Crossing Scales

CROSSING SCALES

SPATIAL ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION

INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

IN THE GREAT EASTERN RANGES KANAGARA-BOYD TO WYANGALA LINK

MICHAEL DRIELSMA, JAMIE LOVE, SUBHASHNI TAYLOR AND GARY HOWLING

OFFICE OR ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE

JUNE 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background ...... 3 2. What was done ...... 5 3. Crossing scales ...... 6 4. Crossing Scales - the big picture ...... 6 5. The K2W region...... 7 6. Stakeholder workshops ...... 20 7. Towards a framework for spatial prioritisation for the K2W ...... 20 8. Crossing Scales - more detail ...... 21 9. An interim Key Habitats and Corridors map ...... 27 10. Weeds in the K2W ...... 37 11. Data package ...... 40 References ...... 43

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The K2W is part of the GER corridor identified in continental-scale spatial analysis ...... 3 Figure 2. The K2W study area ...... 4 Figure 3 Map of K2W within the context of larger scale connectivity initiatives across NSW. the K2W connects to the GER to the Western Woodland way which is an inland north-south corridor to queensland and to the darling riverine plains. From its western edge the K2W forms part of a westward corridor, and south to The ACT and back to the GER...... 7 Figure 4. Consolidate benefits in the K2W region showing a strong environmental gradient linking the Great Divide to the west. (Drielsma et al. in prep.)...... 8 Figure 5. Landscape features and human environment (drainage, localities, transport and other infrastructure, cadastre, SPOT imagery etc) ...... 10 Figure 6. Vegetation type and extent – including map and stats comparing with modelled natural distribution and fragmentation (patch size class) stats ...... 11 Figure 7 Tenure and property size ...... 13 Figure 8. Landuse ...... 15 Figure 9. Land and soil capability ...... 17 Figure 10. framework for undertaking the K2W cross-scale analysis and how that information will feed into a process for guideing conservation investment in the K2W...... 21 Figure 11. REMP outputs for GFS1 Dry species ...... 23 Figure 12. REMP outputs for GFS2 Wet species ...... 24 Figure 13. REMP outputs for Fox (Vulpes vulpes) ...... 25 Figure 14. enhanced cross-scale landscape value mapping (greyscale) shown with top 5% state scale manage benefits (blue) and improve/revegetate benefits (GREEN)...... 26 Figure 15. Combined Key Habitats and Corridors Map for K2W ...... 28 Figure 16. Focus Area 1 - Kanagra Connection Investment ARea ...... 29 Figure 17. FOCUS AREA 2 – Keverstone Corridors Investment area...... 30 Figure 18. FOCUS AREA 3 – ABercrombie CORRIDOR (East) INVESTMENT AREA ...... 31 Figure 19. FOCUS AREA 3 – ABERCROMBIE CORRIDOR (West) INVESTMENT AREA ...... 32 Figure 20. FOCUS AREA 4 – Copperhania CORRIDOR INVESTMENT AREA ...... 33 Figure 21. FOCUS AREA 4 – Wyangala Foreshores INVESTMENT AREA ...... 34 Figure 22. FOCUS AREA 5 – Collaborative Fox Control Investment Area ...... 35 Figure 23. FOCUS AREA 6 – Copperhania Connections Investment Area ...... 36

FIGURE 1. THE K2W IS PART OF THE GER CORRIDOR IDENTIFIED IN CONTINENTAL-SCALE SPATIAL ANALYSIS

1. BACKGROUND

The Office of Environment and Heritage has received a commitment of $2.716 million from the Australian Government’s Carbon Biodiversity Fund to establish a new landscape corridor project in the upper Lachlan Catchment (the Kanangra Boyd to Wyangala or ‘K2W’ Link project) as part of the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative (GER). The K2W study region lies across Lachlan and Hawkesbury-Nepean CMAs (see Figure 2).

The K2W project will develop and pilot innovative approaches that combine biodiversity and carbon benefits. It will deliver an integrated set of activities: private land agreements to provide carbon-biodiversity opportunities, landholder capacity building, targeted habitat rehabilitation and revegetation in identified project areas. Collaborative pest management activities will leverage partners’ involvement across tenures to suppress threats, avoid further spread and enhance functional connectivity through reduced pressures.

FIGURE 2. THE K2W STUDY AREA

Investment priorities will be influenced by ecological requirements, financial resources and community capacity for action. Development of a conservation investment priorities plan for the K2W landscape will integrate these considerations to guide project activities to June 2017.

This sub-project undertaken by the Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage Unit in OEH was established to develop and present analyses and interpretation on biodiversity assets, and their status and significance for investment, to assist implementation of the K2W project.

OEH and Lachlan CMA have previously undertaken a range of modelling projects to quantify NSW’s carbon and biodiversity stock, identify opportunities for improvement and ascribe relative value. The project will build on and refine these analyses to identify carbon at the State-wide level and within the GER, and provide a strategic framework for the regional assessment model being trialled in the K2W Link project area.

