Great News for Australian Wildlife: APVMA certifies that second generation anticoagulant rodenticides should be restricted chemical products

On Tuesday March 10 2026 the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) certified that it is in the public interest for chemical products containing any second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARS) to be declared restricted chemical products (RCPs).

SGARs have a devastating effect on native reptiles and birds, including owls, that receive lethal or crippling doses when they consume already-poisoned rodents. Wildlife carers have been calling for years for the ban due to the poison's risk on native animals.

Pittwater kookaburra - one of the local bird species residents have seen impacted by rat poisons - whole families are killed when parent birds feed poisoned rats to offspring

Declaring SGARs as RCPs will enable tighter controls on their purchase and use, including restricting access to individuals who meet specific training and licensing requirements.

If the certification is accepted by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), the APVMA, together with state and territory control-of-use authorities, will consider how training and licensing requirements could be implemented.

The certification follows the APVMA’s proposed decision of 16 December 2025 to suspend SGAR products, which commenced a targeted 6-week consultation with product holders and state and territory authorities.

During this consultation, state and territory chemical coordinators advised that declaring SGARs as RCPs would provide the most robust legal framework for ensuring access can be restricted to licensed and authorised users in a nationally consistent manner.

Suspension decision

In parallel with the RCP certification, the APVMA has also announced that the registration of all products containing SGARs will be suspended for one year from 24 March 2026.

The suspension will allow stricter controls on the use of SGARs to be implemented quickly, while broader measures to support the potential RCP declaration are progressed.

Between 16 December 2025 and 27 January 2026, the APVMA consulted with state and territory authorities and holders of affected products on the proposed suspension. Fourteen submissions were received.

After carefully reviewing the submissions, the APVMA’s risk conclusions remain unchanged. The APVMA had determined that the current use of SGAR products presents unacceptable risks to non-target animals*, including native wildlife.

During the suspension period, SGAR products may only be supplied or used in accordance with the instructions published in the APVMA Gazette No 5, Tuesday 10 March 2026, or as specified in the notice issued to each product holder.

These instructions are enforceable under state and territory legislation and apply nationally.

The suspension introduces strong risk mitigation measures to protect Australia’s native fauna, pets and livestock while the APVMA finalises its full regulatory consideration of first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.

Reconsideration 

Public consultation on the proposed reconsideration decisions on all anticoagulant rodenticide products remains open until 16 March 2026, details below.

The proposed decisions include a range of restrictions on how and where all anticoagulant rodenticide products, including first-generation products, may be used. These restrictions are designed to reduce risks to people and non-target animals. The APVMA has also proposed cancelling specific products that pose an unacceptable risk.

Further information is available on their website, including details of the consultation period and guidance on how to make a submission.

*Referred to throughout the scientific, technical and decision reports, non-target animals include native wildlife such as birds and marsupials, pets and livestock.

** SGARs – These are products containing the active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, difethialone and floucoumafen.

Protect Aussie birds from lethal SGAR rat poisons: add your voice

Australia’s native birds, wildlife, and even family pets are being poisoned by Second-generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs), a dangerous class of chemicals which are still readily available in supermarkets and online. BirdLife Australia is calling for all SGARs to be removed from public sale and restricted to licensed professionals.

BirdLife Australia says:

''Last month, Australia’s national regulator — the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) — failed to act on mounting evidence of the serious risks posed by SGAR rat poisons. This puts our birds of prey, native wildlife, and household pets at continued risk.

The APVMA has instead proposed a set of inadequate, half-measures. The proposed changes will not deliver any meaningful reduction in wildlife poisoning.''

Submissions are now open! Tell the regulator to remove SGARs from supermarket and retailer shelves, ensuring the general public cannot access these highly toxic products that are killing wildlife.

Add your Voice here - closes March 16, 2026

Council - local politicians back Ingleside fauna corridor land campaign: Update

Local MPs have joined councillors in calling for land next to the wildlife crossings at Ingleside to be protected from residential development.

The land adjacent to the fauna bridge across Mona Vale Rd East enables wildlife to cross from the bushland of Ingleside Chase Reserve, via the overpass or fauna underpass, to Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park.

Fauna overpass on Mona Vale Road East looking towards Ingleside Chase Reserve   Photo D Palmer

However, under the draft Northern Beaches Council Local Environment Plan, the land, owned by the NSW Planning Department, will be zoned C3 which will allow houses to be built on it.

Council staff say the state Planning Department would have to grant permission for the land to be “downzoned” to C2 - which would prevent that development. 

At its meeting on February 17, Cr Miranda Korzy proposed a motion asking Council to take action to find ways to protect the bushland corridor, which was passed by councillors.

Council has now sent correspondence to a number of state government departments, including Planning, seeking their co-operation.

Pittwater Natural Heritage Association has also gained the support of Pittwater state MP Jacqui Scruby and Wakehurst state MP Michael Regan.

Ms Scruby said she supported Pittwater Natural Heritage Association’s call for the land next to the fauna crossings on Mona Vale Road East to be protected.

“If this doesn’t happen, the significant investment already made in building the wildlife crossings will effectively have been wasted,” she said.

Pittwater Natural Heritage Association secretary David Palmer welcomed the action by Northern Beaches Council.

“Thanks to Cr Korzy and all Northern Beaches Councillors for resolving to take action, and MPs Jacqui Scruby and Michael Regan for supporting us,” Mr Palmer said.

“This is a significant step on the way to preventing native animals which use the fauna bridge and underpass to cross Mona Vale Road East from being blocked by houses and backyard fences.”

Ms Korzy said she was grateful for the strong support on the issue.

“The unanimous vote by councillors and now the support of our local MPs indicates the high priority that residents place on wildlife protection,” Ms Korzy said.

See February 2026 report: The fauna bridge on Mona Vale Road East – will it be a bridge to nowhere?

Fauna bridge on Mona Vale Road East. Ingleside Chase Reserve is on left. Photo David Palmer

The land is a critical element in the pathway for native fauna populations in Ingleside Chase reserve to cross Mona Vale Road east and disperse through bushland in Ingleside to Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. 

The land was set aside in the 2016 Ingleside Precinct Structure Plan, and marked as a fauna corridor. This was part of an agreement between Transport for NSW, (then RMS) and the NSW Department of Planning to create a corridor, fauna underpass and fauna bridge over Mona Vale Road East which would link Ingleside Chase Reserve with Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. 

However, in the new Local Environment Plan for the Northern Beaches this land has been zoned C3 which allows housing. If houses are built on it, then native animals which cross the fauna bridge or use the underpass will have nowhere to go.

Pittwater Natural Heritage Association secretary David Palmer is calling for action by the Department of Planning to remedy the situation. 

PNHA member Jacqui Marlow has been involved in rescuing native fauna in the area for many years. She says that protection of the fauna corridor land is critical for the long-term survival of native animals. 

She explained that “If native animals are not able to move between habitats, they will face gradual population decline leading to local extinction. We have many threatened mammals and birds in Ingleside Chase reserve including Eastern Pygmy Possums, which are listed as vulnerable in NSW. They depend on being able to move safely through the landscape to find food, shelter and mates.”

Eastern Pygmy possum near the fauna bridge on Mona Vale Road East. Photo David Palmer

The map below shows recorded sightings of Eastern Pygmy Possums on both sides of the fauna bridge and underpass on Mona Vale Road East.

Eastern Pygmy Possum sightings near the fauna bridge and underpass on Mona Vale Rd east. Image: Atlas of living Australia 2025

Native animals have been photographed using the fauna bridge, showing that it is working, and as the vegetation on and around it grows thicker, more animals will use it. But if, after crossing the fauna bridge, animals encounter back yards, fences and domestic pets, then it will prove to be a bridge to nowhere.

Previous to 2026 reports:

Mona Vale Road (East) Upgrade: Fauna Bridge Supports Installed - August 2023

Mona Vale Road Upgrade Update: Fauna fencing to be installed during construction  + June night works - June 2019

Sydney's first Fauna Overpass to be installed on Mona Vale Road - March 2018

Reducing Roadkill On Mona Vale Road - September 2017

Bill to Facilitate Mona Vale Road Upgrades Passes: Vital Fauna Bridge Discussed - June 2016

Connecting Wildlife Habitats to Prevent Road Kill - August 2014

Once Was Barrenjoey - August 2014

Background

Land and Environment Court Proponents Appeal: Moran Seniors Development at Ocean Street, Narrabeen - Update 

A Land Environment Court Appeal by Moran was the subject of a directions hearing on Thursday 12 February 2026: 'Indigo by Moran Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning and Public Spaces'.

The developer has applied for "deemed refusal" even though it had not provided responses to the objections by the community.

The matter has been set for a Conciliation Conference at the Court on 21 July, and a further Directions Hearing on 28 July. 

An interim Directions Hearing was also set for March 12 and again on April 2, as the solicitor from the NSW Department of Planning and Environment has formally raised the contention the appeal is premature because of an outstanding request for response to public submissions. 

It is understood the developer disputes this contention. 

The additional listings allows the parties to continue correspondence on this aspect of the dispute.

The exhibition of the development application and environmental impact statement (EIS) for Indigo By Moran at 156 Ocean Street Narrabeen (SSD-76220734) ended on 6 November 2025.

As of November 10 2025 the NSW Dept. of Planning required a written response to issues raised in the submissions, as required under section 59(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The written response must be in the form of a submissions report that has been prepared having regard to the State Significant Development Guidelines including Appendix C - Preparing a Submissions Report.

The  submissions report must also incorporate responses to agencies’ advice.

The submissions report was required within two months via the NSW Planning Portal.

All 746 submissions have been placed on the NSW Planning Portal at: www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/indigo-moran-156-ocean-street-narrabeen

Indigo by Moran is seeking a proposed maximum height of the new buildings on 156 Ocean Street of  21.1 metres. The standard height granted under the State Environment Planning Policy is 8.5 metres.

This means the project is seeking a 71.5 per cent increase on the local building height limit.

Under the proposed plans for Indigo by Moran, the DA proposes an existing seniors housing development ( W. G. Taylor Retirement Home and Village) and three adjacent residential dwellings be demolished and a “5 to 6 storey” senior housing development, set to cost north of $140 million, with three levels of basement for 192 car spaces, including seven visitor spaces.

There will be 149 independent living units with access to a fitness centre, pool, sauna, cinema, wine room, library, lounge and roof top terrace with a pavilion.

