Fitz-Stirling 2007-2017 Ten-year Evaluation Review
Feb / 2018
P a g e | 1
Acknowledgements: This report has benefited greatly from the discussion and guidance on content, presentation and editing by Annette Stewart, Clair Dougherty and Simon Smale. Their expert assistance is greatly appreciated. Volunteers have played a major and vital role in the monitoring and survey program over the past 5 years and I thank all of those involved. Special thanks go to Dr Sandra Gilfillan for her continuing dedication to the wallaby monitoring and research program. Volunteers Aaron Gove, who provided the bird data analysis and Richard Thomas, who provided the bat data analysis, have made a large contribution to this report and I thank them. I sincerely thank Bill and Jane Thompson who have regularly carried out all the pool monitoring for several years. Thanks also to Barry Heydenrych, Greening Australia, who provided restoration data. Funding to assist the monitoring program and UAV surveys during 2015 was gratefully received from South Coast NRM as part of the Australian Government funded ‘Restoring Gondwana’ program. Funding vital for wallaby monitoring and research was provided by the Diversicon Foundation.
Citation: Sanders, A. (2018). Fitz-Stirling 2007-2017 ten-year evaluation review. Unpublished report for Bush Heritage Australia.
P a g e | 2
Contents Overview of Fitz-Stirling Project ...... 6 This report evaluates our conservation impact ...... 7 A wide range of indicators are monitored to assess progress towards our goals ...... 8 ...... 9 Climate change is influencing ecological processes in the Fitz-Stirling ...... 9 Four Conservation Targets are used to measure our progress ...... 11 Conservation Target 1: Mallee Heath and Black-gloved Wallaby ...... 11 Goals for this target: ...... 12 Progress towards the goals for Mallee heath and Black-gloved Wallaby: ...... 14 1. Extent of restored mallee heath has increased from 60 to 2,624 hectares ...... 14 2. Undisturbed mallee heath vegetation is in very good condition ...... 14 3. Vegetation that has been established on cleared farmland is developing well ...... 15 4. Fire remains a key area requiring focus ...... 17 5. Bird monitoring shows that our restored areas are providing increasingly suitable bird habitat ...... 18 6. Bird activity and species richness increased over time at revegetated sites ...... 19 7. Bird activity increased at reference sites ...... 20 8. Bird activity increased at naturally regenerating sites ...... 21 9. Nectivorous resource nomads and resident understorey birds increased more in restored sites than in reference sites ...... 21 10. Bird assemblage similarity depends on the treatment and age of restoration...... 23 11. Ground dwelling fauna species richness has increased in restored areas ...... 24 12. Seven bats species have been recorded in the restored areas ...... 25 13. Black-gloved Wallaby distribution is increasing with restoration of their habitat ...... 27 Conservation Target 2: Mallet, Moort and Tammar ...... 28 Goals for this target: ...... 28 Progress towards the goals for Mallet, Moort and Tammar Wallaby ...... 29 1. The goal of increasing the extent of mallet and moort by 100ha has been exceeded...... 29 2. Tammar occupancy has decreased from 50% in 2011 to 39% in 2015 ...... 29 Conservation Target 3: Creeks and Flat-topped Yate ...... 30 Conservation goals for this target ...... 30 Progress towards the goals for Creeks and Flat-topped Yate ...... 31 1. Further monitoring is required to establish the normal range of variation for Yate recruitment and crown condition ...... 31
P a g e | 3 2. We are approaching our goal of restoring 2,000ha of yate by 2023 ...... 32 3. Water quality in creek pools needs further monitoring to establish the normal variations in these systems ...... 33 4. We are approaching our goal of restoring perennial vegetation in the Monjebup and Corackerup catchments ...... 33 Conservation Target 4: Fresh Water Systems ...... 34 Conservation goal for this Target ...... 34 Progress towards the goals for Fresh Water Systems ...... 34 Landscape scale flora and vegetation surveys have highlighted extraordinary diversity ...... 35 Conservation actions – managing threats to the Conservation Targets ...... 37 Threats to Targets ...... 37 Managing fragmentation: The key management strategy for the Fitz-Stirling is to restore cleared farmland ...... 39 Managing invasive herbivores: rabbits are controlled prior to restoration ...... 39 Managing invasive predators: feral predators pose a high threat to fauna in the Fitz-Stirling and they are not currently managed ...... 39 Managing weeds: weeds pose a minor threat on the BHA Fitz-Stirling properties ...... 40 Managing fire: prescribed burning is required across BHA properties ...... 40 Managing Phytophthora cinnamomi: Phytophthora cinnamomi occurs on Yarrabee and Monjebup North ...... 41 Managing Salinity: salinity poses a very low threat to Targets on BHA properties ...... 41 Recommendations for the next 5 years and beyond ...... 43 Conservation Target recommendations ...... 43 Target 2: Mallet, Moort and Tammar ...... 43 Target 3: Creeks and Flat-topped Yate ...... 43 Target 4: Fresh water systems ...... 43 Conservation action recommendations...... 43 Restoration ...... 43 Managing invasive herbivores...... 44 Managing invasive predators ...... 44 Managing weeds...... 44 Managing fire ...... 44 Managing Phytophthora cinnamomi ...... 44 Managing Salinity ...... 44 Monitoring, evaluation and research ...... 44 Monitoring ...... 44 Glossary of key terms ...... 47 References ...... 47
P a g e | 4 Appendix 1: Results chains ...... 48 Appendix 2: Monjebup North monitoring results for 2012, 2013 and 2014 restoration plots ...... 54 Appendix 3: Monjebup Nth monitoring results from UAV and quadrats for 2012-2015 ...... 67 Appendix 4: Recovery Wheel for Monjebup North restoration ...... 68 Appendix 5: Bird functional groups ...... 69 Appendix 6: Data analysis for bird functional groups ...... 71 Appendix 7: Fauna species predicted to occur in restored mallee heath habitat and those recorded to 2016 ...... 94 Appendix 8: Outcomes of recommendations from 2012 report ...... 98
P a g e | 5 Overview of Fitz-Stirling Project
The Gondwana Link project aims to reconnect 1000 kilometres of country from the south west karri forest through to the woodlands and mallee bordering the Nullarbor Plain. The overall project operates at a range of scales across the link. BHA's contribution to the Gondwana Link project currently focuses on the area between Fitzgerald River and Stirling Range National Parks – ‘the Fitz-Stirling’ (Figure 2), which is where the most significant fragmentation of natural landscape across Gondwana Link has occurred and is consequently where the most concerted connectivity effort is required. In this area we have three broad strategies: 1. Protection and conservation management of existing bush. 2. Ecological restoration to consolidate and restore connectivity in key locations. 3. Supportive land management in the wider landscape, with particular focus on upper catchment management. The second of these, landscape-scale ecological restoration, is the strategy most critical to achieving the broad vision of reconnected country, is a core focus for BHA’s program on the South Coast, and is thus also the core focus of this Evaluation Review In July 2004, a Conservation Action Plan (CAP) for the Fitz-Stirling commenced with support from The Nature Conservancy and input from BHA, Greening Australia and Gondwana Link Ltd and many other interested individuals. Since 2004 the Fitz-Stirling CAP has evolved over several versions with input from a wide variety of people, in particular Angela Sanders and Paula Deegan as part of the Knowledge Connection Project 2007-2009 and Angela Sanders 2010-2017.
The Fitz-Stirling CAP (as with all of Bush Heritage’s conservation projects) is planned, implemented and managed using an adaptive management process, based on the internationally-recognised Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation and its supporting software, Miradi. For more information on this process go to: cmp- openstandards.org
The plan originally identified six Key Conservation Targets (KCTs) and these were aggregated into the following four Targets after the Evaluation Review in 2012: 1. Mallee Heath and Black-gloved Wallaby 2. Mallet, Moort and Tammar 3. Creeks and Flat-topped Yate Woodland 4. Fresh Water Systems
P a g e | 6 The reserves covered by this report are Beringa, Chereninup Creek, Chingarrup Sanctuary, Monjebup, Monjebup North, Nowanup, Peniup, Red Moort, Yarrabee and Yarraweyah Falls. Together these properties cover an area of just over 10,200 ha, which includes around 5,250 ha of undisturbed bushland. They are owned outright by Bush Heritage Australia (BHA), jointly owned by BHA and Greening Australia, owned outright by Greening Australia, or owned by private conservation owners with whom BHA has formal partnership agreements, as shown in the map at Figure 2. There are additional conservation properties in the Fitz-Stirling that are not included in this report. Prior to acquisition the properties were managed as grazing and cropping enterprises and all contained varying amounts of undisturbed native vegetation that was mostly in good to very good condition. Commencing in 2003 on Chereninup, restoration projects have been implemented on the cleared portions of all the properties, either by BHA or by Greening Australia and others, to extend the area of habitat and increase connectivity between two large nature reserves and Fitzgerald River and Stirling Range national parks (Table 1). By 2017, large-scale restoration of cleared country on all properties had been completed, with ongoing projects still in train to infill areas previously direct seeded to increase the proteaceous component of the restoration on Beringa, Monjebup North and Yarraweyah Falls.
This report evaluates our conservation impact
This is the second evaluation report for the Fitz-Stirling and it documents progress towards achieving the goals and objectives articulated in the Fitz-Stirling Conservation Action Plan (CAP) (September 2017). Specifically, it aims to determine the extent to which the viability, or health, of our targets has improved since 2006; this is how we measure our conservation impact. The report also assesses the extent to which our conservation actions are contributing to this improvement, and recommends any adaptations required to the Fitz-Stirling CAP. Qualitative and quantitative evidence to demonstrate progress towards expected ecological outcomes is included. Management interventions implemented by BHA are expected to produce specific ecological outcomes. The assumed causal relationships between interventions and ecological outcomes have been explicitly and visually presented as a series of logic models, known as ‘results chains’ (Appendix 1). Due to resource constraints, not all attributes are addressed in this report, nor do we have data for all indicators. This document is structured to report on each of the four Targets in the Fitz-Stirling CAP. The report also includes the results of flora and vegetation surveys that have been carried out on Monjebup/Yarraweyah, Monjebup North, Red Moort and Chereninup reserves. A vegetation survey of Beringa reserve will be completed over 2018-2020 and the results will be included in the next evaluation report in 2023.
P a g e | 7 A wide range of indicators are monitored to assess progress towards our goals
Our impact is assessed by reviewing collected monitoring data for each Target; specifically the measures for a set of Indicators chosen as representing the target’s key ecological attributes (see Glossary of key terms for definitions). This evidence monitors the change in viability, or health, of the targets, and is summarised into a Viability Table with associated commentary. The Viability Tables for each Target outline our monitoring approach. They show the key ecological attributes ( ) and associated indicators ( ) that we use to monitor the health of the conservation target ( ). Each Indicator sets out 4 points on a scale ranging from a poor state of health through to a very good state of health. Ratings of Poor or Fair are considered to be below the accepted range of variability, and therefore warrant closer attention and should trigger management actions. Our level of confidence in this evidence is also summarised in the table in the source column. Rough Guess – Low level of confidence Expert Knowledge – Medium level of confidence External Research – High level of confidence On-site Research – High level of confidence Comparative viability tables for attributes are also included to summarise the ratings measured at different points in time. They give an initial baseline condition (where known), current condition and a desired future viability rating that we are aiming to achieve.
Looking west over Red Moort Reserve towards Stirling Range National Park
P a g e | 8
Climate change is influencing ecological processes in the Fitz-Stirling
Of the background variables influencing our restoration work in the Fitz-Stirling, the pre- eminent one is climate change. For the south coast of Western Australia the predictions are for mean annual temperatures to continue increasing and for the drying trend to continue. Rainfall seasonality is also predicted to continue to change to higher summer rainfall and lower winter and spring rainfall (www.agric.wa.gov.au). Our monitoring program is not designed to assess the impacts of climate change and therefore no interpretation of our results in relation to this variable has been made. Figure 1 below shows the mean monthly rainfall for the Fitz-Stirling (data from Jerramungup) from 1962 to 2017 and also for the period over which BHA has managed the properties – 2002- 2017.
60
50
40
30
Rainfall (mm)Rainfall 20
10
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean 1962-2017 Mean 2002-2017
Figure 1: Mean monthly rainfall from Jerramungup recording station 1962-2017
P a g e | 9
Figure 2: Properties included in this report
P a g e | 10
Property Name Total Year Area Restoration Area of natural Sandalwood Area Purchased/ revegetated date regeneration (ha) (ha) partnered (ha) after clearing (ha) Chingarrup 572 2002 40 2005 341 Nil (partner property) 26 2007 Chereninup 898 2003 60 2003 12 Nil Nowanup 754 2006 340 2006-2017 200 Nil Yarrabee 923 2006 510 2006 190 90 Monjebup West 1021 2007 29 2014-2017 180 32 Beringa 1200 2007 100 2016 339 Nil Peniup (GA) 1200 2007 946 2008-2015 Nil 203 Monjebup North 1107 2009 424 2012-2017 281 Nil Yarraweyah Falls 1499 2012 100 2013 Nil 200 (partner property) Red Moort 1037 2014 17 2015 303 Nil Totals 10,211 2,592 1,846 525
Table 1: Details of properties managed or co-managed by BHA in the Fitz-Stirling
Four Conservation Targets are used to measure our progress Conservation Target 1: Mallee Heath and Black-gloved Wallaby
To aid operational planning and management and monitoring activities, this Target combines targets that were previously listed separately in the CAP (2007). It incorporates the Proteaceous Rich Community target and expands it to include the broader mallee heaths in which these shrublands are located. It also includes the Black-gloved Wallaby, as they are dependent on the mallee heath for habitat. The original Proteaceous Rich Community target is now included as a nested target under the mallee heath target and comprises the Threatened Ecological Community that was listed under the EPBC Act (1999) in 2013 (Proteaceae dominated kwongkan shrublands of the southeast coastal province of Western Australia). Mallee heath is a generic term used to describe vegetation that has both a mallee and a heath component. The mallee component in the Fitz-Stirling comprises shrub mallee (see Muir 1977), or multiple stemmed mallee, usually with a canopy cover of 1-75% and includes many species of eucalypt. The heath component in the Fitz-Stirling generally comprises woody vegetation to 2m in height with a canopy cover of between 30-100%, this can also be termed ‘shrubland’ depending on its structural components. The heath or shrub stratum is usually dominated by species from the Proteaceae or Myrtaceae families. A large proportion of this vegetation type was cleared for agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s. It is the plant community heterogeneity across the landscape that makes the Fitz-Stirling mallee heath unique and rich in plant species. This plant community is responsible for its designation as a biodiversity hotspot, mainly due to floristic diversity that is under serious threat. The majority of restoration that has taken place across the cleared portions of each property has been designed to recreate, as far as practicable, the mallee heath communities that occurred there prior to clearing.
