Major coastal creeks are Narara, Erina, Nunns, Egan, Kincumber, Saltwater, Cockrone and
Kahibah Creeks. There are also some freshwater lagoons remaining, most notably the Lisarow
Wetlands, Everglades Wetland and Illuka Lagoons on the Umina Sandplain. All have been
modified and impacted by surrounding developments that has altered their natural hydrological
regimes. More extensive freshwater wetlands would once have existed on much of the low lying
areas of the eastern parts of the LGA.
Rocky reefs and rock platforms occur along the coast and beaches stretch from Patonga, along
the edges of Broken Bay to Forrester's Beach in the north.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 129

A - 6.2
Aquatic Habitats
A - 6.2.1
Estuaries
An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal water body within which seawater is measurably diluted
with fresh water derived from land drainage.
Estuaries are dynamic ecosystems, effectively open at either end and under the influence of a
complexity of physical, chemical and biological processes. They are influenced by freshwater
input from rivers, creeks, groundwater and stormwater runoff. These inflows vary in volume,
rates of flow and chemical and biological content depending upon climate, geology, geography
and land use within the drainage catchment. Marine processes, such as tidal and oceanic
currents, as well as their associated chemical and biological content, also influence estuarine
ecosystems. Estuarine processes are characterised by the diametrically opposed processes of
stratification and mixing of freshwater and seawater. These processes in turn define the habitats
and control recruitment and settlement through processes such as larval transport, salination,
flocculation and sedimentation, eutrophication, deposition and scouring, pollutant accumulation
and flushing, and bio-chemical processes such as de-oxygenation and reduction (Freewater,
2004). Estuaries support a variety of habitats and a brief description of these habitats and their
importance to estuarine ecological integrity is provided below.
Unvegetated soft sediments
These habitats, which include shallow mud flats, sand flats and deeper soft substrate areas, are
an important component of Gosford's estuaries, because they support a diversity of benthic
(bottomdwelling) invertebrates. The most common are crustaceans (such as crabs and prawns),
polychaetes (worms, generally hidden in the sediment) and molluscs (snails and shellfish).
Invertebrates are an important prey item for many fish species of commercial and recreational
fishing value. They are also important prey items for many birds.
Marine invertebrates, like their terrestrial cousins, are the most abundant and diverse group of
animals found in any habitat. They are also the most important group from an ecological
perspective because of their importance as a food source for nearly all higher level predators.
Yet, they are the least understood and many invertebrate species found in Gosford are still
undescribed. Council is currently surveying the benthic invertebrates of Brisbane Water to
partially address this data gap.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 130

Mangroves
There are two species of mangrove found in the Gosford area; Avicennia marina (Grey
Mangrove) and Argiceras corniculatum (River Mangrove). Mangroves are an important fish
habitat (Freewater 2004). Fish feed among the mangroves at high tide and seek refuge within
channels of permanent water as water levels fall. Mangroves provide a solid substrate for
oysters, barnacles and seaweeds, with more mobile animals such as crabs and molluscs living
among the encrusting organisms (Figure 6.2). Decomposing materials from mangroves form the
basis of detrital food chains that sustain small invertebrates which are in turn eaten by fish.
Fallen timber, aerial roots (which include pneumatophores) and crab burrows all add to the
structural complexity of mangrove habitat, providing feeding opportunities and shelter. Within
channels of permanent water, exposed roots and submerged snags do likewise. In Gosford,
many of the commercially important marine and estuarine species live in mangrove channels as
small juveniles; examples include juvenile yellowfin bream, luderick, silverbiddy, sea mullet and
flat -tail mullet.
Mangrove forests also act as filters by trapping sediments and contaminants and by absorbing
nutrients (Freewater 2004). The complex of pneumatophores, roots, trunks and densely packed
seedlings within a mangrove forest slows water movement, thereby causing sediment to settle.
Mangroves thus help to protect other marine habitats from sedimentation and have been shown
to convert excess nutrients into extra growth; this normally being limited by the supply of
nitrogen and phosphorus (Freewater 2004). Mangroves also help to stabilise banks and protect
them from erosion. The role of mangroves in ameliorating the impact of stormwater runoff must
therefore be
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 131

considered. This is true for all riparian and emergent vegetation.
Although mangroves are protected under NSW Fisheries legislation, they are now considered to
be opportunistic. They have become particularly prolific around creek deltas where mud is
accumulating. Their ability to trap and accumulate sediments has resulted has seen their
expansion into creeks and other waterways, limiting or denying navigation of marine craft. They
are also encroaching into and displacing saltmarsh habitats. This has become an issue of
particular concern because saltmarsh habitats have already been considerably reduced in the
area as a result of urban expansion.
Saltmarshes
Saltmarshes play a similar water filtration role to that outlined for mangroves. Biofilms
associated with emergent vegetation and root systems are extremely effective in binding
contaminants. The high density of saltmarsh plants makes them excellent pollutant filtration
systems. Stormwater flows to these systems slow, facilitating the removal of sediments,
particulate matter and dissolved contaminants. The habitat is poorly conserved in NSW as
continuously more is cleared for development.
In Gosford, the frontal levee of the saltmarsh is typically dominated by Sporobolus viginicus, but
where drift litter accumulates Suaeda australis, Tetragonia tetragonioides and Sesuvium
portulacastrum can also be abundant (Figure 6.3). Casuarina glauca is found higher on the
levees. Sarcocornia quinqueflora occurs in the depression landward of the levee, together with
Triglochin striata and Samolus repens, in the wetter patches. Dense rush, Jucus kraussii, or
sedge, Baumea juncea, comprise the mid-marsh community. Fringing the pools are Phragmites
australis, Schoenoplectus litoralis and Schoenoplectus validus, while Ruppia and the alga
Lampromthamnion papulosum may be abundant within the pools. Scattered through this zone
are isolated Casuarina glauca and mangroves.
Figure 6.2 Avicennia marina, seedlings and pneumatophores (Peter Freewater)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 132

The saltmarshes merge upwards into supratidal swamp woodlands. Close to the marsh
Casuarina glauca dominate together with Melaleuca quinquenervia. Behind this zone
Eucalyptus robust communities occur. These woodlands are important as nutrient sinks and as
buffers between intertidal wetlands and the hinterland of their catchments.
Saltmarshes are also highly productive environments (Freewater 2004) although specific
information on details such as energy pathways and the export of detritus to adjacent habitats is
limited. They support a variety of invertebrates, including crustaceans, molluscs, polychaetes
and insects, which provide prey items for a variety of fish that exploit the habitat at high tide.
During Spring tides it is estimated that the abundance of crab larvae released is greater than
2000 m-3 of water (Mazumder 2004). This larva is believed to be a significant contribution to the
estuarine food chain, supplementing the nutritional requirements of estuarine fish. Many of the
invertebrate species found among saltmarhes also occur in mangrove and seagrass habitats.
Council is currently developing a research program to examine the role and importance of this
habitat in the seeding of other habitats in Brisbane Water. The results of this project will be
reported in the Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study (see section on Brisbane Water
below). Saltmarsh are also used by a large variety of birds for feeding, roosting and/or breeding
and are critical habitat for many migratory species.
Figure 6.3 Saltmarsh dominated by Sarcocornia quinqueflora at Davistown on Brisbane Water (Peter
Freewater)
In the estuaries of Gosford, the frontal levees of saltmarshes are typically dominated by
Sporobolus viginicus, but where drift litter accumulates, Suaeda australis, Tetragonia
tetragonioides and Sesuvium portulacastrum can also be abundant. Casuarina glauca is found
higher on the levees. Sarcocornia quinqueflora occurs in the depression landward of the levee,
together with Triglochin striata and Samolus repens, in the wetter patches. Dense rush, Juncus
kraussii, or sedge, Baumea juncea, comprise the mid-marsh community. Fringing the pools are
Phragmites australis, Schoenoplectus litoralis and Schoenoplectus validus, while Ruppia and
the alga Lampromthamnion papulosum may be abundant within the pools. Scattered through
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 133

this zone are isolated Casuarina glauca and mangroves. The giant lily, Crinum pedunculatum,
can occasionally be found in the brackish marshes.
The saltmarshes merge upwards into supratidal swamp woodlands. Close to the marsh
Casuarina glauca dominate together with Melaleuca quinquenervia. Behind this zone
Eucalyptus robusta communities occur. These woodlands are believed to be important as
nutrient sinks and as buffers between intertidal wetlands and the hinterland of their catchments.
The habitat is poorly conserved in NSW as continuously more is cleared for development. In
many areas the extent and health of saltmarsh communities has rapidly declined due to
pressure from agriculture, reclamation and urban development. In Gosford, saltmarsh habitat
along the Hawkesbury have been filled for the grazing of cattle. Horses have also been
observed in saltmarsh in Brisbane Water. Although saltmarsh are now listed as an endangered
ecological community, more resources need to be funneled into monitoring, community
awareness and enforcement of environmental legislation.
Seagrasses
Seagrasses occur in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries (Figures 6.4 - 6.5). The
species most common to Gosford are Zostera capricorni (eelgrass), Posidonia australis
(strapweed) and Halophila spp. (paddleweed).
Many of the commercially and/or recreationally important marine and estuarine fish species of
NSW recruit to seagrass beds as small juveniles: examples include yellowfin bream, tarwhine,
snapper, luderick, blue groper, silverbiddy and several leatherjackets. Within the Hawkesbury
River and Brisbane Water, spatial variations in the recruitment of juvenile fish to seagrass beds
are likely to occur. In particular, a greater abundance and diversity of ocean-spawned juveniles
(the majority of species) can be expected nearer the entrance (Freewater 2004). Adults of
several commercially and/or recreationally important species feed within and leatherjacket over
seagrass beds, including yellowfin bream, luderick, dusky flathead, fan-belly, sand mullet and
river garfish. Further, seagrasses support secondary productivity via a detrital food chain. Leaf
material is broken down to particulate matter and decomposed by bacteria and fungi which are
then consumed by microfauna and other detrital feeders, which then provide prey for larger
animals. Seagrass communities are believed to be particularly important in the supply of
microbal food for oysters (Freewater 2004).
Seagrasses are an important structural habitat in Gosford's estuaries. The vegetation offers
protection from large predators making the beds important nursery grounds for fish. It has also
been demonstrated that in Brisbane Water there is a greater diversity of invertebrate fauna
associated with seagrass beds than in adjacent unvegetated areas (unpublished work by
William Gladstone for the Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study). Many of these
invertebrates are important prey items for fish.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 134

Figure 6.4 Mixed seagrass bed of Zostera capricornia (left hand side of photo) and Posidonia
australis(right hand side of photo) ( Peter Adderley), Figure 6.5 Halophila australis ( Wyong
Shire Council)
Recent studies (unpublished Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study) have indicated that the
Zostera meadows of Brisbane Water contain a large number and diversity of Sygnathids (the
family that includes seahorses, seadragons and pipefish - Figure 6.6). As of July 2004 all
species of the families 'Syngnathidae', 'Solenostomidae' and 'Pegasidae' were listed as
"protected" under the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994. Another study (unpublished
Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study) has demonstrated the importance of particular
seagrass beds as areas important for the initial recruitment of juvenile fishes such as bream,
luderick, tarwhine, sea mullet, dusky flathead, trumpeter whiting, blue groper and leatherjacket
(Figure 6.7).
Figure 6.6 White's Seahorse
(Hippocampus whitei) (David Harasti),
Figure 6.7 Six Spined Leatherjacket
(meuschenia freycineti) (David Harasti)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 135

