Informing the development of the monitoring

(1)

Informing the development of the monitoring

framework for native

vegetation condition across the Adelaide and Mount

Lofty Ranges NRM region:

workshop summary report

DEWNR Technical note 2016/19

(2)

Informing the development of the monitoring framework for native vegetation condition

across the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region: workshop summary report

Annelise Wiebkin, Brad Page and Jane McKenzie

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources June 2016

DEWNR Technical note 2016/19

(3)

i Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

GPO Box 1047, Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone National (08) 8463 6946 International +61 8 8463 6946 Fax National (08) 8463 6999

International +61 8 8463 6999 Website www.environment.sa.gov.au

Disclaimer

The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

ISBN 978-1-925510-00-3

Preferred way to cite this publication

Wiebkin, A S, Page, B and McKenzie, J, 2016, Informing the development of a the monitoring framework for reporting on the condition of native vegetation across the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region: workshop summary report, DEWNR Technical note 2016/19, Government of South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide

Download this document at: http://data.environment.sa.gov.au

(4)

ii

Acknowledgements

We thank the workshop participants, including: Keith Smith, Kristian Peters, Andrew West, Randall Johnson, Jason Van Weenen and Damian Moroney (DEWNR AMLR NRM region), Michelle Waycott, Glen Scholz, Daniel Rogers and Nigel Willoughby (DEWNR SMK branch), Tim Bond (DEWNR SE NRM region), Jackie Watts (DEWNR SAAL NRM region), Jody Gates, Mark Storry and Valerie Lawley (DEWNR C&LM branch), Adam Wood (DEWNR AW NRM region), David McKenna and Kirstin Abley (DEWNR P&S branch), Renata Rix (DEWNR SAMDB NRM region), Andrew Triggs (DEWNR KI NRM region) Lee Heard (DEWNR NY NRM region), and Jeff Foulkes and Peter Mahoney (Nature Conservation Society SA)

(5)

iii

Acknowledgements ii

Contents iii

Summary 1

1 Workshop outcomes 2

1.1 Background 2

1.2 Workshop overview 2

1.3 Existing data 3

1.4 Prioritising vegetation communities 3

1.5 Spatial scale, site selection and stratification of vegetation groups for monitoring 4

1.6 Indicators and benchmarks 7

1.7 Methods 7

1.8 Next steps 8

2 References 9

3 Appendix 10

A. Proposed vegetation groups for monitoring 10

B. Landscapes of the AMLR Region. 20

C. Potential indicators for monitoring vegetation condition 21

(6)

1

Summary

Native vegetation is an important and valued resource in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) NRM region because it provides habitat for native animals, places for recreation, and is culturally important for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

DEWNR staff from NR AMLR approached the Science, Monitoring and Knowledge (SMK) branch to assist in the development of a monitoring framework for native vegetation condition across the AMLR NRM region, the aim of which is to report on the state and trend of native vegetation condition across the region. The AMLR community is the target audience for these reports, including reporting against NRM plan targets.

A workshop was held in July 2015, and attended by staff from AMLR and other NRM regions,, , technical experts from DEWNR and the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia. The workshop aimed to inform the development of a monitoring framework for native vegetation condition. This document summarises the outcomes of the workshop, including:

- Outlining a framework for a monitoring plan and an implementation process - Identification and prioritisation of vegetation groups for monitoring.

- The values of native vegetation for conservation, production and other reasons.

- The expected management outcomes for each vegetation group.

- Identification of pressures for each vegetation group.

- Potential indicators of vegetation condition.

The outcomes of the workshop will be used to develop and trial the monitoring framework. The framework will be trialled in the first year, and will be refined for monitoring in subsequent years.

(7)

2

1 Workshop outcomes

1.1 Background

DEWNR Staff from the Natural Resources Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) NRM region are working to improve the information that is available to report on the condition of native vegetation at the NRM regional scale. The target audience for the improved information on vegetation condition is the AMLR community. Information on vegetation condition will be reported to the community by the AMLR NRM board using report cards as well as other reports, including those required to report against targets in the regional NRM plan. Regional staff indicated that reporting to the community at sub-regional or regional scales is required because many native vegetation management programs in AMLR are funded by the NRM levy.

A workshop was used to bring technical experts together to inform the development of a framework to monitor vegetation condition across the AMLR NRM region. Workshop participants proposed a number of guiding principles for the framework, including that it should:

 aim to inform region-wide reporting to the community, but that an increasing number of management questions may be incorporated if the monitoring program is improved;

 not aim to evaluate the effectiveness of specific management actions, which were implemented within projects, at site or landscape scales. Indicators for these purposes could be incorporated into the framework when resources are available;

 be practical and achievable within the available budget;

 have practical reporting outcomes, which relate to the values underlying each vegetation group;

 incorporate the results of project specific monitoring programs where ever possible, and implement monitoring methods in addition to those implemented by existing monitoring programs, where this is not possible;

 be adaptable so that new and improved methods could be incorporated in the future.

A project plan was developed before the workshop, outlining the aims, deliverables, budget, timeframes and governance of the project. The schedule of the project plan reflected the first 2.5 years of the project, but the workshop aimed to provide

direction for a long term (5 year) monitoring program. The workshop participants noted the alignment of the project plan with work being done for a separate project, which is modelling trends in the extent of native vegetation in South Australia.