P a g e | 11
The Black-gloved Wallaby is one of a number of the original mammal species that appear to have declined in the Fitz-Stirling. Both fragmentation of habitat and introduced predator pressure are likely to be responsible. Nested targets include: Small native mammals – the threatened Dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis) and Western Mouse (Pseudomys occidentalis) and the Honey Possum (Tarsipes rostratus). Threatened birds – Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris), Western Whipbird (Psophodes nigrogularis). Plants – Chittick (Lambertia inermis) and banksia species. Threatened Ecological Community – ‘Proteaceous dominated kwongkan shrublands of southeast coastal floristic province of Western Australia.’ Goals for this target:
Target Goal Progress to 2017 Mallee Heath By 2023, increase the extent of Mallee Heath by 2,624ha of mallee heath and Black- 5,000ha and include at least 500 ha of established, including 21ha of gloved Proteaceae dominated shrubland to a 3-4 star proteaceous rich component. A 3.8 Wallaby standard (SERA 2017)*. star standard achieved overall. By 2023, increase the level of occupancy of Level of occupancy at 50% in 2015 Black-gloved Wallabies to greater than 50% in restored sites. By 2023, have a feral animal control plan Feral animal control plan has been completed and implemented and monitored for initiated at least 3 years *Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia national standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia. The table below shows how we assess the health of this target. Each Key Ecological Attribute (green key) has one or more indicators (purple triangles), with metrics to show the range of variability. Additional tables then show, for each indicator, the baseline viability measure, the latest viability measure and a desired future viability measure. The desired future measure is the conservation goal for the target.
Mallee heath on Red Moort Reserve
P a g e | 12
Item Poor Fair Good Very Good Measure description Source
Mallee Heath and Black-gloved Wallaby
Mallee heath – community size
Extent - mallee heath 2003- <1000Ha 1001 – 2501 – 4001 – Number of hectares Onsite 2017 2500Ha 4000Ha 5500Ha planted or restored Research
Extent - Proteaceous rich <200Ha 201- 301- 401- Number of hectares Onsite 300Ha 400Ha 500Ha planted or restored Research
Mallee heath - community condition
Vegetation cover – reference <10% 11-14% 15-19% 20-30% % cover measured on Onsite sites 50m transect as % Research intercept
Restoration condition
Plant genera establishment – <10 % 10-25 % 26-40 % >40 % Number of genera Onsite 2012 -2014 restoration present at restored Research sites as a % of those included in direct seeding/plantings
Stem density – 2012-2014 >15,000 or 15,000- 9,999- Mean stems per Onsite restoration < 3,000 10,000 3,000 hectare counted Research stems/ha stems/ Stems/ ha across quadrats ha
Time since fire
Fire age category 0-8% 9-17% 18-26% >27% and % of mallee heath External <30% vegetation in the 0-15 Research year fire age category
Bird activity and species richness – see text in this section
Restoration - presence of ground dwelling fauna
Native mammal species 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 species Number of species Onsite richness species species species detected Research
Reptile species richness 0-3 4-7 8-11 >11 Number of species Onsite species species species species detected Research
Restoration - bat activity
Bat activity - C. gouldii, C. <10% 11-40% 41-80% >80% Bat activity at restored Onsite morio, M. kitcheneri, T. australis, sites as a percentage Research V. regulus of activity at reference sites
Black-gloved Wallaby distribution and habitat restoration
Black-gloved Wallaby 0% 1-25% 26-75% 76-100% % of restored sites Onsite presence/absence - restored sites where wallabies have Research been detected
Area of Black-gloved 0-50ha 51- 2501-9 >10 000ha Hectares of restored Onsite Wallaby habitat restored 2500ha 999ha wallaby habitat Research Table 2: Mallee heath and Black-gloved Wallaby viability measures
P a g e | 13
Progress towards the goals for Mallee heath and Black-gloved Wallaby:
1. Extent of restored mallee heath has increased from 60 to 2,624 hectares
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal
Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Mallee Heath Community Size
Extent – Mallee heath 2003 Poor 2017 Good 2023 Very Good
Extent – Proteaceous rich 2013 Poor 2017 Poor 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator This indicator has been calculated using data from Fitz-Stirling BHA and partner properties and includes all mallee heath restoration and natural regeneration sites. A total of 2,624 hectares have been restored since 2003. Restoration of mallee heath vegetation was the goal on Chingarrup, Chereninup, Beringa, Peniup, Monjebup, Monjebup North, Red Moort and Yarraweyah. To increase the extent of mallee heath by 5,000ha by 2023 means that we need to revegetate/regenerate a further 3,833ha over the next 6 years. Given the current average of 187ha/year this is a stretch goal that will require the purchase/partnership of at least three properties over the next 6 years. The restoration rate will also need to increase to around 400ha/year. These restoration/regeneration projects would need to include at least 480ha of Proteaceous rich vegetation (21ha have currently been completed at a cost of $60,000). Recommendation: Plan to acquire at least 2,376ha for restoration over the next 6 years. Alternatively adjust the goal downwards based on the current restoration rate.
2. Undisturbed mallee heath vegetation is in very good condition
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal
Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Mallee Heath Community Condition
Vegetation cover 2009 Good 2015 Very Good 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Reference sites were first monitored in 2009 and they were chosen to provide a model for assessing the development of restored sites. The reference sites chosen for assessing the restoration on Monjebup North are the best we could find given that we are lacking accurate information on the plant communities that were in place prior to clearing. The condition of the reference, or undisturbed, mallee heath community is monitored using the standard 50m transect methods. The indicator chosen is the mean % intercept of all strata of all mallee heath sites. From 2009 to 2015, at the 15 monitoring sites, the cover varied between good (14.5%) and very good (25.9%). This fluctuation could be attributed to observer bias, changes to methods over the sampling years and/or rainfall or to another unknown factor or factors. It is assumed from our monitoring that an intercept value of between 20-30% is 'normal' or very good for these mallee heath communities. Longer term monitoring will confirm this.
P a g e | 14
3. Vegetation that has been established on cleared farmland is developing well
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Restoration success
Plant genera establishment - 2012 2012 Fair 2015 Good NA NA restoration
Plant genera establishment - 2013 2013 Very Good 2015 Good NA NA restoration
Plant genera establishment - 2014 2015 Good 2017 Good NA NA restoration
Stem density - 2012 restoration 2012 Fair 2015 Good NA NA
Stem density - 2013 restoration 2013 Good 2015 Good NA NA
Stem density - 2014 restoration 2015 Poor 2017 Poor NA NA Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Measures for this indicator were all carried out on Monjebup North. For restored mallee heath sites the method used for the first 3 years after seeding was quadrat based, where plants were identified to genera and then counted. This resulted in genera richness counts and stem densities per hectare. This initial method helped to identify which genera were successful in the revegetated areas and how densely they had established. This has since been used to improve restoration techniques. At the restoration monitoring sites 50m transects will be established in the future and quadrats will be phased out. A comparison will then be able to be made between the intercept values of each strata between restored and reference sites. Quadrat based monitoring will continue at newly revegetated sites on new properties. Plant genera establishment on Monjebup North fluctuated over the three years of restoration (Figure 3). The sites revegetated in 2012 had a total of 34 genera in the seed mixes. The first monitoring period recorded just 8 genera which increased slightly to 12 for the second monitoring and then decreased again to 9 for the third survey. Twenty two genera were included in the 2013 restoration with just 9 being recorded in the first survey, 8 in the second which prompted the hand planting of around 30,000 seedlings to boost the number of genera and stems per hectare. The third survey saw a slight increase to 10 genera. Of the 34 genera included in the 2014 planting only 11 were present in the first survey, 17 in the second and 14 in the third. The results from 2012 and 2014 tend to indicate that not all genera germinate within the first few months after planting and can appear up to 2 years post seeding. The genera having the highest germination and subsequent survival include Acacia, Allocasuarina, Calothamnus, Eucalyptus, Gastrolobium, Hakea and Melaleuca (Appendix 2). Several species are included within these genera with Eucalyptus and Melaleuca having the highest number of species surviving. An analysis should be carried out to ascertain which genera/species did not germinate/survive and, if possible, establish possible causes. This information should then be incorporated into future projects. Recommendation: Carry out a detailed analysis of plant germination and subsequent survival in the restoration on Monjebup North and use the results of this to improve future projects.
Recommendation: Standardise the number of monitoring sites in restored areas to at least one quadrat or transect per 10 ha per plant community.
P a g e | 15
40
35
30
25 2012 20 2013 15 2014 Numberofgenera 10
5
0 Total genera Monit 1 Monit 2 Monit 3 planted
Figure 3: Plant genera establishment on Monjebup North for restoration completed in 2012, 2013 and 2014
The indicator rating for stem density is not a simple linear relationship in that sites having a stem density of less than 3,000 or greater than 15,000 stems per hectare are given a rating of ‘poor’. Using observational data and experience we believe that a stem density of less than 3,000 results in a very sparse plant community where weeds can thrive and fauna habitat is of lower value i.e. lower bird, reptile and mammal activity and species richness. Stem densities greater than 15,000 stems per hectare result in plants being crowded and therefore competition for water and nutrients is higher and plants don’t thrive and often show signs of insect damage. These observations have not been confirmed with monitoring but this should be incorporated into future monitoring of restoration. This could possibly be achieved by using UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle or drone) based monitoring. In 2017 a pilot project was carried out to assess the use of UAV derived imagery to assess vegetation health and temporal vegetation change in Monjebup North restoration. This was carried out by leveraging high resolution data to isolate vegetation only pixels, and then use two vegetation indices to derive insights into the variability of vegetation cover. The indices were normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) and red edge band. NDVI is a measure of healthy, green vegetation and red edge band is able to detect early stages of plant stress, expressed as changes in chlorophyll content. The results of this trial showed that it may be possible to pick up early stages of plant stress related to a drop in chlorophyll content using this method of monitoring. However ground-truthing is required to confirm the results before this method can be used with confidence.
Recommendation: Correlate monitoring data with plant health in future surveys of restoration.
Recommendation: Continue monitoring the impact of plant stocking rates on restoration.
Recommendation: Further trial the use of UAV monitoring to assess vegetation health and temporal vegetation changes in restoration and reference vegetation.
In addition to on ground monitoring a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) monitoring survey was trialled on Monjebup North in 2016. The scope of the project was to provide high resolution 3D aerial images of 12 x 100m transects on Monjebup North for the purpose of monitoring vegetation growth utilising UAV technology in a repeatable and non-subjective process. The UAV data generated is useful in that it gives alternative monitoring options to ground-based, manual surveys. It enabled vegetation profiles, canopy height, extent of cover and stem density data to be generated. However, large variations between manually monitored and UAV monitored sites were identified, particularly with stems/ha (see Appendix 3). This needs further investigation prior to future UAV surveys.
P a g e | 16
Recommendation: Further investigate the variations in results between UAV and ground-based monitoring on Monjebup North.
An additional evaluation of the restoration has been carried out on Monjebup North using the ‘star’ system developed by the Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia (SERA 2017). This system has been designed to evaluate the progression of an ecosystem along its recovery trajectory. The indicators used to describe the recovery at Monjebup North have been evaluated using both formal and informal assessments. The assessment and recovery wheel included in Appendix 4 gives the degree to which the restoration has achieved its ecological goals since the property was acquired in 2009. The assessment indicates a rating of between 3-5 stars for each attribute category or an average rating of 3.8 overall. It shows that we can improve what we do in the area of invasive species control and we are planning an integrated feral cat, fox and rabbit control program over some of our properties. Desirable plants in the revegetated areas are currently at a level of around 25% of the potential native species in reference sites. In a flora diversity hotspot it is currently difficult to achieve a 5 star rating owing to a lack of knowledge of or difficulty in seed collecting, propagation and seeding techniques. Given the diverse flora of the area it is highly unlikely that advances in knowledge and technology will allow the inclusion of greater than 80% of reference site species that is required for a 5 star rating in this category in the near future. This then flows on to affect the potential for a 5 star rating for community structure and ecosystem function.
Recommendation: Support research into the techniques for native plant establishment in the Fitz- Stirling whenever possible, in particular the establishment of members of the Restionaceae and Cyperaceae families.
4. Fire remains a key area requiring focus
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Time since fire
Fire age category 2012 Poor 2017 Poor 2032 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator This indicator has been developed using the results of the University of Queensland (UQ) project and published paper Tulloch et al 2016 ‘Fire management strategies to maintain species population processes in a fragmented landscape of fire-interval extremes’.
Many of the plant species within mallee heath communities have very specific fire requirements (e.g. resprouters, transient seed bank and exclusive pyrogenic reproduction) and need a sufficient inter-fire period to ensure continued populations. Species composition is therefore expected to vary depending on fire history, and the "optimal" fire regime potentially differing between species within each community. It has been observed on many of our properties that Banksia media plants are collapsing, most likely due to senescence. Unfortunately this species was not included in the UQ research as life history data was lacking. Flora and vegetation surveys on Monjebup, Monjebup North, Yarraweyah, Red Moort and Chereninup have confirmed the presence of senescent vegetation. Determining the specific fire regime that is optimal for maintenance of mallee heath communities across the Fitz-Stirling area is complex and can be simplified by using keystone species like Banksia to guide management. Tulloch et. al. used matrix population models to predict population growth of seven different Banksia species under different environmental conditions and patch connectivity, and to evaluate the sensitivity of species survival to different fire management strategies and burning intervals. The management scenarios P a g e | 17 included no burning, periodic management burning, random wildfire only and current wildfire and periodic management burning. These models predict that all strategies result in the local patch extinction of at least one species. A strategy of no fire always leads to fewer species persisting than prescribed fire or random wildfire, while too-frequent or too-rare burning regimes lead to the possible local extinction of all species. Prescribed fire may reduce or increase extinction risk when applied in combination with wildfire depending on patch connectivity. The indicator that has been developed, % extent of mallee heath in each fire age category (years since last fire), is intended to a) provide a baseline of the current condition and b) a measure of future management actions (prescribed fire). This measure has been applied to BHA properties only and it is acknowledged that broader scale fire management is required across the Fitz-Stirling but at 2017 this has not been discussed with other stakeholders or landholders. Although we don't yet have adequate knowledge of what the optimal distributions of fire ages are across the mallee heath communities, our best guess given the UQ modelling results is to achieve between 27- 30% of mallee heath in the 0-15 years fire age category. The ‘future status’ result can now be translated into a prescribed burning plan for future implementation on BHA properties. The total extent of mallee heath on BHA properties has been calculated as approximately 3,600 ha (using vegetation maps by Sandiford and Newbey). Currently only 2% of this falls within the 0-15year fire age category which means approximately 900 ha (or 25%) should be burnt over the next 15 years. Recommendation: Plan for prescribed burning to take place over a total of 900ha of mallee heath on BHA properties by 2032.