The Hawkesbury River
The Hawkesbury-Nepean River system is the State's largest estuary. The river is tidal to
Yarramundi Road Bridge, a distance of 145 km upstream. The non-tidal reaches (ie. upstream
of the Yarramundi Road Bridge) are the Nepean River system; the tidal component is the
Hawkesbury. The Hawkesbury-Nepean River system is fed by the catchment of the
Hawkesbury Valley (21500 km2). Most of the northern and western areas of the Hawkesbury
Valley are heavily timbered and comprise rugged and mountainous terrain with land slopes
greater than 15°. The area that lies within Gosford is the area north of the local government
boundary line, running down the middle of the Hawkesbury from Wiseman's Ferry downstream
to West Head (Broken Bay) then across to the northern headland (Box Head). The major
tributaries of the Hawkesbury, within Gosford's LGA, include Mangrove, Mooney Mooney, Mullet
and Patonga Creeks.
A Strategic Plan for the Management of the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment and River System
was developed by the former Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust, whose
operations were absorbed into the Department of Land & Water Conservation in April, 2001. In
accordance with a direction from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation the Strategic
Plan has been used as the basis for the content of the Hawkesbury Lower Nepean Catchment
Blueprint (DLWC, 2003).
The Blueprint identifies a raft of management targets and actions. The responsibility for
implementing many of these actions is shared amongst stakeholders: Councils, State Agencies
and the community working in partnership. Key issues identified in the Blueprint relate to:
managing water quality and quantity – sharing water with the environment, and between people;
aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity and their adequate conservation and rehabilitation; the way
the land is used to meet social and economic needs while protecting the environment upon
which all life depends; sustainability of development; public and private investment; and
community participation in catchment health (DLWC, 2003).
The brackish wetlands of the lower Hawkesbury are regionally significant (Figure 6.8),
contributing nearly half of the Sydney region’s remaining area of mangroves and saltmarsh and
more than 80% of its remaining Swamp Oak forest (Stricker and Wall, 1994).
Many of these wetlands are identified and protected in the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan
(SREP 20) (Department of Planning 1995). The REP specifies various classes of development
in wetlands that require councils to gain the concurrence of planning authorities before granting
development approval for works such as dredging operations, marinas and so on. In 1998
Gosford City Council commissioned Australian Water Technologies to undertake a wetland
management study of the Hawkesbury River Catchment within its municipality. The study
(Wetland Management Study in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment) enquired into the types of
wetlands, ownership, what is affecting their condition and what can be done to preserve them
(AWT, 1998). It identified 52 wetlands in the LGA and described each site with information on
the following:
• Location;
• Wetland Type by listing the type of wetland vegetation present;
• Seasonality - whether the hydrological character of the wetland is ephemeral
seasonal) or perennial (permanent);
• Access to the site;
• Flora and fauna values;
• Level of disturbance;
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 136

• Ownership details;
• Zoning information;
• Level of protection;
• Catchment status with an estimate is to be made of the percentage of each landuse
in the catchment;
• Issues identified during the investigation of a site are to be listed; and
• Discussion of the issues relating to the management of the wetland and suggested
rezoning, considerations for community ownership and alterations to SEPP 14 or
SREP 20 boundaries where appropriate.
The Report recommended that Council ensure that wetland values are recognised throughout
the community by continuing to develop and implement effective education programs and
opportunities in association with schools and community groups. Particular recommendations
included:
• Council should offer expertise and resources to landholders to help them manage
their wetlands more effectively. Funds should be sought through the Natural
Heritage Trust and other sources for restoring and managing these wetlands by:
• controlling grazing through fencing programs
• restoring natural flow regimes where possible
• weed control in wetlands, and
• removing rubbish.
• Council should continue to monitor the condition of its wetlands to assess trends and
the need for further actions.
In 2002 Gosford City Council, in cooperation with Hornsby Shire Council, commissioned the
Water Research Laboratory to undertake the Brooklyn Estuary Processes Study (MHL, 2003).
The State Government under their Estuary Management Program assisted the Study. As well
as Brooklyn Harbour, the study area included the main river channel, Mooney Mooney and
Mullet Creeks. The information yielded from this research is almost the sum of information
available. Very little environmental information is available for Mangrove and Patonga Creeks.
The following information on the biota and habitats of the Hawkesbury has been quoted directly
from the Brooklyn Estuary
Process Study (MHL, 2003):
Main Channel of the Hawkesbury River
Narrow foreshores of sandstone rubble backed by steep sloping hillsides dominate much of the
shoreline, with sandstone boulders and rocky outcrops common in intertidal and subtidal areas.
Typical hillside vegetation consists mainly of eucalypts and she-oaks (Casuarina glauca),
interspersed with wattle (Acacia spp.) and grass trees (Xanthorrhoea spp.). Intertidal rocks are
heavily to moderately encrusted with oysters (Saccostrea glommerata) and mussels (Family
Mytilidae). Periwinkles (Bembicium spp.) are common higher in the intertidal areas and the
limpets Siphonaria denticulata and Patelloida mimula are often scattered among oysters.
Sargassum (Sargassum spp.) and kelp (Ecklonia radiata) are common in subtidal areas. The
green alga Codium fragile is occasionally found growing in low intertidal areas, as are small
patches of Caulerpa filiformis.
Some of the common birds seen within the main estuary include: Great Cormorants
(Phalacrocorax carbo); Little Pied Cormorants (P. melanoleucos ); Maned Ducks (Chenonetta
jubata); Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos); Australian Pelicans (Pelecanus conspicillatus); Silver
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 137

Gulls (Larus novaehollandiae); Pied Oystercatchers (Haematopus longirostris); Australian
Ravens (Corvus coronoides); Australian Magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen); and Pied Currawongs
(Strepera graculina).
Mullet Creek
Mullet Creek extends north and east from Alison and Cogra Points on the Hawkesbury River.
Narrow sandstone rubble foreshores backed by steep sloping hillsides dominate the fringing
terrestrial topography on the eastern shores of the creek. Western foreshores along the entire
length of the creek are wider, and there are artificial rock rubble seawalls along the main
northern railway line. A thin strip of weedy riparian vegetation occurs between the waters edge
and the railway line. Hillside vegetation on the banks consists mainly of eucalypts and she-oaks,
interspersed with wattle and grass trees, and the occasional banksia. Intertidal rocks, both
artificial and natural, are encrusted with oysters above low water levels and scattered mussels
occur below. Periwinkles are common higher in the intertidal zone, whilst sargassum is often
attached to subtidal rocks. Grapsid crabs (Sesarma erythrodactyla) can occasionally be seen
crawling over the rocky foreshore on the natural eastern banks.
Birds observed in Mullet creek include the common estuarine forms listed in the previous
section, as well as: White-Bellied Sea-eagles (Haliaetus leucogaster); wrens (Family Maluridae);
and Glossy Black Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus lathami). Fishes commonly seen include: mullet
(Family Mugilidae); yellowfin bream (Acanthopagrus australis) toadfish (Family Tetraodontidae);
garfish (Family Hemiramphidae); and sting rays (Family Dasyatididae). Jellyfishes (Aurelia sp.)
are also spotted occasionally.
Tucked into the backs of most bays along the eastern foreshore are small stands of mangroves
ranging from thirty square metres at the head of Mullet Creek to approximately eighty square
metres at bays near the mouth. Mangrove stands at the head of Mullet Creek comprise both
grey mangroves and river mangroves, whilst those at the mouth comprise only grey mangroves.
Where both species occur small, river mangroves less than 2 m tall are backed by large grey
mangroves up to 10 m tall. Stands of grey mangroves consist of scattered juvenile plants
fronting mature trees.
An extensive bed of patchy seagrass occurs over the sand shoal at the head of Mullet Creek.
Eelgrass dominates this bed, and some paddleweed (Halophila sp.) also occurs. In shallow
areas, eelgrass is sparse with short shoots, whilst deeper areas have a more consistent cover
of plants with longer shoots and high epiphyte loads. Eelgrass also occurs within the adjacent
two bays to the south and east of the head of Mullet creek, as narrow bands of scattered plants
along the subtidal edge of mudflats.
Oyster leases extend south from Wondabyne Station along both sides of the creek. Oyster
stacks appear to have between one and six sticks of oysters indicating both depot leases and
catch leases respectively. The largest areas of oyster leases occur around the mouth of Mullet
Creek where there is no foreshore development. Less than a dozen private residencies occur
along the entire length of Mullet Creek. These are concentrated mainly around the area of
Wondabyne Station where there is a wharf, a grassy park with stone statues, and some
dumped rubbish. Associated with the private foreshore properties are occasional sandstone
seawalls, jetties and moorings.
Mooney Mooney Creek and Spectacle Island
Mooney Mooney Creek extends upstream from Cogra Point and Peats Ferry Bridge on the
Hawkesbury River, and includes Spectacle Island. As in other areas, narrow sandstone rubble
foreshores backed by steep sloping hillsides dominate the shoreline. Sandstone boulders and
rocky outcrops are common in intertidal and subtidal areas between embayments, whilst within
bays extensive intertidal mudflats are more common. Typical hillside vegetation does not differ
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 138

from that described for the main estuary, and neither does the typical rocky intertidal
assemblages.
Birds seen in Mooney Mooney Creek again include the common estuarine forms, as well as:
Eastern Whipbirds (Psophodes olivaceus); Bellbirds (Family Pachycephalidae); Wedge-Tailed
Eagles (Aquila audax); and Hawks (Family Accipitridae). White-faced Herons (Ardea
novaehollandiae) are seen in moderate numbers, feeding over each of the mudflats within the
creek, particularly on the extensive mudflats to the west of Spectacle Island. These mudflats
also have a large number of ocypodid crabs (Heloecius cordiformis).
Mangrove stands back each of the bays within Mooney Mooney Creek and behind intertidal
mudflats. At the junction of Mooney Mooney Creek and Piles Creek, mangroves flank both
shores. Bays to the north of Fox Bay have mixed mangrove stands comprising both grey and
river mangroves, whilst mangroves in Fox Bay and other bays to the south comprise solely grey
mangroves. Again, river mangroves are much smaller than grey mangroves, and usually occur
in front of and sometimes interspersed amongst them. Mangrove stands range from about thirty
square metres in small bays, to several hundred square metres at the head of the creek, and on
the western fringe of Spectacle Island. Individual grey mangroves do not exceed 10 m in height,
and river mangroves do not exceed 3 m. Some mangrove stands on the western banks at the
head of the creek have erosion stepped foreshores, whilst some eastern bays to the south have
extensive sedimentation, evidenced by the burial of derelict oyster leases adjacent to a
mangrove stand opposite Native Dog Bay, a fringe of scattered eelgrass plants with long shoots
extends approximately one hundred metres. This is the only seagrass bed mapped within
Mooney Mooney Creek.
Oyster leases extend to the mouth of Mooney Mooney Creek south of Two Dollar Bay, and
immediately to the south of Spectacle Island. Again, there are stacks of one to six oyster sticks,
indicating depot and catch leases respectively. Similarly, foreshore development is also
scattered along this length of the creek, with the exception of the township of Mooney Mooney,
which is heavily built-up. The entire headland at Mooney Mooney is covered with private hillside
residences having sandstone seawalls, wooden jetties, slipways with boatsheds, scattered
moorings and one public wharf.
Figure 6.8 Hawkesbury River upstream of Brooklyn (P. Freewater)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 139

Patonga Creek
Little information is available on Patonga Creek, other than a couple of unpublished reports
undertaken by students from Macquarie University in the late 1980's (Byrnes et al., 1987 and
Belford et al., 1989). Some of the information provided in these documents is erroneous. There
is a Council resolution to develop an Estuary Management Plan for Patonga Creek. This Plan
will ultimately guide management strategies for the creek and catchment.
Patonga Creek is approximately 8 km long and its catchment is mostly comprised of the
Brisbane Water National Park (13.4 km2). The estuary mouth has a constricted entrance due to
the accumulation of sand at the entrance. A breakwater was constructed to prevent closure but
requires dredging to maintain boat access.
Byrnes et al. (1987) indicate that the Creek has approximately 0.4 km2 of mangrove habitat with
small areas of associated saltmarsh and approximately 0.3 km2 of seagrass (Zostera
capricorni). They also provide a species list for fauna but by their own admission, the list is
incomplete and based only on opportunistic sightings by the project team.
Mangrove Creek
Little information is available for Mangrove Creek. There is a technical report on
macroinvertebrate assemblages in the freshwater reaches of the creek (Roberts, 2004). The
key relevant finding of this document is that there is a high level of diversity of
macroinvertebrates (waterbugs) in the creek.
In September 2004 the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (CMA) began
preparation of the River Health Strategy, which will guide actions that will help to achieve the
river health targets in the CMAs Catchment Action Plan. Between October 2004 and June 2005,
a panel of community and technical experts undertook a rapid assessment of the economic,
social and environmental values of the river reach in the catchment and the threats to those
values. Mangrove Creek was included in this assessment process. The River Health Strategy
will help the CMA to make decisions about actions that are necessary to achieve improvements
in river health. The strategy will set broad priorities for on-ground works in the CMAs river
restoration program. It will provide detail about where in the catchment the actions need to take
place. It will be in operation for the 10 year period of the Catchment Action Plan. Although a
stand-alone document, the strategy is a key supporting document for the CMAs Catchment
Action Plan.
The assessment of the reach from the reservoir wall to the junction with Warren Creek and on to
the tidal reach (approximately 1 km upstream of Greengrove) indicates that the riparian
vegetation is of excellent quality and has an average width of 50 m. It also indicates that there is
a good diversity of macroinvertebrates. Threats to this reach include: channel modification;
barriers to ecosystem functioning because of a weir; flow regulation and modification; and exotic
riparian and aquatic plant species. There is also an issue with Koi carp above in the weir pool
and associated problems with turbidity. The assessment of the remaining reach down to the
Hawkesbury indicates poor riparian habitat due to extensive clearing. The major riparian
vegetation communities comprise of casuarinas, mangroves and saltmarsh. Threats are similar
to the upstream reach but also include boating activities and the grazing of livestock.
Brisbane Water
Brisbane Water is a broad shallow estuary located approximately 50 kilometres north of Sydney,
and is connected to Broken Bay by a relatively narrow channel and shoal on the western side
near the eastern end of Ocean Beach. It has an area of approximately 2800 hectares and
drains a catchment of roughly 190 square kilometres. The Estuary is complex in its morphology
and is subject to human modifications (e.g. the construction of St Hubert’s Island Canal Estate).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 140