1.2 Workshop overview

The workshop was held on 22 July 2015 in Adelaide at the Plant Biodiversity Centre, Botanic Gardens, between 9 am and 5 pm.

Participants included technical experts from DEWNR and NCSSA, Natural Resources AMLR and other NRM regions, as follows:

Keith Smith, Kristian Peters, Andrew West, Randall Johnson, Jason Van Weenen and Damian Moroney (AMLR NRM region), Michelle Waycott, Glen Scholz, Daniel Rogers and Nigel Willoughby (DEWNR SMK branch), Tim Bond (SE NRM region), Jackie Watts (SAAL NRM region), Jody Gates, Mark Storry and Valerie Lawley (DEWNR C&LM branch), Adam Wood (AW NRM region), David McKenna and Kirstin Abley (DEWNR P&S), Renata Rix (SAMDB NRM region), Andrew Triggs (KI NRM region), Lee Heard (NY NRM region), and Jeff Foulkes and Peter Mahoney (Nature Conservation Society SA).

The workshop was facilitated by Annelise Wiebkin and notes were recorded by Jane McKenzie and Craig Meakin (DEWNR SMK branch).

(8)

3 The goals of the workshop were to identify:

 existing programs, data and management outcomes on vegetation in AMLR.

 priority vegetation groups in AMLR for monitoring, and a plan to monitor each group every 5 years. Note

‘vegetation groups’ refers to a range of fine and broad scale vegetation associations and landscapes that are valued for a range of social, ecological and economic purposes.

 the important pressures, including ecological, social and economic, on priority vegetation groups.

 indicators of vegetation condition for the priority vegetation groups.

 site selection rules, and the timing of monitoring.

1.3 Existing data

The information on vegetation condition that was reviewed before the workshop included:

 summaries of existing vegetation management programs, including data and expected management outcomes for vegetation in AMLR.

 data on native vegetation condition in the AMLR NRM region, including Bushland Condition Monitoring (BCM) data (e.g. woodland birds, coastal vegetation) provided by the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia.

In addition to reviewing the above information, AMLR provided copies of other data on native vegetation condition. The data were reviewed so that they could be considered in the planning stages of the framework, for example to find areas where there were data gaps. At the workshop, the existing programs, data and management outcomes on vegetation in AMLR were summarised and presented to the participants. The workshop participants identified the following data, which will be assessed in detail before sampling sites are finalised:

 BCM, held by NCSSA, including coastal vegetation sites.

 BCM data, held by Greening Australia.

 Vegetation condition data in the form of polygons, held by A. West (AMLR).

 Data from the Biological Surveys, held by DEWNR,

 Data from TERN Ausplots.

 Vegetation condition data on the condition of the Fleurieu swamps, held by the NCSSA.

 Data from surveys of fire-responses of grey box grassy woodland and stringybark communities, held by DEWNR.

 Data from surveys of threatened ecological communities, held by Commonwealth Department for the Environment.

Workshop participants indicated that these data may not be spread representatively across each vegetation group in the AMLR NRM region. It was noted at the workshop that the current project would be expected to fill those gaps.

1.4 Prioritising vegetation communities

Participants were asked to come to the workshop with a list of 5 high priority vegetation groups in the AMLR NRM region, and a list of management questions that were relevant to the high priority vegetation groups. Five groups were chosen to ensure that workshop participants considered the high priority vegetation groups before the workshop, and to provide a meaningful number of groups to start discussions. The synthesised list of vegetation groups included terrestrial, coastal and freshwater aquatic systems, but intentionally excluded marine systems, including seagrass.

(9)

4 The proposed vegetation groups for region-wide reporting to the community were as follows:

 Allocasurina woodland/forest (Allocasurina verticillata).

 Smooth-barked gum woodlands (Eucalyptus leucoxylon, E. fasciculosa, E. camaldulensis).

 Box gum woodland (E. odorata, E. porosa, E. macrocarpa).

 Forests and woodlands with open sclerophyll shrubby understory (SMLR 2). This was suggested by the representative from the SAMDB region. This community overlaps with AMLR.

 Stringybark woodlands.

 High rainfall gum woodlands (including riparian, E. viminalis, E. camaldulensis, swampgum).

 Ecotome transition zones (E. goniocalyx).

 Low rainfall grassy woodlands under production (northern and eastern hills).

 Grassy woodlands.

 Temperate tussock grassland.

 Heathlands and heathy woodlands (including pink gums and blue gums).

 Mallee on ‘A’ calcareous soils (E. oleosa, E. gracilis).

 Water dependent ecosystems.

 Coastal heath.

 Samphire (coastal/subcoastal shrublands) in low energy environment.

 Fleurieu Peninsula swamps.

 Estuaries.

For each vegetation group, the values (both biodiversity conservation and community), reasons for prioritising, existing monitoring programs, amount of investment in vegetation management, drivers (that cannot be managed) and pressures (that can be managed) and expected management outcomes were identified (summarised in Appendix A). If vegetation groups had similar values and expected outcomes they were grouped together, which resulted in 14 broad groups (Appendix A). Of these, 6 groups would be prioritised if the number of vegetation groups needed to be reduced to fit the budget.