The objectives of the project were to:

• Develop mapping products to inform strategic NRM planning in the Kanangra Boyd to Wyangala (K2W) Link project area. • Provide expert advice on conservation planning analysis and communicate the principles underpinning the analysis methodology used by the Landscape Modelling and Decision Support Section in NSW OEH. • Liaise with relevant project partners to ensure the analyses are suitable to (a) complement biodiversity benefits data and contribute to development of landscape investment priorities, and (b) assist the development of a K2W Link investment and carbon opportunities strategy to maximise biodiversity outcomes from carbon investments including carbon farming credits and the Commonwealth Governments Carbon Biodiversity Fund.

2. WHAT WAS DONE

Over the course of the sub-project the following activities were undertaken:

Consultation with the K2W management and stakeholders to determine useful methodologies and products for implementing the K2W; Compilation of digital spatial data and mapping data; Fine-scale spatial-ecological analysis to develop new spatial products to improve the ability to identify important areas for the region’s native biota in terms of habitat requirements and cross-scale connectivity; Development of an polygon layer that synthesizes spatial analysis across scale with stakeholder input; Using new and existing data, the development of finished maps that communicate important biodiversity values with the K2W; A weeds assessment for the region; Preparation of data package of all new and existing data compiled in the sub-project including meta- data statements for key new datasets.

5 | P a g e

3. CROSSING SCALES

In this sub-project the ‘crossing-scales’ concept was applied to refer to the way in which GER and the spatial analysis that underpins it bridges the gap between large-scale processes such as migrations, evolution and range-shifts with actions on the ground such as revegetation, management of native vegetation and farm- management. Within the expanse of scales there are many species which communities strive to sustain as part of healthy ecosystems into the future and these also span a range of scales, individual to their species, as they undertake day-to-day foraging, the occasional dispersals or seasonal migrations.

The complexity inherent in the multitude of habitat requirements and spatial processes involved in the GER is too great to be comprehended or analysed in detail, so our approach has been to model the salient qualities of habitat and connectivity in a semi-generic way, using species groups and ecosystems as the biological entities for analysis rather than individual species. Also we assume common behaviour of species such as the following of least cost paths in their movement through habitat, while recognising that species have varying mobility and habitat requirements. As a guide we have adopted a framework to organise assessment across a range of scales (see Table 1)

As with many analysis of this sort, although we focus on species behaviours and habitat needs our analysis is really a species-centric landscape analysis whereby we attempt to describe and ‘design’ landscapes to improve their capacity to support biodiversity as a whole. In this work we don’t make conclusive assertions on the conservation status of individual species.

4. CROSSING SCALES - THE BIG PICTURE

The GER has undertaken continental-scale spatial analysis that has identified a number of smaller, contributing connectivity corridors across NSW of which the K2W is one. K2W, with its east-west string of reserves and the disected Abercrombrie valley acts as an important link between the main north-south spine of the Great Dividing Range (GDR) and habitat such as the Western Woodlands Way to the west (see Figure 3).

The statewide native vegetation benefits mapping (drielsma et al. 2013) has identified the much of the reserves and remaining vegetation within the region as contribution manage for conservation benefits in the top 5% of the state. The connections between the reserves and into the gdr is identified as being in the top 10% of consolidate areas in nsw, areas that connect existing large areas of vegetation (see landuse map, figure 4 and vegetation classes map, figure 6). As the landscape transitions into the grassy woodlands of the sheep- wheat belt (see Error! Reference source not found.) much of the unreserved western part of the K2W is within the top 5% of management, improve or revegetation benefits.

Overall this suggests a broad strategy of connecting the GDR to the WWW through a string of reserves along the Abercrombie river, as wwll as finding opportunities to protect and enhance the woodlands in the west.

6 | P a g e

FIGURE 3 MAP OF K2W WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF LARGER SCALE CONNECTIVITY INITIATIVES ACROSS NSW. THE K2W CONNECTS TO THE GER TO THE WESTERN WOODLAND WAY WHICH IS AN INLAND NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDOR TO QUEENSLAND AND TO THE DARLING RIVERINE PLAINS. FROM ITS WESTERN EDGE THE K2W FORMS PART OF A WESTWARD CORRIDOR, AND SOUTH TO THE ACT AND BACK TO THE GER.

1. THE K2W REGION The K2W analysis area covers 321,000ha of land within the Lachlan and Hawkesbury-Nepean CMA regions. This area stretches from Kanangra-Boyd and Blue Mountains NP’s in the east along the Abercrombie river valley to the rural villages of Wyangala and Darby Falls in the west (SEE MAPXXX). Approximately 64% of the analysis area is mapped as freehold land (205,000ha) (SEE MAP XXX TABLE XXX), 188,000ha of which consists of small to medium sized rural properties between 10ha and 1000ha. 1420 of these properties are smaller than 100ha with an average size of 38ha while 552 properties are greater than 100ha with an average size of 242ha.

