Regional Bird Monitoring Annual Report 2019

1 | P a g e

BirdLife Australia (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union) was founded in 1901 and works to conserve native birds and biological diversity in Australasia and Antarctica, through the study and management of birds and their habitats, and the education and involvement of the community.

BirdLife Australia produces a range of publications, including Emu, a quarterly scientific journal; Wingspan, a quarterly magazine for all members; Conservation Statements; BirdLife Australia Monographs; the BirdLife Australia Report series; and the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. It also maintains a comprehensive ornithological library and several scientific databases covering bird distribution and biology.

Membership of BirdLife Australia is open to anyone interested in birds and their habitats, and concerned about the future of our avifauna. For further information about membership, subscriptions and database access, contact

BirdLife Australia 60 Leicester Street, Suite 2-05 Carlton VIC 3053 Australia Tel: (Australia): (03) 9347 0757 Fax: (03) 9347 9323 (Overseas): +613 9347 0757 Fax: +613 9347 9323 E-mail: [email protected]

Recommended citation: BirdLife Australia (2020). Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report 2019- 20. Unpublished report prepared by D.G. Quin, B. Clarke-Wood, C. Purnell and A. Silcocks for Melbourne Water by BirdLife Australia, Carlton.

This report was prepared by BirdLife Australia under contract to Melbourne Water.

Disclaimers This publication may be of assistance to you and every effort has been undertaken to ensure that the information presented within is accurate. BirdLife Australia does not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, the Federal Minister for Environment and Heritage, the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage, or the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board.

This report is prepared without prejudice to any negotiated or litigated outcome of any native title determination applications covering land or waters within the plan's area. It is acknowledged that any future outcomes of native title determination applications may necessitate amendment of this report; and the implementation of this plan may require further notifications under the procedures in Division 3 Part 2 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth).

Published by BirdLife Australia, Suite 2–05, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia.

This report was prepared by: D.G. Quin, B. Clarke-Wood, C. Purnell and A. Silcocks.

Cover photos: Purple Swamphen (bottom), Olinda Creek willow removal site (top). Chris Purnell.

2 | P a g e

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the many people and organisations who gave their time and energy, and shared information to assist this project. Without their help this project would not have been possible.

Firstly, we would like to thank Melbourne Water for funding this project. We also wish to thank Dr William Steele for his continued support, leadership, ideas and assistance with organisation throughout the project. We would like to thank the many operations staff that have made themselves available for site visits, offered advice and support.

We also wish to thank Zac Billingham from GHD for continuous advice and support throughout the project. Simon Harrow from GHD also assisted at various times throughout the year.

We would like to acknowledge the cooperation of Park Victoria for permission in allowing access to Fitzgerald Road Grasslands and Andersons Lake, Yaruk Tamboore, Murunduka Swamp, Bolin Bolin Billabong, Cheetham Saltfields, Braeside Park and RAAF Lake and for sharing their valuable knowledge on site management and access.

We would like to thank the hundreds of Birdata observers who continue to contribute time, experience and advice to the project including: BirdLife Melbourne, BirdLife Bayside, BirdLife Mornington Peninsula, BirdLife Bass Coast, the Victorian Wader Study Group, Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek, Bend of Isles Conservation Association, Friends of Merri Creek, Friends of Darebin Parklands, Friends of Morang Wetlands, Friends of Blind Creek, Friends of Salt Creek and Associated Parks, Friends of Westgate Park, Friends of Braeside Park, Friends of Yarra Valley Parkland, Friends of Burke Road Billabong.

We would like to give a special thank you to Mike Carter, Dawn Neylan, Alison Kuiter, David Stabb, Alan Stringer, Andrew McCutcheon, Bob Brinkman, Sonja Frei, Brett Neylan, Sue Neylan, Leanne Reid, Susan Telfer, Chris Tzaros, Sean Dooley, Denise Pilkington, Susan Lycetts, Ricardo Simao, Jacqui Simao, Judy Smart, Roger Standen, Lee Denis, Leanne Harris, Neil Shelley, Scot Sharman, Alison Nisbett, Bill Ramsay, Shirley Ramsay, Sally Heeps, Brian Johnston, Bob Rogers, David McCarthy, Ken Harris, Phil Hughes, Paul Handreck, Sue Charles, Ken Haines, Peter Jenkins, Laurance Beesly, Rachel Potter, Anat Efron, Ruxandra Borsaru, Frank Pierce, Mal Chicksen, Gavin Masters, Warren Tomlinson, Katy Marriot, Sarah Gaskill, Anna Lanigan, Claire Hocking, Andrea Fullagar, Frank Kinnersley, David Pool, Elva Muir, Geoff Russell, Graeme Horskins, Graeme Hosken, Phil Bennett, Phillip West, Clem Thompson, Ian Muir, Jeni Bedin, John Bosworth, Margaret Bosworth, Don Redman, Robert Grosvenor, Kay Taranto, Marta Slawuta, Mike Wotton, Pat Bingham, Robert Wright, Roger Needham, Inta Needham, Ruth Akie, Sheena Whyte, Steve Ramsey, Tania Ireton, Diane Peters, Ian Langdon, Margaret Langdon, Brendan McDonald, Arthur Carew, Denise Carew, Tanya Hattingh, Geoff Freeman, Debbie Lustig, Terry Harwood, Val Willis, Elise Tiedgen, Beau Tiedgen, Joris Driessen, Mike Tarburton, Stanley Barker, Andrew Lucas, Joy Hick, Barrie Taylor, Clive Edington, David Ford, Anne Pitkethly, Victor Poke and everyone else who has collected data for this project over the past 17 years for their continued coordination and survey efforts.

3 | P a g e

Contents Acknowledgements ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 7 Melbourne Water Works Evaluations ...... 7 Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation ...... 7 Olinda Creek Works Evaluation ...... 8 Monbulk Creek Works Evaluation ...... 8 Recommendation for Streamside Works Sites ...... 9 Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and Streamside Bird Monitoring ...... 9 Regional Bird Monitoring Program Recommendations ...... 10 1) Introduction ...... 11 2) Melbourne Water Works Evaluation - Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Willow Removal Evaluation...... 12 Methods ...... 12 Site Selection and Identification ...... 12 Survey Techniques ...... 18 Minimum Survey Number...... 18 Data Analysis ...... 18 Results ...... 20 Number of surveys and number of species ...... 20 Species Accumulation Curves ...... 20 Riparian Bird Indices ...... 20 Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses ...... 28 Community Composition Analyses ...... 35 Discussion ...... 39 Recommendation ...... 43 3) Melbourne Water Works Evaluation - Olinda Creek Willow Removal Evaluation ...... 45 Methods ...... 45 Site Selection and Identification ...... 45 Survey Techniques ...... 46 Minimum Survey Number...... 47 Data Analysis ...... 47 Results ...... 48 Number of surveys and number of species ...... 48 Species Accumulation Curves ...... 48 Riparian Bird Indices ...... 48 Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses ...... 52 Community Composition Analyses ...... 57 Discussion ...... 60

4 | P a g e

Recommendations ...... 63 4) Monbulk Creek Works Evaluation ...... 64 Methods ...... 64 Site Selection and Identification ...... 64 Survey Techniques ...... 65 Minimum Survey Number...... 66 Data Analysis ...... 66 Results ...... 67 Number of surveys and number of species ...... 67 Species Accumulation Curves ...... 67 Riparian Bird Indices ...... 68 Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses ...... 71 Community Composition Analyses ...... 76 Discussion ...... 79 Recommendations ...... 80 5) Summary of 2019/2020 of Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Program ...... 81 Methods ...... 81 Study area ...... 81 Melbourne Water Surveys ...... 89 Data Selection ...... 89 Species Selection ...... 90 Bird Summary Statistics for Melbourne Water Priority Wetlands and Streamside Sites ...... 90 Listed Species ...... 91 Results ...... 91 Survey coverage ...... 91 Catchment Summaries ...... 92 Maribyrnong Catchment ...... 98 Werribee Catchment ...... 100 Western Port Catchment ...... 103 Yarra Catchment ...... 105 Western Treatment Plant ...... 111 Summary of 2019/2020 Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Program ...... 114 Factors Affecting Bird Data ...... 115 Recommendations ...... 115 6) Management Engagement ...... 117 7) References ...... 121 Appendix 1. Riparian bird species recorded at the different treatments of Melbourne Water’s Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Work Sites (and their guilds)...... 126 Appendix 2. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek...... 130

5 | P a g e

Appendix 3. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek...... 132 Appendix 4. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek...... 135 Appendix 5. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek...... 136 Appendix 6. List of Bird Species recorded for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. 137 Appendix 7. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek...... 139 Appendix 8. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek...... 140 Appendix 9. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek...... 141 Appendix 10. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek...... 142 Appendix 11. List of bird Species recorded during the Monbulk Creek Willow Works Evaluation surveys. .. 143 Appendix 12. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek...... 145 Appendix 13. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek...... 146 Appendix 14. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek...... 148 Appendix 15. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek...... 149 Appendix 16. Wetland bird species...... 150 Appendix 17. Sites that were not surveyed during 2019/2020...... 154

6 | P a g e

Executive Summary The 2019/2020 report for the Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring (MWRBM) project is the second prepared under the 2018 Healthy Waterways Strategy. The 2019/2020 report had five project components each with a separate objective:

1. To undertake separate evaluations of three Melbourne Water Works projects involving Willow (Salix spp.) removal located at Plenty River/Arthurs Creek, Olinda Creek and Monbulk Creek; 2. Provide summary statistics of bird survey data collected at Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands for the 2019/2020 year; and 3. Provide summary statistics of bird survey data collected at Melbourne Water’s streamside sites for the 2019/2020 year. Melbourne Water Works Evaluations

Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation The Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation investigated bird values/indices across four experimental treatments. Sixteen sites covering four treatments and four replicates each were identified in 2012. The number of sites/replicates for each treatment used after access issues comprised:

• Control sites supporting remnant (native) vegetation with two replicates; • Sites where Willows had been removed > 18 years ago with four replicates; • Sites where Willows had been removed < 18 years ago with three replicates; and • Sites where Willows and Poplars continue to dominate the vegetation with three replicates. The sites were surveyed up to eight times a year from April 2014 to July 2020. Remnant native vegetation and Willows removed/revegetation (> 18 years) supported higher Species Richness than the Willows removed/revegetation (< 18 years) and Willow infested sites, although not significantly so according to Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons following a Two-Way ANOVA. This contrasts with other studies comparing remnant vegetation and Willow-infested areas, where species richness has been found to be higher in remnant vegetation. However, Season produced a statistically significant effect with Spring–Summer supporting higher Species Richness than Autumn–Winter. Therefore, the Autumn–Winter species resident at sites are augmented by Spring–Summer migrants. Furthermore, the increased availability of arthropods that generally occurs during warmer months may support more species. In contrast to Species Richness, Treatment produced a statistically significant effect on Bird Abundances. Remnant vegetation and Willow infested sites were significantly different in terms of Bird Abundance. Remnant native vegetation and sites with willows removed with revegetation > 18 years ago supported the highest bird abundances. The two ‘older’ treatments support higher abundances of birds, which concurs with previous findings that native riparian vegetation supports higher bird abundances than willow-infested areas. A higher abundance of birds has been attributed to native tree species supporting more foliage and branch-dwelling arthropods, than willows. Community Composition Analyses (CCA) revealed that some species were most abundant in remnant vegetation which is thought to indicate a preference for riparian forest elements provided by ‘older’ native vegetation that are not as available in Willow-infested areas, and take time to

7 | P a g e develop when replenished with revegetation. Such elements include a higher abundances of tree hollows, flowering trees and shrubs and an abundance of foliage.

Olinda Creek Works Evaluation The Olinda Creek Works Evaluation investigated one site each from three treatments: • a site which was dominated by Willows until about mid-2018, then Willows were removed from one bank, but not the opposite bank (initially intended to retain all willows for comparison with the other two sites and termed ‘Willow-dominated’); • a site at which Willows were to be removed in stages, at which removal of some weeds occurred in preparation for Willow removal, but Willow removal never occurred (i.e. termed ‘Staged Willows Removal’); and • a site from which Willows had been fully removed in 2012 (i.e. Willows Removed). The sites were surveyed from June 2013 to January 2020. The preliminary results indicate that all indices relating to native bird species (Total and Mean Number of Native Species, Total and Mean Conservation Score and Total Number and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds) highest for the Willows Removed Site and lowest for the Willow-dominated Site. Species Richness for the Willows Removed Site was significantly different to the Willow-dominated and Willows Staged Removal Sites according to a Two-Way ANOVA and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons. Analyses also indicated that the Willows Removed Site supported significantly higher bird abundance than the Willow-dominated and Staged Removal Sites. Thus, the evaluation indicated that the Willows Removed Site is in better condition than either the Staged Removal (without willows ever having been removed) or Willow-dominated site. This is consistent with previous studies indicating that native riparian vegetation supports higher bird diversity and abundance than willow-infested areas because native tree species have more foliage and branch-dwelling arthropods.

Monbulk Creek Works Evaluation Two sites along Monbulk Creek supported different treatments: • a site supporting remnant vegetation where no Willows occurred (an ‘Upstream Control Site’); and • a site at which Willows had been removed (i.e. Willows Removed/Works Site). The sites were surveyed from March 2014 to July 2020.

The Two-way ANOVA for Monbulk Creek indicated that Site did not result in a significant effect or interaction on Species Richness or Species Abundance; the remnant vegetation site and Willows Removed Site were not statistically different in terms of Species Richness or Abundance. However, Season did result in a significant effect or interaction on Species Richness and Species Abundance, and both were higher during Spring-Summer than Autumn-Winter.

A key finding from CCA, that is supported by previous studies was that the Red-browed Finch was only recorded at the remnant vegetation site, indicating seed supply must have been higher at the Upstream Control site. Granivorous birds are significantly reduced in abundance in willow infested areas as stands of willows suppress the growth of sedges, grasses and herbs. It is likely that these seed producing species had not replenished in the revegetated site following Willow removal.

8 | P a g e

CCA also identified that Bark Foragers were most abundant at the Upstream Control Site, suggesting that the remnant vegetation supported a higher abundance of native tree (e.g. eucalypt, wattles) and shrub species than the Works Site. A previous study also found that bark-probing birds were virtually absent from willow infested areas, which was attributed to native tree species having more branch dwelling arthropods, than willows.

Recommendation for Streamside Works Sites • Melbourne Water continues to monitor the Waterway Works sites to look at changes in the avian communities in the longer-term; • The treatments are supplemented by more sites to either balance the study design (Plenty River and Arthurs Creek evaluation) or provide more replicates (Olinda Creek and Monbulk Creek); • A set of habitat variables are determined and measured at the sites to facilitate interpretation of the results; • Melbourne Water establish photopoint monitoring at the sites in order to document changes in vegetation structure; • For the work evaluation sites, develop a plan to overcome accessibility issues; and • Consider investigating bird community dynamics through analysing differences and changes in rank abundance curves (see Avolio et al. 2019). Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and Streamside Bird Monitoring To provide spatial context, the 118 sites surveyed during 2019/2020, comprising 64 wetlands and 54 streamside sites were allocated to the five major catchments identified previously: Dandenong (33 Sites); Maribyrnong (six sites); Werribee (11 sites); Western Port (10 sites); and Yarra (52 Sites). The Western Treatment Plant (WTP) was assessed separately to the five catchments owing to its complexity, with six wetland systems comprising two habitat lagoons, three habitat ponds and one operational pond being identified based on operational requirements.

Catchment Wetlands Streamside Sites

No. sites No. surveys No. sites No. surveys

Dandenong 27 226 6 35 Maribyrnong 3 5 3 26 Werribee 4 10 7 37 Western Port 6 44 4 17 Yarra 18 85 34 353 Western Treatment Plant 6 (systems) 43 - - Total 64 413 54 468

As found previously, Category A (Ramsar) Sites supported the most significant wetland bird communities during 2019/2020 in terms of high diversities and abundances of wetland bird species and high numbers of threatened species, including international migratory species. These are Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, Western Port Bay Ramsar Sites and some systems of the WTP, such as T- Section Lagoon and Western Lagoon, and Cheetham Saltfields, which are components of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site. High diversities and abundances of wetland bird species and continued presence of key species at the Ramsar sites reflect the

9 | P a g e management efforts of Melbourne Water at these sites to provide appropriate water supplies/flow regimes and habitat structure (e.g. open areas for shorebird foraging).

The Eastern Treatment Plant is as a component of the Carrum Key Bird Area (KBA, Category B), which also supported important wetland bird communities in terms of high abundances and diversities of wetland bird species and high numbers of threatened species. Boundary Road Wetland and Braeside Park are also components of Carrum KBA which continue to support excellent bird communities.

The South East Cluster of Constructed Wetlands (Category N) and Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS, Category K) with most data available, also supported important wetland bird communities during 2019/2020, including high diversities and abundances of wetland bird species and high numbers of Listed and Breeding species. Category N sites included: Troups Creek Wetland; Heatherton Road North and South Wetlands; Frog Hollow Wetland; Dandenong Valley Wetlands (Rigby’s Wetland Cells); and River Gum Creek Reserve/Kilberry Boulevard Wetland. Category K Sites included: Wannarkladdin Wetlands and Tirhatuan Wetlands. During 2019/2020, the best performing ‘Social’ Wetland (Category O) with the highest wetland bird values was Jells Park which had a high diversity of species, a maximum abundance of more than 1,200 wetland birds, and high numbers of Listed and Breeding species. During 2019/2020, some of the streamside sites also supported threatened species listed under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. These sites included the Jacksons Creek works sites (Lewin’s Rail), Little River Lower Reaches (Curlew Sandpiper also listed under the Commonwealth Act), Wurundjeri Walk (White-throated Needletail), Monbulk Creek Upstream Control (White-throated Needletail), Proper Yanakie (White-throated Needletail and Grey Goshawk), Salt Creek/Rosanna Parklands (Powerful Owl) and Mullum Mullum Creek (Powerful Owl). White-throated Needletails are aerial insectivores which roost in trees. However, it is not known how dependent the individuals observed were on the riparian vegetation they were seen above.

Regional Bird Monitoring Program Recommendations • To rigorously assess the factors behind wetland bird community change at the site level, and assess the success of site-based management interventions and provide operational scale feedback to Melbourne Water site managers, Melbourne Water continues to monitor wetlands and streamside sites for avian values. • To rigorously comment on the drivers behind wetland bird community change at the site level, it is important to incorporate site-based management data (e.g. water levels, salinity, vegetation works, nutrient levels) as covariates. Evidence of variation in wetland bird communities within a sub-catchment may suggest site scale influences, including management interventions, may be driving change. Given one of the goals of this project is to provide operational scale feedback to Melbourne Water site managers it is important that management influences on wetlands are being captured and related back to avian responses. • Melbourne Water and BirdLife Australia should develop a regional bird monitoring spatial layer that incorporates Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Sites and relevant Melbourne Water’s streamside works sites. This layer should include the updated wetland boundaries, agreed site nomenclature and buffer requirements. Furthermore, this layer should replace the 'MW sites' layer that currently exists on Birdata as to better guide volunteer surveys.

10 | P a g e

1) Introduction The 2018/2019 annual report for Melbourne Water’s Regional Bird Monitoring Project (MWRBM) (see BirdLife Australia 2020a) was the first prepared under the 2018 Healthy Waterways Strategy (Melbourne Water 2018). The 2018/2019 report addressed current Melbourne Water direction, focus and decision-making, which extends beyond the 2018 Healthy Waterways Strategy (see Melbourne Water, in prep.). The 2018/2019 report assessed a ‘new’ wetland bird metric developed by Melbourne Water and described in Melbourne Water (in prep.). Based on four five-year time blocks, a site-by-site assessment was undertaken using the bird data to track the wetland bird community at each of 75 wetlands over time, to determine if the health of the community was improving, stable or declining. This 2019/2020 annual report for MWRBM is the second prepared under the 2018 Healthy Waterways Strategy (Melbourne Water 2018). The 2019/2020 report has five project components each with a separate objective:

1. To undertake separate evaluations of three Melbourne Water Works Sites involving Willow (Salix spp.) removal located at Plenty River/Arthurs Creek, Olinda Creek and Monbulk Creek; 2. Provide summary statistics of bird survey data collected at Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands for the 2019/2020 year; and 3. Provide summary statistics of bird survey data collected at Melbourne Water’s streamside sites for the 2019/2020 year. The three Willow removal evaluations are presented as separate chapters (Chapters 2, 3 and 4) of this report for clarity, while the wetland and streamside summary statistics are combined in Chapter 5. The 2019/2020 year represents the continuation of various long-term wetland and riparian bird monitoring programs established by Melbourne Water and reported on elsewhere, including programs: • at the Western Treatment Plant in 2000 (see DEPI 2014a, 2014b and 2014c; DELWP 2015, 2018b, 2019b); • at Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site established in 2003 (see Birds Australia 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; BirdLife Australia 2013a, 2013b, 2020b and 2020c); • for the Dandenong Valley Wetlands established in 2008 (see BOCA 2008, 2009, 2011a and 2011b); • for Melbourne Water’s Regional Bird Monitoring Program established in 2013 (see BirdLife Australia 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a, 2017, 2019 and 2020a); and • at Tootgarook Swamp for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (BirdLife Australia 2016b).

11 | P a g e

2) Melbourne Water Works Evaluation - Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Willow Removal Evaluation One of the objectives of the Regional Bird Monitoring program is to collect data that enable Melbourne Water to assess its on-ground management actions against conservation objectives.

As such, an experimental area with works sites was established following the recommendations of AECOM (2012 and 2013). The works sites were located in riparian vegetation along the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek/Running Creek in the northwest of the Yarra Catchment (also see BirdLife Australia 2016).

Initially, 16 sites were identified along the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek/Running Creek across four experimental treatments and with four replicates per treatment:

• Control sites supporting remnant (native) vegetation; • sites where weedy species had been removed >10 years ago (i.e. in 2012); • sites where weedy species such as willows had been removed <10 years ago; and • sites where weeds like Willows and Poplars continue to dominate the vegetation. Of these 16 sites, two sites (works sites 11 and 12) were not surveyed during the period of this assessment (i.e. 2014 to 2020) and works sites 4 and 16 have limited surveys due to access issues.

Given that the dates of the two Willow treatments were identified in 2012, these are corrected to from hereon to current timing. In other words, sites where weedy species had been removed >10 years ago (i.e. in 2012) becomes sites with weedy species removed >18 years ago, and sites with weedy species removed <10 years ago becomes sites with weedy species removed <18 years ago.

Methods The site selection and methods for the evaluation of Melbourne Water’s riparian works on bird communities are outlined in AECOM (2012 and 2013).

Site Selection and Identification In order to prioritize waterways of high biodiversity value, a hierarchy of site significance for monitoring was established by Melbourne Water at project commencement in 2013 (see BirdLife Australia 2014). Melbourne Water works sites were set-up to evaluate the effectiveness of specific works on bird communities. AECOM (2012 and 2013) determined that an experiment based on a comparison of bird communities between sites which differed in terms of willow Salix spp. infestation and /or willow removal would be undertaken. Thus, representative samples of study sites were selected to encompass four treatments: 1. Sites which are currently willow-infested (no willow control); 2. Sites which were previously willow-infested, but have had willow removal and revegetation (with fencing) within the previous 18 years; 3. Sites which were previously willow-infested, but have had willow removal and revegetation (with fencing) more than 18 years ago; and 4. Sites which comprise remnant (native) vegetation and have little or no willow cover. Following desktop review, aerial photographic interpretation and field inspection/validation to ensure sites were as similar as possible with respect to vegetation, streamflow, topography,

12 | P a g e surrounding landuse, etc., 16 sites were selected to represent the four treatments (see AECOM 2012) (Figures 1a and 1b). Ten sites were selected along the Plenty River, a major tributary of the Yarra River with its headwaters in the Mt Disappointment area of State Forest in the Great Dividing Range, approximately 50 km north of Melbourne. The most upstream of these sites was located just north of Evelyn Street at Whittlesea, while the most downstream site was situated to the south of Bridge Inn Road at Mernda (Table 1). Six sites were selected along Arthurs Creek/Running Creek in the Arthurs Creek area. Arthurs Creek is part of the Diamond Creek Catchment with headwaters in the Kinglake National Park. Four sites were situated along Running Creek, one site was located at the confluence of Running Creek and Arthurs Creek and a sixth site occurred along Arthurs Creek to the southwest of the township (Table 1). Table 1 provides a summary of the sites from AECOM (2012 and 2013), including the Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) as mapped by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and validated in the field, if remnant vegetation was present. The dates of Willow removal are also included. More detailed information on the sites is provided in AECOM (2012 and 2013). Access issues to private property meant that Plenty River Site 4 was only ever surveyed once, Running Creek Site 16 was surveyed 18 times and Running Creek Site 11 and Arthurs Creek Site 12 were not surveyed.

13 | P a g e

Table 1. Summary of the Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation 16 sites and their respective treatments, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek April 2014 and July 2020, as given in AECOM (2012 and 2013). Site No. Stream Latitude / Longitude Treatment Relevant Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC and No.)

-37.51389 Lat Remnant (native) vegetation (< 5% Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) 1 Plenty River 145.12611 Long willow cover in 2013)

Plenty River -37.52889 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 1996 Closest to Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) 2 145.12333 Long and 1997 (>18 years ago)

Plenty River -37.53472 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2000 Closest to Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) 3 145.12389 Long (>18 years ago)

Plenty River -37.55111 Lat Remnant (native) vegetation (few Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) 4 145.12194 Long willows in 2013)

Plenty River -37.55917 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2000 Closest to Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) and 2001 (>18 years ago) 5 145.115 Long

Plenty River -37.56917 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2000 Closest to Swampy Riparian Woodland (EVC 83) 6 145.11778 Long and 2001 (>18 years ago)

Plenty River -37.57139 Lat Willow infested (no removal to 2013) - 7 145.11861 Long

Plenty River -37.58611 Lat Remnant (native) vegetation (no Riparian Woodland (EVC 641) 8 145.11361 Long Willows)

Plenty River -37.59 Lat Willow and Poplar infested (no removal - to 2013) 9 145.11167 Long

14 | P a g e

Site No. Stream Latitude / Longitude Treatment Relevant Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC and No.)

Plenty River -37.60306 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2008 Closest to Riparian Woodland (EVC 641) 10 145.105 Long (< 18 years ago)

Willow and Poplar infested (no removal - 11 Running Creek to 2013)

Remnant (native) vegetation (limited Riparian Forest (EVC 18) revegetation in some areas and a few 12 Arthurs Creek willows)

Arthurs / Running -37.58111 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2004 Closest to Riparian Forest (EVC 18) 13 Creeks Confluence 145.20611 Long and 2005 (< 18 years ago)

Running Creek -37.57083 Lat Willow infested (no removal to 2013) - 14 145.21333 Long

Running Creek -37.56361 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2003 Closest to Riparian Forest (EVC 18) 15 145.21556 Long (< 18 years ago)

-37.55917 Lat Willows removed / revegetation in 2003 Closest to Riparian Forest (EVC 18) 16 Running Creek 145.21306 Long (< 18 years ago)

15 | P a g e

Figure 1a. Location of bird survey sites used for the Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation along the Plenty River.

16 | P a g e

Figure 1b. Location of bird survey sites used for the Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation along Arthurs Creek.

17 | P a g e

Survey Techniques For the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation study, a fixed transect running 200 m parallel to the stream by 25 m perpendicular to the stream was established at each of the 16 sites (see AECOM 2012 and 2013). The 200 m long by 25 m wide transect was marked with waypoints collected on a GPS to delineate the upstream and downstream limits. For simplicity and to allow all sites to be surveyed within an allotted time, a 30 min survey along the transect was undertaken. All bird species seen and heard were recorded and estimates were made of the species’ abundances within the transect boundaries, including all aerial birds up to 20 m above the canopy (see AECOM 2012).

Survey data for each of the 14 sites were entered into Birdata, either by documenting records in notebooks in the field and entering data at a later date via the Birdata Portal, or more recently, by entering the bird data during the survey directly into the Birdata App for iPhones or smartphones.

When access permitted, sites were surveyed up to eight times a year between April 2014 and July 2020.

It should be noted that AECOM (2013) undertook a total of five surveys at each of the 16 sites during 2012 and 2013. These comprised a survey at each site in winter 2012 (July 2012), early-spring 2012 (September 2012), late-spring 2012 (October and November 2012), summer 2012/2013 (January and February 2013) and autumn (May 2013). Unfortunately, these data were not available for use in this analysis.

Minimum Survey Number A comprehensive analysis of the relationship between available data from Birdata and Melbourne Water’s Index of Stream Condition (ISC) identified that bird diversity, and by extension, site ‘condition’, may be determined provided adequate and appropriate data are available. The investigations used total species lists and the ratio of species observed at a site to those expected and found that a minimum of 40 site-based surveys are necessary before riparian species accumulation curves plateaued and the presence or absence of a species at that site can be sufficiently assumed (AECOM 2011). At c=40, the probability of detecting previously unencountered riparian species at a site significantly declines. Thus, the conceptual model developed as part of Project A (AECOM 2012) identified that a minimum of 40 replicate surveys would be required for each site to effectively contribute to the riparian bird metrics. For each site with bird survey data, Species Accumulation Curves (SCAs) were plotted to determine if the data for each site had reached an asymptote with regards to species detection and the presence or absence of a species at that sites could be sufficiently assumed.