Brisbane Water lies immediately adjacent to Gosford City’s central business district and many of
its suburbs. Urban areas have developed around the foreshore with the major concentrations
being centered in Gosford to the north and Woy Woy / Umina to the south west. The eastern
shore of the Estuary is also relatively heavily developed. The waterway is shallow and supports
a large oyster growing industry. Recreational boat usage is high and commercial vessels run
commuter and tourist services throughout the waterway. The high energy environment and
mobile sand shoals of the lower Estuary leads to the need to assess navigation issues
frequently.
Major tributaries of Brisbane Water include Woy Woy Creek, Corrumbine Creek, Narara Creek,
Erina Creek, Egan Creek, Kincumber Creek. Various other minor tributaries flow into the
Estuary. Kincumber Creek is the tributary of greatest concern with generally high levels of faecal
contamination and nutrients. Erina Creek also has high nutrient loads and development within
both these catchments will continue to put pressure on downstream ecosystems. Narara Creek
catchment contains most of Gosford's industrial estates and the creek has been polluted over
the years with a variety of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Many of these toxicants are
persistent in the marine environment, accumulating in sediments and entering food chains.
Brisbane Water is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands with approximately 23% and
25% of the total area of the saltmarshes and mangroves, respectively, is included in national
parks and nature reserves. Riley’s Island and Pelican Island nature reserves provide critical
feeding and breeding areas for a range of migratory wader species, twelve of which are listed in
JAMBA or CAMBA. The site is also important for the Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius),
Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris), Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis)
and a Pelican rookery. Brisbane Water has been identified as a second priority candidate site
(after Lake Macquarie) for an estuarine aquatic reserve within the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine
Bioregion (Breen et al. 2005). The estuary includes a rare combination of fish species and it
remains the only barrier estuary in the bioregion with an entrance not kept open by artificial
breakwalls.
Management of the estuary is guided by the Brisbane Water Plan of Management (GCC, 1995).
This document specifies appropriate controls and guidelines for regulating development in the
area as well as policy to control building activity and structures on and around Brisbane Water
and its standards also apply to building applications. However, the Management Plan is
relatively outdated and various new legislative controls need to be considered. Further,
understanding of estuarine processes and their interconnectivity with estuarine ecology has
advanced considerably since 1995.
Council is currently reviewing the Brisbane Water Plan of Management under the State's
Estuary Management Program. The new Brisbane Water Estuary Management Plan will replace
the old as the guiding document for management and conservation of biodiversity in the
estuary.
A major component of this work is the development of the Brisbane Water Estuary Processes
Study, which is due for completion in December 2006. Understanding complex interactions
between natural and anthropogenic processes is important to managing the natural resource
basis of the waterway. Therefore, a major component of the Study is the integration of
catchment land-use, hydrylogic/hydrdynamic modelling and ecological phenomena. For
example, modelling is being used to assess larval transport and link survival and settlement of
marine organisms to both natural and anthropogenic (man-made) processes within the
catchment, the estuary and the larger marine environment.
The Brisbane Water Estuary Processes study is linked to a number of other projects designed
to investigate and describe the ecology of the estuary. A major study is the Brisbane Water
Biodiversity Study, which will map patterns of distribution and abundance of marine fauna and
flora into Council's geographic information system (GIS). This project is nearing completion.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 141

A particular objective of the above work is to identify estuarine habitats of critical importance
biodiversity for their conservation and protection. For example, preliminary results indicate that
particular seagrass beds in low flow environments that are adjacent to high flow channels are
areas that juvenile fishes recruit to from the marine environment. From these locations the
fishes eventually journey out to populate other habitats. Similarly, particular saltmarsh habitats
may be seeding other saltmarshes and other areas during Spring tides when larvae are
released.
The Coastal Lagoons
Figure 6.9 Fisherman's Wharf, Woy Woy, Brisbane Water (GCC)
There are four main coastal lagoons in Gosford: Wamberal, Terrigal, Avoca and Cockrone.
They are generally referred to as ICOLLS, which stands for Closed and Open Lakes and
Lagoons, due to the nature of their entrances, which become closed from the ocean by a sand
barrier making them non-tidal, for periods that can last from a few days to several years. The
geomorphology of these ICOLLs results in environments that are particularly sensitive to natural
and anthropogenic disturbance. Whether by natural or mechanical means the lagoons are only
opened infrequently depending on the prevailing rainfall conditions (generally twice a year
except for Terrigal, which is opened monthly). These occasional openings followed by long
periods of closure allow the ecology of the brackish water to develop and mature. Heavy rains
or storm waves may be sufficient to breach the bar, returning the lakes to tidal estuaries.
However, development around the foreshores flood before the lagoons reach their natural
breakout levels and so the lagoons are mechanically opened as soon as they reach prescribed
let out levels.
Certain fish species, such as mullet and bream, and prawns, can grow to large sizes in closed
lagoons. This can enhance their chances of surviving and reproducing when the lagoon
subsequently opens and they make their way into coastal waters.
The time the lagoon opens favours different species at different times. A spring/summer
opening favours tarwhine, snapper, sand whiting, luderick, leatherjackets and prawns, while an
autumn or winter opening favours yellowfin bream, dusky flathead and flat tail mullet.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 142

Gosford's ICOLLs present a range of management issues such as persistent algal blooms,
offensive odours and poor waterquality. Each ICOLL is under significant threat from urban
development and exhibit symptoms of nutrification. Avoca lagoon is the worst, followed by
Cockrone, Wamberal and Terrigal. Management actions and some general information on the
lagoons can be found in the Coastal Lagoons Management Plan (GCC, 1995a). All of the higher
priority management actions listed in the Plan have been completed and a thorough review of
the Plan is required.
Wamberal
Wamberal Lagoon is the most northerly of the four Gosford Coastal Lagoons, and has a small
part of the catchment in the Wyong Council area. The majority of the catchment lies to the north
of the lagoon and is largely undeveloped rural land. This main tributary of the lagoon is
commonly referred to as Forresters Creek and drains 2.6 square kilometres of the northern
catchment. South and west of the lagoon is the residential area of Wamberal. The north-eastern
part of the catchment consists of part of the suburb of Forresters Beach. Other tributaries of the
lagoon all have catchment areas totalling less than 50 hectares. The two largest enter the
lagoon through Wamberal Park from near Winston Street and Loxton Avenue.
Wamberal Lagoon itself is substantially protected by the Wamberal Lagoon Nature Reserve
which has been dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974. The nature reserve
is subject to a Plan of Management administered by the Department of Environment and
Conservation (formerly National Parks and Wildlife Service). On the seaward side, the nature
reserve encloses the whole of the coastal barrier, whilst at other locations around the waterway
there is land of variable width affording some protective separation from other land uses. The
nature reserve provides suitable habitat for waterbirds, whilst the frontal dune carries an
example of a dunal plant succession valuable for educational purposes and not readily available
elsewhere near Sydney.
The existence of the nature reserve increases the protection from stormwater runoff from the
surrounding catchment into the lagoon. Wamberal Lagoon Nature Reserve includes reed beds,
sedgeland and important habitat for fish, molluscs, crustaceans and a range of migratory
waders identified in one or more international treaties. Wamberal Lagoon has recorded the most
diverse and abundant fish assemblages of those lagoons between the Hawkesbury River and
Tuggerah Lakes (Breen et al. 2005).
Terrigal
Terrigal Lagoon is an important recreational entity. At present two commercial tourist operators
use the lagoon; boat hire near the entrance and sailboard hire near the Willoughby Road
Bridge. Swimming at the lagoon entrance is also a popular activity for younger children.
Terrigal Lagoon is the most impacted of Gosford's ICOLLs and this is reflected by the lowest
water quality. A large part of the upper catchment area is rural land most of which has been
cleared. The lower slopes in the vicinity of the lagoon contain extensive urban development.
South and west of the lagoon is the township of Terrigal. The northern part of the catchment
includes part of the suburb of Wamberal. A large knoll of land rises from the centre of the
catchment separating the two arms of the lagoon into a North Arm and a West Arm. The
Country Club and Golf Course are located at the limit of the North Arm. This area is dissected
by a creek called North Arm Creek. The North Arm of the lagoon drains an area of 4.5 square
kilometres and the West Arm drains an area
of 3.7 square kilometres.
Avoca
Avoca has the next lowest water quality of Gosford's ICOLLs. Much of the upper catchment of
Avoca Lagoon is rural land, predominantly farmland or undeveloped forest. The lower slopes in
the vicinity of the lagoon contain significant urban development. To the immediate north and
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 143

northeast lies the suburb of North Avoca whilst the town of Avoca Beach is found in the south
and southeast of the catchment.
The lake is roughly star-shaped, comprising four irregular arms and has a considerable area of
wetlands around its perimeter. Bareena Island is approximately the centre of the lake. The main
tributary to the lagoon is Saltwater Creek that enters the lagoon on the western side and drains
an area of 6.7 square kilometres, almost 60% of the catchment. Other tributaries all have
catchment areas of less than 1 square kilometre and enter the lagoon via the other arms.
High nutrient loads to Avoca Lagoon result in an annual spring outbreak of filamentous algae
that form large mats that anchor to the shallow substratum. The algal mats are made up of a
few species of filamentous algae, mostly Enteromorpha intestinalis and Chaetomorpha linum.
The mats impact on the aesthetic appeal of the lagoon but they are also an environmental
concern:
Cockrone
• the mats block sunlight and prevent the growth of seagrasses and other vegetation;
• when they die bacteria feeding on them strip the water of oxygen resulting in the
deaths of native fauna;
• they limit the production of dyanoflagellates that would otherwise absorb nitrogen
from the water and release it as nitrogen gas at the sediment water interface when
they die (this process is believed to be the major pathway for nitrogen removal in
coastal lagoons);
• the mats act as a nutrient sink, trapping nutrients in the system and causing them to
continuously cycle without release;
• the rotting mats form anoxic sludge which limits colonisation by bio-turbacious
infauna; and
• the mats reduce wind-induced circulation currents that would limit stratification of the
lagoon.
Cockrone Lagoon has the highest water quality of Gosford's ICOLLs. However, this lagoon also
suffers from macro algal blooms during Spring and early Summer. The vast majority of the
catchment is undeveloped rural land, predominantly forest with farms on the lower slopes. On
the north east side of the lagoon lies part of the suburb of Copacabana, whilst about half of the
suburb of MacMasters Beach lies within the south east part of the catchment. Beyond
MacMasters Beach the catchment adjoins Bouddi National park, separated by The Scenic
Drive.
The main tributary, known as Cockrone Creek, enters the lagoon on the western side and
drains an area of 4.2 square kilometres which is almost 60% of the catchment. Several other
tributaries including Merchants Creek to the north, have catchment areas between 0.25 and
0.65 square kilometres, and drain the remainder of the catchment.
The lagoon is an attractive feature in the local area and of environmental significance because
of the natural/semi-rural nature of much of the catchment (Figure 6.10). At present no
commercial tourist operators use the lagoon and it is generally not used for swimming except
near the entrance. There are no known references to any significant dredging or land infilling
activities within the lagoon.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 144

