{"id":"F2016L00045","name":"National Recovery Plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens Ecological Community 2015","slug":"national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":438529,"registerId":"F2016L00045-fast-fetch-1775954916858","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"National Recovery Plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens Ecological Community 2015","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\n![](image.001.png)\n\n \n\nCommonwealth of Australia\n\n \n\nEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999\n\n \n\nSection 269A\n\n \n\nInstrument making a recovery plan\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nI, Greg Hunt, Minister for the Environment, according  to:\n\n \n\n \n\n(a) section 269A(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999  (Cth), make a  recovery plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens Ecological Community, entitled ‘National Recovery Plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens Ecological Community 2015’.\n\n \n\n \n\nThe recovery plan specified in paragraph (a) will come into force on the day after the plan is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nDated this             21st                  day of              December                 2015\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nGreg Hunt\n\n \n\nMinister for the Environment\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n![](image.002.png)\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nNational Recovery Plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens\n\n- a threatened ecological community listed under the\n\nEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n![](image.003.png)\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n![](image.004.png)November 2015\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPrepared by: Department of the Environment\n\nMade under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999\n\n© Commonwealth of Australia, 2015\n\n![](image.005.png)\n\nThis work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton A[CT 2600 or posted at: ag.gov.au/cca](http://ag.gov.au/cca)\n\nNote: This recovery plan sets out the actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, a listed threatened ecological community. The Australian Government is committed to acting in accordance with the plan and to implementing the plan as it applies to Commonwealth areas. The plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a broad range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds are subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge.\n\nWhile reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.\n\nThis plan should be cited as:\n\nDepartment of the Environment (2015) National recovery plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community. Department of the Environment, Canberra.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nNATIONAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ALPINE SPHAGNUM BOGS AND ASSOCIATED FENS\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nAcknowledgements\n\nThe Department of the Environment is grateful to the organisations and individuals who contributed to or provided information for the preparation of this recovery plan and have been or are still involved in implementing conservation and management actions that benefit the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community.\n\nIn particular, the Department acknowledges researchers and conservation experts, including academics, non-government organisations, Commonwealth, State , and Territory Government staff, and the Steering Committee, established to contribute to and provide advice on the preparation of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens recovery plan. The Steering Committee comprised representatives of the New South Wales, Tasmanian, Australian Capital Territory and Victorian governments, as well as Wetlandcare, and independent experts in the ecological community. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the views of the members of the Steering Committee or the agencies they represented.\n\n \n\nAcknowledgement of Traditional Owners and Country\n\nThe Australian Government acknowledges Australia’s Traditional Owners and pays respect to Elders past and present. We acknowledge the deep spiritual, cultural and customary connections of Traditional Owners to the Australian alpine landscape, including the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens.\n\nContents\n\n[Acknowledgements](#_Toc256000162)\n\n[1. Introduction](#_Toc256000176)\n\n[1.1 Objectives](#_Toc256000201)\n\n[1.2 Legislative context](#_Toc256000203)\n\n[1.3 Affected interests and potential contributors](#_Toc256000208)\n\n[1.4 Biodiversity impacts and benefits](#_Toc256000209)\n\n[2. The ecological community](#_Toc256000211)\n\n[2.1. Description](#_Toc256000212)\n\n[2.2 Flora](#_Toc256000213)\n\n[2.3 Fauna](#_Toc256000214)\n\n[2.4 Ecology (including hydrology)](#_Toc256000215)\n\n[3. Distribution](#_Toc256000216)\n\n[3.1 Important occurrences](#_Toc256000217)\n\n[3.2 Areas of the ecological community under particular pressure for survival](#_Toc256000218)\n\n[4. Threats](#_Toc256000219)\n\n[4.1 National severity rating](#_Toc256000220)\n\n[4.2 Climate change](#_Toc256000221)\n\n[4.3 Fire](#_Toc256000222)\n\n[4.4 Domestic stock](#_Toc256000223)\n\n[4.5 Invasive Species - Fauna](#_Toc256000224)\n\n[4.6 Invasive species - Flora](#_Toc256000225)\n\n[4.7 Pathogens and Diseases](#_Toc256000226)\n\n[4.8 Infrastructure, development and recreation](#_Toc256000227)\n\n[4.9 Resource use](#_Toc256000228)\n\n[5. Recovery Programme](#_Toc256000229)\n\n[5.1 Objectives](#_Toc256000231)\n\n[5.2 Strategies](#_Toc256000232)\n\n[5.3 Performance criteria](#_Toc256000233)\n\n[5.4 Recovery Actions](#_Toc256000234)\n\n[6. Implementation](#_Toc256000236)\n\n[6.1 Projected funding needs and timing](#_Toc256000238)\n\n[6.2 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and review](#_Toc256000239)\n\n[6.3 Guide for decision makers](#_Toc256000240)\n\n[7. References](#_Toc256000241)\n\n \n\n1.        Introduction\n\n\nThe primary purpose of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens recovery plan is to provide the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline, and support the recovery of, the ecological community so that the chances of its long-term survival in nature are maximised. A major focus of this plan is to address the key threats affecting the ecological community.\n\nThe Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community has a limited distribution which is scattered throughout a wide range. Although the ecological community can form extensive interconnected networks across large plains, it is considered naturally discontinuous, and occurs in gullies, depressions and cold air drainage areas. The ecological community is found in permanently wet sites in high rainfall alpine, sub-alpine and montane areas of NSW, ACT, Victoria and Tasmania. The majority of examples of this ecological community are found in areas under conservation related tenure, usually in national parks. Therefore, this recovery plan is intended as a key resource for park management agencies, to guide and assist actions to support the recovery of the ecological community. Ideally, the priority actions identified in this plan will be incorporated into future versions of park management plans, and other key management plans, such as those for relevant state forests, and plans dealing specifically with key threats to the ecological community, such as management of feral horses.\n\nThe Recovery Plan is also intended to support decision making for environmental regulation and Alps natural resource management, including the allocation of resources.\n\nThis recovery plan summarises information that is necessary to support funding and on-ground implementation actions for the recovery of the ecological community across its full national range. The plan includes the key requirements for a recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The recovery plan complements the information provided in the [Commonwealth Listing Advice on Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/29-listing-advice.pdf) and the [Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/29-conservation-advice.pdf).\n\nSupporting information has been compiled in the accompanying document: [Background information for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens National Recovery Plan](http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=29&status=Endangered).\n\n \n\n1.1         Objectives\n\nThe primary objective for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens recovery plan is to:\n\nMaintain or extend the current known extent (area) and maintain or improve the condition of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community over the life of the recovery plan.\n\nThe supporting objective of the plan is to:\n\nEnsure effective and adaptive implementation of the plan.\n\nPriority recovery strategies, priority recovery actions and performance criteria to achieve these objectives are set out in Section 5: Recovery Programme.\n\n \n\n1.2         Legislative context\n\nThis is the first national recovery plan for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community (referred to within this plan as the ecological community on occasion), which is listed as a threatened ecological community under the EPBC Act.\n\n \n\nNational status\n\nThe ecological community was listed as endangered under the EPBC Act in January 2009, due to:\n\n-                   its small geographic distribution coupled with demonstrable threats,\n-                   the continued decline of functionally important species, and\n-                   the severe reduction in community integrity across its range.\n\n\nListing under national legislation means that any new or intensified activities that may have a significant impact on the ecological community may require referral and approval under the EPBC Act.\n\nOther relevant national policies and resources for this ecological community include the [Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens Policy Statement 3.16](http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-epbc-act-policy-statement), and the [Commonwealth listing and conservation advices on Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens](http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=29&status=Endangered).\n\n   Conservation status in state and territory jurisdictions\n\nThe ecological community is either wholly or partially protected in each State and Territory in which it occurs.\n\nAustralian Capital Territory\n\nThe community is represented within a single ecological community described in the ACT and mapped by Hope et al. (2009). The Sphagnum cristatum Montane and Subalpine Bogs (Sphagnum Montane and Subalpine Bogs), lie entirely within Namadgi National park and are considered adequately conserved in the ACT (Sharp et al., 2007; G. Hope pers. comm., 2014). Protection and management of the described community occurs through implementation of the Namadgi National Park Plan of Management, the Ginini Ramsar Site Plan of Management, the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan 2004 and the ACT Bushfire Operational Plan. A plan of management for bogs and fens synonymous with the EPBC-listed ecological community is in preparation (ACT Government, in prep).\n\nNew South Wales\n\nIn NSW, the ecological community is protected under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), as a component of a broader endangered ecological community called “Montane peatlands and swamps of the New England Tableland, NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, South East Corner, South Eastern Highlands and Australian Alps Bioregions”. The ecological community in the NSW Snowy Mountains has been mapped by Hope et al. (2012).\n\nVictoria\n\nTwo components of the ecological community have been listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). These are the ‘Alpine Bog Community’ and the ‘Fen (Bog Pool) Community’ (VSAC, 1991a; 1991b). The ‘Psychrophila introloba Herbland Community’ (formerly Caltha introloba), also listed under the FFG Act, may also be found within or abutting Sphagnum bogs, particularly around areas of late-lying snow (VSAC, 1992; VDSE, 2007). The ecological community in Victoria has been mapped by Lawrence et al., (2009) and Tolsma unpublished (2012).\n\nTasmania\n\n‘Sphagnum peatland’ is listed as ‘Rare’ under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NC Act). The Act specifies that there can be no clearance or conversion of listed communities without a certified Forest Practices Plan. This means that it cannot be cleared or converted unless exceptional circumstances have been approved by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA, 2011). A high proportion of the ecological community is located within National Parks and the World Heritage Areas of Tasmania.\n\n1.3 Affected interests and potential contributors\n\nThe ecological community is an integral component of the catchments, and catchment hydrology, of the Australian Alps and Tasmanian highlands.\n\nThe water yields from the Alps Australian mainland catchments are valued at about $9 billion annually to the Australian economy (agriculture, hydroelectricity and drinking water supply) (Worboys et al., 2011). This economic value lies partly in the ecological community’s role in regulating and filtering water flows to the major rivers of the Murray Darling system. As such, the health, function and productivity of the ecological community are of importance to the national interest.