Data Analysis

Bird Indices Some sites had a second survey undertaken on the same day. This occurred at Site 2 three times, Site 9 once, Site 14 twice and Site 15 once. Prior to calculating indices, the second survey was removed from the analyses. AECOM (2012 and 2013) describe the key indices to be used for this study as:

18 | P a g e

• Total Number of Native Species recorded at each site (i.e. Total Species Richness from all surveys combined); • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Native Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Minimum and Maximum Number of Native Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Total Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site; • Minimum and Maximum Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Total Conservation Score (as per AECOM 2012, but including a score for FFG-listed species) for species recorded at each site (from all surveys combined, see below); • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Conservation Score recorded at each site; • Total Number of Bird Foraging Guilds represented at each site from all surveys; and • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Bird Foraging Guilds recorded at each site.

Conservation Score Each of the bird species recorded across the sites and surveys was allocated a Conservation Score (CS) which provides an indicator of its conservation status at national or state level. This approach had been suggested as a potential bird sub-index for assessing waterway quality (Steele, 2011b) and assigns a higher score to species which are listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), compared with those listed under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) or only under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Species in Victoria (DSE 2013). For this report, birds have been allocated one of the following scores based on their highest conservation status: • Native species not listed as threatened: Score 1; • Only listed as Near Threatened by DSE (2013): Score 2; • Only listed as Vulnerable by DSE (2013): Score 3; • Only listed as Endangered by DSE (2013): Score 4; • Listed as Threatened under the FFG Act: score 5; and • Listed as threatened under EPBC Act: Score 6.

Foraging Guilds Each species recorded during the surveys was allocated to a Foraging Guild as described in AECOM (2012). The list of species recorded and their foraging guilds are given in Appendix 1.

• Firstly, a Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test if the means of factors were statistically different (regarding Species Richness and Abundance). Where the two factors used in this analysis were season and treatment. For each site, the survey data were divided into Autumn-winter and Spring-Summer seasons. The interactions between these factors were also tested. Survey date was treated as a random factor in our analyses. Where a statistically significant difference was detected, a Tukey Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was undertaken to investigate statistical differences amongst all pairwise comparisons.

19 | P a g e

• Next, general linear models were constructed to contrast species composition across the four treatments and the two season categories using the raw abundance data. All statistical analyses were undertaken in the ‘R’ program using the ‘mvabund’ package.

Results

Number of surveys and number of species Access issues resulted in no surveys being undertaken at Sites 11 and 12, only one survey at site 4 and 18 surveys at Site 16. For the remaining 12 sites, the total number of surveys undertaken at each site ranged from 48 to 56, which surpassed the minimum number of 40 surveys at a site determined by AECOM (2011 and 2012) before riparian species accumulation curves plateaued and the presence or absence of a species at that site can be sufficiently assumed. The total number of surveys undertaken across the 14 sites from 2014 to 2020 was 606. The total number of species recorded across the 14 sites was 133 species (Appendix 1). The total number of species comprised 123 native species and 10 introduced species. Threatened species recorded included the:

• EPBC Act-listed and FFG Act-listed Swift Parrot; • FFG Act-listed Blue-billed Duck and Great Egret; and • Advisory List classified Latham’s Snipe, Nankeen Nigh-Heron and Royal Spoonbill.

Species Accumulation Curves Species Accumulation Curves for the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek/Running Creek Work Sites are presented in Figure 2. The suggested minimum number of surveys for a site required to provide sufficient data for analyses, previously determined to be 40 surveys for riparian species (AECOM 2011 and 2012), is indicated on the graph. The axes values used to plot the SACs are identical to enable differences in the curves to be discernible. It is estimated that between 5-10% of species are only detected after 40 surveys. Therefore, in the MWRBM study area, at least 40 surveys are generally required for the riparian species accumulation curves to reach an asymptote, which is consistent with AECOM for riparian species (2011 and 2012). The results suggest that where available, data should be selected from sites which have been surveyed at least 40 times. Site 16 had been surveyed less than 20 times resulting in the data for that site being unsuitable for further analyses. Sites 2 and 3 (both Willows removed/revegetation >18 years ago) and Site 7 (Willow infested) with their higher species richness produced the steepest curves (Figure 2).

Riparian Bird Indices The Riparian Bird Indices for the Works Sites are given in Table 2. Only sites with greater than 40 surveys are considered here. For all indices, there was no clear relationship between the index and the treatment. For the Total Number of Native Species recorded at sites, the six sites with the highest numbers comprised Site 2 (88 species, Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago), Site 7 (84 species, Willow infested), Site 3 (76 species, Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago), Site 9 (74

20 | P a g e species, Willow and Poplar infested), Site 5 (72 species, Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago) and Site 8 (72 species, remnant Native Vegetation) (Table 2; Figure 3). Sites recording the lowest Total Number of Native Species included Site 1 (55 species, Remnant Native Vegetation), Site 13 (57 species, Willows removed/revegetation < 18 years ago) and Site 10 (60 species, Willows removed/revegetation < 18 years ago). The Mean Number of Native Species recorded for each site is shown Table 2 and Figure 3. Site 2 (Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago), Site 8 (Remnant vegetation) and Site 7 (Willow infested) recorded the highest Mean Number of Native Species. Regarding the Total Number of Introduced Species, the 12 sites with more than 40 surveys recorded between four and nine introduced species (Table 2; Figure 4). A maximum of nine introduced species was recorded at three sites: Site 8 (Remnant vegetation); Site 5 (Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago); and Site 9 (Willow and Poplar Infested). The Mean Number of Introduced Species calculated for each site was generally about one species. However, Sites 7 (Poplar infested), 8 (Remnant vegetation) and 9 (Willow and Poplar infested) recorded a mean of two introduced species. The Total Conservation Score for each site varied between 110 and 174 (Table 2; Figure 5). Two of the Willow infested sites (Sites 7 and 9), and two of the sites with Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago (Sites 2 and 3), recorded the highest values. However, the Mean Conservation Score was higher for Sites 2 (Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago) and 8 (Remnant vegetation), suggesting that these two sites record species contributing to a higher Conservation Score more consistently than the Willow infested sites (Table 2; Figure 6). The Willow infested sites (Sites 7, 9 and 14) recorded the highest number of Foraging Guilds with 16, 15 and 15 guilds, respectively, represented. Three of the sites with Willows removed / revegetation > 18 years ago recorded 14 Foraging Guilds (Sites 2, 3 and 6) (Table 2; Figure 7). However, as was the case with the Mean Conservation Score, the Mean Number of Foraging Guilds was highest for Sites 2 (Willows removed/revegetation > 18 years ago) and 8 (Remnant vegetation), suggesting that these two sites record species from more foraging guilds more consistently than the Willow infested sites (Table 2; Figure 7).

21 | P a g e

Figure 2. Species Accumulation Curves for the 14 sites surveyed as part of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Study at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Treatments are as follows: Site 1 = Remnant (native) vegetation; Site 2 = Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years ago); Site 3 = Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years ago); Site 4 = Remnant (native) vegetation; Site 5 = Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years ago); Site 6 = Willows removed / revegetation (>18 years ago); Site 7 = Willow infested; Site 8 = Remnant (native) vegetation; Site 9 = Willow and Poplar infested; Site 10 = Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years ago); Site 13 = Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years ago); Site 14 = Willow infested; Site 15 = Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years ago); and Site 16 = Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years ago).

22 | P a g e

Table 2. Riparian Indices Summary Statistics for the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020,. * Data are presented for Sites 4 and 16, but survey number were too few (<40) to provide useful statistics. No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total Mean (+ 1SE) Total Number Mean (+ 1SE) No. Site Stream Treatment Surveys Native Native Species Introduced Introduced Species Conservation Conservation Score of Foraging Foraging Guilds No. Species (Min-Max) Species (Min-Max) Score (Min-Max) Guilds (Min-Max)

Remnant (native) vegetation 54 55 9.93 + 0.42 5 0.46 + 0.08 110 19.89 + 0.85 12 8.80 + 0.40

1 Plenty River (4-15) (0-2) (8-30) (4-14)

Plenty River Willows removed / 54 88 14.87 + 0.61 7 1.13 + 0.09 169 29.72 + 1.22 14 13.02 + 0.55 revegetation (> 18 years ago) 2 (6-24) (0-3) (12-48) (5-21)

Plenty River Willows removed / 48 76 11.15 + 0.15 8 0.73 + 0.11 152 22.33 + 1.11 14 9.83 + 0.51 revegetation (> 18 years ago) 3 (4-19) (0-3) (8-38) (4-18)

4* Plenty River Remnant (native) vegetation 1* 12 12 (NA) 1 1 (NA) 24 NA 6* NA

Plenty River Willows removed / 55 72 9.84 + 0.47 9 1.15 + 0.13 144 19.71 + 0.94 12 8.47 + 0.40 revegetation (> 18 years ago) 5 (2-17) (0-4) (4-34) (3-14)

Plenty River Willows removed / 54 64 10.32 + 0.47 7 1.04 + 0.11 131 20.72 + 0.96 14 9.02 + 0.42 revegetation (> 18 years ago) 6 (2-19) (0-3) (4-38) (2-16)

Plenty River Willow infested 54 84 12.37 + 0.68 6 1.85 + 0.16 174 25.00 + 1.39 16 10.17 + 0.60

7 (5-23) (0-5) (10-47) (2-18)

Plenty River Remnant (native) vegetation 54 72 14.54 + 0.61 9 2.44 + 0.21 147 29.2 + 1.23 13 11.87 + 0.51

8 (6-26) (0-7) (12-52) (5-20)

Plenty River Willow and Poplar infested 56 74 10.77 + 0.52 9 1.66 + 0.18 152 21.64 + 1.05 15 8.86 + 0.42

9 (2-21) (0-5) (4-42) (2-15)

Plenty River Willows removed / 55 60 9.51 + 0.49 6 0.75 + 0.13 120 20.51 + 1.06 13 9.36 + 0.48 revegetation (< 18 years ago) 10 (3-20) (0-3) (6-40) (3-15)

11 Running Creek Willow and Poplar infested 0 ------

12 Arthurs Creek Remnant (native) vegetation 0 ------

Arthurs / Willows removed / 53 57 10.09 + 0.46 4 0.47 + 0.07 114 20.30 + 0.91 12 9.08 + 0.42 Running Creeks revegetation (< 18 years ago) (2-16) (0-2) (4-32) (2-15) 13 Confl.

Running Creek Willow infested 54 65 9.85 + 0.50 6 0.89 + 0.09 124 19.85 + 0.98 15 8.57 + 0.46

14 (2-18) (0-3) (4-42) (1-18)

Running Creek Willows removed / 56 65 11.34 + 0.52 6 0.95 + 0.10 130 22.68 + 1.03 14 9.79 + 0.45 revegetation (< 18 years ago) 15 (5-21) (0-3) (10-42) (3-16)

23 | P a g e

No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total Mean (+ 1SE) Total Number Mean (+ 1SE) No. Site Stream Treatment Surveys Native Native Species Introduced Introduced Species Conservation Conservation Score of Foraging Foraging Guilds No. Species (Min-Max) Species (Min-Max) Score (Min-Max) Guilds (Min-Max)

Willows removed / 18* 46 12.22 + 0.66 4 0.78 + 0.15 92 24.44 + 1.31 13 10.56 + 0.52 revegetation (< 18 years ago) 16* Running Creek (7-16) (0-2) (14-34) (7-15)

24 | P a g e

Total No. Native Species for each Site 100

TotalNumber Native of Species 20

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 2. Total Number of Native Species recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested.

Mean Number of Native Species for each Site 16

MeanNumber Species Native of 2

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 3. Mean Number of Native Species recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested. The light blue histograms for each site represent the Expected Native Species.

25 | P a g e

Total No. Introduced Species for each Site 10

TotalNumber Introduced of Species 1

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 4. Total Number of Introduced Species recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested.

Total Conservation Score for each Site 200

180

160

140

120

100

60 TotalConservation Score

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 5. Total Conservation Score recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested.

26 | P a g e

Mean Conservation Score for each Site 35

10 MeanConservation Score

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 6. Mean Conservation Score recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested.

Total Number of Foraging Guilds and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds for each Site 18

4 NumberForaging of Guilds 2

0 1 8 2 3 5 6 10 13 15 7 9 14 Site

Figure 7. Total Number of Foraging Guilds and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at each of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Dark Green is remnant vegetation; light green is willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; yellow is willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and red is Willow and Poplar infested. The light blue histograms for each site represent the Mean Number of Foraging Guilds.

27 | P a g e

Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses

Species Richness A Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons on Log-transformed Species Richness data were undertaken to test if Species Richness differed based on season and treatment, and if there were any interactions between these factors. Due to unbalanced sampling effort (i.e. different numbers of sites for each treatment) (and rank deficient), we were unable to test if there were any interactions between season and site. The results of the Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of season and treatment on the bird Species Richness (Log transformed) are given in Table 3. Season and treatment produced statistically significant effects on the Species Richness, but not a statistically significant interaction. The Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons of Species Richness between treatments are given in Table 4, while the Mean Species Richness for each treatment are given in Figure 8. Despite the Two-Way ANOVA suggesting that Species Richness was significantly different between treatments, the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons revealed that Remnant native vegetation, Willows removed/revegetation (> 18 years), Willows removed/revegetation (< 18 years) and Willow infested sites were not in fact statistically significantly different. In contrast to the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons between treatments, the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons between seasons confirmed that seasons were indeed statistically significantly different (Table 5). Species Richness was significantly higher during Spring-Summer than Autumn- Winter.

Table 3. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird Species Richness data for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 4.004 4.0044 32.7635 1.601e-08*** Treatment 3 1.475 0.4916 4.0225 0.007506** Season:Treatment 3 0.031 0.1004 0.8213 0.482371 Residuals 639 78.099 0.1222 ***P < 0.001; and ** P < 0.01.

28 | P a g e

Figure 8. Mean (+1 Standard Error) bird Species Richness across the treatments of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Treatments are: remnant vegetation; Willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; Willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and Willow and Poplar infested.

29 | P a g e

Table 4. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons of treatments on bird Species Richness (Rich) for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.1222212 639 2.3473679 14.89334 Parameters Test Name Treatment Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 4 3.642737 0.05 Means log1p(Rich) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Remnant native vegetation 2.4134188 0.32905491 108 1.60943791 3.091043 2.197225 2.3978953 2.7080502 Willow infested 2.2790152 0.38753923 164 0.69314718 3.218876 2.079442 2.3025851 2.5649494 Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 2.3319878 0.33244873 164 1.09861229 3.135494 2.197225 2.3025851 2.5649494 Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) 2.3786414 0.36720333 211 1.09861229 3.295837 2.197225 2.3978953 2.6390573 Groups log1p(Rich) Groups Remnant native vegetation 2.4134188 a Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 2.3786414 a Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 2.3319878 ab Willow infested 2.2790152 b

30 | P a g e

Table 5. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons of seasons (Autumn-Winter and Spring-Summer) on bird species richness for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.1222212 639 2.3473679 14.89334 Parameters Test Name Season Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 2 2.7770677 0.05 Means log1p(Rich) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Autumn-Winter 2.2753475 0.35590892 352 0.69314718 3.295837 2.079442 2.3025851 2.5649494 Spring-Summer 2.4333042 0.34706649 295 1.09861229 3.218876 2.197225 2.4849066 2.6390573 Groups log1p(Rich) Groups Spring-Summer 2.4333042 a Autumn-Winter 2.2753475 a

31 | P a g e

Bird Abundances A Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons on Log-transformed bird Abundance data were undertaken to test if Abundance differed based on season and treatment, and if there were any interactions between these factors. Once again, due to an unbalanced sampling effort (i.e. different numbers of sites for each treatment), it was not possible to test if there were any interactions between season and site. The results of the Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of season and treatment on the Abundance data are given in Table 6. Season did not produce a statistically significant effect on the species Abundance (Log transformed). However, treatment did produce a statistically significant effect. Despite no significant interaction effect detected, the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicate that Remnant vegetation and Willow infested sites are significantly different in terms of Abundance (Table 7). Remnant native vegetation and sites with willows removed > 18 years ago were not statistically different in terms of Abundances. These two treatments have the highest bird abundances (Figure 9).

Table 6. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird species Abundance data at Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 0.75 0.7482 2.507 0.113824 Treatment 3 5.16 1.7216 5.769 0.000677*** Season:Treatment 3 1.76 0.5869 1.967 0.117730 Residuals 639 190.69 0.2984 ***P < 0.001

32 | P a g e

Figure 9. Mean (+1 Standard Error) bird abundances across the treatments of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creek, April 2014 and July 2020. Treatments: are remnant vegetation; Willows removed and revegetation > 18 years ago; Willows removed and revegetation < 18 years ago; and Willow and Poplar infested.

33 | P a g e

Table 7. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons on bird abundance data for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.2984195 639 3.1108 17.56069 Parameters Test Name Treatment Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 4 3.642737 0.05 Means log1p(Total) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Remnant native vegetation 3.233548 0.5592936 108 1.945910 4.941642 2.833213 3.218876 3.610918 Willow infested 3.012283 0.5794630 164 1.386294 4.510860 2.708050 3.044522 3.332205 Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 3.037243 0.4726416 164 1.609438 4.276666 2.756454 3.044522 3.332205 Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) 3.181717 0.5714701 211 1.098612 4.955827 2.833213 3.178054 3.555348 Groups log1p(Total) Groups Remnant native vegetation 3.233548 a Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 3.181717 ab Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 3.037243 bc Willow infested 3.012283 c

34 | P a g e

Community Composition Analyses A Community Composition Analysis (CCA) was undertaken using species and guild.

Community Analysis on Species The outputs of the CCA with respect to species are provided in Appendix 2. The mean numbers (abundance) of the different species recorded within each of the four Treatments are provided in Appendix 3. These analyses confirm that community composition with respect to species varies between season, treatment and site and there were significant interactions between these factors. These analyses also identify which species contributed to this difference. Table 8 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for 22 species. All 22 species varied in abundance according to site. It should be noted that the identity of the stream/river was not included as a factor in the analysis due to rank deficiency. It may be the case that some streams/river are inherently more species rich due to local factors. Some relationships outlined here may come as a result of structural differences at the stream-level.

Table 8. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Species and according to Factors from Appendix 2. Species Season Treatment Site Season:Treatment Season:Site Australian Magpie ✓ Australian Wood Duck ✓ Bell Miner ✓ ✓ Brown Thornbill ✓ Long-billed Corella ✓ ✓ Magpie-lark ✓ Musk Lorikeet ✓ New Holland Honeyeater ✓ ✓ ✓ Noisy Miner ✓ ✓ Rainbow Lorikeet ✓ ✓ Red-browed Finch ✓ Red-rumped Parrot ✓ Red Wattlebird ✓ ✓ Silvereye ✓ ✓ Striated Thornbill ✓ Superb Fairywren ✓ Tree Martin ✓ ✓ ✓ Welcome Swallow ✓ White-browed Scrubwren ✓ Yellow-faced Honeyeater ✓ ✓ ✓ Yellow-rumped Thornbill ✓ Yellow Thornbill ✓ ✓

35 | P a g e

Bell Miner, Long-billed Corella, New Holland Honeyeater, Noisy Miner, Rainbow Lorikeet, Red Wattlebird, Silvereye, Tree Martin, Yellow-faced Honeyeater and Yellow Thornbill all varied in abundance according to Treatment.

Long-billed Corella, New Holland Honeyeater, Red Wattlebird and Yellow Thornbill were most abundant in Remnant vegetation.

Noisy Miner and Silvereye were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatment. Bell Miner was most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) treatment. Rainbow Lorikeet was most abundant in the Willow infested sites.

Tree Martins were least abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) treatment.

Yellow-faced Honeyeaters were least abundant in Remnant vegetation.

Tree Martin and Yellow-faced Honeyeater also varied in abundance according to Season. A significant interaction between Season and Treatment was also detected for the New Holland Honeyeater.

Community Composition Analysis on Guilds The outputs of the CCA with respect to guilds are provided in Appendix 4. The mean numbers (abundance) of the different guilds recorded within each of the four Treatments are provided in Appendix 5 and Figure 10. These analyses suggest that community composition with respect to guilds varies between season, treatment and site and there were significant interactions between these factors. These analyses also identify which species contributed to this difference. Table 9 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for 11 guilds. All 11 guilds varied in abundance according to site. Once again, Site cannot be used as a surrogate for Treatment.

Table 9. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Guilds and according to Factors from Appendix 4. Species Season Treatment Site Season:Treatment Season:Site Aerial ✓ ✓ Frugivore ✓ ✓ Grazer ✓ Generalist ✓ Granivore ✓ Invertebrates Damp Ground ✓ Invertebrates Open Ground ✓ Invertebrates Foliage ✓ ✓ Nectarivore ✓ Reed-dwelling ✓ ✓ ✓ Large Wader ✓ ✓

36 | P a g e

Frugivorous birds (F), Foliage-foraging Insectivorous birds (IT), Reed-dwelling birds (R) and Large Wading birds (W) all varied in abundance according to Treatment. Frugivorous birds were most abundant in Remnant vegetation (Table 9; Figure 10). Foliage-foraging Insectivores were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) and Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) and treatments and least abundant in the Willow-infested sites. Reed-dwelling birds were least abundant in Remnant vegetation. Large Wading birds were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatment. A significant interaction between Season and Site was also detected for Aerial insectivores. Reed-dwelling birds also varied in abundance according to Season.

37 | P a g e

Figure 10. Mean abundances (+1 Standard Error) of bird guilds across the four treatments of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites, Plenty River and Arthurs Creeks, April 2014 and July 2020. Codes from AECOM (2012): A = Aerial insectivores; B = Bark foragers; Da = Dabblers; F = Frugivores; G = Grazers; Gen = Generalists; Gr = Granivores; ID = Invertebrates on Damp Ground; IG = Invertebrates on Open Ground; IT = Invertebrates on Foliage of Trees and Shrubs; N = Nectarivores; P = Piscivores; R = Reed-dwelling birds; T = Shorebirds; V = Carnivores; and W = Large Waders.

38 | P a g e

Discussion Due to an unbalanced number of replicates for each Treatment, caution must be applied when interpreting the results of the analyses undertaken for this evaluation. However, some of the findings are consistent with previous studies or are consistent with the biology of the species and guilds. Findings that are consistent with the results of previous studies or can be attributed to species biology are discussed below. It should also be noted that there was variation between the sites studied with respect to the riparian setback width as discussed by AECOM (2013). Most sites had a relatively narrow buffer of riparian vegetation (mainly 15–25 m on both sides of watercourse), but there was some variation between sites. This variation in riparian setback width may have influenced the results of this study. In general, the wider the setback width, the more species a riparian corridor can support by providing habitat to habitat area sensitive species or specialist species and reduce or remove edge effects. Although Two-Way ANOVA suggested that Species Richness was significantly different between treatments, the results of the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons between Treatments revealed that Remnant native vegetation, Willows removed/revegetation (> 18 years), Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) and Willow infested sites were not significantly different in terms of Species Richness. Remnant native vegetation and Willows removed/revegetation (> 18 years) supported higher Species Richness than the Willows removed/revegetation (< 18 years) and Willow infested sites, although not significantly so. Further monitoring data and an equal number of replicates may result in a statistically significant effect, which would be consistent with the findings of Holland-Clift et al. (2011) who found that native riparian vegetation had higher bird diversity than willow-infested areas (or cleared areas) in Victoria. This was attributed to native tree species having more foliage and branch foraging arthropods than willows. Furthermore, bark-probing birds and granivorous birds were virtually absent from willow infested areas. Holland-Clift et al. (2011) concluded that Willow invasion into native vegetation is likely to reduce native bird diversity and disrupt riparian connectivity. From a smaller number of surveys across the 16 Plenty River and Arthurs Creek sites encompassing June 2012 to May 2013, AECOM (2013) found that mean native bird diversity per survey was significantly higher at < 10 year revegetation sites (i.e. our < 18 years revegetation sites) compared with willow-dominated sites. Furthermore, mean native bird diversity was also higher in revegetation < 10 years compared with revegetation > 10 years, but not between revegetation < 10 years and remnant vegetation. The results of our assessment revealed that the two sites supporting the highest native species richness were the remnant vegetation and revegetation > 18 years (or AECOM’s > 10 years). This may indicate that sometime during the last seven years (i.e. between May 2013 and July 2020), and with on-going growth and development of the revegetation, there has been a transition in sites supporting the most native species. Alternatively, the longer-term dataset analysed in this assessment may provide a longer-term picture of the bird communities associated with the different treatments. In contrast to the findings for Species Richness and treatments, the Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons between seasons confirmed that Species Richness was significantly different between seasons. Species Richness was significantly higher during Spring-Summer than Autumn-Winter. Thus, spring- summer migrants augment the population that occurs at the sites during Autumn-Winter. Further, in

39 | P a g e temperate Australia, peak activity, abundance, biomass and diversity of terrestrial arthropods (or all of these combined) occur during the warmer months, primarily during spring and summer, but also in autumn (e.g. Recher et al. 1983 and 1996; Woinarski and Cullen 1984; Bell 1985). Therefore, the significantly higher Species Richness recorded during Spring-Summer at the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek sites may also relate to a peak in invertebrate resources attracting more species, including the spring migrants. From the dataset collected at the 16 sites between July 2012 and May 2013, AECOM (2013) also found that native species richness was significantly higher in late-spring than in autumn and winter. AECOM (2013) also attributed this difference to the known movement patterns of species and noted that four species of cuckoo, Rufous Whistler, Flame Robin, White-browed Woodswallow and Rufous Songlark were only recorded during spring while others are more abundant in spring than autumn- winter (e.g. Grey Fantail, Yellow-faced Honeyeater, Silvereye, Tree Martin and Musk Lorikeet). The results of Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of Season and Treatment on bird abundance data demonstrated that Season did not produce a statistically significant effect on bird abundance. However, Treatment did produce a statistically significant effect. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicated that Remnant vegetation and Willow infested sites are significantly different in terms of bird abundance. Remnant vegetation and sites with willows removed > 18 years ago were not statistically different in terms of Abundances. Further, these two treatments had the highest bird abundances. Therefore, the two ‘older’ treatments support higher abundances of birds. This result is also consistent with findings of Holland-Clift et al. (2011) who found that native riparian vegetation had higher bird abundances than willow-infested areas. Holland-Clift et al. (2011) also attributed this finding to native tree species supporting more foliage and branch foraging arthropods than willows. Similar to species richness, AECOM (2013) found that bird abundance was significantly higher at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek in late-spring and summer than in autumn and winter. AECOM (2013) attributed the difference in bird abundance between seasons to the movement patterns of species, local weather conditions (e.g. rainfall) and variation in availability and abundance of resources (e.g. tree and shrub flowering, fruiting). The findings from this evaluation, (AECOM 2013) and Holland-Clift et al. (2011) are consistent with the results of Greenwood et al. (2004) who investigated the impact of invasion by the Willow Salix × rubens on the abundance and diversity of terrestrial arthropods along the lower Tarago River in south-eastern Victoria during spring and summer. Willow-invaded sections (>60% willow cover, no shrubs and 40% herb cover) were compared with native sections (50% native canopy, 20% shrub cover and 60% herb cover). Greenwood et al. (2004) found that the average number (abundance) of terrestrial arthropods per 100 g branch sample was significantly greater in the native sections, with at least a three-fold difference between willow-invaded and native sections. Willow-invaded river sections had a significantly lower abundance and diversity of canopy arthropods, but the abundance and diversity of flying insects did not differ between willow-invaded and native sections. Differences in arthropod abundance between willow-invaded and native river sections were more pronounced in spring than in summer, potentially reflecting seasonal changes in resource availability in native river sections. Greenwood et al. (2004) concluded that reduced terrestrial arthropod abundance and diversity associated with willow invasion of riparian zones may affect both the density and diversity of insectivorous birds. They further suggested that the lower abundance and diversity of terrestrial arthropods was a consequence of simpler habitat structure and lower plant diversity in willow-

40 | P a g e dominated stream reaches. Stands of willows suppress growth of the understorey and field layer, including suppression of dense shrubs, sedges, grasses and herbs used for feeding and harbour by small insectivores. AECOM (2013) also found that the mean number of foraging guilds per survey was significantly lower at willow-dominated sites compared with revegetation and remnant sites, but differences between revegetation and remnant sites were not significant. The number of replicates surveyed in this assessment was uneven and insufficient to calculate separate means for each treatment. The results here display much variation among the sites associated with a treatment, though they provide some support for the notion of a lower number of foraging guilds associated with simplification of habitat due to willow invasion. Sites recording the highest mean number of foraging guilds per survey were Site 2 (Willows removed with revegetation > 18 years ago, 13.02) and Site 8 (Remnant vegetation, 11.87). The three Willow-dominated sites recorded a mean of 10.17, 8.86 and 8.57 foraging guilds per survey. CCA analyses confirm that community composition with respect to species varies between Season, Treatment and Site and there were significant interactions between these factors. These analyses also revealed that 22 species varied in abundance according to site, although the identity of the stream/river was not included as a factor in the analysis due to rank deficiency. Some streams may inherently support more species due to local factors. Some relationships outlined here may be a result of structural differences at the stream-level. The results of demonstrated that the Bell Miner, Long-billed Corella, New Holland Honeyeater, Noisy Miner, Rainbow Lorikeet, Red Wattlebird, Silvereye, Tree Martin, Yellow-faced Honeyeater and Yellow Thornbill all varied in abundance according to Treatment. Long-billed Corella, New Holland Honeyeater, Red Wattlebird and Yellow Thornbill were all most abundant in Remnant vegetation. This is interpreted to reflect a preference for riparian forest elements provided by ‘older’ native vegetation that are not available in Willow-infested areas and take time to develop when replenished with revegetation. Such elements include higher abundances of tree hollows (for Long-billed Corella), flowering trees and shrubs (New Holland Honeyeater and Red Wattlebird) and an abundance of foliage (Yellow Thornbill). A dense shrub understorey of Paperbarks (Melaleuca spp.) and Tea Tree (Leptospermum spp.) at the remnant sites also provides nesting substrate for many native bird species, including honeyeaters and thornbills.