5. Bird monitoring shows that our restored areas are providing increasingly suitable bird habitat Bird data analysis for this report has been carried out using bird functional groups rather than feeding guilds, as was used in the last Ecological Outcomes Performance Report (Sanders 2012). “The guild concept refers primarily to the mechanisms of resource sharing by species in a competitive context whereas the functional groups concept is concerned with how a resource or any other ecological component is processed by different species to provide a specific ecosystem service or function.” (Blondell 2003) As an example the functional group containing leaf gleaners, such as Striated Pardelote, Spotted Pardelote and Weebill, provides an ecosystem service by feeding on insects that can damage tree shoots and leaves. One such insect belonging to the Psyllid family constructs sweet waxy secretions called lerp on eucalypt leaves to protect its sap-sucking larvae, these lerp are eaten by the leaf gleaning birds. In the context of revegetated areas we are interested more in the ecosystem services provided by the birds and how the functional groups differ in their activity and species richness in these areas compared with their respective reference sites. The functional groups for the Fitz-Stirling were developed in liaison with Nic Dunlop (Conservation Council WA) who is also using this partitioning to analyse data collected through the Citizen Science bird banding and survey project on Chingarrup Sanctuary and other conservation reserves in the Gondwana Link pathway. The data included in this analysis covers the monitoring periods from October 2006 to October 2016. A table showing the bird species within each functional group is given in Appendix 5. The data analysis methods, sites analysed and tables and graphs showing the P values of data derived from Bird Minutes surveys are given in Appendix 6.
P a g e | 18
6. Bird activity and species richness increased over time at revegetated sites Bird activity levels and species richness within the different restoration age classes varied depending upon the functional group (Fig 3, see Appendix 6 for data). Data for species richness was analysed both for the number of species and for that number expressed as a proportion of the total species pool for that functional group. The results demonstrated similar relationships to bird activity levels with restoration age (see Appendix 6 for data).
Property Nectivorous Resident Resident Resident Ground Resource Understorey Ground Honeyeaters Foraging Nomads Foragers Foragers Open Mallee Heath, Mallee Heath, Woodland, Thicket Thicket Grassland Peniup NSS NSS NSS NSS Carbon
Beringa NSS NSS NSS NSS
Chereninup NSS NSS NSS NSS
Chingarrup NSS NSS NSS
Monjebup Nth
Yarrabee NSS NSS NSS
Key : Activity Species Richness NSS – Results not statistically significant Figure 4: Restoration - functional group increases with increasing vegetation age Resident Honeyeaters (RHE), which included 7 species, had the clearest increases in activity and species richness associated with restoration age (Figure 3). Prior to restoration there were none of these species present and our results show that they have been gradually increasing in activity and species richness as the restoration develops. Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN), which included 8 species, increased in activity and species richness at Monjebup North and activity at Yarrabee. Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) birds, which included 6 species, increased significantly in activity and species richness at Chereninup and Chingarrup. The restoration on these properties is 14 years and 12 years old respectively and the areas are in close proximity to remnant vegetation. Yarrabee had the most significant results with Nectivorous Resource Nomads NRN) and Resident Understorey (RUF) bird activity increasing significantly with restoration age. Yarrabee adjoins the Stirling Range National Park and sits within a different vegetation association to the other Fitz-Stirling properties, which may account for these results.
P a g e | 19
7. Bird activity increased at reference sites Bird activity levels in the reference sites showed some similarity to the revegetated sites and also some differences (Figure 4).
Property NRN RUF RGF RHE Beringa NSS NSS
Chereninup NSS NSS
Chingarrup NSS NSS NSS NSS
Monjebup NSS NSS Nth
Yarrabee NSS NSS NSS
Key : Activity Species Richness NSS - Results not statistically significant Figure 5: Reference sites - functional group changes with increasing vegetation age Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) exhibited the most consistent increases over time at three sites. Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN) increased in activity at Monjebup and Beringa. Resident Understorey (RUF) birds increased at Chereninup and Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) birds also increased significantly in activity at Monjebup Reserve. Few significant increases were observed for species richness in reference plots, and no particular functional group or property experienced uniform increases in species richness. Note that no reference site exists for the Peniup carbon planting site.
Carnaby’s Cockatoo feeding on restored Grevillea tetragonoloba at Beringa
P a g e | 20
8. Bird activity increased at naturally regenerating sites The naturally regenerating sites comprised a range of vegetation associations and varying ages since previous clearing. These sites were included to track how bird activity and species richness changed with the age of the regenerating habitat.
Property NRN RUF RGF RHE GFG Beringa NSS NSS NSS
Yarrabee NSS NSS
Key : Activity Species Richness NSS – Results not statistically significant Figure 6: Regenerating sites – functional group changes with increasing vegetation age Five naturally regenerating sites exhibited changes in activity within particular functional groups (Table Figure 5). At Yarrabee Ground Foraging Grassland (GFG) birds, which included 15 species, decreased in activity, which was expected as these species are less suited to the habitat that is regenerating on Yarrabee. Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) and Resident Understorey (RUF) birds both increased in activity at Yarrabee. At Beringa, activity of Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN) and Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) birds both increased dramatically over ten years. The regenerating vegetation at these sites is developing well as it was not grazed or cropped after the initial clearing. No particular functional group responded uniformly well to regeneration across sites. This may be explained by the very different vegetation structure and composition between sites. At Yarrabee Ground Foraging Open Woodland (GFG) birds decreased and Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) increased in species richness, both disproportionately in relation to the total species pool. 9. Nectivorous resource nomads and resident understorey birds increased more in restored sites than in reference sites A mixed model analysis was carried out using further assessments of revegetated sites, pairing the sites with appropriate reference vegetation sites. Mixed models were then used to compare the trajectories of restoration sites with those of the reference sites over the same period. The analysis looked at reference, natural regeneration and restored sites as ‘treatments’ and considered each with respect to age class (see Appendix 6).
Restored mallee heath provides bird habitat
P a g e | 21
Functional Group Restoration Reference Nectivorous Resource Monjebup Peniup Chingarrup Monjebup Beringa Chingarrup Nomads Nth Carbon Nth Carbon
Resident Understorey Monjebup Peniup Monjebup Beringa Foragers Nth Carbon Nth Carbon
Resident Old Growth Chereninup Chereninup
Resident Ground Mallee Chereninup Chingarrup Chereninup Chingarrup Heath
Resident Honeyeaters Beringa Chingarrup Beringa Chingarrup Carbon Carbon
Leaf Gleaners Beringa Chingarrup Beringa Chingarrup Carbon Carbon
Key : Activity Species Richness Figure 7: Mixed model analyses of revegetated and reference sites At Monjebup, there were very few significant Year x Treatment interactions which would indicate different response for restoration and reference vegetation from year to year (Figure 6). Most increases in activity or species richness were matched by similar increases in the reference sites (See Appendix 6). The exceptions were Nectivorous Resource Nomad (NRN) activity and the proportion of Resident Understory species (RUF), which increased more in restoration than in reference sites. Chereninup Creek Reserve was characterised by a relative increase in Resident Old Growth (ROG) and Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) activity, compared with reference sites. Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) species richness was increasing in the restoration, while declining in the reference site. As a proportion of the total species pool, Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) species richness was increasing in the restoration while declining in the associated reference site.
P a g e | 22
The Peniup carbon planting was characterised by increasing activity in Resident Honeyeaters (RHE), Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN) and Resident Understory (RUF) birds, which was matched in the adjacent reference site. Leaf Gleaners (LG) and Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) were increasing in species richness over time toward that found in the associated reference site. As a proportion of the total species pool, Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) increased from a baseline of zero. Chingarrup was characterised by a general decline in Leaf Gleaners (LG) activity at restoration and reference sites, an increase in Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) activity at the restoration site, and general increase in Resident Honeyeaters (RHE) activity at the restored and reference sites. Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN) species activity increased at restoration and reference sites while and Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) species richness increased at the restoration sites. As a proportion of the total species pool, species richness of Leaf Gleaners (LG) declined at reference and restoration sites, while that of Nectivorous Resource Nomads (NRN) and Resident Ground Mallee Heath (RGF) increased in proportion at both site types. 10. Bird assemblage similarity depends on the treatment and age of restoration. An analysis of bird assemblage dissimilarity (or cluster analysis), using 2016 data, between remnant, restored and naturally regenerating sites shows that it depends on the treatment and age of restoration (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Dendrogram illustrating the compositional similarity of bird assemblages between properties and management types in 2016. (Different colours indicate significant differences amongst samples. Distance on the y-axis is 1-Bray Curtis index, based on the bird activity index. Dendrogram is produced using Average Linkage). The vertical axis of the dendrogram above represents the distance or dissimilarity between clusters. The horizontal axis represents the objects and clusters and our main interest is in similarity and clustering. The remnant vegetation sites on Chingarrup, Monjebup, Beringa and Chereninup, together with the restored sites on Chingarrup and Monjebup North, form a cluster. The regenerating Bering site, Yarraweyah remnant site, restored Monjebup Nth and Yarraweyah sites form a second cluster. The regenerating Chereninup site is on outlier and this is expected and is due to its woodland plant community having a different bird assemblage to all the other sites.
P a g e | 23
Recommendation: Continue bird surveys at restoration, reference and naturally regenerating sites using bird minutes if possible and carry out bird activity, mixed model and cluster analysis.
11. Ground dwelling fauna species richness has increased in restored areas
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Restoration - presence of ground dwelling fauna
Native mammal species richness 2012 Fair 2016 Good 2023 Very Good
Reptile species richness 2012 Poor 2016 Good 2030 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator This analysis incorporates results from pitfall, Elliott and cage trapping that is carried out at 11 restoration sites at Monjebup Nth, one at Chereninup, two at Chingarrup, three at Beringa and two at Yarraweyah to record the vertebrate fauna at the sites. Pygmy Possum nest boxes were installed at Yarraweyah in 2016 and at Monjebup North in 2017. The results of these surveys are combined to generate the results used in this indicator. Insufficient data precludes statistical analysis, so these results document the presence/absence of species recorded during systematic trapping, scat and track surveys, net box monitoring and camera trapping. During 2017 a further 3 traplines were installed in the Chereninup revegetated area to provide a wider coverage of this property. In 2012 just two species of native ground dwelling mammals were recorded using the revegetated areas, the Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) and the Western Pygmy Possum (Cercartetus conncinus). In 2016 four species were recorded, the Western Grey Kangaroo, Black-gloved Wallaby (Notamacropus irma), Honey Possum (Tarsipes rostratus) and Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). In 2017 Pygmy Possums were recorded using the artificial nest boxes on Monjebup North bringing the ground dwelling native mammal species count to 5. The introduced Fox, Feral Cat, Rabbit and House Mouse were also recorded in the restored areas. Reptile species richness is relatively low in the restored areas with just two species recorded in 2012, Menetia greyii and Hemiergis peronii. By 2016 nine species were recorded, Acritoscincus trilineatus,Tiliqua rugosa, T. occipitalis, Notechis scutatus, Menetia greyii, Morethia obscura, Hemiergis peronii, Pseudonaja affinis and Pogona minor. A total of five frog species has been recorded in the restored sites; Western Banjo Frog (Limnodynastes dorsalis), Turtle Frog (Myobatrachus gouldii), Spotted-thighed Frog (Litoria cychlorynchus), White-footed Frog (Neobratrachus albipes), Granite Froglet (Crinea pseudinsignifera) and White-spotted Frog (Heleioporus albopunctatus). We expect that by 2023, if the vegetation and subsequent habitat continues on its current trajectory, a total of 20 mammal and 31 reptile species will be recorded at the revegetated sites (see Appendix 7). Recommendation: Continue vertebrate fauna surveys at revegetated sites on Beringa, Chereninup, Monjebup and Yarraweyah and reference sites on Corackerup Nature Reserve.
P a g e | 24
12. Seven bats species have been recorded in the restored areas
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Restoration - presence of bat species
Bat activity - C. gouldii NA NA 2016 Fair 2023 Very Good
Bat Activity - C. morio NA NA 2016 Fair 2023 Very Good
Bat activity - M. kitcheneri NA NA 2016 Very Good 2023 Very Good
Bat activity - T. australis NA NA 2016 Very Good 2023 Very Good
Bat Activity - V. regulus NA NA 2016 Good 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Comparisons of bat species richness and activity between reference sites (2011-2016) and restored sites (2013-2016) have given us an indication of how the restored plant community is supporting bat populations. The indicator for bats is a comparison between bat activity at restored sites against that at reference sites. Recordings of their calls were used to calculate their activity at each site. As so little is known about bats in restored areas the data we are collecting is baseline and therefore it is difficult to set viability ratings at this stage. Data analysis at Oct 2017 suggests that each species has responded to the restoration in a different way, so they have been analysed separately. Seven species were recorded and all are using the reference, restored and paddock sites to different degrees. With species richness thus the same at all sites, activity is the key indicator of habitat value for these species. The species are Gould’s Wattled Bat (Chalinolobus gouldii), Chocolate Wattled Bat (Chalinolobus morio), South-west Free-tail Bat (Mormopterus kitcheneri), Southern Forest Bat (Vespadelus regulus), White-striped Free-tail Bat (Austronomus australis),Lesser Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus geofroyii) and Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus major, subspecies unknown). Activity of both long-eared bat species was very low across all sites, so neither species was included in the analysis.
White-striped Free-tail Bat (Austronomus australis)
P a g e | 25
Species Restoration Reference Gould’s wattled bat
Chocolate wattled bat
South-west free-tail bat
Southern forest bat
White-striped free-tail bat
Key: Relative activity
Figure 9: Relative activity of bat species in restoration and reference sites
Gould’s Wattled Bat and South-west Free-tail Bat activity is higher at the restored sites than at the reference sites. Chocolate Wattled Bat and Southern Forest Bat activity is lower at the restored sites. The White-striped Free-tail Bat activity is much the same at the restored and reference sites (Figure 9). It is expected that as the vegetation at the restored sites develops, the similarity of bat activity between restored and reference sites will increase. It appears that very little research has been carried out on bat activity in revegetated areas to date. The literature that exists suggests that most bats do not like clutter (dense vegetation). Dr Brad Law (NSW Dept. Primary Industries) said “What the bats dislike is dense understorey cover that is typical of young fast growing plantings. Trees and bushes impede their echolocation, although bats are attracted to vegetation edges". Craig Grabham (Charles Sturt Uni) investigated bat activity in six habitat types - cleared paddocks, linear restoration, patch restoration, linear remnants, patch remnants and continuous remnants – and found bats use restoration more than cleared paddocks but less than remnant vegetation. Volunteer, Richard Thomas, with the assistance of University of Western Australia students, is currently developing machine learning to automate bat call identification. This will ensure that a more accurate and consistent method of call identification is used to provide the data for analysis of bat activity in the future. Our ongoing monitoring of bat activity will contribute to the sparse body of knowledge that exists. Recommendation: Continue bat call detection monitoring at revegetated and reference sites. Recommendation: Continue to support Richard Thomas in automated bat call development.