1.5 Spatial scale, site selection and stratification of vegetation groups for monitoring

Workshop participants discussed the spatial scale for monitoring of vegetation condition. Some participants highlighted the need for monitoring to be undertaken at subregional or even smaller scales, to match the scale at which they implemented vegetation management and because different landscapes have been impacted in different ways. It was suggested at the workshop that this design would enable the monitoring information to be used to evaluate effectiveness of vegetation management at landscape scales. Workshop participants discussed the guiding principles of this framework, which included the need for landscape-specific management outcomes. The framework did not specifically address the evaluation of the effectiveness of management at project sites.

Several workshop participants indicated that vegetation sampling needed to be undertaken at the NRM regional scale. It was highlighted that this was in line with the guiding principles of this monitoring framework. The rationale for measuring trends in vegetation condition at the NRM regional scale was to inform the community about where and why NRM levy investments are required.

Workshop participants highlighted that some areas of some of the vegetation groups functioned or were valued differently, or were managed for different outcomes. For these reasons, workshop participants indicated that the vegetation monitoring

(10)

5 methods (such as benchmarks) needed to be spatially stratified to account for these differences. The workshop participants suggested that the following factors needed to be considered to stratify the sampling for the monitoring program, resulting in what are termed in this report as stratified vegetation groups:

1. Landscape type and state.

2. Climate resilience adaptation type.

3. Vegetation that has been modified by people versus vegetation that is pristine, or protected for conservation outcomes (if vegetation management targets are different).

4. Vegetation on sloped versus flat areas (if management outcomes are different).

5. Vegetation on the east versus west sides of the Mount Lofty ranges (if management outcomes are different).

6. Vegetation in open versus closed woodlands (if management outcomes are different).

7. Vegetation on nutrient poor soils versus vegetation groups on sandy soils (if management outcomes are different).

8. Vegetation in different types of wetlands (surface water or aquifer fed).

9. Managed versus unmanaged vegetation (if management outcomes are different, e.g. fire management vs non-fire management zones).

10. Vegetation in small versus large patches (if management outcomes are different).

The first 2 stratification factors in the list above are adapted from a landscape framework, which outlines the respective broad management and conservation outcomes for each factor. Andrew West (AMLR NRM region) provided the landscape

framework for the AMLR NRM region as a map, which was based on historic landscape type, landscape states, and resilience to climate change (Appendix B). Landscape types include forest, grassland, mallee, shrubland and woodland. Landscape states are based on whether plant species diversity was higher, lower or typical of what was expected, based on trends in diversity over the past 40 years. Climate change resilience is based on whether system processes needed to undergo repair to adapt, whether both system processes and components needed to undergo some repair to adapt, or whether the system is not able to adapt (e.g. due to sea levels rising on samphires and mangroves) without new management interventions. Andrew West indicated that this spatial layer could be modified to reflect the requirements and scale of the proposed vegetation monitoring framework.

Workshop participants noted that not all of the stratification factors in the above list are relevant to all of the vegetation groups. For example “vegetation in different types of wetlands” is only relevant to wetland communities. Likewise, “vegetation on the east versus west sides of the hills” is only relevant to hill-side communities, which are influenced by the aspect of the hill slope. Some stratification factors are related to the expected management outcomes, such as “vegetation groups that have been modified by people versus vegetation that is pristine, or protected for conservation outcomes”, because vegetation is expected to function differently in farmed versus undisturbed environments.

Workshop participants suggested that based on their knowledge of the expected variance between sites and the predicted change in vegetation condition, between 13 and 30 sites would need to be measured in each of the stratified vegetation groups. The total number of stratified vegetation groups for the monitoring program is 62. Based on the recommended sample sizes, the numbers of stratified vegetation groups that could be sampled are estimated in Appendix A (last column). If between 13 and 30 vegetation condition sites are measured, the total number of sites (including new and existing data) would be between 1,261 and 2,910, which would be monitored once over the 5 year program. These estimates incorporate the first 8 factors (out of 10) listed above to stratify the vegetation groups. The factors that relate to management areas and patch sizes (the last 2 factors in the list above), were not used to stratify the vegetation groups, with the exception of the fire management zones in the stringybark vegetation group. Before the monitoring plan is finalised, detailed maps will be need to be produced to determine how many management and patch size stratification groups would be needed within each vegetation group.

To map the stratified vegetation groups, vegetation extent maps will also be required. These may be sourced from DEWNR’s corporate databases or from databases held by the AMLR NRM Board. Workshop participants noted that there is limited capacity to compile new maps for this new monitoring program and that DEWNR’s native vegetation layer may not include some vegetation in highly modified landscapes. These issues would need to be addressed before the monitoring plan is finalised.

(11)

6 The number of sites to be assessed within each stratified vegetation group would also be influenced by the available budget for monitoring, the expected variance between samples, and statistical analyses. For example, if the number of sites required to detect change is more than can be resourced, fewer stratified vegetation groups may need to be sampled or several of them may need to be combined into broader groups. In addition, power analyses can be used to estimate the number of sampling sites to detect a given amount of change in vegetation condition within each stratified vegetation group. Such power analyses are best undertaken on data from each stratified vegetation groups that will be monitored in the AMLR NRM region. In the absence of such data (i.e. before the start of the monitoring program), other similar vegetation condition data could be used to inform the sampling design. Equivalent data include the BCM collected by the Nature Conservation Society of SA, and/or data collected on Eyre Peninsula (Wiebkin 2013) and South East NRM (McLeay et al. 2013). As new data are collected, power analyses can also be used to review and refine the sampling design.