Willows fail to develop the number of hollows that native trees do and consequently are of minimal value for breeding to many hollow-dependent birds (Fisher and Goldney 1997; AECOM 2013). The remnant sites supported a canopy of Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus ovata) which produces an abundant nectar supply in autumn and exudates throughout the year. The remnant sites also supported Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) which is a preferred foraging resource for Yellow Thornbill and a good foraging resource for some honeyeater species. As discussed above, Willow-infested sites support considerably lower diversities and abundances of foliage- and bark-dwelling invertebrates.

Noisy Miner and Silvereye were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatment. Silvereyes make extensive use of shrubby understoreys suggesting that the revegetated understorey had reached a stage suitable for Silvereyes to forage on invertebrates and fruits (Higgins et al. 2006). The relationship between Noisy Miner abundance and Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatment is not clear, but they tend to occur on edges of open forests and woodlands

41 | P a g e with little shrub understorey (Higgins et al. 2001). Archibald et al. (2017) suggested that weed removal, at least in the short-term, results in an increase in urban adapted species, such as the Noisy Miner, due to an initial simplification of the understorey. Bell Miner was most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) treatment. This species makes extensive use of Swamp Gum Riparian Woodland with dense shrubby understoreys, especially if Swamp Gums are infested with psyllid lerps (Higgins et al. 2001). Rainbow Lorikeet was most abundant in the Willow infested sites. They make extensive use of exotic plant species in suburban areas and are considered to be an urban exploitative species (Archibald et al. 2016). Hence, their highest abundance in Willow-infested sites is not surprising. However, it is not clear if the lorikeets were using the willows at Plenty River/Arthurs Creek or simply moving through.

Tree Martins were least abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) treatment. They are aerial insectivores that nest in hollows in hollow-bearing trees (Higgins et al. 2006), suggesting that the remnant vegetation and Willows removed / revegetation (>10 years) treatments were more suitable (i.e. supported more hollows). Greenwood et al. (2004) found that the abundance and diversity of flying insects did not differ between willow-invaded and native sections of the Tarago River, which could account for the species presence in willow-infested sites.

Yellow-faced Honeyeaters were least abundant in Remnant vegetation and were recorded in similar abundance in the other three treatments. They occupy a variety of habitats and feed on insects, nectar and fruit. They are also commonly recorded in gardens and are known to use areas with infestations of other weed species, including areas with Blackberry (Rubus fruticosos) (Higgins et al. 2001). In the study area, they do not appear to be totally reliant on remnant vegetation.

Tree Martin and Yellow-faced Honeyeater also varied in abundance according to Season. Tree Martins are largely migratory in eastern Australia, with southern populations moving north to winter in northern Australia and New Guinea and returning in spring (Higgins et al. 2006). Some resident populations in southern Australia may be augmented by visitors in spring. Yellow-faced Honeyeaters are partly migratory, undertaking regular large-scale migration to and from southeastern Australia; they move north in autumn and return south in spring (Higgins et al 2001). Some resident or sedentary populations may be seasonally augmented by passage migrants. A significant interaction between Season and Treatment was also detected for the New Holland Honeyeater. New Holland Honeyeaters may undertake local movements and numbers at a location vary according to flowering and nectar abundance (Higgins et al. 2001). Therefore, the interaction with season may reflect changes in flowering abundance rather than the effects of season per se.

The analyses presented here also suggest that community composition with respect to guilds varied between Season, Treatment and Site and there were significant interactions between these factors. Eleven guilds varied in abundance according to Site. Frugivorous birds (F), Foliage-foraging Insectivorous birds (IT), Reed-dwelling birds (R) and Large Wading birds (W) all varied in abundance according to Treatment.

Frugivorous birds were most abundant in Remnant vegetation. The only totally frugivorous bird in the study area is the Mistletoebird, suggesting that Mistletoes (Amyema spp.) may have been more abundant at the remnant vegetation sites.

42 | P a g e

Foliage-foraging Insectivores were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (< 18 years) and Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatments and least abundant in the Willow-infested sites. This diverse group of birds includes the thornbills, pardalotes, cuckoos, fantails, whistlers, Black-faced Monarch, Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike, Olive-backed Oriole and Rose Robin. This result is consistent with the findings of Holland-Clift et al. (2011) who found that native riparian vegetation had a higher bird diversity than willow-infested areas in Victoria, which they attributed to native tree species having more foliage and branch foraging arthropods than willows. The finding is again consistent with the results of Greenwood et al. (2004) who found that Willow- invaded sections of the Tarago River had a significantly lower abundance and diversity of canopy arthropods, than native sections. Reed-dwelling birds were identified as being least abundant in Remnant vegetation. However, their occurrence is very likely to be related to the presence/absence of reeds and far less likely to the adjoining eucalypt forest or presence/absence of Willows. Opening-up of the streams through Willow removal may facilitate reed growth to the benefit of reed-dwelling birds. Large Wading birds were most abundant in the Willows removed / revegetation (> 18 years) treatment. Some of these species, such as the White-faced Heron, nest in eucalypts overhanging streams. Large Waders also forage in open waterways and wetlands, and therefore, opening-up of the streams through Willow removal is likely to benefit the Large wading species that don’t use Willows for roosting (e.g. Nankeen Night-Heron). A significant interaction between Season and Site was also detected for Aerial insectivores. Aerial Insectivores include the Dusky Woodswallow, Welcome Swallow, Tree Martin and Fairy Martin. The relationship with Season can be explained by their characteristic movements. Dusky Woodswallow is a partial spring-summer migrant in southeastern Australia, moving north in autumn and returning south in spring (Higgins et al. 2006). Fairy Martin is also a migratory species, moving north in Autumn and returning south in spring (Higgins et al. 2006). As discussed above, Tree Martins are largely migratory in eastern Australia, with southern populations moving north to winter in northern Australia and New Guinea and returning in spring (Higgins et al. 2006). Welcome Swallow is partially migratory, with resident populations in southern Australia seasonally augmented by visitors during spring and summer (Higgins et al. 2006). Reed-dwelling birds also varied in abundance according to Season. These species recorded included Australian Reed-warbler, Little Grassbird, Buff-banded Rail and Spotless Crake. The relationship with Season can be explained by the characteristic movements of at least some of the species. The Australian reed-warbler is largely migratory in southeastern Australia, leaving its breeding sites in late-summer and autumn to move north and northwest to northern Australia and the Torres Straits; they return to their breeding sites in late-winter and spring (Higgins et al. 2006). Movements of the Little Grassbird are poorly known, but there is evidence of a movement to the northwest away from southeastern Australia in winter (Higgins et al. 2006). Buff-banded Rail and Spotless Crake are poorly known and generally cryptic species, however, their calling rates increase outside of winter (Marchant and Higgins 1993).

Recommendation The evaluation has identified some statistically significant relationships between treatments that have previously been found in other studies or can be explained by the findings of other studies (e.g.

43 | P a g e invertebrate abundances in Willows are much lower than in native riparian vegetation). However, the conclusions that can be drawn from the evaluation are limited by the unbalanced study design. We recommend that:

• Melbourne Water continues to monitor the sites to look at changes in the avian communities in the longer-term; • The treatments are supplemented by more sites to achieve a balanced study design; • A set of habitat variables are determined and measured at the sites to facilitate interpretation of the results (e.g. Finch 1989; Merritt and Bateman 2012); • Melbourne Water establish photopoint monitoring at the sites to assist documenting changes in vegetation structure; and • Consider investigating bird community dynamics through analysing differences and changes in rank abundance curves (see Avolio et al. 2019).

44 | P a g e

3) Melbourne Water Works Evaluation - Olinda Creek Willow Removal Evaluation Another experimental area was established in riparian vegetation along Olinda Creek in the southeast of the Yarra Catchment (see BirdLife Australia 2016).

Three sites along Olinda Creek comprise of three treatments: • a site which was to act as a control and therefore receive no treatment remained dominated by Willows. However, in about mid-2018, Willows were removed from one bank, but not the opposite bank (initially intended to retain all willows for comparison with the other two sites and termed ‘Willow-dominated’); • a site where Willows were to be removed in stages, however works never progressed beyond clearing of the weedy understory (termed ‘Staged Willows Removal’ in light of original plans for the site); and • a site from which Willows had been fully removed in 2012 (i.e. Willows Removed). A similar analysis to that undertaken for the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation was conducted for the Olinda Creek assessment, to investigate differences in bird communities between the three sites/treatments. This included a comparison of a number of bird indices and foraging guilds between sites/treatments, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and a Community Composition Analysis (CCA).

Methods

Site Selection and Identification The Olinda Creek Willow Removal investigation involved monitoring of three sites comprising a Willow-dominated site (control), a site from which willows had been removed (Willows Removed), and a site from which willows were removed in stages (Staged Removal) (Table 11). The location of the sites is shown in Figure 11. Limited information could be found about the timing of Willow works or the manner in which removal occurred.

Table 11. Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation three sites and their respective treatments, Olinda Creek. Site Latitude / Mapped Ecological Vegetation Stream Treatment No. Longitude Class (EVC and No.)

-37.825 Lat Willow-dominated Damp Forest (EVC 29) 1 Olinda Creek 145.38 Long (no treatment)

2 Olinda Creek -37.82583 Lat Willows Removed Damp Forest (EVC 29) 145.38361 Long Olinda Creek -37.82667 Lat Willows, Staged Damp Forest (EVC 29) 3 145.38639 Long Removal

45 | P a g e

Olinda Creek is a tributary of the Yarra River and is located in the southeast of the Yarra River Catchment. It originates in the Dandenong Ranges, and flows northwards through the townships of Kalorama, Mt Evelyn, Lilydale, and the Coldstream area, before flowing into the Yarra River. A key objective is to have removed Willows and other weeds from along the Olinda Creek (Melbourne Water 2016-2017).

Survey Techniques For the Olinda Creek Willow Removal Works Evaluation study, a fixed transect running 200 m parallel to the stream by 25 m perpendicular to the stream was established at each of the three sites. The 200 m long by 25 m wide transect was marked with waypoints collected on a GPS to delineate the upstream and downstream limits. A 30 min survey along the transect was undertaken. All bird species seen and heard were recorded and estimates were made of the species’ abundances within the transect boundaries, including all aerial birds up to 20 m above the canopy.

Survey data for each of the three sites were entered into Birdata, either by documenting records in notebooks in the field and entering data at a later date via the Birdata Portal, or more recently, by entering the bird data during the survey directly into the Birdata App for iPhones or smartphones.

Sites were surveyed between June 2013 to January 2020.

46 | P a g e

Figure 11. Location of three bird survey sites used for the Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation along Olinda Creek. The most western site is ‘Willow-dominated’ and the most eastern site is ‘Staged Removal’.

Minimum Survey Number For each site, Species Accumulation Curves (SACs) were plotted to determine if the bird data for each site had reached an asymptote with regards to species detection and the presence or absence of a species at that sites could be sufficiently assumed.

Data Analysis

Bird Indices The same indices as described in AECOM (2012) and used in the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek study in section 2, were calculated for the three Olinda Creek sites:

Conservation Score Each of the bird species recorded across the Olinda Creek sites and surveys was allocated a Conservation Score (CS) as described in Section 2.

Foraging Guilds Each species recorded during the surveys was allocated to a Foraging Guild as described in AECOM (2012 and 2013). The list of species recorded and their foraging guilds are given in Appendix 6.

Statistical Analyses Data were log-transformed as required to satisfy the assumption of a normal distribution for statistical analyses. The following analyses were undertaken to test the effects of treatment on bird abundance, species richness and community composition: • Firstly, a Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test if the means of factors were statistically different (regarding Species Richness and Abundance). The two factors used in this analysis were season and treatment. For each site, the survey data were divided into Autumn-winter and Spring-Summer seasons. The interactions between these factors were also tested. Survey date was treated as a random factor in our analyses. Where a statistically significant difference was detected, a Tukey Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was undertaken to investigate statistical differences amongst all pairwise comparisons. • Next, general linear models were constructed to contrast species composition across the four treatments and the two season categories using the raw abundance data.

47 | P a g e

All statistical analyses were undertaken in the ‘R’ program using the ‘mvabund’ package.

Results

Number of surveys and number of species The total number of surveys undertaken across the three sites from 2013 to 2020 was 113 (Table 12). The Total Number of Species recorded across the three sites was 68 species (Appendix 6). The Total Number of Species comprised 65 native species and three introduced species. No threatened species listed under the EPBC Act or FFG Act or classified as threatened under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrates in Victoria (DSE 2013) were recorded during the surveys.

Species Accumulation Curves Species Accumulation Curves for the Olinda Creek Work Sites are presented in Figure 12. The suggested minimum number of surveys for a site required to provide sufficient data for analyses, previously determined to be 40 surveys for riparian species (AECOM 2011 and 2012), is indicated. None of the sites reached the minimum number of 40 surveys required for the number of new species recorded to reach an asymptote. The Willow-dominated Site with 36 surveys has reached an asymptote, but the willow removal sites comprising the Willows removed (38 surveys) and Staged removal (39 surveys) are still increasing slightly.

Riparian Bird Indices The Riparian Bird Indices for the Olinda Creek Works Sites are given in Table 12. All indices were highest for the Willows Removed Site/treatment and lowest for the Willow- dominated Site. The Total Number of Native Species recorded at the sites was 42 at the Willow-dominated site, 56 at the Willows Removed Site and 49 at the Willows, Staged Removal Site (Table 12). The Mean Number of Native Species recorded at each site was roughly seven at the Willow- dominated Site, nine at the Staged Removal Site and 12 at the Willows Removed Site (Table 12; Figure 13). The Total Number of Introduced Species recorded at the three sites was two at the Control Site, two at the Staged Removal Site and four at the Willows Removed Site (Table 12). The Mean Number of Introduced Species recorded at the three sites was less than one bird. The Total Conservation Score for each site varied from 125 for the Control Site, to 147 for the Staged Removal Site, to 165 for the Willows Removed Site (Table 12; Figure 14). The Mean Conservation Score calculated for the three sites followed a similar pattern and was 24, 29 and 39, respectively (Table 12; Figure 14). The Total Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at each site was eight at the Control Site, 11 at the Staged Removal Site and 12 at the Willows Removed Site (Table 12; Figure 15). The Mean Number of Foraging Guilds followed a similar pattern with the Control Site recording about two-thirds of the number recorded at the Willows Removed Site.

48 | P a g e

Figure 12. Species Accumulation Curves for the three sites surveyed as part of the Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Study at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020. Control Site is Willow-dominated.

49 | P a g e

Table 12. Riparian Indices Summary Statistics for the Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020. No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total Mean (+ 1SE) Total No. Mean (+ 1SE) No. Site Stream Treatment Surveys Native Native Species Introduced Introduced Species Conservation Conservation Score Foraging Foraging Guilds No. Species (Min-Max) Species (Min-Max) Score (Min-Max) Guilds (Min-Max)

Willow-dominated 36 42 7.64 + 0.53 2 0.17 + 0.06 125 24.47 + 1.79 8 6.08 + 0.39

1 Olinda Creek (no treatment) (4-17) (0-1) (12-51) (3-12)

Olinda Creek Willows removed 38 56 12.29 + 0.51 4 0.53 + 0.11 165 39.24 + 1.49 12 9.5 + 0.45

2 (6-20) (0-2) (21-63) (3-13)

Olinda Creek Willows staged removal 39 49 8.85 + 0.44 2 0.51 + 0.08 147 29.23 + 1.45 11 7.28 + 0.38

3 (4-16) (0-1) (12-48) (3-17)

50 | P a g e

Mean Number of Native Species at Melbourne Water's Olinda Creek Willow Works Sites 14

4 MeanNumber Species of 2

0 Willow-dominated Staged Removal Willows Removed Treatment

Mean Number of Native Species

Figure 13. Mean Number of Native Species recorded at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites, Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020.

Total and Mean Conservation Score for Melbourne Water's Works Sites, Olinda Creek 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

Conservation Conservation Score 40 20 0 Willow-dominated Staged Removal Willows Removed Treatment

Total Conservation Score Mean Conservation Score

Figure 14. Total Conservation Score and Mean Conservation Score for Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020.

51 | P a g e

Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at the Melbourne Water's Works Sites, Olinda Creek 14

4 NumberForaging of Guilds 2

0 Willow-dominated Staged Removal Willows Removed Treatment

Total Foraging Guilds Mean Number of Foraging Guilds

Figure 15. Toral and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020.

Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses

Species Richness A Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons on Log-transformed Species Richness data were undertaken to test if Species Richness differed based on Season and Site, and if there were any interactions between these factors. The results of the Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of Season and Site/treatment on bird Species Richness (Log transformed) are given in Table 13. Season and Site/treatment produced statistically significant effects on the Species Richness, but not a statistically significant interaction. The Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons of Species Richness between Sites/treatments are given in Table 14, while the mean Species Richness for each treatment are given in Figure 16. The Tukey’s HSD for Species Richness suggests that Willows Removed Site/treatment is statistically significant different from the Willow-dominated and Willows Staged Removal Sites/treatments. The Species Richness for the Willows Removed is higher than the other two sites/treatments (Figure 16). The Willow-dominated and Willows Staged Removal Sites/treatments were not statistically different in terms of Species Richness.

52 | P a g e

Table 13. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird Species Richness data for Melbourne Water’s Olinda Creek Willow Works Sites. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 0.3996 0.39960 4.7505 0.03148* Site/Plot 2 4.0515 2.02575 24.0824 2.315e-09*** Season:Plot 2 0.0395 0.01976 0.2349 0.79107 Residuals 107 9.0006 0.08412 ***P < 0.001; ** P < 0.01; and * P < 0.05.

Figure 16. Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) bird species richness for the sites/treatments of Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020.

53 | P a g e

Table 14. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons of sites/treatments on bird Species Richness (Rich) for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Olinda Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.084117773 107 2.3030877 12.59312 Parameters Test Name Plot Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 3 3.3612575 0.05 Means log1p(Rich) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Olinda Creek, Willow-dominated 2.0989857 0.32267515 36 1.6094379 2.890372 1.907373 2.0794415 2.2235647 Olinda Creek, Staged Removal 2.2467352 0.29591623 39 1.6094379 2.833213 2.079442 2.3025851 2.4849066 Olinda Creek, Willows removed 2.5542831 0.25984574 38 1.9459101 3.044522 2.419648 2.6020033 2.7080502 Groups log1p(Rich) Groups Olinda Creek, Willows removed 2.5542831 a Olinda Creek, Staged Removal 2.2467352 b Olinda Creek, Willow-dominated 2.0989857 b

54 | P a g e

Bird Abundances A Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons on Log-transformed bird Abundance data were undertaken to test if Abundance differed based between Season and Site/treatment, and if there were any interactions between these factors. The results of the Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of Season and Site/treatment on the Abundance data are given in Table 15. The mean bird Abundances for the three sites are shown in Figure 17. Season did not produce a statistically significant effect on the species Abundance (Log transformed). However, Site/treatment did produce a statistically significant effect on bird Abundances. The Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the site with the Willows removed was significantly different in terms of Abundance (Table 16) and supported a much higher abundance than the other two sites (Figure 17). The Willow-dominated Site and Site with Staged removal of willows were not statistically different in terms of Abundances.

Table 15. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird species Abundance data at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Olinda Creek. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 0.5602 0.5602 2.5592 0.1126 Site/Treatment 2 11.6965 5.8483 26.7160 3.881e-10*** Season:Site 2 0.7129 0.3564 1.6282 0.2011 Residuals 107 23.4229 0.2189 ***P < 0.001

Figure 17. Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) bird abundances across the three Melbourne Water Willow Works sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020.

55 | P a g e

Table 16. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons on bird abundance data for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Olinda Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.21890537 107 3.4880071 13.41377 Parameters Test Name Treatment Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 3 3.3612575 0.05 Means log1p(Total) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Olinda Creek, Willow-dominated 3.1701926 0.45516068 36 1.9459101 4.043051 2.930922 3.156774 3.5336074 Olinda Creek, Staged Removal 3.3522292 0.53079843 39 2.3978953 4.356709 2.995732 3.3322045 3.6109179 Olinda Creek, Willows removed 3.9284455 0.42580425 38 3.0445224 4.912655 3.590369 3.9796380 4.2153006 Groups log1p(Total) Groups Olinda Creek, Willows removed 3.9284455 a Olinda Creek, Staged Removal 3.3522292 b Olinda Creek, Willow-dominated 3.1701926 b

56 | P a g e

Community Composition Analyses A CCA was undertaken using species and guild.

Community Analysis on Species The outputs of the CCA with respect to species are provided in Appendix 7. The mean numbers (abundance) of the different species recorded within each of the four Treatments are provided in Appendix 8. These analyses confirm that community composition with respect to species varies between Season and Site/treatment and there were significant interactions between these factors. These analyses also identify which species contributed to this difference. Table 17 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for seven species. Six of these species varied in abundance according to Site:

• Australian Magpie was not recorded at the Willow-dominated Site; • Superb Fairywren was least abundant at the Willow-dominated Site; • Grey Fantail was most abundant at the Willows Removed Site; • Welcome Swallow was only recorded at the Willows Removed Site; and • Brown Thornbill and Yellow-faced Honeyeater were least abundant at the Staged Removal Site. Due to the design of this Works Evaluation, the effects of Site on bird community composition cannot be separated from the effects of treatment. Although the test investigates whether sites were significantly different in terms of bird abundance, statistically significant differences indicating Site differences may arise from treatment effects, but they could equally arise from idiosyncratic factors at the site. The seventh species, the Yellow-faced Honeyeater, varied according to Season. As discussed in the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation study, Yellow-faced Honeyeaters are partly migratory, undertaking regular large-scale migration to and from southeastern Australia; they move north in autumn and return south in spring (Higgins et al. 2001). Some resident or sedentary populations may be seasonally augmented by passage migrants.

Table 17. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Species and according to Factors from Appendix 7. Species Season Site Season:Site Australian Magpie ✓ Brown Thornbill ✓ Grey Fantail ✓ Superb Fairywren ✓ Welcome Swallow ✓ White-naped Honeyeater ✓ Yellow-faced Honeyeater ✓

57 | P a g e

Community Composition Analysis on Guilds The outputs of the CCA with respect to guilds are provided in Appendix 9. The mean numbers (abundance) of the different guilds recorded within each of the four Treatments are provided in Appendix 10 and Figure 18. These analyses suggest that community composition with respect to guilds varies between season and Site/treatment and there were significant interactions between these factors. Table 18 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for four guilds. Four guilds varied in abundance according to Site/treatment. Granivores, Birds foraging on Invertebrates on Damp Ground and on Invertebrates on Open Ground (i.e. open understorey) and Carnivores were all most abundant at the Site which had Willows removed (Figure 18).

Table 18. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Guilds and according to Factors from Appendix 9. Species Season Site Season:Site Granivore ✓ Invertebrates Damp Ground ✓ Invertebrates Open Ground ✓ Carnivore ✓

58 | P a g e

Figure 18. Mean abundances (+1 Standard Error) of bird guilds across the three Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek, June 2013 to January 2020. Codes from AECOM (2012): A = Aerial insectivores; B = Bark foragers; Da = Dabblers; F = Frugivores; G = Grazers; Gen = Generalists; Gr = Granivores; ID = Invertebrates on Damp Ground; IG = Invertebrates on Open Ground; IT = Invertebrates on Foliage of Trees and Shrubs; N = Nectarivores; P = Piscivores; R = Reed-dwelling birds; T = Shorebirds; V = Carnivores; and W = Large Waders.

59 | P a g e

Discussion Although none of the three sites have reached the recommended minimum number of 40 surveys required to provide robust information (i.e. for the number of new species recorded to reach an asymptote), and the results of this analysis are preliminary, the findings of this evaluation are encouraging. Further, data collected from one site for each treatment limits the conclusions that can be drawn. However, as for the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek evaluation (Section 2), the findings for the Olinda Creek evaluation are consistent with other studies and biologically meaningful. Willows were removed from the Willows Removed Site in 2012 and our counts commenced in June 2013 and continued until January 2020, providing about 6.5 years of post-removal data on this site. For the Willow-dominated site, approximately five of our 6.5 years of bird count data pertain to the intended ‘treatment’ of Willow-dominated, and the last 1.5 years of bird data pertain to the site following removal of Willows from one bank, with Willows retained on the opposite bank. Therefore, most of the data for the Willow-dominated Site relate to the ‘full’ intended treatment and the final, smaller amount of data relate to a period of ‘partial’ disturbance to the intended treatment. The Willow-dominated Site supported a mix of indigenous and introduced species. The south side of the creek had a mix of indigenous and invasive trees including bamboo (Bambusa sp.) and Mapel (Acer sp.). The north side was thick with growth of young Willow trees until Melbourne Water removed the willows in a ‘one-off’ removal in 2018 leaving only a small number of large tree ferns. Interestingly, opening-up of the north side of the creek resulted in an increase in species using the site (species richness) with more regular occurrences of Robins (including Rose Robin), flycatchers and Laughing Kookaburras, which all appeared to prefer feeding on the open ground from the edge of the remaining tree cover. The intention of the Staged Willow Removal treatment was to reduce the impacts of total removal of Willow habitat ‘in one hit/one-off’, by gradually removing habitat to retain some Willows over-time, thereby lessening the impact on the bird community, particularly for birds using willows. Thus, staged removal is intended to avoid a large loss of birds associated with a sudden loss of all Willow habitat. The Staged Removal Site would have provided the opportunity to compare staged willow removal with Willow-dominated and Willow Removed sites. However, a number of factors resulted in a comparison between the sites being too difficult to undertake. Firstly, although Blackberries (Rubus sp.) and Wandering Trad (Tradescantia fluminensis) were removed from the Staged Removal Site, willow removal along Olinda Creek never progressed to a point where willows were actually removed at this site. Secondly, the three sites border one another and therefore were not statistically independent. Removal of much of the Blackberry, Arum Lily and Wandering Trad from the understorey of the Staged Removal Site appeared to result in a reduction in the number of Superb Fairy-wrens, but increased reporting rate of Olive Whistlers and Eastern Whipbirds. However, apart from these observations, the bird community appeared to remain unchanged, at least during the early years of survey (Chris Purnell, BirdLife Australia, pers. obs.). Some comments can also be made from observations recorded of bird use of the Willows Removed and Staged Removal Sites during the surveys undertaken along Olinda Creek (Chris Purnell, BirdLife Australia, pers. obs.). The structure of the Willows Removed Site resulted in easier access and visibility which may have resulted a slight bias for recording birds in the canopy, compared to the impeded views into the adjacent native vegetation caused by the closed nature of willow cover in

60 | P a g e the Staged Removal site (which is still within the transect). Bird surveyors tried as best as possible to overcome this bias by surveying from both banks of the creek in each treatment. The north side of the creek bank in the Staged Removal Site was dominated by mature willows, while the south side supported more indigenous vegetation. Birds used the edges of both the tall remnant Manna Gums (Eucalyptus viminalis) and emerging small trees and shrubs of the Willows Removed Site far more readily than they did in the Staged Removal Site. However, birds were not as abundant in the sedge-dominated area in the center of the transect where most of the willow removal had occurred. Small insectivores were the only species that appeared to use the boggy, sedge-dominated area. In the spring/summers of 2013 and 2014, post-disturbance colonisation and subsequent prolific seeding of Senecio minimus and Senecio glomeratus provided both foraging opportunities and nesting material for breeding Red-browed Finch and European Goldfinch. The analyses suggested that, for Olinda Creek, all indices were highest for the Willows Removed Site (treatment) and lowest for the Willow-dominated Site. The Willows Removed Site supported a higher diversity of native species (Total and Mean Number of Native Species), conservation score (Total and Mean Conservation Score) and foraging guilds (Total Number and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds). Therefore, the bird indices indicate that the Willows Removed Site is in better condition and supports the ‘best’ bird community than either the Staged Removal or Willow- dominated sites. These results concur with the findings of Holland-Clift et al. (2011) who found that native riparian vegetation had higher bird diversity and abundance than willow-infested areas, which they attributed to native tree species having more foliage and branch foraging arthropods than willows. Holland-Clift et al. (2011) concluded that Willow invasion into native vegetation is likely to reduce native bird diversity. The results are also consistent with the findings of AECOM (2013), and the Plenty River/Arthurs Creek (Section 2) and Monbulk Creek (Section 4) evaluations, that native bird species richness and abundance is higher in native vegetation than willow-infested sites.