Ten beds have been earmarked for a “residential care facility”.

The project seeks to remove 69 trees (24 of which are significant) and will retain 13 trees (7 significant trees and 6 non-significant).  The trees to be retained are neighbouring trees and those on the periphery of the site including the well-established Norfolk Island Pine trees located along the Ocean Street and Octavia Street frontage. Any understory of these trees will likely be removed and re-landscaped, the EIS states.

The proponents documents showed they were applying for a BDAR Waiver Request, which was granted by a Director Greater Sydney, of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, under section 7.9(2) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, in July 2025, months before any input from the community was invited. 

A BDAR Waiver Request is an application to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to waive the requirement for a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) for a project, which can only be applied for by a proponent of a State Significant Development (SSD) or State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) project. So any impact on wildlife that feeds on the trees and landscape elements to be removed, or lives in these trees, is considered to be not 'significant'.

A comment during the November submissions period from a previous owner of 8 Octavia Street Narrabeen said they wanted to make it known there are two significant black bean trees side-by-side on the property which are of considerable value to the ecology and history of this site. 

''It would be of great benefit to the area if they could be retained.'' the prior owner commented

This pair of culturally significant black bean trees are to be destroyed, as listed (35 and 36) in the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement lodged with the NSW Planning Department, as part of the proposal. 

Another contractor is undertaking the Aboriginal community consultation and preparing an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment report (ACHAR) to meet the Secretary's environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) for the proponent. 

A report lodged so far found that is 'no built environmental heritage' the proposal may impact on.  A Redacted ACHAR report for 156-164 Ocean St Narrabeen dated June 2025 identified that the study area holds high potential for Aboriginal artefacts as it is situated atop a Holocene-aged coastal sand barrier near resources rich marine and terrestrial ecologies.

Further reports would require taking into account potentially uncovering First Nations peoples materials and objects should the proposed 'up to 11m of excavations' go ahead in this sand landscape.

John Grainger, former Murdoch and Manly Daily photographer, took this one of 'Narrabeen Man's remains being uncovered on the corner of Octavia and Ocean streets in 2005.

Bones Ocean st, Narrabeen. Now known as the Narrabeen Man  20-1-05. Photo: John Grainger

The Narrabeen Man was found by contractors digging for electricity cables near the corners of Octavia Street and Ocean Street, Narrabeen. A forensic investigation was undertaken and bone samples were sent to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to determine the age of the remains. Radiocarbon dating of the bone suggested an age of around 14,000 years for the skeleton. The Narrabeen man was suspected to be 30–40 years old when he died. This is recorded to be Sydney's oldest skeleton and is Australia's third oldest skeletal remains behind Mungo Man and Mungo Lady.

An archaeological dig at the site revealed that Narrabeen Man was found in a posture unlike a tribal ceremonial burial. Rather than lying on his front with hands by the side or across the chest, the Narrabeen Man was on his side with one arm across his head. Further investigation of the skeletal remains revealed evidence of spear ends found embedded into his vertebrae and near other parts of the body. This indicated death by spearing and suggested to archaeologist Dr Jo McDonald that Narrabeen Man was perhaps the first physical evidence of ritual murder in Australia.

Further examination revealed that Narrabeen Man was approximately 183 cm tall, estimated from the length of his limbs, and 30–40 years old. His height was above average for Aboriginal men at this time. It is also speculated that Narrabeen Man was not from a tribe from the greater Sydney region, and Narrabeen, as his two front teeth were not removed - in line with a regional initiation rite at the time of European settlement (unless the rite was introduced locally in more recent times than Narrabeen Man's demise).

There is no conclusive evidence as to why he was killed. A Narrabeen cultural heritage officer, Allen Madden, suggested in 2008 that a ritualistic murder of this type represents the farthest extent of tribal law, indicating that his offence, whatever it was, must have been serious.

Narrabeen Man's remains are currently lying under care at Sydney University's Shellshear Museum.

The bulk of the submissions lodged with the Department, which allowed 2 weeks for these, have objected to the proposal. 

More than 1700 have also signed a change.org submission against the development and over a thousand attended a beside the site protest on November 8 2025. Since then a NSW Parliamentary petition was also made available, with posters for the same shared on social media platforms.

Domain stated in November 2025 it had sighted a copy of an email sent by a representative of Indigo by Moran to their database calling on those in this list to submit positive submissions about the project.

Several submissions from 'Caringbah South' and Oyster Bay in southern Sydney by respondents who work in the industry and even some from Queensland, are among those available on the Dept. of Planning's webpage for the project.

There are a number submissions of support from Narrabeen, Collaroy and Mona Vale residents who may be able to afford a retirement unit.

Objections point out this is luxury housing for more privileged residents, sits within mapped Coastal Environment and Coastal Vulnerability Areas (on a sandspit), an excavation over 11m deep poses flooding, groundwater, and structural risks, and that the BASIX assessment barely meets minimum standards with little passive design or energy efficiency.

Residents are Pro-appropriate Development

Members of Better Planning for Northern Beaches have stated:

‘’It’s important to note Narrabeen is not anti-development or anti seniors living — we are pro-appropriate development. 

Our community has always embraced thoughtful, well-scaled projects that strengthen the area. But developments that overwhelm infrastructure, disregard planning controls, overshadow neighbours and erode coastal character are simply not in the public interest. Beyond the planning concerns, what the community wants most is a fair, transparent, independent process.''

The Proponent was advised on November 10 they are now required to provide the NSW Planning Department with a written response to issues raised in the submissions, as required under section 59(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021. The written response must be in the form of a submissions report that has been prepared having regard to the State Significant Development Guidelines including Appendix C - Preparing a Submissions Report.

The submissions report must also incorporate responses to agencies’ advice and the Department’s forthcoming letter.

The submissions report must be lodged within two months of a forthcoming letter from the Department’s via the NSW Planning Portal.

The time between the date of  that notice to the proponent and the date the Planning Secretary receives the response is not included in the ‘assessment period’ under section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021.

Previous reports:

Community Calls for Narrabeen Seniors Proposal to be Referred to IPC - Mona Vale Save Our Suburb Residents Group Formed - 2 Motions passed at council meeting

Over the Top Narrabeen DA Draws Large Crowd to Peaceful Protest: 'This is about Community Standing up For Community'

The W. G. Taylor Memorial Home at Narrabeen: Some History

Council Stands With Community on Objections to State Significant Development at Ocean Street Narrabeen - Culturally Significant Black Bean Trees to be destroyed - Site is Adjacent to Former grave of 'Narrabeen Man'

Scruby slams government and opposition teaming up to make it easy for developers as NSW Planning System Reform Bill passes - community asks: who are these elected Representatives actually representing? - November 2025

Wesley Taylor Narrabeen to close – will be sold to Developers: + a few history insights into the 93 year run of this home for the elderly - April 2023

Signs of the Times at Narrabeen, November 1 2025. Pic: ELG/PON

The Avenue Newport DA Approved through Land and Environment Court 

On March 12 2026 Commissioner Horton upheld the appeal for the proponents in 57 The Avenue Pty Ltd v Northern Beaches Council [2026] NSWLEC 1125. 

The Court orders that Development application DA2024/1409 for the partial demolition and removal of an existing marina, subdivision into eight lots, construction of a six berth marina on Lots 1-6, and construction of two water recreation structures (piers) on Lots 7 and 8, associated landscaping, works to the existing seawall and reinstatement of the natural foreshore within the W1 Zone is determined by the grant of development consent, subject to those conditions of consent at Annexure A.

To the south east of Pittwater lies the waters of Winji-Jimmi Bay of Newport. An existing commercial marina formerly known to some as the Newport Marina was proposed to be demolished to make way for the construction of a new 9-berth marina, floating pontoon walkways, a new seawall, landscaping works and subdivision into 8 lots at a site known as 122A Crescent Road, Newport.

August 1 2025 runoff - photo supplied - details below

Commissioner Horton found it is relevant to note at the outset that the Newport Marina has been operating on land adjoining the subject site, known as Nos 122, 124, 126, 128 Crescent Road and 55 and 57 The Avenue (the adjoining site), also in the ownership of the Applicant in these proceedings, 57 The Avenue Pty Ltd (The Avenue).

On 6 December 2023, Northern Beaches Council granted consent to development application DA/2022/2152 for demolition works and subdivision of the land into 8 lots, tree removal and infrastructure works on the adjoining site.

The development, the subject of these proceedings, is that development described in development application DA2024/1409, lodged by The Avenue with Northern Beaches Council on 21 October 2024 seeking consent for the following:

• Reconfiguration of the existing Marina to a nine-berth marina and subdivision into 8 lots;
• Concept building envelopes for boat sheds on Proposed lots 5 and 6;
• Associated landscaping and demolition removal of existing vertical slipway and boat ramp and extension to an existing seawall; and
• Subdivision of the site.

The Council notified the development application in accordance with the relevant Community Participation Plan from 31 October 2024 to 28 November 2024, in response to which several submissions from residents were received.

The Council also provided preliminary feedback to The Avenue in February 2025. However, as the development application was otherwise undetermined, The Avenue appealed its deemed refusal on 19 March 2025 under s 8.7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EPA Act).

On the eve of the hearing, The Avenue sought to further amend the development the subject of the development application by Notice of Motion that sought, unopposed, to amend the proposal as follows:

• Reduce number of berths from 9 to 8 – 6 of which are to be marina berths and 2 identified as water recreation structures.
• Reduce the size of boat proposed, and reduce the lateral extension of structures into the waterway to reduce the development footprint and increase the area of rehabilitation of the foreshore.
• Improve foreshore treatment and enhance visual amenity due to smaller hardstand area and foreshore repatriation, creation of intertidal benches and coastal riparian planting.

The Court granted The Avenue leave to amend the development application by relying on the following amended plans and other documents contained in the Notice of Motion:

• Amended Draft Plan of subdivision (Exhibit B).
• Amended architectural plans prepared by Scott Carver (Exhibit C).
• Amended Landscape Plans prepared by Site Image (Exhibit D).
• Amended Aboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by RainTree Consulting (Exhibit E).
• Materials Investigation Report prepared by BG&E (Exhibit F).

In opening submissions, the Council advised the Court that 'as a result of the amendments to the development, being more than minor, those matters originally contended for by the Council in the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed 2 May 2025 are resolved other than the impacts on overhead electricity wires and a power pole located nearby but not within the site the subject of these proceedings'.