\n\nSpecific stakeholders listed below may be affected by the recovery plan’s implementation as they own or manage (or may otherwise influence management of) relatively large areas of land on which the ecological community may occur. These parties have a role in the implementation and coordination of recovery actions, particularly across the different land tenures. The major affected interests are:\n\n-                  National Parks, State Forests and other public land management agencies\n-                  Organisations operating in National Parks and State Forests\n-                  Private landholders\n-                  Traditional Owners.\n\n\nNon-Commonwealth government organisations and individuals are encouraged rather than bound by or obliged to implement the actions under this plan.\n\nThere are a number of other parties with interests in the National Parks where the ecological community occurs. These include: ski resort operators, recreation interests, electricity providers, roads and transport infrastructure agencies, and communications companies. It is necessary for these operators to fully understand their obligations to avoid significant impacts to the ecological community, and to act consistently with the actions outlined in this plan, particularly section 6.3 – guide for decision makers.\n\nIndigenous knowledge, role and interests\n\nCompared to other areas of Australia, Aboriginal history across the Alps is still quite poorly understood (Context, 2014).\n\nEvidence from archaeological sites suggests Aboriginal peoples continuously visited or inhabited the alpine and sub-alpine regions from at least 21,000 years ago (Flood, 1980). Many groups maintain strong cultural links and interest in the area today including the Ngunnawal, Wiradjuri, Warundjeri, Ngarigo, Monaro Ngarigo, Wolgalu, and the Taungurung peoples. Wiradjuri, Wolgalu and Ngunnawal are known by their own totems but are acknowledged through the matrilineal bloodline of the Monaro Ngarigo peoples. Many other clans also have associations with the mountains (NSW DEC, 2006).\n\nOn the mainland, most of these traditional owner groups share representation on the Australian Alps Traditional Owners Reference Group, where Traditional Owners engage with other land managers in the Alps through the Australian Alpine Liaison Committee. Discussion in 2014 with members regarding the significance of the ecological community to their people suggested that the wetland and bogs areas in the Australian Alps were likely used historically for food gathering and cultural activities.\n\nTraditional Owners were highly aware of the threats faced by the ecological community and the Alps more broadly, and were supportive of the implementation of actions to protect the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens. It was acknowledged that significant sites known to the Traditional Owners were also at risk from many of the same threats: in particular, fires, grazing and trampling. Opportunities for Traditional Owners to contribute to management of the ecological community were strongly supported by the reference group.\n\n \n\n1.4  Biodiversity impacts and benefits\n\nThe ecological community is known to provide significant habitat for a number of endemic and threatened flora and fauna species. The persistence of this ecological community is likely to be critical to the survival of a number of these species.\n\nSphagnum vegetation and the underlying peat organosols have a significant water-holding capacity, which is important in modulating water flow and maintaining the hydrology of surrounding environments (Ashton and Williams, 1989). The manner in which bog and fen communities gradually release water from the spring snow melt is critical to the survival of numerous other ecological communities (Good, 1992). Intact areas of Sphagnum act as a natural filter for nutrients, pathogens and sediments, thus, playing an important role in maintaining water quality throughout catchments (McDougall, 1989).\n\nThe ecological community occurs as part of a mosaic of alpine and subalpine communities with close hydrological and ecological connections. By necessity and cost effectiveness, the management of threats such as fire and exotic fauna are likely to be enacted at a landscape scale with benefits for the full range of catchment flora and fauna.\n\n \n\n\n\n\n2.           The ecological community\n\n2.1.          Description\n\nThe Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community occurs across alpine, sub-alpine and montane landscapes of Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory in permanently wet areas, such as along streams, drainage lines, valley edges and valley floors. The ecological community also occurs on slopes where soils are waterlogged (Slattery, 1998; Costin et al., 2000). The key to bog formation is a good supply of groundwater and an impeded drainage system that keeps the water table at or near the surface (Whinam et al., 2003). Under these conditions, the decomposition of organic materials is incomplete, eventually forming the peat that typically underlies the ecological community (Good, 1992).\n\nThe nationally described ecological community listed under the EPBC Act includes two distinct components of high mountain wetlands that are both restricted in area and typically occur together – bogs and fens. Although it is not always the dominant genus, the bogs component of the ecological community can usually be defined by the visual presence of Sphagnum spp. (absent or less obvious in fens and degraded wetlands), the most common of which is Sphagnum cristatum (Kirkpatrick, 1997). The fens are shallow, open water pools with or without emergent aquatic plants and are often near to, or surrounded by bogs.\n\nThe absorptive properties of Sphagnum spp. and the underlying peat regulate the lateral spread of moisture within the ecological community and ultimately, this defines its boundaries. Also, some patches of the ecological community are dominated by shrubs or Restionaceae spp., particularly where Sphagnum spp. are only a minor component, or where Sphagnum has been depleted or lost due to past or ongoing disturbance. In these cases, the site may still be considered to be part of this ecological community if other key species are dominant (see the list of key species in Table 1 from the [Commonwealth Listing Advice on Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/29-listing-advice.pdf)) and a peat substratum is evident.\n\nThe full description of the ecological community is in the [Commonwealth Listing Advice](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/29-listing-advice.pdf). Diagnostic keys to assist in identifying the ecological community on mainland Australia and Tasmania have been developed and included in the document ‘[Background information for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens National Recovery Plan](http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=29&status=Endangered)’.\n\n \n\n2.2 Flora\n\nCharacteristic Flora \n\nIn the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens of the mainland Alps, there are several characteristic flora species: Sphagnum cristatum forming hummocks in bogs; Empodisma minus in bogs and associated fens; Carex gaudichaudiana typically dominating fens; Poa costiniana occurs on the margins of bogs or invading degraded sites (Hope et al. 2012). The other keystone bog species are shrubs, some of which only regenerate from seed after fire and others that regenerate by resprouting (Walsh and McDougall, 2004). These shrubs have varying recovery times after fire, and this combined with hydrology, drives the dynamics of the ecological community.\n\nTasmanian Sphagnum bogs have floristic affinities with mainland bog communities at the genus and family level, including some key species such as Empodisma minus and Carex gaudichaudiana. The Tasmanian endemics Richea gunnii and R. scoparia are the major bog epacrids in Tasmania (Whinam et al., 2001).\n\nFurther information on the characteristic flora of the ecological community can be found in the Commonwealth Listing Advice and ‘[Background information for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens National Recovery Plan](http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=29&status=Endangered)’.\n\nEPBC Threatened Flora found in the ecological community \n\nThere are several EPBC-listed threatened species occurring within the ecological community, some of these are also listed under the relevant State legislation. The Bogong eyebright (Euphrasia eichleri) is endemic to Victoria but is restricted to alpine and subalpine vegetation between the Bogong High Plains and Mt. Bogong, and possibly the Dargo High Plains.\n\nThe swamp everlasting (Xerochrysum palustre), listed as Vulnerable, is a widely distributed but rare herbaceous daisy that occurs in a variety of habitats including highland Sphagnum bogs. Its habitat extends to wet sites, mostly at lower altitude but can extend into the alpine area in a few places. It is not clear how important the ecological community is for this species.\n\nAdditionally, the Kiandra greenhood (Pterostylis oreophila), Bago leek orchid (Prasophyllum bagoensis), Brandy Mary’s leek orchid (Prasophyllum innubum) and Kelton’s leek-orchid (Prasophyllum keltonii) are orchid species listed as critically endangered, and are likely to occur in the ecological community. The latter three orchids are found in areas of the ecological community that occur outside of the Kosciusko National Park on Forestry leasehold land. They are seriously threatened by landuse practices (G. Hope, pers.comm. 2014).\n\n \n\n2.3  Fauna\n\nThe Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community is known to provide significant habitat for a number of endemic and threatened fauna species. These include the nationally-listed critically endangered southern and northern Corroboree frogs (Pseudophryne corroboree and Pseudophryne pengilleyi, respectively) and the endangered Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti) uses this environment for both breeding and hibernation. The Alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpina), listed as vulnerable, also uses the ecological community for breeding.\n\nSeveral species of skinks are also known to use habitat in the ecological community. These include the nationally endangered Alpine she-oak skink (Cyclodomorphus praealtus), the Alpine water skink (Eulamprus kosciuskoi) and the Alpine bog skink (Pseudomoia cryodroma), which are listed critically endangered and endangered respectively under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate fauna (VDSE, 2013) in Victoria.\n\nThe ecological community also supports the Alpine spiny crayfish (Euastacus crassus), listed as threatened in Victoria, and a number of species of native galaxiid fish, including the nationally endangered Barred galaxias (Galaxias fuscus).\n\n![](image.006.jpeg)\n\nPseudophryne corroboree (Southern Corroboree Frog) ©Steve Wilson\n\n \n\n2.4 Ecology (including hydrology)\n\nAs the name suggests, Sphagnum spp. are an integral component of the ecological community. While tolerant of very low nutrient (oligotrophic) conditions, Sphagnum maintains a very acidic pH level (3.5-4.5) that limits the range of taxa that can survive in the ecological community (Hope et al., 2012). Low temperatures, permanent water, and potentially long periods of snow cover each year also influence the occurrence of the ecological community and the specialised flora and fauna it is composed of.\n\nSphagnum, along with Empodisma minus, contributes considerably to peat formation in bogs in the southern hemisphere, with many bogs forming on Sphagnum derived peat (Agnew et al., 1993; Whinam et al., 2003). Like peat, Sphagnum has a significant water holding capacity, which may be important in modulating water flow and maintaining the hydrology of surrounding vegetation (Ashton and Williams, 1989). The manner in which bog and fen communities gradually regulate water from the spring snow melt may also be important to the survival of numerous other ecological communities (Good, 1992).\n\nThe ecological community is maintained by summer groundwater rather than winter climatic regimes (Good, 1998). Although the snowpack is important for slow release of water into the bogs throughout the spring and summer thaw, snow cover itself is not a required factor in their ecology. The snow pack may assist in protecting the community during the snow-covered period from intense winds, eroding rains and solar radiation. It is these factors that have partly allowed the community to evolve into the topographic environments or macrogradients in which they now occur (Good, 1998).\n\nThe importance of bogs in the catchment hydrology of the Australian Alps has long been recognised and studies continue to investigate the importance of peat in influencing hydrological processes (Grover et al., 2012). Bogs and fens rely on groundwater baseflows, which can vary depending on the position of the bog within the landscape. Bogs are sensitive to changes to groundwater flows or discharge, which may result from a range of activities (Grover and Baldock, 2010; 2012).\n\nIf the bogs and fens become damaged, their water holding capacity is frequently reduced or destroyed as a result of erosion and channelling (Ashton and Williams, 1989; Wahren et al., 1996). Such degradation can lead to drying out of bogs, further reducing the integrity of the ecological community and impacting the hydrology of the surrounding area. As critical functions of the ecological community include water retention (Ashton and Williams, 1989), regulation of flows and water quality (Silvester, 2009), such changes can in turn have repercussions downstream. In particular, the ecological community plays a critical role in filtering nutrients (McDougall, 1989; Silvester, 2009) and retaining them in the ecological community.