The findings from this evaluation are also consistent with those of Greenwood et al. (2004) from the lower Tarago River. Greenwood et al. (2004) found that Willow-invaded river sections had a significantly lower abundance and diversity of canopy arthropods. They concluded that reduced terrestrial arthropod abundance and diversity associated with simpler habitat structure and lower plant diversity in willow-dominated stream reaches may have flow-on effects to both the density and diversity of insectivorous birds. The Willows Removed site has appeared to have recovered its bird community well and is a good case study for similar willow removal treatments undertaken elsewhere in similar habitat; in other words, in other areas where the Willow removal site is surrounded by good quality native vegetation which can acts as a corridor/source for birds to use the edge and newly colonising vegetation. This approach does expose open ground to invasive plants which are successful disturbance colonisers, including Senecio spp., Buttercup sp. (Ranunculus sp.), Wandering Trad and Tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum). Successful management of these species has enabled indigenous communities to colonise and thrive in this instance. For the Staged Removal Site, and without the site reaching its intended objective of any Willows being progressively removed, we have no information to assess the value of this treatment and compare it against a ‘one-off’ Willow removal treatment.

61 | P a g e

The results of the Two-Way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD pairwise comparisons for Species Richness further suggested that the Willows Removed Site was statistically significant different from the Willow-dominated and Willows Staged Removal Sites. The Species Richness for the Willows Removed is higher than the other two sites, while the Willow-dominated and Willows Staged Removal Sites were not statistically different in terms of Species Richness. Furthermore, the results of the ANOVA and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicated that the Willows Removed Site was significantly different in terms of bird Abundance and supported a much higher abundance than the other two sites, whereas the Willow-dominated Site and Staged Removal Site were not statistically different in terms of Abundances.

The effects of Site on bird community composition cannot be separated from the effects of treatment due to the study design. Therefore, statistically significant differences indicating Site differences may arise from treatment effects, but they could equally arise from idiosyncratic factors at the site. However, the CCA suggested that community composition in terms of species varies between Season and Site/treatment and there were significant interactions between these factors. Six species varied in abundance according to Site/treatment: • Australian Magpie was not recorded at the Willow-dominated Site. This finding is interpreted to reflect the Magpie’s preference for foraging on open ground and Willow- infested areas are too ‘closed’ to not provide this habitat; • Superb Fairywren was least abundant at the Willow-dominated Site, again reflecting that Willow-infested areas are too ‘closed’ to provide a mosaic of dense shrubs for nesting and shelter and open ground for foraging; • Grey Fantail was most abundant at the Willows Removed Site. This finding is most likely to relate to the lower diversity and abundance of arthropods in willow-infested areas (Greenwood et al. 2004; Holland-Clift et al. 2011); • Welcome Swallow was only recorded at the Willows Removed Site implying a preference for a more ‘open’ habitat for foraging (i.e. understorey and overstorey); and • Brown Thornbill and Yellow-faced Honeyeater were least abundant at the Staged Removal Site. This may indicate that there is some use of Willow-infested sites by these two species, but the Staged Removal site had not yet recovered its (revegetated) shrub understorey to a level where it was more suited to the two. Yellow-faced Honeyeater varied according to Season. As discussed in the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation study, Yellow-faced Honeyeaters are partly migratory, undertaking regular large-scale migration to and from southeastern Australia. They move north in autumn and return south in spring, while some resident or sedentary populations may be seasonally augmented by passage migrants (Higgins et al 2001). CCA revealed that three guilds varied in abundance according to Site/treatment. Birds foraging on Invertebrates on Damp Ground (e.g. Bassian Thrush, White-browed Scrubwren and Superb Lyrebird) and on Invertebrates on Open Ground (e.g. Australian Magpie) and Carnivores (raptors) were all most abundant at the Willows Removed Site (removal in 2012). For the species which forage on Invertebrates on Damp Ground, the results reflect their known habitat requirements of a damp, moist forest, often in gullies, and with a dense canopy overhead and a layer of leaf litter below (Higgins et al. 2001 and 2006). For the Open Ground Foragers and Carnivores, the results are consistent with their habitat requirements and preference for an open, native understorey for foraging and/or hunting.

62 | P a g e

Recommendations The evaluation has identified some statistically significant relationships between the three sites that have previously been found in other studies or can be explained by the findings of other studies. We recommend that:

• Melbourne Water continues to monitor the three sites to look at changes in the avian communities in the longer-term, especially if the Staged Removal Site reaches the point of willows gradually being removed; • The sites are supplemented by more sites to strengthen the study design; and • A set of habitat variables are determined and measured at the sites to facilitate interpretation of the results (e.g. Finch 1989; Merritt and Bateman 2012) • Melbourne Water establishes photopoint monitoring at the sites to assist documenting changes in vegetation structure; and • Consider investigating bird community dynamics through analysing differences and changes in rank abundance curves (see Avolio et al. 2019); and • Apply similar, “one-off” willow removal techniques with associated invasive vegetation suppression along other riparian stretches in Damp Forest EVC.

63 | P a g e

4) Monbulk Creek Works Evaluation A third experimental area was established in riparian vegetation along Monbulk Creek in the Dandenong Creek Catchment.

Two sites along Monbulk Creek supported different treatments: • a site supporting remnant vegetation where no Willows occurred (an ‘Upstream Control Site’); and • a site at which Willows had been removed (i.e. Willow Removed/Works Site). A similar analysis to that undertaken for the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Works Evaluation and Olinda Creek Works Evaluation was conducted for Monbulk Creek, to investigate differences in bird communities between the two sites/treatments. This included a comparison of a number of bird indices and foraging guilds between sites/treatments, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and, a Community Composition Analysis (CCA).

Methods

Site Selection and Identification The Monbulk Creek Willow Removal investigation involved monitoring of two sites comprising an Upstream Control site and a site from which willows had been removed (Willows Removed) (Table 19). The location of the sites is shown in Figure 19. No information is available on the dates of Willow removal or the manner in which Willows were removed.

Table 19. Melbourne Water Riparian Works Evaluation two sites and their respective treatments, Monbulk Creek. Site Mapped Ecological Vegetation Stream Latitude / Longitude Treatment No. Class (EVC and No.)

Monbulk -37.90667 Lat Control Site, Wet Forest (EVC 30) 1 Creek 145.3702800 Long Remnant Vegetation

Monbulk -37.91972 Lat Willows Damp Forest (EVC 29) 2 Creek 145.35722 Long Removed/Works Site

Monbulk Creek is a major tributary of the upper Dandenong Creek system. Dandenong Creek originates as a series of springs in Doongalla Forest on the western slopes of the Dandenong Ranges and flows for c. 50 km southwards into Mordialloc Creek, the Patterson River, and ultimately Port Phillip Bay. Monbulk Creek rises near Kallista in the Dandenong Ranges National Park and flows through Belgrave to Rowville. A key objective is to maintain and improve native vegetation, including weed control and revegetation (Melbourne Water 2013; 2016-2017).

64 | P a g e

Figure 19. The location of the Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site and the Works/Willow Removal Site.

Survey Techniques For the Monbulk Creek Willow Removal Works Evaluation study, a fixed transect running 200 m parallel to the stream by 25 m perpendicular to the stream was established at each of the two sites. The 200 m long by 25 m wide transect was marked with waypoints collected on a GPS to delineate the upstream and downstream limits. A 30 min survey along the transect was undertaken. All bird species seen and heard were recorded and estimates were made of the species’ abundances within the transect boundaries, including all aerial birds up to 20 m above the canopy.

Survey data for each of the two sites were entered into Birdata, either by documenting records in notebooks in the field and entering data at a later date via the Birdata Portal, or more recently, by entering the bird data during the survey directly into the Birdata.

The two sites were surveyed from March 2014 to July 2020.

65 | P a g e

Data Analysis

Bird Indices The same indices as described in AECOM (2012) and used in the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek study in Section 2 and Olinda Creek Study in Section 3, were calculated for the two Monbulk Creek sites:

• Total Number of Native Species recorded at each site (i.e. Total Species Richness from all surveys combined); • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Native Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Minimum and Maximum Number of Native Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Total Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site; • Minimum and Maximum Number of Introduced Species recorded at each site from all surveys; • Total Conservation Score (as per AECOM 2012, but including a score for FFG-listed species) for species recorded at each site (from all surveys combined, see below); • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Conservation Score recorded at each site; • Total number of Bird Foraging Guilds recorded at each site from all surveys; and • Mean (+ 1 Standard Error) Number of Bird Foraging Guilds recorded at each site.

Conservation Score Each of the bird species recorded across the Monbulk Creek sites and surveys was allocated a Conservation Score (CS) as described in Sections 2 and 3.

Statistical Analyses Data were transformed as required to satisfy the assumption of a normal distribution for statistical analyses. The following analyses were undertaken to test the effects of treatment on bird abundance, species richness and community composition:

• Firstly, a Two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test if the means of factors were statistically different. Where the two factors used in this analysis were season and treatment. For each site, the survey data were divided into Autumn-winter and Spring- Summer seasons. The interactions between these factors were also tested. Survey date was treated as a random factor in our analyses. Where a statistically significant difference was detected, a Tukey Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was undertaken to investigate statistical differences amongst all pairwise comparisons. • Next, general linear models were constructed to contrast species composition across the two treatments and the two season categories using the raw abundance data. All statistical analyses were undertaken in the ‘R’ program using the ‘mvabund’ package.

66 | P a g e

Results

Number of surveys and number of species The total number of surveys undertaken across the two sites from 2013 to 2020 was 100: 51 surveys at the Control Site and 49 at the Willows removed site (Table 20). The Total Number of Species recorded across the two sites was 69 species (Appendix 11). The Total Number of Species comprised 66 native species and three introduced species. The only threatened species recorded during the surveys was the Grey Goshawk, which is listed as a threatened species under the Victorian FFG Act and is classified as Vulnerable under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrates in Victoria (DSE 2013).

Species Accumulation Curves Species Accumulation Curves for the Olinda Creek Work Sites are presented in Figures 20 and 21. The suggested minimum number of surveys for a site required to provide sufficient data for analyses, previously determined to be 40 surveys for riparian species (AECOM 2011 and 2012), is indicated. The ‘Control site’ with its higher species richness is still increasing slightly at 51 surveys. However, the Willows Removed site with 49 surveys reached an asymptote at about 40 surveys.

Figure 20. Species Accumulation Curve for Melbourne Water’s Monbulk Creek Control/remnant vegetation Site, March 2014 to July 2020.

67 | P a g e

Figure 21. Species Accumulation Curve for Melbourne Water’s Monbulk Creek Willows Removed Site, March 2014 to July 2020.

Riparian Bird Indices The Riparian Bird Indices for the Monbulk Creek Sites are given in Table 20. Most indices were highest for the Control Remnant Vegetation Site/treatment and lowest for the Willows Removed Site/treatment. The Total Number of Native Species recorded at the sites was 59 at the Control Site and 40 at the Willows Removed Site (Table 20). The Mean Number of Native Species recorded at each site was 12.73 at the Control Site and 11.25 at the Willows Removed Site (Table 20; Figure 22). The Total Number of Introduced Species recorded at the two sites was two at the Control Site and four at the Willows Removed Site (Table 20). The Mean Number of Introduced Species recorded at the two sites was 0.18 at the Control Site and 0.96 at the Willows removed Site. The Total Conservation Score for the two sites was 187 for the Control Site and 132 for the Willows Removed Site (Table 20; Figure 23). The Mean Conservation Score calculated for the two sites slightly higher for the Control Site (39.02) compared to the Willows Removed Site (37.12) (Table 20; Figure 24). The Total Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at the two sites was 10 at the Control Site and 13 at the Willows Removed Site (Table 12; Figure 24). The Mean Number of Foraging Guilds was slightly higher for the Control Site (9.71) compared to the Willows Removed Site (9.33).

68 | P a g e

Table 20. Riparian Indices Summary Statistics for the Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Monbulk Creek. No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total No. Mean + 1SE No. Total Mean (+ 1SE) Total No. Mean (+ 1SE) No. Site Stream Site/Treatment Surveys Native Native Species Introduced Introduced Species Conservation Conservation Score Foraging Foraging Guilds No. Species (Min-Max) Species (Min-Max) Score (Min-Max) Guilds (Min-Max)

Control Site (Remnant 51 59 12.73 + 0.67 2 0.18 + 0.05 187 39.02 + 2.09 10 9.71 + 0.56 vegetation) 1 Monbulk Creek (3-21) (0-1) (9-66) (2-17)

Monbulk Creek Willows removed Site 49 40 11.25 + 0.46 4 0.96 + 0.10 132 37.16 + 1.59 13 9.33 + 0.41

2 (5-22) (0-2) (15-72) (4-19)

69 | P a g e

Mean Number of Native Species at Melbourne Water's Monbulk Creek Willow Works Sites 14

2 MeanNumber Species Native of

0 Control/Remnant vegetation Willows Removed Site/treatment

Mean Number of Native Species

Figure 22. Mean Number of Native Species recorded at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works sites, Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020.

Total Consveration Score and Mean Conservation Score at Melbourne Water's Willow Works Sites, Monbulk Creek 200 180 160 140 120 100 80

Conservation Conservation Score 60 40 20 0 Control/Remnant vegetation Willows Removed Site/treatment

Total Conservation Score Mean Conservation Score

Figure 23. Total and Mean Conservation Score recorded at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works sites, Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020.

70 | P a g e

Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at Melbourne Water's Willow Works Sites, Monbulk Creek 14

NumberForaging of Guilds 2

0 Control/Remnant vegetation Willows Removed Site/treatment

Total Number of Foraging Guilds Mean Number of Foraging Guilds

Figure 24. Total and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds recorded at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works sites, Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020.

Analysis of Variance, Tukey HSD and Community Composition Analyses

71 | P a g e

Table21. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird Species Richness data for Melbourne Water’s Monbulk Creek Willow Works Sites. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 1.2529 1.25288 11.4392 0.001042** Site/Plot 1 0.0571 0.05712 0.5215 0.471942 Season:Plot 1 0.0153 0.01528 0.1395 0.709571 Residuals 96 10.5144 0.10953 ** P < 0.01.

Figure 25. Mean Bird Species Richness for the Upstream Control Site (Remnant vegetation) and Willows Removed Site at Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020.

72 | P a g e

Table 22. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons of Season on bird Species Richness (Rich) for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Monbulk Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.10952503 96 2.4947502 13.265683 Parameters Test Name Season Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 2 2.8071917 0.05 Means log1p(Rich) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Autumn-Winter 2.3935037 0.34964641 55 1.3862944 3.091043 2.197225 2.3978953 2.5649494 Spring-Summer 2.6184960 0.30095174 45 1.7917595 3.135494 2.484907 2.6390573 2.8332133 Groups log1p(Rich) Groups Spring-Summer 2.6184960 a Autumn-Winter 2.3935037 b

73 | P a g e

Bird Abundances A Two-Way Analysis of Variance and Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons on Log-transformed bird Abundance data were undertaken to test if Abundance differed based on Season and Site/treatment, and if there were any interactions between these factors. The results of the Two-way ANOVA investigating the effects of Season and Site/treatment on the Abundance data are given in Table 23. The mean bird Abundances for the two sites are shown in Figure 26. Season produced a statistically significant effect on Species Abundance (Log transformed). However, Site/treatment did produce a statistically significant effect on bird Abundances. The Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons indicated that Season was significantly different in terms of Bird Abundance (Table 24). Bird Abundances are significantly higher in Spring-Summer than in Autumn-Winter.

Table 23. Results of the Two-way Analysis of Variance Test (ANOVA) on bird species Abundance data at Melbourne Water’s Willow Works Sites at Monbulk Creek. Source Degrees of Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-value Pr(>F) Freedom Season 1 1.1318 1.13183 6.3906 0.0131* Site/Treatment 1 0.0004 0.00041 0.0023 0.9619 Season:Site 1 0.2188 0.21884 1.2356 0.2691 Residuals 96 17.0025 0.17711 *P < 0.05

Figure 26. Mean bird abundances at the Upstream Control Site (Remnant vegetation) and Willows Removed Site at Melbourne Water’s Works Sites, Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020.

74 | P a g e

Table 24. Results of Tukey HSD tests of pairwise comparisons of Season on bird Abundance for the Melbourne Water Works Sites at Monbulk Creek. Statistics MS error DF Mean CV 0.17710988 96 3.2105151 13.108309 Parameters Test Name Season Studentized Range alpha Tukey HSD 2 2.8071917 0.05 Means log1p(Total) std r Min Max Q25 Q50 Q75 Autumn-Winter 3.1142839 0.45135791 55 1.6094379 3.970292 2.861793 3.1354942 3.3842466 Spring-Summer 3.3281310 0.37600487 45 2.0794415 4.060443 3.135494 3.4011974 3.5263605 Groups log1p(Rich) Groups Spring-Summer 3.3281310 a Autumn-Winter 3.1142839 b

75 | P a g e

Community Composition Analyses A CCA was undertaken using species and guild.

Community Analysis on Species The outputs of the CCA with respect to species are provided in Appendix 12. The mean numbers (abundance) of the different species recorded within the two sites are provided in Appendix 13. These analyses confirm that community composition with respect to species varies between Season and Site/treatment and there were significant interactions between these factors. These analyses also identify which species contributed to this difference. Table 25 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for eight species. Six of these species varied in abundance according to Site: • Australian Wood Duck and Pacific Black Duck were only recorded at the Willows Removed Site; • Brown Thornbill and Galah were most abundant at the Willows Removed Site; and • Red-browed Finch and White-naped Honeyeater were only recorded at the Upstream Control/Remnant Vegetation Site. A significant interaction was detected between Season and Site for the seventh species, the Grey Fantail, suggesting that abundances varied across these factors but not consistently.

The eighth species, Red Wattlebird, varied according to Season. This probably reflects seasonal differences in flowering abundance (Higgins et al 2001).

Table 25. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Species and according to Factors from Appendix 12. Species Season Site Season:Site Australian wood Duck ✓ Brown Thornbill ✓ Galah ✓ Grey Fantail ✓ Pacific Black Duck ✓ Red-browed Finch ✓ Red Wattlebird ✓ White-naped Honeyeater ✓

Community Composition Analysis on Guilds The outputs of the CCA with respect to guilds are provided in Appendix 14. The mean numbers (abundance) of individuals in the different guilds recorded at the two sites are provided in Appendix 15 and Figure 27. These analyses suggest that community composition with respect to guilds varies between Season and Site/treatment and there were significant interactions between these factors.

76 | P a g e

Table 26 summarises the statistically significant differences found by the CCA for four guilds. Three guilds varied in abundance according to Site/treatment: • Bark Foragers were most abundant at the Upstream Control Site; and • Dabblers and Grazers were only recorded at the Willows Removed Site (Figure 27). The fourth guild, the Nectarivores, varied in abundance according to Season.

Table 26. Summary of Community Composition Analyses using Guilds and according to Factors from Appendix 14. Species Season Site Season:Site Bark Foragers ✓ Dabblers ✓ Grazers ✓ Nectarivores ✓

77 | P a g e

Figure 27. Mean abundances (+1 Standard Error) of bird guilds at the two Melbourne Water Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek, March 2014 to July 2020. Upstream Control is remnant vegetation. Codes from AECOM (2012): A = Aerial insectivores; B = Bark foragers; Da = Dabblers; F = Frugivores; G = Grazers; Gen = Generalists; Gr = Granivores; ID = Invertebrates on Damp Ground; IG = Invertebrates on Open Ground; IT = Invertebrates on Foliage of Trees and Shrubs; N = Nectarivores; P = Piscivores; and V = Carnivores.

78 | P a g e

Discussion Although data collected from one site for each treatment limits the conclusions that can be drawn, as was the case for the Plenty River / Arthurs Creek and Olinda Creek evaluations (Section 2 and 3), the findings for the Monbulk Creek are consistent with other studies and biologically meaningful. The analyses suggested that, for Monbulk Creek, some indices were considerably higher for the Upstream Control Remnant Vegetation Site than the Willow-removed Works Site. The Control Remnant Vegetation Site supported a higher number of native species (Total and Mean Number of Native Species) and Total Conservation Score. However, the Mean Conservation Score was only slightly higher at the Control Site, while the Works Site supported a higher number of foraging guilds (Total Number and Mean Number of Foraging Guilds). Furthermore, the results of the Two-way ANOVA indicated that Site (treatment) did not produce a significant effect or interaction on Species Richness. Therefore, the Control/Remnant Vegetation Site and Willows Removed Site were not statistically different in terms of Species Richness.

In contrast to Site, the Two-way ANOVA suggested that Season did produce a statistically significant effect on the Species Richness, and the Tukey’s HSD for Seasons demonstrated that Species Richness was statistically significantly different between seasons. The Species Richness was significantly higher in Spring-Summer than in Autumn-Winter. Thus, as was discussed for the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek evaluation (Section 2), spring-summer migrants augment the population that occurs at the sites during Autumn-Winter. Furthermore, invertebrate supply has been shown to peak during spring and summer which may contribute to the significantly higher Species Richness recorded during Spring-Summer at Monbulk Creek.

Season also produced a statistically significant effect on Species Abundance, with bird abundances high in Spring-Summer, but Site did not affect bird Abundances. A similar explanation to higher species richness in Spring-Summer can account for the higher abundances of birds during Spring- Summer. Migrants augment the bird populations during spring and summer and invertebrate availability is typically higher. CCA identified six species varying in abundance according to Site. Red-browed Finch and White-naped Honeyeater were only recorded at the Upstream Control / Remnant Vegetation Site. For the Red-browed Finch, seed supply must have been higher at the remnant vegetation site. This is consistent with the results of Holland-Clift et al. (2011) who found that granivorous birds were virtually absent from willow infested areas. It is likely that seed producing herbs and grasses had not replenished in the revegetated site following Willow removal. For the White-naped Honeyeater, presumably nectar supply and invertebrate supply was greater at the remnant vegetation site than in the Works site, as this latter site takes time to recover. Australian Wood Duck and Pacific Black Duck were only recorded at the Willows Removed Site potentially reflecting ‘opening-up’ of the stream following Willow removal and revegetation.

Brown Thornbill and Galah were most abundant at the Willows Removed Site. The abundance of Galahs probably relates to ‘opening up’ of the habitat following removal of Willows, as they prefer to forage in open areas (Higgins 1999). For the Brown Thornbill, the results suggest that at least some shrub cover must have been available for foraging (Higgins et al. 2001).

79 | P a g e

The CCA identified three guilds as varying in abundance according to Site. Bark Foragers (e.g. White- throated Treecreeper, Red-browed Treecreeper and Varied Sitella) were most abundant at the Upstream Control Site, suggesting that the remnant vegetation supported a higher abundance of native tree (e.g. eucalypt, wattles) and shrub species than the Works Site. This is consistent with the study of Holland-Clift et al. (2011), who also found that bark-probing birds were virtually absent from willow infested areas. This was attributed to native tree species having more branch foraging arthropods than willows. Measurement of a set of habitat variables would assist with identifying habitat features and clarifying the results of this evaluation.

Dabblers (e.g. Pacific Black Duck and Teal) and Grazers (Australian Wood Duck) were only recorded at the Willow Removed Site. As discussed above, this finding potentially reflects ‘opening-up’ of the stream following Willow removal and revegetation. this potentially

Recommendations The Monbulk Creek evaluation has identified some statistically significant relationships between the two sites that have previously been found in other studies or can be explained by the findings of other studies. We recommend that: • Melbourne Water continues to monitor the two sites to look at changes in the avian communities in the longer-term; • The sites are supplemented by more replicates to strengthen the study design; and • A set of habitat variables are determined and measured at the sites to facilitate interpretation of the results (e.g. Finch 1989; Merritt and Bateman 2012); • Melbourne Water establishes photopoint monitoring at the sites to assist documenting changes in vegetation structure; and • Consider investigating bird community dynamics through analysing differences and changes in rank abundance curves (see Avolio et al. 2019).

80 | P a g e

5) Summary of 2019/2020 of Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Program This section provides summary statistics of bird survey data collected at Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites for the 2019/2020 year. This report follows the 2018/2019 Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project (MWRBM) annual report (see BirdLife Australia 2020a), which provided a detailed assessment of a new wetland bird metric developed by Melbourne Water (see Melbourne Water 2020b). Based on four five-year time blocks, a site-by-site assessment was undertaken using the bird data to track the wetland bird community at each of 75 wetlands over time, to determine if the health of the community was improving, stable or declining. Given the level of detail provided in the 2018/2019 report, which used data collected from as early as 2003, a similar level of detail for data collected during only the 2019/2020 year was considered unnecessary. Furthermore, bird survey work for the 2019/2020 year was interrupted by the Covid-19 Pandemic restricting the volume of data that could be collected.

Therefore, the work for the 2019/2020 year focussed on a set of summary statistics from bird data collected at Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites.

Methods

Study area The study area comprised the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Area (Figure 28). To provide spatial context to the sites assessed, sites were grouped into the five major catchments identified in previous reporting: Dandenong; Maribyrnong; Werribee; Western Port; and Yarra (Figures 28 to 33; Tables 27 to 31). Based on the complexities of the system of lagoon and pond system at the Western Treatment Plant due to the different uses and spatial layout of wetlands, data collected by volunteers at this site were analysed separately to the remaining sites in the Werribee Catchment. The cells were also amalgamated into categories based on the uses/operational requirements and advice from Dr. William Steele (see Table 32).

These sites established by Melbourne Water at wetlands and streams and monitored by BirdLife Australia staff and volunteers form the basis of the monitoring data used in this assessment. Table 33 provides the latest wetland categories for Melbourne Water’s 250 regional priority wetlands, as defined by Melbourne Water, and which supersedes previous wetland Tiers.

81 | P a g e

Figure 28. The Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Area and five major catchments and Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites identified for targeted surveys and used as part of the 2019/2020 assessment.

82 | P a g e

Table 27. Melbourne Water’ Priority Wetlands and Priority Wetland site categories and streamside sites within the Dandenong Catchment surveyed during 2019/2020. A - Ramsar Wetlands N - SE Cluster of Constructed Wetlands cont. Edithvale Wetlands Heatherton Road North Wetlands Seaford Wetlands Heatherton Road South Wetlands B - Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas Troups Creek Wetland Eastern Treatment Plant (ETP) River Gum Creek Reserve and Kilberry Boulevard ETP South - Boundary Road Wetland (Banyan Frog Hollow Wetland Waterhole),ETP South, PARCS ETP Wetland O – Social Wetlands Boggy Creek Wetland, Carrum Karkarook Park Braeside Park Wetlands Jells Park Lake I – Significant Wetlands Previously Identified (Local) Lysterfield Lake Cranbourne Botanic Gardens Wetlands Koomba Park Woodlands Estate Wilson Botanic Park Mordialloc Creek Wetlands (Waterways Estate) K – Streamside Sites SoBS Chelsea Heights Wetland Tamarisk Creek Waterway Reserve K - Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS) Colchester Road RB Wannarkladdin Wetlands Fussell Road RB Monbulk Creek RB (Birdsland) MW Streamside Works Sites Tirhatuan Wetlands Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site Winton Wetlands Monbulk Creek Works Site Liverpool Road RB Other Streamside Sites M – Potential SoBS Patterson River Dandenong Valley Wetland (Rigby’s Wetland) cells

Figure 29. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Dandenong Catchment.

83 | P a g e

Table 28. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Maribyrnong Catchment.

E – Seasonal Herbaceous Freshwater Wetlands Gisborne Swamp I – Significant Wetlands Previously Identified (Local) Newell’s Paddock O – Social Wetlands Pipemakers Park wetland Streamside Sites Martin Dillon Reserve Streamside Works Sites Jacksons Creek Downstream Control Site Jacksons Creek Works Site

Figure 30. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Maribyrnong Catchment.

84 | P a g e

Table 29. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Werribee Catchment and Western Treatment Plant Ramsar Site surveyed during 2019/2020. A – Ramsar K - Streamside Sites SoBS Cheetham Saltfields (PV) Kororoit Creek Escarpments North K - Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS) Kororoit Creek Escarpments South Cherry Lake Wide Bend, Kororoit Creek I – Significant Wetlands Listed Previously (Regional) Streamside Sites (other) Fitzgerald Road Grasslands, Andersons Lake (PV) Kayes and Imms Creek Waterway Reserve, Laverton L – Significant Wetlands Listed Previously (Local) Kayes Creek Waterway Reserve, Windsor Blvd Newport Lakes Kayes Creek Waterway Reserve, Yeend Court, Derrimut Little River Lower Reaches

Western Treatment Plant Ramsar Site

WTP - Habitat Ponds WTP – Habitat Lagoons Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) Western Lagoon Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2) T-Section Lagoon Habitat Ponds (13 Ponds) WTP – Operational Ponds Walshes Ponds

Figure 31. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Werribee Catchment and Western treatment Plant Ramsar site.

85 | P a g e

Table 30. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Western Port Catchment surveyed during 2019/2020. A - Ramsar Sites Western Port Bay I – Significant Wetlands Listed Previously (Regional) Devilbend Reservoir Bittern Reservoir Tootgarook Swamp Coolart Wetlands, Somers Non-Melbourne Water Swan Lake I – Streamside Sites SoBS The Inlets Melbourne Water Streamside Works Sites The Briars – Claypit Creek (Central Tributary) The Briars – Home Creek (Eastern Tributary) The Briars – Stockley Creek (Western Tributary)

Figure 32. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Western Port Catchment.