Figure 6.10 Cockrone Lagoon bird life ( Peter Adderly)
Figure 6.10 Cockrone Lagoon bird life (Peter Adderly)
A - 6.2.2
Marine Habitats
The marine environment of Gosford encompass the areas between the headlands and intertidal
areas to mean low water. It also includes most of Broken Bay, from Box Head across to
Barrenjoey Head and Lion Island. It includes beaches, rocky coastlines and reefs (Figure 6.1).
Bouddi National Park occupies almost half of this coastline, which includes protected marine
areas and shores. The underwater caves and environs around the Skillion at Terrigal are home
to a variety of threatened fish species, such as the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus), Black
Cod (Epinephelus daemelii), Weedy Sea Dragon (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus) (Figure 6.11) and
the Elegant Wrasse (Anampses elegans).
There have also been sighting a variety of marine mammals recorded for the Hawkesbury Shelf
Marine Bioregion including the Humpback Whale, False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens),
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), Blaineville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris), Andrew’s
Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon bowdoini), Gray’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon grayii), Strap-Tooth
Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon layardi), Long Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas), Melon-
Head Whale (Peponocephala electra), Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Pygmy
Sperm Whale (Kogia
breviceps ), Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia simus), Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus), Short
- Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), Southern Right Whale (Eubalaena
australis), Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ), Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis),
Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus), Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Striped Dolphin
(Stenella coeruleoalba), Rough Toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanens), Dugong (Dugong dugon),
Leopard Seal (Hydrurga leptonyx), Australian Fur Seal (Arctocephalus pusillus), New Zealand
Fur Seal (Arctocephalus
forsteri), Subantarctic Fur Seal (Arctocephalus tropicali) Australian Sealion (Neophoca cinerea)
and Southern Elephant Seal (Mirounga leonina). The majority of these sightings have been
along Gosford's coastline (Breen et al. 2005).
Lion Island is a breeding sight for the Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) and a protected Nature
Reserve.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 145

Figure 6.11 Weedy Seadragon (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus) ( Sam Degabriele).
Rocky coastlines
Gosford's rocky reefs and intertidal rock platforms contain a high diversity of invertebrate and
fish communities. Whilst many of these habitats have been studied for academic purposes,
there is no real inventory of species for Gosford. Given the recorded sightings of threatened and
endangered species along the Gosford coastline, this data gap is very significant and needs to
be bridged is these species are to be protected in the area.
The University of Newcastle produced a report entitled Monitoring of Central Coast Rocky Reefs
(Gladstone and Owen, 2002). The report presents the results of the Monitoring of Central Coast
Rocky Reefs project for 2002. The major findings of the monitoring are summarised below:
Fish assemblages of near-estuarine reefs differed from reference reefs in Brisbane Water.
Density of all fishes was less at Lion Island, compared to reference reefs in both sampling
periods (autumn and spring). There were 122 recorded species of fishes representing 39
families and two classes (Chondrichthyes, Osteichthyes).
Thirty-seven species of mobile macroinvertebrates (representing two phyla, molluscs and
echinoderms) were monitored over the autumn and spring periods. The majority of species were
uncommon. Assemblages of mobile macroinvertebrates in near-estuarine reefs also differed
from reference reefs in Brisbane Water.
Whilst assemblages of encrusting benthic organisms near-estuarine reefs generally differed
from reference reefs in Brisbane Water, some showed no difference (filamentous algae and
sponges). The study monitored 146 taxa (representing 7 phyla).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 146

Figure 6.12 Sweet Ceratosoma Nudibranch (Ceratosoma amoenum) on Halophila sp. (David Harasti).
Sandy beaches
Many people consider sandy beaches to be biological deserts because there are few large
animals to be seen. However, there are in fact numerous species of small organisms living
beneath the sand of Gosford's beaches. They include bacteria, fungi, diatoms and invertebrates
(eg. nematodes, crustaceans, polychaetes and molluscs). Most are referred to as meiofauna
because they are less than half a millimetre long. Gosford's beaches also have larger
macrofauna, which include crustaceans (eg. ghost crabs), polychaetes (eg. giant beach worms)
and molluscs (eg. pipis). There have been few studies of Gosford's beaches and there is little
information on the species present.
Wave action and its interaction with grain size and tides influences the kinds of species and
their diversity. However, the relative importance of various factors (both natural and
anthropogenic) in explaining distributional patterns is poorly understood, thus constituting a
significant data gap, especially given the current "sea change" phenomenon.
Threats to sandy beaches in include pollution, pathogens, mining, disruption of sand transport,
hard structures, beach cleaning/nourishment, off-road vehicles, bait harvesting, trampling and
exotic species. Moreover, global warming is expected to cause a rise in sea level and an
increase in frequency and intensity of storms, factors that will induce erosion and loss of habitat.
A - 6.2.3
Freshwater Habitats
Gosford has a variety of freshwater habitats, such as freshwater wetlands, rivers and creeks.
Whilst there are only a few freshwater wetlands under the management of Council (eg. Iluka
Lagoon, Pearl Beach Lagoon, Melaleuca or Everglades Wetland and Lisarow Wetland), there
are literally hundreds of creeks. Most of these creeks are small or ephemeral and very little is
known about them. Indeed, many of them don't even have names.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 147

Lisarow Wetland
Lisarow Wetland is unique as it is the only true freshwater wetland in the Gos ford area. The
wetland is of high conservation significance as it provides ideal habitats for locally rare flora
including Melaleuca biconvexa, Melaleuca liniifolia (Paper Barks) and Eucalyptus robusta
(Swamp Mahogany). The wetland also supports locally rare fauna including Paracrinia haswelli
(Haswell’s Frog) and Platalea flavipes (Yellow-Billed Spoonbill). Other native fauna to the area
include various other water birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals and fresh water fish. The
wetland is also a likely habitat for Litoria brevipalmata (Green-Thighed Frog), which is very rare
in New South Wales. The conservation of these species is vital to the success of the wetland.
A large percentage of the wetland is in very good condition. However other parts are polluted
with roadside litter, infested with weeds, affected by storm water runoff and rubbish dumped by
people using the footpaths constructed around the edges of the wetland. The weed infestation
of the wetland has caused a significant decline in the native flora species. There are several
informal paths through the wetland, which cause the waterlogged soil to become compacted. All
of the processes are threatening the ecosystem and need to be managed if it is to be conserved
for the future. Council has prepared a Plan of Management for Lisarow Wetlands.
Everglades Lagoon System
The Everglades Lagoon System, which includes the Melaleuca Wetland Reserve, consists of
seven freshwater lagoons situated within, and adjacent to, the Everglades Country Club at Woy
Woy. The lagoon situated furthest downstream, however, is influenced by brackish water during
extremely high tides. This has not always been so, the hydrology of this wetland has been
drastically modified, to the extent that the direction of flow has been reversed.
The wetlands ecological community at the Everglades Lagoon System has been listed as an
Endangered Ecological Community on Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act
as Sydney Freshwater Wetland. Council adopted the Everglades Lagoon System Precinct Plan
of Management in December 2004 (KBR, 2004). The Plan provides the framework and
objectives for the management of the Precinct, management actions to achieve those objectives
and performance targets.
The wetland system is a locally important habitat for variety of birds, reptiles, mammals, fishes,
amphibians and invertebrates. Comprehensive species lists, for both flora and fauna, can be in
The Everglades Lagoon System Precinct Plan of Management (KBR, 2005). This document
also prioritises various management actions for the ecological sustainability of the system.
Freshwater creeks
There are over 2,000 km of small creeks with the Gosford LGA. In their natural state, freshwater
creeks are biodiverse, with fish and other vertebrates (eg. platypus), plants, algae and micro
and macro invertebrates. They have a variety of habitats and strong linkages with their riparian
habitats. The riparian zones provide leaf litter, habitat, and act as a filter to pollutants and
nutrients from the surrounding catchment. Streams are also an important component of
downstream estuarine ecosystem food webs.
There is little information about the 2,000 km of small creeks in Gosford except that for the most
part, they have been highly impacted by urbanisation. The urbanisation of Gosford's creeks is
characterised by the clearing of native vegetation. This vegetation is usually replaced by
impervious surfaces such as roads, pathways, buildings and car parks, which increase runoff
velocity and pollutant content. Other impacts caused by urbanization include channelisation,
snag removal, erosion and sedimentation, habitat modification, alteration of the systems natural
hydrology and high loads of nutrients. The latter often leads to eutrophication and the
proliferation of exotic weed species.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 148

The smaller creeks of Gosford are generally neglected with few resources allocated for their
management. Most are choked with weeds.
In January 1996 Gosford City Council initiated a water quality monitoring program of Brisbane
Water, the Coastal Lagoons and tributary Creeks. Monitoring of the three major tributary creeks,
Kincumber, Narara and Erina showed poor results, especially after rainfall. AWT was
commissioned to undertake a focussed survey with the objective to identify major point source
pollution contributors into the creeks to assist Council to develop management strategies to
target problem areas. The project was undertaken in three stages. Stage 1 comprised a
community consultation process and field investigation to establish issues relating to water
quality in the catchment, and establish the values the community holds for the creeks and the
associated catchments (AWT, 2000). Stage 2 was a broad scale sampling program to identify
tributaries with elevated pollutant levels (AWT, 2001). Stage 3 was initially going to further
localise areas with elevated pollutant levels, but due to results found throughout the project, it
was found that the most appropriate outcome for stage 3 was an outline of how Council could
proceed with the reduction of stormwater runoff impacts into the future (AWT, 2002).
The consultation process identified values common in all three catchments. Residents see the
value of the creeks in terms of active and passive recreation, ecological requirements for
biodiversity, commercial uses, and cultural and historical significance. The local community
feels that these values have been degraded or lost as a result of degraded water quality, altered
drainage patterns, sediment erosion, weed growth, increased litter, plant debris and urban
development.
The stage 2 sampling program found that the primary issues for the creeks are elevated
turbidity levels leading to siltation, poor or restricted stream flow and its follow on effects such as
low dissolved oxygen and proliferation of iron bacteria, and elevated levels of faecal coliforms
during wet, and sometimes dry weather. The results found are typical of streams impacted upon
by urban development. Further sampling was concluded to be of little additional value in terms
of localizing pollution sources.
Stage 3 is a report to guide the management actions in terms of stormwater quantity and
quality. It outlines the issues, causes and impacts of stormwater, and how to deal with the
issues and causes in a long term approach. It recommends that any water quality or catchment
monitoring programs should follow the approach proposed by ANZECC (2000) whereby direct
measures of impacts are made rather than impacts and issues inferred on the basis of chemical
measurements. Once issues are identified, decisions on how to address the issues need to be
made.
The guiding principles behind stormwater impact reduction are well documented. The first
priority is to contain or remove the pollutant at the source. That is, pollution prevention rather
than pollution treatment. This can be achieved through measures such as:
• education of polluters to stop pollution before it enters the water cycle;
• education in appropriate use of fertilisers;
• education of pet owners to collect and dispose of animal wastes.
• development, implementation and enforcement of appropriate pollution control
policies and legislation eg sediment and erosion control on development sites,
restrictions on developments near watercourses, nutrient control policies, fines for
illegal rubbish and litter disposal;
• sealing gravel roads and road verges or compaction and maintenance to reduce
potential for erosion;
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 149

• appropriately timed collection of litter in Council bins; and
• on-site containment and appropriate disposal.
While source controls (non-structural and structural) should be considered as the first option for
stormwater impact reduction, these measures would generally not be sufficient to completely
halt the transport of most pollutants. Measures to treat stormwater and remove pollutants instream
will inevitably be required. This is the Treatment Train Approach to stormwater
management described in the Gosford City Council Stormwater Management Plan (GCC,
1999).
In general, the treatment of stormwater should, where possible, reduce the quantity of
stormwater entering receiving water bodies and allow filtration to remove particulates and
dissolved pollutants. This is a significant change in approach from the long-held concept of
rapid removal of stormwater to reduce the potential for flooding, however there is an obvious
need to balance stormwater velocity retarding approaches with the potential of the approach to
increase flooding. The approach can be taken at any point in the drainage line however the
process is most efficient (in terms of pollutant reduction/removal) when implemented on a small
scale where there is also likely to be less likelihood of increased flooding. Some of the
approaches that can be used to this end include:
• collection of rainwater where it falls;
• top of catchment infiltration;
• structural options for top of catchment removal/capture;
• in-line/end of line capture/treatment; and
• management of receiving water bodies.
The NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources has produced the
Geomorphic Categorisation of streams within the Central Coast Catchment Management Board
Area (Cook, 2004). The objective of the Geomorphic Assessment was to provide an appraisal of
geomorphic condition and a prioritisation of management efforts based upon a whole of
catchment assessment. It was based on the River Styles® Framework, which is procedure that
aims for consistent and comparable assessment of a river’s biophysical health.
This approach is recognised Australia wide as an effective simple step-by-step procedure to
achieve consistent and comparable results:
• it assesses river character and behaviour and most importantly allows for the
developmentof a rating based around a stream’s recovery potential; and
• it categorises stream reaches based on the biophysical characteristics such as the
planform, channel geometry and the surrounding assemblage of vegetation and
landforms (recognising that fluvial systems are zones of biological, physical and
chemical interaction between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems).
The most dominant stream type in the Gosford area is the meandering sand bed stream that
occurs generally around the mid to lower reaches of the catchment and is very sensitive to
change. In sand bed streams riparian vegetation and large woody debris or snags play a very
important role in both the physical and ecological functions of the river system. Riparian
vegetation assists in stabilizing stream channels and often represents the only mechanism
contributing to the formation and maintenance of pools and riffles via scouring of the bed and
sediment trapping and retention. The loss of these natural controls could result in dramatic
changes to channel structure and the loss of
habitat essential for the functioning of a healthy stream.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 150