Development is, therefore, permitted with consent

The Council initially contended that the proposed development was not permissible as is it located partly within Zone W1 Natural Waterways zone within the Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 2014 (PLEP) and therefore constitutes prohibited development.

However, in its opening submissions, the Council took the Court to Sch 1 of the PLEP in which Additional Permitted Uses are identified within an area marked Area 23. Clause 23(2) of Sch 1 provides that, within Area 23:

23   Use of certain land in Zone W1 Natural Waterways

…

(2) Development for the purposes of boat sheds, jetties or water recreation structures is permitted with development consent.

The two proposed structures within the W1 zone are nominated as water recreation structures, defined in the Dictionary of the PLEP in the following terms:

water recreation structure means a structure used primarily for recreational purposes that has a direct structural connection between the shore and the waterway, and may include a pier, wharf, jetty or boat launching ramp.

As such, it was held that the two water recreation structures proposed within the W1 zone are development permitted with consent.

The site is located in an area identified in the PLEP as part W1 Natural Waterways and W2 Recreational Waterways. The site adjoins, and is generally surrounded by, land zoned C4 Environmental Living.

The objectives for development in the W1 zone are as follows:

1   Objectives of zone

• To protect the ecological and scenic values of natural waterways.
• To prevent development that would have an adverse effect on the natural values of waterways in this zone.
• To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.
• To ensure development does not adversely impact on the natural environment or obstruct the navigation of the waterway.
• To provide opportunities for private access to the waterway where these do not cause unnecessary impact on public access to the foreshore.

The objectives for development in the W2 zone are as follows:

1   Objectives of zone

• To protect the ecological, scenic and recreation values of recreational waterways.
• To allow for water-based recreation and related uses.
• To provide for sustainable fishing industries and recreational fishing.
• To provide for amateur and professional recreational yachting or boating clubs and the like that serve Pittwater and the wider region.
• To ensure development does not adversely impact on the enjoyment and use of the waterway or adjoining land.
• To provide for a variety of passive and active recreational pursuits and water-based transport while preserving the environmental setting of the waterway.
• To ensure that public access to the waterway and foreshore areas suitable for public recreational and transport purposes is maintained.

The site is identified at Section A4.15 of the Pittwater 21 Development Control Plan (Pittwater DCP) to be within the Waterways Locality, in which the following desired future character is described:

“The Waterway locality will remain primarily a recreational boating area. Waterfront businesses, yacht clubs and the like will meet the waterway recreational and boating needs of the community.

Future development is to be located so as to be supported by adequate infrastructure, including roads, water and sewerage facilities, and public transport.

Future development should ensure that access is available at all times to public boating facilities, such as launching ramps. Future development will not restrict public access adjoining the foreshore, or pedestrian access along the foreshore.

Future development will maintain a building height limit below the tree canopy and minimise bulk and scale. Existing and new native vegetation, including canopy trees, will be integrated with the development. Contemporary buildings will utilise façade modulation and/or incorporate shade elements, such as pergolas, verandahs and the like. Building colours and materials will harmonise with the natural environment. Development will be designed to be safe from hazards. Development will co-exist with adjoining residential areas. Development will not restrict public access adjoining the foreshore, and will not obstruct navigation within the waterway.

A balance will be achieved between maintaining the landforms, landscapes and other features of the natural environment, and the development of land. As far as possible, the locally native tree canopy and vegetation will be retained and enhanced to assist development blending into the natural environment, and to enhance wildlife corridors. Future development will include measures to ensure protection of the water quality and estuarine habitats of the locality, including mangroves, sea grasses, intertidal sand/mud flats, rocky shorelines, and beaches.

Heritage items and conservation areas indicative of the Guringai Aboriginal people and of early settlement in the locality will be conserved.”

Section D15.1 of the Pittwater DCP sets out the following outcomes for development sought in this locality when viewed from the public domain:

“To achieve the desired future character of the Locality.

To ensure new development responds to, reinforces and sensitively relates to the spatial characteristics of the existing built and natural environment. (En, S, Ec)

To enhance the existing streetscapes and promote a scale and density that is in scale with the height of the natural environment.

To ensure the visual impact of the built form above mean high water mark is secondary to landscaping and vegetation, or in commercial areas and the like, is softened by landscaping and vegetation. (En, S, Ec)

High quality buildings designed and built for the natural context and any natural hazards. (En, S)

Buildings do not dominate the streetscape or waterway and are at human scale. (S)

To preserve and enhance district and local views which reinforce and protect the Pittwater's natural context.

To enhance the bushland vista of Pittwater as the predominant feature of the landscape with built form, including parking structures, being a secondary component.

To ensure that development adjacent to public domain elements such as waterways, streets, parks, bushland reserves and other public open spaces, compliments the landscape character, public use and enjoyment of that land. (En, S)

Built structures are minimised below mean high water mark. (S)

A balance between use of the waterway and conservation of the natural environment is achieved. (En, S, Ec)”

For development on the seaward side of the MHWM, Section D15.12 contains controls that relevantly provide:

“Controls

…

Only structures associated either with the accommodation, servicing or provision of access to boats shall be permitted seaward of mean high water mark.

In instances where it is proposed to alter, extend or rebuild existing buildings seaward of mean high water mark, any further encroachment of such buildings onto the waterway is to be minimised. Where development seaward of mean high water mark is proposed to occur, especially during the refurbishment of existing structures, proponents need to ensure that the structure will not harm marine vegetation, and must consult with the Department of Primary Industries.

…”

To ensure that fair and equitable enjoyment of the waterway is achieved between neighbouring waterfront landowners, controls at Section D15.13 of the Pittwater DCP apply to what is termed the lateral limits and setbacks, including the setback of any vessel in the water.

Controls relating to waterfront development at Section D15.15 state that ramp and pontoon structures are preferred in place of jetties, where practicable, and provide for berthing areas and orientation.

Section D15.18 of the Pittwater DCP is also relevant to the development proposing seawalls. For completeness, these provisions at Section D15.18 are in the following terms:

“Outcomes

Any adverse impact upon the marine flora, fauna or water quality of the locality is minimised. (En)

Development has due regard for other existing water based activities in the locality, particularly those which have recreational, residential or economic significance. (S, Ec)

Alienation of public foreshore land below mean high water mark is minimised. (S)

The impact of development may on the physical processes acting in the locality is minimised. (En)

Development is sympathetic to the natural character of the Pittwater Waterway. (En, S)

The occurrence of dredging in the Pittwater Waterway other than for general navigation purposes is minimised. (En)

Controls

Seawalls shall not be permitted.

Variations

Council may consider the construction of seawalls where there is potential for erosion from coastal process and protection of property is necessary.

In such instances, the following criteria shall apply:

i. where possible, maintain the curvature of the existing shoreline;

ii. incorporate low profile walls, battered or stepped back from the foreshore wherever practicable, with a maximum recommended height of 1 metre above mean high water mark. (1.5 metres AHD);

iii. constructed of or faced in rectangular shaped sandstone, being either dressed or rough-cut in order to promote a uniform treatment along the foreshore. Alternative building materials, such as reconstructed sandstone concrete blocks or similar, which reflect a sandstone character shall also be suitable, particularly where greater structural strength may be required. Materials such as timber, concrete (including nylon mattress structures) gabions or other materials not in keeping with the character of the area shall not be permitted. Concrete/nylon mattress structures may be suitable for public drainage and associated bank stabilisation works where it can be demonstrated that such structures will not detract from the visual amenity of the locality.

iv. only clean fill is to be used behind sea walls.

v. where practicable, sandy beach areas should be incorporated in front of seawalls.

vi. be designed so that the existing footprint is maintained (i.e. does not encroach any further into the intertidal zone) and the seawall is sloped back towards the property. There must be no additional reclamation of water land (requires a permit from the Department of Primary Industries) or replacement of the existing wall with a vertical seawall;

vii. that there is no mortaring of the seawall and a geotextile fabric is used behind the seawall to prevent loss of sediment through the seawall;

viii. should be rock rip rap, boulders or similar complex structures, and where possible incorporate further vertical and horizontal complexity.

ix. maximise the incorporation of native riparian and estuarine vegetation;

x. create low sloping seawalls and/or incorporate changes of slope; and

xi. it is recommended that proponents consult with both the Coasts & Estuaries section of the Office of Environment and Heritage, and with the Aquatic Habitat Protection unit of the Department of Primary Industries.

xii. compliance with Environmentally Friendly Seawalls – A Guide to Improving the Environmental Value of Seawalls and Seawall-lined Foreshores in Estuaries (2009) available at the Office of Environment & Heritage website.

Within the Crystal Bay Foreshore area, the following controls shall specifically apply:

i. only dwarf seawalls shall be permitted along the foreshore of the Bay.

ii. be wholly constructed or faced in regular dressed sandstone blocks, reconstructed sandstone face blocks or reconstructed sandstone tiles; and

iii. have a battered slope located in front of it constituting the intertidal beach zone; and

iv. be flush to the top of the seawall with the reclamation located behind it (Diagram 1); and

v. not have a height greater than 0.75 metres above mean high water mark (1.26 AHD); and

vi. be aligned generally in a position which accords with the physical high water mark (Diagram 2) and form a continuous and uniform alignment with any existing adjoining, approved seawall.”

Foreshore Impacts are considered

A number of the contentions initially pressed by the Northern Beaches Council dealt with the likely environmental impacts of development proposed on or in the vicinity of the foreshore of Winji-Jimmi Bay.

In considering those contentions, the Court was assisted by experts in planning, Mr Stephen Gouge on behalf of The Avenue and Mr Nic England on behalf of the Council who conferred, along with Mr Rohan Dickson, expert on visual impact on behalf of the Applicant, in the preparation of a joint expert report filed with the Court on 17 February 2026.

The Court was also assisted by Mr Mark Kokot, expert in arboriculture on behalf of The Avenue and Mr Torin Calf, Landscape expert on behalf of the Council who conferred in the preparation of a joint expert report filed with the Court after close on 12 February 2026.

In considering those matters in respect of the environmental impacts on, and natural character of, the Pittwater waterway, the Court was assisted by Ms Katie Smythe, expert in ecology on behalf of The Avenue and Mr David Hellot, water management expert on behalf of the Council who conferred in the preparation of a joint expert report filed with the Court on 13 February 2026.

The judgement states that 'In short, the experts reached agreement on all matters in contention'.