P a g e | 26
13. Black-gloved Wallaby distribution is increasing with restoration of their habitat
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Black-gloved Wallaby distribution and habitat restoration
Black-gloved Wallaby 2011 Fair 2015 Good 2023 Very Good presence/absence - restored sites
Area of Black-gloved Wallaby 2009 Fair 2017 Fair 2023 Good habitat restored Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Black-gloved Wallaby monitoring was carried out during 2011 and again in 2015. The measure used is the percentage of restored sites that the animals were detected in. The number of restored sites that the animals were detected in increased from 37% to 50%. These monitoring sessions have been carried out prior to feral predator control and will be repeated once more in 2018 prior to any control. A research project to fill in the knowledge gaps in Black-gloved Wallaby ecology is currently being developed. It will entail the capture and collaring of individuals to learn more about their movements in the fragmented landscape of the Fitz-Stirling. Remote camera trapping is currently being used to find the best capture sites and timing to avoid females with pouch young. The results of this research will be included in the next evaluation report. The area of restored Black-gloved Wallaby habitat has increased from 339ha in 2007 to 1,434ha in 2017. The goal is to restore 2,500ha by 2023 and this is included in the mallee heath restoration goal of 5,000ha given previously. Recommendation: Continue monitoring the Black-gloved Wallaby every 2-3 years as resources permit.
Black-gloved Wallaby in restored area on Monjebup North
P a g e | 27
Conservation Target 2: Mallet, Moort and Tammar
This Target combines targets that were listed separately in the CAP (2007), in order to aid operational planning and monitoring and management activities. It integrates the Mallet and Moort target with the tammar target as Tammar appear to utilise this habitat. Moort woodlands consist of more or less pure stands of Eucalyptus platypus subsp. platypus or Corackerup Moort or Red Moort E. vesiculosa. These woodlands are generally found on hard, clayey soil but can occur on sandier soil, especially near the coast (outside the Fitz-Stirling area). The occurrence of pure stands may be due to allelopathic effects or strong competition for water, or both. Mallet woodlands consist mainly of Eucalyptus astringens subsp. redacta. They occur on a variety of soils and are mostly found in association with the slopes of breakaways, hills and valley floors. They generally have a more diverse understorey than Moort woodlands. The endemic Chillinup Mallet E. melanophitra and E. arborella are also found within the Fitz-Stirling. These woodlands are included as a Target because, being obligate seeders, they are particularly susceptible to inappropriate fire regimes. The other key ecological processes upon which they depend (e.g. water utilisation, litter accumulation and decomposition) are not well understood. Tammar are one of a number of the original mammal species that have declined or have been lost from the Fitz-Stirling. Tammar need long-unburnt patches of scrub for shelter and adjacent grazing areas. Both fragmentation of habitat and introduced predator pressure are likely to be responsible for the decline in population of this species. Nested targets include: Plants - Corackerup Moort (Eucalyptus vesiculosa), Chillinup Mallet (E. melanophitra), E. arborella. Threatened birds – Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata). Malleefowl mounds are often found in these woodlands or in mallee heath adjacent to these woodlands. Threatened mammals – Red-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale calura). Goals for this target:
Target Goal Progress to 2017 Mallet, Moort and By 2023, maintain the current condition of Mallet and Condition has been Tammar Moort woodlands (as at 2013) and increase its maintained (no fires). Extent extent by 100ha. increased by 191ha
By 2023, increase the level of occupancy of Tammar Level of occupancy at 39% in to greater than 40% in long-term monitoring sites 2015
Item Poor Fair Good Very Measure description Source Good
Extent – Mallet and Moort woodlands
Extent - restoration <10 11- 50 51- 100 >100 Hectares of restoration of Onsite Mallet and Moort woodland Research
Tammar distribution
Site occupancy of 0-25% 26-45% 46-65% >66% % of monitoring sites where Onsite tammar Tammar have been detected Research Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Table 3: Mallet, Moort and Tammar viability measures
P a g e | 28
Progress towards the goals for Mallet, Moort and Tammar Wallaby
1. The goal of increasing the extent of mallet and moort by 100ha has been exceeded.
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Extent – Mallet and Moort woodlands
Extent - restoration 2005 Very Good 2017 Very Good 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator A total of 191ha of Mallet and Moort has been restored in the Fitz-Stirling since 2004 by BHA and Greening Australia. This means the goal of 100ha has been exceeded by 91ha and a new goal needs to be set. Flora and vegetation surveys have identified Mallet and Moort woodlands on BHA reserves and we now have more accurate information on their extent and distribution. Fire age, however, is unknown for most occurrences and is a knowledge gap. It would assist with Mallet and Moort woodland management to ascertain the time since last fire for each patch to determine how these communities respond to fire with respect to post fire growth rates, seed set and longevity of trees. Future prescribed burning should avoid these patches until more is known about their fire history and ecology. Recommendation: Pursue a research project to establish fire ages of Mallet and Moort patches and examine seed production, tree growth rates and longevity. Recommendation: Set a new goal of increasing the extent of mallet and moort by 400ha by 2023. 2. Tammar occupancy has decreased from 50% in 2011 to 39% in 2015
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Tammar distribution
Site occupancy of Tammar 2011 Good 2015 Fair 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Tammar monitoring established a level of occupancy of 39% in 2015, which is a decrease from 50% in 2011. The reason for this apparent decrease in occupancy is unknown and it is intended that the monitoring be carried out again during 2018 to find out their current occupancy. In addition to the images captured at tammar monitoring sites, remote camera images of tammar have also been captured on Tabora, Monjebup North and Red Moort Reserves. Some of these sightings occurred in Mallet and Moort woodland, particularly on Red Moort Reserve. The extent to which tammar utilise Mallet and Moort woodland is unknown and remains a knowledge gap. Recommendation: Continue monitoring tammar every 2-3 years as resources permit. Recommendation: Pursue a research project to confirm the relationship of Tammar with Mallet and Moort woodland.
P a g e | 29
Conservation Target 3: Creeks and Flat-topped Yate
This Target combines targets that were listed separately in the CAP (2007) in order to aid operational planning and monitoring and management activities. It incorporates the creeks target and Flat-topped Yate target as in the Fitz-Stirling Yates occur along all the major rivers and creeks. They also grow in upland areas but less commonly than in the riparian zones in the Fitz-Stirling. Flat-topped Yate (Eucalyptus occidentalis) is the only common large tree across the Fitz-Stirling and is a key component of a number of distinct woodland plant communities that are suffering significant stresses. The Yate woodlands that grow along every significant watercourse north and east of the Pallinup River appear to be stressed, presumably by changed hydrological regimes and increasing salinity, although there appears to be an "unknown Yate decline factor" operating that is causing intermittent crown decline across most of the Fitz-Stirling. Yates are also the main hollow-providing trees in this landscape and so have a vital role in supporting the continued presence of species such as Carnaby's Cockatoos and other hollow-dependent species. Creeks and waterways are known to be important natural corridors for fauna movement. They have distinctive vegetation associations not found elsewhere in the landscape, and are at risk because of altered hydrology and surface erosion. The ephemeral and permanent river pools in particular are believed to be important habitats and drought refuges for fauna, but very little is actually known of their ecological values. Most creeks are believed to have disrupted flow patterns and are subject to loads of silt, sand, salt, nutrients and chemicals from agricultural land. ‘Sand slugs’ – large deposits of flood-borne sand - are present in most systems and phyto-plankton blooms can occur (as occurred in the middle reaches of Corackerup Creek in June 2004, and in Peniup Creek in December 2007) Nested targets include: Threatened birds – Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). Frogs – Frogs are dependent on fresh water for successful breeding. Turtles – Long-necked turtles (Chelodina oblonga) occur in creek pools and several confirmed sightings have occurred over the last 10 years in Chittowirrup and Peniup Creeks. Mammals – Water rats (Hydromys crysogaster) have been recorded occasionally on the creeks during the past 15 years, including in Chereninup Creek. Conservation goals for this target
Target Goal Progress to 2017 Creeks and Flat- By 2023, at least 40% perennial 34.3% perennial vegetation topped Yate vegetation cover is in place in the cover in Monjebup and Monjebup and Corackerup catchment, 37.4% in Corackerup which includes buffering creek lines. catchments
By 2023, restore at least 2,000 ha of 943 ha of Yate have been Yate in the Monjebup and Corackerup restored in both catchments catchments.
P a g e | 30
Item Poor Fair Good Very Measure description Source Good
Flat-topped Yate - Community Condition
Age classes present <10% 11-30% 31-60% >61% Percentage of sites where 3 Onsite age classes are present Research
Crown condition C4 or 5 C3 C2 C1 Majority of trees in crown Onsite condition category for each Research survey
Flat-topped Yate - Extent
Extent - revegetation 0-500ha 501- 1001- >2000ha Hectares of restoration of Onsite 1000ha 2000ha Yate Research
Water quality
Salinity - Corackerup >1.65% 1.1-1.65% 0.55- Mean of salinity measures for Onsite and Monjebup catchments 1.1% monitored pools in each Research catchment
pH - Corackerup and <7.0 or 7.0-8.5 Mean of pH measures for Onsite Monjebup catchments >8.5 monitored pools in each Research catchment
Turbidity – Corackerup >150NT 101- 51- 0-50NTU Mean of turbidity measures Onsite and Monjebup catchments U 150NTU 100NTU for monitored pools in each Research catchment
Conductivity – >35mS/cm 21- 15- Mean of conductivity Onsite Corackerup and Monjebup 35mS/cm 20mS/c measures for monitored Research catchments m pools in each catchment
Catchment hydrology
% Corackerup and <20% 20%-40% 41%-60% >60% Hectares of restoration using Expert Monjebup catchments with perennial native vegetation Knowledge perennial veg cover Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Table 4 : Creeks and Flat-topped Yate viability measures Progress towards the goals for Creeks and Flat-topped Yate
1. Further monitoring is required to establish the normal range of variation for Yate recruitment and crown condition
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Flat-topped Yate Community Condition
Age classes present 2010 Good 2015 Good 2023 Good
Crown condition 2010 Fair 2015 Fair 2023 Very Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator
P a g e | 31
Both indicators being measured as part of the assessment of Yate community condition comprise baseline data only. Little research has been carried out on this plant community; however, Yate recruitment is thought to occur after disturbance events. Our monitoring of age classes has seen a decrease in the percentage of sites having at least 3 age classes present. This could be due to the older recruits now being classed as trees and included in the crown condition attribute measurement and/or the death of recruits after germination. The absence of suitable disturbance events could be the reason for the presence of only a few young recruits. Further monitoring is required to establish the normal range of recruitment for Yate communities. Crown condition over the three monitoring sessions has fluctuated between a majority of trees being within the C3 category in 2010, C1 in 2012 and C3 in 2015. The reasons for this fluctuation are unknown but could be due to rainfall fluctuations, insect damage to leaves, observer bias or other unknown factors. Further monitoring is required to establish temporal patterns of crown condition in Yate.
2. We are approaching our goal of restoring 2,000ha of yate by 2023
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Flat-topped Yate Extent
Extent - revegetation 2005 Poor 2017 Fair 2023 Good Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator A total of 943 ha of Yate have been restored in the Fitz-Stirling since 2005 by BHA, Greening Australia and Carbon Neutral on Peniup, Monjebup Nth and Yarraweyah. This includes Yate that has been planted for carbon sequestration, as areas planted surrounding existing Yate wetlands and Yate included in other plantings to achieve a canopy cover of >10%. To achieve the goal of 2,000ha by 2023 we need to plant 1,057ha over the next six years. Recommendation: Look for opportunities to replant 1,000ha Yate during future restoration projects. Alternatively adjust the goal downwards based on the current Yate restoration rate.
P a g e | 32
Saline creek pool on Red Moort
3. Water quality in creek pools needs further monitoring to establish the normal variations in these systems
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Water quality
Salinity - Corackerup Catchment 2007 Fair 2017 Good 2023 ?
pH - Corackerup Catchment 2007 Good 2017 Fair 2023 ?
Turbidity - Corackerup Catchment 2007 Very Good 2016 Very Good 2023 ?
Conductivity - Corackerup 2008 Fair 2017 Good 2023 ? Catchment
Conductivity - Monjebup Catchment 2013 Good 2017 Good 2023 ?
pH - Monjebup Catchment 2013 Good 2017 Good 2023 ?
Salinity - Monjebup Catchment 2013 Fair 2017 Good 2023 ?
Turbidity - Monjebup Catchment 2013 Very Good 2016 Very Good 2023 ? Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Water quality within the inland South Coast waterways has not been extensively studied or regularly monitored, however the baseline data collected on BHA properties are useful additions to the region-wide study conducted in 2006-2007. Using these results for comparison shows that the pools in the Fitz-Stirling are well within what are understood, at present, to be normal parameters for creeks in the wider region. In addition, none of the results indicated hyper-saline conditions and therefore there was no reason for concern during this monitoring period (2012-2017). Recommendation: Continue pool monitoring at least twice per year and during extreme rain events and droughts.
4. We are approaching our goal of restoring perennial vegetation in the Monjebup and Corackerup catchments
Baseline Viability Current Viability Future Viability Goal Item Year Rating Year Rating Year Rating
Catchment hydrology
% Corackerup catchment with 2004 Fair 2017 Fair 2030 Good perennial veg cover
% Monjebup catchment with 2004 Fair 2017 Fair 2030 Good perennial veg cover Symbol Key Key Ecological Attribute Indicator We are approaching our goal of achieving 40% perennial vegetation cover in the Monjebup and Corackerup catchments, currently at 34.4% and 37.4% respectively, by 2023 (see Table 4). To achieve this goal we need to facilitate a further 1,577 ha and 3,075 ha of perennial vegetation restoration in the Monjebup and Corackerup catchments respectively. This could be done through property purchase and restoration by BHA, formation of partnerships on privately owned land, support for other groups to restore cleared land, or a combination of these methods.