The possibility of revisiting BCM sites to detect change was discussed by workshop participants, and will also need to be addressed before the monitoring plan is finalised. Workshop participants indicated that the coverage of the existing BCM sites, including the number of stratified vegetation groups, was not adequate to report on vegetation condition at the regional scale.

The review of the BCM data indicated that these sites spanned about 25 per cent of the number of stratified vegetation groups in the AMLR NRM region. The review of the BCM data indicated that some of these sites are randomly distributed across broad areas, but some are focused on project sites, where management has been undertaken. Workshop participants noted that analyses of gaps will identify the spatial coverage of the existing information and new sampling that is required.

Workshop participants noted that randomly selecting the locations of sites (within stratified vegetation groups) would ensure that the vegetation condition surveys would not be biased toward vegetation in either good or poor condition. This would provide data that are representative of the condition of vegetation across the AMLR NRM region. Workshop participants noted that sites for monitoring can be randomly selected from within the mapped polygons for each stratified vegetation group using ArcGIS (e.g. Wiebkin 2013, McLeay et al. 2013). The locations of existing vegetation condition assessments can also be incorporated in these analyses, so that new sites fill the apparent gaps. Workshop participants discussed site selection rules that could be used to ensure that monitoring sites were:

 located in relatively large patches of vegetation

 independent of one another

 easy to access

These rules were not settled during the workshop. Workshop participants noted the importance of the rules that were used in studies in Eyre Peninsula and South East regions (Wiebkin 2013, McLeay et al. 2013), including that sites should be:

 within patches >6000 m² (or select a smaller area if most extant patches are <6000 m²)

 >110 m from road centrelines and <210 m from road centrelines

 >100 m from the edge of areas of native vegetation (e.g. where vegetation meets paddock)

 at least 1,000 m apart if sampling the same vegetation community/stratification group.

The number of sites that are pre-selected should exceed the number of sites that will be monitored. If possible, 50 sites should be pre-selected within each stratified vegetation group because this would provide alternative sites if some are not accessible (due to remoteness of sites, impassable tracks, weather conditions or lack of approval from landowners), or where vegetation groups at chosen sites are different to those recorded in mapping data. The 50 randomly pre-selected sites should be labelled sequentially. Access and directions to each site should be checked and sought (i.e. approval from owners of private land) before the survey. Sites that are not accessible should be discarded and access to the next site on the list should be sought until access is confirmed for the required number of sites.

(12)

7 Metadata on the location of each site should include:

 unique identification number

 land owner surname

 land owner name

 land owner address

 landholder’s contact detail

 section number

 hundred name

 stratified vegetation group

The locations of sites should be uploaded into field GPS units, and maps of the selected sites (together with cadastral or Forestry SA maps) should also be provided to field teams.

1.6 Indicators and benchmarks

Workshop participants agreed that indicators and benchmarks should be selected to reflect broad regional-scale values, pressures and expected management outcomes for each stratified vegetation group. Different stratified vegetation groups may have different indicators and benchmarks. Potential indicators for all stratified vegetation groups are included, as suggested by workshop participants, in Appendix C. Workshop participants did not allocate weights to each indicator. Similar work has been done by the NCSSA for the BCM method, Wiebkin (2013) and McLeay et al. 2013, and this is required before the program is finalised.

Benchmarks will be developed in consultation with technical experts, or analyses of existing data or they may be modelled once the data have been collected for this project. Workshop participants noted that there is no capacity to survey stratified vegetation groups to develop new benchmarks before the surveys are undertaken.

Where existing vegetation condition data are suitable for inclusion in this project, new benchmarks will be used to ensure that site assessments are standardised between existing and new data, and between sites and within different stratified vegetation groups. New benchmarks will be tailored to specific survey methods, which may differ between existing and new monitoring methods.

Workshop participants from SAMDB regional staff indicated that BCM assessment information is an effective tool to

communicate the condition of vegetation to their community. They indicated that the number of indicators in the BCM method (13 in each vegetation community) is comprehensive and inclusive of several components of vegetation condition. They recommended that the AMLR monitoring program include a similarly comprehensive suite of indicators. Workshop participants noted that the number of indicators used by the AMLR monitoring program would need to be balanced against the amount of time required to assess each site, and the budget.

Several workshop participants suggested that an indicator of fuel load be considered for all flammable systems.

1.7 Methods

Detailed methods were not developed in the workshop, but the workshop participants agreed that the methods should be appropriate and efficient for measuring the chosen indicators. Guidelines for the development of the methods are provided in Appendix C.

Workshop participants from SAMDB indicated that there was some variation in vegetation condition assessments (using BCM methods) recorded by different observers. For this reason, the methods used in this monitoring program should be objective, quantitative and easy to understand.

(13)

8 Workshop participants indicated that the timing of sampling should be relevant to the timelines and schedules of expected management outcomes. It is likely that the resources for this project will allow for sites to be monitored once every 5 years.