\n\nFire\n\nThe ecological community has evolved with the occurrence of fire. Individual fires may not necessarily be considered a direct threat to the ecological community, although fire damage significantly increases its susceptibility to other threats. Repeated burning at short intervals in conjunction with high fire intensity is likely to have a detrimental impact on the ecological community (C. Pascoe, pers comm., 2014), particularly under drought conditions (Whinam et al., 2010). Fire severity impacts on the peat layers and the subsequent ability of the ecological community to recover.\n\nThe impacts of fire on the ecological community are long-term (20+ years). However, evidence from recent fire suggests that whilst post-fire recovery of Sphagnum cristatum is frequently negligible for several years, a more rapid recovery rate can occur later (McDougall, 2007; Clarke et al., in review).\n\nCondition (state)\n\nThe state of the community fluctuates over time (including hundreds to thousands of years) and little is known about its condition before European settlement. Most, if not all, of the occurrences of this ecological community on mainland Australia have been affected by various combinations of threats, such as repeated fires, expansion in range and abundance of exotic plants, and the grazing and trampling by hoofed animals. Whinam and Chilcott (2002) noted historical declines in Sphagnum extent and suggest that UV radiation may be a factor in association with other disturbances and fire. Tasmanian bog and fen communities have also been affected by a range of threatening processes, such that degradation is also likely to be widespread, particularly on the Central Plateau.\n\nCondition thresholds define categories of condition for an ecological community and may be used to prioritise protection for the best quality vegetation remnants by excluding very low quality examples from the legal definition. Condition thresholds have not been adopted for the ecological community. Furthermore, a method for assessing baseline condition for Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens is yet to be developed and is a recommended action in this plan (Actions 8.1b.).\n\nPeat\n\nThe presence of a peat substratum is a defining component of the ecological community. Peat is an organic soil that develops when plant material does not decompose completely because of acidic and/or anaerobic conditions. These conditions are typically promoted by permanent waterlogging. Australia’s alpine and subalpine areas also have extensive peatland areas where peat accumulation is no longer active and the peat is drying. Drying peats are indicative of changes in either natural or anthropologic hydrological conditions (Costin, 1954). Such shifts can be caused by major disturbance, where processes of compaction, trenching and redirection of flow (for example from hard-hooves animals), can cause peat to dry and erode to form areas that are often termed degraded mire (Costin, 1954; Ashton and Williams, 1989).\n\n\n\n\n3.           Distribution\n\nThe Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community occurs primarily within the Australian Alps, the Tasmanian Central Highlands and the Tasmanian Southern Ranges Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) bioregions. It is also found in a small area of the Bondo subregion of the South Eastern Highlands IBRA bioregion on mainland Australia, and may be present within the Ben Lomond and Tasmanian South East IBRA bioregions in Tasmania. The ecological community occurs in small pockets in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (see Map 1 below), Victoria (see Map 2 below) and Tasmania (see Map 3 below). The ecological community consists mostly of scattered, isolated patches, and its geographic extent is restricted. Most examples of the ecological community are situated within national parks and other conservation-related land tenure.\n\nThe ecological community is typically found in alpine, sub-alpine and montane (mountainous, or of higher elevation) environments, on gentle to moderate slopes amongst trees, in frost-prone valleys and plains, and sometimes above the climatic treeline.\n\nFrom a geographical perspective, alpine and subalpine regions generally occur above 1,400 metres above sea level (ASL) on the mainland and above 800 metres ASL in Tasmania (Kirkpatrick, 1997; Slattery, 1998). However, the ecological community may occur in isolated pockets as low as 800 to 1,000 metres ASL in parts of the mainland, and 650 metres ASL in Tasmania.\n\n \n\n3.1 Important occurrences\n\nIt is difficult to identify particular habitats critical to the survival of the ecological community. The ecological community is dependent on the maintenance of local hydrological conditions, particularly ground water. The limited distribution and scattered nature of the ecological community, together with the importance of each occurrence to the catchment they occur within, mean that all occurrences are of high conservation value and therefore considered important. In addition, the overall health of local catchments is important to the survival of the ecological community.\n\nFactors important to the survival of the ecological community include:\n\n- the area of occupancy of known occurrences\n- habitat adjacent to known occurrences (within approximately 200 m), including vegetation communities or peatlands with similar structure/hydrology and/or species composition\n- remnant native vegetation that surrounds or links several occurrences (that provide habitat for pollinators or allow them to move between occurrences).\n\n\n \n\n3.2 Areas of the ecological community under particular pressure for survival\n\nThe likelihood of persistence of the ecological community can be impacted by one or more of the following factors:\n\n- fire impacts\n- grazing and trampling from domestic stock\n- wallowing, grazing and trampling from feral horses, pigs and deer\n- localised impacts from weed infestation,\n- localised impacts from infrastructure and associated activities, and from timber harvesting.\n\n\nThese threats are discussed further in Section 4 - Threats.\n\nPriority sites for protection in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are listed in a Technical report prepared for the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (Hope et al., 2012). In Victoria, priority sites and actions are identified in the Victorian Alpine Peatlands Spatial Action Plan (VEPI in prep.). Priority sites in Tasmania include those within the Central Plateau.\n\nIndicative distribution maps of the ecological community across each state and territory are on pages 13-15 (Maps 1, 2 and 3).\n\n\n\n\nMap 1: Indicative distribution of the ecological community in ACT and NSW\n\n![Map 1: Indicative distribution of the ecological community in ACT and NSW](image.007.jpeg)\n\nMap 2: Indicative distribution of the ecological community in Victoria![](image.008.jpeg)\n\nMap 3: Indicative distribution of the ecological community in Tasmania\n\n![Map 3: Indicative distribution of the ecological community in Tasmania](image.009.jpeg)\n\n4.           Threats\n\nAlpine vegetation is particularly vulnerable to disturbances, due in part to the restricted growing season of the alpine and subalpine regions, but also the very fragile nature of some systems, particularly alpine snowpatch vegetation and the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community (Ashton and Williams, 1989).\n\nThe effects of a range of threats impacting on the integrity of the ecological community are complex, long lasting and may have serious implications for persistence of the ecological community in some locations. Where damage has occurred, the recovery of structure and function is likely to take several decades (McDougall, 2007). Furthermore, if Sphagnum has been completely lost from a site, both the Sphagnum and the bogs that depend on it for the development of permanently moist conditions, may become locally extinct unless new Sphagnum plants can be introduced (Walsh and McDougall, 2004).\n\nThe impacts of threats acting on the ecological community may be exacerbated by the interaction of more than one threat: for example, bushfires, particularly frequent bushfires render the ecological community more susceptible to weed invasion.\n\nThe jurisdictions involved in the development of this plan, already manage and/or have historically managed these threats to some degree, including through whole of Alps efforts with the Australian government. Continued coordination and cooperation under the guidance of this national recovery plan will be beneficial to the long-term mitigation of threats.\n\n \n\n4.1 National severity rating\n\nA risk assessment, estimating the likelihood of a threat occurring and the consequence of its occurrence, was undertaken for each of the key identified threats at the jurisdictional level. The risk assessment was undertaken for both known (existing) threats and potential threats that are new or emerging. Dealing with the emergence of a new threat or new incursion of an existing threat quickly, before it establishes, should be considered a high priority and will be more cost effective.\n\nThe risk assessment ratings were consolidated to provide an overall national level severity rating (Table 1). It is acknowledged that state by state, the severity ratings against the threats below may vary slightly. This is reflected in the prioritisation of the actions and tasks in Table 2, where state by state prioritisations of tasks may vary.\n\n \n\nTable 1: National Severity rating of key threats\n\n- Category Threat (source) National Severity Rating\n- Climate change Climate change Very High\n- Fire Fire frequency and intensity Very High\n- Domestic stock Grazing and trampling Very High\n- Invasive species Feral horses Very High\n- Deer High\n- Feral pigs High\n- Rabbits and hares Low\n- Foxes (impacts on fauna) Medium\n- Cats (impacts on fauna) Medium\n- Trout (impacts on fauna) High\n- Invasive species Weeds – woody Very High\n- Weeds – non-woody Very high\n- Pathogens/disease (including chytrid, Phytophthora, and potentially myrtle rust and Didymo) Very High\n- Infrastructure, development and recreation Water infrastructure (includes aqueducts, hydro developments) Very High\n- Resort development High\n- Tracks and Roads Medium\n- Off-track recreation use Medium\n- Resource use Peat and Sphagnum harvesting Very High\n- Timber harvesting Medium\n- Ground-water extraction Medium\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n4.2 Climate change\n\nClimate change must be considered as the most insidious threat impacting the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community, even though the future implications and specific details are as yet unclear (Keith, 2004; McDougall and Walsh, 2007; Williams and McDougall, 2007). Climate change has the potential to magnify current threats, including fire and invasive species. Global trends in weed species suggest that weed species richness is increasing at higher elevations including in the Australian Alps (Johnston and Pickering 2001; Mallen-Cooper and Pickering 2008). The Australian Alps has been identified as a hot spot for future potential invasions from species already naturalised in disturbed habitats or lowland areas (Duursma et al., 2013).\n\nIt is projected that the parts of ecological communities occurring at the climatic and elevational limits of their possible range are amongst the most vulnerable to the potential impacts of a changing climate (Mansergh et al., 2002; Whinam et al., 2003). The ecological community is a specific example of this situation. Even a small increase in mean ambient temperature is likely to result in the loss of more bogs and fens due to changes in snowfall and snowmelt regimes, which in turn affect groundwater and runoff patterns. Although there is little documented evidence of ecological responses to warming as yet (Wahren et al., 2013; Clarke et al., 2014), observed trends show a significant decline in snow cover and snow depth since the 1960’s in the south-east Australian highlands (Dunlop and Brown, 2008; Osborne, Green and Davis, 1998). Models of climate change impacts on natural snow cover also suggest continuing reduction of the snow pack even under modest climate change scenarios (Galloway, 1988; Hewitt, 1994; Whetton, 1998; CIG, 1996). Over time, a reduction in snowmelt and soil moisture is likely to result in occurrences of the ecological community being replaced by tussock grasslands or wet heath assemblages (Pickering et al. 2004).\n\nIn addition, recent literature supports the proposition that mountain regions will become critical refugia for both flora and fauna under enhanced greenhouse scenarios (Shoo and Williams, 2006; Mackey et al., 2012), which will affect alpine bogs and fens found in those areas (Mansergh et al., 2002).\n\n \n\n4.3 Fire\n\nThe post-European settlement practice of burning to provide green feed for livestock and supposedly to reduce fuel load has permanently altered parts of the Australian alpine and subalpine landscape. Most of the detrimental changes to this ecological community that can follow a fire, such as loss of vegetation cover and subsequent soil loss, are also associated with the impacts of grazing and exotic weed invasion, both of which are addressed elsewhere in this section.\n\nAlthough the ecological community has evolved with fire, fire is not a process that supports the ecosystem function of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens (e.g. the vegetation does not require fire for germination processes). Therefore, a fire regime with long intervals between disturbances is unlikely to result in the long-term decline in the condition of the ecological community. The greatest threat from fire is where there are repeated disturbances without adequate time for recovery in vegetation cover and diversity (McDougall, 2007; Whinam et al., 2010). A high intensity fire is also more likely to reduce vegetation cover and damage underlying peat layers. A reduction in vegetation cover within and adjoining alpine bogs and fens may result in changes in hydrological regimes and increase the risk of invasion by exotic species. Equally, threats that impact on hydrology can exacerbate the impacts from fire.