86 | P a g e

Table 31. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Yarra River Catchment. H - Significant Wetlands Listed in previous assessments (State) Melbourne Water Streamside Sites Cockatoo Creek Floodplain Gardiners Creek Reserve, Box Hill South Morang Wetlands Gardiners Creek Trail, Highbury Road to High St Road I – Significant Wetlands Listed Previously (Regional) Gardiners Creek, Burwood Blackburn Lake Gardiners Creek, Glen Iris Tanunda Wetlands Wurundjeri Walk, Blackburn Warringal Swamp Moonee Ponds Creek, Westmeadows J - Priority Billabongs RosannaMoonee PondsParklands Creek, / Salt Westmeadows Creek Bolin Bolin Billabong Westbreen Creek - Gavin Park Burke Road Billabong WestbreenRosanna Parklands Creek - Joyce/ Salt CreekReserve Willsmere Billabong Cardigan Road Retarding Basin, Mooroolbark Creek Banyule Flats Billabong OldOlinda Joes Creek Creek Willow Retarding Removal Basin K - Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS) Mullum Mullum Creek Currawong Park Yan Yean Reservoir Park MullumOlinda Creek Mullum willows Park removed Yering Backswamp Yarran Dheran Reserve (Mullum Mullum Creek) O – Social Wetlands BendOlinda of Creek, Islands, control B Track to C Track via Aqueduct Albert Park Lake Bend of Islands, C Track Coburg Lake StreamsideMW - Westbreen Works Creek Evaluation - Gavin Park Edwardes Lake Olinda Creek Willow Removals – 3 sites Lillydale Lake OlindaPlentyMW - Westbreen RiverCreek/ ArthursWillow Creek RemovalCreek - Joyce – 14 – Reserve3Sites sites Ringwood Lake Westgate Park PlentyMW Works River Evaluation Arthurs Creek Plenty River 1 Melbourne Water Retarding Basins Trin Warren Tam-boore wetlands (Not Priority)

Figure 33. Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites within the Yarra Catchment.

87 | P a g e

Table 32. Ponds at the Western Treatment Plant with standardised wetland bird data and categories. System Cells Category for assessment

Habitat Lagoons Lake Borrie Ponds 1 to 27, 30 Lake Borrie T-Section Lagoon Pond 1 ^T-Section Lagoons T-Section Lagoon Pond 2 T-Section Lagoon Pond 3 T-Section Lagoon Pond 4 T-Section Lagoon Pond 5 T-Section Lagoon Pond 6 T-Section Lagoon Pond 7 Western Lagoon Pond 3 ^Western Lagoons Western Lagoon Pond 6 (Rehab) Western Lagoon Pond 7 Western Lagoon Pond 8 Western Lagoon Pond 9 WTP - Western Lagoon Pond 4 (rehab) WTP - Western Lagoon Pond 5 (rehab) Habitat Ponds WTP - 35E Pond 8 Conservation Pond ^Habitat Ponds WTP - 35E Pond 9 Conservation Pond WTP - 270S Borrow Pit WTP - 5W Pond 9 WTP - 5W Pond 10 WTP - 5W Pond 11 WTP - 85WC Pond 9 Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) ^Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2) ^Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2) Natural Wetland Ryans Swamp Ryans Swamp Operational Walshes Pond 7 ^Walshes Pond 7 Pond ^surveyed during 2019/2020

Table 33. Wetland Categories for Melbourne Water’s 250+ Priority Wetlands Code Category Significance A Ramsar wetlands International B IBBA (Important Bird and Biodiversity Area) - not included in Ramsar International sites C SSN (Shorebird Site Network) wetlands International D DIWA (Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia) - not included in National Ramsar sites E Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands (Freshwater) National F Growling Grass Frog reserve wetlands National G Dwarf Galaxias habitat ponds National H Significant wetlands listed in previous assessments (e.g. Schulz et al. State 1991, Larwill & Costello 1992, Moore 1994, DNRE 2000)

88 | P a g e

Code Category Significance I Significant wetlands listed in previous assessments Regional J Priority billabongs Regional K Melbourne Water’s Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS) (see Regional Ecology Australia 2013a and 2013b) L Significant wetlands listed in previous assessments Other/Local M “Potential SoBS” - sites raised as potentially significant for natural Other/Local values N Southeast cluster of constructed wetlands (NHT-funded construction) Local O Social value wetlands added by 2018 HWS writing team Social P Other wetlands identified through co-design Social or Natural

Melbourne Water Surveys Birdata (previously the Atlas of Australian Birds) accepts five different survey methodologies for recording birds. The survey data selected and used in analyses for this assessment were survey type Codes 1, 2 and 5: • 2-ha searches for 20 minutes for riparian surveys (Type 1 survey); • Small Area searches for at least 20 min within 500 m of a central point (Type 2 survey); and • Fixed route surveys for at least 20 min within 5 km of a central point (Type 5 survey). Observers were asked to record all species seen and heard and estimate the species’ abundances within the site boundaries. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence indicated that to cover larger areas (i.e. > 2 ha) whilst recording birds, observers need to spend more than 20 min of survey time at a site. Thus, observers contributing to the MWRBM project are encouraged to complete as a minimum a 30 min Area Search of 500 m.

Observers either entered their survey data directly into the Birdata App while in the field, or entered the data at a later date into the Birdata Portal. In some instances, Birdata are forwarded to BirdLife Australia staff for entering bird data into the Portal.

Data Selection Data were used where BirdLife Australia observers had recorded all species seen and heard and estimated the species’ abundances within the site boundaries. Survey results incorporating species ‘presence’ only without abundance estimates were used in some statistical calculations, where appropriate. Bird data collected by other observers and submitted to BirdLife Australia via other means (e.g. e-bird) were also used if they met BirdLife Australia survey protocols.

For wetland bird surveys, a Melbourne Water GIS Spatial layer of Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Sites was used to extract wetland bird data from Birdata.

89 | P a g e

No GIS Spatial Layer for waterway sites exists. Therefore, geographic co-ordinates of Latitude and Longitude for each waterway site were used to extract bird data for each waterway site.

Survey data extracted from a 50 m buffer applied to the MWRBM ‘Priority Wetlands’ in the GIS layer were filtered by survey type and data collected from surveys coded as ‘limited’ were removed. The 50 m buffer was taken from the wetland mapping (i.e. from the water’s edge and not the edge of the property boundary). Limited surveys include, for example, surveys which do not count all species of bird, but select only groups/guilds of birds.

Species Selection Data were extracted for all native and introduced wetland and terrestrial bird species. For this assessment, the wetland bird species are defined following DELWP (2019a) as all waterbird species, comprising species from the following families: Podicipidae (grebes); Pelicanidae (Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus); Phalacrocoridae (cormorants); Anhingidae (Australasian Darter Anhinga novaehollandiae); Ardeidae (herons, egrets and bitterns); Threskiornithidae (spoonbills and ibis); Rallidae (crakes and rails); Anatidae (ducks, geese and Black Swan Cygnus atratus); Gruidae (Brolga Antigone rubicunda); several families of shorebirds, including Recurvirostridae (Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus leucocephalus and Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra novaehollandiae), Charadriidae (plovers), Scolopacidae (sandpipers and snipes) and Rostratulidae (Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis); and Laridae (gulls and terns).

In addition to waterbird species, the following species are also included as wetland species because of their use of wetland habitats:

• Azure Kingfisher (Ceyx azureus); • Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster); • Little Grassbird (Poodytes gramineus); • Australian Reed-warbler (Acrocephalus australis); • Golden-headed Cisticola (Cisticola exilis); • White-fronted Chat (Epthianura albifrons); • Swamp Harrier (Circus approximans); • White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster); and • Osprey (Pandion haliaetus). A total of 125 wetland species were defined for this assessment (see Appendix 16).

Bird Summary Statistics for Melbourne Water Priority Wetlands and Streamside Sites For the 2019/2020 year, site-based data were extracted, and the following bird summary statistics were calculated/determined for each wetland and waterway. Both site data with species ‘presence’ only recorded (i.e. without abundances estimated) and site data where abundances were also estimated/counted were used in calculations of the statistics:

• Number of surveys conducted; • Number of native wetland bird species recorded; • Number of introduced wetland bird species recorded; • Number of wetland bird species recorded breeding; • Number of native terrestrial bird species recorded; • Number of introduced terrestrial bird species recorded; • Number of terrestrial bird species recorded breeding; and

90 | P a g e

• Number of listed threatened bird species recorded (i.e. EPBC Act-listed threatened and migratory bird species, Victorian FFG Act-listed species and Victorian Advisory-listed species – see below).

Listed Species Listed species are those which are:

• listed as threatened species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999) (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable); • listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act 1999; • listed as threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act 1988); and • classified as threatened under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Species in Victoria – 2013 (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2013) (Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened). Results

Survey coverage The analysis found that 172 wetlands and 23 streamside sites had not been surveyed during 2019/2020 (Appendix 17). It should be noted that some of Melbourne Water’s 250 Priority Wetlands are yet to be constructed (e.g. Growling Grass Frog Habitat Ponds). Furthermore, biologists have been denied access to some wetlands on private property and others have been farmed to the extent that they no longer exist. These have been removed from Appendix 17. Table 34 presents the total number of standardized surveys undertaken across the Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring sites for 2019/2020. A total of 413 surveys were undertaken by staff and volunteers across 64 wetlands. A total of 468 surveys were undertaken across 54 riparian sites. Based on the Catchments and the Western Treatment Plant, for which data were analysed separately, most surveys were undertaken at wetlands in the Dandenong Catchment and riparian sites in the Yarra Catchment (Table 34).

Table 34. Total number of surveys of Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project and Priority Wetland Sites and Streamside sites for 2019/2020. Catchment Wetlands Waterways

No. sites No. surveys No. sites No. surveys

Dandenong 27 226 6 35 Maribyrnong 3 5 3 26 Werribee 4 10 7 37 Western Port 6 44 4 17 Yarra 18 85 34 353 Western Treatment Plant 6 43 - - Total 64 413 54 468

91 | P a g e

Catchment Summaries The following summaries provide a table of statistics for the 2019/2020 season for each site within the spatial context of the five major catchments identified in previous reporting (Dandenong, Maribyrnong, Werribee, Western Port and Yarra) and the Western Treatment Plant.

Given that this section of the report uses data from one year (i.e. 2019/2020), and the previous report assessed data collected at wetland sites over four five-year time blocks from 1993/1994 to 2018/2019 (BirdLife Australia 2020), a detailed assessment of the results is not warranted here. Furthermore, for the 2019/2020 year, no wetland sites and only one streamside site surveyed reached the suggested minimum number of surveys for a site required to provide sufficient data for analyses (i.e. minimum number of surveys required for Species Accumulation Curves to reach an asymptote). This has previously been determined to be 40 surveys for riparian sites (AECOM 2011 and 2012) and 20-40 surveys for wetland sites (BirdLife Australia 2020). Thus, data were too limited to provide another detailed assessment. Furthermore, restrictions and lockdowns associated with the Coronavirus resulted in many sites becoming inaccessible during 2019/2020. For each site, the following statistics from the 2019/2020 year are provided:

• Site Category which represents the Conservation Significance for Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands (see Table 33); • Total Number of surveys; • Total Number of Native Wetland Bird Species recorded; • Total Number of Introduced Wetland Bird Species recorded; • Minimum and Maximum Annual Abundance of Wetland Birds; • Number of Breeding Wetland Bird Species recorded; • Total Number of Native Terrestrial Bird Species recorded; • Total Number of Introduced Terrestrial Bird Species recorded; • Number of Breeding Terrestrial Bird Species recorded; • Number of Listed Bird Species recorded; • Species listed under the EPBC Act 1999 recorded; • Species listed under the FFG Act recorded; and • Species classified under DSE (2013) recorded.

Dandenong Catchment Survey data summary The wetlands and streams in the Dandenong Catchment with count data obtained from at least one survey during 2019/2020 are given in Table 35 along with associated bird summary statistics. A total of 226 surveys were undertaken across 28 wetland sites, while 35 surveys were undertaken across six waterway sites. According to Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Categories, the following number of surveys were undertaken during the 2019/2020 year: • Category A (Ramsar) – two wetlands and 24 surveys (i.e. monthly surveys at Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands); • Category B (Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas) – five wetlands forming part of the Carrum Key Bird Area and 62 surveys; • Category I (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments) – four wetlands with one survey each;

92 | P a g e

• Category K (Sites of Biodiversity Significance, SoBS) – five wetlands with 34 surveys; • Category M (Potential SoBS) – one wetland (Rigby’s Wetland, four cells) with 14 surveys; • Category N (South East Cluster of Constructed Wetlands) – five sites (note that River Gum Creek Reserve and Kilberry Boulevard were combined in the MW Spatial Layer) and 47 surveys; and • Category O (Social Wetlands) – five wetlands with 41 surveys. The six riparian sites include three SoBS sites with a combined total of 10 surveys, the two Monbulk Creek Work Sites addressed in Section 4 with monthly surveys at each and the Patterson River with one survey.

Sites summary Edithvale Wetland and Seaford Wetland form the internationally significant Edithvale Seaford Ramsar Site (see SKM 2011; Ecology Australia 2016; Hale and Butcher 2017; BirdLife Australia 2020a, 2020b and 2020c). During 2019/2020, totals of 49 and 41 wetland bird species were recorded at Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands, respectively. Maximum monthly wetland bird abundances were 4,004 for Edithvale and 2,088 for Seaford Wetland from December 2019. The number of Listed species recorded during 2019/2020 at Edithvale Wetland was 18, while 13 were recorded at Seaford Wetland, which is also consistent with the importance of the Ramsar site for threatened species. Key species which contribute to the Ramsar criteria under which the site is listed and which were recorded during the year include the Australasian Bittern and Curlew Sandpiper, both listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 and Victorian FFG Act 1988. The relatively high number of Wetland species recorded during a single year, include threatened species which contribute to the good representation/diversity of functional guilds occurring at the Ramsar site (e.g. threatened duck species, threatened shorebird species). The high number of wetland birds is often guided by the high number (>1% of the East Asian Australasian Flyway Population of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers (see Hale and Butcher 2017; BirdLife Australia 2020a, 2020b and 2020c). The Eastern Treatment Plant, part of the Carrum Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) (Reaney and Maurer 2019; BirdLife Australia 2020d), and another very significant site, owing to its large area of wetlands, and ponds of different treatment stages providing different nutrients at different times of the year, recorded 33 wetland bird species during the year (from eight surveys). The number of Listed species recorded 11 is about one-third of the total number recorded during the four five-year time blocks assessed during the 2018/2019 report (BirdLife Australia 2020a). Threatened species recorded included duck species listed under the FFG Act 1988 and various international migratory wader species from the Northern Hemisphere which are classified as threatened in Victoria under DSE (2013). During 2019/2020, Boundary Road Wetland (Banyan Waterhole) and Rossiter Road Lagoon, ETP, recorded 35 wetland bird species and nine Listed species. Listed species included Eastern Great Egret, Intermediate Egret and White-bellied Sea-Eagle listed under the FFG Act and Australasian Shoveler and Hardhead both classified as Vulnerable under DSE (2013). Braeside Park is also part of the Carrum KBA. During 2019/2020, 36 wetland species were recorded, including 11 Listed Species. Key threatened species recorded include the Freckled Duck, Blue-billed Duck and Eastern Great Egret, all listed under the FFG Act, and Latham’s Snipe, listed under the migratory schedules of the EPBC Act.

Wannarkladdin Wetlands are closely associated with the Edithvale Seaford Ramsar site, but are far smaller in area and don’t support the abundance (maximum 320) and high number of listed wetland

93 | P a g e bird species that the Ramsar site does. The wetlands are classified as a Melbourne Water Site of Biodiversity Significance (SoBS). During 2019/2020, the wetlands supported 33 wetland species and nine Listed Species, including Latham’s Snipe and Eastern Great Egret. Latham’s Snipe was recorded at two other SoBS sites, Tirhatuan Wetlands and Winton Wetlands.

Of the Social Wetlands (Category O), Jells Park recorded 30 wetland bird species, including seven Listed Species, a maximum abundance of 1,263 wetland birds and 12 breeding wetland species. Listed species included the Freckled Duck, Blue-billed Duck and Eastern Great Egret, all listed under the FFG Act, and Hardhead, classified as Vulnerable in Victoria (DSE 2013). Breeding species included three species of Cormorant (Little Pied, Little Black and Great), Australian White Ibis, Royal Spoonbill, Masked Lapwing, Chestnut Teal, Australian Wood Duck, Black Swan, Dusky Moorhen, Purple (Australian) Swamphen and Australasian Darter.

The South East Cluster of Melbourne Water Constructed Wetlands have always performed very well with respect to supporting high species richness, good abundances of wetland birds and high numbers of Breeding Species and Listed Species (see BirdLife Australia 2020a). This is particularly the case for Dandenong Valley Wetland (Rigby’s Wetland Cells, a potential SoBS), Troups Creek Wetland, River Gum Creek Reserve, Kilberry Boulevard and Heatherton Road North and South Wetlands.

During 2019/2020, Dandenong Valley Wetland (Rigby’s Wetland Cells) recorded 34 wetland species, a maximum of 384 wetland birds, four breeding species and eight listed species. Threatened wetland bird species included the FFG Act -listed Freckled Duck, Intermediate Egret and Eastern Great Egret, and DSE (2013) classified Australasian Shoveler and Hardhead. Black Falcon, classified as Vulnerable in Victoria (DSE 2013), was also recorded.

During 2019/2020, Troups Creek Wetland and River Gum Creek Reserve/Kilberry Boulevard recorded greater than 30 wetland species and more than 1,000 wetland birds and seven Listed Species. Threatened species recorded across the sites included Freckled Duck, Blue-billed Duck, Hardhead, Eastern Great Egret, Latham’s Snipe, Royal Spoonbill and Nankeen Night Heron.

The best of the six streamside sites in terms of Listed Species recorded was the Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site which recorded the White-throated Needletail [Listed under the Migratory (Mi) schedules of the EPBC Act, listed as threatened under the FFG Act and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria under DSE 2013] and Rufous Fantail (Mi) and Satin Flycatcher (Mi). White-throated Needletails are aerial insectivores which roost in trees. However, it is not clear how dependent individuals are on the riparian vegetation they are seen above.

94 | P a g e

Table 35. Survey summaries for Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and streamside sites across the Dandenong Catchment for 2019/2020. Priority Wetland Site Categories are also provided. No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. EPBC Act-listed FFG Act-listed DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Listed Species Species Site name Category Surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding Species Wetlands 48 8 1 18 Australasian Bittern (EN), Australasian Bittern, Australasian Bittern (EN), Curlew Sandpiper (CE, Curlew Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Blue- Mi), Latham’s Snipe (Mi), Baillon’s Crake, Blue- billed Duck (EN), Freckled Duck Red-necked Stint (Mi), billed Duck, Freckled (EN), Australasian Shoveler Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Duck, Eastern Great (VU), Baillon’s Crake (VU), (Mi), Wood Sandpiper Egret and Magpie Eastern Great Egret (VU), (Mi) and Australian Reed- Goose. Hardhead (VU), Musk Duck warbler (Mi). (VU), Wood Sandpiper (VU), Latham’s Snipe (NT), Magpie Goose (NT), Royal Spoonbill Edithvale (NT), Nankeen Night-Heron and Wetlands A 12 49 0 1220-4004 5 Whiskered Tern (NT). 64 7 1 13 Latham’s Snipe (Mi), Eastern Great Egret Australasian Shoveler (VU), Red-necked Stint (Mi), and Grey Goshawk. Eastern Great Egret (VU), Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Hardhead (VU), Common (Mi), Common Greenshank (VU), Grey Greenshank (Mi), Glossy Goshawk (VU), Latham’s Snipe Ibis (Mi) and Australian (NT), Glossy Ibis (NT), Royal Seaford Reed-warbler (Mi). Spoonbill (NT), Whiskered Tern Wetlands A 12 41 0 231-2088 5 (NT) and Pacific Gull (NT). 27 8 1 11 Red-necked Stint (Mi), Freckled Duck. Freckled Duck (EN), Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Australasian Shoveler (VU), (Mi), Marsh Sandpiper Common Greenshank (VU), (Mi), Common Marsh Sandpiper (VU), Wood Greenshank (Mi), Wood Sandpiper (VU), Glossy Ibis Sandpiper (Mi), Double- (NT) and Whiskered Tern (NT). banded Plover, (Mi), Glossy Ibis (Mi) and Eastern Australian Reed-warbler Treatment Plant B 8 33 0 284-706 3 (Mi). 44 8 0 9 Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Egret, Australasian Shoveler (VU), (Mi). Intermediate Egret Hardhead (VU), Eastern Great and White-bellied Egret (VU), Intermediate Egret Sea-Eagle. (EN), White-bellied Sea-Eagle Boundary Road (VU), Pacific Gull (NT), Royal Wetland Spoonbill (NT) and Whiskered (Banyan B 12 35 0 73-822 1 Tern (NT). Waterhole) ETP 20 7 1 2 Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU). ETP South, B 2 13 0 127-148 0 (Mi). PARCS Wetland 26 6 0 3 Australian Reed-warbler - Australasian Shoveler (VU), Boggy Creek, B 8 23 1 63-322 0 (Mi). Royal Spoonbill (NT) Carrum 36 8 0 9 Latham’s Snipe (Mi), Freckled Duck, Blue- Freckled Duck (EN), Blue-billed and Australian Reed- billed Duck, Eastern Duck (EN), Australasian warbler (Mi). Great Egret. Shoveler (VU), Hardhead (VU), Eastern Great Egret (VU), Latham’s Snipe (NT), Pacific Gull (NT) and Royal Spoonbill B 32 36 0 147-603 0 (NT). Braeside Park 31 9 0 9 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Eastern Great Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU), Wannarkladdin K 7 33 0 63-320 2 (Mi), Latham’s Snipe Latham’s Snipe (NT), Nankeen Wetlands (Mi), Night-Heron (NT), Royal

95 | P a g e

Monbulk Creek K 2 9 0 39-123 1 31 3 0 0 - - - Retarding Basin 19 3 0 3 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) and Intermediate Egret Intermediate Egret (EN) and Australian Reed-warbler Latham’s Snipe (NT). Tirhatuan K 10 17 0 22-86 1 (Mi). Wetlands K 12 12 0 15-72 2 28 3 4 1 Latham’s Snipe (Mi). - Latham’s Snipe (NT). Winton Wetlands 20 5 3 4 Australian Reed-warbler Freckled Duck and Freckled Duck (EN), Hardhead (Mi). Eastern Great Egret. (VU) and Eastern Great Egret O 12 32 0 170-170 1 (VU). Karkarook Park 44 3 2 7 Australian Reed-warbler Freckled Duck, Blue- Freckled Duck (EN), Blue-billed (Mi). billed Duck and Duck (EN), Hardhead (VU), Eastern Great Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU), Nankeen Night-Heron (NT) and O 14 30 0 132-1,263 12 Royal Spoonbill (NT). Jells Park Lake Cranbourne 33 3 0 0 - - - Botanic Gardens I 1 13 0 NR 0 Wetlands 13 0 0 2 - - Musk Duck (VU) and Pied O 1 10 0 71 0 Cormorant (NT). Lysterfield Lake Dandenong 41 4 1 1 Australian Reed-warbler - - Wetlands, O 13 13 0 15-144 1 (Mi). Koomba Park 36 6 2 8 Australian Reed-warbler Freckled Duck, Freckled Duck (EN), (Mi). Intermediate Egret Australasian Shoveler (VU), and Eastern Great Hardhead (VU), Intermediate Dandenong Egret. Egret (EN), Eastern Great Egret Valley Wetland (VU), Royal Spoonbill (NT) and (Rigby's Wetland M 14 34 0 38-384 4 Black Falcon (VU). Cells) Woodlands I 1 11 0 168 1 10 2 0 0 - - - Estate Wetlands 37 7 0 4 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) and Eastern Great Egret. Latham’s Snipe (NT), Eastern Australian Reed-warbler Great Egret (VU), Nankeen Heatherton Road N 9 24 0 43-428 0 (Mi). Night-Heron (NT). North Wetland 41 8 0 6 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) and Eastern Great Egret. Australasian Shoveler (VU), Australian Reed-warbler Latham’s Snipe (NT), Eastern (Mi). Great Egret (VU), Pacific Gull Heatherton Road N 9 27 0 38-412 0 (NT) and Royal Spoonbill (NT). South Wetland 34 8 0 4 Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU), (Mi). Nankeen Night-Heron (NT) and Frog Hollow N 10 27 0 70-716 6 Royal Spoonbill (NT). Wetland

96 | P a g e

No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. EPBC Act-listed FFG Act-listed DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Listed Species Species Site name Category Surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding Species 34 7 0 7 Latham’s Snipe and Blue-billed Duck and Blue-billed Duck (EN), Hardhead Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Egret. (VU), Eastern Great Egret (VU), (Mi). Latham’s Snipe (NT), Royal Spoonbill (NT) and Nankeen Troups Creek N 9 34 0 91-1270 1 Night Heron (NT). Wetland 33 9 0 7 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) and Freckled Duck and Freckled Duck (EN), River Gum Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Egret. Australasian Shoveler (VU), Creek Reserve (Mi). Hardhead (VU), Eastern Great and Kilberry Egret (VU), Latham’s Snipe (NT) Boulevard N 10 36 0 89-1734 2 and Royal Spoonbill (NT). Wetland Waterways 16 6 0 0 - - - Estate (Mordialloc I 1 15 0 NR 0 Creek Wetlands Chelsea Heights I 1 1 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 - - - Wetland 11 2 0 2 Australian Reed-warbler - Pied Cormorant (NT). Liverpool Road K 3 16 0 22-47 0 (Mi). RB Wilson Botanic O 1 6 0 63-63 1 20 5 2 0 - - - Park Streamside sites Tamarisk 20 3 1 1 Australian Reed-warbler - - Waterway (Mi). Reserve, K 2 5 0 10-10 0 Langwarrin Colchester Road K 4 1 0 2-2 0 22 3 0 0 - - - RB K 4 2 0 2-2 0 21 1 0 0 - - - Fussell Road RB 39 1 1 3 White-throated Needletail White-throated White-throated Needletail (VU). Monbulk Creek (Mi), Rufous Fantail (Mi) Needletail. Upstream Works 12 0 0 0 0 and Satin Flycatcher (Mi). Control Monbulk Creek 28 2 1 1 Rufous Fantail (Mi). - - Willows Works 12 2 0 11-12 1 Removed N/A 1 9 0 49 0 3 4 0 1 - Eastern Great Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU). Patterson River

97 | P a g e

Maribyrnong Catchment

Survey data summary The wetlands and streamside sites in the Maribyrnong Catchment with count data obtained from at least one survey during 2019/2020 are given in Table 36 along with associated bird summary statistics. A total of five surveys were undertaken across three wetland sites, while 36 surveys were undertaken across three streamside sites. According to Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Categories, the following number of surveys were undertaken during the 2019/2020 year:

• Category E (Seasonal Herbaceous Freshwater Wetlands) – one wetland with three surveys (Gisborne Racecourse Marshlands Reserve, Parks Victoria); • Category I (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments) – one wetland with one survey (Newell’s Paddock); and • Category O (Social Wetlands) – one wetland with one survey (Pipemakers Park Wetland). The three streamside sites included Martin Dillon Reserve on Deep Creek with two surveys, and two sites situated along Jacksons Creek comprising a Works Site and a Downstream Control Site, each with monthly surveys.

Sites summary Gisborne Racecourse Marshlands Reserve (Gisborne Swamp) is a Seasonal Herbaceous Freshwater Wetland with high quality native vegetation. The Swamp regularly supports Latham’s Snipe, as it did during 2019/2020. Latham’s Snipe is listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act and is classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013).

During 2019/2020, Lewin’s Rail was recorded at both Jacksons Creek sites: the Downstream Control Site and the Works Site. Lewin’s Rail is listed as a threatened species under the FFG Act and is classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013).

98 | P a g e

Table 36. Survey summaries for Melbourne Water’s wetland and waterways across the Maribyrnong Catchment for 2019/2020. Site significance is also provided. No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. Listed EPBC Act-listed FFG Act-listed DSE (2013) No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Species Species Species Species Site name Cetegory Surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding

Wetlands 25 5 0 1 Latham’s Snipe - Latham’s Gisborne 3 7 0 136-143 1 (Mi). Snipe (NT). Swamp E 4 5 0 0 - - - Newells I 1 7 0 101 0 Paddock 8 4 0 1 - - Hardhead (VU). Pipemakers O 1 9 1 47 0 Park Wetland

Streamside sites 0 16-28 1 Australian Reed- Jacksons Creek 27 2 0 2 Lewin’s Rail. Lewin’s Rail warbler (Mi). Downstream Works 12 8 (VU). Control 0 15-67 3 34 7 2 2 Australian Reed- Lewin’s Rail. Lewin’s Rail warbler (Mi). Jacksons Creek Works 12 12 (VU). Works Site Martin Dillon Streamside 0 4-6 0 8 3 0 0 - - - Reserve, Deep site 2 1 Creek

99 | P a g e

Werribee Catchment

Survey data summary The wetlands and streamside sites in the Maribyrnong Catchment with count data obtained from at least one survey during 2019/2020 are given in Table 37 along with associated bird summary statistics. A total of 10 surveys were undertaken across four wetland sites, while 37 surveys were undertaken across seven streamside sites. According to Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Categories, the following number of surveys were undertaken during the 2019/2020 year at one wetland in each category:

• Category A (Ramsar) – two surveys undertaken at Cheetham Wetlands; • Category I (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments, Regional) –three surveys undertaken at Andersons Lake/Fitzgerald Road Grasslands; • Category K (Sites of Biodiversity Significance, SoBS) – four surveys at Cherry Lake; and • Category L (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments, Local) – one survey at Newport Lakes. Surveys undertaken during 2019/2020 at the seven streamside sites included: • three SoBS sites comprising Kororoit Creek Escarpments North, Kororoit Creek Escarpments South and Wide Bend, Kororoit Creek with 10, one and 11 surveys, respectively; and • four streamside sites (not categorized), comprising three Kayes and Imms Creeks Waterway sites, each with three surveys, and the Little River Lower Reaches with six surveys.