P a g e | 33
Recommendation: Pursue the achievement of further restoration through a combination of land purchase, partnerships and support for other groups. Conservation Target 4: Fresh Water Systems
This Target covers widespread, small occurrences of fresh water adjacent to creeks, in granite systems or on clay pans. They are believed to play a critical role in the survival of many species, including some dragonflies, mammals, frogs and seed-eating birds, as well as supporting aquatic plant and invertebrate species that do not tolerate salinity. Many fresh water occurrences are also culturally significant to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Nested targets include: Invertebrates – there could be specialised invertebrates that occur in fresh water systems Frogs – Frogs are dependent on fresh water for successful breeding and these systems are vital for their continued presence in the landscape. Some fresh water pools are artificially created, including those in spoon drains and gravel pits). Conservation goal for this Target Key conservation Target Goal Fresh Water Systems By 2023, we know where the fresh water systems are on BHA properties (owned and partnered), what's in them, and their cultural significance.
Progress towards the goals for Fresh Water Systems This target has proved difficult to define, describe and locate, and for these reasons no progress has been made by BHA on this target. It is proposed in this document that the Target is expanded to include granite outcrops, and that the fresh water occurrences become a nested target under this newly created Target. Recommendation: The fresh water target is expanded to include granite outcrops and that fresh water systems are included as a nested target.
Fresh water rock pool in the Fitz-Stirling
P a g e | 34
Landscape scale flora and vegetation surveys have highlighted extraordinary diversity
Since the last evaluation review in 2012, flora and vegetation surveys (which encompass all targets) have been carried out by consultant botanist Libby Sandiford on the following reserves: Monjebup/Yarraweyah, Monjebup North, Red Moort and Chereninup. The following table summarises of the findings of the surveys. The complete results, flora lists and maps are available in separate documents.
Reserve Area Number of Number of *Number of Number of surveyed taxa conservatio range vegetation (ha) n species extension units (approx.) species Monjebup/ 1100 570 15 40 17 Yarraweyah Monjebup 683 591 20 24 14 North Red Moort 1037 438 7 35 17 Chereninup 817 562 8 8 14 (approx.) *Number of species at the limit of or beyond their known distributional range Table 5: Summary of vegetation and flora surveys The importance of the BHA reserves to conservation is highlighted by the differences in vegetation occurrence and distribution and also differences in species distribution (Sandiford 2015, 2016, 2018). One reserve alone does not adequately conserve the vegetation at a local scale, let alone at a regional scale. The importance of the reserves is further highlighted by the very high plant species diversity, (currently just under 800 native taxa recorded), and knowledge that approximately one quarter of these taxa occur at range limits. Survey effort aside, some perspective on just how diverse the BHA reserves are can be gauged by comparison with Fitzgerald River National Park. The nearly 800 taxa recorded across 3,637 ha of BHA reserves is 47% of the number of taxa recorded in the park, but in only a little over 1% of its area (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Comparison of area and number of plant species between Fitz-Stirling BHAP a g e | 35 properties and the Fitzgerald River National Park.
Libby Sandiford made a series of recommendations, which we have considered and adjusted for the purposes of this report. Given the low density of acacia in undisturbed bushland it would be appropriate to consider a low concentration of acacia species in restoration seed mixes despite their advantages in rapid growth, ease of seed collection etc. Such plantings may not result in rapid establishment of habitat but are likely to better reflect the existing vegetation and may also reduce a potential future problem of the spread of acacia seeds from regenerating areas via birds to remnants/areas where they once did not exist. Recommendation: Consider the role and merits of acacia species in restoration and review the proportion of acacia in seed mixes for future restoration projects To ensure correct identification of species for inclusion in restoration projects on reserves it would be appropriate to source seeds from as close as possible to the restoration sites, as many of the species recorded on each property are not easily distinguished and can easily be wrongly identified. Recommendation: Use seed from as close as possible to restoration sites
The vegetation survey on Red Moort Reserve revealed a complex array of fire mosaics, which do not appear to match the recorded histories. Further mapping or recording of fire ages may assist in future management (see also Mallet and Moort recommendations).
Recommendation: Remap the fire history of Red Moort Reserve
Monitoring of malleefowl mounds on BHA properties may assist in the conservation of this threatened species.
Recommendation: Consider monitoring Malleefowl mounds on BHA properties. The flora and vegetation surveys identified an issue with fire regimes, i.e. too much long unburnt vegetation on all surveyed properties (see fire management in next section). Recommendation: Prepare prescribed fire plans for BHA Fitz-Stirling properties. The flora and vegetation surveys identified an issue with salinity on Red Moort and Monjebup Reserves which will require further investigation and management to maintain healthy and diverse vegetation within the affected areas and surrounds. Recommendation: Map and manage salinity issues on BHA properties where possible.
Kunzea newbeyi is being planted in the restored areas on Monjebup North
P a g e | 36
Conservation actions – managing threats to the Conservation Targets
Threats to Targets The Conservation Action Planning process encourages the identification of both stresses and sources of stress. Stresses are generally identified as impaired or degraded ecological attributes, while the sources of those stresses (the threats) are identified as the causal agents; e.g. reduction in population levels is a stress, one of the sources of that stress being predation by feral species. This distinction is helpful in both clarifying the precise ecological disruptions occurring and in looking for effective strategies and actions to address them. The stresses and sources of stress were assessed against several criteria, and on the basis of continuation of current circumstances for the next ten years. Criteria included: the severity of impact of the stress (i.e. will this stress only slightly impair the conservation target or destroy it?)
the scope of damage to the target that could be expected from the stress (i.e. whether a stress is localised or widespread);
the contribution of each source, acting alone, to the full expression of a stress (i.e. does the particular source, acting alone, contribute all of the stress or is it a minor contributor?)
the irreversibility of the stress (ie is it easily reversible with moderate costs, or essentially irreversible).
Direct seeding in progress on Monjebup North
P a g e | 37
The summary of the stresses and threats assessment for each target and for the Fitz Stirling area is shown in Table 6 below.
Threats \ Targets Creeks and Flat- Mallee Heath and Fresh Water Mallet and Moort Summary topped Yate Black-gloved Systems Woodlands and Threat Rating Woodlands Wallaby Tammar
Unknown Yate decline Very High High factor
Foxes High High Low High
Cats High High Low High
Fragmentation Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
Clearing-induced High Low Medium hydrological change
Excessive kangaroos Medium Medium Low Low Medium numbers
P.cinnamoni and other High Medium Low Medium pathogens
Rabbits Low Low Low Low Low
Weeds Low Low Low Low Low
Fire frequency (too Low Medium Low Low much/too little)
Summary Target Rating Very High High Medium Medium High
Table 6: Threat ratings to each Target (2017) The management strategies for the Fitz-Stirling as stated in the Fitz-Stirling Operational Plan (September 2017) include:
a) restoration of cleared farmland b) rabbit control c) fox and cat control d) weed control e) fire management f) Phytophthora cinnamomi management
Threats that are not addressed in this report include unknown Yate decline factor and excessive kangaroo numbers.
P a g e | 38
Managing fragmentation: The key management strategy for the Fitz-Stirling is to restore cleared farmland Objective: By 2023, area of mallee heath has increased by 5000 hectares Indicators: Revegetation - development of cover; Revegetation - bird species richness and activity; Revegetation - mammal and reptile species richness. Strategy: With extension and reconnection of habitat, the focus that distinguishes connectivity conservation from more traditional protected areas management, the key management strategy for the Fitz-Stirling is to restore cleared farmland back to a mosaic of vegetation associations resembling an ‘original’ state as far as practicable. The impact of this strategy has been reported under the targets: Mallee heath and Black-gloved Wallaby Mallet, Moort and tammar Creeks and Flat-topped Yate woodland Fragmentation Threat Rating:
2012 2017 High Med
Progress: On track Recommendation: Continue restoration activities
Managing invasive herbivores: rabbits are controlled prior to restoration Objective: By 2023, rabbit numbers are minimised and have not increased from 2010 levels Indicator: Rabbits - activity Strategy: Rabbit control is undertaken only when necessary prior to restoration and it is considered unnecessary to undertake formal monitoring of this species owing to its low impact on BHA properties. Rabbit Threat Rating:
2012 2017 Medium Low
Progress: On track
Recommendation: Continue to control rabbit prior to and post restoration activities
Managing invasive predators: feral predators pose a high threat to fauna in the Fitz-Stirling and they are not currently managed Objective: By 2023, have a feral animal control plan completed, implemented and monitored for at least 3 years. Indicators: Foxes – camera trap rate Cats – camera trap rate Strategy: Feral predators have been identified as a high threat in the Fitz-Stirling CAP and an integrated control program has been proposed since 2004. At present feral predators are not controlled on any of the BHA properties, apart from fox baiting on Chingarrup Sanctuary that is carried out by the landowners.
P a g e | 39
Successful fox baiting programs in the Fitzgerald River National Park have resulted in meso-predator release i.e. an increase in the feral cat population, which has been implicated in the decline of the Western ground parrot. At present we have no reliable, cost-effective method of controlling feral cats in the Fitz-Stirling and until this is available no feral predator control will be carried out. However, with the advent of ’Eradicat’ baits a trial integrated feral predator control program is currently being planned. The trial area chosen includes Corackerup and Peniup Nature Reserves and Chereninup Creek Reserve (Figure 11). This will be a joint project between the Department of Conservation, Biodiversity and Attractions, BHA, South Coast Nature Resource Management, Fitzgerald Biosphere Group and up to 15 private land owners. Funding is currently being sought for plan preparation and implementation. The goal is to have implemented and evaluated this plan by 2023. Feral predator Threat Rating:
2012 2017 High High
Progress: On track
Recommendation: Continue to pursue funding to plan and implement an integrated predator control program on BHA properties.
Managing weeds: weeds pose a minor threat on the BHA Fitz-Stirling properties Objective: By 2023, African Lovegrass will be removed from Beringa and Monjebup North Indicator: African Lovegrass – extent (ha) Strategy: Fortunately invasive weeds do not have a major impact on our Fitz-Stirling properties, with the exception of African lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula). This weed is prevalent on the southern section of Beringa and was almost eradicated until the area was revegetated in 2016. This ground disturbance caused a resurgence in the weed and the goal now is to eradicate this species by 2020. There is a recent incursion into the north-west section of the 2012 revegetated area on Monjebup North. Spraying is carried out annually on both occurrences. Weeds Threat Rating:
2012 2017 Medium Low
Progress: On track Recommendation: Continue to control African lovegrass on all BHA properties as needed.
Managing fire: prescribed burning is required across BHA properties Objective: By 2023, we are implementing a science based strategy for a prescribed burning regime that will sustain a mosaic of age classes across the BHA Fitz-Stirling properties. Indicator: Time since fire – fire age category Strategy: There have been no fires on any BHA property during the period 2006-2017. Current BHA Fire Management Policy requires that a Fire Management Plan is prepared for each reserve, and a Prescribed
P a g e | 40
Burn Plan is prepared for any planned burn. See the mallee heath target for recommendations on prescribed burning on Fitz-Stirling properties. Fire Threat Rating:
2012 2017 Low Low
Progress: On track Recommendation: Prepare prescribed fire plans for Fitz-Stirling BHA properties.
Managing Phytophthora cinnamomi: Phytophthora cinnamomi occurs on Yarrabee and Monjebup North Objective: To be determined Indicator: To be determined Strategy: The water mould Phytophthora cinnamomi has been confirmed as occurring on Yarrabee and Monjebup North. Signage has been erected at all our reserves in the Fitz-Stirling alerting visitors to the status of dieback on entering the property. At present there is no known cost-effective method for killing this pathogen at landscape scale and our strategy is to practice best hygiene measures to limit its spread and ensure no new areas are infected. Surveys for the pathogen should be carried out at 5 year intervals on the properties. Monjebup, Monjebup North, Beringa and Yarraweyah are due to be re-surveyed in 2018 and Chereninup and Red Moort in 2021. Phytophthora Threat Rating:
2012 2017 Med Med
Progress: On track Recommendation: Continue to carry out surveys for Phytophthora cinnamomi every five years on BHA properties.
Managing Salinity: salinity poses a very low threat to Targets on BHA properties Objective: To be determined Indicator: To be determined Strategy: Salinity was not included in the 2008 threat rating table or in the current table. However, during the flora and vegetation surveys on Red Moort and Monjebup Reserves an issue with small areas of salinity were identified and these require further investigation and management in order to maintain healthy and diverse vegetation within the affected areas and surrounds. Salinity Threat Rating: To be determined Recommendation: Map and determine the level of threat from salinity issues on BHA properties and propose management actions where possible.
P a g e | 41
Example of extent of cover analysis at a site on Monjebup North using drone monitoring
P a g e | 42
Recommendations for the next 5 years and beyond
The outcomes of the actions taken on recommendations given in the 2012 report are included in Appendix 8. It has been useful to assess the progress on these recommendations as part of this evaluation review and this should be carried out again as part of the next review in 2022. All recommendations have either been actioned or abandoned. Priorities have been allocated to each current recommendation giving an indication of the level of importance. Key to priorities: A: Serious implications if this work isn’t done B: Need to do this, but could defer timeframe C: Want to do this when resources are available
Conservation Target recommendations
Target 2: Mallet, Moort and Tammar High Priority Set a new goal of increasing the extent of mallet and moort by 400ha by 2023.
Target 3: Creeks and Flat-topped Yate High Priority Look for opportunities to replant 1,000ha Yate during future restoration projects. Alternatively adjust the goal downwards based on the current Yate restoration rate. Target 4: Fresh water systems Low Priority
The fresh water target is expanded to include granite outcrops and that fresh water systems are included as a nested target. Conservation action recommendations
Restoration High Priority Use seed from as close as possible to restoration sites. Pursue the achievement of further restoration through a combination of land purchase, partnerships and support for other groups.
Medium Priority Plan to acquire at least 2,376ha for restoration over the next 6 years. Alternatively adjust the goal downwards based on the current restoration rate. Consider the role and merits of acacia species in restoration and review the proportion of acacia in seed mixes for future restoration projects.
P a g e | 43
Managing invasive herbivores High Priority Continue to control rabbit prior to and post restoration activities. Managing invasive predators High Priority Continue to pursue funding to plan and implement an integrated predator control program on BHA properties. Managing weeds High Priority Continue to control African lovegrass on all BHA properties as needed.
Managing fire High Priority Plan for prescribed burning to take place over a total of 900ha of mallee heath on BHA properties by 2032. Prepare prescribed fire plans for Fitz-Stirling BHA properties. Medium Priority Remap the fire history of Red Moort Reserve.
Managing Phytophthora cinnamomi High Priority Continue to carry out surveys for Phytophthora cinnamomi every five years on BHA properties (Monjebup, Monjebup North, Beringa and Yarraweyah to be re-surveyed in 2018 and Chereninup and Red Moort in 2021).