\n\nOver 1.4 million hectares of alpine and subalpine country in north-east Victoria, south-east NSW and the ACT were severely burnt by the bushfires of January 2003. Large areas covered by the ecological community were affected (Gill et al., 2004; Hope et al., 2005). The impacts of the 2003 bushfires were variable, depending on the particular location, vegetation type, fire intensity and prevailing weather conditions that occurred at the time. The result was a mosaic of variously-sized areas (square metres to hundreds of hectares) of severely burnt and unburnt vegetation (Crabb, 2003).\n\nThe potential for increased frequency of high intensity fires developing each year as climate change evolves is significant, and is already resulting in landscape-wide vegetation and soil change in alpine areas. This suggests that even one highly intense fire in the future may have catastrophic outcomes for the structure, diversity and loss of vegetation in the ecological community over large areas.\n\n \n\n4.4 Domestic stock\n\nOne of the well documented threats to alpine vegetation is the impact of animals introduced to Australia since European settlement. All alpine and subalpine regions on the mainland and in Tasmania were used for summer grazing of domestic cattle from the early 1800s. Grazing in national parks in Tasmania, NSW and the ACT ceased by the 1970s and 1980s (considerably earlier in some areas, such as 1914 in the Cotter Catchment, ACT) and formally came to an end in Victoria in 2005 (Kirkpatrick, 1983; Ashton and Williams, 1989; Crabb, 2003; Jacobs, 2005), with exception of grazing trials for fuel load reduction in the Wonnangatta Valley. Where cattle have restricted access to the national parks, it is critical that key management options such as fencing, conditional licenses and enforcement are strengthened , as grazing continues in neighbouring state forests and on private lands and there is potential for cattle to stray from these areas into sensitive areas.\n\nAustralian soils and vegetation are very susceptible to the impacts of hoofed animals. In particular, Sphagnum is easily crushed and broken up by trampling and wallowing, both of which are inevitable around any water course where animals are liable to congregate on a regular basis. Cattle and horse hoof prints are especially enduring in Sphagnum cristatum at the edges of pools and streams (McDougall, 2007). Once the Sphagnum cover is lost, alpine soils and peat environments are very susceptible to desiccation, incision and soil erosion (Good, 1992). Trampling and wallowing cause channels to form in the disturbed Sphagnum and underlying peat, resulting in water exiting the landscape more rapidly than occurs in undisturbed bogs. The formation of channels is in turn detrimental to the fens associated with the bogs. Where Sphagnum cover has been impacted by non-native animals, these channels can result in the fens draining directly into the stream system.\n\n![](image.010.jpeg)\n\nPhoto showing pugging damage from stock in bogs on the Nunniong Plateau, Victoria. Photo by Arn Tolsma.\n\n \n\n![](image.011.jpeg)\n\nPhoto showing legacy of historic grazing damage (stream incision) in Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens at Betts Creek, Kosciuszko National Park. ©Kåren Watson.\n\n \n\n4.5 Invasive Species - Fauna\n\nFeral horses\n\nIn alpine, subalpine and montane areas of the Australian mainland, along with domestic stock, feral horses are the largest animals to impact on the ecological community and represent a threat that requires complex management strategies (O’Brien and Wren, 2002).\n\nFeral horse populations in NSW and Victoria have been increasing at a rate that has outpaced active management. The number of feral horses in the Australian Alps national parks increased by approximately 20 per cent annually between 2003 and 2009 from an estimated 2,500 to 7,600 (Dawson, 2009). Worboys and Pulsford (2013) observed the direct impacts of a ‘very large number of horses’ and considered the damage to be comparable to the worst historic domestic grazing pressures that triggered the removal of stock from Kosciuszko National Park in the 1940s. Preliminary numbers from the latest aerial count of feral horses in April and May 2014 found that horse numbers increased in Kosciuszko National Park to 6,000 horses, an almost 50% increase since the last count in 2009 of 4,200 horse (AALC, in prep).\n\nFeral horses are not currently present as a threat in Tasmania, nor considered an active threat in the ACT.\n\nFeral deer\n\nFeral deer (including sambar, rusa and fallow deer) are also threatening biodiversity in the Alpine and subalpine areas of mainland Australia and Tasmania. Deer populations (and extent) have increased significantly in recent years. They are rated as a ‘high threat’ and it is largely an unabated problem in eastern Australia. There is limited information available on their potential proliferation, but they can cause significant damage to the ecological community through trampling, browsing and wallowing. During the latest feral horse aerial count in Kosciuszko National Park, an estimate of around 1,000 feral deer was observed (AALC, in prep).\n\nFeral Pigs\n\nFeral pigs are a significant problem causing damage to bogs in both the ACT and NSW, but are less problematic in Victoria and are not currently present in mainland Tasmania. Damage generally occurs on the edges of, or grasslands adjacent to, bogs where these animals wallow in pools and waterways. They dig and uproot vegetation over large areas, making pigs an ongoing threat to the structural integrity of the ecological community.\n\nRabbits\n\nRabbits can reduce cover and diversity of forb species in sub-alpine areas and disturb the soil by digging (Leigh et al., 1987). Greater numbers of rabbits are often prevalent post-fire, which inhibits vegetation resprouting and regeneration (Leigh et al., 1987). Although there is some evidence that rabbits can be active at the margins of some bogs, it appears to be relatively minor (Tolsma and Shannon, 2009).\n\nFoxes, cats and trout\n\nIn some high altitude areas, including in the ecological community, foxes and cats may impact: populations of native frogs (including the critically endangered corroboree frogs - Pseudophryne spp. and the endangered Alpine tree frog - Litoria verreauxii alpina); native fish (Galaxias spp.); native reptiles (including the threatened Alpine she-oak and Alpine water skinks); and, Alpine spiny crays (Eustacus and Engaeus spp.). Trout generally remain small (less than 20 centimetres) in smaller streams and fens, such as for this ecological community. However, an incursion could have a major impact on native Galaxias species, including the potential extinction of species known from only one or a few locations.\n\n \n\n4.6 Invasive species - Flora\n\nWeeds\n\nExotic weed invasion is a current and increasing threat to the ecological community, and due to the sensitivity of wetlands to some chemicals, effective control of weeds (particularly non-woody weeds needing chemical control) in the ecological community is challenging. There are several known invasive plant species that have serious impacts on bog flora composition. Most of these species have the capacity to progressively invade an undisturbed occurrence of the ecological community and the rate of invasion is greatly exacerbated by intensive disturbance, such as by bushfire, feral horses and pigs. The interaction between large fires and weeds has been identified as a key threat to the resilience and function of alpine ecosystems (Williams et al., 2008). Post-fire studies in the Kosciuszko National park have found a significant increase in both diversity and average numbers of weeds impacting on bog sites (Hope et al., 2005).\n\nAlthough there are currently almost no weeds in the ecological community at higher altitudes, there are areas of the ecological community in subalpine areas with localised and specific weed occurrences. That these weeds occur in the ecological community at all indicates they are likely to become a serious threat in the future (K. McDougall pers. comm., 2014). Weed invasion has the potential to reduce or destroy the composition of the ecological community. Some exotic weeds, such as Juncus spp. and willows (Salix spp.), have the capacity to establish in such abundance that they permanently alter floristic composition and structural integrity, as well as affecting the overall hydrology of the area (McDougall, 2007).\n\nWeeds - woody\n\nWillow (Salix spp. – particularly Salix cinerea) invasion into the ecological community can cause major structural impacts and fundamental alteration of root structures and hydrology, as has occurred in many other river and freshwater systems (Cremer, 1995; 1999). Willows are a significant issue, particularly in Victoria, where willow spread and infestation has increased in recent years due mainly to repeated major fire events.\n\nWeeds - Non-woody\n\nA number of herbaceous weeds currently threaten the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community and in some cases have become widely established. For example, Juncus effusus is now in such abundance in some previously grazed areas (e.g. Rocky Valley on the Bogong High Plains) that it is permanently altering the floristic composition and vegetative structure of some bog and fen sites (Walsh and McDougall, 2004; McDougall, 2007).\n\nThe ecological community in both Tasmania and the ACT has remained without weed issues, although Eragrostis curvula (African love-grass) has been recently discovered in several high altitude bogs (G. Hope pers. comm., 2014) in the ACT. This invasive grass species is widespread throughout urban areas of the ACT and in surrounding rural districts.\n\nOther herbaceous weed species commonly found in the ecological community include Lotus uliginosus (birds-foot trefoil), Mimulus moschatus (musk monkey flower), Agrostis capillaris (creeping bent grass), Phleum pratense (timothy grass) Anthoxanthum odoratum (sweet vernal-grass), Holcus lanatus (Yorkshire fog), and Hypochaeris radicata (cat’s ear) (McDougall and Walsh, 2007; VDSE, 2007). Glyceria maxima (reed sweet grass), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canary grass), Juncus articulatus (jointed rush), Leucanthemum vulgare (ox-eye daisy), and Myosotis laxa subsp. caespitosa (water forget-me-not) are currently localised within the extent of the ecological community but may pose a significant threat in the future based on their impact elsewhere (K. McDougall pers. comm., 2014; J. Shannon pers. comm., 2014). Other common incidental weeds include Acetosella vulgaris (sheep sorrel) and Poa annua (annual meadow grass) (G. Hope pers. comm., 2014).\n\n \n\n4.7 Pathogens and Diseases\n\nSimilar to the threat of fire, pathogens are unpredictable in terms of where and when they will appear. Containment or control of a pathogenic infestation in isolation is always likely to be difficult, but is recommended given the consequences of a pathogenic outbreak in combination with other threats facing the ecological community could be very high.\n\nChytrid fungus is a known pathogen causing the disease Chytridiomycosis in frogs and has been listed under the EPBC Act as a Key Threatening Process contributing to the decline in Australian frog species. Although there is no documented suggestion that Chytrid is of significant threat to the ecological community, it unquestionably affects the health of its frog fauna. These include the northern and southern corroboree frogs, the Alpine tree frog and Baw Baw frog, all of which are part of the ecological community fauna and have recorded major declines in population due in large part to this fungal disease. The Australian Government has produced a [Threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis](http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/infection-amphibians-chytrid-fungus-resulting-chytridiomycosis).\n\nOther pathogens likely to emerge or become introduced to alpine, sub alpine and montane areas include Phytophthora, myrtle rust and didymo. Dieback of vegetation caused by Phytophthora cambivora has recently been detected in the alpine area of Kosciuszko National Park (Green and McDougall, pers. comms., 2014). The emergence of Phytophthora and potentially other diseases and pathogens in areas where they have been previously absent may be linked to a changing climate. The Australian Government has produced a [Threat abatement plan for disease in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi](http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/threat-abatement-plan-disease-natural-ecosystems-caused-phytophthora-cinnamomi). Although not currently occurring in Australia, Didymo is a highly invasive alga (diatom) of waterways and is an increasingly significant problem in New Zealand.\n\n \n\n4.8 Infrastructure, development and recreation\n\nTourism, associated infrastructure and other human uses of the area encompass a range of localised threats affecting the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community, even within national parks. Recreational demands on alpine and subalpine regions continue to rise as more people visit the area in the summer months, as well as the more traditional winter ski season (McDougall and Walsh, 2007). Trampling of vegetation by walkers not keeping to pathways is a problem (Whinam and Chilcott, 2002). The expansion of trail networks created largely to accommodate the popularity of mountain bikes and horse riding is a potential threat if created near the ecological community. These activities have the potential to impact the ecological community indirectly where damage such as erosion, increased sediments and runoff diversions alter hydrology.