Sites summary Cheetham Saltfields is a component of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site (DELWP 2018a). The Saltfields cover a large area (c. 563 ha) and support a high Abundance of wetland birds and a high waterbird Species Richness (DELWP 2018a; BirdLife Australia 2020c). During 2019/2020, only two surveys were completed at Cheetham Saltfields. However, 40 wetland bird species were recorded and minimum and maximum abundances of 1,884 and 3,545 wetland birds. Thirteen Listed Species were recorded, including a suite of Migratory and threatened species : Curlew Sandpiper (Critically Endangered and Migratory under EPBC Act); Marsh Sandpiper and Common Greenshank (both listed as Migratory under EPBC Act and classified as Vulnerable under DSE 2013); Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Red-necked Stint (Migratory under EPBC Act), Double-banded Plover (Mi) and Crested Tern (all listed as Migratory under EPBC Act); Eastern Great Egret and Little Egret (both listed as threatened under FFG Act); and Pied Cormorant, Black-faced Cormorant, Royal Spoonbill and Pacific Gull (all classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE 2013). The high number of Listed Species and high abundances of wetland birds is consistent with its place in the internationally significant Ramsar Site (DELWP 2018a). During 2019/2020, Cherry Lake (c. 96 ha and SoBS) recorded 23 wetland bird species from only four surveys, and a maximum abundance of 1,224 wetland birds. Three Listed species recorded there during 2019/2020 were Little Egret (FFG Act-listed and classified as Endangered by DSE 2013), and Pied Cormorant and Royal Spoonbill (both classified as Near Threatened by DSE 2013).

During 2019/2020, the Intermediate Egret was the only Listed Species recorded at Fitzgerald Road Grassland, Andersons Lake. In Victoria, this species is listed as threatened under the FFG Act 1988 and is classified as Endangered by DSE (2013).

100 | P a g e

The Little River, Lower Reaches is closely associated with the Western Treatment Plant. During the six surveys undertaken in 2019/2020, 22 native wetland bird species were recorded, including six Listed Species. These species comprised the Curlew Sandpiper, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Red-necked Stint (Migratory under the EPBC Act) and Australian Reed-warbler (all listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act), and Musk Duck (classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE 2013) and Whiskered Tern (classified as Near Threatened by DSE 2013).

101 | P a g e

Table 37. Survey summaries for Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetlands and waterways across the Werribee Catchment for 2019/2020. Site categories are also provided. No. Native No. Exotic No. No. Listed EPBC Act-listed Species - DSE (2013) Species No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Species species Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Breeding

Wetlands 25 8 0 13 Curlew Sandpiper (CE, Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Marsh Mi), Marsh Sandpiper (Mi), Sandpiper, Sandpiper (VU), Common Common Greenshank Eastern Great Greenshank (VU), Eastern Great (Mi), Sharp-tailed Egret and Little Egret (VU), Little Egret (EN), Sandpiper Mi), Red- Egret. Pied Cormorant (NT), Black- Cheetham necked Stint (Mi), Double- faced Cormorant (NT), Royal Saltfields (Parks banded Plover (Mi) and Spoonbill (NT) and Pacific Gull Victoria) A 2 40 0 1,884-3,545 0 Crested Tern (Mi) (NT). 25 8 0 3 - Little Egret. Little Egret (EN), Pied Cormorant Cherry Lake K 4 23 1 118-1,224 0 (NT) and Royal Spoonbill (NT). 5 3 0 - - - L 1 4 0 19 0 Newport Lakes Fitzgerald Road 7 2 0 1 - Intermediate Intermediate Egret (EN). Grassland, Egret. Andersons Lake I 3 5 0 26-103 0 (Parks Victoria)

Streamside Sites Kayes and Imms 7 3 0 1 - - Pacific Gull (NT). Creek Waterway Reserve, Streamside Site 3 2 0 3-5 0 Laverton Kayes Creek Streamside 7 4 0 0 - - - Waterway Site Reserve, 3 1 0 9-45 0 Windsor Blvd Kayes Creek Streamside 5 3 0 0 - - - Waterway Site Reserve, Yeend 3 2 0 46-46 0 Court, Derrimut Kororoit Creek 20 10 1 2 Australian Reed-warbler - Hardhead (VU). Escarpments K 10 7 3 11-61 0 (Mi). North Kororoit Creek 12 6 0 0 - - - Escarpments K 1 5 0 56 0 South 18 7 0 4 Australian Reed-warbler Eastern Great Australasian Shoveler (VU), (Mi). Egret. Eastern Great Egret (VU), Wide Bend, Lower K 11 17 0 33-43 0 Whiskered Tern (NT). Kororoit Creek 15 2 0 6 Curlew Sandpiper (CE, Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Musk Mi), Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. Duck (VU) and Whiskered Tern Sandpiper, Red-necked (NT). Streamside Stint (Mi) and Australian Little River Lower Site 6 22 1 429-541 0 Reed-warbler (Mi). Reaches

102 | P a g e

Western Port Catchment

Survey data summary The wetlands and streamside sites in the Western Port Catchment with count data obtained from at least one survey during 2019/2020 are given in Table 38 along with associated bird summary statistics. A total of 44 surveys were undertaken across six wetland sites, while 17 surveys were undertaken across four streamside sites. According to Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Categories, the following number of surveys were undertaken during the 2019/2020 year:

• Category A (Ramsar) – 14 surveys for the Western Port Ramsar Site; • Category I (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments, Regional) – four wetlands with a total of 27 surveys (Devilbend Reservoir had one survey, Bittern Reservoir had four surveys, Tootgarook Swamp had seven surveys and Coolart Wetlands had 15 surveys); and • A Non-Melbourne Water Wetland – Swan Lake with three surveys. The four streamside sites included the Inlets, a SoBS site, which flows into the Western Port Ramsar Site (one survey) and three Melbourne Water Works Sites at the Briars with a total of 16 surveys.

Sites summary The Western Port Bay Ramsar Site covers extensive areas of significant mudflats and seagrass meadows (24,474 ha) and supports a very large Abundance and high Species Richness of wetland bird (DELWP 2017; BirdLife Australia 2020a. During 2019/2020, 28 wetland bird species were recorded, including eight Listed Species. These eight species comprised listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act (Caspian Tern and Crested Tern), species listed under the FFG Act (Caspian Tern and White-bellied Sea-Eagle) and species classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013) (Pied Cormorant, Black- faced Cormorant, Royal Spoonbill, Sooty Oystercatcher and Pacific Gull). Devilbend Reservoir covers a large area (c. 350 ha) and supports a high abundance and density of wetland birds (BirdLife Australia 2020a. From one survey undertaken during 2019/2020, 10 wetland bird species were recorded totalling 2,233 birds. The Musk Duck (classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE 2013) was the only Listed Species recorded. Tootgarook Swamp is a significant wetland managed by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. During 2019/2020, 28 wetland bird species were recorded, including nine Listed Species. The most significant of the Listed Species is the Australasian Bittern, which is listed under both the EPBC Act and FFG Act. Other Listed Species included the Eastern Great Egret (listed under the FFG Act) and Latham’s Snipe (listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act and classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE 2013). During 2019/2020, Coolart Lagoon recorded 29 wetland species, including five Listed Species and seven breeding species. Listed Species included Latham’s Snipe (listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act), Blue-billed Duck (listed under the FFG Act and classified as Endangered by DSE 2013), and Australasian Shoveler, Hardhead and Royal Spoonbill (all classified as Near Threatened by DSE 2013). Breeding species included Chestnut Teal, Grey Teal, Hoary-headed Grebe and Pacific Black Duck. Of the streamside sites, Lewin’s Rail, which listed as a threatened species under the Victorian FFG act and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013) was recorded at the Inlets.

103 | P a g e

Table 38. Survey summaries for Melbourne Water’s wetland and streamside sites across the Western Port Catchment for 2019/2020. Site Category is also provided. No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. EPBC Act-listed FFG Act-listed DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Listed Species Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding Species

Wetlands 16 3 1 8 Caspian Tern (Mi) Caspian Tern and Caspian Tern (NT), White-bellied and Crested Tern (Mi) White-bellied Sea- Sea-Eagle (VU), Pied Cormorant Eagle. (NT), Black-faced Cormorant (NT), Royal Spoonbill (NT), Sooty Oystercatcher (NT) and Pacific Gull Western Port A 14 28 0 396-442 0 (NT). 9 0 0 1 - - Musk Duck (VU). Devilbend 1 10 0 2,233 0 Reservoir I 5 0 0 3 - Eastern Great Musk Duck (VU), Australasian Egret. Shoveler (VU) and Eastern Great Bittern 4 20 2 243-243 0 Egret (VU). Reservoir I Tootgarook I 32 5 1 9 Australasian Bittern Australasian Bittern Australasian Bittern (EN), Eastern Swamp (EN), Latham’s Snipe and Eastern Great Great Egret (VU), Latham’s Snipe (Mi), Glossy Ibis (Mi) Egret. (NT), Glossy Ibis (NT), Nankeen and Australian Reed- Night-Heron (NT), Royal Spoonbill warbler (Mi). (NT), Pacific Gull (NT) and Black 7 28 0 63-295 0 Falcon (VU).

29 0 64-247 7 44 6 6 5 Latham’s Snipe (Mi). Blue-billed Duck. Blue-billed Duck (EN), Australasian Shoveler (VU), Hardhead (VU), Latham’s Snipe (NT) and Royal Coolart I 15 Spoonbill (NT). Lagoon Non- 28 1 341-562 3 11 1 0 4 Sharp-tailed - Musk Duck (VU), Pied Cormorant Melbourne Sandpiper (Mi) (NT) and Royal Spoonbill (NT). Water 3 Swan Lake

Streamside sites

I 1 11 0 527 28 5 0 1 Lewin’s Rail. Lewin’s Rail (VU). The Inlets The Briars - 4 0 11-14 0 14 2 0 0 - - - Claypit Creek (Central Trib.) Works 5

The Briars - 8 0 16-44 0 20 4 0 0 - - - Home Creek (Eastern Trib.) Works 6

The Briars - 5 0 7-13 0 21 4 1 0 - - - Stockley Creek (Western Trib.) Works 5

104 | P a g e

Yarra Catchment

Survey data summary The wetlands and streamside sites in the Yarra Catchment with count data obtained from at least one survey during 2019/2020 are given in Table 39 along with associated bird summary statistics. A total of 85 surveys were undertaken across 18 wetland sites, while 353 surveys were undertaken across 34 streamside sites. According to Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Categories, the following number of surveys were undertaken during the 2019/2020 year:

• Category H (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments, State Significance) – two wetlands with a total of 15 surveys; • Category I (Significant Wetlands Identified in Previous Assessments, Regional Significance) – three wetlands with a total of 19 surveys; • Category J (Melbourne Water Priority Billabongs) – four wetlands with a total of seven surveys; • Category K (Sites of Biodiversity Significance, SoBS) – two wetlands with a total of four surveys; • Category O (Social Wetlands) – six wetlands with a total of 27 surveys; and • A Melbourne Water Non-Priority Wetland with 13 surveys (Trin Warren Tam-boore Wetlans). The 34 streamside sites included:

• 14 sites with a total of 145 surveys associated with the Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Willow Removal Evaluation study (Section 2.0); • Three sites, each with one survey, associated with the Olinda Creek Willow Removal Evaluation study (Section 3.0); • Five streamside sites from the Gardiners Creek system with a total of 144 surveys; • Three sites located along Mullum Mullum Creek with a total of 24 surveys; • Three sites with a total of six surveys situated along the Yarra River near Warrandyte, which are located in the Bend of Islands Conservation Association; • Two sites along Westbreen Creek with a total of seven surveys; and • A site along each of Salt Creek (Rosanna Parklands, 11 surveys), Moonee Ponds Creek (4 surveys), Mooroolbark Creek (four surveys) and Old Joes Creek (four surveys).

Sites summary Trin Warren Tam-boore Wetlands is a Non-Priority Wetland, but is included because a relatively large number of surveys (13) had been undertaken during 2019/2020. Six Listed Species were recorded, comprising the Australian reed-warbler (listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act) Blue- billed Duck (FFG Act-listed species and classified as Endangered in Victoria), Eastern Great Egret (FFG Act-listed species and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria), Hardhead (classified as Vulnerable in Victoria) and Pied Cormorant and Black-eared Cuckoo (both classified as Near Threatened in Victoria). Morang wetlands also had data from a good number (12) of surveys for 2019/2020. Seven Listed Species were recorded, including: Latham’s Snipe, which is listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act and is classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013); Freckled Duck, Intermediate Egret and Eastern Great Egret, which are listed under the FFG Act; and Australasian Shoveler and Hardhead, which are classified as Vulnerable in Victoria. A number of other urban wetlands in the Yarra Catchment, such as Westgate Park Wetlands, Banyule Flats Billabong, Coburg Lake, Tanunda Wetlands and Edwardes Wetland supported small numbers of

105 | P a g e

Victorian threatened duck species during 2019/2020, including FFG Act-listed Freckled Duck and Blue- billed Duck, and Musk Duck and Hardhead, both classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013). Latham’s Snipe was also recorded during 2019/2020 included at Taununda Wetlands. Cockatoo Creek Floodplain is part of the Yellingbo Nature Conservation Reserve. During 2019/2020, the FFG Act-listed Square-tailed Kite was recorded, as well as two species listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act: Rufous Fantail and Australian Reed-warbler. The White-throated Needletail is a small, aerial, migratory insectivore from its breeding grounds in Central Asia and Siberia. It is a spring-summer migrant to Australia. During 2019/2020, the White- throated Needletail was recorded at Ringwood Lake. This species is listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act and as a threatened taxon under the FFG Act and is classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013). They roost in trees, however, it is not known how dependent individuals are on vegetation they are seen above unless recorded roosting. Yering Backswamp is the only site where the Little Buttonquail was recorded during 2019/2020. The species is classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013). Many of waterways in the Yarra Catchment were surveyed regularly during 2019/2020. The most significant records included:

• White-throated Needletail was recorded at Wurundjeri Walk; • Powerful Owl, which is listed as a threatened species under the Victorian FFG Act and is classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013) was recorded at Rosanna Parklands/Salt Creek, and Yarran Dheran Reserve (Mullum Mullum Creek); • Hooded Robin, which is listed as a threatened species under the Victorian FFG Act and is classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013) was recorded at Cardigan Road Retarding Basin, Mooroolbark Creek; and • Two threatened species were recorded at Proper Yanakie along the Yarra River and part of the Bend of Islands Conservation Association area, including the White-throated Needletail and Grey Goshawk. The latter species is listed under the FFG Act and is classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013).

106 | P a g e

Table 39. Survey summaries for Melbourne Water’s wetlands and waterways across the Yarra Catchment for 2019/2020. Site significance is also provided. No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. Listed EPBC Act-listed FFG Act- DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Species Species listed Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding

Wetlands Yan Yean Reservoir K 8 1 0 0 - - - 1 13 0 0 0

46 4 1 2 Australian Reed- - Little Button-quail (NT) K 3 8 0 13-26 0 warbler (Mi). Yering Backswamp J 5 0 0 0 - - - Bolin Bolin Billabong 1 0 0 0 0

10 5 0 2 Australian Reed- - Hardhead (VU). O 1 15 0 181 0 warbler (Mi). Westgate Park Lakes 9 2 0 0 - - - J 2 0 0 0 0 Burke Road Billabong Willsmere BIllabong J 6 0 0 0 - - - 1 1 0 2 0

Trin Warren Tam- Non- 19 6 0 6 Australian Reed- Blue-billed Blue-billed Duck (EN), Priority warbler (Mi). Duck and Hardhead (VU), Eastern Great boore Wetlands Wetland Eastern Great Egret (VU), Pied Cormorant Egret. (NT) and Black-eared Cuckoo 13 19 0 23-50 0 (NT).

Albert Park Lake O 1 1 0 1 Australian Reed- - - 2 9 0 138-138 2 warbler (Mi).

I 38 1 4 1 - - Nankeen Night-Heron (NT). Blackburn Lake 14 13 2 19-82 3

15 0 1 1 - - Hardhead (VU). J 3 14 0 39-64 0 Banyule Flats Billabong 17 4 1 4 Australian Reed- - Musk Duck (VU), Hardhead warbler (Mi). (VU) and Pied Cormorant O 4 16 2 174-716 3 (NT). Coburg Lake 37 2 1 3 Rufous Fantail (Mi) Square-tailed Square-tailed Kite (VU). and Australian Kite. Cockatoo Creek H 3 3 0 3-10 0 Reed-warbler (Mi). Floodplain 20 5 3 3 Australian Reed- - Hardhead (VU) and Nankeen O 5 18 1 136-593 2 warbler (Mi). Night-Heron (NT). Edwardes Lake 20 4 1 1 Australian Reed- - - O 4 11 0 53-162 4 warbler (Mi). LiIllydale Lake 23 2 2 1 White-throated White-throated White-throated Needletail O 11 10 3 14-85 2 Needletail (Mi) Needletail. (VU). Ringwood Lake 48 5 0 7 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) Freckled Duck, Freckled Duck (EN), and Australian Intermediate Australasian Shoveler (VU), Reed-warbler (Mi). Egret and Hardhead (VU), Intermediate Eastern Great Egret (EN), Eastern Great Egret. Egret (VU) and Latham’s H 12 26 0 87-231 4 Snipe (NT). Morang Wetlands

107 | P a g e

No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. Listed EPBC Act-listed FFG Act- DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Species Species listed Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding 38 7 2 5 Latham’s Snipe (Mi) Freckled Duck Freckled Duck (EN), Blue- and Australian and Blue-billed billed Duck (EN), Hardhead I 4 23 0 83-160 2 Reed-warbler (Mi). Duck. (VU) and Latham’s Snipe (NT). Tanunda Wetlands 24 4 2 0 - - - I 1 2 0 11 0 Warringal Swamp

Streamside sites Streamside 25 4 5 0 - - - Gardiners Creek Site 12 7 2 8-24 1 Reserve, Box Hill South Gardiners Creek Trail, Streamside 28 4 6 1 - - Nankeen Night-Heron (NT). Highbury Road to High Site 12 8 0 10-28 2 St Road Streamside 13 3 1 0 - - - Gardiners Creek, Site 12 3 0 3-8 1 Burwood Streamside 12 2 0 0 - - - Gardiners Creek, Glen Site 7 2 0 2-16 0 Iris Streamside 34 5 6 2 White-throated White-throated White-throated Needletail Site Needletail (Mi) and Needletail. (VU). Fork-tailed Swift Wurundjeri Walk, 101 14 0 19-94 3 (Mi). Blackburn Streamside 17 4 2 0 - - - Moonee Ponds Creek, Site 4 2 0 5-8 1 Westmeadows Streamside 22 3 9 1 - Powerful Owl. Powerful Owl (VU). Rosanna Parklands / Site 11 4 0 12-12 0 Salt Creek Olinda Creek Willow 16 0 0 0 - - - Works 1 0 0 0 0 Removal Olinda Creek willows Works 13 0 0 0 - - - removed 1 1 0 1 0

Olinda Creek, control Works 16 0 2 0 - - - 1 0 0 0 0

MW - Westbreen Creek Streamside 9 3 0 0 - - - Gavin Park Site 4 1 0 2-2 0

MW - Westbreen Creek Streamside 9 3 0 0 - - - - Joyce Reserve Site 3 0 0 0 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 22 2 1 0 - - - Plenty River 1 12 3 0 4-4 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 44 4 0 0 - - - Plenty River 2 12 7 0 122-142 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 30 4 0 0 - - - Plenty River 3 12 5 0 8-10 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 11 1 0 0 - - - Plenty River 4 1 0 0 0 0

108 | P a g e

No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. Listed EPBC Act-listed FFG Act- DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Species Species listed Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding MW Works Evaluation Works 31 5 0 1 Australian Reed- - - Plenty River 5 12 1 0 1-1 0 warbler (Mi).

MW Works Evaluation Works 29 4 0 0 - - - Plenty River 6 12 2 0 3-3 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 33 3 0 2 Rufous Fantail (Mi) - - Plenty River 7 and Australian 12 4 0 17-21 0 Reed-warbler (Mi). .

MW Works Evaluation Works 36 8 0 0 - - - Plenty River 8 12 1 0 2-2 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 27 7 0 1 Australian Reed- - - Plenty River 9 12 9 0 9-13 0 warbler (Mi).

MW Works Evaluation Works 28 5 0 0 - - - Plenty River 10 12 2 0 2-2 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 33 2 0 0 - - - Arthurs Creek 13 12 1 0 1-1 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 24 2 0 0 - - - Arthurs Creek 14 12 3 0 4-4 0

MW Works Evaluation Works 28 2 0 0 - - - Arthurs Creek 15 12 2 0 10-10 1

MW Works Evaluation Works 12 1 0 0 - - - Running Creek 16 1 0 0 0 0

Cardigan Road Streamside 28 2 0 1 Hooded Robin. Hooded Robin (NT). Retarding Basin, Site Mooroolbark Creek 4 0 0 0 0

Old Joes Creek Streamside 18 2 0 0 - - Retarding Basin Site 4 3 0 4-20 1

Mullum Mullum Creek Streamside 7 0 0 0 - - - Currawong Park Site 1 2 0 6-6 0

Mullum Mullum Park Streamside 8 1 0 0 - - - Site 1 0 0 0 0

Yarran Dheran Reserve Streamside 34 3 1 1 - Powerful Owl. Powerful Owl (VU). (Mullum Mullum Creek) Site 22 5 1 5-19 3

Bend of Islands, B Streamside 36 0 0 0 - - - Track to C Track via Site Aqueduct 1 0 0 0 0

Bend of Islands, C Streamside 34 0 0 0 - - - Track Site 1 0 0 0 0

Bend of Islands, Streamside 65 5 1 4 White-throated Grey White-throated Needletail (VU) Proper-Yanakie Site 4 9 0 - 0 Needletail (Mi), Goshawk. and Grey Goshawk (VU). Rufous Fantail (Mi)

109 | P a g e

110 | P a g e

Western Treatment Plant

Survey data summary The ponds and lagoons at the Western Treatment Plant (WTP) with count data from 2019/2020 are given in Table 40 along with the associated bird summary statistics. A total of 43 surveys were undertaken at six systems during 2019/2020. The Habitat Lagoons comprised T-Section Lagoons and Western Lagoons, and had data from surveyed eight and 10 surveys, respectively. The Habitat Ponds comprised the ‘Habitat Ponds (13 sites)’, Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) and Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2) had data from six, six and 12 survey, respectively. One of the Operational Ponds, Walshes Pond 7, had data from one survey undertaken during 2019/2020.

Sites summary The lagoons, ponds and natural wetlands of the Western Treatment Plant form an important component of the internationally significant Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site. The wetland systems of the Western Treatment Plant provide extensive habitat for significant numbers of waterfowl and shorebird, including migratory shorebirds, and therefore, make an important contribution to the values of the Ramsar site (Environment Australia 2001; DEPI 2014a, 2014b and 2014c; Melbourne Water 2017; DELWP 2018a, 2018b and 2019b). Habitat Lagoons surveyed during 2019/2020 are Western Lagoon and T-section Lagoon, which typically support Very High Abundances and densities of waterfowl. During 2019/2020, T-section Lagoon supported 39 wetland species, up to 4,000 wetland birds and 13 Listed Species. Listed Species included: Curlew Sandpiper (listed as a threatened species and both the Act and FFG Act and under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act); Eastern Great Egret (listed as a threatened species under the FFG Act); the Australasian Shoveler, Musk Duck and Hardhead, all classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE (2013); and Common Greenshank, Glossy Ibis and White- winged Black Tern, all listed under the Migratory schedules of the EPBC Act and classified as threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013). Other Listed Species recorded were the Black Falcon, Royal Spoonbill, Whiskered Tern which are all classified as threatened under DSE (2013). During 2019/2020, Western Lagoon recorded 41 wetland species, a maximum of 1,950 wetland birds and 16 Listed Species. Two of the Listed Species recorded included the Curlew Sandpiper and Red Knot, both listed as threatened species and under the EPBC Act and FFG Act and under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act. Other Listed Species recorded included species listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act and classified as threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013), such as Common Greenshank, Marsh Sandpiper and Glossy Ibis. Species listed under Migratory Schedules, but which are not threatened in Australia or Victoria included Bar-tailed Godwit, Little Curlew, Red-necked Stint, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Crested Tern. Species listed under the FFG Act and recorded included Little Egret, Eastern Great Egret, Brolga and White-bellied Sea-Eagle. Other Listed Species recorded were the Black Falcon, Australasian Shoveler, Whiskered Tern, which are all classified as threatened under DSE (2013).

111 | P a g e

Habitat Ponds surveyed during 2019/2020 included the ‘Habitat Ponds’ (13 Sites), Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) and Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2). These Habitat Ponds also typically support very high Abundances and densities of waterfowl and high numbers of threatened species. During 2019/2020, the six surveys undertaken at the ‘WTP Habitat Ponds’ recorded 34 wetland bird species, a maximum abundance of 1,811 wetland birds and nine Listed Species. Key Migratory species recorded included the Curlew Sandpiper, Red-necked Stint and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. Key threatened species included the Curlew Sandpiper, Eastern Great Egret, Australasian Shoveler and Black falcon. During 2019/2020, the six surveys undertaken at Austen Road Pond 1 (Summer Pond 1) recorded 16 wetland bird species, a maximum abundance of 1,225 wetland birds and four Listed Species (Red- necked Stint, Australasian Shoveler, Royal Spoonbill and Whiskered Tern). During 2019/2020, 12 surveys were undertaken at Austen Road Pond 2 (Summer Pond 2). Thirty-five wetland bird species were recorded and a maximum abundance of 2,227 wetland birds and 13 Listed Species. A similar suite of Listed Species was recorded to T-Section Lagoons and Western Lagoons, with the exception that Black-tailed Godwit (listed under the Migratory Schedules of the EPBC Act and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE 2013) and FFG Act-listed Blue-billed Duck weer recorded. Walshes Pond 7 (referred to as “Walshes” by most birdwatchers) is operational, but drops seasonally, attracting many wetland birds. Therefore, for wetland birds functions quite differently to most operational ponds. The single survey recorded 16 wetland species and an abundance of 65 wetland birds, including six Listed Species. Species listed under the Migratory Schedules of the APBC Act included Common Greenshank (also classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE 2013), Red-necked Stint, Sharp- tailed Sandpiper and Australian Reed-warbler. Royal Spoonbill and Whiskered tern were also recorded which are both classified as Near Threatened in Victoria by DSE (2013).

112 | P a g e

Table 40. Survey summaries for wetlands at the Western Treatment Plant Ramsar Site for 2019/2020. No. Native No. Exotic Min-Max No. Breeding No. Native No. Exotic No. Terrestrial No. Listed EPBC Act-listed FFG Act-listed DSE (2013) Species No. Wetland Wetland Abundance Wetland Terrestrial Terrestrial Species Species Species Species Site name Category surveys Species Species Wetland Species Species Species species Breeding

Wetlands 14 5 0 13 Curlew Sandpiper (CE), Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Australasian Common Greenshank Sandpiper and Shoveler (VU), Musk Duck (VU), (Mi), Glossy Ibis (Mi), Eastern Great Hardhead (VU), Common Red-necked Stint (Mi), Egret. Greenshank (VU), Eastern Great Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Egret (VU), Glossy Ibis (NT), Royal (Mi) and White-winged Spoonbill (NT), Whiskered Tern (NT), Black Tern (Mi). White-winged Black Tern (NT) and T Section Habitat 8 39 0 428-4,000 0 Black Falcon (VU). Lagoon Lagoon 13 3 0 16 Curlew Sandpiper (CE), Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Red Knot Red Knot (EN), Bar-tailed Sandpiper, Red (EN), Common Greenshank (VU), Godwit (Mi), Common Knot, Little Marsh Sandpiper (VU), Australasian Greenshank (Mi), Little Egret, Brolga Shoveler (VU), Little Egret (EN), Curlew (Mi), Marsh and White- Brolga (VU), Glossy Ibis (NT), Sandpiper (Mi), Red- bellied Sea- Whiskered Tern (NT), White-bellied necked Stint (Mi), Sharp- Eagle Sea-Eagle (VU) and Black Falcon tailed Sandpiper (Mi), (VU). Glossy Ibis (Mi) and Western Habitat 10 41 0 194-1,950 2 Crested Tern (Mi). Lagoon Lagoon 19 2 0 9 Curlew Sandpiper (CE), Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Eastern Red-necked Stint (Mi), Sandpiper and Great Egret (EN), Australasian Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Eastern Great Shoveler (VU), Pied Cormorant (NT), Habitat (Mi) and Australian Reed- Egret. Whiskered Tern (NT) and Black WTP Habitat Pond 6 34 0 200-1,811 2 warbler (Mi). Falcon (VU). Ponds Austen Road 16 125-1,225 0 6 3 0 4 Red-necked Stint (Mi). Australasian Shoveler (VU), Royal Pond 1 Habitat Spoonbill (NT) and Whiskered Tern (Summer Pond 6 (NT). Pond 1) 12 2 0 13 Curlew Sandpiper (CE), Curlew Curlew Sandpiper (EN), Blue-billed Black-tailed Godwit (Mi), Sandpiper, Blue- Duck (EN), Hardhead (VU), Black- Common Greenshank billed Duck and tailed Godwit (VU), Common (Mi), Marsh Sandpiper Eastern Great Greenshank (VU), Marsh Sandpiper (Mi), Red-necked Stint Egret. (VU), Australasian Shoveler (VU), (Mi), Sharp-tailed Eastern Great Egret (VU), Royal Austen Road Sandpiper (Mi) and Spoonbill (NT) and Whiskered Tern Pond 2 Habitat Australian Reed-warbler (NT). (Summer Pond 12 35 0 362-2,227 1 (Mi). Pond 2) 6 0 0 6 Common Greenshank - Common Greenshank (VU), Royal (Mi), Red-necked Stint Spoonbill (NT) and Whiskered Tern (Mi), Sharp-tailed (NT). Sandpiper (Mi) and Operational Australian Reed-warbler Walshes Pond 1 16 0 65 0 (Mi). Pond 7

113 | P a g e

Summary of 2019/2020 Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Program As demonstrated previously (e.g. BirdLife Australia 2015a, 2016a, 2017a, 2019a and 2020a), the highest category sites for supporting wetland bird communities, namely the three Ramsar Sites (Category A), Edithvale Seaford Wetlands, Western Port Bay Ramsar Sites and some systems of the Western Treatment Plant, such as T-Section Lagoon and Western Lagoon, which are components of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site, supported significant wetland bird communities during 2019/2020. This is based on high diversities and abundances of wetland bird species and high numbers of threatened species, including international migratory species.