And that 'In broad terms, the experts agree the demolition of the existing concrete hardstand and the alternative interface with the water by means of low-sloping rock revetment incorporating intertidal benches, varied rock sizes, habitat features and estuarine vegetation is an appropriate treatment when regard is had to the provisions at ss 2.10 and 2.11 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 (Resilience and Hazards SEPP) that apply to the development (Exhibit 4, pars 46-47).

In particular, Mr England considers the reinstatement of around 28m of the foreshore, measured at the MHWM, to be an enhancement consistent with the objectives of the W2 zone that allow for water-based recreation and related uses (Exhibit 4, pars 49-51).

Likewise, the amendments summarised at are agreed to be both an appropriate footprint and lateral extension into the waters of Winji-Jimmi Bay and serve to improve the potential access to the foreshore by the public (Exhibit 3, par 62).

The reduction of that extension and in the number of berths, and the configuration of the berth areas to accommodate smaller vessels perpendicular to the shoreline, also significantly reduce the visual impact such that the objectives and outcomes sought by relevant provisions at Section D15 of the Pittwater DCP are achieved.'

The Council initially contended that fill associated with a retaining wall proposed to the north of the site would adversely impact three trees within the foreshore area, requiring their removal contrary to provisions dealing with development on foreshore area at cl 7.8 of the PLEP.

However, the Council also accepts that no development in this application is proposed between the foreshore building line and the MHWM. As such, the provisions of cl 7.8 do not apply to the proposal. This is because foreshore area is defined as the land between the foreshore building line and the MHWM of the nearest natural waterbody shown on the Foreshore Building Line Map.

Nevertheless, the affected trees are identified in the Amended Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Raintree dated 20 February 2026 (Exhibit E) as follows:

• Tree 64: a Eucalyptus capitallata or Brown Stringbark (T64).
• Tree 66: Eucalyptus pariculata, or Grey Ironbark (T66).
• Tree 69: Eucalyptus pariculata, or Grey Ironbark (T69).

The experts considered amended plans that showed the removal of proposed fill and retaining structures, and the area naturalised instead using soil, plantings, rocks and boulders. As a result of the amended plans, the experts agreed that the impacts on Tree 64 are minor and acceptable and while the impact on Tree 66 is classified as major, it is not necessary to remove it.

However, the experts agree the impact on Tree 69 is such that it will need to be removed. The Avenue proposes to replace it with two of the same species, Eucalyptus pariculata, or Grey Ironbark.

In respect of the estuarine habitat, the experts agree that the amendments incorporate measures that collectively enhance the habitat value of the site by virtue of the rock revetment mimicking natural shoreline conditions, providing intertidal benches to allow the colonising of this area by various ‘biodiverse assemblages’ and because of the enhanced visual amenity and stability of the shoreline provided by the riparian planting proposed.

In respect of the natural character, the judgement stated the experts once again rely on the rock revetment and riparian vegetation as the basis for agreement that the visual presentation is a significant improvement on the existing presentation and so improves the natural appearance of the foreshore.

In respect of the seawall design and slipway, the judgement found 'the experts cite conformity with a document titled Environmentally Friendly Seawalls: A Guide to Improving the Environmental Value of Seawalls and Seawall-lined Foreshores in Estuaries, Office of Environment and Heritage on behalf of Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (June 2009) as the basis for agreement that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section D15.18 of the Pittwater DCP'.

A recurring concern of residents arises from what is described by them as poor design and technical compliance of the berth locations and layout, and the risks associated with variables like wind, tide, depth and turning circles of vessels in the vicinity of the proposed berths.

One submission expressed concern at the proximity of the proposed development to that of the berthing area at 50 The Avenue. However, Commissioner Horton noted the Navigation Report includes this vessel in its assessment and that subsequent amendments propose vessels of no more than 9m x 5m to those water recreation structures at Lots 7 and 8.

In respect of safety concerns held by a resident opposite the site, the Court observed that 'fire service requirements are contained in Section 6 of AS3962:2020, and the Court is advised the Rural Fire Service operates fire fighting vessels'.

Inconsistency of the development with the residential character of the area and overdevelopment of the site, impacts of the development upon significant trees, traffic and parking impacts along with vehicular access, remain contentious points with residents.

The full judgment and decision may be accessed here.

The modified documents may be found on the council webpage for Section 455 Modifications Mod2025/0220 here

Developments are now often approved by the Land and Environment Court, bypassing community objections. Local residents associations state that the detailed judgement and amended plans should go on the Council website. 

However, it is part of the legal process that both parties need to agree to the publication of these documents as they are not Court documents which are generally made available. Therefore, the modifications referred to in the above judgement are not, as yet available on the council website.

Modifications to development applications are normally not notified to nearby residents even though they might have a considerable impact on neighbouring houses. Many state that they should be treated in the same way as the original development application and neighbours notified. At present, only those who have made a submission are advised of a modification by the council posting them a letter. 

Worth noting is this item sent in last August:

Newport job site: run off into Pittwater

Dear Editor

This is the old Sirsi Marina at the Crescent Road Newport on August 1 2025 - every time it rains this is what washes into the Bay. Council have warned them but still it happens. This affects all the fish, people, kayaks, dragon boats, sailors, and birdlife that enjoy the bay.  And the development that they are still trying to get approved is for 8 houses with 9 x 22 meter boats that will intrude further into the bay past these original pens.

Pittwater Resident, August 2, 2025

Update on Heard Island’s H5 bird flu outbreak

Friday, 27 February 2026: by BirdLife Australia

Scientists onboard the research vessel RSV Nuyina have returned from a second expedition to Australia’s Heard Island in the remote sub-Antarctic and have confirmed that H5 bird flu is spreading among the island’s wildlife. The virus was detected in samples from Southern Elephant Seals, Antarctic Fur seals and Gentoo Penguins. 

At this stage we don’t know how many Gentoo Penguins are affected or whether other bird species on the island have also contracted the virus, owing to the difficulties associated with monitoring species on remote sub-Antarctic islands. Expedition scientists have reported that they didn’t observe any signs of mass mortality in mammals or birds while they were on the island. Data from aerial surveys is currently being analysed by scientists and may reveal a clearer picture about the extent of the outbreak.  

While there is still much we don’t know about the impact H5 bird flu will have in these remote Australian territories, it’s clear that Australia has reached a bleak milestone. 

According to Dr Yuna Kim, BirdLife Australia’s Seabird Project Coordinator, it is difficult to predict the possible impact of H5 bird flu on the island’s bird populations, including the Heard Island Shag (Leucocarbo atriceps nivalis) and Heard Island Sheathbill (Chionis minor nasicornis). 

“Experience from other Antarctic regions shows that impacts vary significantly by species and location.” Dr Kim says that lacking the baseline data needed to assess disease related mortality and population level impacts from threats such as H5 bird flu is an ongoing challenge in seabird conservation, and that long-term monitoring programs are required to address it. “The detection of H5 bird flu highlights an opportunity to strengthen long term monitoring of seabird populations at priority sites such as Heard Island”. 

Although Heard Island is over 4000 kilometres away, it is considered to only be a matter of time before the virus arrives on the Australian continent. Migratory seabirds such as Skuas, with their scavenging behaviour, give them a higher likelihood of carrying H5 bird flu closer to the mainland, and to other Antarctic colonies such as the incredibly wildlife-rich haven of Macquarie Island. 

While there is still much we don’t know about the impact H5 bird flu will have in these remote Australian territories, it’s clear that Australia has reached a bleak milestone. 

 “The Gentoo Penguins of Heard Island are now the first birds in an Australian territory to test positive for this virus that has devastated wildlife around the world. They will certainly not be the last,” said Professor Hugh Possingham, Vice President BirdLife Australia. “This confirmation is a critical reminder that Australian birds remain at risk”. 

While Australia remains on watch for signs of H5 bird flu, we can all play a part in the preparedness effort by following these steps: 

Avoid, record, report. Avoid contact, record and report any signs of unusual sickness or death in waterbirds, seabirds or shorebirds. Raptors around water such as white-bellied sea eagles and ospreys could also be vulnerable.  For more info see here. 

The looming threat of H5 bird flu must sharpen our focus on protecting Australian birds and the habitats they depend on. Healthy bird populations have the best chance to withstand the effects of mortality from H5 bird flu outbreaks. Everything we do as an organisation and a community to protect waterbirds, seabirds and shorebirds is vital preparation.

Family of Gentoo Penguins. Photo: Antoine Lamielle, 2020

Boguls Being Returned to local Bush Reserves

Boguls are coming back to northern Sydney!

During February and March 2026, we’ll begin reintroducing the bogul (Dharug language) - the native bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) - to bush resreves at Twin Creeks (at Turramurra) and Allenby Park (Allambie Heights, Beacon Hill and Brookvale) and bolstering a population at North Head (Manly).

Small but mighty, boguls help suppress invasive black rats and disperse seeds, pollen and fungi - restoring balance to urban bushland.

This ARC Linkage project is delivered with researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University, alongside the Taronga Zoo Sydney Conservation Society and NSW Government agencies.

Project lead: Mareshell Wauchope with University of Sydney's Rewilding Project

Follow along as we get closer to release!: sydneyrewildinginitiative.com

More in:

Translocation and reintroduction of native bush rats (Rattus fuscipes) into Sydney Harbour National Park : restoring ecosystem function  by Megan Callander, Western Sydney University, Western Sydney University thesis: Doctoral thesis, 2018

Abstract

With habitat destruction and invasive species comes the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function. Animal translocations and reintroductions are one of the key options available to conserve and restore wildlife populations and ecosystems. Translocation is relatively new within the broader context of conservation and has only become a commonly used scientific tool within the past 40 years, as such, there are no definitive guidelines for best practice. Wildlife translocations and reintroductions are complex, expensive, and time-consuming, often meaning that many of them fail to establish viable populations. The low success rate has been attributed to inadequate knowledge of species-specific behaviour, poor release site selection, environmental pressures, predation, competition and stress. Monitoring populations after reintroduction is important to identify the success or potential causes for failure, to adapt and improve management strategies. Ideally, successful translocation is indicated by the ability of the translocated, or augmented population, to become self-sustaining, free-ranging and viable in the long term. 