Much of the areas categorised as 'Conservation'reaches generally occur within national parks
or state forests and are therefore already afforded some protection from human induced
disturbances. However, there are some reaches that do not occur within these areas and are
located on privately owned land. These reaches would therefore have a higher priority as they
have a higher probability of being impacted upon by human induced disturbances. This also
applies to the 'Strategic'reaches as these almost entirely occur upon privately owned land. As
they are specific reaches of significant or imminent change usually threatening a good condition
reach they are equally important as the Conservation reaches occurring on private land.
Therefore it is recommended that the highest priority for conservation and rehabilitation efforts
be given equally to the Conservation and Strategic reaches held within private ownership.
Figure 6.13 Headwater reach along Narara Creek showing highly variable channel zone with pools,
steps and bank attached bars (Nick Cook).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 151

A - 6.3
References
ANZECC (1992) Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. National Water
Quality Management Strategy. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council.
AWT (1998) Wetland management study in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment. Prepared by Australian
Water Technologies for GCC.
AWT (2000) Gosford Water Quality Survey Stage 1 Report – Community Consultation, Field Investigation
and Sampling Design. Prepared by Australian Water Technologies for GCC.
AWT (2001) Gosford Water Quality Survey Stage 2 Report – Major Tributary Water Quality Assessment.
Prepared by Australian Water Technologies for GCC.
AWT (2002) Gosford Water Quality Survey Stage 3 Report – Guiding Principles for Management Actions.
Prepared by Australian Water Technologies for GCC.
Belford, B., Berry, A., Bonner, R., Hawes, P., Montgomery, A. and Nadarajah, T. (1989) Options for
Maintaining Boating Access to Patonga Creek. CEU 803 Interdisciplinary Project Graduate School of the
Environment Macquarie University November 1989.
Breen, D. A., Avery, R. P., and N.M., O. (2005). Broadscale biodiversity assessment of marine protected
areas in the Hawkesbury Shelf marine bioregion. In Final report for the NSW Marine Parks Authority.
Byrnes, R., McMonnies, J., Smith, F., Stewart, D. and Walford, T (1987) Patonga Creek Management
Issues. CEU 803 Interdisciplinary Project Graduate School of the Environment Macquarie University
November 1987.
Cook, N. (2004) Geomorphic Categorisation of streams within the Central Coast Catchment Management
Board Area. NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources
DLWC (2003) Hawkesbury Lower Nepean Catchment Blueprint Published by NSW Department of Land
and Water Conservation February 2003.
Freewater, P. (2004) Hydro-ecology A framework for estuarine research and management. In phD
Environmental Biology, p. 271. University of Technology, Sydney
.
GCC (1995) Brisbane Water Plan of Management
GCC (1995a) Coastal Lagoons Management Plan
GCC, (1999) Gosford City Council Stormwater Management Plan
Gladstone, W. and Owen, V., (2002) Monitoring of Central Coast Rocky Reefs. Centre for Sustainable
use of Coasts and Catchments. School of Applied Sciences, University of Newcastle
Ourimbah Campus.
KBR (2004) Everglades Lagoon System Precinct Plan of Management. Prepared by Kellogg, Brown Root
for GCC
MHL, (2003) Brooklyn Estuary Processes Study. Prepared by Manly Hydraulics Laboratory for Hornsby
Shire Council and GCC
NSW Fisheries (2005) http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/. Stricker, J. and Wall, C.A. (1994) Wetlands of the
Nepean-Hawkesbury catchment (Sydney Water Corporation)
Mazumder, D. (2004). Contribution of saltmarsh to temperate estuarine fish in South-Eastern Australia. In
Environmental Science. Australian Catholic University, Sydney.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 152

A - 7.0 ISSUES FOR BIODIVERSITY
This section considers the factors that impact on biodiversity in Gosford City as
residential and other development in the area continues to expand and pressures on
native habitats and species increase.
Key points
• There is a range of threats that may reduce biodiversity values in Gosford City.
• Major threats include land clearing, fragmentation of native vegetation, introduced
plants and animals that impact on natural systems, degradation and pollution of
waterways, recreational and commercial use of natural resources and climate
change.
• Almost 30 key threatening processes have been identified at state level that are
relevant to Gosford City.
• These threats continue to increase in the area although early detection and action
(particularly for feral animals and weeds) may reduce the severity of future impacts.
• Actions such as protecting and restoring corridor linkages, improving the condition of
bushland and waterways as well as controlling feral animals such as foxes will
improve the chances of survival of native species.
• This is particularly important because of the challenges for biodiversity associated
with climate change.
A - 7.1
Introduction
The Central Coast continues to experience population growth. Increasing density in residential
areas, land subdivision (in particular of rural and scenic protection zoned lands), the desire for
larger dwellings and associated works and the need for bushfire protection all place pressure on
limited land area. Greater population numbers are being planned for with an expected increase
of 30,000 people in the Gosford LGA by 2050 under the State government’s regional plan. As
human activity increases, so too the pressures on native species and ecosystems continue to
escalate. Further, remaining bushland is under threat from a number of other impacts such as
weed invasion and consequent loss of species diversity. Feral and introduced animals such as
foxes prey on a range of native species whilst others such as introduced birds and feral bees
reduce habitat areas by occupying valuable tree hollows.
Figures 7.1 – 7.3
Increasing urbanisation can result in increasing impacts on riparian areas such as this
urban creek in Umina and foreshore areas adjacent to Avoca Lagoon. (R. Lonie).
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 153

Almost thirty key threatening processes are now identified at a State and Commonwealth level.
These include predation by introduced species such as the European red fox, feral cat and by
plague or Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Others are competition and land degradation
from introduced species (such as feral rabbits, goats and honey bees), clearing and degradation
of native vegetation including riverbank vegetation, invasion by introduced plants (such as bitou
bush and exotic grasses), entanglement and ingestion of debris such as plastics by marine
animals, high frequency fire and human induced climate change. Finally, it is noted that
pressures that have been identified may alter in level of threat and new issues may emerge,
especially as scientific knowledge develops. These are some of the major challenges for
Council in its role of managing and protecting biodiversity in Gosford City.
Figures 7.4-7.6
Stormwater channel in Somersby area that leads to Piles Creek, weed invasion by
climbers in bushland area and a degraded natural creekline.
A - 7.2
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation of Native Vegetation
Increasing fragmentation and loss of remaining bushland areas increases the pressure on
native species. This occurs both directly from loss of habitat and food resources and from more
indirect pressures such as the inability to migrate to other suitable areas in times of fire and
drought, or for species to interbreed. New bushfire regulations have also resulted in the need for
greater cleared areas around properties, leading to more habitat loss.
Vegetation mapping recently undertaken for GCC by Bell (2004) demonstrates the increasingly
fragmented nature of bushland areas, particularly in the coastal parts of the City. As
development pressures and property values increase native vegetation in the Central Coast is
continually being lost. Increasing fragmentation including tracks and roads through or adjacent
to vegetated areas also leads to declining health of remnant vegetation through impacts such as
edge effects and increased weed invasion. “Edge effects” are also the result of fragmentation
whereby bushland areas close to urbanisation are more vulnerable to impacts such as weed
invasion. Roads, particularly major roads and freeways, railways powerline and other
easements generally contribute to a loss of biodiversity. Foxes, for example, favour roads and
tracks as movement corridors. As well as the direct loss of animals killed on roads, road kills
may also impact significantly on native species as they attract predators such as foxes to feed
on roadkill.
Some vegetation communities are also more vulnerable to impacts from fragmentation, edge
effects and increased frequency of bushfire. Also many areas of remnant vegetation occur on
private lands and often do not have an appropriate landuse zoning. Eventually these remnants
will be lost through gradual incremental losses associated with development and landuse. Even
properties that are largely vegetated or have a good canopy of mature trees over time are
degraded through clearing and modification for land uses associated with residential use. These
include landscaping around houses, horse or other grazing on rural properties, construction of
sheds and other structures around the dwelling, paving, swimming pools and tennis courts and
the like. Unauthorised underscrbbing and unauthorised grazing also occurs on Conservation
(7a) zoned lands.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 154

Grazing and trampling by goats, deer and other domesticated animals may degrade the value of
native bushland. In some instances grazing animals appear to have been deliberately used to
degrade the value of bushland areas, sometimes in preparation for land sale or development.
Overgrazing leads to land degradation as too many hard hoofed animals in one area will
denude areas of all groundcover, leading to soil disturbance and make land less arable. Action
is needed to halt unauthorised and inappropriate clearing and other uses that degrade native
vegetation and to strengthen planning controls to protect key corridors and habitats. Wildlife
corridor linkages need to be identified and protected through strong planning controls. Also
greater enforcement concerning unauthorised activities is required to protect conservation value
lands.
A - 7.3
Weeds
Weeds are plants that are not native to a particular area and that out-compete native species for
their habitat. This results in the displacement of native species that would be naturally found
there. Over time this can result in modified simplistic ecosystems dominated by a handful of
weed species such as Lantana. Weeds can include native species that have become
acclimatised to local conditions. Examples include the Queensland Silver Wattle and Common
Fishbone Fern (native to northern NSW).
Noxious weeds are those listed under the Noxious Weeds Act and attract state
funding for their control. Noxious weeds are generally a threat to the agricultural
industry. Environmental weeds threaten bushland area but are not generally listed
under the Act. Funding for their control may be available through environmental
grants.
Previously weeds have not often been recognised as a serious threat to biodiversity although
this situation may be changing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, Dr Sharman Stone (29/03/04
http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/ps/2004/psmr29mar04.html) identified weeds as being second
only to wholesale land clearing as a cause of biodiversity loss and stated that weeds were
slowly killing the Australian environment.
Potential weeds include winter fruiting plants that produce berries that are easily dispersed by
birds such as currawongs such as Privet and Camphor Laurel. This may result in further
ecological imbalances as certain species are favoured by the food resources available. Weeds
may be ‘sleepers’, that is they take time to become established but have the potential to be a
significant weed problem over the longer term through evolutionary adaptations such as
tolerance to drought, or by being prolific seeders. Plants that are currently popular garden plants
such as Murraya may in time become serious environmental weeds as Privet that was originally
grown as a hedge plant has done.
Transport corridors and waterways may be a source of weeds as well as means of spreading
weed seed and weed propagules. Railway easements and road verges can harbour significant
weed infestations. Creeks, waterways and drainage lines also spread weeds and nutrients,
contributing to weed problems downstream (eg. Crofton Weed, Alligator Weed, Privet, Balloon
Vine and Madiera Vine). Urban runoff adds nutrients to natural areas with resulting changes to
soil pH. Increased nutrients and altered soil pH favour introduced species and lead to increased
weed invasion. These factors result in many watercourses becoming heavily weed infested
(such as with Privet and Camphor Laurel).
There are also a number of aquatic plants that are of concern in Gosford City. One that is
potentially impacting on the biodiversity of Gosford's saltmarshes is the proliferation of Juncus
acutus. This South African rush is very similar to the native Juncus krausii that it displaces.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 155