Managing Salinity Medium Priority Map and determine the level of threat from salinity issues on BHA properties and propose management actions where possible.
Monitoring, evaluation and research
Monitoring Medium - Priority Standardise the number of monitoring sites in restored areas to at least one quadrat or transect per 10 ha per plant community. Carry out a detailed analysis of plant germination and subsequent survival in the restoration on Monjebup North and use the results of this to improve future projects. Correlate monitoring data with plant health in future surveys of restoration. Continue monitoring the impact of plant stocking rates on restoration. Further trial the use of UAV monitoring to assess vegetation health and temporal vegetation changes in restoration and reference vegetation. Further investigate the variations in results between UAV and ground-based monitoring on Monjebup North.
P a g e | 44
Continue bird surveys at restoration, reference and naturally regenerating sites using bird minutes if possible and carry out bird activity, mixed model and cluster analysis. Continue vertebrate fauna surveys at revegetated sites on Beringa, Chereninup, Monjebup and Yarraweyah and reference sites on Corackerup Nature Reserve. Continue bat call detection monitoring at revegetated and reference sites. Continue monitoring the Black-gloved Wallaby and Tammar every 2-3 years as resources permit. Continue pool monitoring at least twice per year and during extreme rain events and droughts. Low - Priority Consider monitoring Malleefowl mounds on BHA properties. Evaluation High – Priority Conduct a review of recommendations from this report in the next report in 2022. Research Medium - Priority Support research into the techniques for native plant establishment in the Fitz-Stirling whenever possible, in particular the establishment of members of the Restionaceae and Cyperaceae families. Continue to support Richard Thomas in automated bat call development. Low – Priority Pursue a research project to establish fire ages of Mallet and Moort patches and examine seed production, tree growth rates and longevity. Pursue a research project to confirm the relationship of Tammar with Mallet and Moort woodland.
P a g e | 45
Figure 11: Proposed area for integrated feral control project.
P a g e | 46
Glossary of key terms
Target Most important things to look after Goal What we want the target to look like Conservation Action Action that reduces threat to the target Results Chain Diagrams that explain how we are going to work to ensure a healthier target Objective Desired outcome of reducing a threat Threat Things that cause a decline in target health Viability Health of target
References
Blondell, J. (2003). Guilds or functional groups: Does it matter? Oikos 100(2) pp 223-231. Sanders, A. (2012) Ecological outcomes performance report 2006-2011, Fitz-Stirling Western Australia. Unpublished report to Bush Heritage Australia. Sandiford, E. M. (2015). Vegetation of Monjebup South. Unpublished report to Bush Heritage Australia. Sandiford, E. M. (2016). Flora and Vegetation of Red Moort Reserve. Unpublished report to Bush Heritage Australia. Sandiford, E. M. (2017). Flora and Vegetation of Monjebup North Reserve. Unpublished report to Bush Heritage Australia. Sandiford, E. M (2018) (In Prep). Flora and Vegetation of Chereninup Reserve. Unpublished report to Bush Heritage Australia. Standards Reference Group SERA (2017) National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia. Second Edition. Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia. Available from URL: www.seraustralasia.com Tulloch, A. I. T., Pichancourt, J., Gosper, C. R., Sanders, A. and Chades, I. (2016). Fire management strategies to maintain species population processes in a fragmented landscape of fire-interval extremes. Ecological Applications 26 (7), pp. 2175-2189.
P a g e | 47
Appendix 1: Results chains
Legend
Target Threat Reduction Result Objective Monitoring Activity Activity Intermediate Result
Contributing Factor Strategy Indicator Goal Stress
Figure 1: Restore cleared farmland
P a g e | 48
Figure 2: Rabbit control
P a g e | 49
Figure 3: Fox and cat control
P a g e | 50
Figure 4: Weed control
P a g e | 51
Figure 5: Fire management
P a g e | 52
Figure 6: Phytophthora cinnamomi control
P a g e | 53
Appendix 2: Monjebup North monitoring results for 2012, 2013 and 2014 restoration plots
This report details monitoring results for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 revegeted areas on Monjebup North. The aim of montoring is to ascertain the success of direct seeding across the property both temporally and spatially. The planning and implementation of the restoration has been documented previously (see Jonson, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d; Mercer, 2014) The results are presented for 21 plots in the 2012 planting, 15 plots in the 2013 planting and 9 plots in the 2014 planting. The total number of seedlings and their genus were recorded for each row within plots measuring 15 metres in length by 10 seeded rows wide (see Map below).
P a g e | 54
Monjebup Nth 2012 direct seeding - Nov 2012 results 600
500 Other
400 Melaleuca 300 Hakea
200 Gastrolobium NumberPlants 100 Eucalyptus Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina Acacia Plot
Monjebup Nth 2012 direct seeding - Oct 2014 results 600 Other
500 400 Melaleuca 300 Hakea
200 Gastrolobium NumberPlants 100 Eucalyptus 0 Calothamnus Allocasuarina Acacia Plot
P a g e | 55
Monjebup Nth 2012 direct seeding - Nov 2015 results 600
500 Other Melaleuca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium 200
NumberPlants Eucalyptus 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina MN201 MN202 MN203 MN205 MN207 MN209 MN210 MN211 MN212 MN213 MN217 MN220 MN221 Acacia Plot
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Dec 2013 results 300
250 Other
Melalueca 200 Hakea 150 Gastrolobium 100
Eucalyptus Numberofplants 50 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina MN301 MN302 MN303 MN304 MN305 MN306 MN307 MN308 MN309 MN310 MN311 MN312 MN313 MN314 MN315 Acacia Plot
P a g e | 56
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Apr 2014 results 300
250 Other
200 Melalueca Hakea 150 Gastrolobium
100 Eucalyptus Numberofplants 50 Calothamnus Allocasuarina 0 MN301 MN302 MN303 MN304 MN305 MN306 MN307 MN308 MN309 MN310 MN311 MN312 MN313 MN314 MN315 Acacia Plot
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Aug 2014 results 300 Other
250 Melalueca 200 Hakea 150 Gastrolobium 100 Eucalyptus NumberofPlants 50 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina MN301 MN302 MN303 MN304 MN305 MN306 MN307 MN308 MN309 MN310 MN311 MN312 MN313 MN314 MN315 Acacia Plot
P a g e | 57
300 Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Nov 2015 results Other 250 Melalueca 200 Hakea 150 Gastrolobium
100 Eucalyptus
Numberofplants Calothamnus 50 Allocasuarina 0 Acacia MN301 MN302 MN303 MN304 MN305 MN306 MN307 MN308 MN309 MN310 MN311 MN313 Plot
Monjebup Nth 2014 direct seeding - Nov 2015 results 800 Other 700 600 Banksia 500 Melaleuca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium
Numberofplants 200 Eucalyptus 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina MN401 MN402 MN403 MN404 MN405 MN406 MN407 MN408 MN409 Plot Acacia
P a g e | 58
Monjebup North 2014 direct seeding - Oct 2016 results 800 Other 700 600 Banksia 500 Melaleuca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium
Numberofplants 200 Eucalyptus 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Plot Acacia
Monjebup North 2014 direct seeding - Oct 2017 results 800
Other
600 Banksia Melaleuca 400 Hakea
200 Gastrolobium Numberofplants Eucalyptus 0 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Calothamnus Plot Allocasuarina
P a g e | 59
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Dec 2013 results 700
600 Other
500 Melalueca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium
200 Eucalyptus Numberofplants 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina Spongolite Clays Spongolite Gravels Sandy Gravels Gravelly Sands Red Duplex Clays Acacia Soil Type
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Apr 2014 results 700
600 Other
500 Melalueca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium
200 Eucalyptus Numberofplants 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina Spongolite Clays Spongolite Gravels Sandy Gravels Gravelly Sands Red Duplex Clays Acacia Soil Type
P a g e | 60
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Aug 2014 results 700
600 Other 500 Melalueca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium 200 Eucalyptus
Numberofseedlings 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina Spongolite Clays Spongolite Gravels Sandy Gravels Gravelly Sands Red Duplex Clays Acacia Soil Type
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding - Nov 2015 results 700
600 Other
500 Melalueca 400 Hakea 300 Gastrolobium
200 Eucalyptus Numberofplants 100 Calothamnus 0 Allocasuarina Spongolite Clays Spongolite Gravels Red Duplex Clays Acacia Soil Type
P a g e | 61
Note that not all plots were surveyed in 2015 and the sandy gravel and gravelly sand data was not available. Also data on soil type was not available for the 2012 and 2014 planting periods, therefore the analysis above has been completed for the 2013 planting only. The November 2012 and December 2013 surveys were completed by J. Jonson; 2014 surveys by A. Sanders, S. Smale, B. Thompson and J. Thompson; 2015 surveys by Bill James and Kath Grey; 2016 surveys by A. Sanders; 2017 surveys by A. Sanders and S. Smale.
Restoration Year Survey Date Number of plants per Number of plants per soil genera type 2012 Nov 2012 Yes No Oct 2014 Yes No Nov 2015 Yes No 2013 Dec 2013 Yes Yes Apr 2013 Yes Yes Aug 2014 Yes Yes Nov 2015 Yes Yes 2014 Nov 2015 Yes No
Table 1: Summary of monitoring surveys and data analysis
P a g e | 62
Monjebup Nth 2012 direct seeding results - all monitoring years
800
600
400 Nov-12 Oct-14 200
Numberofplants Nov-15 0 MN201 MN202 MN203 MN205 MN207 MN209 MN210 MN211 MN212 MN213 MN217 MN220 MN221 Plot
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding results - all monitoring years 800 700
600 500 Dec-13 400 Apr-14 300 Aug-14
Numberofplants 200 Nov-15 100 0 MN301 MN302 MN303 MN304 MN305 MN306 MN307 MN308 MN309 MN310 MN311 MN312 MN313 MN314 MN315 Plot
P a g e | 63
Monjebup Nth 2014 direct seeding results - all monitoring years 800 700 600 500 400 Nov-15 300 Oct-16
Numberofplants 200 Oct-17 100 0 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Plots
Monjebup Nth 2012 direct seeding results - all monitoring years 2500
2000
1500 2012 1000 2014
Numberofplants 2015 500
0 Acacia Allocasuarina Calothamnus Eucalyptus Gastrolobium Melaleuca Plant genera
P a g e | 64
Monjebup Nth 2013 direct seeding results - all monitoring years 2500
2000
1500 Dec 2013
1000 Apr 2013 Aug 2014 Numberofplants 500 Nov 2015 0 Acacia Allocasuarina Calothamnus Eucalyptus Gastrolobium Hakea Melaleuca Plant genera
Monjebup Nth 2014 direct seeding results - all monitoring years 2500
2000
1500 Nov-15 1000 Oct-16
Numberofplants 500 Oct-17
0 Acacia Allocasuarina Calothamnus Eucalyptus Gastrolobium Hakea Melaleuca Plant Genera
P a g e | 65
Jonson, J. (2011a) Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Plan (Part I), A project funded by Bush Heritage Australia. Unpublished report. Threshold Environmental. Albany, Western Australia.
Jonson, J. (2011b) Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Plan (Part II – Specifications for Establishment), A project funded by Bush Heritage Australia. Unpublished report. Threshold Environmental. Albany, Western Australia.
Jonson, J. (2011c) Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Plan (Part III – Project Timelines and Costs), A project funded by Bush Heritage Australia. Unpublished report. Threshold Environmental. Albany, Western Australia.
Jonson, J. (2013) Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Report 2012‐ 2013, A project commissioned by Bush Heritage Australia. Unpublished report. Threshold Environmental. Albany, Western Australia.
Jonson, J. (2011d) Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Plan, A project funded by Bush Heritage Australia. Unpublished report. Threshold Environmental. Albany, Western Australia.
Mercer, J. (2014). Monjebup North Ecological Restoration Project 2014. On behalf of Bush Heritage Australia. Marlak Pty Ltd, Albany Western Australia. Unpubl.