The Bush Rat Project was the first study to translocate and reintroduce the native bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) into Sydney Harbour National Parks (SHNP) in an attempt to restore the ecosystem and reduce invasive species (black rat, Rattus rattus) populations. 100 bush rats (60 females and 40 males) were released in August 2011 into four sites in SHNP. Bush rats were released in familiar groups and 20 animals were radio tracked for two months. Nine trapping sessions were conducted, the last in May 2014. Ear tissue was taken from all bush rats for use in microsatellite genetic analysis. Sibships and parent-offspring relatedness were determined through this process. Prior to bush rat release each of the four sites were intensively trapped for ten nights to remove black rats. 

Using these methods, factors that influenced bush rat translocation success were examined, including sex, body condition, weight, virus status, dispersal and establishment of home range, genetic relatedness and structure. These factors were assessed in relation to population dynamics and survival rates, breeding success and habitat. Possible biological control of an invasive species via competition was also examined by comparing persistence of bush rats to number of black rats, avoidance patterns and spatial segregation. Success of translocation in this study can be shown through sex, reproduction, body condition, habitat suitability, site fidelity, relatedness and competition. In the initial stages (within the first year), populations of bush rats had established on all sites and juvenile recruitment occurred, indicating survival, growth and evidence of reproduction. Over the entire study period bush rats persisted in three of the four sites but the remaining numbers were low (less than the numbers released), thus maintaining a viable, self-sustaining population would be difficult. Although animals remained after three or four generations, long-term persistence could be affected by major environmental change or demographic stochasticity if populations remain small. 

Common species are important in ecosystem structure and function. Declines in their abundance and distribution can lead to loss of less common species and ecosystem function. Wildlife restoration and thus ecosystem function can be restored to ecosystems that are biodiversity poor or have a high element of invasive species. Wildlife restoration increases the functional diversity of remnant habitats, making them more resistant to invasion. As well as being far more cost-effective than reactive management in reversing declines, this proactive approach also helps to determine underlying mechanisms that are required for successful translocation, thus, producing best practice for the reintroduction of rarer species. 

Bush rat reintroduction into SHNP uses the wildlife restoration concept to reintroduce a common species to restore ecosystem function, increase biodiversity and control invasive species. Bush rats are good candidates for translocation and reintroduction, because they are adaptable and not endangered, therefore can be safely used for multiple reintroductions. Bush rats existed in SNHP as recently as 100 years ago and have conspecifics close by in comparable habitats. They can be sourced from original sites and usually display a rapid population recovery. Therefore bush rat characteristics make them ideal for investigating translocation, colonisation, recovery and competition, within a fragmented habitat. 

The sites in this study are too new, therefore more introductions to stabilise population would assist bush rat persistence if changes in the environment occur. This is supported by other studies that have shown that repeated releases of large numbers of individuals were generally required to successfully establish a translocated population and create a self-sustaining ecosystem where minimal intervention is required. Wildlife restoration via bush rats creates a situation in which less resources need to be invested in ecological management, as the environment will eventually be capable of self-maintenance. Thus, creating a self-sustaining ecology that does not require further interventions. By reintroducing locally-extirpated animals into modified landscapes, wildlife restoration is a proactive approach that will maintain biodiversity, ecosystem function and avoid future species decline.

Help protect the Red Goshawk from extinction

The endangered Red Goshawk is Australia’s rarest bird of prey.

They are rusty red, stealthy, high-speed hunters, with powerful talons perfectly adapted for catching prey mid-flight – put simply, they’re extraordinary.

They’re a specialist hunter, and where they occur is a sign that Country is healthy.

But today, this endangered bird is disappearing.

BirdLife Australia says:

''There are now less than 1,000 Red Goshawks, with the remaining population largely confined to northern Australia, including the Pilbara region, Top End, and Cape York Peninsula.

Despite their formidable nature, Red Goshawks are likely completely lost from New South Wales and southern Queensland.

Hot wildfires are burning down the tall trees they rely on for nesting. These fires also alter the structure of the forest, reducing their ability to effectively hunt the prey they need to survive. Ongoing land clearing further shrinks the areas of suitable habitat left for Red Goshawks.

Help us protect their habitat, strengthen partnerships with Indigenous rangers, and secure a future for this remarkable bird.

Without help, we are facing a world without the Red Goshawk. Please donate today and help protect what’s left.''

Donate here

The red goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) is a bird of prey found in Australia. It is found mainly in the savanna woodlands of northern Australia, particularly near watercourses. 

The red goshawk was first described by the English ornithologist John Latham in 1801 under the binomial name Falco radiatus.

Plumage is generally rufous; on the head streaked with black and white, having more white on the face and throat; on the upper surfaces (body and upperwings) marked with black. Flight feathers and tail are barred grey, dark above and light below. Underside (belly and underwing coverts) are rufous with slight black ticking. The female has a paler belly than the male. Juveniles (first year) have less streaking on the head.

Red Goshawk male in York Peninsula. Photo: JJ Harrison 

Red Goshawk female in York Peninsula. Photo: JJ Harrison 

Wings are long, broad and fingered at the tips. Its tail is long and broad; square-tipped and about half its total length. It has a robust bill, slight brow ridge, and very heavy feet with bare tarsi having scutellate scale pattern. 

Pattern of direct flight is described as "sometimes leisurely, rather heavy and crow-like, with sustained flapping". Pursuit is "powerful and energetic with deep, fluid wing beats, like a fast-flying Brown Falcon". It soars with wings raised in a slight dihedral, almost flat; glides with wings flat or slightly bowed; and sometimes stoops with closed wings.

Size is 45–60 cm long, with 110–135 cm wingspan. Males weigh 635 g, females 1100–1400 g. The female is similar in size to a whistling kite, and the male to a female brown falcon.

The nest is built in an exposed fork of a tall emergent tree. It is a stick platform lined with green leaves, 60–120 cm across and 30–50 cm deep.

The egg-laying season is from May to October in the tropical north, and August to October in the east. Incubation takes 40 days, the nestling period 51–53 days, and juveniles remain dependent for 2–3 months.

Red Goshawks inhabit open woodland and forest, preferring a mosaic of vegetation types, a large population of birds as a source of food, and permanent water, and are often found in riparian habitats along or near watercourses or wetlands. In NSW, preferred habitats include mixed subtropical rainforest, Melaleuca swamp forest and riparian Eucalyptus forest of coastal rivers.

Adults appear to occupy territories throughout the year and breeding territories are traditionally used from year to year. Adults have large home-ranges, estimated in the Northern Territory to be as great as about 120 km2 for females and 200 km2 for males.

Red Goshawks mainly eat medium to large birds, including species as large as Australian Brush-turkeys, Kookaburras, Tawny Frogmouths, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and Rainbow Lorikeets, but they also take mammals, reptiles and insects.

In NSW

The Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) is listed as an Endangered species in NSW as of December 2023, having been upgraded from previous listings due to a severe range contraction and population decline. 

A Saving Our Species conservation project is currently being developed for this species and will be available soon. For information on how you can contribute to this species' recovery, see the Activities to assist this species section below. - from OEH webpage updated 14 Oct 2024

Macro Lenses Let you see details of hidden worlds

Finally bought a macro lens, a cheap $200 version, not the one that costs thousands, and had a test out this week. Although the first two subjects and photos aren't great, professional photographers have shared they often take several photos to get one good one - worth bearing in mind if you like taking photos and want to get into it more.

Macro lenses are specialised optics designed for extreme close-up photography, offering 1:1 (life-size) or higher magnification to capture intricate details with superior sharpness from a safe, non-disturbing distance. 

So in the instance of this white moth with yellow markings and two dots on the wings, you get to see that it actually has four wings - or the tiny little black ants - you can see they're having a bit of a conversation about something or other as the whole nest gathers food.

These images also make it easier to look up what species you're actually finding in your garden. Simply upload the image to Google Lens and find out more.

The moth is actually a Notarcha aurolinealis moth, also known as the yellow-lined moth. 

It is found in various locations including Hong Kong, Thailand, and parts of New South Wales. Specimens of this species have also been found in  Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland.

The snout moth species belongs to the Crambidae family. The name 'Notarcha aurolinealis' was given by Francis Walker, in 1859. 

Notarcha chrysoplasta and Notarcha polytimeta are also found in Australia, but records show they have only been seen and photographed in Queensland and the Northern Territory so far.

Notarcha chrysoplasta. Photo: Ian McMaster via iNaturalist

The name is derived from the Greek words notos (back/south) and archos (ruler/leader), often interpreted in scientific naming to reflect distinctive markings on the back or thorax of the insect, or/and referring to its geographic origin.

The name aurolinealis is derived from a combination of Latin and Neo-Latin terms describing the appearance of the moth, from Auro- (Latin aurum) meaning "gold" or "golden" and -linealis (Latin linea) meaning "linear" or "line," often used in entomology to indicate the presence of lines or stripes.

Notarcha is a genus of moths in the family Crambidae described by Edward Meyrick in 1884 - an indication those that come afterwards often build on the work of those who worked in the same field prior to them.

The family name Crambidae is derived from the New Latin genus name Crambus (from Greek krambos, meaning dry or parched, likely referring to their habitat or appearance), combined with the standard zoological suffix -idae to denote a family.

Crambidae comprises the grass moth family of lepidopterans. They are variable in appearance, with the nominal subfamily Crambinae (grass moths) taking up closely folded postures on grass stems where they are inconspicuous, while other subfamilies include brightly coloured and patterned insects that rest in wing-spread attitudes.

Francis Walker (31 July 1809 – 5 October 1874) was an English entomologist. He was one of the most prolific authors in entomology, and stirred controversy during his later life as his publications resulted in a huge number of junior synonyms. His assiduous work on the collections of the British Museum had great significance.

Between June 1848 and late 1873 Walker was contracted by John Edward Gray, Director of the British Museum, to catalogue their insects (except Coleoptera) that is Orthoptera, Neuroptera, Hemiptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera. 

Walker is notable in the present time for the large number of synonymous taxa he described. A careless taxonomist by today's standards, he often gave more than one name to the same species. In this respect, however, he was no worse than many entomologists of his time; what makes for the more common occurrence of Walker's taxa in synonymy is the sheer volume of his work.

Edward Newman described him as the "most voluminous and most industrious writer on Entomology this country has ever produced" and said of him:

"I never met anyone who possessed more correct, more diversified, or more general information, or who imparted that information to others with greater readiness and kindness."