1.8 Next steps

Subject to approval and resourcing being made available, the next steps for the project are listed below.

 Staff from the AMLR NRM region will decide which vegetation groups and stratification groups will be assessed.

 Staff from the AMLR NRM region will decide which indicators and benchmarks will be used (based on the suggestions in Appendix C). Indicators and benchmarks will reflect specific values of each system. For example woodland bird habitat features may reflect biodiversity value where woodland birds are declining.

 Analyses of existing information to assess where new monitoring sites are required.

 Methods will be developed for the new monitoring sites and the time required to complete field surveys will be estimated.

 The number of sites able to be resourced by this project will be calculated (based on selected methods) and the number of stratified vegetation groups to be monitored will be reduced, if required, to fit the budget (see vegetation groups prioritised by management investment in Appendix A)

 Field protocols, datasheets and monitoring sites will be prepared (considering results of gap analyses).

 Contractors will be engaged to trial the vegetation condition monitoring. Participants recommended (on the basis of management investment) that the trial focus on the samphire and grassy woodland systems.

 New field data and existing data will be analysed, and benchmarks will be applied to monitoring data to assess regional vegetation condition of the 2 trial vegetation groups.

 The monitoring design and protocols will be reviewed.

 An interim report will be produced to report on the trial.

 The remaining stratified vegetation groups will be monitored over the subsequent 3 years.

 Annual reports and report card content will be produced for all stratified vegetation groups.

 The AMLR NRM Board will lead the production of the report cards, which will be accessible to all members of the community.

 The remaining stratified vegetation groups will be monitored every 5 years.

 As resources become available, additional sites (such as those in project areas) and vegetation groups could be incorporated into the program to answer specific vegetation condition questions.

(14)

9

2 References

McLeay, L.J., Wiebkin, A.S., Page, B., Neagle, N. and Sharafi, S.M., (2013), Monitoring of Native Vegetation Condition and Extent in the South East Natural Resources Management Region. Report to the South East Natural Resources Management Board. Government of South Australia, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Wiebkin, A. (2013). Monitoring Native Vegetation on Eyre Peninsula for the Wentworth Group’s Regional Environmental Accounting Trial 2012. Report to the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board. Government of South Australia, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

(15)

10

3 Appendix

A. Proposed vegetation groups for monitoring

Table of selected vegetation groups, outlining why they are valued for conservation, production and other reasons, whether they are priorities, existing monitoring programs, existing management investments, drivers and pressures that impact the vegetation groups, expected management outcomes for each vegetation group, and the proposed stratification of the vegetation groups. The extent of some vegetation groups only exists in a subset of available stratification types. For example, the extent of wetlands only exists in one landscape type and one climate resilience type (which overlaps completely with the landscape type). Within the single climate resilience type, there are two water-table swamp types, meaning that for wetlands only two stratification groups are relevant. These stratifications are approximate, and are based on the draft landscape map in Appendix B and extent maps of vegetation held by DEWNR. The number of stratification groups may change when all extent maps have been chosen. Vegetation groups labelled with * receive relatively more management investment, and these groups would be prioritised if the number of vegetation groups needed to be reduced to fit the budget.

The ‘vegetation groups’ refer to a range of fine and broad scale vegetation associations and landscapes that are valued for a range of social, ecological and economic purposes. The range of scales means that they do not all align with a single vegetation classification system, and that there is spatial overlap of some groups.

(16)

11 Vegetation

group

Values Reason it is a priority

Existing monitoring

Management investments

Drivers and pressures Expected management outcomes

Stratification (# of types)

*Wetlands Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services: water quality and base flows

High level of pressure: close to development, impacted/modified by climate change.

Fleurieu swamps are critically endangered

Some, but very site and type specific – mostly limited to Fleurieu swamps (15 years of data)

High Hydrology

Water use

Change in disturbance regimes (fire and Grazing – some species need disturbance) Re-engineering of drains

Groundwater extraction and use

Weeds

May differ for different wetlands

Overall maintain base ecological function Composition structure (presence of specific species, age-classes)

Species diversity and

composition varies depending on timing/level of disturbance.

Diversity may not change but rare species or different age- classes may be lost

Have to manage across swamp systems

Two hydro types: surface or subsurface water driven systems and ground water driven (water table)

Landscape (1) Swamp type (based on water table) (2) Climate resilience strategies (1) Total = 2

stratification groups Top and bottom of swamp (tops will dry out earlier and become more terrestrial than the bottoms). This may require 2 additional levels of stratification.

(17)

12 Vegetation

group

*Woodlands:

high rainfall (gum woodlands) Rainfall ranges determine cut offs

Biodiversity Ecosystem services:

pollination, soil protection, nutrient cycles, very

productive system High species diversity

Vulnerable: highly modified, impacted by climate change

Some BCM and Biological surveys Sampling is biased towards healthy systems and sampling is limited in spatial distribution

High but focused

Modification (fragmentation and extent) due to

clearance and land use Total grazing pressure (not major impact) Changes to disturbance regimes (change nutrient dynamics) Specific: koala

browsing, tree dieback (tree health), fire (not major impact), weed invasion (woody weeds result in structural changes)

Regeneration

Tree health of specific age- classes may be used to indicate management response

Coarse woody debris

Indicator species required: full list of species present not necessary and problematic due to variability (seasonal, rainfall responsive etc.)