Land across the analysis area is primarily managed for grazing purposes (45%). While land managed as conservation areas (27%), tree and shrub cover (25%) and river and drainage systems (2%) have higher proportional representations than across NSW in general (SEE MAP XXX TABLE XXX). 38130ha of the regions agricultural land is mapped as being managed beyond its capability (SEE MAP XXX). This includes land managed for grazing, cropping or horticultural purposes occurring within areas identified as being best retained under native vegetation or for conservation.

Approximately 67% of the analysis area is mapped as either existing or potential native vegetation. The analysis areas extant native vegetation consists primarily of 135,000ha of Dry Sclerophyll Forest and 46,000ha of Grassy Woodland types with 24,000ha of Wet Sclerophyll extending along the eastern ranges. NSW ATLAS

7 | P a g e contains records for 37 species of threatened fauna and 8 species of threatened flora occurring in the analysis area (SEE TABLE XXX). These records include 13 species of mammal, 20 species of bird, 3 species of Reptile and 1 species of Invertebrate.

FIGURE 4. CONSOLIDATE BENEFITS IN THE K2W REGION SHOWING A STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT LINKING THE GREAT DIVIDE TO THE WEST. (DRIELSMA ET AL. IN PREP.).

8 | P a g e

TABLE 1. A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING SCALE IN CONNECTIVITY CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT

9 | P a g e

FIGURE 5. LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT (DRAINAGE, LOCALITIES, TRANSPORT AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, CADASTRE, SPOT IMAGERY ETC)

10 | P a g e

FIGURE 6. VEGETATION TYPE AND EXTENT – INCLUDING MAP AND STATS COMPARING WITH MODELLED NATURAL DISTRIBUTION AND FRAGMENTATION (PATCH SIZE CLASS) STATS

11 | P a g e

Table 2 Original Extent information extracted from Keith NSW Veg V3, Current Extent derived by masking to Native Veg Extent as classified by 2008 NSW Native Vegetation Extent MODISfpc classification Original Current Extent Extent Proportion Formation Type (ha) (ha) Remaining Rainforests 246 245 99.59% Wet sclerophyll forests (Shrubby subformation) 199 159 79.90% Wet sclerophyll forests (Grassy subformation) 31622 26584 84.07% Grassy woodlands 103035 45968 44.61% Dry sclerophyll forests (Shrub/grass subformation) 38373 24946 65.01% Dry sclerophyll forests (Shrubby subformation) 137885 110850 80.39% Heathlands 272 272 100.00% Freshwater wetlands 431 320 74.25% Forested wetlands 6089 5045 82.85%

Table 3 Keith Class extent derived from Keith NSW Veg V3. Note: layer under predicts native vegetation extent, particularly more open canopy types Keith Vegetation Class Current Extent (ha) Central Gorge Dry Sclerophyll Forests 4740 Cleared 140944 Dry Rainforests 184 Eastern Riverine Forests 1192 Floodplain Transition Woodlands 40 Inland Floodplain Swamps 192 Inland Riverine Forests 4 Montane Bogs and Fens 228 South East Dry Sclerophyll Forests 14508 Southern Escarpment Wet Sclerophyll Forests 132 Southern Tableland Dry Sclerophyll Forests 89076 Southern Tableland Grassy Woodlands 14084 Southern Tableland Wet Sclerophyll Forests 25756 Subalpine Woodlands 44 Sydney Montane Heaths 312 Tableland Clay Grassy Woodlands 1176 Temperate Swamp Forests 3372 Upper Riverina Dry Sclerophyll Forests 15384 Western Slopes Dry Sclerophyll Forests 272 Western Slopes Grassy Woodlands 6420

c. Tenure

12 | P a g e

FIGURE 7 TENURE AND PROPERTY SIZE

13 | P a g e

Public Tenure

The region consists of ~116,000ha of land gazetted as public tenure (36%) and ~205,000ha of private freehold land (64%). ~76, 000ha or 65% of the regions public land is within the States reserve system managed as either National Park, Nature Reserve or State or Cast Conservation Area. The remaining 35% of public tenure consists of ~32,000ha of Crown Land, ~8,600ha of State Forest and ~350ha of Travelling Stock Reserves.

Private Tenure

~3,400ha of residential and rural properties smaller than 10ha make up just over 1.6% of the regions freehold land. 188,000 ha or 59% of the region is composed of small to medium sized rural properties between 10ha and 1000ha, This consists of 1420 properties smaller than 100ha with an average property size of 38ha and 552 properties greater than 100ha with an average property size of 242ha. Properties greater than 1000ha make up the remaining 4% of the region.