\n\nOther threats include: ski resort developments, particularly the modification of ski slopes through vegetation and rock removal, which alters hydrology; and associated roadworks and dams required for the production of hydro-electricity (McDougall and Walsh, 2007). Dams and aqueducts are a significant issue due to their permanent impact on local hydrology, as they can lead to affected bogs and fens being drained and ultimately drying out.\n\n \n\n4.9 Resource use\n\nSphagnum moss has previously been harvested from the wild for use in the horticultural industry, notably in Tasmania, with very minor amounts coming from Victoria and NSW (Whinam and Buxton, 1997). The Australian Code of Practice for Sphagnum harvesting states that harvesting should not be carried out in alpine or subalpine environments. However, illegal harvest does occur (TDPIW, 2007). Forestry Tasmania ceased issuing permits to harvest Sphagnum moss from the forest estate in 2011.\n\nTimber harvesting and silvicultural regimes in catchments containing Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens may impact the community through physical disturbance and the potential for associated changes in local hydrology, as well as through fire regimes (Whinam and Chilcott, 2000).\n\nGround water extraction proposals are a newly-emerging issue that may be a potential high-impact threat to the long-term hydrological health of the ecological community. Groundwater extraction may be a localised threat to the ecological community, depending on the amount of water extracted and the locality.\n\n\n\n\n5.           Recovery Programme\n\n \n\n5.1 Objectives\n\n \n\nAs indicated in the Introduction to this recovery plan, the objectives are:\n\n \n\nPrimary objective:\n\nMaintain or extend the current known extent (area) and maintain or improve the condition of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community over the life of the recovery plan.\n\n \n\nSupporting objective:\n\nEnsure effective and adaptive implementation of the plan.\n\n \n\n5.2 Strategies\n\nThe objectives of the recovery plan will be achieved by three strategies:\n\n- Implementing the priority recovery actions identified in the recovery plan to address the threats most influencing the ongoing survival of the ecological community;\n- Maintaining or improving the condition of the ecological community through supporting research and restoration efforts to enhance the resilience of the ecological community to adapt to climate change; and\n- Improving knowledge of the ecological community, monitoring its status, and using adaptive management in response to new information.\n\n\nThe following factors will be important for the successful delivery of the strategies:\n\n- Sufficient and enduring funding to complete priority actions;\n- Recognition and appreciation of the significant ecosystem services provided by the ecological community;\n- Recognition that maintenance and recovery of this ecological community requires commitment to on-ground actions and long-term effort;\n- A community that values the alpine and subalpine environments and their role in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services;\n- A culture of inclusiveness, transparency and accountability for all aspects of the recovery program by recovery program partners;\n- Effective mechanisms for cross jurisdictional co-operation and coordination to implement priority actions efficiently and effectively;\n- The integration of Alpine bog management with other threatened species recovery actions (e.g. corroboree frog);\n- A network of stakeholders and partners that includes relevant experts, delivery partners and affected interests;\n- Effective mechanisms for communicating with stakeholders and partners;\n- A strong adaptive management framework for program delivery, with the capacity for adaptive and timely decision-making based on monitoring data.\n\n\nThis ecological community will continue to be impacted by climate change. It is outside of the scope of this plan to address the drivers of climate change. Implementing the actions identified in this plan will support the resilience of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens and its ability to adapt to a changing climate.\n\nThe objectives, strategies and actions are consistent with the priority management for landscape-scale responses recommended by the Caring for our Australian Alps Catchments report (Worboys et al., 2011).\n\n \n\n5.3 Performance criteria\n\nThe plan requires a short review in 5 years and a full review after 10 years. It is intended that any reviews will measure the success of the recovery plan in achieving the overall objective and supporting objective using the following performance criteria.\n\nOverall objective and performance criteria:\n\nMaintain or extend the current known extent (area) and maintain or improve condition of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community over the life of the recovery plan.\n\nAchievement of this objective will be measured against the following performance criterion:\n\nThere has been no known decrease in extent or overall condition of the ecological community between 2015, 2020 and 2025 (to be further informed by condition baselines as they become available).\n\n \n\nSupporting objective and performance criteria:\n\nEnsure effective adaptive implementation of the plan\n\nAchievement of this objective will be measured against the following performance criterion:\n\nPriority actions have been undertaken, the results understood and shared, and any required modifications to priority actions made as new information became available.\n\n \n\nThe strategies, actions and the specific tasks to be undertaken are outlined below.\n\n \n\nRelationship between objectives, strategies and recovery actions\n\n Actions and strategies are summarised. Please refer to the Recovery Actions section below for details.\n\n![](image.014.png)![](image.013.png)![](image.012.png) \n\n![](image.028.png)![](image.027.png)![](image.026.png)![](image.025.png)![](image.024.png)![](image.023.png)![](image.022.png)![](image.021.png)![](image.020.png)![](image.019.png)![](image.018.png)![](image.017.png)![](image.016.png)![](image.015.png) \n\n![](image.036.png)![](image.035.png)![](image.034.png)![](image.033.png)![](image.032.png)![](image.031.png)![](image.030.png)![](image.029.png)  \n\n\n5.4 Recovery Actions\n\nThe Recovery Actions table below (Table 2) outlines the actions and associated tasks or activities to be undertaken to implement each of the three strategies and achieve the objectives. The priority recovery actions are informed by current knowledge, threats and regulatory arrangements.\n\nThe priority ratings allocated to actions and tasks in Table 2 have been guided by input from state/territory authorities and other experts taking into account the risk that a threat poses to the ecological community (through assessing the likelihood the impacts of the threat will occur, the severity of the impacts as per Table 1 and the extent of the impacts) and the likelihood of success in undertaking actions to address the threat.\n\nThe actions and tasks have been prioritised separately into ‘Australian Alps’ (ACT, NSW and Victoria) and Tasmania in recognition of geographic separation, some key differences in the biotic and abiotic elements, and that Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens in these two areas have some different threats and management challenges (for example, resources and seasonal timing). Differences in priority between the two main areas do not necessarily indicate that a threat has a different level of impact (or potential impact). Different local conditions, threats and impacts should also be considered for each catchment and occurrence of the ecological community. For example, actions and tasks might be given a lower priority for one of the two main areas because 1) they are already being implemented, 2) they are already considered within existing legislative or planning measures, or 3) the threat may be locally severe but insubstantial across the full range of the community. For this reason, the priorities should be compared within the two main areas but not between them.\n\nThe attainment of objectives and the provision of funds necessary to implement actions are subject to budgetary and other constraints. It is recommended that tasks prioritised as moderate to highest are implemented at a minimum.\n\nConsistent with an adaptive management approach, it is intended that the actions, tasks and priority ratings are refined where new information becomes available and/or circumstances change.\n\n\n\n\nTable 2: Priority recovery actions and tasks\n\n \n\n- Strategy 1. MANAGE AND REDUCE THREATS TO THE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY\n- Action 1 - MANAGE THE EFFECTS OF FIRE Tasks to minimise the threat and impacts of fire on the ecological community Priority rating\n- ACT /NSW/VIC TAS\n- 1.1 Plan and manage the effects of fire on the ecological community. 1. Maintain accurate fire history via mapping of extent, frequency, severity (or intensity) and regeneration (see also Action 8.1). Moderate-high Highest\n- b. Incorporate appropriate management guidelines for fire suppression in the ecological community as part of fire management plans. High Highest\n- c. Improve knowledge about the importance and locations of the ecological community for field staff and fire management operators. High Highest\n- d. Avoid negative impacts to the ecological community from fuel reduction burns. High Highest\n- e. Avoid damage to the ecological community from activities associated with fire management operations (e.g. control line construction vehicle access, back burning). Highest Highest\n- f. Develop an ecological procedure for assessing fire impacts and required responses (e.g. additional protection) to mitigate fire impacts and monitor regeneration over time. High Highest\n- g. Develop and implement targeted management responses for fire affected areas (for example through restricting access in the post fire recovery period). Highest Highest\n- Action 2 - MANAGE INVASIVE SPECIES Tasks to eliminate impacts of invasive species and diseases where they occur and prevent them from establishing at sites where they do not occur. Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 2.1 Minimise the impacts of weeds (woody and non-woody) on the ecological community, (consistent with national and regional weed management plans, where applicable). 1. Prevent the establishment of weeds likely to threaten the ecological community. Woody Highest Highest\n- Non-woody Highest Highest\n- b. Eradicate, contain or control existing weeds threatening the ecological community; such as willow (Salix spp.), and Juncus effusus. Woody Highest Highest\n- Non-woody Highest Moderate\n- c. Encourage private landholders, ski resorts and other land managers to prevent, eradicate, contain or control weeds that are threatening or could threaten the ecological community. Woody High Highest\n- Non-woody Moderate-high Moderate\n- d. Undertake surveillance, monitoring and mapping of weeds threatening the ecological community, including new outbreaks and emerging threats. Woody Moderate-high Moderate\n- Non-woody High Moderate\n- e. Identify sources of weed introduction and infestation, to prioritise targeted monitoring and control. Woody Moderate Moderate\n- Non-woody Moderate Moderate\n- f. Identify priority weed species and prepare and disseminate information to help engage land managers and the public in identifying and reporting new incursions. Woody Moderate Low-moderate\n- Non-woody Moderate Moderate\n- g. Investigate control techniques for identified priority weed species, where control methods are not well understood. Woody Moderate Low\n- Non-woody Moderate Low-moderate\n- Action 2 - MANAGE INVASIVE SPECIES Tasks to eliminate impacts of invasive species and diseases where they occur and prevent them from establishing at sites where they do not occur. Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 2.2 Minimise the impact of invasive herbivores/omnivores on the ecological community, (consistent with national and regional invasive animal plans, where applicable). 1. Prevent establishment of new populations of hoofed animals, particularly feral horses, feral pigs and deer. Highest (horses)Moderate-high (pigs, deer) Highest (horses, pigs) Moderate-high (deer)\n- b. Manage, contain or control existing populations of feral horses, feral pigs, deer, rabbits and hares. Highest (pigs, horses and deer)Low-moderate(rabbits and hares) Highest (rabbits)Low-mod (deer)(horses and pigs not present)\n- c. Encourage private landholders, ski resorts and other land managers to prevent, eradicate, contain or control invasive herbivores threatening the ecological community. Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- d. Undertake surveillance, monitoring and mapping of invasive fauna threatening the ecological community, including new incursions and emerging threats (see also Task 8.1a). Moderate Moderate\n- 2.3 Minimise impact of invasive carnivores on the ecological community’s fauna (consistent with national and regional invasive animal plans). 1. Eradicate, contain or control existing populations of foxes and cats threatening fauna in the ecological community. Low-moderate Low\n- b. Prevent establishment of new populations of trout in high altitude streams and water bodies where they currently don’t occur and eradicate, contain or control trout in fens where galaxiid populations are known or could be re-established. High Highest\n\n\n\n\n\n- Action 2 - MANAGE INVASIVE SPECIES Tasks to eliminate impacts of invasive species and diseases where they occur and prevent them from establishing at sites where they do not occur. Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 2.4 Minimise the impacts of pathogens/diseases on the ecological community, (consistent with national and regional disease management plans). 