P a g e | 66
Appendix 3: Monjebup Nth monitoring results from UAV and quadrats for 2012-2015
P a g e | 67
Appendix 4: Recovery Wheel for Monjebup North restoration
ASSESSOR: Angela Sanders SITE: Monjebup North DATE: 8/02/2018 RECOVERY ATTRIBUTE CATEGORY EVIDENCE FOR RECOVERY LEVEL
LEVEL (1-5) Desirable animals Desirable ATTRIBUTE 1. Absence of threats
Over-utilization 5 All cropping and stock grazing ceased
Invasive species (external) 3 Fox and cat present, lovegrass controlled
Contamination 5 No further inputs, farming ceased ATTRIBUTE 2. Physical conditions
Substrate physical 4 Soil stablised, some erosion on tracks
Substrate chemical 4 Some track herbicide spray each year
Water chemo-physical 3 Not known
ATTRIBUTE 3. Species composition
Desirable plants 3 ~25% of reference site species in reveg
Desirable animals 4 68% of expected birds, mammals and reptiles recorded
No undesirable species 3 Fox and cat present, lovegrass not inhibiting Gene Gene flows ATTRIBUTE 4. Community structure
All strata present 3 Most strata present, sedges not likely to recolonise
All trophic levels 4 Most trophic levels present
Spatial mosaic 4 Some spatial patterning
ATTRIBUTE 5. Ecosystem function
Productivity, cycling etc 4 Evidence of high productivity (fauna monitoring) Update recovery wheel Habitat & plant-animal interactions 4 Reproduction occuring in plants and animals
Resilience, recruitment etc 4 Some plant recruitment occuring
ATTRIBUTE 6. External exchanges Source: McDonald T., Jonson J. and Dixon K.W. (eds) (2016) National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia. Restoration Ecology S1: 1-340.] Landscape flows 4 High level of connectivity to large remnants Artwork: Little Gecko Media. Excell file formulated by Simone Pedrini. Gene flows 4 Unknown as yet, assumed occuring
Habitat links 4 Fauna recruitment occuring from adjacent sites Onsite Research Expert Knowledge External Research Rough Guess
P a g e | 68
Appendix 5: Bird functional groups
Key to bird functional groups Abbreviation Description ROG Resident, old growth mallee, woodland RUF Resident, heath, thicket or understorey strata RGF Resident ground foraging - Mallee heath, thicket GFG Ground foraging, open woodland or shrubland and grassland AF Aerial foragers LG Leaf gleaners, insect exudate foragers RHE Resident or partly (some individuals) resident honeyeaters NRN Nectivorous resource nomads M Migrants
ROG RUF RGF Crested Shrike-tit Blue-breasted Fairy-wren Brush Bronzewing Laughing Kookaburra Golden Whistler Painted Button-quail Restless Flycatcher Grey Fantail Shy Heathwren Rufous Whistler Grey Shrike-thrush Southern Scrub-robin Scarlet Robin Inland Thornbill Western Whipbird Varied Sitella Red-eared Firetail White-browed Babbler Western Thornbill Rufous Fieldwren Western Yellow Robin Southern Emu-wren Splendid Fairy-wren White-browed Scrubwren Western Gerygone
GFG AF LG Australian Magpie Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Brown-headed Honeyeater Brown Songlark Black-faced Woodswallow Spotted Pardelote Crested Bellbird Dusky Woodswallow Striated Pardelote Crested Pigeon Tree Martin Weebill Elegant Parrot Welcome Swallow Galah Red-capped Robin Australian Pipit Rufous Songlark Stubble Quail White-fronted Chat White-winged Triller Willy Wagtail Yellow-rumped Thornbill Common Bronzewing
P a g e | 69
RHE NRN M Brown Honeyeater Purple-crowned Lorikeet Fan-tailed Cuckoo New Holland Tawny-crowned Horsefield's Bronze Honeyeater Honeyeater Cuckoo Purple-gaped Western Wattlebird Rainbow Bee-eater Honeyeater Red Wattlebird White-cheeked Honeyeater Sacred Kingfisher Silvereye White-eared Honeyeater Shining Bronze Cuckoo Singing Honeyeater White-naped Honeyeater Western Spinebill Yellow-plumed Honeyeater Yellow-throated Miner
P a g e | 70
Appendix 6: Data analysis for bird functional groups
Methods Analyses were initially performed separately for each of the three Treatments/“management types”: restoration, reference and natural regeneration. Within each type, variables were assessed for their change over time. For reference and regeneration sites time was expressed as an age, based on the time of initial restoration or time since clearing for natural regeneration. For reference sites, time was expressed as the year of survey. Analysis was further separated by site and by bird functional group. Three variables were analysed: Mean activity across species (within a functional group), based on the bird minute methodology, the number of species recorded, and this number of species as a proportion of the total number of species recorded at the site. Significant change in these variables over time was tested using linear models. All relationships with time were plotted. Restoration was further assessed, by pairing the restoration sites with appropriate reference sites. Mixed models were then used to compare the trajectories of restoration sites with that of the reference sites over the same period. Depending upon the data structure, linear mixed models (with or without data transformations) or generalised mixed models were employed. All analyses were performed using R statistical software (R Core Team 2016), while the mixed models were performed using the R packages nlme (Pinheiro et al. 2016) and LME4 (Bates et al. 2014). References Bates D, Maechler, M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D and R Core Team (2016). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models_. R package version 3.1-128,
Key to bird functional groups Abbreviation Description ROG Resident, old growth mallee, woodland RUF Resident, heath, thicket or understorey strata RGF Resident ground foraging - Mallee heath, thicket GFG Ground foraging, open woodland or shrubland and grassland AF Aerial foragers LG Leaf gleaners, insect exudate foragers RHE Resident or partly (some individuals) resident honeyeaters NRN Nectivorous resource nomads M Migrants
P a g e | 71
Sites included in the analysis Site Cleared Treatment Year of Age of Age of restoration/regeneration restoration regeneration (at 2017) (at 2017) (years) (years) BERI_001 N Reference Vegetation BERI_002 N Reference Vegetation
BERI_003 N Reference Vegetation BERI_004 N Reference Vegetation BERI_005 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 2007 10 BERI_006 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 2007 10 BERI_007 N Reference Vegetation BERI_008 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 2007 10 BERI_009 N Reference Vegetation BERI_010 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 2007 10 BERI_011 N Reference Vegetation BERI_012 N Reference Vegetation BERI_013 N Reference Vegetation BERI_014 N Reference Vegetation BERI_015 N Reference Vegetation BERI_016 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 BERI_017 N Reference Vegetation BERI_018 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2002 5 BERI_019 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2015 2 BERI_020 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2015 2 BERI_021 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 BERI_023 Y Carbon Planting (woodland) 2008 9 CHE_002 N Reference Vegetation CHE_003 N Reference Vegetation CHE_004 N Reference Vegetation CHE_005 N Reference Vegetation CHE_007 N Reference Vegetation CHE_008 N Reference Vegetation CHE_009 Y Regenerating Woodland 1987 30 CHE_010 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2003 14 CHE_011 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2003 14 CHE_012 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2003 14 CHE_013 N Reference Vegetation CHN_001 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2005 12 CHN_002 N Reference Vegetation CHN_003 N Reference Vegetation CHN_004 N Reference Vegetation CHN_005 N Reference Vegetation CHN_006 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2005 12 CORK_001A N Reference Vegetation CORK_002A N Reference Vegetation MON_001 N Reference Vegetation
P a g e | 72
Site Cleared Treatment Year of Age of Age of restoration/regeneration restoration regeneration (at 2017) (at 2017) (years) (years) MON_002 N Reference Vegetation MON_003 N Reference Vegetation MON_004 N Reference Vegetation MON_005 N Reference Vegetation MON_006 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 MON_007 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 MON_008 N Reference Vegetation MON_009 N Reference Vegetation MON_010 N Reference Vegetation MON_011 N Reference Vegetation MON_012 N Reference Vegetation MON_013 N Reference Vegetation MON_014 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 2005 12 MON_015 Y Regenerating Prot 2005 12 MON_016 Y Regenerating Woodland 1982 35 MON_017 N Reference Vegetation MON_018 N Reference Vegetation MON_019 N Reference Vegetation MON_020 N Reference Vegetation MON_021 N Reference Vegetation MON_022 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2012 5 MON_023 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2012 5 MON_024 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2012 5 MON_025 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 MON_026 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 MON_027 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 MON_028 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 MON_029 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2014 3 MON_030 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2014 3 MON_031 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2014 3 YAH001 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 YAH002 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 YAH003 N Reference Vegetation YAH004 N Reference Vegetation YAH005 N Reference Vegetation YAH006 Y Restored Mallee Heath 2013 4 YAR_001 Y Regerating Woodland 1974 43 YAR_002 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 1974 43 YAR_003 Y Regenerating Mallee Heath 1974 43 YAR_004 N Reference Vegetation YAR_005 N Reference Vegetation YAR_006 N Reference Vegetation YAR_007 N Reference Vegetation
P a g e | 73
Site Cleared Treatment Year of Age of Age of restoration/regeneration restoration regeneration (at 2017) (at 2017) (years) (years) YAR_008 N Reference Vegetation YAR_009 N Reference Vegetation YAR_010 Y Regenerating sedgeland 2006 11 YAR_011 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 YAR_012 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 YAR_013 Y Restored Woodland 2006 11 YAR_014 Y Restored Woodland 2006 11 YAR_015 Y Restored Woodland 2006 11 YAR_016 Y Restored Woodland 2006 11 YAR_018 N Reference Vegetation YAR_019 Y Sandalwood Plantation 2007 10 BER- Beringa; CHE – Chereninup Creek Reserve; CHN – Chingarrup Sanctuary; CORK – Corackerup Nature Reserve; MON – Monjebup Reserves; YAH – Yarraweyah Falls; YAR – Yarrabee Wesfarmers Reserve.
P a g e | 74
Table 1: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird activity and restoration age. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Activity, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.44 0.29 0.90 0.09 0.53 0.82 0.17 0.43 < 0.01 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.63 0.38 NA 0.06 0.38 NA NA NA NA Reserve (BR) Beringa 0.55 0.96 0.09 0.01 0.41 NA NA 0.18 NA Reserve, Carbon (BR.C) Chingarrup 0.70 0.94 0.36 0.07 0.63 0.67 0.20 0.51 < 0.01 (C) Monjebup 0.24 0.49 0.12 0.07 0.01 NA NA 0.06 0.13 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.57 0.34 0.26 0.33 < 0.01 0.60 0.72 0.01 NA Reserve
P a g e | 75
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 1: Response of bird functional group activity to restoration age.
P a g e | 76
Table 2: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird species richness and restoration age. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Species, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.12 0.29 0.74 0.86 0.72 0.89 0.49 0.52 0.01 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.80 0.38 NA 0.06 0.38 NA NA NA NA Reserve (BR) Beringa 0.31 0.96 0.02 0.01 0.24 NA NA 0.30 NA Reserve, Carbon (BR.C) Chingarrup 0.66 0.89 0.49 0.52 0.24 0.72 0.22 0.60 < 0.01 (C) Monjebup 0.01 0.49 0.10 0.05 < 0.01 NA NA 0.07 0.12 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.57 0.41 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.69 0.31 0.04 NA Reserve (YR) Species, proportion of total pool, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.16 0.29 0.82 0.70 0.45 0.98 0.72 0.13 0.01 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.26 0.38 NA 0.06 0.38 NA NA NA NA Reserve (BR) Beringa 0.17 0.96 0.89 < 0.01 0.37 NA NA 0.53 NA Reserve, Carbon (BR.C) Chingarrup 0.31 0.80 0.15 0.20 0.50 0.80 0.15 0.85 < 0.01 (C) Monjebup < 0.01 0.90 0.04 0.03 0.22 NA NA 0.02 0.10 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.32 0.28 0.05 0.81 0.41 0.62 0.18 0.07 NA Reserve (YR)
P a g e | 77
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 2: Response of bird functional group species richness to restoration age.
P a g e | 78
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3: Response of bird functional group species richness (as a proportion of the total species pool) to restoration age.
P a g e | 79
Table 3: Monjebup results of mixed models analysis. Cells contain statistical P values, with significant values (P < 0.05) in bold.
Property Variable Functional Year x Year Treatment Description group treatment Monjebup Activity AF 0.50 0.40 0.33 No change GFG 0.34 0.60 0.03 Restored > Reference LG 0.76 <0.01 0.07 General increase with time M 0.51 0.60 0.01 Reference > Restored (0) NRN 0.04 <0.01 0.42 Increasing in restoration only, beyond level of reference. ROG - - - Zero activity RGF 0.77 0.02 <0.01 Increase over time; Restored < reference. RHE 0.59 <0.01 <0.01 Increase over time; Restored < reference. RUF 0.77 0.02 <0.01 Increase over time; Restored < reference. Species AF 0.50 0.30 0.30 No change GFG 0.29 0.89 <0.01 Revg > reference. LG 0.27 0.002 0.02 General increase over time. Revg < reference.
M 0.34 0.46 <0.01 Revg (0) < reference. NRN 0.18 <0.01 0.14 General increase over time ROG - Zero values RGF 0.99 <0.01 <0.01 General increase over time. Revg < reference. RHE 0.59 <0.01 <0.01 General increase over time. Revg < reference. RUF 0.99 <0.01 <0.01 General increase over time. Revg < reference. Species AF 0.36 0.57 0.39 No change (propn of GFG <0.01 0.72 0.02 Reference values pool) low; Reveg declining from
P a g e | 80
high values LG 0.06 0.046 0.02 General increase over time. Revg < reference. M 0.51 0.61 <0.01 Revg < reference. NRN 0.25 <0.01 0.78 General increase over time ROG Zero values RGF 1.00 <0.01 0.78 General increase over time RHE 0.28 0.13 0.03 Reveg < reference RUF <0.01 0.09 <0.01 Reveg increasing over time, reference decreasing
Table 4: Chereninup results of mixed models analysis. Cells contain statistical P values, with significant values (P < 0.05) in bold.
Property Variable Functional Year x Year Treatment Description group treatment Chereninup Activity AF 0.18 0.44 0.33 No change Creek GFG 0.39 0.87 0.054 Reference almost Reserve significantly higher LG 0.95 0.29 0.38 No change M 0.15 0.57 0.36 No change NRN 0.053 0.24 0.60 Reference almost increasing while restored stable. ROG 0.02 0.30 0.048 Reference declining, restored increasing RGF 0.02 < 0.01 0.49 Restoration increasing, reference stable. RHE < 0.01 < 0.01 0.049 Reference increased, restoration stable RUF 0.11 0.08 0.52 No change Species AF 0.06 0.76 0.35 No change GFG 0.56 0.53 0.21 No change LG 0.98 0.17 0.41 No change M 0.23 0.68 0.48 No change NRN 0.58 0.37 0.73 No change ROG 0.22 0.14 0.12 No change
P a g e | 81
RGF 0.01 0.04 0.72 Restoration increasing, reference decreasing RHE 0.15 0.51 0.61 No change RUF 0.34 0.37 0.59 No change Species AF 0.12 0.96 0.37 No change (propn of GFG 0.58 0.41 0.32 No change pool) LG 0.94 0.25 0.32 No change M 0.27 0.63 0.50 No change NRN 0.79 0.44 0.93 No change ROG 0.02 0.12 0.13 Reference declining; Restoration usually zero. RGF <0.01 0.02 0.65 Reference declining, restoration increasing. RHE 0.38 0.23 0.20 No change RUF 0.90 0.02 0.52 General increase
Table 5: Beringa (carbon planting) results of mixed models analysis. Cells contain statistical P values, with significant values (P < 0.05) in bold.
Property Variable Functional Year x Year Treatment Description group treatment Beringa Activity AF 0.52 0.15 0.65 No change Reserve GFG 0.66 0.88 0.38 No change (Carbon LG 0.26 0.95 0.40 No change planting) M 0.25 0.01 0.11 Reference increasing NRN 0.95 0.049 0.75 Generally increasing ROG 0.79 0.53 0.13 (Carbon planting has zero activity) RGF 0.77 0.47 0.52 No change RHE 0.31 <0.01 0.33 Generally increasing RUF 0.60 <0.01 0.21 Generally increasing Species AF 0.98 0.85 0.66 No change GFG 0.63 0.31 0.43 No change LG <0.01 0.26 0.47 Carbon planting increasing to values similar to reference M 0.27 0.01 0.01 Carbon planting zero throughout. P a g e | 82
NRN 0.28 0.11 0.97 ROG 0.93 0.82 0.051 Carbon planting zero throughout. RGF 0.64 0.27 0.47 RHE <0.01 0.02 0.26 Carbon planting increasing from zero; Reference constant. RUF 0.85 0.01 0.06 Reference richer than carbon planting. Species AF 0.91 0.62 0.80 No change (propn of GFG 0.06 0.14 0.93 No change pool) LG 0.88 0.72 0.15 No change M 0.41 0.059 0.01 Carbon planting at zero; reference higher NRN 0.11 0.37 0.60 No change ROG 0.89 0.73 0.09 No change RGF 0.76 0.4677 0.4658 No change RHE <0.01 0.06 0.82 Carbon planting increasing from zero; reference constant. RUF 0.63 0.055 0.10 No change
Table 6: Chingarrup results of mixed models analysis. Cells contain statistical P values, with significant values (P < 0.05) in bold.