Table 4 Public tenure statistics derived from OEH Corporate Tenure datasets Area in Proportion of Proportion Public Tenure Region Public Tenure of Region National Park 60018.93 51.41% 18.87% Nature Reserve 10046.61 8.61% 3.16% State Conservation Area 3701.66 3.17% 1.16% Karst Conservation Area 2046.35 1.75% 0.64% State Forest 8662.05 7.42% 2.72% Travelling Stock Reserve 351.72 0.30% 0.11% Other Crown Land 31916.69 27.34% 10.03%

Table 5 Freehold property statistics derived from state wide property boundary dataset Number of Total Average Proportion Proportion Property Size Properties Area (ha) Area (ha) of Freehold of Region Residential (<1 ha) 1195 200.54 0.17 0.10% 0.06% Rural Res/Small Holdings (1-10 ha) 737 3200.74 4.34 1.56% 1.01% Small (10-100 ha) 1420 54085.64 38.09 26.33% 17.00% Medium (100-1000 ha) 552 134003.10 242.76 65.24% 42.13% Large (>1000 ha) 9 13899.05 1544.34 6.77% 4.37%

14 | P a g e

FIGURE 8. LANDUSE

15 | P a g e

Table 6 Extracted from NSW Landuse V1 updated with latest OEH corporate Tenure layer Area (ha) Proportion Proportion Proportion Land Use Class (NSW Major) in Region of Region of NSW Region > NSW Conservation Area 84618.98 26.60% 7.70% > Cropping 123.93 0.04% 9.05% < Grazing 143830.00 45.22% 77.81% < Horticulture 84.15 0.03% 0.07% < Intensive Animal Production 0.00 0% 0.00% < Mining & Quarrying 91.71 0.03% 0.06% < Power Generation 0.32 0.00% 0.00% < River & Drainage System 6665.79 2.10% 1.10% > Special Category 52.25 0.02% 0.08% < Transport & Other Corridors 924.11 0.29% 0.46% < Tree & Shrub Cover 81335.85 25.57% 3.28% > Urban 338.05 0.11% 0.25% < Wetland 10.48 0.00% 0.14% <

d. Geology / soils (as available)

16 | P a g e

FIGURE 9. LAND AND SOIL CAPABILITY

17 | P a g e

Area Proportion Land Capability Class (ha) of Region II - Suitable Regular Cultivation 385 0.12% III - Suitable Regular Cultivation 288 0.09% IV - Occasional Cultivation 35770 11.21% V - Occasional Cultivation 21606 6.77% VI - No Cultivation 87891 27.53% VII - Land best retained under native veg. 116069 36.36% VIII - Land managed for conservation purposes 19975 6.26% Other 37215 11.66%

f. Fire history and asset protection (as appropriate)

Fire Prescribed Area Wildfires Area Season burns (ha) (ha) 1968-1969 2 46588.01 1977-1978 1 233.70 1979-1980 1 161.09 1981-1982 1 144.07 1982-1983 1 4.26 1984-1985 1 3300.01 1985-1986 1 117.19 1986-1987 5 2183.91 4 976.33 1987-1988 2 9436.03 3 556.05 1989-1990 1 244.12 3 1572.01 1990-1991 1 764.65 2 191.63 1991-1992 4 1847.10 1992-1993 3 668.58 1993-1994 9 982.04 3 993.98 1995-1996 1 263.44 1996-1997 1 1297.20 1997-1998 2 22.82 1998-1999 4 26593.20 2000-2001 1 398.13 2 197.10 2001-2002 9 16674.18 2002-2003 2 502.32 2003-2004 5 1069.67 2004-2005 10 1210.45 1 151.55 2005-2006 1 215.37 1 1.68 2006-2007 1 196.15 4 18.04 2007-2008 10 3158.91 2008-2009 3 1199.22 1 5.84 2009-2010 4 1361.64 4 14.78 2010-2011 1 49.06 2012-2013 1 165.34 Only Wildfires recorded Only Prescribed burns recorded Both Wildfires and Prescribed burns recorded

g. Threatened species – priority populations, sites and habitat for landscape category species

37 species of threatened fauna recorded in the k2w region. These include 13 species of mammal, 20 species of bird, 3 species of Reptile and 1 species of Insect.