Landscape (3) Climate resilience strategies (2) Modified for human use and protected for conservation (2) Total = 9

stratification groups

Woodlands:

low rainfall (box, sheoak)

Highly modified, vulnerable to climate change

Lack of community recognition that it is important

Peppermint box grassy woodlands are critically endangered Grey box grassy woodlands are threatened

Some BCM and Biological surveys Some focused stewardship program

monitoring (10–15 years of data)

Very low, not specific to management outcomes, often misdirected due to lack of awareness of values of vegetation community

Total grazing pressure:

problem as some level of grazing benefits some species but not others

Kangaroos and deer

Different systems: 1) ‘pristine - low modification’: floristic composition important. 2)

‘Modified’ - habitat function important

Structure

Tree health (age-class specific) Recruitment/regeneration Coarse woody debris

Landscape (3) Modified for human use and protected for conservation (2) East and West (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 9

(18)

13 Vegetation

group

Stratification (# of types) Riparian

woodlands

Highly modified, vulnerable to climate change

Limited, extent poorly mapped, so spatial

representation not well understood Northern Rivers project provides some additional BCM sites Light River (15 samples)

Little to moderate

Driven by channel flows, flood plains, flood out

Hydrology Water use Land use Total grazing (specifically koala) for specific/dominant tree species

Weeds

Maintain structure (especially understory)

Composition (species specific) Canopy cover

Tree health

Landscape (2) (possibly correlated with modification) Modified for human use, maintained for soil stability and protected for conservation (3) Climate resilience (1) Total = 6

stratification groups For further discussion:

open and closed woodlands (2) Nutrient poor and sandy (2)

(19)

14 Vegetation

group

*SMLR 2:

forest and woodland with open

sclerophyll shrubs understory, and some stringybark

Biodiversity (particularly birds)

Highly fragmented, concern over declining woodland birds

62 BCM sites, focused on areas where

management activities occur

High, but focused

Disturbance dynamics (especially fire) Changes in structure due to changes in composition Nutrients Weeds (especially sandy sites)

Total grazing pressure (kangaroos, rabbits, deer)

Phytophera (difficult to measure)

Composition (for specific species)

Structure

Age-classes (surrogate for productivity)

Rare/endemics

Landscape (1) Modified for human use and protected for conservation (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 2

Sand scrub (sub-group of SMLR 2) e.g.

McLaren Vale, Aldinga, Manning Reserve

Biodiversity Fragmented, naturally limited in extent, recently modified,

Threatened plants Bird species declining

Possibly some BCM sites from SMLR 2

Some, but focused

As above As above Landscape (1)

Modified for human use a protected for conservation (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 2

stratification groups Note: possibly combine this

vegetation group with SMLR 2.

(20)

15 Vegetation

group

*Coastal sand dunes:

including low and high energy systems

Biodiversity Ecosystem services: coast protection, heritage values, community appreciation, recreation

Highly modified, impacted, close to development, vulnerable to climate change

BCM sites: well spread out (problematic due to linear nature of vegetation communities) BUSHRat:

considered more adaptable, useful Methods capture different

qualities/values 60 percent of BCM sites have been revisited

High Weed abundance

Disturbance: loss of ground cover Grazing: rabbits Sea level: shoreline hardening

Sand stabilisation (sand dune height)

Increase ground cover Composition

Structure (maintain dune zones, fore dunes)

Two systems, but the maps may overlap

Landscape (3) Coastal heritage and community recreation (modified) (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 4

(21)

16 Vegetation

group

*Coastal samphire, mangroves, mudflats

Biodiversity Rare species: overall biodiversity low but unique species assemblage Vulnerable to climate change, fragmented and linear nature are barriers to species migration

BCM limited sites Some transect data for biodiversity in samphire and coastal management projects

High Disturbance: tracks, vehicles

Nutrient inputs:

sewerage discharge Development/land use, including salt ponds Infrastructure: levies influence tides Sea level rise Grazing by deer Weeds

Maintain diversity Evidence of seed-set

Senescence of specific species Zone migration

EPA sewerage discharge measures

Stratify by 3 tidal zones

Landscape (2) Inter- and supra-tidal (2)

Modified for human use, and protected for conservation (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 8

samphire, mudflats and mangroves (3 extra groups) Estuaries:

different hydrology from mangroves and samphire

Biodiversity Rare species: overall biodiversity low but unique species assemblage Vulnerable to climate change, fragmented and linear nature are barriers to species migration

BCM limited sites Some transect data for biodiversity in samphire and coastal management projects

Low As above As above Landscapes (1)

Modified for human use, and protected for conservation (2) Climate resilience (1) Total = 2

(22)

17 Vegetation

group

Stratification (# of types) Rocky cliffs

(heath and edge vegetation):

Fleurieu and some areas of Deep Creek

Biodiversity Low priority for monitoring or investment because these groups are considered robust, little disturbance

Some BCM data Low Landscapes (1)

Climate resilience (2) Modified for human use, and protected for conservation (2) Total = 4

stratification groups Grasslands

(plus/minus emergents)

Biodiversity Highly modified, vulnerable to climate change

Lack of community recognition that it is important

Vegetation group is not clearly defined

A few BCM sites on properties where

management is undertaken Sampling of biological survey sites is biased towards healthy systems Pygmy blue tongue monitoring Vegetation group is poorly mapped

Low, focused on property management (e.g. weeds), often

detrimental to grassland function.

