Download 1 - NSW Department of Education

1.1
Thersites mitchellae - Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail
1.1.1 Summary
National Recovery Plan (NSW NPWS 2001d), approved October 2001
Recovery Actions: 19
Action Implementation:

3 (16%) commenced and completed

3 (16%) commenced and not completed

8 (42%) commenced and ongoing

5 (26%) not commenced
Stakeholders contacted: 13
Stakeholders interviewed: 9
1.1.2
Budget
Plan Budget: $79,500
Actual expenditure: $57,000 to date. Of this expenditure, $41,000 was on
weed control and bush regeneration, greatly exceeding the $8000 allocated
in the recovery plan. The remainder of the money was spent on production of
the information brochure and Teachers Kit, which received National Parks
Foundation funding of $4000. The recovery plan stipulated that
implementation of actions was subject to the availability of funds.
1.1.3 Recovery Plan Critique
This species’ ecological specialisation means that recovery may be less
problematic than other more widespread species. The basic requirement is
habitat protection and restoration where possible.
The species’ ability to recover is discussed within the recovery plan but it does
not set an agenda for recovery monitoring and research into recovery
potential. Areas such as Byron Bay and Lennox Head, where developments
have impacted snail habitat, should be the subject of post-development
monitoring to see what the impact has been and whether or not the snail has
recolonised restored and retained habitat patches.
Has there been any consideration of translocation of animals to suitable,
restored habitat remnants? Relatively extensive replanting and restoration has
been undertaken within the lower Richmond and Tweed valleys meaning that
potential sites for survey and translocation may be available. Student-based
projects could undertake these under the auspices of a cooperative
university/DECC program.
1.1.4 Recommendations
 Monitoring plots should be established as described in the Recovery
Plan to allow changes in the population over time to be evaluated.

Research into recolonisation capacity should be undertaken,
particularly in areas where development impacts have occurred.

Habitat modelling should be undertaken by DECC using the data
collected for the Border Ranges BMP in liaison with Ballina, Byron and
Tweed Shire Councils.

Assessment of areas of Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail habitat additional to
Stotts Island for identification as critical habitat should be undertaken.