18 | P a g e

Threatened Species Records - Fauna Common Name Scientific Name Status Records Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum V,P,3 99 Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang V,P 93 Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea V,P 66 Eastern Bentwing-bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis V,P 43 Eastern False Pipistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis V,P 36 Powerful Owl Ninox strenua V,P,3 33 Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera V,P 32 Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies) Climacteris picumnus victoriae V,P 29 Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata V,P 24 Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus E1,P,2 23 Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis V,P 23 Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata E1,P 17 Greater Broad-nosed Bat Scoteanax rueppellii V,P 15 Hooded Robin (south-eastern form) Melanodryas cucullata cucullata V,P 13 Booroolong Frog Litoria booroolongensis E1,P 12 Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides V,P 11 Koala Phascolarctos cinereus V,P 8 Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus V,P 8 Speckled Warbler Chthonicola sagittata V,P 7 Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri V,P 6 Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia E4A,P 6 Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern subspecies) Melithreptus gularis gularis V,P 4 Giant Dragonfly Petalura gigantea E1 3 Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla V,P 3 Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella V,P,3 3 Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami V,P,2 2 Rosenberg's Goanna Varanus rosenbergi V,P 2 Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis V,P 2 Tasmanian Bettong Bettongia gaimardi E4,P 2 Eastern Freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis V,P 1 Eastern Pygmy-possum Cercartetus nanus V,P 1 Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa V,P 1 Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned Babbler (eastern subspecies) temporalis V,P 1 Little Bentwing-bat Miniopterus australis V,P 1 Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae V,P,3 1 Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta V,P 1 Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii V,P,3 1

13 Mammal species 20 Bird species 3 Reptile species 1 Invertebrate species

19 | P a g e

2. STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

Three planning workshops were undertaken at the Oberon office of Parks and Wildlife on the 16th August 2012, the 18th December 2012, and on the 25th March 2013. The workshops were attended by project delivery partners comprising staff from Lachlan CMA; OEH Operations, PWD and Science; and representatives from interested researchers and community groups.

In the initial workshop the stakeholders were familiarized with the project and introduced to the spatial analysis project and to consider the mapping and spatial analysis that would be useful in completing and implementing the plan.

a. Initial planning workshop to identify assets, objectives and threats b. Follow-up workshop to present modelled outputs and assist development of targets and priorities c. Presentation to reference group or other workshop as required d. As part of the workshop a set of focus areas within the broader K2W study area were identified, which became the focus for futher investigation. They were named: 1. Kanangra connections 2. Abercrombie corridor 3. Keverstone corridors 4. Copperhania corridor 5. Wyangala foreshores 6. Collaborative fox contral 7. Copperhania connections

(see Figure 14)

Discussions within the workshops highlighted the importance of managing invasive species in the K2W, especially in the less managed rugged parts of the region and in the more managed western parts where foxes were an issue.

Also the value of mapping the size of rural holdings was identified as a way of gaining insight into the type of farm activity e.g. commercial versus peri-urban lifestyle, and therefore provide insights into appropriate engagement strategies across the K2W. This information is shown in Error! Reference source not found..

3. TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR SPATIAL PRIORITISATION FOR THE K2W

Following discussions within the workshops, a framework was developed for spatial prioritisation in the K2W that incorporated identified important state-wide, big-picture areas with finer-scale connectivity assessment based on Generic Focal Species (Doerr et al. 2013) and a model of fox, and by incorporating what information could be collated on invasive species for the area (see Figure 10).

20 | P a g e

FIGURE 10. FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERTAKING THE K2W CROSS-SCALE ANALYSIS AND HOW THAT INFORMATION WILL FEED INTO A PROCESS FOR GUIDEING CONSERVATION INVESTMENT IN THE K2W.

4. CROSSING SCALES - MORE DETAIL

A fine-scale landscape analysis was undertaken using the REMP methodology and software (Drielsma and Ferrier 2009). REMP synthesises metapopulation ecological theory (Hanski 1999, Hanski and Ovaskainen 2000) with landscape ecology’s concern with landscape variegation (Turner 1989, McIntyre and Barrett 1992)

REMP was originally designed to produce two outputs for each entity:

1. a continuous surface of predicted occupancy, and

2. an estimate of the region’s metapopulation capacity (MPC).

Occupancy mapping is a spatial probability surface where each raster gridcell is attributed with the probability of the species occupying that location subject to the quality and distribution of habitat and the habitat preferences and movement abilities, for home-range and dispersal, of the entity.

In this project a new approach to mapping fine-scale habitat linkages was introduced which maps REMP entity movements between each gridcell and its neighbourhood, thus alligning very closely the modelling of habitat links with the ecology of targetl organisms.

This new ‘REMP links’ approach was applied to two Generic Focal Species (GFS) groups (a ‘wet’ forest group and a ‘dry’ forest/woodland group) and for the fox (Vulpes vulpes), a pest species in the area. These entities were developed and parameterised for REMP by CSIRO ecologists in consulation with OEH (Doerr et al. 2013).

The mapped results for REMP analysis are shown in Figure 11 (Dry),Figure 12 (Wet) and Figure 13 (Fox).

21 | P a g e

The wet and dry entity outputs were combined with the coarse-scale Landscape Value mapping to produce an enhanced cross-scale connectivity layer in accordance with the framework provided in Table 1 (see Figure 14). The REMP analysis for fox concorded with the findings of the workshop process that fox control in the western part of the study region (area 6 in Figure 14) was of particular concern. The actual linkages relavent to the fox were not of use as fox movements were found to be spread across all cleared parts of the region.