Whilst these two species appear morphologically similar, there are concerns that J acutus can
form extensive monocultures.
Effective and ongoing weed control programs are needed that target and control priority weeds,
regenerate native bushland to healthy functioning ecosystems and that address community
awareness as well as being proactive in the identification and control of emerging weed
species.
A - 7.4
Feral and Introduced Pest Animals
Key Threatening Processes recognised at State and Commonwealth level that affect
biodiversity are listed in Appendix 4. These include predation by introduced species such as the
European red fox, feral cat and by Plague or Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki). Other
recognised feral animal threats are competition and land degradation from introduced species
such as feral rabbits, goats, deer and honey bees.
Introduced species not only impact native wildlife through predation, but also through
competition (for food and habitat) and spread of diseases. For example, introduced birds and
feral bees reduce habitat areas by occupying valuable tree hollows. Several feral bird species
such as the common Indian myna, common starling, tree sparrow and house sparrow as well as
feral honey bees utilise tree hollows. The introduced black rat and feral cat can also take prey
from and nest in tree hollows These places added competition on local native species for
increasingly rare suitable habitat in the area. Introduced birds that impact local species include
the Indian mynah and mallard duck.
Tim Low (1999) in his book ‘Feral Future’ argues that it is not only non native animals and plants
that are the issue. The native noisy miner is a very aggressive bird that hassles other birds for
territory and kills native birds (Low 1999 and pers. observation). Sap-feeding insects called
psyllids can cause dieback in Eucalypt forests and it is thought that, in association with other
pressures such as weed invasion and tree stress, the native bell miner may contribute to
increased populations of psyllids and other sap sucking insects that contribute to tree dieback
(http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/bell_miner_dieback_strategy).
In the Gosford LGA, the introduced mammals of most concern at this stage are considered to
be foxes, wild dogs, feral deer and feral goats although further study is required to document
their distribution and abundance. Priorities will need to be reassessed as more knowledge is
gained about the extent and impact of feral pests in the region and control methods are trialled.
Some priority pest species are discussed in more detail below.
A - 7.4.1
Foxes
Foxes are a serious threat to biodiversity and are implicated in the decline of many threatened
species (NPWS 2001). For example, the draft Recovery Plan for Large Forest Owls states that
fledglings of the Powerful and Masked Owls are susceptible to predation by foxes (McNabb
1996, Kavanagh 1997, Debus 1997 quoted in NSW NPWS 2005) and that the risk of predation
by foxes on fledglings is widespread and likely to be correlated with proximity to disturbed areas
(Debus 1997 quoted in NSW NPWS 2005). Foxes are also a major threat to the endangered
Bush Stone-curlew and in at least one instance thought to have contributed directly to the death
of two curlews at Kincumber (pers comm. Catherine Price 2005). They also predate on many
waterbirds. Recent monitoring for Council’s fox baiting program in coastal reserves found that
foxes were abundant. At the same time there were very few records for native species,
suggesting that foxes may be having a significant impact on biodiversity in these reserves.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 156

A - 7.4.2
Feral Deer
In the Gosford LGA two species of feral deer are known, Rusa and Fallow Deer. Some deer and
goat populations are thought to have been introduced area as a result of being deliberately or
inadvertently allowed to roam into other areas, this is exacerbated by a falling deer meat market
(B Pengilley, D Kelly pers. comm. 2004). There is some anecdotal evidence that deer may be
increasing in the Bouddi National Park/ Bensville area (Dave Kelly pers. comm. 2004). Rusa
and Fallow Deer have been reported at Mangrove Mountain, Somersby, Kulnura and Cockle
Bay Nature Reserve and adjoining lands also Bouddi National Park.
A - 7.4.3
Feral Pigs
Feral pigs are known to occur in the upper reaches of Patonga Creek (pers. observation R.
Lonie mid 1990s), Mangrove Dam Catchment area. (G Woolcock pers. Observation 11/04).
A - 7.4.4
Aquatic Pests
The extent of aquatic pest and introduced species has not been assessed. Gambusia or
Mosquito Fish are a known serious pest in waterways and predate on native fish and frog
spawn. Gambusia appears to be widespread in Gosford waterways. European Carp is known to
be present in Mangrove Creek (pers. comm. Grant Woolcock). Carp can degrade waterways
though increasing turbidity and predation on native fish. The impacts of other introduced fish
such as the Mountain Cloud Minnow that are deliberate or accidental escapees from aquariums
and garden ponds on native fish and habitats is not known at this stage.
A - 7.4.5
Feral Cats
Feral cats were identified in Council’s wildlife survey as being an issue for the Gosford LGA and
they are recognised as a key threatening process. Little is known about whether feral cats are in
fact widespread or abundant in the LGA. Cats may at times stray or be partially domesticated
and roam bushland areas predating on animals found there.
Further research is required to determine whether feral cats are a significant regional pest and
whether they are leading to a decline of native species. There are some new control methods
that could be considered to manage them. Targeted trapping is also an option. They should also
be considered as part of a possible predator/prey relationship if other species such as foxes are
controlled and their numbers could result as an increase.
A - 7.4.5
Wild Dogs
Domestic dogs may also become feral; attacking wildlife and domestic animals and they
interbreed with dingoes to become wild dogs. Wild dogs are already an issue in the Somersby,
Mangrove Mountain to Kulnura area and in the Mangrove Creek Catchment, Brisbane Water
and Dharug National Parks where wild dog baiting is undertaken. Through interbreeding with
dingoes, wild dogs are further reducing the pure dingo strain.
A - 7.5
Diseases
Diseases are likely to become an increasing threat to native species. Some diseases already
affecting local species are Chytrid fungus in frogs, Clamydia in koalas, mange in wombats.
Elsewhere diseases such as the devastating Devil Facial Tumour disease that is likely to result
in the extinction of the Tasmanian Devil (Tasmanian Department website at
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf) and the herpes virus which resulted in major fish kills
around Australia (Low 1999) are of major concern. The catastrophic extinctions of many frog
species, particularly in high montane rainforest, is thought to be the result of the Chytrid fungus.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 157

Low (1999) surmised that this fungus may emerge as a ‘greater agent of extinction in Australia
than any feral animal, except perhaps the fox’.
Council needs to ensure that it can identify emerging disease issues that threaten local diversity
and collaborate with other lead agencies to effectively manage disease risks. The fact that
Australia is an island continent and that native plants and animals have evolved in isolation
means that they have no natural immunity or resistance to introduced diseases. Disease may
be a secondary factor but when compounded with others such as habitat loss, climatic stress,
reduced food resources and competition with other species, diseases may be the tipping point
for species extinction. Phytophthora, which is a root borne disease that results in serious
dieback in plants, is also a serious issue for Gosford. It was responsible for example for the loss
of 6,000 hectares of eucalypt forest in East Gippsland (Low 1999). As a soil borne pathogen it is
important that Council procedures are put in place to identify where it occurs and to eliminate
the further spread of the disease.
A - 7.6
Companion Animals
Domestic cats and dogs can also be predators of native animals and can interfere with and
impact on native animals and ecosystems. They may prey on animals for food or out of instinct
or for sport. Even well fed cats can still have the desire to hunt and kill for fun. Whilst the impact
of feral cats is well documented (Dickman 1996) the impacts of domestic cat predation on native
species has been the subject of some dispute. One difficulty in determining possible impacts is
that domestic cats may from time to time roam or be partially feral. Domestic cats and dogs can
also become feral as a result
of being abandoned.
Some studies that have found that there was significant predation from domestic cats
(Robertson 1998). Robertson’s study was based on a telephone survey of cat owners. He found
that the frequency of predation of domestic cats was influenced by the amount of time that the
cat spent outside, the agility of the cat and whether deterrents such as bell collars were used
(Robertson 1998). Also Turner and Meister (1988), as quoted by Robertson, found that house
cats have shifted their instinctive behaviour for nocturnal activity and that they were as active in
preying on animals during the day as at night time. Turner and Meister also found that mammals
were either eaten near the place of capture or carried home, whilst invertebrates and smaller
animals were devoured at the place of capture.
Figure 7.7 A baby blue tongue lizard that was attacked by a cat and required antibiotics. It was cared for
by a volunteer wildlife carer. (A. Simpson). Figure 7.8 Cats can prey on native animals for
sport but the consequences are often fatal as prey can die from shock and secondary
impacts such as infection. (R. Lonie)
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 158

Other studies have considered the diet of domestic and feral cats. Results indicate that diet will
be impacted by the habitat in which the animal is predating. Coman and Brunner (1972) as
quoted by Robertson reported that 44% of the diet of feral cats in forest in Victoria was of native
mammals. However, a study in Canberra found that 63% of all prey was the introduced house
mouse and black rat whilst native species comprised only 0.7% of the diet (Barratt 1997 as
quoted by Robertson). For areas adjoining native bushland predation may therefore be
significant where native species are already in decline and many species are considered to be
at risk of extinction.
The impact of domestic dogs in bushland areas is also a consideration for biodiversity. Dog
faeces cause pollution of waterways and add nutrients to the soil that may favour weed species.
Dog barking and scent can also scare away native species. Dogs also attack and kill native
species such as wallabies and can cause them to spontaneously abort young. Dog barking and
scent can also deter native animals and have been known to cause spontaneous abortions in
wallabies. Dogs may also frighten native species and result in them leaving their young
unprotected. A press release for NPWS (14/10/05) states that domestic dogs let off leashes
outside of designated tracks at reserves in
Hornsby have killed wallabies, bandicoots, possums, reptiles and possibly lyrebirds. "Wallaby
deaths have been reported at Mt. Colah, Westleigh, Berowra and Hornsby Heights and other
fauna are getting mauled regularly across the park ," she said. "These incidences have been
reported by rangers as well as by bushwalkers and concerned park neighbours.
http://www3.environment.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/dec_media_051014_01
Dogs are considered a significant threat to koalas, it is estimated that between1,000 to 2,000
koalas are killed across Australia each year by dogs. (Australian Koala Foundation webpage
http://www.savethekoala.com/index.html). Koalas may be killed by even a quick bite or from
trauma or infection. As Koalas come down to the ground and move around at night-time
keeping dogs indoors and not allowing them to roam would protect Koalas where they are
known to occur such as at Pearl Beach and Umina Beach near reserve areas.
A - 7.7
Human Interactions with Native Species
Many people reported via the wildlife survey that they liked to feed the birds and possums that
visit their gardens. Whilst this practice encourages the wildlife to be "friendlier" it can make them
too dependent on a regular food source from humans. This can lead to an inadequate diet, and
the added sugar to the bird’s diet may cause beaks to rot. Feeding birds can also cause overbreeding,
resulting in nests becoming disease carriers. Over-breeding also has implications
when a particular species dominates an area, for example in urban areas Currawong numbers
have rapidly increased, severely impacting upon smaller native bird species such as wrens
which are disappearing.
Some native species (such as Currawongs, Magpies and Noisy Miners) are becoming more
common in urban areas at the expense of other native species as a result of adapting more
readily to the urban environment. Some birds such as Corellas may not have previously existed
in urban areas (notes from pest conference).
Other aggressive or nuisance native species (such as Magpies, Currawongs and Plovers in the
nesting season) can cause issues for people, especially when the birds are nesting and can
become a nuisance by swooping passerbys. It is thought that feeding may encourage some
birds such as magpies to become more aggressive during nesting time. Council receives many
complaints from residents during the nesting season and is requested to destroy nuisance birds.
Cruelty to animals was also considered by many respondents to the wildlife survey to be an
important issue for Council. Issues included destruction of bird eggs, deliberate hunting of
native species, disturbance of nesting birds and ducklings, and it was noted that this was often
done by children.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 159