The high diversities and abundances of wetland bird species and continued presence of key species at the Ramsar sites reflect the management efforts of Melbourne Water at these sites. For example, the continued presence of high abundances of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers at Edithvale Seaford Wetlands reflects the management of habitats at the Ramsar Site, including the grooming of sections of invasive Common Reed (Phragmites australis) reedbeds which helps to provide open areas for shorebird foraging. The supply of water which draws down over summer months when the sandpipers are in Southern Australia also provides foraging habitat (SKM 2011; Greet and Rees 2015; Ecology Australia 2016; BirdLife Australia 2020a, 2020b and 2020c). Similar management of water regimes is undertaken at the Western Treatment Plant to provide abundant water for waterfowl and extensive areas of mudflat with shallow water which draws down over summer months to provide shorebirds with foraging habitat (Melbourne Water 2017; DELWP 2018b and 2019b).

As it has consistently done, Cheetham Saltfields (Ramsar) also supported a high diversity and abundance of wetland birds, and high numbers of Listed Species during 2019/2020 (BirdLife Australia 2020a).

Another very significant site, the Eastern Treatment Plant, as a component of the Carrum KBA (Category B), also supported significant wetland bird communities because of its extensive areas of water, high abundances and diversities of wetland bird species and high numbers of listed species. Boundary Road Wetland and Braeside Park are also components of the Carrum KBA which supported significant wetland bird communities during 2019/2020.

The South East Cluster of Constructed Wetlands (Category N) for which data were available, also supported significant wetland bird communities, including high diversities of wetland bird species and high numbers of Listed and Breeding Wetland bird species. These results reflect successful construction and planting out of these wetlands to support high diversities/richness and abundances of wetland birds and high numbers of breeding and threatened waterbird species (see BirdLife Australia 2020a). Sites of Biodiversity Significance (SOBS, Category K) that supported a high abundance of wetland birds and threatened species during 2019/2020 included Cherry Lake. Other SoBS which supported significant values during 2019/2020 included Wannarkladdin Wetlands, which supported a high number of wetland species and high number of Listed Species. Tirhatuan Wetlands also supported threatened species. Of the Social Wetlands (Category O), the best performing wetland with highest values was Jells Park which had a high diversity of wetland birds, a maximum abundance of more than 1,200 wetland birds, and high number of Listed Species and Breeding wetland species. A number of the streamside sites supported high values during 2019/2020. Lewin’s Rail (FFG Act) was recorded at the two Jacksons Creek work sites. EPBC Act and FFG Act-listed Curlew Sandpiper was recorded at the Little River Lower reaches site, along with a number of other Migratory wader species. Powerful Owl (also listed under the FFG Act and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria under DSE 2013) was recorded at Salt Creek/Rosanna Parklands and Yarran Dheran Reserve along Mullum Mullum Creek. The FFG Act-listed Grey Goshawk was also recorded at Proper Yanakie. The White-throated Needletail, which is listed under the FFG Act-listed and classified as Vulnerable in Victoria by DSE 2013, was recorded at the

114 | P a g e

Wurundjeri Walk, Monbulk Creek Upstream Control site and Proper Yanakie (Yarra River). As discussed previously, it is not clear how dependent these aerial insectivores are on the riparian vegetation they are observed above, unless they are seen roosting in trees at these sites.

Factors Affecting Bird Data Factors determining the long-term trends in the bird data from wetlands in the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Area were discussed in some detail in the 2018/2019 Annual Report (BirdLife Australia 2020a). Climatic variability was found to affect bird abundances at individual wetlands through its influence on water supply to wetlands as addressed in DEPI (2014a and 2014b), Clarke et al. (2015), Melbourne Water (2017), DELWP (2015, 2018b and 2019b) and BirdLife Australia (2020a). The assessment of Melbourne Water (2017), DELWP (2018b and 2019b) and BirdLife Australia (2020a and 2020b) found that different wetlands in the Port Phillip and Western Port Region responded differently to drought (also see Kingsford and Norman 2002; Wen et al. 2016). Some coastal wetlands provide drought refuge, such as at the Western Treatment Plant (or WTP). During the Millennium Drought, numbers of waterfowl at the WTP rose to the highest numbers ever recorded during the early or middle years of the decade, and then gradually declined. Sudden and large declines were associated with widespread rains and flooding in inland Australia in 2009/2010 and 2015/2016, which attracted birds from coastal zones. A major recovery in numbers of waterbirds at the WTP followed both declines which was attributed to birds returning with new cohorts of young. The WTP’s extensive supply of freshwater provided important drought refuge, especially for species whose main breeding habitats are ephemeral swamps of inland Australia (Kingsford and Norman 2002).

The increase in bird numbers at the WTP during drought contrasted with the severe declines in waterbird numbers observed during the Millennium Drought at Edithvale Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site between 2000 and 2009, and the three-year decline between 2016/2017 to 2018/2019. The shallow wetlands of Edithvale-Seaford were considered to be more prone to drought than the WTP based on the latter’s extensive supply of permanent water. However, during extremely wet years, the shallow wetlands of Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are too deep to provide foraging habitat for the large numbers of migratory shorebirds, especially Sharp-tailed Sandpipers.

The pattern of rainfall during 2019/2020 in Greater Melbourne coincided with much kinder conditions for wetland birds (Bureau of Meteorology data). Rainfall was above average from July to August 2019. Rainfall totals for the months of October and December were then well below average. However, 2020 was initially very wet with rainfall for January to April 2020 being well in excess of long-term means.

Other factors potentially influencing the wetland bird data at wetlands during 2019/2020 include climatic and/or management factors, including timing/season, extent and duration of inundation and wetland depth and the effects of these factors on (see DELWP 2019c, but also DEPI 2014a):

• Landscape modifiers, such as the availability of alternative habitat locally or regionally; • Site modifiers, such as salinity and water temperature of wetlands, nutrient levels, growth of aquatic plants, vegetation structure and water quality; and • Species modifiers, such as foraging habitats available and their influence on the different species foraging preferences and breeding habitats available and the effects of these on the different species breeding habitat preferences.

Recommendations We recommend the following: • To rigorously assess the factors behind wetland bird community change at the site level, and assess the success of site based management interventions and provide operational scale

115 | P a g e

feedback to Melbourne Water site managers, Melbourne Water continues to monitor wetlands and waterways for avian values. • To rigorously comment on the drivers behind wetland bird community change at the site level, it is important to incorporate site-based management data (e.g. water levels, salinity, vegetation works, nutrient levels) as covariates. Evidence of variation in wetland bird communities within a sub-catchment may suggest site scale influences, including management interventions, may be driving change. Given one of the goals of this project is to provide operational scale feedback to Melbourne Water site managers it is important that management influences on wetlands are being captured and related back to avian responses. • Melbourne Water and BirdLife Australia should develop a regional bird monitoring spatial layer that incorporates Melbourne Water’s Priority Wetland Sites and Melbourne Water’s Waterway Sites. This layer should include the updated wetland boundaries, agreed site nomenclature and buffer requirements. Furthermore, this layer should replace the 'MW sites' layer that currently exists on Birdata as to better guide volunteer surveys.

116 | P a g e

6) Management Engagement Throughout the 2019-2020 year, a number of management issues were raised by BirdLife Australia’s volunteer bird surveyors which were fed back to Melbourne Water (Table 41). The relationship between Melbourne Water and BirdLife Australia has provided an avenue for volunteer involvement in these management issues using their excellent on-ground knowledge of the monitoring sites, and a platform for feedback of the concerns of volunteers to Melbourne Water about specific sites.

During February 2020, volunteers informed BirdLife Australia that Frog Hollow Wetland had experienced an outbreak of a Blue-green Algae (Cyanobacteria) close to revegetation plots. The photos taken by the volunteers are shown below (see Photos 1 to 3). The information was passed on to Melbourne Water on- grounds staff. The on-grounds staff were aware of the algae and collected samples on 24 February and had it tested in the laboratory on 25 February. The testing showed that some of the algae present was the Blue-green Algae, but that the toxic and potentially toxic Blue-green Algae present were at levels below those of concern. Melbourne Water was grateful to be informed, just as the volunteers and BirdLife Australia were grateful that staff were already aware of the algae and had acted on its presence.

Other issues identified at Frog Hollow Wetland included dogs off-lead and shallow water levels.

Both Heatherton Road North and South Wetlands are sites known to support good populations of the migratory Latham’s Snipe. The main issue identified at these two wetlands is the large number of dog owners who walk their dogs off-lead. Weeds (e.g. Blackberry and Pampas Grass) are also an issue at Heatherton Road South Wetland.

In July 2019, very low water levels were identified as a concern at the ETP South - Serpentine wetland. This was rectified by an inflow of water in September 2019. However, low water levels were again identified in January, February and June 2020 and it was considered that environmental water would enhance this area.

As it did in 2018, Hallam Valley, Troups Creek Wetland experienced an outbreak of the invasive weed Paterson’s Curse.

Volunteer bird watchers also requested further consultation and input into the selection of a site for the offset wetland for the loss of the ETP Turf Farm. This has been resolved and is to be located at the north of PARCS Wetland.

The contributions to the on-going management of these sites by volunteers further highlights the importance of community engagement, involvement and a sense of ownership of wetlands associated with the Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Program.

117 | P a g e

Photo 1. Planting (inside protective nets) undertaken by Melbourne Water at Frog Hollow Wetland (Photo Bill Ramsay, February 2020).

Photo 2. Blue-green Algae (Cyanobacteria) present at Frog Hollow Wetland (right edge of image) during February 2020 (Photo Bill Ramsay, February 2020).

118 | P a g e

Photo 3. Close-up photo of the Blue-green Algae (Cyanobacteria) at Frog Hollow Wetland during February 2020 (Photo Bill Ramsay, February 2020).

Table 41. Management issues identified at Melbourne Water sites by volunteer bird surveyors and reported to Melbourne Water during 2019/2020. Site Management Issue/Concern

Frog Hollow Wetland Dogs off lead, including during: July 2019 1 dog off lead (Well done City of Casey, they have constructed a fenced dog compound for dogs to run free. The dogs run unleashed and have a great time); August-2019, 1 dog off lead; September 2019, 1 dog off lead; October 2019, 1 dog off lead; November 2019, 1 dog off lead; December 2019, 1 dog off lead; January 2020, 3 dogs off lead; February 2020, 2 dogs off lead; and May 2020, 2 dogs off lead. December 2019 - Water level in main pond was the lowest the volunteer team could remember, except during reconstruction works. January 2020 - Although the water level was at outlet level for the main pond, the water was of shallow depth and for a large extent of the main pond, the birds were wading in shallow water. February 2020 - Some additional signs 'Do no feed the Ducks' had been installed. New planting has commenced. Green and red algae were present at some pond edges. May 2020 - The water level of the main pond had been lowered to facilitate planting in the pond. Troups Creek Wetland, October 2019- Grass very long in patches and a likely OH&S issue. Hallam Valley Paterson's Curse (Echium plantagineum) found in bloom at the end of Centre Road just beyond the turntable. Small outbreaks were also observed adjacent to Troups Creek.

119 | P a g e

Site Management Issue/Concern

ETP European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) present European Fox (Vulpes Vulpes) present. ETP South - Turf Farm Extensive consultation undertaken regarding the offset site for the loss of the ETP Turf Farm. ETP, Taylors Drain All months - Overgrown, choked and attracting few birds.

ETP South - Serpentine July 2019 - as in June 2019, shallow water over 80% of area; in the two southernmost Area loops, over almost their whole area. No inflow. The site could benefit from a lot more water over winter and spring. September 2019 - shallow water in all loops over 97% of area and with water flowing in - thank you! January 2020 - mostly dry, puddles occupy only about 30% of area. No inflow and water level is already too low. In times of drought as now, it is important to maintain water in environmental areas like this and a better option than discharging water into Bass Strait would be to put it here. February 2020 - mostly dry, puddles formed by recent rain occupy only about 20% of area. No inflow. The current excess of water in the main Plant should be used to fill environmental areas like this. June 2020 - 66 % full, with shallow water in all loops and grassy shores. No inflow. The volunteers suggested that the current excess of water in the main Plant should be used to fill environmental areas like this. ETP South – Boundary January 2020 - Banyan Waterhole is 80% full. Depth gauges are soiled and not readable. Road Wetland (Banyan Water level in Rossiter Drain was approx. 7cm below top of depth-control flash-boards Waterhole) at diversion into the Waterhole. Sluice gates in and out of the Waterhole were open. The volunteer team suggested that the sluice gates be closed to prevent drawdown into the drain if the level in the drain falls further.

Heatherton Road South March 2020 - Blackberries *(Rubus fruticosus) growing in the wetland. Wetland December 2019 and February 2020 – no frogs calling. June 2020 – Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana) growing. Heatherton Road North Dogs off lead, including: July 2019, 6 dogs off lead; September 2019, 2 dogs off lead; Wetland October 2019, 1 dog off lead; December 2020,2 dogs off lead; January 2020, 4 dogs off lead; February 2020, 2 dogs off lead, Mar-2020, 4 dogs off lead; April 2020, 2 dogs off lead; May 2020, 3 dogs off lead; and June 2020, 5 dogs of lead.

River Gum Creek February 2020 - Extensive flooding occurred on the previous day causing lots of debris Wetland to be left on the adjacent grassland. Grass long and wet underfoot in some areas. May 2020 - A distinct lack of duck species present (i.e. only 2 species). June 2020 - Some minor earthworks around the eastern side of the lake. Kilberry Boulevard February 2020 - Due to very heavy rains on the previous day, extensive flooding of the Wetland wetland occurred, resulting in a lot of debris being left on the adjacent grassland. Grass is also very long. May 2020 - Work is progressing on 'muck' removal from several areas with polluted soil stored on dry land beside the water. June 2020 - Earthworks in progress to remove toxic soil from the site. The volunteer team was unable to survey a small section of site as it was roped-off.

120 | P a g e

7) References AECOM (2011). ‘Bird Diversity Sub-indices for Waterway Quality Assessment: Melbourne Water Region’. Unpublished report for Melbourne Water by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria. AECOM (2012). ‘Evaluation of Riparian Works - Bird Communities Projects A and C (Phase 1) - Conceptual Model and Site Selection for Bird Monitoring’. Unpublished report for Melbourne Water by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria. AECOM (2013) Evaluation of Riparian Works - Bird Communities Projects A and C (Phase 2) - Bird Surveys Unpublished report for Melbourne Water by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria. Avolio, M.L., Carroll, I.T., Collins, S.L., Houseman, G.R., Hallett, L.M., Isbell, F., Koerner, S.E., Komatsu, K.J., Smith, M.D. & Wilcox, K.R. (2019). A comprehensive approach to analyzing community dynamics using rank abundance curves. Ecosphere 10: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2881

Archibald, C.L., McKinney, M., Mustin, K., Shanahan, D.F. & Possingham, H.P. (2017). Assessing the impact of revegetation and weed control on urban sensitive bird species. Ecology and Evolution 7: 4200–4208. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2960 Bell, H.L. (1985). Seasonal variation and the effects of drought on the abundance of arthropods in savanna woodland on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Ecology 10: 207–221. BOCA (2008). ‘Community Monitoring of Bird Utilisation of Constructed Wetlands in the Dandenong Catchment’. Unpublished report prepared by J. Lau for Melbourne Water. Bird Observation and Conservation Australia, BOCA, Melbourne, Victoria. BOCA (2009). ‘Community Monitoring of Constructed Wetlands in the Dandenong Creek Catchment: Annual Report July 2008—June 2009’. Unpublished report prepared by J. Lau for Melbourne Water. Bird Observation and Conservation Australia, BOCA, Melbourne, Victoria. BOCA (2011a). ‘Community Monitoring of Constructed Wetlands in the Dandenong Creek Catchment: Annual Report July 2009—June 2010’. Unpublished report prepared by J. Lau for Melbourne Water. Bird Observation and Conservation Australia, Melbourne, Victoria. BOCA (2011b). ‘Community Monitoring of Constructed Wetlands in the Dandenong Creek Catchment: Annual Report July 2010—June 2011’. Unpublished report prepared by J. Lau for Melbourne Water. Bird Observation and Conservation Australia, Melbourne, Victoria. Birds Australia (2004). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2003–06. Report No. 1, May 2003–April 2004’. Unpublished report prepared C. Tzaros, A. Silcocks and M. Weston for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Hawthorn East, Victoria. Birds Australia (2005). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2003–06. Report No. 2, May 2004–April 2005’. Unpublished report prepared C. Tzaros, A. Silcocks and M. Weston for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Hawthorn East, Victoria. Birds Australia (2006). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2003–06: Final Report 2003– 2006’. Unpublished report prepared A. Silcocks, G. Ehmke, C. Tzaros and M. Weston for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria. Birds Australia (2007). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2006–09: Report No. 1, May 2006 to April 2007’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks and J. O’Connor for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria. Birds Australia (2008). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Census Project 2006–09: Report No. 2 May 2007 to April 2008’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks and J. O’Connor for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria.

121 | P a g e

Birds Australia (2009). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Census Project 2006-09: Report No. 3 May 2008 to April 2009’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks and J. O’Connor for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria. Birds Australia (2010). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Census Project 2009–10: May 2009 to June 2010’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks and J. O’Connor for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria. Birds Australia (2011). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2010-11: July 2010 to June 2011’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks and J. O’Connor for Melbourne Water. Birds Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2013a). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2011–12: July 2011 to June 2012’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks for Melbourne Water. Birdlife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2013b). ‘Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2012-13: July 2012 to June 2013’. Unpublished report prepared by A. Silcocks for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2014). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report: July 2013 –June 2014’. Unpublished report prepared by C. Purnell for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2015a). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report July 2014–June 2015’. Unpublished report prepared by C. Purnell for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2015b). ‘Exploration of Guild Use as Indicators of Biodiversity at Wetlands and Waterways across the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchments’. Unpublished report prepared by K. Herman for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2016a). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report: July 2015 –June 2016’. Unpublished report prepared by K. Herman and C. Purnell for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2016b). ‘Tootgarook Swamp Bird Monitoring Program – Year 2 Annual Report’. Unpublished report prepared by C. Purnell and K. Herman for the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2017). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report July 2016- June 2017’. Unpublished report prepared by D.R. Weller and C.V. Lee. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2019). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report July 2017- June 2018’. Unpublished report prepared by K. Herman for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2020a). ‘Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. Annual Report 2018- 2019’. Unpublished report prepared by D.G. Quin, B. Clarke-Wood, C. Purnell, A. Silcocks and K. Herman for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2020b). ‘Edithvale Seaford Wetland Ramsar Site Limits of Acceptable Change Reporting: July 2014 to July 2019’. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria. BirdLife Australia (2020c). ‘Edithvale Seaford Wetland Ramsar Site Limits of Acceptable Change Reporting: July 2015 to July 2020’. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water. BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Victoria.

122 | P a g e

BirdLife Australia (2020d). Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) - Nature’s Hotspots. Available at: http://birdlife.org.au/projects/KBA Clarke, R.H., Herrod, A., Loyn, R.H., Carter, M.J., Silcocks, A., Menkhorst, P. & Johnstone, C. (2015). ‘Waterbird Fluctuations at Coastal Wetland Refugia in Response to Murray-Darling Basin Streamflow and Rainfall’. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water by the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria. DELWP (2015). ‘Monitoring of Waterbird Populations at the Western Treatment Plant: 2014–2015 Annual Report’. Unpublished report prepared by P.W. Menkhorst, P. Macak, D.I. Rogers, K. Stamation and R. Swindley for Melbourne Water (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria) DELWP (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria) DELWP (2018a). Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site Management Plan (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria) DELWP (2018b). ‘Monitoring of Waterbird Populations at the Western Treatment Plant -2018 Annual Report’. Unpublished report prepared by P. Menkhorst, P. Macak, D. Rogers and K. Stamation for Melbourne Water (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria) DELWP (2019a). ‘WetMAP Bird Theme Annual Report 2018/19’. Unpublished report prepared by D. Rogers, D. Purdey, K. Stamation, D. Quin and R. Upton for Water and Catchments Group, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria. DELWP (2019b). ‘Monitoring of Waterbird Populations at the Western Treatment Plant -2019 Annual Report’. Unpublished report prepared by P. Menkhorst, P. Macak, D. Rogers and K. Stamation for Melbourne Water. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental research and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria) DELWP (2019c). ‘Project plan: 2019-20 WetMAP Bird Theme. 2019–20 Monitoring Bird Response to Environmental Water Delivery in Victoria’. Unpublished report prepared by D. Rogers, K. Stamation, D. Purdey, R. Hale and A. Sparrow for Water and Catchments, DELWP, Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria. DEPI (2014a). ‘Waterbird Monitoring at the Western Treatment Plant, 2000–12: The Effects of Climate and Sewage Treatment Processes on Waterbird Populations’. Unpublished report prepared by R.H. Loyn, D.I. Rogers, R.J. Swindley, K. Stamation, P. Macak and P. Menkhorst. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 256. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Heidelberg, Victoria. DEPI (2014b). ‘Monitoring of Waterbird Populations at the Western Treatment Plant, 2013 Annual Report’. Unpublished report prepared by P. Menkhorst, D. Rogers, P. Macak, K. Stamation and R. Swindley for Melbourne Water. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Heidelberg, Victoria. DEPI (2014c). ‘Use of non-tidal ponds by shorebirds at the Western Treatment Plant’. Unpublished report prepared by D.I. Rogers and M. Hulzebosch. Unpublished report for Melbourne Water. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Heidelberg, Victoria. DNRE (2000). Wetlands Database (electronic waterbird and wetland database). Flora and Fauna Program. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Heidelberg.

123 | P a g e

DSE (2013). Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2013. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, third edition. Environment Australia, Canberra. Ecology Australia (2013a). Sites of Biodiversity Significance Management Strategy - 2013. Unpublished report prepared by C. Renowden, A.R.G. McMahon and D.G. Quin for Melbourne Water. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield, Victoria. Ecology Australia (2013b). Sites of Biodiversity Significance Management Strategy - Background Document 2013. Unpublished report prepared by C. Renowden, A.R.G. McMahon and D.G. Quin for Melbourne Water. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield, Victoria. Ecology Australia (2016). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan. Unpublished report prepared by D.G. Quin, F.M. Sutton, J. Hale and A.R.G. McMahon for Melbourne Water. Ecology Australia, Fairfield, Victoria. Finch, D.M. (1989). Habitat use and habitat overlap of riparian birds in three elevational zones. Ecology 70(4): 866–880. Fisher, A.M. & Goldney, D.C. (1997). Use by birds of riparian vegetation in an extensively fragmented landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 275–288. Greet, J. & Rees, P. (2015). Slashing may have potential for controlling Phragmites australis in long inundated parts of a Ramsar-listed wetland. Ecological Management Restoration 16: 233–236. Greenwood, H., O'Dowd, D. & Lake, P.S. (2004). Willow (Salix × rubens) invasion of the riparian zone in south-eastern Australia: reduced abundance and altered composition of terrestrial arthropods. Diversity and Distributions 10: 485–492. Hale, J. & Butcher, R. (2017). Addendum to Ecological Character Description for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria. Higgins, P.J. (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 4. Parrots to Dollarbirds. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, P.J., Peter, J.M. & Cowling, S.J. (2006). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 7. Boatbill to Starlings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Higgins, P.J., Peter, J.M. & Steele, W.K. (2001). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 5. Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Holland-Clift, S., O'Dowd, D.J. & Mac Nally, R. (2011). Impacts of an invasive willow (Salix x rubens) on riparian bird assemblages in south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 36: 511–520. Kingsford, R.T. & Norman, F.I. (2002). Australian waterbirds – products of the continent’s ecology. Emu 102: 47–69. Larwill, S. & Costello, C. (1992). Merri Corridor Study Preliminary Investigations - Environment - Flora and Fauna. Report for Henshall Hansen Biosis Research Pty. Ltd., Port Melbourne. Marchant, S.M. & Higgins, P.J. (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2. Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Melbourne Water (2013). Healthy Waterways Strategy: A Melbourne Water Strategy for Managing Rivers, Estuaries and Wetlands. Melbourne. Melbourne Water (2017). ‘Western Treatment Plant 2016/17 Compliance Report for EPBC 2002/688’. Melbourne Water, Docklands, Victoria.

124 | P a g e

Melbourne Water (2018). Healthy Waterways Strategy 2018. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. Available at: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/about-us/strategies-achievements-and-policies/healthy- waterways-strategy Melbourne Water (2020a). Healthy Waterways Strategy 2018: Resource Document. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. Melbourne Water (2020b). Healthy Waterways Strategy Wetland Monitoring and Evaluation Plan v1.0. Melbourne Water, Melbourne. Melbourne Water (2016-2017). Waterways Local Update 2016-2017. Melbourne Water’s Work to Improve Waterways and Provide Flood Protection in the Shire of Yarra Ranges. Available at: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/Yarra_Ranges_Waterways_local_update_201 6-17.docx Merritt, D.M. & Bateman, H.L. (2012). Linking stream flow and groundwater to avian habitat in a desert riparian system. Ecological Applications 22(7): 1973–1988. Reaney, L.T. & Maurer, G. (2019). ‘State of Australia’s Key Biodiversity Areas 2018 - 2019’. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne. Available at: http://birdlife.org.au/documents/KBA-State_of_Aus_KBAs-2018.pdf Recher H.F., Gowing, G., Kavanagh, R., Shields, J. & Rohan-Jones, W. (1983). Birds, resources and time in a tablelands forest. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 12: 101–123. Recher, H.F., Majer, J.D. & Ganesh, S. (1996). Seasonality of canopy invertebrate communities in eucalypt forests of eastern and western Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 21: 64–80. SKM (2011). Environmental Water Requirements and Associated Capital Works for the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands. Unpublished report prepared by B. Bonneville, P. Boon, D. Quin, S. Treadwell, R. Middleton and R. Morden for Melbourne Water. Sinclair Knight Merz, Melbourne, Victoria. Schulz, M., Beardsell, C. & Sandiford, K. (1991). Sites of Faunal Significance in the Western Wetlands of Melbourne. Department of Conservation and Environment, Western Wetlands Series, East Melbourne. Steele, W.K. (2011). Calculation of an Avian Sub-index for Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems, 2011. Internal discussion paper, Catchments Team, Melbourne Water, Melbourne. Wen, L., Santilan, N., Reid, J.R.W. & Collof, M.J. (2016). Changes in distribution of waterbirds following prolonged drought reflect habitat availability in coastal and inland regions. Ecology and Evolution 6: 6672–6689. Woinarski, J.C.Z. & Cullen, J.M. (1984). Distribution of invertebrates on foliage in forests of southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 9: 207–232.