Management can impact some values of the vegetation group.

Same as woodlands:

low rainfall vegetation group

Land use changes Grazing of specific species

Weeds

Structure Recruitment Composition

Stratify by ‘modified’ and

‘pristine’ systems

Landscapes (2) Climate resilience (1) Modified for human use and protected for conservation (2) Total = 4

(23)

18 Vegetation

group

*Spine of mountain range (Stringybark)

High biodiversity values People are most familiar with this type of vegetation group High recreational value

Mostly intact and relatively good extent

Number of threatened species and generally high species diversity Focus for fire management

Yes, most data in region on this type

High, focused on areas of fire management

Changes to fire regime Weeds

Phytophera Nutrients

Water and drought impacts tree health, dieback

Maintain structure and composition (maintain x % of sites with xx structure and composition)

Maintain specific species that are ‘fire response’ species Maintain large trees (including dead trees for habitat) Tree health

Landscapes (3) Climate resilience (1) Modified for human use and protected for conservation (2) Total = 6

Fire management zones a, b, c (fine scale, small areas) (3) Mallee (very

little extent)

Biodiversity, unique species Small extent in AMLR

Highly fragmented Degrading remnants (especially on road sides)

Pressure from sand mining, unique species

Unknown.

Monitoring conducted by neighboring regions

Low Grazing

Weeds

Climate change- vulnerable to rainfall Feral animals

Structure (habitat), very small patches

Maintain composition A few endemics

Landscapes (2) Climate resilience (1) Modified for human use, (1)

Total = 2

(24)

19 Vegetation

group

Stratification (# of types) Inland

chenopod shrublands

Biodiversity Small extent in AMLR

Highly modified, small proportion of total extent is in AMLR region Lack of community recognition that it is important

Heavily impacted, vulnerable to climate change

Unknown Low Grazing

Weeds Land use

Structure Composition

Landscapes (1) Climate resilience (2) Modified for human use (1)

Total = 2

(25)

20

B. Landscapes of the AMLR Region.

Map of AMLR NRM region landscapes (A. West, unpublished data) including information on the:

 landscape categories (based on species turnover and historic vegetation patterns)

 states and trajectory (based on whether species diversity is higher, equal to, or lower than expected, and trends in diversity over the last 40 years)

 Climate change adaptation strategies

(26)

21

C. Potential indicators for monitoring vegetation condition

Tables of the 11 selected vegetation groups, outlining potential indicators, measures, benchmarks, monitoring methods, associated values or expected management outcomes and projects that have provided comparable data for each vegetation group. Indicators marked with “+” may be possible to incorporate in the current project, but they are not essential. Indicators marked with “*” are likely to be beyond the scope of the current project. The remaining indicators (not marked) are the potential indicators for the current project.

Vegetation group

Type of indicator

Indicator Measure Benchmark

description

Monitoring method

Outcome or value that indicator is related to

Projects with comparable

data

Wetlands Condition species

composition

presence of 5

desirable/keystone perennial indicator species (as suggested by workshop participants)

all 5 spp. present 3 x 30 m transects, running 90˚ from swamp edge

maintain base ecological function, limit impact of grazing, limit effects of change in fire regime, reduce threats to TECs

Biol. survey

Condition composition

age-class structure

presence of both age classes of each overstorey veg.

species (juveniles and sub adult) as per BCM

both age classes for all overstorey spp.

present

30 x 30m quadrat maintain base ecological function, limit impact of grazing, limit effects of change in fire regime

BCM

structure

cover of life forms as per BCM most dense vegetation that could be

expected for wetlands (model structural density)

3 x 30 m transects, running 90˚ from swamp edge

maintain base ecological function, limit impact of grazing, limit effects of change in fire regime, habitat quality

BCM

Pressure weeds presence/abundance of 5

most dominant weeds as per BCM

no weeds (model upper limit)

3 x 30 m transects, running 90˚ from swamp edge

limit weeds BCM/Biol. survey

Condition* biodiversity Not determined Not determined Not determined species diversity

Condition* water

quality

Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services, pressure of agricultural practices such as too many nutrients

Condition* water flow Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

+ Indicators that may be possible to incorporate in the current project, but they are not essential.

* Indicators that are likely to be beyond the scope of the current project.

The remaining indicators (not marked) are the potential indicators for the current project.