A - 7.8
Fire Management
Fire management in Gosford City is an extremely important and high profile issue because there
are large areas of ridge top open space under the care, control and management of Council
and/or the Department of Environment and Conservation. Fires occurring in any of these areas
can potentially threaten reserve visitors and private properties adjoining these reserves.
Urban and rural areas surround the majority of the natural area reserves and COSS lands. The
majority of fire activity, (approximately 80 percent), takes place in the more heavily populated
coastal area of the City. Fires that occur in this area are predominately arson related and
require prompt action given the proximity of dwellings to these bushland areas. In particular,
Rumbalara Reserve has been the target of regular arson-related fire events. The frequency of
fire in this reserve over the past decade has severely reduced the possibility for the
regeneration of many plant species. Arson is also the major cause of bushfire in national parks,
with less than 25% considered to have been caused by lightning and the remainder estimated
to be caused by arson, legal and illegal burnoff and other human related activities (DEC 2005).
Whilst bushfire can threaten life and property within and adjacent to Council’s natural area
reserves and land within the Coastal Open Space System (COSS), inappropriate fire regimes
can also threaten the ecological integrity of the bushland and is one of the major threats to the
integrity of the COSS lands. Changes to the natural fire regime have initiated alterations in the
floristic composition and structure of some of the vegetation communities in Council’s natural
area reserves. These changes, if allowed to continue, will significantly reduce the natural
integrity, conservation and recreation values of the reserves.
It is important to recognise that bushfires are inevitable - they are an inherent part of living in
Australia and cannot be prevented. Risks can be minimised and our efforts should focus on this
approach, acknowledging that bushfire has a role in sustaining ecosystems (Ellis 2004).
Although much more research is needed to gain a true understanding of the impacts of fire on
biodiversity, it is recognized that fire frequency, intensity, season, size and type can have
important consequences for biodiversity.
Australian plants and animals have evolved to survive their fire prone environment and many
species even rely on fire for their ongoing survival. The importance of fire frequency has been
recognised in legislation, with High Frequency Fire being listed as a Key Threatening Process
under Schedule 3 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Mosaic burning practices
help to ensure that there are a range of burnt and unburnt areas available for species to
recover.
To give bushland communities improved protection from the threat of bushfire, the NSW
government introduced a package of legislative reforms in August 2002. The reforms recognise
modern challenges of bushfire management in areas such as the huge urban interface (Short
2004). These changes have placed increased pressure on public authorities, owners and
occupiers to manage the occurrence of and minimise the danger of spread on or from their
lands.
Three years on, it is evident that these amendments have dramatically altered the way in which
new and existing development are protected from bushfire impact. The reality of new
development within bush fire prone areas is often the requirement for mass clearing and the use
of non combustible materials such as metal fencing which inhibits the safe passage of native
fauna between habitat areas. Existing properties are also able to seek to remove substantial
areas of bushland to protect habitable dwellings, as well as major structures.
Councils and other land managers are coming under greater pressure to provide firebreaks on
their lands to protect adjoining land owners who cannot fit adequate Asset Protection Zones on
their lands. Fuel management is a complex issue that is often not well understood by the
general public. The fact that so many people are now choosing to live in or near the Australian
bush creates many planning challenges. Broad-scale mapping of bush fire prone lands, coupled
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 160

with the public's general lack of understanding of fire has resulted in an 'ad hoc'and reactive
approach to fire management across the state. Large areas of bushland adjoining existing
development have been (and continue to be) underscrubbed and / or cleared illegally in the
name of hazard reduction.
There are some misconceptions regarding actions to reduce bushfire risk that can cause
environmental harm. The following facts need to be emphasised (Dalby -Ball 2004):
• Trees often protect homes from ember attack (the major cause of house loss).
Property owners need to control fine fuels (leaves and twigs) and not in most cases
remove entire trees.
• Large fallen logs and tree hollows are essential habitat for native fauna. Logs do not
cause bushfires and while they should be away from dwellings they should be
retained elsewhere on site.
• Managing ground and mid-level vegetation. Being fire safe is often portrayed as
having large areas of cleared lawn. The question is how much open area is required
to minimise risk and how much mid and ground level vegetation can be retained.
In addition to this, fire management agencies have conditioned the community to believe that
burning is the only answer to reducing the impacts of fire and it must be done every year for
them to be safe. Unless we turn this around we will never move away from the hysteria created
each year by people with little understanding of fuel management works achieved in the
community (Anderson 2004).
A - 7.9
Hydrological Changes and Environmental Flows
The waterways in the Gosford LGA have been heavily modified since human settlement. Many
were originally dammed to supply water for agricultural uses. Since then, urban development
has increased the velocity and volume of stormwater flows and erosion in waterways. All of
these factors have contributed to a loss of biodiversity. Despite this Gosford City is still blessed
with significant and remarkable natural and near natural waterways and associated riparian
vegetation including wetlands, saltmarshes and swamp forests. Also, there are the major
estuaries that continue to support aquatic native species and ecosystems.
As development increases, natural creeks and watercourses, particularly in older, developed
areas, have lost their natural features and storage capability through the process of
channelisation whereby creeks and rivers are converted to concrete lined stormwater channels
or piped underground. The loss in storage area is mainly within the overbank floodplains and is
caused by development filling in the floodplain areas. The increase in sealed road and
pavement surfaces has lead to an increase in the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. This
results in increased flood levels and flow velocities in affected creeks and watercourses,
resulting in erosion of the bed and banks and loss of riparian vegetation. (Gosford City Council
1999). More regulated systems such as channelised creeks and waterways favour pest species
(such as Salvinia and Alligator Weed that already infest waterways in the Gosford LGA.).
Stormwater control structures such as levees, weirs and culverts can also impede fish passage.
Environmental flows describe freshwater flow that is maintained solely for environmental
reasons, to maintain the health and biodiversity of a particular water-related entity, such as a
river, wetland, groundwater system or estuary. Environmental flows are deemed essential to
minimise the negative influences on the health of aquatic ecosystems resulting from alterations
to flow regimes. The impacts on estuarine ecosystems caused by changes to inflow regimes
can be summarised as six key processes (Freewater 2004):
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 161

1. Salinity mediated processes – Salinity is considered to be the “master factor”
governing estuarine biota distributions, conditional on water quality conditions being
favourable. Salinity impacts on the instream and riparian flora, which links to loss of
shelter and foraging areas for fauna, bank instability and multi-linked water quality
reduction. Salinity is relevant to a further two processes because salinity rises are
associated with reductions in dissolved oxygen, which links with hostile water quality
at depth and anoxia-driven release of pollutants from estuary bed sediments.
2. Reductions in inflow-induced currents and vertical mixing – Reduced water
turbulence can result in changes to water quality. It can also reduce suspension time
for eggs and larvae, and their transport along the estuary. It also reduces high flow
habitats, especially in upper reaches of the estuary where tide induced currents are
minimal.
3. Reductions in connectivity associated with the loss of water depth – This is
particularly relevant to migrating fish and crustaceans. The loss of connecting flow is
also likely to result in the prevention of ecological processes in adjacent waterbodies
being activated or maintained.
4. Reductions in flushing and channel-maintenance flows – This is consistent with the
understanding that episodes of high bed shear stress are required to flush or
maintain estuary channels. It is concerned with reduced physical-habitat quality
where hard substrates are coated by sediments or organic material for prolonged
periods and water quality deterioration due to the accumulation of organic material
and subsequent high biochemical oxygen demand.
5. Reduced input of river-borne nutrients and organic material – Input of this material
stimulates phytoplankton and benthic production contributing to estuarine foodwebs
and is partly responsible for the high productivity of estuaries. This is consistent with
the understanding that organic matter and nutrients (bound to sediments) primarily
enter rivers from their catchments during major rainfall events.
6. Reduced dilution of pollutants – This process concerns the reduced dilution of
pollutants arising from agricultural, industrial or urban sources.
Eutrophication (where the water body becomes over enriched with nutrients resulting in the
excessive growth of organisms and depletion of oxygen) is another major concern for
waterways, which is directly linked with hydrological phenomena. Increases in nutrient loads can
result in serious impacts on water and sediment quality and community composition and
function, leading ultimately to anoxic conditions and loss of most taxa. In semi-rural and urban
areas nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are released into the waterways via sewage
or diffuse sources such as stormwater or urban runoff.
Changes to the natural hydrology of an area can have serious repercussions for native
vegetation communities and the species that depend on them. For example, wetland
communities including swamp forest require periodic wetting and drying as part of their
ecosystem functioning. The artificial opening of Gosford's coastal lagoons prevents the
inundation of wetland forests that fringe the lagoons. Waterbirds forage in intertidal areas such
as saltmarsh and increased overland freshwater flows may impact on saltmarsh communities
leading to changes in vegetation composition and possible death of marine invertebrates.
Changes in hydrology may also be responsible for the encroachment of mangroves into
saltmarshes.
Where wetlands no longer go through typical wetting and drying cycles the cycling of nutrients is
disrupted often resulting in a build-up of nutrients and organic matter. Hydrological restrictions in
waterways due to sedimentation can also result in increasing spread of aquatic weeds, leading
to a further degradation of the habitat.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 162

A - 7.10 Degradation of Aquatic and Riparian Habitat and Water Quality
Water quality may be impacted by a number of human activities including the following:
• increased sedimentation due to erosion as a result of vegetation clearance,
• runoff of nutrients from adjoining areas (dog faeces, road surfaces, fertilisers used
for lawns and in landscaped areas), and
• pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, organochlorides, paints, solvents and
fertilizers entering the stormwater system.
Metals and organic chemicals behave in similar ways in estuarine environments and although
precise chemical pathways may differ, physical and biological pathways are essentially the
same. Organic chemicals also undergo a variety of physical and chemical processes, as well as
processing by the biological community. These processes include hydraulic transport,
partitioning between dissolved and particulate matter, bioaccumulation, photo-degradation,
biodegradation, sedimentation and recycling. For example, chemicals and metals present in the
dissolved phase in the water column are subject to transport based on the hydraulic movement
of the water itself. Therefore, their resident time in the dissolved phase is equal to the residence
time of the water body. This suggests that dissolved pollutants entering areas of an estuary
where tidal (and other) currents are weak are likely to persist in those areas for longer than they
might in areas where currents are stronger. This in an important point as it has significant
implications for potential impact on spatially discrete populations of biota and the
appropriateness of scientific methods used to assess such impact.
Whilst seagrasses are among the most productive and biodiverse habitats, they are also among
the most fragile. Although the leaves of the seagrass grow fast, the rhizome grows relatively
slowly. As a result, once seagrass meadows are damaged, their recolonisation is very slow.
Many major estuaries in NSW have lost as much as two-thirds of their seagrass beds in the past
30 to 40 years. There are numerous activities that physically damage or impact on seagrasses
as described below.
• Changed hydrology - Seagrasses generally occur where there are slow currents.
Where the speed of flow has increased due to removal of sand, rock or other
seagrass beds, seagrasses often cannot re-establish from seed.
• Sedimentation - A large amount of sediment in the water column can cause excess
turbidity (muddiness) in estuarine waters; this blocks out the sunlight needed for
growth of seagrasses.
• Eutrophication - Excessive nutrient levels in the water can cause high algal growth.
Blooms of algae or excessive growth of algal epiphytes can restrict light to
seagrasses.
• Reclamation - Shallow estuarine areas occupied by seagrasses, mangroves, and
saltmarshes, are often seen as ideal sites for waterfront developments. Their
reclamation, by the dumping of fill, totally destroys valuable fish habitat.
• Dredging - Dredging has a number of adverse (degrading) effects on estuaries. The
removal of underlying sediments may destroy seagrass beds. Dredging often
increases the depth, so that there is not enough light for seagrasses to grow. These
deep holes may also become stagnant and without enough oxygen in the substrate
(bottom) for plants and animals to survive. Dredging can release large amounts of
sediment into the water, which may smother seagrass beds or other aquatic life.
Also, the resulting high turbidity inhibits the growth of seagrasses.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 163

• Structural flood mitigation works - When a barrier, such as a weir or floodgate, is
built across a tidal waterway, the upstream habitat changes from brackish to
freshwater. This means that estuarine fish habitats such as mangroves and
seagrasses above the barrier are lost.
• Pollution - Discharge of nutrients into the water from sewage outfalls, factories,
abattoirs, or from general agricultural run-off, may cause algal blooms and excess
epiphyte growth on seagrasses, both of which restrict the light to the plants.
• Poor land management - The clearing of land vegetation in steep areas, particularly
of trees along river banks, often leads to erosion and the washing of sediment into
waterways. Rapid siltation smothers and destroys seagrass beds, and causes
excess turbidity.
• Recreation - People boating around seagrass meadows should be careful not to
damage them. Swing moorings with their chains dragging across the bottom, boat
anchors and propellers, and bait digging all damage seagrass beds.
Many of these activities impact on saltmarshes in similar ways. Urban runoff, sewage overflows
and septic seepage threaten seagrass habitat by the continuous addition of suspended
sediments and nutrients to estuaries. These inputs can cause higher than natural turbidity and
lower light penetration, both directly and through excessive phytoplankton growth. Such turbidity
is most evident where flushing is poor and inputs are great. Increased turbidity reduces the light
available to seagrass, with the deeper parts of a bed being particularly vulnerable to consequent
damage. Whilst extra nutrients can actually enhance seagrass growth, very high levels are likely
to cause heavy epiphytic growth that can smother and shade seagrass, and eventually lead to
its decline. Nutrient enrichment may also promote the competitive replacement of seagrass by
Caulerpa spp. (green macroalgae morphologically similar to seagrass) or other algae. The
coastal lagoons of Gosford, particularly Avoca and Cockrone Lagoons, experience an annual
spring outbreak of filamentous algae that form large mats, anchored to the shallow substratum.
The algal mats are made up of a few species of filamentous algae, mostly Enteromorpha
intestinalis and Chaetomorpha linum.
Sedimentation gradually makes areas too shallow for seagrass, particularly in bays receiving
urban runoff. Heavy loads of fine sediment washed down after heavy rain can coat seagrass
leaves, reducing photosynthetic efficiency and therefore vigor (Freewater 2004). This can be a
problem in sheltered bays where waves and currents are slight. Sedimentation also alters the
nature (particularly with respect to parent material and grain size composition) of substrates
supporting seagrass; this can cause changes both in the seagrass itself, and in the invertebrate
community associated with the substrate.
The marine vegetation of Gosford has been mapped but aside from work undertaken for the
Brisbane Water Estuary Processes Study, the accuracy of map features has not been tested.
Council does not monitor riparian or marine habitats so little information is available on long
term trends. Council is supporting a Community Environment Network (CEN) initiative to
encourage community monitoring of seagrasses on the Central Coast. The program would be
similar to Waterwatch/Streamwatch, which monitors waterways for a selection of water quality
parameters.
Council's water quality monitoring program involves monthly sampling at a variety of locations in
Brisbane Water and the Coastal Lagoons. The data collected are used in Council's
Sustainability Report. The data provides a snap-shot of selected water quality parameters for a
discrete volume of surface water at a discrete moment in time. However, the data provides little
information on water quality trends or the impact that water quality is having on the biota of the
waterways. A more integrated program would include sediment quality, which provides a timeintegrated
measure of water quality, and a measure of some biological endpoint, such as
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 164