Kenneth G.V. Smith wrote: 

''[Walker's] 'Catalogues of Insects in the British Museum Collections' will always stand as a tribute to his industry. Walker (1836) also described the Diptera from Captain P. P. King's collection made on the first surveying voyage of Adventure and Beagle. Fortunately, many of his descriptions of Darwin's insects will endure because they were of little-known groups from little-worked regions and most of his types are still in the British Museum (Natural History).''

The Notarcha aurolinealis moth typically has a wingspan of approximately 1.5 cm to 20 mm. The moth has white and yellow patterned wings with one black dot near the centre and three on the costa of each forewing. 

The Caterpillar is green with a brown head. It has been found in a shelter made by rolling a leaftip of its foodplant, Paddy's Lucerne.

The larvae feed on Sida rhombifolia, a perennial or sometimes annual plant in the Family Malvaceae, native to the Old World tropics and subtropics. Other common names include 'rhombus-leaved sida' and 'Paddy's lucerne'. Sida rhombifolia is native to tropical and subtropical areas of Africa through India and southeast Asia to Japan, as well as Indonesia and the Philippines. It has been introduced to tropical and subtropical parts of both north and south America, Australia, islands of the Pacific, and some parts of Europe.

So.... there will be more and hopefully better closeups of the beauty in these hidden worlds after we've figured out a little bit more on how these macro lenses work - it's amazing stuff and allows us to find out more about what is living here in the garden and what comes into the house.

Pioneering entomologist gifts $12.6m to create Sydney Insect Hub

Professor Aola Richards' donation to advance insect research.

March 7 2026

A bequest of $12.6m from Professor Aola Richards, a remarkable pioneering entomologist, whose research fundamentally shaped our knowledge of Australasian insect fauna, is creating the Aola Richards Sydney Insect Hub at the University of Sydney. 

Professor Aola Richards with Giant Weta, New Zealand, photo by Steve Rumsey. Te Papa (E.006714)

“Professor Richards, the first woman in New Zealand to gain a PhD in biology, who went on to a lifetime of achievement in insect study, has entrusted us with her vision of continuing important research in this field, including with critical funding for early- and mid-career researchers, and the appointment of a Chair,” Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Mark Scott said.  

“We are deeply grateful for this donation to the University, establishing the Sydney Insect Hub. Insects sit at the centre of most terrestrial ecosystems and hold a deep fascination for the general public. The generosity of Professor Richards will allow us to continue her mission to contribute meaningfully to urgent matters in biodiversity, conservation and sustainability across Australia and globally.” 

Professor Richards specialised in Australian ladybird beetles and New Zealand cave wētā (crickets), once spending seven weeks underground in the Waikato caves of New Zealand, with only cave wētā and water rats for company. The wētā, which can measure up to 35cm (from antennae tip to back legs) avoid light so Aola had to turn off her torch for extended periods and observe them in the dark. 

She was a key figure in connecting entomology research with the scientific study and exploration of caves (speleology) in Australia and New Zealand. She studied cave crickets and glow worms in the caves of Tasmania and also studied fauna in the huge caves  beneath  the Nullabor Plain, driving a Land Rover across Australia accompanied by two students.

She spent 33 years in the Biology Department at the University of New South Wales and published more than 80 papers, many as sole author. She described over 20 new species while making discoveries about insect behaviour and ecology. 

“This donation allows us to build on the outstanding work of our current entomologists at the University by advancing insect ecology, evolution, genomics and applied entomology. It will also support sustainable agriculture, an issue Professor Richards strongly believed entomologists could play a leading role in, as well as biodiversity and biosecurity,” said Associate Professor Thomas White, Inaugural Chair of the Sydney Insect Hub. 

“Her enduring legacy will not only be her remarkable body of work that anchors modern taxonomy and natural history but this generous act to secure the future of her field.  It is Australia’s first hub dedicated to training the next generation of insect scientists through training, scholarships, fellowships and grants, working across the full breadth of entomology.”

Professor Richards bequest will be applied to research on:

• how insect pollinator communities function and can be harnessed for sustainable agriculture including biological control
• tackling invasive species ecology and biosecurity threats, including the impact of invasive parasites on the viral landscape of honey bees
• how insects perceive their world, evaluate options and translate information into action
• how invertebrate communities and ecological networks persist under environmental change, and how to conserve not only species but the interactions that sustain ecosystems
• understanding insect ecology and evolution in a changing world 
• advancing taxonomy, classification, natural history and species discovery.

“Aola Richards achieved excellence in entomology at a time when the field was heavily male-dominated. She devoted her life to deepening our knowledge of insects and her ground- breaking research is an inspiration. She is truly one of the giants of Australian entomology and her legacy of excellence will now also live on through her generous bequest,” said Associate Professor Tanya Latty, from the Faculty of Science and Sydney Insect Hub. 

Meanwhile Professor Richards’ gift is already supporting entomology students following the completion of their higher degree by research. 

Two beneficiaries of this funding have been Dr Braxton Jones,  the only Australian scientist wholly dedicated to studying stick insects and Zhuzhi Zhang, who works on cockroach phylogenetics (evolutionary relationship between organisms). 

Dr Jones is receiving funding from the Aola Richards Bequest to substantially support his three-year National Taxonomy Research Grant Fellowship. 

"The generous funding has allowed me to continue my research focused on discovering new species of Australian stick and leaf insects, focusing on arid adapted species." 

Sydney Insect Hub team

• Associate Professor Thomas White (Chair)
• Associate Professor Tanya Latty
• Professor Dieter Hochuli
• Professor Nathan Lo
• Dr Emily Remnant
• Dr Timothy Lee
• Dr Ros Gloag

Further biography: Millions gifted to Three Universities

Professor Aola Mary Richards (1927–2021) was born December 16 1927, in Wellington, New Zealand, the only child of Hinemoa C C Hopkins, a lawyer, and David James Richards, a university mathematics professor from Wales. In Wellington she trained in zoology, completing an MSc in 1954 and, in 1958, becoming the first woman in New Zealand to earn a PhD in biological science. She worked at UNSW for more than three decades before retiring to London in 1994. A cave wētā species, Miotopus richardsae, was named in her honour in 2018. 

She described five genera from New Zealand and more than twenty new species comprising almost all of the known Australian taxa. 

In Australia, Richards also studied ladybird beetles. Her taxonomic work is highly cited and her studies of feeding biology revealed novel plant-insect interactions. Richards and her colleague Filewood were the first to describe how beetles can avoid toxic plant compounds by chewing through the leafstalk of their food plant. Referred to as "trench warfare", this behaviour allows ladybird beetles to isolate a region of the plant, preventing toxic plant compounds reaching them.

Aola left significant bequests to her alma mater, then Victoria College of the University of New Zealand (now Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington), the University of Sydney — and the Department of Zoology at the University of Cambridge. 

Aola’s father went to Trinity College and Aola had the ambition to do postdoctoral work with V.B. Wigglesworth, a leading entomologist and Quick Professor of Biology at the University. Circumstances prevented this plan’s coming to fruition, however, so she developed her entomology research in Australia and New Zealand instead – even living in a cave with the wētā to better study them.

Malcolm Burrows, Emeritus Professor of Zoology at Cambridge’s Department of Zoology, recalls meeting Aola for the first time at a dinner party and their ensuing 30-year friendship: ‘Our relationship was very much based on the science, and she was a trove of stories about her work. She kept her private self buried quite deep, however. It may well have been because of her experience as one of the only women in a very male-dominated academic environment, which largely wasn’t fair to women at that time. She was certainly determined and thick-skinned, and a good scientist.’

Aola never forgot the opportunity to study at Cambridge University that had slipped through her grasp. She decided to make it possible for other students to fulfil their dreams. The £5m Aola Mary Richards Fund, announced in 2024, will be one of the biggest departmental postgraduate funds in the whole University. It will further education and research in the zoological sciences by supporting studentships for PhD students and research grants for postdoctoral researchers, called respectively Aola Mary Richards Studentships and Aola Mary Richards Grants.

Professor Richards’ estate has contributed to two other institutions globally. The School of Biological Sciences at Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington has received a transformational $13.5 million (NZ $) gift and she has generously also left the University of Sydney $12.6 million, or an additional $13.5 million (NZ $). She gifted much of her insect collection to the CSIRO.

Aola Richards passed away November 2 2021 at the age of 93.

Reef Pods

This week the team at Sydney Institute of Marine Science's Project Restore installed their Reef Pods at 4 sites across Sydney Harbour; Vaucluse, Bottle & Glass Point, Parsley Bay and Watsons Bay. 

This is a key component of the project to achieve fish habitat enhancement through specifically designed and positioned Reef Pods. This initiative explores innovative approaches to increasing marine biodiversity and supporting native species on Sydney Harbour. 

The Reef Pods are expertly designed by the Reef Design Lab. 

This work is all made possible by the generous funding from the  NSW Trust and in partnership with the NSW Department of Environment and Heritage as part of the Seabirds to Seascapes Program.

 The Reef Pods initiative aims to explore new ways to increase marine biodiversity and support native species in Sydney Harbour.

Photo: Project Restore

About Project Restores' Reef Pods Project

Sydney Harbour’s natural benthic habitats such as rocky reefs have been reduced and degraded as the harbour has become urbanised, with over 60% of the foreshore lined with seawalls and docks. This has reduced fish habitat complexity and opportunity to breed and grow.

The University of Technology Sydney Fish Ecology lab has researched the impacts of artificial structures on fish and fisheries. This has included impacts of offshore oil and gas infrastructure a well as coast and benefits of breakwall structures and legacy WWII sunken infrastructure.

This led to a 2018 collaboration with the Sydney Opera House (SOH), where the team installed a series of small “reef pods” near the walls of the SOH, and since then surveys of the reefs have shown that the introduction of the reefs has enhanced fish assemblages in the area. This includes the sighting of new species including the endangered White’s Seahorse. 

Building on this success Project Restore will use “reef pods” in arrays at a number of nearshore sites in outer Sydney Harbour. Pairs of the units will be spread 10m apart to create new complex hard substrate habitat in areas where rocky reef have been degraded.

It is expected the new habitat will promote benthic habitat growth and increase fish biodiversity Regular surveys using underwater transects and stationary GoPro videos will reveal the fish life at these sites compared to nearby control sites.

Created in partnership with Reef Design Lab these units are designed to mimic the natural environment and encourage algal growth. The swim throughs and details are carefully designed to create areas of refuge and complexity for marine species to utilise. Once in place, Reef Pods will increase complexity and vertical relief in areas where rocky reefs have been degraded by urbanisation and siltation. This will create new refuge and breeding ground areas for marine biodiversity, and promote native shellfish and algae growth.