22 | P a g e

Figure 11. REMP outputs for GFS1 Dry species

23 | P a g e

FIGURE 12. REMP OUTPUTS FOR GFS2 WET SPECIES

24 | P a g e

FIGURE 13. REMP OUTPUTS FOR FOX (Vulpes vulpes)

25 | P a g e

FIGURE 14. ENHANCED CROSS-SCALE LANDSCAPE VALUE MAPPING (GREYSCALE) SHOWN WITH TOP 5% STATE SCALE MANAGE BENEFITS (BLUE) AND IMPROVE/REVEGETATE BENEFITS (GREEN).

26 | P a g e

5. AN INTERIM KEY HABITATS AND CORRIDORS MAP

Figure 15 and the following maps show an interim synthesise of all elements of the spatial analysis into a single Key Habitats and Corridors (KHC) map (with a zoomed in map for each focus area) to begin the task of guiding investment in the region using the spatial analysis. It is acknowledged that within a process of synthesising these various attributes, information presently unavailable is not incorporated and other information is lost in the process. The map should be viewed as a starting point and a point for further discussion, not a conclusion.

In the map, areas of potential conservation interest are contained within polygons with well defined boundaries based on the following criteria (in order of precedence in the map):

TABLE 7. LEGEND AND EXPLANATION OF THE KHC MAP

MAP NAME INCLUDES Managing remaining examples of highly Top 5% of state-wide NVM manage benefits cleared vegetation types

Improving or increasing the area of highly Top 5% of state-wide NVM improve or cleared vegetation types revegetate benefits

Consolidation existing vegetation in good Top 10% of state-wide NVM consolidate condition benefits

Maintaining fauna habitat and protecting Areas of greater than 50% occupancy for either existing populations Wet or Dry GFS

Improving local connectivity and reducing Areas mostly delineated on the basis of the

fragmentation enhanced landscape value analysis

In the process of producing the map, the following actions or decisions were made:

Identified areas are contained within focus areas arising from the stakeholder workshop process; Where coarse-scale analysis had inadvertently identified pine plantations as areas of interest, these were identified using SPOT imagery and adjusted; Small polygons (less than 4 ha), essentially artifacts of the coarse-scale analysis, were removed; Areas identified in category 5 were guided mostly by the enhanced landscape value mapping but also wherever possible incorporated areas of high complementarity value as defined by the Marginal Biodiversity Value grid produced in the state-wide assessment (described as Mi in Drielsma et al. 2013), as well as riparian areas. Delineation of Class 5 areas within Class 3 was not undertaken as within these areas there are no obvious preferred areas for revegetation. More detailed planning in these areas would be worthwhile.

27 | P a g e

FIGURE 15. COMBINED KEY HABITATS AND CORRIDORS MAP FOR K2W

28 | P a g e

FIGURE 16. FOCUS AREA 1 - KANAGRA CONNECTION INVESTMENT AREA

29 | P a g e

FIGURE 17. FOCUS AREA 2 – KEVERSTONE CORRIDORS INVESTMENT AREA

30 | P a g e

FIGURE 18. FOCUS AREA 3 – ABERCROMBIE CORRIDOR (EAST) INVESTMENT AREA

31 | P a g e

FIGURE 19. FOCUS AREA 3 – ABERCROMBIE CORRIDOR (WEST) INVESTMENT AREA

32 | P a g e

FIGURE 20. FOCUS AREA 4 – COPPERHANIA CORRIDOR INVESTMENT AREA

33 | P a g e

FIGURE 21. FOCUS AREA 4 – WYANGALA FORESHORES INVESTMENT AREA

34 | P a g e

FIGURE 22. FOCUS AREA 5 – COLLABORATIVE FOX CONTROL INVESTMENT AREA

35 | P a g e

FIGURE 23. FOCUS AREA 6 – COPPERHANIA CONNECTIONS INVESTMENT AREA

36 | P a g e

6. WEEDS IN THE K2W

Since many weeds in NSW listed as Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) have a widespread distribution, they are unlikely to be eradicated. Thus, management strategies must focus on reducing the current impacts to biological assets, rather than actions solely associated with eradication, prevention, reducing spread, or improving control techniques. A threat abatement plan (TAP) approach has been used to identify and prioritize widespread weeds impacting on biological assets and sites for weed control within each CMA region in New South Wales (NSW Department of Primary Industries and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2011).

TABLE 8. THE TABLE BELOW SHOWS A LIST OF HIGH IMPACT WEEDS PRESENT IN THESE TWO CMAS BASED ON THEIR HIGH IMPACT ON ENDANGERED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES (EECS), NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA. NAMES IN BOLD REPRESENT WEEDS WHICH ARE WIDESPREAD AND HAVE HIGHEST IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF EECS, FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES THAT THEY AFFECT.