Consideration could be given to incorporating this plan into a multispecies or landscape recovery approach.
1.1.5
PAS implications
Recovery Actions
12.1 Survey and
i) Scientific survey of areas of high
research
potential habitat for Mitchell’s Rainforest
Snail on the coastal plain to identify
additional populations.
12.2 Protection
of extant
populations and
habitat
PAS Recommendations
This action should remain a high priority in the PAS
given that there have been reports of the species
from these localities that have not been
authenticated.
ii) Scientific survey of Wilson’s River area
and other foothills localities to investigate
whether distribution of Mitchell’s
Rainforest Snail extends outside the
coastal plain.
This action should remain a high priority in the PAS
given that there have been reports of the species
from these localities that have not been
authenticated.
iii) Research into the ecology and
lifecycle of Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail
relevant to the conservation of the
species is supported. This will include
support for research into the potential
impacts on Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail of
predation by the introduced Black Rat
Rattus rattus.
iv) Long-term monitoring every second
year established at selected Mitchell’s
Rainforest Snail sites to identify any
changes in the status of the species.
This action should remain a medium priority in the
PAS. There is still a lack of information on the
impacts of Black Rats on Mitchell's Rainforest Snail
and the ecology and lifecycle of the species are not
well understood.
v) Genetics research undertaken to
examine the level of variation within and
between populations of Mitchell’s
Rainforest Snail. This will provide
important information on the effects of
fragmentation, inbreeding and other data
relevant to the management and
recovery of the species.
This action should remain a low priority in the PAS
given the limited funding available for implementing
recovery actions.
vi) Research and field survey projects
involving Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail
requiring licensing under the TSC Act will
be required to observe the guidelines
provided in Appendix 3 of the Recovery
Plan, to ensure that the work undertaken
does not further threaten the survival of
Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail or a population
of the species.
This action is not covered in the PAS as the
licensing process is a legislative requirement.
i) State and local government authorities
and community groups with
responsibilities relevant to the protection
of Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail and its
habitat will be made aware and kept
informed by the NPWS of the species’
conservation requirements and the
location of known populations and
potential habitat.
This action should remain a high priority action in
the PAS.
This action should be changed to a high priority in
the PAS. Monitoring plots should be established as
described in the Recovery Plan to allow changes in
the population over time to be evaluated. Without
such data it is impossible to determine whether
recovery actions have benefited the species and
reduced or removed the risk of extinction.
Recovery Actions
ii) NPWS will work in cooperation with
Tweed, Byron and Ballina Shire Councils
to produce maps showing areas of
potential habitat for Mitchell’s Rainforest
Snail to assist with land management and
environmental planning and assessment
matters. Map derivation is to include
occurrence of lowland floodplain
rainforest and swamp sclerophyll forest
remnants, coastal wetlands, basalticderived alluvium, and recent records and
historical distribution of Mitchell’s
Rainforest Snail.
12.3
Commonwealth
listing
PAS Recommendations
This action should remain a high priority in the PAS
and appropriate modelling should be undertaken by
DECC using the data collected for the Border
Ranges BMP in liaison with Ballina, Byron and
Tweed Shire Councils.
iii) It is unlikely that the above mapping
will identify all areas of potential habitat,
particularly small areas of habitat.
Recommendation will be made by the
NPWS that identified potential habitat
(Action 8 above), all lowland rainforest
and swamp sclerophyll forest remnants
and vegetated areas within 50 m of
SEPP No. 14 Coastal Wetlands in
Tweed, Byron and Ballina Shires be
protected from clearing or development in
the relevant Local Environmental Plans
and Regional Vegetation Management
Plans.
This action should remain a high priority in the
PAS. DECC must encourage LGAs to increase
protection of Mitchell's Rainforest Snail by
incorporating strict controls and environmental
zoning into their LEPs, DCPs and strategic
planning policies.
iv) Identification and declaration of habitat
for Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail in Stotts
Island Nature Reserve as critical habitat
under the TSC Act.
This action should be removed from the PAS as it
has been completed.
v) Assessment of areas of habitat for
Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail additional to
Stotts Island for identification as critical
habitat under the TSC Act.
This action should remain a medium priority in the
PAS. In the interim, additional protection for known
populations and potential habitat should be secured
by strengthening LGA planning controls and
environmental legislation.
vi) Implementation of management
measures as appropriate to control
identified threats to Mitchell’s Rainforest
Snail in Stotts Island Nature Reserve and
maintain viability of the population.
This action should remain a high priority in the
PAS.
vii) NPWS will support weed control work
in lowland rainforest and swamp
sclerophyll forest remnants on basaltic
soils in the Tweed, Byron and Ballina
Shires, and will recommend that such
weed control work be undertaken in a
manner which minimises disturbance to
the habitat of Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail,
including maintaining a moist
microclimate and minimising disturbance
to the leaf litter layer and fallen logs.
This action should remain a medium priority in the
PAS to ensure the guidelines for protection of the
snail are adhered to by all bush regeneration
contractors and organisations conducting weed
control programs.
i) Nomination of Mitchell’s Rainforest
Snail as an endangered species under
the Commonwealth EPBC Act.
This action should be removed from the PAS as it
has been completed.
Recovery Actions
12.4 Community
i) Preparation and distribution of a
awareness and
community awareness brochure.
involvement
PAS Recommendations
This revised action should remain a medium priority
in the PAS. The existing brochure should be
updated with any new information and redistributed
for promotion of Mitchell's Rainforest Snail
conservation.
ii) Preparation and distribution of a school
teacher’s kit in cooperation with the
Department of Education and Training,
targeting schools in the Tweed, Byron
and Ballina Shires.
This action should be removed from the PAS as it
has been completed.
iii) High profile media publicity concerning
Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail and its
conservation and recovery will be sought
over the life of the Recovery plan.
This action should remain a high priority in the
PAS. It is important that the momentum from a
strong public awareness and education program
during the early years of the Recovery Plan is
enhanced by continued presence of Mitchell's
Rainforest Snail in the public arena. A media profile
for the species can only be maintained through the
implementation of recovery actions that generate
new information and opportunities for promotion of
threatened species conservation.
iv) NPWS will support appropriate
community-based initiatives to develop
interpretive material to promote
community awareness of the status of
Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail (including
initiatives in the Cumbebin Wetland area
at Byron Bay).
This action should remain a medium priority in the
PAS.
v) NPWS will liaise with the Australian
Museum on a minimum six monthly basis
to assist the Museum in maintaining up to
date information concerning Mitchell’s
Rainforest Snail on the Museum’s
invertebrate zoology internet web site.
This action should remain a medium priority in the
PAS. Updates need only be sent to the Australian
Museum when new information on the species has
been generated.