invertebrate community assemblages. As development of Gosford's catchments continues, it is
expected that water quality will deteriorate.
A - 7.11 Authorised and Unauthorised Landuse Impacts
There is a range of authorised and unauthorised landuses that have the potential to impact on
biodiversity. These include agriculture, rural and residential housing development and
associated infrastructure, forestry. Unauthorised works include clearing, filling, foreshore
modification, dredging, disturbance acid sulphate soils. Issues include non compliance with
conditions, extending into other area, ineffective sediment controls, settling sediment ponds,
lack rehabilitation.
The extent of unauthorised works and landuses in Gosford City is not known but some studies
have been undertaken. Council initiated a program to investigate extractive industries in 1991
and identified almost 80 extractive industries in the LGA. Council continues to monitor these
sites under the conditions of consent for their approval.
Council has commenced investigations of unauthorised illegal fill. This has been an ongoing
issue for Council with truck operators illegally dumping fill on lands particularly west of the F3
Freeway. In many cases the dumped material comes from building sites in Sydney. This issue is
exacerbated by the high costs of waste disposal and the requirement for contaminated material
to be disposed of at special authorised waste facilities. Council’s State of Environment reports
describe these trends over
a five year period.
Grazing cattle and horses in saltmarsh and wetland areas cause degradation of these areas
and occurs in some parts of the LGA. Other grazing such as by goats on Conservation 7(a)
zoned lands continues although it is not permitted under the landuse zoning except with
consent.
Another important issue for riparian and estuarine biodiversity is the proliferation of seawalls.
Seawalls are generally constructed to armor foreshores against the erosive action of wave
activity. However, seawalls displace natural intertidal habitats and interrupt their natural
ecosystem function. Wherever seawalls are found, the adjacent intertidal invertebrate
community is usually relatively poorly represented. Therefore, seawalls should only be
constructed in wave impacted shores that are too narrow to return to a more natural state.
A - 7.12 Recreational and Commercial Use of Natural Resources
The Gosford area provides a rich diversity of recreational opportunities that involve the use and
appreciation of the area's natural features. Activities such as swimming, surfing, fishing, sailing
and bushwalking are reliant on these resources, especially in a healthy functioning state. Some
recreational activities have the potential to impact on natural areas. Examples include trail bikes
in bushland that can damage vegetation, erode tracks and disturb wildlife and can cause
bushfire. Others such as horse riding in COSS reserves have not posed a significant issue at
this stage.
Mooring of boats in sensitive areas such as seagrass beds causes damage to marine
vegetation and rocky habitats that are important parts of the aquatic ecosystem. Also the
disposal of bilge water, raw sewage and grey water from vessels is largely unregulated and is
potentially highly damaging to aquatic systems, particularly in waterways such as Brisbane
Water that have limited tidal flushing. Wakes from vessels can damage foreshore areas and
infrastructure associated with boating can also pose environmental issues such as marinas,
boat ramps and jetties.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 165

Increased needs for active recreation areas such as playing fields also places pressure on
natural areas, particularly as these are often located on low-lying flat land that may support
remnant endangered ecological communities. Commercial and recreational fishing have the
potential to also impact on native fish as well as habitats, particularly when the methods used
are highly damaging such as prawn trawling. Many of these impacts can however be addressed
through appropriate controls, innovative technological solutions and increase community
awareness.
A - 7.13 Climate Change
The world’s climate is changing as a result of greenhouse gas emissions and this issue is
emerging as the most serious global threat facing biodiversity. Despite past argument and
scientific uncertainties, there is now scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is
caused by human activity, as demonstrated by the Joint Science Academies’ statement signed
by twelve national scientific academies and presented to the G8 Summit in July 2005
(http://www.g8.gov.uk).
On average, global temperatures rose 0.6° Celsius in the 20th Century. The ten warmest years
on record worldwide occurred from 1990. In Australia, there is also compelling evidence of
climate change impacts. 2005 was the hottest year on record for Australia. In a study of snow
depth at Spencer’s Creek near Mt Kosciusko, a decrease of 40% since 1962 was recorded
which was attributed to temperature rise (Nicolls et al. 2003).
Over the 21st Century, global temperatures are predicted to rise by between 1.4 and 5.8°
Celsius (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ref). In Australia, predictions are for an
increase of between 0.4 to more than 2° Celsius by 2030 and possibly up to 6° Celsius increase
(Whetton 2003). For south east Australia, predictions are for lower overall rainfall with more
frequent hot days and droughts. There is a predicted increase in the frequency and intensity of
bushfire. Increased incidence of bushfires will have associated impacts such as increased soil
erosion and loss soil nutrients.
Sea level rise is predicted to be between 0.1 and 0.9 metres between 1990 and 2100 (Walsh
2003). This is likely to impact on low relief areas in Gosford City such as the Woy Woy
Peninsular, Bensville, Saratoga and St Hubert’s Island. Also increased strong winds and higher
storm tides are predicted that will result in more coastal inundation, with serious impacts for
coastal areas of the LGA. Although important habitat such as saltmarsh is now listed as
Endangered Ecological Community, legislation will not protect them from climate change.
Saltmarsh in Gosford generally abut urban developments or steep escarpments. As sea levels
rise these habitats may be squeezed out of existence. Climate change, and associated smallscale
changes in tidal range, may also be responsible for the encroachment of mangroves into
saltmarsh.
Some species will increase their current distribution but others will contract their distribution, for
example cane toads are expected to be favoured by warmer temperatures and this will enable
them to expand their range even further south than the current Port Macquarie limit and are
expected to reach the Central Coast. Some change will be directly as a result of climate change,
while others will be due to predation, impacts on breeding cycles, flow regimes. As a result of
climate change more algal blooms are also predicted. Increased incidence and spread of
disease, such as mosquito borne viruses, is also likely.
A conference in 2003 sponsored by the Commonwealth Standing Committee on Natural
Resource Management examined the impacts on natural resources as a result of climate
impacts. In examining how species will respond to accelerating biological changes associated
with warming, Hughes (2003) predicted that there would be the following changes in the
relatively short term:
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 166

• Extensions of species’ geographic range boundaries toward the poles or to higher
elevations (i.e. saltmarsh mangrove and wetland communities under threat due to
low elevation, limited opportunity to extend inland)
• Extinctions of local populations along range boundaries at lower latitudes or
elevations (i.e. species dependant on communities such as saltmarsh, wetlands
mangroves (seagrass)
• Increasing invasion by opportunistic weedy and/or highly mobile species, especially
in sites where local populations of existing species are declining
• Progressive decoupling of species interactions (e.g. plants and pollinators) due to
mismatched phenology, especially where one partner is cued by daylength and the
other by temperature.
(Hughes 2003 and additional comments GCC in italics).
Actions that government could consider to reduce these impacts included mitigation and
adaptation. Dunlop and Howden (2003) suggest five key strategies for managing climate
induced changes to biodiversity,
1. understanding and managing climate variability (use of climate variability information
for environmental flows, estuaries and coastal areas)
2. preserving biodiversity that is sensitive to climate change (limit land clearing and
land degradation, restore environmental flows,
3. facilitating long term adaptation (preserve corridors, restore degraded habitats,
4. monitoring, research and policy development
5. mitigating climate change and reduce other pressures (such as feral animal and
weed control programs).
It was suggested that managers and others need to adopt a dynamic rather than static view of
biodiversity. Actions that improve the health, condition and functioning of ecosystems and the
connectivity of natural areas were major recommendations.
Conclusions
Pressures and threatening processes need to be effectively managed to protect biodiversity in
Gosford City. This includes having adequate knowledge about the risks, being proactive in
identifying new risks and issues, effectively managing the issues and adopting adaptive
management techniques that can improve on past management and utilise current knowledge.
A collaborative and integrated approach is required between the community, special interest
groups and government agencies to manage these threatening processes.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 167

A - 7.14
References
Anderson, C (2004) ‘Involving the Community to Reduce Risk’ in Bushfire in a Changing Environment:
New Directions in Management Conference Proceedings June 24-25, 2004 pp 15-17.
Coman B J and Brunner H (1972) Food habits of the feral house cat in Victoria, J Wild Manage 1972
36:848-853. (as quoted by Robertson).
Barratt D G (1997) Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L) in Canberra, Australia. 1. Prey
composition and preference. Wildl Res 1997; 24:263-277 as quoted by Robertson.
Dalby -Ball, M (2004) In Bushfire in a Changing Environment: New Directions in Management
Conference Proceedings June 24-25, 2004 pp 15-17
Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2005) State of the Parks 2004, Department of
Environment and Conservation, Sydney South.
Dickman, C.R. (1996) Overview of the impacts of Feral Cats on Australian native fauna – Australian
Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra.
Dunlop M and Howden M (2003) ‘Biodiversity and Climate Change in Australia’ in Conference
Workbook Climate Impacts on Australia’s Natural Resources: Current and Future Challenges, a
conference sponsored by the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management Managing
Climate Change Variability Program, Surfers Paradise Queensland.
Ellis, S (2004) ‘Bushfire Mitigation and Management in Australia’ in Bushfire in a Changing
Environment: New Directions in Management Conference Proceedings June 24-25, 2004 pp 15-17
Freewater, P. (2004) Hydro-ecology A framework for estuarine research and management. PhD
Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, pp. 271.
Gosford City Council (2005) Central Coast Regional Fox Management Strategy, Gosford City Council,
Gosford.
Hughes L (2003) ’Climate Change and Biodiversity’ in Conference Workbook Climate Impacts on
Australia’s Natural Resources: Current and Future Challenges, a conference sponsored by the
Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management Managing Climate Change Variability
Program, Surfers Paradise Queensland.
Low T (1999) Feral Future. The Untold Story of Australia’s Exotic Invaders, Viking Penguin Books
Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Melbourne.
Nicolls N, Chambers L, Collins D and Jones D (2003) ‘Recent Australian Climate Change’ in
Conference Workbook Climate Impacts on Australia’s Natural Resources: Current and Future
Challenges, a conference sponsored by the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management
Managing Climate Change Variability Program, Surfers Paradise Queensland.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2001) Threat Abatement Plan for the European Red Fox
(Vulpes vulpes), NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2005) Draft Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls
Powerful Owl Ninox strenua, Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa, Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae, NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
Turner DC and Meister O (1988) The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 111-121 (as quoted in Robertson).
Olsen P (1998) Australia’s’ Pest Animals: New Solutions to Old Problems. Bureau of Resource
Sciences and Kangaroo Press Commonwealth of Australia, East Roseville NSW.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 168

Gosford City Council (1999) Stormwater Management Plan. Unpublished report prepared for Gosford City
Council.
Robertson I D (1998) ‘Survey of Predation by Domestic Cats’, Australian Veterinarian Journal Vol 76 No 8
August 1998.
Short, L (2004) Planning For Bush Fire Protection - Two Years On In Bushfire in a Changing
Environment: New Directions in Management Conference Proceedings June 24-25, 2004 pp 15-17.
Walsh K (2003) ‘Climate Change and the Coast’ in Conference Workbook Climate Impacts on
Australia’s Natural Resources: Current and Future Challenges, a conference sponsored by the
Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management Managing Climate Change Variability
Program, Surfers Paradise Queensland.
Whetton P (2003) ‘Projected Future Climate Change for Australia’ in Conference Workbook Climate
Impacts on Australia’s Natural Resources: Current and Future Challenges, a conference sponsored by
the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management Managing Climate Change Variability
Program, Surfers Paradise Queensland.
Biodiversity - Technical Report Page 169