Weed Scientific Name Weed Common Name

Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine, Lamb's Tail, Jalap, Potato Vine Araujia sericifera Moth Vine / Mothplant Arctotheca calendula Capeweed Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus 'Fern', Sprengeri Fern Asparagus asparagoides Bridal creeper Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon vine Cestrum parqui Green Cestrum, Willow Leaved Jessamine Delairea odorata Cape Ivy Echium plantagineum Paterson’s Curse Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass Hypericum perforatum St John's Wort Ligustrum lucidum Broad-leaf privet Ligustrum sinense Narrow-leaf privet, Chinese privet Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Lycium ferocissimum African Boxhorn Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle Grass Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass Tussock Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African Olive Rubus fruticosus Blackberry Salix spp. Willows Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew Xanthium occidentale Noogoora Burr Xanthium spinosum Bathurst Burr

37 | P a g e

TABLE 9. IMPACTS ON NATIVE PLANT SPECIES. THE TABLE SHOWS THE NUMBER OF NATIVE PLANT SPECIES IMPACTED BY EACH WEED (THIS DATA IS FROM HN CMA ONLY). NAMES IN BOLD REPRESENT WEEDS WHICH IMPACT FIVE OR MORE NATIVE PLANT SPECIES.

Weed Scientific Name Weed Common Name No. of native plant species impacted Acer negundo Box-elder Maple 3 Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass 1 Araujia sericifera Moth Vine / Mothplant 1 Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus 'Fern', Sprengeri Fern 2 Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Florist's Smilax 1 Buddleja davidii Buddleja, Butterfly Bush 2 Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon vine 3 Cestrum parqui Green Cestrum 1 Chloris gayana Rhodes grass 1 Crocosmia X crocosmiiflora montbretia 2 Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom, Broom, English Broom 1 Delairea odorata Cape Ivy 2 Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass 7 Erica lusitanica Spanish Heath 3 Erigeron karvinskianus Bony-tip Fleabane, seaside daisy 4 Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust 2 Hedera helix English Ivy 1 Ilex aquifolium English Holly, Common Holly 1 Ipomoea indica Blue Morning Glory 3 Ipomoea purpurea Common morning glory 4 Juncus articulatus Joint rush 1 Juncus microcephalus South American Rush 1 Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye Daisy 2 Leycesteria formosa Himalaya Honeysuckle 1 Ligustrum lucidum Broad-leaf privet 5 Ligustrum sinense Narrow-leaf privet, Chinese privet 6 Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 6 Ludwigia peruviana Ludwigia / Peruvian Water Primrose 2 Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw creeper 2 Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle Grass 4 Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass Tussock 3 Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African Olive 6 Phyllostachys aurea Rhizomatous bamboo, Fishpole Bamboo 2 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 1 Rubus fruticosus Blackberry 6 Salix spp. Willow 2 Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew 3 Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze 3

38 | P a g e

TABLE 10. IMPACTS ON NATIVE FAUNA. THE TABLE SHOWS THE NUMBER OF NATIVE PLANT SPECIES IMPACTED BY EACH WEED (THIS DATA IS FROM HN CMA ONLY). NAMES IN BOLD REPRESENT WEEDS WHICH IMPACT FIVE OR MORE NATIVE FAUNA SPECIES.

Weed Scientific Name Weed Common Name No. of native fauna species impacted Acer negundo Box-elder Maple 3 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven 1 Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed 3 Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass 2 Arundo donax Spanish Reed, Giant Reed, Elephant 2 grass Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus 'Fern', Sprengeri Fern 3 Berberis aristata Nepal barberry 2 Buddleja davidii Buddleja, Butterfly Bush 2 Cestrum parqui Green Cestrum 3 Crocosmia X crocosmiiflora montbretia 2 Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom, Broom, English Broom 3 Delairea odorata Cape Ivy 4 Echium plantagineum Paterson’s Curse 1 Egeria densa Egeria 2 Eichornia crassipes Water Hyacinth 2 Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass 5 Erica lusitanica Spanish Heath 2 Genista monspessulana Montpellier broom, French broom, cape 1 broom Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust 1 Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 1 Hypericum spp. Tutsan 3 Ilex aquifolium English Holly, Common Holly 2 Ipomoea indica Blue Morning Glory 3 Ipomoea purpurea Common morning glory 2 Juncus articulatus Joint rush 2 Juncus microcephalus South American Rush 2 Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye Daisy 2 Leycesteria formosa Himalaya Honeysuckle 2 Ligustrum lucidum Broad-leaf privet 5 Ligustrum sinense Narrow-leaf privet, Chinese privet 5 Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 3 Ludwigia peruviana Ludwigia / Peruvian Water Primrose 2 Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw creeper 1 Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle Grass 1 Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass Tussock 1 Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African Olive 1 Pinus radiata Radiata Pine, Monterey Pine 3 Prunus Cherry Laurel 2 Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 2 Salix spp. Willow 4 Salvinia molesta Salvinia 2 Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew 2 Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze 2 Vinca major Blue Periwinkle, Greater Periwinkle 1

39 | P a g e

7. DATA PACKAGE The data package contains products generated during the project as well as the final technical report describing the techniques used to generate the products. The sections below describe in detail how the data package is organized:

1. Connectivity Modelling

(a) LV REMP Combined

The connectivity for all generic focal species were combined into a single entity independent connectivity model across the region. A regional connectivity model was produced from this by combining it with LV mapping (lv_remp_comb).