Project Restore aims to combine the methods and technologies of four SIMS flagship projects, which to date have operated largely independently of one another.

Together, these key projects provide a template for restoration of whole seascapes within urban harbours and waterways:

• Operation Posidonia
• Operation Crayweed
• Living Seawalls
• Fish Habitat enhancement

See February 2026 Update: Project Restore at Balmoral: Modern Moorings May Protect Sydney’s Endangered Seagrass

Or February 2025 report: Project Restore: seagrass from Palm Beach Going to Sydney Harbour - Join the Storm Squad + Environmentally Friendly Moorings – Free Trial Available

Find out more about how you can support these projects or get involved, at: projectrestore.sims.org.au

March 2026 at Kimbriki

Mondays to Thursdays:

Tuesdays: Avalon Boomerang Bags

November 5 2025: 

It is with great sadness that we announce that we can no longer operate out of the community centre in Avalon after 10 wonderful years, as we are finding the rent too expensive. 

We will move to The Hub at Kimbriki Resource Recovery Center in January 2026 and would still love you to come and visit us there, drop off fabric or buy a bag. We will be there on a Tuesday from 11-3pm.

ECO WORKSHOP – Beginners Composting & Worms

Composting and worm farming are great alternatives to disposing of your food waste in the rubbish bin while creating natural fertiliser for your garden. By recycling food scraps in a compost bin or worm farm you can help reduce organic waste disposed in landfill, in turn reducing the production of leachate and greenhouse gases from landfills. Compost and worm ‘castings’ are both ideal natural fertiliser for your garden.

*Northern Beaches Residents attending the entire Composting & Worms workshop: Northern Beaches Council would like to support its residents in recycling food waste at home by giving you a voucher towards buying a worm farm or compost bin. Northern Beaches Council will issue a $90 voucher to Northern Beaches residents who attend a Kimbriki Composting and Worms workshop and who have not had a free worm farm, compost bin or voucher from Council in the past. One voucher per household (not per person) is issued irrespective of number of workshops attended. The vouchers are issued directly from Council after you have attended the workshop. Please allow up to 3-4 weeks for the voucher to be issued and posted to your residential address. Voucher can be used at New Leaf Nursery in Ingleside or at the Kimbriki Eco House & Garden Eco shop.

Polystyrene Drop Off Collection Day

Venue: The HUB, Kimbriki (1 Kimbriki Road, Ingleside 2101)

Halfway down the hill on the left-hand side

Northern Beaches Council are encouraging residents to bring their rigid pieces of 100% clean, white and dry expanded polystyrene (EPS) used for packaging of appliances and electronics to Kimbriki Resource Recovery Centre for recycling on our collection day for free.

The polystyrene must not be contaminated with dirt, soil, tape, concrete, food, labels, plastic cardboard, ink printing and no bean bag beads to ensure the product can be recycled.

If you can bend the polystyrene and it snaps then it is EPS.

Waste & Sustainability in Early Childhood Centres

The day has been developed in line with the Early Years Learning Frameworks with particular focus on the new sustainability principle incorporated into the frameworks.

Whether you have been engaged with sustainability at your centre for some time or are just beginning to engage in response to the revised frameworks, there will be plenty on offer for all to engage further and learn from each other. We advocate for a shared and collaborative approach in this professional development day, which will allow educators to build confidence in integrating sustainability into their centre’s everyday activities and programs; learn from case studies from other centres; hear from guest speakers who can support your programs in biodiversity and water saving gardening; provide guidance on setting up effective systems at your centre to minimise and manage waste and access to a whole host of resources to take back to your centre.

Includes:

• 5 hours of educator elected professional development, meeting standards appropriate to your context and needs and contributes to your ongoing professional learning
• Morning tea and light lunch
• Goodie bag
• Lucky door prizes
• Mountains of opportunity for collaboration and support 😊

To book immediately & receive an invoice/receipt for your credit card payment click “BUY TICKETS”  and fill in your details and to proceed to the check out.

If you prefer an invoice to be sent to your Centre, Email Event Organiser –  ECO.house@kimbriki.com to send us your request. We will send you a Booking Form to complete and return to us with your Purchase Order. Your place will be held and an invoice will be issued.

NSW Government's Heat Pump Feasibility Grant for businesses: closes March 31

Learn how heat pumps could lower your energy costs and emissions here.

Key information

• Status: open now
• Grant amount: up to $30,000 to cover up to 75% of the project costs
• Application closing date: Tuesday, 31 March 2026 at 5 pm (AEDT) or earlier, if funding is exhausted
• Total funding amount: $1 million

Heat pumps are an effective solution to cut costs and decarbonise heating systems. Switching to heat pumps can benefit your businesses in many ways, including:

• lowering energy costs
• reducing exposure to volatile global energy prices
• reducing carbon emissions.

Discover energy savings that were identified during the NSW Government's Heat Pump Feasibility pilot program. 

The Heat Pump Feasibility Grant is a great opportunity for eligible NSW businesses to assess whether a heat pump is a feasible option for your site. You can apply for up to $30,000 to cover 75% of the project costs.

What’s included in the grant funding

The grant provides funding to help you work with a specialist consultant who will first assess your site for any major barriers to installing a heat pump. If these barriers can be overcome, you will receive funding for a detailed feasibility study. This will help you make an informed decision about whether a heat pump is the right fit for your site.  

The grant includes 3 milestones:

• Milestone 1: Up to $5,000 to cover up to 75% of the cost to identify if a heat pump is suitable for your business site. This is an opportunity to identify potential barriers to heat pump implementation and assess possible solutions. The results of milestone 1 will determine your progression to milestone 2.
• Milestone 2: Develop the heat pump design against the site’s current process requirements. There is no payment of Grant funding at milestone 2.
• Milestone 3: Up to $25,000 (covering up to 75% of costs) to develop a detailed heat pump feasibility study (for milestone 2 and 3).  

For full details about what is included and what is not, please read the funding guidelines (PDF, 637KB). 

Who can apply  

To be eligible for this Grant, you must meet all the following criteria:    

• You have an Australian Business Number (ABN) and are registered for goods and services tax (GST).    
• You are delivering your heat pump project at a NSW business site address.  
• You use between 5,000 and 100,000 gigajoules (GJ) of gas (liquified natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, natural gas) per year at your business site, excluding fuel for transport. You must be able to provide evidence of your annual gas use, such as energy bills. You must submit the most recent available evidence, no more than 2 years old at the time you apply.      
• You have identified a specialist consultant(s) to complete the Grant milestones.  

You are not eligible for this Grant if you:  

• are a Commonwealth, state or local government entity  
• have already been approved for this Grant funding  
• have received or are going to receive funding from the NSW Government for the same activities.  

Have your say on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan Review

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has released a Discussion Paper to support public consultation on the Basin Plan Review.

As part of the 2026 Basin Plan Review, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) are inviting you to share your views by making a submission. Your feedback will help shape water management for future generations.

The 12-week public consultation is open until 1 May 2026. The MDBA want to hear your thoughts on: 

• The issues and options presented in the Discussion Paper
• Any other issues and options we should consider
• What you see as the priorities, and why.

“The release of the Discussion Paper kicks off the Basin Plan Review” MDBA Chief Executive Andrew McConville said.

“Through the Discussion Paper the Authority has explored progress that has been made to date and considered some of the issues and challenges for the Basin as we look forward over the next decade.”

“The Basin Plan has delivered real benefits, and we are starting to see improvements in some of the Basin’s most important rivers and wetlands.

“But the evidence is also clear that climate change, ageing infrastructure, disconnected floodplains, declining native fish and poor water quality mean we need to do some things differently.

Looking ahead we need a Plan that supports greater adaptation to a changing climate.''

Mr McConville explained that the release of the Discussion Paper is the start of the consultation process on the Basin Plan Review.

“We’ve been transparent about the evidence we’ve gathered from governments, basin communities and industries, First Nations and scientists, to get to this point. We’ve used this evidence to propose ideas and actions for the future – now we want to know what the community thinks of that.

“At this point it is a discussion, not a set of decisions. Nothing in the Review is yet settled, and we want to have a genuine conversation with communities, informed by their lived experience.”

Consultation on the Discussion Paper will run for 12 weeks from 5 February 2026 until 1 May 2026, during which the Authority will be encouraging individuals, communities, peak bodies and anyone with an interest in achieving better outcomes for the Basin, to make a submission.

“Our consultation over the coming few months will be extensive. We will be out in the Basin listening to people to understand what is working, what isn’t and what might need to change. We will be explaining what is in the Discussion Paper and outlining how people might get involved by making a submission,” said Mr McConville.

At the conclusion of the public consultation period, the submissions received will help inform the Authority as it develops the Review which is to be finalised and delivered to the Commonwealth Government before the end of the year.

Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Murray Watt said that a healthy Murray-Darling Basin means resilient ecosystems, stronger industries, thriving communities and opportunities for future generations.

“Our challenge in the Basin is to balance competing pressures: reducing stress on major ecological systems, supporting Basin economies and communities, and adapting to a drying climate with increased scarcity and competition for water,” Minister Watt said.

“For well over a decade, the Basin Plan has been the blueprint for restoring the health of the Murray−Darling Basin while supporting communities and industry.

“As we near its final stages we want to be clear on what has worked and take honest and frank feedback on what can be improved.

“The Review will inform the future of the Basin Plan, to secure long-term sustainability for the environment and for Basin communities.

I encourage everyone in the Basin to get involved in the Review to have your say on how the Basin should be managed.

More information

• Download the Discussion Paper
• Further information on the Review and how to make a submission

Birdwood Park Bushcare Group Narrabeen

Sydney Wildlife (Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Services) Needs People for the Rescue Line

We are calling on you to help save the rescue line because the current lack of operators is seriously worrying. Look at these faces! They need you! 

Every week we have around 15 shifts either not filled or with just one operator and the busy season is around the corner. This situation impacts on the operators, MOPs, vets and the animals, because the phone line is constantly busy. Already the baby possum season is ramping up with calls for urgent assistance for these vulnerable little ones.

We have an amazing team, but they can’t answer every call in Spring and Summer if they work on their own.  Please jump in and join us – you would be welcomed with open arms!  We offer lots of training and support and you can work from the office in the Lane Cove National Park or on your home computer.

If you are not able to help do you know someone (a friend or family member perhaps) who might be interested?