1. Continue vigilance for new disease outbreaks and emerging threats by developing field capability in land management staff, public and private landholders in identifying diseases likely to threaten the ecological community. Moderate Moderate\n- b. Where possible, identify, prevent, eradicate, contain or control pathogens and diseases where they threaten the ecological community. Moderate Moderate\n- Action 3 - PROTECT FROM LIVESTOCK IMPACTS Tasks to avoid new impacts on the ecological community where livestock impacts don’t currently occur and minimise impacts where they do occur Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 3.1 Avoid and minimise the impacts from livestock on the ecological community. 1. For National Parks, State Forests and other public land, prevent livestock impacts from occurring to the ecological community where these impacts are currently absent. Highest Moderate\n- b. Minimise the impacts from livestock where livestock may occur in or adjacent to the ecological community (i.e. fence, buffer, prevent weed introduction and rehabilitate). High Highest\n- c. Work with landholders to minimise or remove the impact of livestock on the ecological community, including through promoting the exclusion of livestock from bogs. Moderate-high Highest\n\n\n\n\n\n- Action 4 - INFRASTRUCTURE and RECREATION Tasks to avoid new impacts from infrastructure and recreational activities and minimise impacts where they do occur. Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 4.1 Avoid and minimise impacts of infrastructure and development. 1. Identify areas of the ecological community in proximity to and potentially impacted by roads and tracks, hydroelectric operations, ski resorts and other infrastructure. Moderate Moderate\n- b. Develop site-specific management actions to reduce impacts on the ecological community from existing infrastructure and maintenance activities where possible. Moderate Moderate\n- c. Identify opportunities where infrastructure including roads, tracks, aqueducts that are no longer required may be removed or altered to restore the ecological community. Low-moderate Moderate\n- d. Ensure that new infrastructure, including roads, tracks, trails and ski resort infrastructure, is planned to avoid impacts on the ecological community. Highest Highest\n- e. Develop and distribute maps and specific guidelines for use in development applications (e.g. Local Councils; see also Action 8.1). Low-moderate Moderate\n- 4.2 Avoid and minimise impacts of recreational activities. 1. Ensure that permitted off-track recreational activities do not impact the ecological community. Moderate Moderate\n- b. Mitigate the impacts of illegal or inappropriate off-track use by managing sites to prevent access and rehabilitating damaged sites. Moderate Moderate\n- c. Promote awareness about the ecological community and its vulnerability to damage by recreational activities to user groups through various media and interpretation methods. Low-moderate Moderate\n- d. Support research to understand the potential impacts of changing recreational use patterns (e.g. increased summer visitation, mountain bikes, horse riding) on the ecological community. Low Low\n- e. Support research to understand the impacts of reducing snow depths and associated recreation use on the ecological community. Low Low\n- 4.3 Increase surveillance and enforcement of penalties to deter illegal activities that may impact the ecological community. 1. Improve surveillance for illegal activities that impact the ecological community, including in approved development areas (e.g. ski resorts, hydro leased areas). Moderate Moderate\n- b. Ensure that appropriate penalties are applied for illegal activities that damage the ecological community. Moderate Moderate\n- Action 5 - RESOURCE USE Tasks to avoid new impacts from resource use and minimise impacts where they do occur. Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 5.1 Avoid impacts from resource use (e.g. peat, Sphagnum and timber harvesting, groundwater extraction), and mitigate past impacts, where possible. 1. For National Parks, State forests and other public land, prevent new resource use that will damage the ecological community. Moderate Highest\n- b. Minimise the impacts of resource use where it already occurs or has previously occurred in or adjacent to the ecological community (i.e. fence, buffer, prevent weed introduction and rehabilitate). Low-moderate Low-moderate\n- c. Develop and/or implement guidelines for resource management (including forestry) and other planning mechanisms to ensure resource use and regeneration activities occur over time and develop a temporal-mosaic within sub-catchments that contain the ecological community. Moderate Moderate\n- d. Work with landholders to minimise the impacts of resource use on the ecological community. Low-moderate Moderate\n- 5.2 Increase compliance and enforcement for illegal resource use. 1. Improve surveillance and compliance for illegal resource use. Moderate Moderate\n- b. Ensure that appropriate penalties are applied for illegal activities that damage the ecological community. Low-moderate Low-moderate\n\n\n \n\n \n\n- Strategy 2. MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE CONDITION OF THE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY\n- Action 6 - CLIMATE CHANGE Tasks to support resilience and adaptation to climate change impacts Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 6.1 Implement Actions 1-5 under Strategy 1 to support resilience and adaptation to climate change impacts. Implementing actions under Strategy 1 to manage and reduce the impacts of threats will contribute to making the ecological community more resilient to climate change. These actions are crucial to maintaining the extent and condition of the ecological community. Highest Highest\n- 6.2 Identify other potential climate change impacts and investigate latest research and techniques to combat them at a local scale. 1. Further develop and use climate models to identify threats to the ecological community from climate change impacts in different parts of the landscape to identify where control of invasive plants and animals will be most critical. Low-moderate Moderate\n- b. Develop a climate change impact conceptual model of risks to the ecological community and revise regularly as impacts and feedback mechanisms are identified. Low-moderate Moderate\n- c. Keep up to date with new research and techniques for local scale amelioration of climate change impacts in high altitude environments and undertake trials as appropriate. Low-moderate Low-moderate\n- d. Identify characteristics of the ecological community that may make some patches more resilient to UV-B (e.g. greater shrub cover, aspect, shading proximity, snow cover duration) and consider this and model these variables in rehabilitation/ restoration triage spatial fire protection planning. Moderate Low-moderate\n- e. Monitor effects of UV-B and if possible, develop management responses. Moderate Low\n- Action 7 - REHABILITATE CATCHMENTS Tasks to rehabilitate Alps catchments and restore the ecological community Priority rating\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 7.1 Implement Actions 1-5 under Strategy 1 to assist restoring catchments to maintain the hydrological processes upon which the ecological community depends. When implementing Actions 1-5 to manage and reduce threats to the ecological community, undertake broader efforts across the Alps/Tasmanian highland catchments. The health of the broader catchments is crucial to maintaining and restoring the hydrological processes relevant to the ecological community (and vice versa). Highest Highest\n- 7.2 Rehabilitate and restore flows to damaged areas of the ecological community (e.g. from fire, historic grazing, infrastructure damage, areas containing erosion tunnels, flow line incisions and bog collapse). 1. Partition damaged areas to minimise cumulative impacts of threats to other areas. Low Low-Moderate\n- b. Implement management responses for fire affected areas. Moderate Moderate\n- c. Use appropriate methods where required to slow and spread surface water inundation to ensure damage to the ecological community does not occur. Moderate Low-Moderate\n- d. Where possible, remove or modify artificial barriers that impede natural flow (e.g. hydro drains, weirs and artificial dams used for stock) ensuring further damage to the ecological community does not occur and that appropriate protection is in place to prevent aquatic predator access. Moderate Moderate\n- e. Identify and assess disturbances within local and wider catchments that impact on hydrological function which may also impact the ecological community. Low Low\n- 7.3 Develop rehabilitation management methods for the ecological community. 1. Continue to trial and monitor existing rehabilitation works on patches of the ecological community recovering from past fire events and grazing. Moderate Low\n- b. Undertake research into the biology and ecology of key species in the ecological community to determine how they can be restored or recovered. Moderate Low\n- c. Undertake restorative trials and revegetation works to assist bog recovery after stochastic events. High (after significant disturbance) Low\n- d. Develop practical restoration guidelines, including for broader catchment level restoration. Low-moderate High\n\n\n \n\n- Strategy 3. IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE, REVIEW AND ADAPT MANAGEMENT\n- Action 8 - KNOWLEDGE Tasks to improve knowledge Priority\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 8.1 Improve mapping of the ecological community. 1. In conjunction with field research (Action 8.2), update mapping to cover all known occurrences of the ecological community and identify highest priority areas for recovery, fire history, invasive species and nearby major infrastructure, potentially using a central repository for spatial data. Moderate Highest\n- b. Consolidate existing mapping data; provide a baseline from which changes to the extent and condition of the ecological community can be monitored (see also Task 8.2c). Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- c. Support development of technology and methods to accurately map the ecological community across its range using remote sensing. Moderate - high Highest\n- d. Survey and map extent and condition in representative areas for 5 yearly review periods (consistent with the tasks in Action 8.2, particularly Task 8.2d). Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- 8.2 Increase field research and monitoring. 1. Undertake alps-wide remote sensing at 5 year intervals to monitor extent of the ecological community across the landscape and help determine catchment-scale changes (see also Action 8.1). Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- b. Identify and develop an agreed method for determining condition of the ecological community (consider flora, fauna and non-biotic indicators) and determine an acceptable baseline condition rating for an appropriate sample of patches. Highest Highest\n- c. Continue support for established long-term monitoring programs. Moderate High\n- d. Undertake annual monitoring of an appropriate sample of patches of the ecological community to collect data and monitor changes in local hydrology regimes; species composition and diversity (include fauna); identify new threats; determine success or setbacks in threat abatement; recommend reprioritisation of actions for specific locations; improve understanding of the causes of change in the ecological community and the drivers and mechanisms of changes. Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- 8.3 Improve knowledge associated with threat abatement techniques and effectiveness. 1. Maintain and enhance forums for sharing of latest knowledge amongst Alps managers on threats, threat abatement and techniques, e.g. Alps management workshops, science forums. Moderate- high Moderate- high\n- b. Develop all-of-Alps and Tasmania repository for relevant information on threats, threat abatement and the ecological community (see also Task 8.1a). Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- Action 9 – MANAGE PLAN Tasks to coordinate, implement, review and report of progress of the Recovery plan Priority\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 9.1 Coordinate implementation. 1. Establish a recovery team, with functional, regional sub-groups where appropriate, in accordance with agreed Terms of Reference. Low-moderate Moderate\n- b. Appoint a recovery program coordinator to facilitate operations of the recovery team. Low Low\n- c. Ensure the contents of the national Recovery Plan, particularly the actions and tasks, are incorporated into other relevant management plans as they are revised (e.g. park and forest management plans, threat management plans). Moderate-high Moderate- high\n- d. Recovery team (or other) to prepare annual reports on progress against objectives and performance criteria, and recommend changes in recovery priorities based on monitoring and other new information. Low-moderate Low-moderate\n- e. Develop mechanisms for sharing information, potentially including databases, to facilitate responsive and informed decision-making (e.g. see also Tasks 8.1a and 8.3b). Moderate Moderate\n- f. Review mid-term progress of the Recovery Plan against the objectives in year 5. Moderate Moderate\n- Action 10 - COMMUNICATION Tasks to foster effective collaboration and knowledge transfer Priority\n- ACT/NSW/VIC TAS\n- 10.1 Secure partnerships and resources for implementation. 1. Maintain relationships with existing key delivery partners. Moderate - high Moderate-high\n- b. Identify and target new partnerships for effective delivery of actions. Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- c. Identify and secure funding to support implementation of actions. Highest Highest\n- d. Continue to involve volunteers in as many aspects of implementation as possible, providing safe, supported and engaging opportunities. Moderate Moderate\n- e. Provide opportunities for local Indigenous community engagement in implementation and other biodiversity conservation. Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- 10.2 Communicate effectively with partners, stakeholders and the community. 1. Disseminate the recovery plan widely using a range of media. High High\n- b. Develop and implement a communications plan to service the information requirements of a range of partners and stakeholders. Moderate-high Moderate-high\n- c. Disseminate new information widely, including relevant managers of public land, water, flora and fauna in each jurisdiction, including findings from research, monitoring, mapping etc., using a range of media. High High\n\n\n\n\n6.           Implementation\n\nThe Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community has a limited distribution and is scattered across its range. The majority of examples of the ecological community are found in areas under conservation tenure, usually in national parks. Therefore, this recovery plan and its supporting background information document are intended as a key resource for park management agencies, to guide and assist actions that support the recovery of the ecological community. Ideally, the priority actions identified in the plan will be incorporated into future versions of park management plans, as well as other key management plans, such as those for State Forests and those dealing specifically with key threats to the ecological community, such as management of feral horses.\n\nThis Recovery Plan is also intended to guide project design, delivery and funding decisions. For example, projects consistent with a national recovery plan for a listed species or ecological community are excellent targets for funding under programmes such as the National Landcare Programme and the Green Army programme. Regional investment through such programmes is necessary to support the implementation of the recovery plan across the national range.\n\n \n\n \n\n6.1 Projected funding needs and timing\n\nOverall, implementation of all of the actions in this recovery plan are expected to cost around $10.79 million annually for ACT, NSW and Victoria combined, and to be implemented over five years with a total cost of about $53.95 million (Table 3).\n\nThe implementation of actions in Tasmania is expected to cost $3.6 million annually, with a total cost over five years of $18 million, assuming costs are the same annually (Table 4).\n\nIndicative funding for ACT, NSW and Victoria for implementation of recovery plan actions is outlined in Table 3 below. These costings have been derived from the whole-of-Alps estimates provided to the Australian Government in the Caring for our Australian Alps Catchment report (Worboys et al., 2011) to implement six priority landscape-scale actions that are consistent with the actions in this recovery plan:\n\n1)                   Halting catchment degradation\n\n2)                   Investing in resilient ecosystems\n\n3)                   Adapting to new climates\n\n4)                   Investing in management innovation\n\n5)                   Investing in people and communities, and\n\n6)                   Researching for better catchments.\n\nThe report details cost-specific targets under each priority action. Where a target in the report is consistent with an action identified in the recovery plan, the cost of managing that target has been included in the cost against the recovery action in Tables 3 and 4. Where a target under a priority action in the catchment report does not have a corresponding action in the Recovery Plan, the cost for that target has been excluded.\n\nThe Caring for our Australian Alps Catchment report includes additional costs appropriate to ‘whole-of Alps’ catchment management and are not covered by the recovery plan. This does not exclude the need for establishment and follow-up activities to be undertaken under the recovery plan, just that they are not specifically identified and costed here. These additional costs are:\n\n- A start-up period of two years at a total cost of $3 million to cover whole-of-Alps project planning, environmental impact assessments, jurisdictional approvals and support the cost of administrative and field equipment.\n- An eight year ‘follow-up’ period for adequate, ongoing control of threats at a total estimated cost of $35 million.\n\n\nThe Caring for our Australian Alps Catchment report also noted that inaction could be costly. Inaction may jeopardise the ability for Alps catchments, including the ecological community, to provide water generation that was estimated in 2005 to be worth $9.5 billion to Australia’s annual economy (Worboys et al., 2011).\n\nCosting estimates for the report were developed in consultation with ACT, NSW and Victorian Alps management agencies. Provision of funds necessary to implement actions is subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved.  \n\n\nTable 3: Indicative funding required for the implementation of actions in ACT, NSW and Victoria\n\n- Relevant priority action from Caring for Our Australian Alps Catchment Description Relevant recovery plan actions/tasks Annual cost estimate\n- Halting catchment degradation Management of invasive weeds and feral animals A2.1A2.2 A6.1 A7.1 $5,838,000\n- Investing in resilient ecosystems Revegetate selected wetlands, restore soil eroded areas A2.2A3.1A7.2A7.3 $1,043,000\n- Adapting to new climates Undertake fire management research, post-fire restoration, manage visitor impacts A1.1A4.1A4.2A4.3A5.1A5.2A6.2A7.2A7.3A8.2 $886,000\n- Investing in management innovation Management and operational data, decision making, risk management, staff training A1.1A2.4A8.1A8.2A10.1A10.2 $886,000\n- Investing in people and communities Accessible information, connectivity, conservation partnerships, indigenous participation A2.1A4.2A10.1A10.2 $156,000\n- Researching for better catchments Baseline and change in condition data, adaptive management A1.1A2.2A2.4A3.1A4.2A5.1A6.2A8.1A8.2A9.1 $1,981,000\n- Total annual cost: $10,790,000\n\n\nFigures are derived from page 132-136 of the Caring for our Australian Alps Catchment report (Worboys et al. 2011) and have been adjusted for inflation (rounded to the nearest $1,000) using the [Reserve Bank of Australia Inflation Calculator](http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/). The costs are not inclusive for A.2.3: Minimise impacts from invasive carnivores. Although there is a target for invasive carnivores, it is not in relation to direct impacts to the ecological community, but for unquantified, indirect impacts due to impacts on overall biodiversity.\n\n\n\n\nTable 4: Indicative funding required for the implementation of actions in Tasmania.\n\n- Relevant priority action from Caring for Our Australian Alps Catchment Description Relevant recovery plan actions Annual cost estimate\n- Halting catchment degradation Management of invasive weeds and feral animals A2.1A2.2 A6.1 A7.1 $1,946,000\n- Investing in resilient ecosystems Revegetate selected wetlands, restore soil eroded areas A2.2A3.1A7.2A7.3 $347,667\n- Adapting to new climates Undertake fire management research, post-fire restoration, manage visitor impacts A1.1A4.1A4.2A4.3A5.1A5.2A6.2A7.2A7.3A8.2 $295,332\n- Investing in management innovation Management and operational data, decision making, risk management, staff training A1.1A2.4A8.1A8.2A10.1A10.2 $295,332\n- Investing in people and communities Accessible information, connectivity, conservation partnerships, indigenous participation A2.1A4.2A10.1A10.2 $52,000\n- Researching for better catchments Baseline and change in condition data, adaptive management A1.1A2.2A2.4A3.1A4.2A5.1A6.2A8.1A8.2A9.1 $660,332\n- Total annual cost: $3,596,663\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n6.2 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and review\n\nThis plan is intended to be in force for 10 years. Review of progress toward achieving the objectives of the plan is required in year 5. Full review and potential revision of the plan should occur in year 10.\n\nA range of activities to address monitoring and reporting are also identified in Actions 8, 9 and 10 (Table 2). They include research and analysis, collation and reporting of information, and communication of the information with stakeholders, particularly land managers and community groups.\n\n \n\n6.3 Guide for decision makers\n\nUnder the EPBC Act, or other national environmental legislation as may apply at the time an activity is proposed, any person proposing to undertake actions that may have a significant impact on any listed threatened species or ecological community should consider whether the action requires EPBC Act assessment and approval. Further advice on the EPBC Act is available on the [Department of the Environment website](http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/environment-assessments/assessment-and-approval-process).\n\nActions that could result in any of the following may result in a significant impact on the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community:\n\n- Reduction in community extent or condition\n- Reduction in range or extent of associated species or threatened species\n- Introduction of, spread or reinvasion of weeds or disease\n- Damage to the community by disturbance, compression, cutting, burning regimes or trampling and grazing by introduced herbivores\n- Alteration of catchment and / or hydrological processes (including eutrophication), alteration of the floral and faunal components of the community.\n\n\nFor further information on Management and conservation practices, please refer to the background information document.\n\n \n\n\n\n\n7.           References\n\n \n\n \n\nACT Government. (In prep). ACT Sphagnum Bogs and Fens Management Plan. Environment and Sustainable Development, ACT Government, Canberra.\n\nAALC (Australian Alps Liaison Committee). (In prep). The draft report - Feral Horses in the\n\n Australian Alps National Parks: the Design and Analysis of Surveys Conducted in\n\n April-May, 2014. Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Canberra.\n\nAgnew, A.D.Q., Rapson, G.L., Sykes, M.T. and J. Bastow Wilson 1993. The functional ecology of Empodisma minus also in New Zealand ombotrophic mires. New Phytologist 124 pp. 703-710.\n\nAshton, D. H. and R. J. Williams. 1989. Dynamics of the sub-alpine vegetation in the Victorian region. In Fenner Conference -The Scientific Significance of the Australian Alps.\n\n Australian Alps National Parks Liaison Committee, Canberra.\n\nCIG (Climate Impact Group) 1996. Climate scenarios for the Australian Region. CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.\n\nClarke, P.J., Keith, D.A. Vincent, B.E. and A.D. Letten. (2014, in review). Post-grazing and post-fire vegetation dynamics: long-term changes in mountain bogs reveal community resilience. Journal of Vegetation Science\n\nContext 2014. Aboriginal Cultural and Spiritual values of the Australian Alps Project Report Vol 1. Prepared for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee and the Australian Alps Traditional Owners Reference Group.\n\nCostin, A. B. 1954. A study of the ecosystems of the Monaro region or New South Wales.\n\n Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales.\n\nCostin, A. B., M. Gray, C. J. Totterdell, and D. J. Wimbush. 2000. Kosciusko Alpine Flora. 2nd edition. CSIRO publishing, Melbourne.\n\nCrabb, P. 2003. Managing the Australian Alps: a history of cooperative management of the Australian Alps National Parks. Australian Alps Liaison Committee and Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.\n\nCremer, K.W. 1995. Willows spreading by seed – Implications for Australian river management. Australian journal of Soil and Water Conservation 8: 18-27.\n\nCremer, K.W. 1999. Willow management for Australian rivers. Natural resource management, Special issue, Pp2-22.\n\nDawson, M. 2009. 2009 Aerial Survey of Feral Horses in the Australian Alps. Australian Alps Liaison Committee.\n\nDunlop, M., and Brown, P.R. 2008. Implications of Climate Change for Australia’s National Reserve System: A preliminary assessment. Report to the Department of Climate Change, February 2008.\n\nFlood, J. 1980. The Moth Hunters: Aboriginal prehistory of the Australian Alps. Australian Institute of Aboriginal studies, Canberra.\n\nFPA. 2011. Flora Technical Note No. 6 - Sphagnum Communities. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.\n\nGalloway, R.W. 1988. The potential impact of climate changes on Australian ski fields. In: Greenhouse: Planning for Climate Change (Ed. Pearman, G.I.) CSIRO. Pp 428-37.\n\nGill, A.M., Good, R.B., Kirkpatrick, J.B., Lennon, J.B., Mansergh, I. and Norris, R. 2004. Beyond the Bushfires 2003- Environmental Issues in the Australian Alps. Report to the Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Canberra.\n\nGood, R. 1992. Kosciuszko Heritage - The Conservation Significance of Kosciuszko National Park. National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales, Hurstville.\n\nGood, R. 1998. Changing snow regimes and distribution of alpine vegetation in Snow; A Natural History; and Uncertain Future. Pages 98-112 Ed. K. Green. Australian Alps Liaison Committee, Canberra.\n\nGrover, S.P.P., McKenzie, B.M., Baldock, J.A., and W.A. Papst, 2005. Chemical characterisation of bog peat and dried peat of the Australian Alps. Australian Journal of Soil Research 43(8), 963-971.\n\n \n\nGrover, S.P.P. and Baldock, J.A. 2010. Carbon decomposition processes in a peat from the Australian Alps. European Journal of Soil Science 61, 217-230.\n\nGrover, S.P.P. and Baldock, J.A. 2012. Carbon chemistry and mineralisation of peat soils, from the Australian Alps. European Journal of Soil Science 63,129-140.