(b) REMP (Connectivity Models for Individual Generic Focal Species)

There are outputs from the connectivity modelling part of the project which contains grids for each of the generic focal species showing areas or paths of connectivity between and from areas of high occupancy potential through the surrounding landscape matrix.

2. K2W Boundary

Contains shape file of study region boundary with and without buffer.

3. K2W KHC Map

This folder contains the key habitats and corridors map for the study region.

4. K2W Meeting 2 Maps

Contains PDF format maps produced for the second workshop:

(a) Base map of study region showing property boundaries, TSRs, NPWS Estates, State Forests and Crown Tenure regions.

(b) Native Vegetation map showing “manage” and “improve” areas in the study region.

5. Population

Contains population data for the study region in 2001 and 2011.

6. Rapid Evaluation of Metapopulation Persistence (REMP) Modelling

This folder contains all the outputs from the REMP modelling of generic focal species.

40 | P a g e

(a) Crossgrids

Generated for REMP modelling. These are a combination of land-use and vegetation (with and without buffer)

(b) Habitat Fauna Tables

Expert derived parameter tables for the generic focal species that were modelled with REMP.

Land-use dataset for the study region with and without buffer that was used to generate the crossgrid for use in REMP modelling.

(d) Mask

Region mask of the study area with and without buffer for use in REMP.

(e) Modelling Results

(i) Grids

REMP models for each generic focal species.

The habitat value grid (h_1) is located in: …..\R\HR\.... for each generic focal species.

For example, habitat value grid for generic focal species F01 will be located in: ………F01\R\HR\h_1

The occupancy grid (f01_occ) is located in: …..\R\MH\.... for each generic focal species.

For example, occupancy grid for generic focal species F01 will be located in:

………F01\R\MH\f01_occ1

These are provided both with and without buffer.

(ii) JPEGS

These are jpegs of the REMP models showing habitat and occupancy for each generic focal species.

(f) Vegetation

Vegetation dataset for the study region with and without buffer that was used to generate the crossgrid for use in REMP modelling.

7. Tenure

Contains all the property, cadastre, crown estate, NPWS estate and TSR shape files.

8. Threatened Fauna and Flora

41 | P a g e

Contains shape files of threatened fauna and flora sites.

9. Weeds Related Data

Contains lists of widespread weeds and the endangered ecological communities that they impact.

Also has layer showing Biodiversity Priority for Widespread Weeds (BPWW) layers and weeds state-wide framework document.

Also contains a brief report on the most widespread weeds in the study area that has been identified from catchment management authority (Lachlan and Hawkesbury-Nepean) weeds data.

10. Workshop 3

Contains shape files of the priority areas identified from the third workshop.

11. Native Vegetation Mapping (NVM)

For data on native vegetation mapping (NVM), see the following website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research/AncillaryVegetationProductsDataInventory.ht m

12. Vegetation Condition

For information on vegetation condition mapping, see the following website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research/AncillaryVegetationProductsDataInventory.ht m

For further details and to obtain data, contact:

Michael Drielsma

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage,

Rm 302 Level 3 Natural Resources Building (W55),

University of New England 2351 [email protected]

Ph +61 2 67734524

42 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Doerr, V. A. J., K. J. Williams, M. Drielsma, E. D. Doerr, M. J. Davies, J. Love, A. Langston, S. L. Choy, G. Manion, E. M. Cawsey, H. M. McGinness, T. Jovanovic, D. Crawford, M. P. Austin, and S. Ferrier. 2013. The architecture of resilient landscapes: scenario modelling to reveal best-practice landscape designs. A report prepared for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. CSIRO, Canberra.

Drielsma, M. J. and S. Ferrier. 2009. Rapid evaluation of metapopulation persistence in highly variable landscapes. Biological Conservation 142:529-540.

Drielsma, M. J., G. Howling, and J. Love. 2013. NSW Native Vegetation Management Benefits Analyses - technical report. Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW), Sydney.

Fox, M. D. 1991. The natural vegetation of the Ana Branch-Mildura 1:250 000 map sheet (New South Wales). Cunninghamia 2:443-493.

Hanski, I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209-219.

Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755- 758.

McIntyre, S. and G. W. Barrett. 1992. Habitat Variegation, An Alternative to Fragmentation. Conservation Biology 6:146-147.

NSW Department of Primary Industries and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. 2011. Biodiversity priorities for widespread weeds. Report prepared for the 13 Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) by NSW Department of Primary Industries and Office of Environment & Heritage. Orange.

Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape Ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171-197.

43 | P a g e