Please send us a message and we will get in touch. Please send our wonderful office admin Carolyn an email at sysneywildliferesxueline@gmail.com

2025-26 Seal Reveal underway

622kg of Rubbish Collected from Local Beaches: Adopt your local beach program

This Tick Season: Freeze it - don't squeeze it

Notice of 1080 Poison Baiting

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) will be conducting a baiting program using manufactured baits, fresh baits and Canid Pest Ejectors (CPE’s/ejectors) containing 1080 poison (sodium fluoroacetate) for the control of foxes. The program is continuous and ongoing for the protection of threatened species.

This notification is for the period 1 August 2025 to 31 January 2026 at the following locations:

• Garigal National Park
• Lane Cove National Park (baits only, no ejectors are used in Lane Cove National Park)
• Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park
• Sydney Harbour National Park – North Head (including the Quarantine Station), Dobroyd Head, Chowder Head & Bradleys Head managed by the NPWS
• The North Head Sanctuary managed by the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
• The Australian Institute of Police Management, North Head

DO NOT TOUCH BAITS OR EJECTORS

All baiting locations will be identifiable by signs.

Please be reminded that domestic pets are not permitted on NPWS Estate. Pets and working dogs may be affected (1080 is lethal to cats and dogs). Pets and working dogs must be restrained or muzzled in the vicinity and must not enter the baiting location. Penalties apply for non-compliance.

In the event of accidental poisoning seek immediate veterinary assistance.

For further information please call the local NPWS office on:

NPWS Sydney North (Middle Head) Area office: 9960 6266

NPWS Sydney North (Forestville) Area office: 9451 3479

NPWS North West Sydney (Lane Cove NP) Area office: 8448 0400

NPWS after-hours Duty officer service: 1300 056 294

Sydney Harbour Federation Trust: 8969 2128

Volunteers for Barrenjoey Lighthouse Tours needed

Johnson Brothers Mitre 10 Recycling Batteries: at Mona Vale + Avalon Beach

Over 18,600 tonnes of batteries are discarded to landfill in Australia each year, even though 95% of a battery can be recycled!

That’s why we are rolling out battery recycling units across our stores! Our battery recycling units accept household, button cell, laptop, and power tool batteries as well as mobile phones! 

How To Dispose Of Your Batteries Safely: 

1. Collect Your Used Batteries: Gather all used batteries from your home. Our battery recycling units accept batteries from a wide range of products such as household, button cell, laptop, and power tool batteries.
2. Tape Your Terminals: Tape the terminals of used batteries with clear sticky tape.
3. Drop Them Off: Come and visit your nearest participating store to recycle your batteries for free (at Johnson Brothers Mitre 10 Mona Vale and Avalon Beach).
4. Feel Good About Your Impact: By recycling your batteries, you're helping support a healthier planet by keeping hazardous material out of landfills and conserving resources.

Environmental Benefits

• Reduces hazardous waste in landfill
• Conserves natural resources by promoting the use of recycled materials
• Keep toxic materials out of waterways 

Plastic Bread Ties For Wheelchairs

Stay Safe From Mosquitoes 

Mountain Bike Incidents On Public Land: Survey

Report fox sightings

marine wildlife rescue group on the Central Coast

A new wildlife group was launched on the Central Coast on Saturday, December 10, 2022.

Marine Wildlife Rescue Central Coast (MWRCC) had its official launch at The Entrance Boat Shed at 10am.

The group comprises current and former members of ASTR, ORRCA, Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace, WIRES and Wildlife ARC, as well as vets, academics, and people from all walks of life.

Well known marine wildlife advocate and activist Cathy Gilmore is spearheading the organisation.

“We believe that it is time the Central Coast looked after its own marine wildlife, and not be under the control or directed by groups that aren’t based locally,” Gilmore said.

“We have the local knowledge and are set up to respond and help injured animals more quickly.

“This also means that donations and money fundraised will go directly into helping our local marine creatures, and not get tied up elsewhere in the state.”

The organisation plans to have rehabilitation facilities and rescue kits placed in strategic locations around the region.

MWRCC will also be in touch with Indigenous groups to learn the traditional importance of the local marine environment and its inhabitants.

“We want to work with these groups and share knowledge between us,” Gilmore said.

“This is an opportunity to help save and protect our local marine wildlife, so if you have passion and commitment, then you are more than welcome to join us.”

Marine Wildlife Rescue Central Coast has a Facebook page where you may contact members. Visit: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100076317431064

• Ph: 0478 439 965
• Email: marinewildlifecc@gmail.com
• Instagram: marinewildliferescuecc

Watch out - shorebirds about

Possums In Your Roof?: do the right thing

Aviaries + Possum Release Sites Needed

Mona Vale Dunes bushcare group: 2026 Dates

What’s Happening? Mona Vale Dunes Bushcare group catch-up. 

In 2026 our usual work mornings will be the second Saturday and third Thursday of each month. You can come to either or both. 

We are maintaining an area south of Golf Avenue. This was cleared of dense lantana, green cestrum and ground Asparagus in 2019-2020. 600 tubestock were planted in June 2021, and natural regeneration is ongoing. 

Photos: The site In November 2019, chainsaws at the ready. In July 2025, look at the difference - coastal dune vegetation instead of dense weeds. But maintenance continues and bushcarers are on the job. Can you join us?

(access to this southern of MV Dunes  - parking near Mona Vale Headland reserve, or walk from Golf Ave.) 

For comparison, see this image of MV dunes in 1969!, taken from atop the home units at the end of Golf Avenue. 

2026 Dates

Bangalley Headland WPA Bushcare 2026

Watch out for PNHA signs telling you about bush regeneration and our local environment. This is one of many coming up.

Bushcare in Pittwater: where + when

Friends Of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment Activities

Bush Regeneration - Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment  

This is a wonderful way to become connected to nature and contribute to the health of the environment.  Over the weeks and months you can see positive changes as you give native species a better chance to thrive.  Wildlife appreciate the improvement in their habitat.

Belrose area - Thursday mornings 

Belrose area - Weekend mornings by arrangement

Contact: Phone or text Conny Harris on 0432 643 295

Wheeler Creek - Wednesday mornings 9-11am

Contact: Phone or text Judith Bennett on 0402 974 105

Or email: Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment : email@narrabeenlagoon.org.au

Gardens and Environment Groups and Organisations in Pittwater

November 2024

• A Turtle-y Awesome Rescue by Whale Beach SLSC + Shell us what you see this Summer: TurtleWatch needs your help!

January 2025

• Are Turtles not Safe in the Estuary? Green Turtle Killed in Pittwater Prompts Renewed Calls for Boaters to slow down, adhere to the speed limit

Pittwater's Birds

New Shorebirds WingThing  For Youngsters Available To Download

A Shorebirds WingThing educational brochure for kids (A5) helps children learn about shorebirds, their life and journey. The 2021 revised brochure version was published in February 2021 and is available now. You can download a file copy here.

If you would like a free print copy of this brochure, please send a self-addressed envelope with A$1.10 postage (or larger if you would like it unfolded) affixed to: BirdLife Australia, Shorebird WingThing Request, 2-05Shorebird WingThing/60 Leicester St, Carlton VIC 3053.

Shorebird Identification Booklet

The Migratory Shorebird Program has just released the third edition of its hugely popular Shorebird Identification Booklet. The team has thoroughly revised and updated this pocket-sized companion for all shorebird counters and interested birders, with lots of useful information on our most common shorebirds, key identification features, sighting distribution maps and short articles on some of BirdLife’s shorebird activities. 

The booklet can be downloaded here in PDF file format: http://www.birdlife.org.au/documents/Shorebird_ID_Booklet_V3.pdf

Paper copies can be ordered as well, see http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/shorebirds-2020/counter-resources for details.

Download BirdLife Australia's children’s education kit to help them learn more about our wading birdlife

Shorebirds are a group of wading birds that can be found feeding on swamps, tidal mudflats, estuaries, beaches and open country. For many people, shorebirds are just those brown birds feeding a long way out on the mud but they are actually a remarkably diverse collection of birds including stilts, sandpipers, snipe, curlews, godwits, plovers and oystercatchers. Each species is superbly adapted to suit its preferred habitat.  The Red-necked Stint is as small as a sparrow, with relatively short legs and bill that it pecks food from the surface of the mud with, whereas the Eastern Curlew is over two feet long with a exceptionally long legs and a massively curved beak that it thrusts deep down into the mud to pull out crabs, worms and other creatures hidden below the surface.

Some shorebirds are fairly drab in plumage, especially when they are visiting Australia in their non-breeding season, but when they migrate to their Arctic nesting grounds, they develop a vibrant flush of bright colours to attract a mate. We have 37 types of shorebirds that annually migrate to Australia on some of the most lengthy and arduous journeys in the animal kingdom, but there are also 18 shorebirds that call Australia home all year round.

What all our shorebirds have in common—be they large or small, seasoned traveller or homebody, brightly coloured or in muted tones—is that each species needs adequate safe areas where they can successfully feed and breed.

The National Shorebird Monitoring Program is managed and supported by BirdLife Australia. 

This project is supported by Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority and Hunter Local Land Services through funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Program. Funding from Helen Macpherson Smith Trust and Port Phillip Bay Fund is acknowledged. 

The National Shorebird Monitoring Program is made possible with the help of over 1,600 volunteers working in coastal and inland habitats all over Australia. 

The National Shorebird Monitoring program (started as the Shorebirds 2020 project initiated to re-invigorate monitoring around Australia) is raising awareness of how incredible shorebirds are, and actively engaging the community to participate in gathering information needed to conserve shorebirds. 

In the short term, the destruction of tidal ecosystems will need to be stopped, and our program is designed to strengthen the case for protecting these important habitats. 

In the long term, there will be a need to mitigate against the likely effects of climate change on a species that travels across the entire range of latitudes where impacts are likely. 

The identification and protection of critical areas for shorebirds will need to continue in order to guard against the potential threats associated with habitats in close proximity to nearly half the human population. 

Here in Australia, the place where these birds grow up and spend most of their lives, continued monitoring is necessary to inform the best management practice to maintain shorebird populations. 

BirdLife Australia believe that we can help secure a brighter future for these remarkable birds by educating stakeholders, gathering information on how and why shorebird populations are changing, and working to grow the community of people who care about shorebirds.

To find out more visit: http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/shorebirds-2020/shorebirds-2020-program