\n\nGrover, S. P. P., Baldock, J. A. and Jacobsen, G. E. 2012. Accumulation and attrition of peat soils in the Australian Alps: Isotopic dating evidence. Austral Ecology 37:510-517.\n\nHewitt, S.D. 1994. The impact of enhanced greenhouse conditions on the Australian snow-pack. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Snow and Climate, University of Geneva.\n\nHope, G., Whinam, J. and Good, R. 2005. Methods and preliminary results of post-fire experimental trials of restoration techniques in the peatlands of Namadgi (ACT and Kosciuszko National Parks (NSW). Ecological Management and Restoration 6: 3, 214-217.\n\nHope, G.S., Nanson, R. and Flett, I. 2009. The peat-forming mires of the Australian Capital Territory. Technical Report 19, Territory and Municipal Services, ACT Government, Canberra. Pp 57.\n\nHope, G., Nanson, R. and Jones, P. 2012. The Peat-forming bogs and fens of the Snowy Mountains of New South Wales. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.\n\nJacobs, P. 2005. A National Park without Cows. News from the Alps, Vol 31:1-2.\n\nKeith, D. 2004. Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes – The Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.\n\nKirkpatrick, J. B. 1997. Alpine Tasmania. An illustrated guide to the flora and vegetation. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.\n\nKirkpatrick, J.B. 1983, Treeless plant communities of the Tasmanian high country. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 12: 61-77.\n\nLawrence, R.E., Rutherford, I., Ghadirian, P., White, M., Coates, F. and Thomas, I. 2009. The geography and hydrology of high country peatlands in Victoria Part 1. Geography and classification. Technical Report 173, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Melbourne\n\nLeigh, J.H., Wimbush, D.J., Wood, D.H., Holgate, M.D., Slee, A.V., Stanger, M.G., and Forrester R. I. 1987. Effects of rabbit grazing and fire on a subalpine environment. In: Herbaceous and shrubby vegetation. Australian Journal of Botany 35: 433-64.\n\nMackey, B., Berry, S., High, S., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T.D. and Williams, K.J. 2012. Ecosystem Greenspots: identifying potential drought, fire and climate-change micro-refuges. Ecological Applications, 22(6) pp1852-1864.\n\nMansergh, I., Newsome, A. and Shorthouse, D. 2002. Fauna Values (with reference to introduced vertebrates). NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Queanbeyan.\n\nMcDougall, K. 1989. The effect of excluding cattle from a mossbed on the Bogong High Plains, Victoria., Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Melbourne.\n\nMcDougall, K. 2007. Grazing and fire in two subalpine peatlands. Australian Journal of Botany 55:42-47.\n\nMcDougall, K, and Walsh, N. 2007. Treeless vegetation of the Australian Alps. Cunninghamia 10:1: 1-57.\n\nMorgan, J. 2000. Orange Hawkweed Heiracium aurantiacum L.: a new naturalised species in alpine Australia. Victorian Naturalist 117(2): 50-51.\n\nNSWDEC. 2006. Kosciuszko National Park Plan of Management. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.\n\nO’Brien, P. and Wren, L. 2002. Managing a Legend-Wild horse management in Kosciuszko National Park. In: Celebrating Mountains – An International Year of Mountains Conference Proceedings, Jindabyne 2002. Australian Alps Liaison Committee. Pp449-451.\n\nOsborne, W., Green, K., and Davis, M. 1998. Temporal and spatial variation in snow cover, in: Snow: A Natural History; and Uncertain Future (Ed. Green, K.). Australian Alps Liaison Committee. Pp 56-68.\n\n\n\n\nPickering, C., Good, R., and Green, K. 2004. Potential Effects of Global warming on the biota of the Australian Alps. Australian Greenhouse Office.\n\nSharp, S., Macdonald, T., Kitchin, M., and Dunford, M. 2007. Setting conservation targets for vegetation communities in the ACT. Report to the ACT Natural Resource Management Council.\n\nShoo, L.P., Williams, S.E, and Hero, J. 2006. Detecting climate change induced range shifts: Where and how should we be looking? Austral Ecology 31, pp 22-29.\n\nSilvester, 2009. Ionic regulation in an alpine peatland in the Bogong High Plains, Victoria, Australia. CSIRO, Environmental Chemistry, 6, 424-431.\n\nSlattery, D. 1998. The Australian Alps: Kosciuszko, Alpine and Namadgi National Parks. UNSW Press Ltd., Sydney.\n\nTDPIW. 2007. Sphagnum moss – sustainable use and management. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.\n\nTolsma A., and Shannon, J. 2009. An Assessment of the Management needs of Mossbeds at Lake Mountain and the Baw Baw Plateau. Report to Parks Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.\n\nVDSE. 2007. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988) Threatened List December 2007. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.\n\nVDSE. 2013. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.\n\nVEPI. (in prep). Victorian Alpine Peatlands Spatial Action Plan. Department of Sustainability, Victoria.\n\nVSAC. 1991a. Fen (Bog Pool) Community. No.182. Final recommendation on a nomination for listing under Section 10 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Victorian Scientific Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment and Sustainability.\n\nVSAC. 1991b. Alpine Bog Community, No. 159. Final recommendation on a nomination for listing under Section 10 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Victorian Scientific Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment and Sustainability, Melbourne.\n\nVSAC. 1992. Caltha introloba Herbland Community No.202. Final recommendation on a nomination for listing under Section 10 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Victorian Scientific Advisory Committee to the Department of the Environment and Sustainability\n\nWahren, C. H. A., Williams, R. J. and Papst, W. A. 1996. The Ecology of wetlands and snow patches on the Bogong High Plains. Australian Heritage Commission and Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.\n\nWahren, C.H., Camac, J.S., Jarrad, F.C.. Williams, R.J., Papst, W.A. and A.A Hoffman. Experimental warming and long-term vegetation dynamics in an alpine heathland. Australian Journal of Botany, CSIRO publishing online.\n\nWalsh, N. and K. McDougall. 2004. Progress in the recovery of the flora of treeless subalpine vegetation in Kosciuszko National Park after the 2003 fires. Cunninghamia 8:439-452.\n\nWhetton, P. 1998. Climate Change impacts on the spatial extent of snow-cover. In: Snow: A Natural History; and Uncertain Future. (Ed. Green, K.). Australian Alps Liaison Committee. Pp195-206.Whinam, J. and Buxton, R.P. 1997. Sphagnum peatlands of Australasia; an assessment of harvesting sustainability. Biological Conservation 82, 21-89.\n\nWilliams, R.J, and McDougall, K. 2007. Possible effects of climate change on Ecosystems of the Australian Alps. Climate Change Management Implications Australian Alps National Parks – Science Management Workshop April 16-18 2007. Australian Alps Liaison Committee.\n\nWilliams, R.J., Wahren, C.H.A., Tolsma, A.D., Sanecki, G.M., Papst, W.A., Myers, B.A., McDougall, K., Heinze, D.A., and Green, K. 2008. Large fires in Australian alpine landscapes: their part in the historical fire regime and their impacts on Alpine biodiversity. International Journal of Wildland Fire, Vol 17, pp 793-808.\n\nWhinam, J. and Chilcott, N. 1999. Impacts of trampling on alpine environments in central Tasmania. Journal of Environmental Management 57, 205-220.\n\nWhinam, J. and Buxton, R.P. 1997. Sphagnum peatlands of Australasia; an assessment of harvesting sustainability. Biological Conservation 82, pp 21-29.\n\nWhinam, J and Chilcott, N. 2000. Conservation and reservation assessment of Tasmanian Sphagnum peatlands. Hobart: Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment.\n\nWhinam, J., Barmuta, L. A. and Chilcott, N. 2001. Floristic description and environmental relationships of Tasmanian Sphagnum communities and their conservation management. Journal of Botany, CSIRO 49.\n\nWhinam, J. and Chilcott, N. 2002. Floristic description and environmental relationships of Sphagnum communities in NSW and the ACT and their conservation management. Cunninghamia, 7(3) pp.463-500\n\nWhinam, J. and G. Hope (2005). The Peatlands of the Australasian Region. Pp. 397-434 in G.M Steiner, (ed), Moore – von Sibirien bis Feuerland – Mires – from Siberia to Tierra del Fuego. Biologiezentrum der Oberoesterreichischen Landesmuseen Neue Serie 35, Linz.\n\nWhinam, J., Hope, G.S., Clarkson, B.R., Alspatch, P.A. and Adam, P. 2003. Sphagnum in peatlands of Australasia: The resource, its utilisation and management. Wetlands Ecology and Management 11, 37-49.\n\nWhinam, J., Hope, G., Good, R. and Wright, G. 2010. Post-fire experimental trials of vegetation restoration techniques in the peatlands of Namadgi (ACT) and Kosciuszko National Parks (NSW). In: Altered Ecologies: Fire, climate and human influence on terrestrial landscapes (Eds. Haberle, S., Stevendon, J., and Prebble, M.), Terra Australis 32.\n\nWorboys, G. L., Good, R,. and Spate, A. 2011. Caring for our Australian Alps Catchments: “A climate change action strategy for the Australian Alps to conserve the natural condition of the catchments and to help minimise threats to high quality water yields”. Technical report prepared for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee and the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra.\n\nWorboys, G.L. and Pulsford, I. (2013) Observations of Pest Horse Impacts in the Australian Alps, Canberra, Available at: www.mountains-wcpa.org\n\n \n\n \n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"completionTokens":688},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The plan remains focused on its original purpose: recovery of the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community. While comprehensive in addressing multiple threats across jurisdictions, it does not expand beyond the conservation and management of this specific ecological community and its associated species."},"complexity_factors":["Extensive cross-referencing to other documents (listing advice, conservation advice, background information)","Multiple jurisdictional overlays (ACT, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania) with different legislative frameworks","Detailed threat assessment matrix with severity ratings across regions","Nested action structure: 3 strategies → 10 actions → numerous sub-tasks with regional priority variations","Conditional implementation dependent on funding availability and stakeholder cooperation","Scientific terminology requiring explanation (Sphagnum, peat organosols, ombrotrophic, etc.)"],"plain_english_summary":"The national recovery plan under the EPBC Act aims to protect Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens — peat‑forming, water‑holding wetlands in Tasmania, Victoria, NSW and the ACT that regulate river flows (including the Murray–Darling), maintain water quality and provide habitat for endangered species such as Corroboree frogs.\n\nIt focuses on reducing threats (climate change, fire, feral animals, weeds, infrastructure), restoring condition, and improving monitoring through adaptive management. Estimated costs are ~A$54M over 5 years for the mainland and ~A$18M for Tasmania; the plan guides action but is not legally binding on states or private landholders."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The instrument gives formal effect to a recovery plan whose stated purpose is to stop decline and support recovery of the listed ecological community. It applies to Commonwealth areas and functions as a national guidance document for state/territory managers and other stakeholders rather than imposing new statutory obligations on non‑Commonwealth parties. The plan sets objectives, prioritized actions, monitoring and 5‑ and 10‑year reviews, and provides cost estimates; implementation remains subject to budgetary constraints and voluntary uptake by non‑Commonwealth actors, so the plan does not expand beyond its original recovery remit."},"complexity_factors":["Multi‑jurisdictional scope: actions split between Australian Alps (ACT/NSW/VIC) and Tasmania requiring intergovernmental coordination","Large number of discrete actions and tasks with differing priority ratings across jurisdictions (Table 2)","Scientific and ecological uncertainty (climate change impacts, post‑fire recovery, pathogens) that drives adaptive management","Funding complexity: multi‑year cost estimates, reliance on Commonwealth, state and partner funding and subject to budgetary constraints (Section 6.1)","Implementation dependence on non‑Commonwealth actors who are encouraged but not legally bound to act","Monitoring, mapping and technical requirements (remote sensing, condition baselines) that need specialist capacity","Regulatory interface with the EPBC Act (guidance for referrals and approvals) creating legal decision triggers for proponents (Section 1.2, 6.3)","Wide stakeholder range (park agencies, ski resorts, private landholders, Traditional Owners) raising coordination and compliance burdens"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument puts a national recovery plan into force for the Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community. Mechanically, it establishes priorities, tasks, monitoring and estimated funding to halt decline and support recovery, and it informs EPBC Act decision‑making for proposals that may significantly impact the community. It primarily affects park and land managers, Commonwealth and state agencies, some private landholders, Traditional Owners and developers because it guides management, funding decisions and referrals; implementation is subject to budgetary and jurisdictional cooperation."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015","history":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015/history","analysis":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/national-recovery-plan-for-the-alpine-sphagnum-bogs-and-associated-fens-ecological-community-2015/documents"}}