(27)

22 Vegetation

group

Indicator Measure Benchmark

description

Monitoring method Outcome or value that indicator is related to

data High rainfall

woodlands AND all grasslands (with or without emergents)

Condition species composition

presence of 5 desirable/keystone perennial indicator species

all 5 spp. present 3 x 30 m transect maintain base ecological function

Biol. survey Condition composition

change

presence of 5 undesirable native species

5 spp. absent 3 x 30 m transect maintain base ecological function

Biol. survey

Condition composition structure

cover of life forms as per BCM model density range 3 x 30 m transect maintain habitat function BCM

Condition composition age- class structure

presence of 2 age classes of each overstory veg. species (juveniles and sub adult) as per BCM

both age classes for all over story spp. present

30 x 30 m quadrat maintain/improve regeneration, limit grazing

BCM

Condition tree health of

mature tree spp. dieback score as per BCM model dieback score

range from best to worst measure dieback on first 10 trees overhanging 30 m transect tape

maintain/improve tree health, limit koala browsing, limit impacts from change in fire regime

BCM

Condition coarse woody debris

woody ground cover as per BCM model woody ground cover (split benchmarks for modified and protected areas)

3 x 30 m transect maintain ground habitat BCM

Condition ground cover total ground cover 100 % ground cover (modified landscapes)

3 x 30 m transect improve soil protection on modified landscapes only

BCM Pressure weeds presence/abundance of 5 most

dominant weeds (e.g. olives) as per BCM

no weeds 3 x 30 m transect limit weeds BCM/Biol survey

Condition fragmentation habitat hectares connectivity score

to be determined GIS exercise across mapped vegetation group

limit further fragmentation

Condition extent extent (ha) to be determined GIS exercise across

mapped vegetation group

limit further clearance

Socio- economic⁺

land use Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain ecosystem services

Condition* pollination Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain ecosystem services

Condition* nutrient cycles Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain ecosystem services

Condition* biodiversity Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain/improve diversity

(28)

23 Vegetation

group

Indicator Measure Benchmark description Monitoring method

data Low rainfall

woodlands (box, sheoak)

Condition (pristine systems only)

species composition

total diversity of perennial spp. model maximum expected diversity

3 x 30 m transect maintain ecological function BCM/Biol. survey Condition

(modified systems only)

species composition

presence of 5 desirable/keystone perennial indicator species

all 5 spp. present 3 x 30 m transect maintain habitat function Biol. survey

Condition composition structure

cover of life forms as per BCM model upper limit of density and preferred density range

3 x 30 m transect maintain habitat function, limit impact of grazing (in modified habitats some grazing is good but not too much)

BCM

Condition composition, age-class structure

presence of 2 age classes of overstorey spp. (juveniles and sub adult) as per BCM

both age classes for all overstorey spp. present

30 x 30 m quadrat maintain/improve regeneration

BCM

Condition tree health of mature tree spp.

dieback score as per BCM model dieback score range from best to worst (split benchmarks for modified and protected areas, east and west)

measure dieback on first 10 trees touching transect tape

BCM

Condition coarse woody debris

woody ground cover model woody ground cover (split benchmarks for modified and protected areas, east and west)

3 x 30 m transect maintain ground habitat BCM

Condition ground cover total ground cover as per BCM 100 % ground cover (just for modified landscapes)

3 x 30 m transect improve soil protection BCM

to be determined GIS exercise across mapped vegetation group

mapped vegetation group (may use ARI model)

Condition* pollination Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

(29)

24 Vegetation

group

Type of indicator Indicator Measure Benchmark description

data Riparian

woodlands

structure

cover of life forms as per BCM model density range 3 x 30 m transect maintain habitat function BCM

Condition species

composition

presence of 5

desirable/keystone perennial indicator species

all 5 spp. present 3 x 30 m transect maintain ecological function Biol. survey

Condition tree health of

mature tree spp.

(includes canopy cover)

dieback score as per BCM model dieback score range from best to worst (split benchmarks for modified and protected areas)

measure dieback on first 10 trees touching transect tape

BCM

no weeds 3 x 30 m transect limit weeds BCM/Biol. survey

Condition ground cover

(modified landscapes only)

total ground cover as per BCM 100 % ground cover (modified landscapes only)

3 x 30 m transect improve soil protection on modified landscapes only

BCM

to be determined GIS exercise across mapped

vegetation group

Socio-economic status⁺ land use Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain ecosystem services

Condition* water flow Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

Condition* nutrient cycles Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

Condition* pollination Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

(30)

25 Vegetation

group

Type of indicator Indicator Measure Benchmark description

data SMLR 2

(forest and woodland w open shrubs, some stringybark) AND Sand scrub (McLaren Vale/Aldinga/

Manning reserve)

age-class structure

presence of 2 age classes of overstorey spp. (juveniles and sub adult) as per BCM

both age classes for all overstorey spp.

present

30 x 30 m quadrat maintain/improve regeneration/productivity

BCM

structure

cover of life forms as per BCM model density range (need advice for modified areas, protected areas, east and west)

3 x 30 m transect maintain habitat function, limit grazing

BCM

Condition species

composition

presence of 5

desirable/keystone perennial indicator species

all 5 spp. present 3 x 30 m transect maintain/improve ecological function

Biol. survey

no weeds 3 x 30 m transect limit weeds BCM/Biol. survey

to be determined GIS exercise across mapped

vegetation group

Condition⁺ rare/endemic

spp.

presence of 3 rare/endemic species

all 3 spp. present 30 x 30m (or possibly larger)

conservation value/threatened flora

Biol. survey

Condition* nutrient cycles Not determined Not determined Not determined ecosystem services

Condition* biodiversity Not determined Not determined Not determined maintain/improve species

diversity (esp. birds)

Pressure* Phytophthora Not determined Not determined Not determined limit disease