Property Variable Functional Year x Year Treatment Description group treatment Chingarrup Activity AF 0.59 0.79 0.58 No change GFG 0.72 0.31 0.11 No change LG 0.62 0.03 0.25 Declining overall M 0.91 0.88 0.87 No change NRN 0.17 0.20 0.07 No change ROG 0.32 0.28 0.43 No change RGF < 0.01 < 0.01 0.35 Restored increasing from zero; reference remaining stable RHE 0.22 0.01 0.11 General increase RUF 0.99 0.81 0.38 No change Species AF 0.63 0.60 0.47 No change GFG 0.70 0.60 0.04 Restored higher than reference LG 0.32 0.02 0.76 A small general increase.
P a g e | 83
M 0.76 0.79 0.78 No change NRN 0.82 0.03 0.17 General increase ROG 0.32 0.28 0.43 No change RGF 0.04 <0.01 0.99 Restoration increasing; reference stable. RHE 0.80 0.69 0.59 No change RUF 0.85 0.95 0.34 No change Species AF 0.61 0.60 0.59 No change (propn of GFG 0.52 0.87 0.048 Restoration higher pool) than reference. LG 0.27 <0.01 0.54 General decline. M 0.66 0.69 0.98 No change NRN 0.69 0.03 0.11 General increase. ROG 0.32 0.28 0.43 No change RGF 0.057 <0.01 0.72 General increase. RHE 0.72 0.26 0.28 No change RUF 0.73 0.50 0.34 No change
Table 7: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird activity and year of survey. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Activity, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.19 0.41 0.36 <0.01 0.01 0.17 0.50 <0.01 0.29 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.55 0.50 0.72 0.04 0.06 0.97 0.98 0.11 0.67 Reserve (BR) Chingarrup (C) 0.39 0.50 0.01 0.59 0.21 0.75 0.31 0.41 0.42 Monjebup 0.97 0.77 0.74 0.09 0.04 0.24 0.19 0.28 <0.01 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah NA 0.42 0.90 0.69 0.29 0.04 0.27 0.52 0.83 Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.80 0.42 0.20 0.01 0.40 0.20 0.33 0.41 0.37 Reserve (YR)
P a g e | 84
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 4: Response of bird functional group activity across monitoring years in reference vegetation.
P a g e | 85
Table 8: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird species richness and monitoring year. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Species, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.53 0.49 0.21 0.59 0.26 0.12 0.28 0.03 0.97 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.18 0.93 0.80 0.33 0.22 0.88 0.66 0.11 0.45 Reserve (BR) Chingarrup (C) 0.48 0.61 0.10 0.45 0.04 0.50 0.25 0.47 0.49 Monjebup 0.70 0.70 0.62 0.85 0.20 0.09 0.14 0.68 0.03 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah 0.65 0.29 1.00 0.31 0.24 0.10 0.29 0.86 1.00 Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.16 <0.01 0.18 0.08 0.45 0.16 0.54 0.74 0.37 Reserve (YR) Species, proportion of total pool, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.90 0.73 0.11 0.84 0.84 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.79 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.20 0.71 0.64 0.55 0.45 0.85 0.66 0.19 0.58 Reserve (BR) Chingarrup (C) 0.43 0.67 0.01 0.27 0.09 0.25 0.27 0.56 0.60 Monjebup 0.51 0.61 0.95 0.44 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.99 0.25 Reserve (MR) Yarraweyah 0.83 0.34 0.84 0.95 0.17 0.13 0.34 0.85 0.83 Falls (YF) Yarrabee 0.02 <0.01 0.23 0.72 0.20 0.19 0.58 0.96 0.37 Reserve (YR)
P a g e | 86
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 5: Response of bird functional group species richness across monitoring years in reference vegetation.
P a g e | 87
3.0
2.5
2.0
c(1, 2, 3) 2, c(1, 1.5
CCR BR C MR YF YR BR.C 1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 6: Response of bird functional group species richness (as a proportion of the total species pool) across monitoring years in reference vegetation.
P a g e | 88
Table 9: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird activity and year of survey. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Activity, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.55 0.80 0.23 0.94 0.23 0.28 0.66 0.06 0.73 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.71 0.23 0.53 0.16 <0.01 0.10 0.48 0.44 <0.01 Reserve (BR) Monjebup 0.48 0.06 0.13 0.89 0.72 0.72 0.26 0.34 0.45 Reserve (MR) Yarrabee <0.01 0.37 0.14 <0.01 0.50 0.78 0.29 0.01 0.13 Reserve (YR)
P a g e | 89
GFOW
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 Mean activity (bird minutes) (bird activity Mean
CCR CCR BR BR MR YR MR
0.0 YR
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
year
Figure 7: Response of bird functional group activity across monitoring years within regeneration sites.
P a g e | 90
Table 10: Results of statistical tests testing relationships between functional group bird species richness and monitoring year. Statistically significant relationships (P < 0.05) are in bold.
Property Species, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.95 0.80 0.86 0.65 0.51 0.62 0.86 0.29 1.00 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.33 0.48 0.23 0.36 0.02 0.21 0.48 0.26 0.02 Reserve (BR) Monjebup 0.57 0.06 0.36 0.59 0.38 0.87 0.60 0.60 0.87 Reserve (MR) Yarrabee <0.01 0.27 0.24 <0.01 0.25 0.97 0.54 0.63 0.15 Reserve (YR) Species, proportion of total pool, Statistical P values GFG AF LG RHE NRN M ROG RUF RGF Chereninup 0.91 0.80 0.56 0.39 0.83 0.42 0.46 0.31 0.65 Creek Reserve (CCR) Beringa 0.13 0.60 0.17 0.79 0.94 0.30 0.48 0.57 0.07 Reserve (BR) Monjebup 0.52 0.06 0.43 0.26 0.92 0.86 NA 0.53 NA Reserve (MR) Yarrabee <0.01 0.16 0.22 <0.01 0.83 0.97 0.60 0.60 0.60 Reserve (YR)
P a g e | 91
GFOW
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 Mean activity (bird minutes) (bird activity Mean
CCR CCR BR BR MR YR MR
0.0 YR
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
year
Figure 8: Response of bird functional group species richness across monitoring years.
P a g e | 92
GFOW
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 Mean activity (bird minutes) (bird activity Mean
CCR CCR BR BR MR YR MR
0.0 YR
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
year
Figure 9: Response of bird functional group species richness (as a proportion of the total species pool) across monitoring years.
P a g e | 93
Appendix 7: Fauna species predicted to occur in restored mallee heath habitat and those recorded to 2016
BIRDS Recorded up to 2016
Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu Y Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Y Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered Kite Y Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk Y Accipiter cirrhocephalus Collared Sparrowhawk Falco berigora Brown Falcon Falco cenchroides Australian Kestrel Y Falco longipennis Australian Hobby Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Turnix varius Painted Button-quail Y Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing Y Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon Y Chrysococcyx basilus Horsefield’s Bronze Cuckoo Y Chrysococcyx lucidus Shining Bronze Cuckoo Y Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed Cuckoo Y Calyptorhynchus latirostris Carnaby's Cockatoo Y Cacatua roseicapilla Galah Y Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck Y Platycercus spurius Red-capped Parrot Y Platycercus icterotis Western Rosella Neophema elegans Elegant Parrot Y Malurus splendens Splendid Fairy-wren Y Malurus pulcherrimus Blue-breasted Fairy-wren Y Stipiturus malachurus Southern Emu-wren Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote Y Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote Y Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren Y Calamanthus cautus Shy Groundwren (Shy Heathwren) Y Calamanthus campestris Rufous Fieldwren Y Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill Y Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone Y Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill Y Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill Y Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater Y Gavicaulis virescens Singing Honeyeater Y Lichenostomus cratitius Purple-gaped Honeyeater Y Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater Y Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater Y
P a g e | 94
BIRDS Recorded to 2016
Melithreptus chloropsis Western White-naped Honeyeater Y Phylidonyris novaehollandiae New Holland Honeyeater Y Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater Y Glyciphila melanops Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Y Acanthorhynchus superciliosus Western Spinebill Y Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner Y Anthochaera lunulata Western Little Wattlebird Y Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird Y Ephthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat Y Eopsaltria australis Western Yellow Robin Drymodes brunneopygia Southern Scrub-robin Y Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler Y Psophodes nigrogularis Western Whipbird Y Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird Y Pachycephala occidentalis Western Golden Whistler Y Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler Y Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush Y Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher Y Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail Y Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail Y Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark Y Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Y Lalage triclolor White-winged Triller Y Artamus cinereus Black-faced Woodswallow Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow Y Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird Y Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie Y Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong Y Corvus coronoides Australian Raven Y Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow Y Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin Y Megalurus mathewsi Rufous Songlark Y Zosterops lateralis Silvereye Y TOTAL BIRD SPECIES (73) 63
P a g e | 95
MAMMALS Recorded to 2016
Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna Y Dasyurus geoffroii Chuditch Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis f. fuliginosus Grey-bellied Dunnart Notamacropus eugenii derbianus Tammar Macropus fuliginosus melanops Western Grey Kangaroo Y Notamacropus irma Black-gloved Wallaby (Western Brush Y Wallaby) Cercartetus concinnus Western Pygmy-possum Y Tarsipes rostratus Honey-possum Y Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat Y Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat Y Nyctophilus g. geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat Y Nyctophilus major Greater Long-eared Bat Y Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest-bat Y Ozimops kitcheneri Western Freetailed-bat Y Austronomus australis White-striped Freetailed-bat Y Notomys mitchelli Mitchell's Hopping-mouse Pseudomys a. albocinereus Ash-grey Mouse Pseudomys occidentalis Western Mouse Rattus f. fuscipes Western Bush Rat TOTAL MAMMAL SPECIES (20) 12
REPTILES Recorded to 2016
Ctenophorus maculatus griseus Grey Spotted Dragon Pogona m. minor Western Bearded Dragon Y Crenadactyllus ocellatus South-western Clawless Gecko Diplodactylus calcicolus South Coast Gecko Strophurus spinigerus inornatus Southwest Spiny-tailed Gecko Underwoodisaurus milii Southern Barking Gecko Christinus marmoratus Marbled Gecko Aprasia repens Yellow-chinned Worm-lizard Delma australis Southern Delma Delma fraseri Fraser's Delma Pygopus lepidopodus Southern Scaly Foot Acritoscincus trilineatus Western Cool Skink Y Ctenotus impar Eleven-striped Ctenotus Ctenotus labillardieri Red-legged Ctenotus Liopolis multiscutata Southern Sand Skink Hemiergis i. initialis Southwestern Earless Skink Hemiergis p. peronii Peron's Earless Skink Y Lerista distinguenda Southwestern Four-toed Lerista
P a g e | 96
REPTILES Recorded to 2016
Menetia greyii Grey's Menetia Y Morethia obscura Dark Morethia Y Tiliqua occipitalis Western Bluetongue Y Tiliqua r. rugosa Western Bobtail Y Varanus rosenbergi Rosenberg's Monitor Anilios australis Southern Blind Snake Echiopsis curta Bardick Elapognathus coronatus Crowned Snake Notechis scutatus Western Tiger Snake Y Parasuta gouldii Gould's Snake Parasuta nigriceps Black-backed Snake Pseudonaja a. affinis Dugite Y Rhinoplocephalus bicolor Square-nosed Snake TOTAL REPTILE SPECIES (31) 9
P a g e | 97
Appendix 8: Outcomes of recommendations from 2012 report
Recommendation Outcome A rationalisation of the Fitz-Stirling monitoring program is undertaken Completed and implemented
That the vegetation and soil monitoring methods are standardised with input from all Mostly completed, standard methods being BHA Ecologists written up
A method of combining results from multiple properties within the properties database Completed and working well and then downloading them to Excel is explored.
That the proteaceous-rich community target in the FLP is redefined as ‘obligate This target was combined with the Mallee seeding Proteaceae-dominated shrubland’, and the attributes and indicators are Heath target and became a nested target revised. Also additional monitoring sites should be established in this community. named after the Kwongkan threated ecological community. No additional monitoring sites have been set up as reference sites; however 2 sites have been established on Monjebup Nth restoration in this community. Bird monitoring continues at all yate sites and bird activity and species richness is Not completed owing to a decrease in bird added as an attribute of the yate KCT. Further analysis of bird results are carried out to surveys at Yate sites. develop an indicator rating for this attribute and the results are given in the next outcomes report.
An analysis of on-ground data is correlated with the VegMachine data to test the Not completed, VegMachine is no longer validity of the VegMachine analysis. available in a form that is useful to this monitoring method. That photographs be taken by the landscape manager at fixed locations to monitor Not completed, deemed not necessary. erosion prone areas and the results of any amelioration works carried out.
That a monitoring and mapping regime is put in place for assessing the efficacy of Not completed, deemed not necessary. weed control.
As resources allow, establish additional trapping grids at Beringa and Chereninup and Additional trapping grids have been established ensure they are monitored at least annually. at Chereninup and Corackerup Nature Reserve. Beringa is to be completed.
P a g e | 98
Outcome Recommendation Ensure that adequate consideration is given for the restoration of faunal microhabitat, Microhabitat has been restored at Monjebup food, shelter and nesting resources. North in the form of mallee roots, vegetation from a cleared fence line and rock piles. Pygmy Possum nest boxes have been installed at Monjebup North and Yarraweyah. That no fox or cat control is carried out on BHA properties, other than Chereninup, until No fox or cat control has been carried out on the results of the pilot program there are available and have been analysed (post any BHA property since 2012. This will be 2018). reviewed after the integrated feral predator control program has been carried out in a trial study area. That a process is established for recording rabbit activity on Chereninup initially and Not completed, rabbit impact is minimal on all other BHA properties if found to be necessary, as per the recommendations in Short BHA Fitz-Stirling properties. 2012.
Continue with visual assessments of vegetation for the signs of Phytophthora at every Surveys have been done on all properties opportunity. Ensure that root and plant material from suspected new infections is during the past 5 years; no new infections have tested for the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi. been identified.
Ensure that adequate monitoring sites are maintained during the rationalisation as in Completed. Botanist conducting flora and Recommendation 1 to enable vegetation senescence analysis to be undertaken. vegetation surveys has confirmed the presence of senescent vegetation. If senescence is confirmed, the introduction of some controlled burning should be See above. Prescribed burning is being considered on a property by property and site by site basis, using best practice fire planned for all properties. management and knowledge of fire ecology research.
Explore the use of aerial photographs for monitoring kangaroo numbers in bushland Some kangaroo monitoring is taking place using their pathways as indicators. Consider an on ground kangaroo monitoring using remote cameras as part of the wallaby program if resources become available. project.
P a g e | 99