125 | P a g e

Appendix 1. Riparian bird species recorded at the different treatments of Melbourne Water’s Plenty River and Arthurs Creek Work Sites (and their guilds). *Denotes introduced species Common Name Foraging Guild Remnant vegetation Willow infested Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) Australasian Darter Piscivore 0 0 0 1 Australasian Grebe Diving Duck 0 0 1 0 Australasian Pipit Invertebrates Ground 0 0 0 1 Australian Hobby Vertebrates = Carnivore 1 1 1 1 Australian King-Parrot Granivore 1 0 1 0 Australian Magpie Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Australian Raven Invertebrates Ground 0 1 1 1 Australian Reed-Warbler Reed-dwelling 1 1 0 1 Australian Shelduck Grazer 0 1 0 1 Australian White Ibis Large Wader 0 1 1 1 Australian Wood Duck Grazer 1 1 1 1 Bell Miner Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 0 Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Black-faced Monarch Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 0 0 Black-shouldered Kite Vertebrates = Carnivore 1 1 1 0 Black Swan Grazer 0 0 0 1 Blue-billed Duck Diving Duck 1 1 0 0 Blue-winged Parrot Granivore 0 0 0 1 Brown-headed Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 1 Brown Falcon Vertebrates 0 0 0 1 Brown Goshawk Vertebrates 1 1 1 1 Brown Songlark Invertebrates Ground 0 0 0 1 Brown Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Buff-banded Rail Reeds 0 1 0 0 Buff-rumped Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 0 0 0 1 Cattle Egret Invertebrates Ground 0 1 0 1 Chestnut Teal Dabbling Duck 0 1 0 1 Collared Sparrowhawk Vertebrates 1 1 1 1 *Common Blackbird - 1 1 1 1 Common Bronzewing Granivore 0 1 1 1 *Common Greenfinch - 1 1 0 1 *Common Myna - 1 1 1 1 *Common Starling - 1 1 1 1 Crescent Honeyeater Nectarivore 0 0 1 1 Crested Pigeon Granivore 1 1 1 1 Crimson Rosella Granivore 1 1 1 1 Dusky Moorhen Grazer 1 1 1 1 Dusky Woodswallow Aerial Insectivore 1 0 1 1 Eastern Rosella Granivore 1 1 1 1 Eastern Spinebill Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 Eastern Yellow Robin Invertebrates Ground 1 0 1 1 *Eurasian Skylark - 0 0 0 1

126 | P a g e

Common Name Foraging Guild Remnant vegetation Willow infested Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) *Eurasian Tree Sparrow - 1 0 0 0 *European Goldfinch - 1 1 1 1 Fairy Martin Aerial Insectivore 0 1 1 1 Fan-tailed Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Flame Robin Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Galah Granivore 1 1 1 1 Gang-gang Cockatoo Granivore 1 1 1 1 Golden-headed Cisticola Invertebrates Ground 1 1 0 1 Golden Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Great Cormorant Piscivore 0 1 0 1 Great Egret Large Wader 0 1 0 1 Grey Butcherbird Vertebrates = Carnivore 1 1 1 1 Grey Currawong Vertebrates = Carnivore 0 0 1 1 Grey Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Grey Shrike-thrush Generalist 1 1 1 1 Grey Teal Dabbling Duck 0 1 1 1 Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Horsfield's Bushlark Granivore 0 0 0 1 *House Sparrow - 1 1 1 1 Latham's Snipe Shorebird 0 1 0 0 Laughing Kookaburra Vertebrates 1 1 1 1 Little Black Cormorant Piscivore 0 0 0 1 Little Corella Granivore 1 1 1 1 Little Eagle Vertebrates 0 1 0 0 Little Grassbird Reed-dwelling 0 1 0 0 Little Lorikeet Nectarivore 0 0 0 1 Little Pied Cormorant Piscivore 1 1 1 1 Little Raven Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Little Wattlebird Nectarivore 0 0 1 0 Long-billed Corella Granivore 1 1 1 1 Magpie-lark Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Masked Lapwing Shorebird 0 1 0 1 Mistletoebird Frugivore 1 1 1 1 Musk Lorikeet Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 Nankeen Kestrel Vertebrates 1 1 1 1 Nankeen Night-Heron Large Wader 0 1 0 1 New Holland Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 Noisy Friarbird Nectarivore 0 0 0 1 Noisy Miner Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 Olive-backed Oriole Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 0 Pacific Black Duck Dabbling Duck 1 1 1 1 Pallid Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 0 0 0 1 Peregrine Falcon Vertebrates 1 1 1 1 Pied Currawong Vertebrates 1 1 1 1

127 | P a g e

Common Name Foraging Guild Remnant vegetation Willow infested Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) Purple Swamphen Grazer 1 1 0 1 Rainbow Lorikeet Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 Red-browed Finch Granivore 1 1 1 1 Red-rumped Parrot Granivore 1 1 1 1 Red Wattlebird Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 *Rock Dove - 0 1 0 1 Rose Robin Invertebrates Foliage 0 0 0 1 Royal Spoonbill Large Wader 0 1 0 0 Rufous Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 0 1 Rufous Songlark Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Rufous Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Sacred Kingfisher Invertebrates Ground 0 1 1 1 Scarlet Robin Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Silvereye Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 0 0 0 Spotless Crake Reeds 0 1 0 0 *Spotted Dove - 1 1 1 1 Spotted Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Straw-necked Ibis Large Wader 0 1 1 1 Striated Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Striated Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Stubble Quail Granivore 0 0 0 1 Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Granivore 1 1 1 1 Superb Fairy-wren Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Swamp Harrier Vertebrates = Carnivore 0 1 0 1 Swift Parrot Nectarivore 0 0 0 1 Tree Martin Aerial Insectivore 1 1 1 1 Varied Sittella Bark 0 0 1 1 Wedge-tailed Eagle Vertebrates = Carnivore 1 1 1 0 Weebill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1 Welcome Swallow Aerial Insectivore 1 1 1 1 Whistling Kite Vertebrates = Carnivore 1 1 1 1 White-browed Scrubwren Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 1 1 1 White-eared Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 1 White-faced Heron Large Wader 1 1 1 1 White-fronted Chat Invertebrates Ground 0 0 0 1 White-naped Honeyeater Nectarivore 0 1 1 1 White-necked Heron Large Wader 1 1 1 1 White-plumed Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1 1 White-throated Treecreeper Bark 0 0 1 1 Willie Wagtail Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Yellow-billed Spoonbill Large Wader 1 1 0 1 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1 1

128 | P a g e

Common Name Foraging Guild Remnant vegetation Willow infested Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) Yellow-rumped Thornbill Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 1 Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Granivore 1 0 0 1 Yellow Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 1

129 | P a g e

Appendix 2. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: bird.in ~ season * treatment + season * `Survey Point Name' Point Name`

Multivariate test:

Res Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) 665

season 664 1 154.64 0.001 ***

treatment 661 3 573.46 0.001 ***

`Survey Point Name' 648 13 1830.14 0.001 ***

season:treatment 645 3 159.23 0.005 ** season:`Survey Point Name' Point Name' 639 13 357.41 0.001 ***

--–-

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Tests: Australian Magpie Australian White Ibis Australian Wood Duck Bell Miner Brown Thornbill Buff-rumped Thornbill Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) (Intercept) season 2.8099 0.962 3.3112 0.945 1.4086 0.997 0.007 1 12.5895 0.084 1.5773 0.997 treatment 13.6008 0.208 7.4885 0.807 1.2138 0.987 95.2039 0.001 16.0126 0.11 2.3481 0.987 `Survey Point Name' 108.9712 0.001 15.2878 0.283 40.4342 0.003 70.2546 0.001 145.6496 0.001 3.1581 0.824 season:treatment 0.1366 1 3.4747 1 0.1986 1 0.6751 1 0.0766 1 0.004 1 season:`Survey Point Name' 5.8674 1 3.9734 1 4.3399 1 9.9112 0.989 5.322 1 0.0018 1 Cattle Egret Chestnut Teal Crested Pigeon Dusky Woodswallow Eastern Rosella Fairy Martin Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 1.5073 0.997 1.1474 0.999 0.4327 0.999 0.5683 0.999 0.1153 0.999 11.1438 0.133 treatment 12.4443 0.317 10.177 0.572 2.6425 0.987 9.7258 0.574 5.2719 0.915 3.1122 0.987 `Survey Point Name' 14.1423 0.283 17.1412 0.23 20.8139 0.106 13.5685 0.296 21.7206 0.097 12.2474 0.296 season:treatment 1.3871 1 1.5957 1 3.7039 1 1.8216 1 3.5094 1 0.0015 1 season:`Survey Point Name' 7.3689 0.999 0.0015 1 2.733 1 6.6208 1 4.2739 1 0.0047 1 Flame Robin Galah Little Corella Little Raven Long-billed Corella Magpie-lark Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 6.4236 0.459 0.7762 0.999 0.2083 0.999 0.0335 1 0.8987 0.999 2.4977 0.976 treatment 4.8151 0.944 3.4449 0.987 4.0808 0.96 10.0968 0.572 23.5617 0.016 4.3423 0.96 `Survey Point Name' 16.84 0.253 16.1049 0.283 19.7428 0.125 26.6501 0.052 33.5976 0.006 52.8122 0.001 season:treatment 1.2337 1 3.265 1 5.4982 0.989 6.2262 0.969 5.4084 0.989 1.3945 1 season:`Survey Point Name' 2.5537 1 14.6762 0.93 10.5551 0.988 19.1292 0.636 13.6229 0.958 9.5289 0.99

130 | P a g e

Musk Lorikeet New Holland Honeyeater Noisy Miner Pacific Black Duck Pied Currawong Rainbow Lorikeet Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 1.00E-04 1 6.9939 0.377 1.6235 0.997 0.0505 1 2.2694 0.979 0.0065 1 treatment 6.2791 0.841 42.2947 0.001 28.4754 0.003 11.4533 0.413 7.9171 0.792 19.9049 0.038 `Survey Point Name' 38.7683 0.003 119.5196 0.001 86.8856 0.001 5.4667 0.824 26.1133 0.052 85.2777 0.001 season:treatment 8.5994 0.742 17.0223 0.047 15.1994 0.085 2.2556 1 4.3573 1 0.3903 1 season:`Survey Point Name' 8.5363 0.998 13.65 0.958 0.3635 1 12.8278 0.967 10.8631 0.984 4.3063 1 Red-browed Finch Red-rumped Parrot Red Wattlebird Silvereye Straw-necked Ibis Striated Thornbill Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 11.2487 0.133 1.1354 0.999 0.2778 0.999 8.1209 0.265 0.0026 1 7.377 0.323 treatment 7.5508 0.807 4.3995 0.96 25.6911 0.007 44.9031 0.001 3.0642 0.987 18.0738 0.055 `Survey Point Name' 51.3817 0.001 54.0402 0.001 42.8351 0.003 52.2722 0.001 13.1523 0.296 44.4425 0.002 season:treatment 15.7875 0.067 2.4978 1 4.7271 0.995 0.4441 1 2.9473 1 7.8985 0.815 season:`Survey Point Name' 15.1448 0.925 25.1782 0.163 10.4925 0.989 22.825 0.284 3.8958 1 1.4676 1 Superb Fairy-wren Swift Parrot Tree Martin Varied Sittella Welcome Swallow White-browed Scrubwren Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 7.7455 0.272 1.2152 0.997 25.3186 0.006 3.1608 0.945 0.0189 1 0.4705 0.999 treatment 3.1348 0.987 2.2698 0.987 28.8724 0.003 2.164 0.987 6.7966 0.807 10.1367 0.572 `Survey Point Name' 93.1701 0.001 2.761 0.824 86.6509 0.001 7.6932 0.58 29.8396 0.018 117.869 0.001 season:treatment 2.257 1 0.0032 1 13.429 0.155 0.0031 1 3.9232 1 2.5524 1 season:`Survey Point Name' 18.5782 0.669 0.0014 1 16.7596 0.801 0.0044 1 18.2574 0.7 5.7102 1

White-naped Honeyeater Yellow-faced Honeyeater Yellow-rumped Thornbill Yellow Thornbill

Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev)

(Intercept) season 7.3327 0.339 17.8109 0.021 4.4229 0.83 0.5857 0.999 treatment 13.7916 0.206 20.9186 0.035 8.4561 0.731 27.3287 0.006

`Survey Point Name' 18.824 0.146 42.437 0.003 44.199 0.002 117.408 0.001 season:treatment 1.87 1 7.0002 0.916 1.7326 1 4.7172 0.995 season:`Survey Point Name' 1.3689 1 11.2871 0.983 12.7247 0.967 22.6855 0.284

Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation)

P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

131 | P a g e

Appendix 3. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the species was recorded in that treatment. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci) Species Treatment N Individual Count sd se ci Australian Magpie Remnant native vegetation 58 2.396551724 1.486071652 0.195130768 0.390742622 Australian Magpie Willow infested 54 1.907407407 1.335558939 0.181746551 0.364537417 Australian Magpie Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 78 2.397435897 1.867978584 0.211506925 0.421164094 Australian Magpie Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 97 2.154639175 1.556841127 0.158073267 0.313772955 Australian White Ibis Willow infested 6 1.833333333 1.602081979 0.654047229 1.681281927 Australian White Ibis Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 1 3 NA NA NA Australian White Ibis Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 3 38.66666667 63.51640208 36.67121184 157.7834897 Australian Wood Duck Remnant native vegetation 7 2.285714286 0.951189731 0.359515925 0.879703779 Australian Wood Duck Willow infested 11 4 4.123105626 1.243163121 2.769940049 Australian Wood Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 9 7.444444444 7.001983846 2.333994615 5.382201234 Australian Wood Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 14 4.428571429 5.25816999 1.405305042 3.035976965 Bell Miner Willow infested 1 1 NA NA NA Bell Miner Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 35 14.08571429 7.773905932 1.314029935 2.67043012 Brown Thornbill Remnant native vegetation 77 1.701298701 0.744540393 0.084848252 0.16898994 Brown Thornbill Willow infested 76 2.013157895 1.039146073 0.119198229 0.23745505 Brown Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 107 2.205607477 1.412466849 0.136548324 0.270720334 Brown Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 146 2.130136986 1.121966861 0.092854638 0.183523437 Buff-rumped Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 1 2 NA NA NA Cattle Egret Willow infested 4 14.75 23.54251473 11.77125737 37.46139452 Cattle Egret Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 6 2.833333333 2.228601953 0.909822938 2.338774317 Chestnut Teal Willow infested 5 2 1.224744871 0.547722558 1.520721614 Chestnut Teal Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 2 2 0 0 0 Crested Pigeon Remnant native vegetation 1 1 NA NA NA Crested Pigeon Willow infested 6 2.5 2.34520788 0.957427108 2.461144732 Crested Pigeon Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 3 2 1.732050808 1 4.30265273 Crested Pigeon Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 3 3 2 1.154700538 4.968275424 Dusky Woodswallow Remnant native vegetation 4 7 11.34313302 5.671566509 18.04945588 Dusky Woodswallow Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 4 3.25 1.892969449 0.946484724 3.012136814 Dusky Woodswallow Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 3 1.666666667 0.577350269 0.333333333 1.434217577 Eastern Rosella Remnant native vegetation 9 1.777777778 0.833333333 0.277777778 0.640556704 Eastern Rosella Willow infested 21 2.333333333 1.425949976 0.311167795 0.649084647 Eastern Rosella Willows removed/ revegetation (<10 years) 34 2.352941176 1.432995442 0.245756691 0.499995747 Eastern Rosella Willows removed/ revegetation (>10 years) 17 3.235294118 2.969204687 0.720137915 1.526624181 Fairy Martin Willow infested 1 6 NA NA NA Fairy Martin Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 2 11 12.72792206 9 114.3558426 Fairy Martin Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 4 5.25 3.403429643 1.701714821 5.415616046 Flame Robin Remnant native vegetation 3 3 3.464101615 2 8.605305459 Flame Robin Willow infested 2 3.5 2.121320344 1.5 19.0593071 Flame Robin Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 1 1 NA NA NA Flame Robin Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 6 1.333333333 0.516397779 0.210818511 0.541926234 Galah Remnant native vegetation 14 2.285714286 1.589802669 0.424892636 0.917924733 Galah Willow infested 25 2.92 2.841947689 0.568389538 1.173098349 Galah Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 25 3.28 5.905647015 1.181129403 2.437731276 Galah Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 21 2.333333333 1.712697677 0.373741274 0.779610636 Little Corella Remnant native vegetation 3 2 0 0 0 Little Corella Willow infested 5 2 1.224744871 0.547722558 1.520721614 Little Corella Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 2 1.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Little Corella Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 8 2.375 1.505940617 0.532430411 1.258997863 Little Raven Remnant native vegetation 47 3.489361702 5.452850632 0.795380011 1.601016924 Little Raven Willow infested 65 2.415384615 3.539475189 0.439017866 0.877039009 Little Raven Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 64 2.25 2.4234306 0.302928825 0.605354952 Little Raven Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 90 2.044444444 1.444953334 0.152311455 0.302639617 Long-billed Corella Remnant native vegetation 15 14.53333333 30.17062589 7.790022108 16.70793572 Long-billed Corella Willow infested 21 4.714285714 4.440077219 0.968904283 2.021098919 Long-billed Corella Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 10 2.2 0.788810638 0.249443826 0.564281137 Long-billed Corella Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 26 3.153846154 2.394866304 0.469671924 0.967307434 Magpie-lark Remnant native vegetation 6 1.5 0.836660027 0.341565026 0.87802085 Magpie-lark Willow infested 12 2 0.852802865 0.246182982 0.54184509 Magpie-lark Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 10 1.5 0.527046277 0.166666667 0.377026194 Magpie-lark Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 15 3.2 4.195235393 1.083205121 2.323243923

132 | P a g e

Species Treatment N Individual Count sd se ci Musk Lorikeet Remnant native vegetation 17 3.117647059 2.976624618 0.721937512 1.530439158 Musk Lorikeet Willow infested 24 3.416666667 3.9990941 0.816311665 1.688669338 Musk Lorikeet Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 23 4.304347826 8.704412583 1.81499549 3.764070264 Musk Lorikeet Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 35 6.771428571 10.62207943 1.795459125 3.648811948 New Holland Honeyeater Remnant native vegetation 30 2.833333333 1.949064025 0.355848778 0.727792468 New Holland Honeyeater Willow infested 47 1.765957447 0.889864815 0.129800124 0.261274098 New Holland Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 16 1.9375 1.062622542 0.265655635 0.566231584 New Holland Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 17 1.470588235 1.23073388 0.298496811 0.632784971 Noisy Miner Remnant native vegetation 1 1 NA NA NA Noisy Miner Willow infested 1 2 NA NA NA Noisy Miner Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 31 2 1 0.179605302 0.366802961 Noisy Miner Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 4 11.25 15.37042615 7.685213074 24.45777795 Pacific Black Duck Remnant native vegetation 15 2.333333333 2.257263408 0.582822906 1.25003081 Pacific Black Duck Willow infested 24 2.375 1.636871353 0.334124966 0.691190153 Pacific Black Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 8 1.875 0.640869944 0.226581742 0.535780682 Pacific Black Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 25 2.16 1.02794293 0.205588586 0.424313987 Pied Currawong Remnant native vegetation 2 2 1.414213562 1 12.70620474 Pied Currawong Willow infested 4 1 0 0 0 Pied Currawong Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 12 1.333333333 0.778498944 0.224733287 0.494634631 Pied Currawong Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 10 3.8 7.11492953 2.249938271 5.089713975 Rainbow Lorikeet Remnant native vegetation 46 3.217391304 1.908030322 0.281323723 0.566615064 Rainbow Lorikeet Willow infested 46 3.717391304 4.031338589 0.594388448 1.197159786 Rainbow Lorikeet Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 31 2.387096774 1.358367141 0.243969941 0.49825309 Rainbow Lorikeet Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 66 2.742424242 2.114496529 0.26027653 0.519808126 Red-browed Finch Remnant native vegetation 26 9.692307692 16.35791975 3.208052 6.607106773 Red-browed Finch Willow infested 31 4.516129032 5.892769398 1.058372628 2.161485266 Red-browed Finch Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 46 10.63043478 35.61295563 5.250843843 10.57574238 Red-browed Finch Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 56 3.642857143 5.216855798 0.69713168 1.397083106 Red-rumped Parrot Remnant native vegetation 20 2.25 1.888329811 0.422243382 0.883765555 Red-rumped Parrot Willow infested 37 3.351351351 2.124149715 0.349208062 0.708226776 Red-rumped Parrot Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 21 2.952380952 3.612148813 0.788235493 1.644230427 Red-rumped Parrot Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 30 3.566666667 4.182750566 0.763662279 1.56186473 Red Wattlebird Remnant native vegetation 49 2.857142857 3.494042549 0.499148936 1.003606199 Red Wattlebird Willow infested 45 1.8 1.272077756 0.189630156 0.382174467 Red Wattlebird Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 44 1.704545455 1.42371191 0.214632646 0.432847983 Red Wattlebird Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 60 1.95 1.630482927 0.210494441 0.421198403 Silvereye Remnant native vegetation 35 3.228571429 3.144422834 0.531504467 1.080147035 Silvereye Willow infested 84 4.428571429 5.665974781 0.618208531 1.229591905 Silvereye Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 43 2.720930233 2.152800849 0.328299052 0.662534309 Silvereye Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 102 5.705882353 11.5317798 1.141816343 2.265056479 Straw-necked Ibis Willow infested 2 26.5 36.06244584 25.5 324.0082208 Straw-necked Ibis Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 1 19 NA NA NA Straw-necked Ibis Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 4 23.5 25.48855953 12.74427976 40.55798604 Striated Thornbill Remnant native vegetation 26 4.5 2.249444376 0.441152337 0.908570246 Striated Thornbill Willow infested 3 8 7 4.041451884 17.38896398 Striated Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 22 4.272727273 2.746110985 0.585472829 1.217557401 Striated Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 26 3.692307692 2.541955637 0.498518515 1.026718101 Superb Fairy-wren Remnant native vegetation 74 3.689189189 2.086654763 0.242568689 0.4834387 Superb Fairy-wren Willow infested 114 3.298245614 1.838284235 0.172171093 0.341101988 Superb Fairy-wren Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 132 3.106060606 1.593199171 0.138670189 0.274322711 Superb Fairy-wren Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 145 3.862068966 2.626311021 0.218103259 0.431097463 Swift Parrot Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 1 2 NA NA NA Tree Martin Remnant native vegetation 24 3.291666667 2.91143423 0.594294024 1.229390855 Tree Martin Willow infested 17 3 2.397915762 0.581579998 1.23289452 Tree Martin Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 14 3.571428571 4.535573676 1.212183053 2.618762275 Tree Martin Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 6 1.666666667 0.516397779 0.210818511 0.541926234 Varied Sittella Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 1 7 NA NA NA Varied Sittella Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 1 7 NA NA NA Welcome Swallow Remnant native vegetation 22 2.272727273 1.608957609 0.343030915 0.71337184 Welcome Swallow Willow infested 45 2.133333333 1.58973983 0.236984422 0.477610719 Welcome Swallow Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 43 2.093023256 1.756809249 0.267910899 0.540666083 Welcome Swallow Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 35 1.8 0.933053179 0.157714773 0.320514981 White-browed Scrubwren Remnant native vegetation 78 2.051282051 1.183187813 0.133969639 0.266767632

133 | P a g e

Species Treatment N Individual Count sd se ci White-browed Scrubwren Willow infested 110 2.218181818 1.403676811 0.133835333 0.265257278 White-browed Scrubwren Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 147 2.299319728 1.268236647 0.104602396 0.20673049 White-browed Scrubwren Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 138 2.137681159 1.313556653 0.111817368 0.221111153 White-naped Honeyeater Willow infested 1 1 NA NA NA White-naped Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 11 2 1.264911064 0.381385036 0.849778816 White-naped Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 3 4 3.605551275 2.081665999 8.956685895 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Remnant native vegetation 31 2.064516129 2.308469679 0.414613394 0.846753514 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Willow infested 71 2.577464789 2.476529668 0.293909999 0.586185009 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 101 2.643564356 2.156776105 0.214607244 0.425774659 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 109 2.568807339 1.906941377 0.182651858 0.362047669 Yellow-rumped Thornbill Remnant native vegetation 6 4.5 4.888762625 1.995828984 5.130441733 Yellow-rumped Thornbill Willow infested 30 3 3.956661777 0.722384302 1.477441788 Yellow-rumped Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 19 2.789473684 2.800375915 0.642450296 1.349737986 Yellow-rumped Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 41 3.512195122 2.702979386 0.422134459 0.853165567 Yellow Thornbill Remnant native vegetation 28 2.5 1.261979632 0.238491733 0.489344616 Yellow Thornbill Willow infested 36 2.333333333 1.414213562 0.23570226 0.478501028 Yellow Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 31 2.322580645 1.194071376 0.21446155 0.437988917 Yellow Thornbill Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 100 2.37 1.186242689 0.118624269 0.235376285

134 | P a g e

Appendix 4. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: bird.in ~ season * treatment + season * `Survey Point Name`

Multivariate test: Res.Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) 665 season 664 1 128.21 0.001 *** treatment 661 3 252.54 0.001 *** `Survey Point Name' 648 13 820.62 0.001 *** season:treatment 645 3 76.01 0.004 ** season:`Survey Point Name' 639 13 195.27 0.001 *** – Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Tests: Aerial Bark foragers Dabblers Frugivore Grazer Generalist Granivore Invertebrates Damp Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 9.8796 0.216 2.4065 0.807 0.0011 0.987 4.7187 0.542 2.5005 0.807 31.9531 0.006 6.3059 0.458 0.4705 0.92 treatment 16.8256 0.071 5.3896 0.591 11.2007 0.265 43.4124 0.002 1.6308 0.726 16.7598 0.072 10.1738 0.32 10.1367 0.32 `Survey Point Name' 55.6952 0.001 9.1187 0.791 8.8946 0.791 44.1862 0.001 44.0508 0.001 66.0503 0.001 91.5447 0.001 117.869 0.001 season:treatment 5.478 0.802 0.0145 0.993 1.9636 0.993 2.3267 0.993 0.5186 0.993 12.7809 0.1 12.1206 0.13 2.5524 0.993 season:`Survey Point Name’ 38.7369 0.001 5.3547 0.883 13.6909 0.836 15.3193 0.71 7.5904 0.883 15.9428 0.702 10.5153 0.852 5.7102 0.883

Invertebrates Ground Invertebrates Foliage Nectarivore Piscivore Reed-dwelling Shorebird Carnivore Large wader Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 0.066 0.987 3.6304 0.688 6.0984 0.458 1.9633 0.807 53.7107 0.001 0.0331 0.987 3.1495 0.723 1.3233 0.847 treatment 11.464 0.265 25.4046 0.036 5.3031 0.591 7.0212 0.427 42.1088 0.003 17.5456 0.063 4.6772 0.591 23.4815 0.052 `Survey Point Name' 65.7121 0.001 136.4174 0.001 61.6985 0.001 6.5929 0.791 58.2125 0.001 12.4298 0.41 5.2961 0.791 36.8553 0.011 season:treatment 3.9574 0.929 1.5287 0.993 14.2147 0.07 2.2466 0.993 2.6459 0.991 2.5271 0.993 0.0039 0.993 11.1316 0.177 15.6954 0.71 21.4392 0.247 11.5479 0.852 14.0284 0.798 8.00E- 0.883 6.128 0.883 0.0017 0.883 13.5675 0.836 season:`Survey Point Name' 04 Arguments: Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation) P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

135 | P a g e

Appendix 5. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Plenty River and Arthurs Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the guild was recorded. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci)

Guild treatment N Individual Count sd se ci Aerial Insectivore Remnant native vegetation 36 4.361111111 4.369719035 0.728286506 1.47850021 Aerial Insectivore Willow infested 53 2.886792453 2.446821937 0.336096841 0.674427652 Aerial Insectivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 50 3.5 5.42198849 0.766784966 1.540912079 Aerial Insectivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 40 2.475 2.099908423 0.332024675 0.671583295 Bark Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 3 3 3.464101615 2 8.605305459 Bark Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 2 4 4.242640687 3 38.11861421 Dabbling Duck Remnant native vegetation 15 2.333333333 2.257263408 0.582822906 1.25003081 Dabbling Duck Willow infested 25 2.96 1.881488772 0.376297754 0.776640394 Dabbling Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 9 2.111111111 0.927960727 0.309320242 0.713293758 Dabbling Duck Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 27 2.222222222 1.050030525 0.202078469 0.415378241 Frugivore Remnant native vegetation 22 1.227272727 0.428932027 0.091448615 0.190177807 Frugivore Willow infested 15 1 0 0 0 Frugivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 11 1.090909091 0.301511345 0.090909091 0.202558077 Frugivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 2 1 0 0 0 Generalist Remnant native vegetation 13 1.230769231 0.59914469 0.166172838 0.362059512 Generalist Willow infested 16 1.1875 0.543905629 0.135976407 0.289826851 Generalist Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 47 1.106382979 0.311660528 0.04546036 0.091506959 Generalist Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 44 1.318181818 0.638775255 0.096298993 0.194205428 Granivore Remnant native vegetation 84 8.178571429 16.49400089 1.799643038 3.579417621 Granivore Willow infested 109 5.440366972 5.54515336 0.531129364 1.052790542 Granivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 134 7.164179104 21.50159778 1.857455142 3.673974322 Granivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 143 5.79020979 7.034976147 0.588294259 1.162946559 Grazer Remnant native vegetation 10 2 1.054092553 0.333333333 0.754052388 Grazer Willow infested 21 2.619047619 3.27835615 0.715395963 1.492289828 Grazer Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 14 5.142857143 6.359210677 1.699570543 3.671698931 Grazer Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 21 3.285714286 4.551294949 0.993173982 2.071724622 Invertebrates Damp Ground Remnant native vegetation 78 2.051282051 1.183187813 0.133969639 0.266767632 Invertebrates Damp Ground Willow infested 110 2.218181818 1.403676811 0.133835333 0.265257278 Invertebrates Damp Ground Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 147 2.299319728 1.268236647 0.104602396 0.20673049 Invertebrates Damp Ground Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 138 2.137681159 1.313556653 0.111817368 0.221111153 Invertebrates Foliage Remnant native vegetation 104 7.307692308 4.377960963 0.429294392 0.851404175 Invertebrates Foliage Willow infested 148 5.97972973 5.967564932 0.490530816 0.969403337 Invertebrates Foliage Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 168 8.672619048 6.805683627 0.525069891 1.036630237 Invertebrates Foliage Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 202 8.589108911 9.236768415 0.649896758 1.281490153 Invertebrates Ground Remnant native vegetation 107 5.91588785 5.423779743 0.524336579 1.039548265 Invertebrates Ground Willow infested 148 5.817567568 6.082244889 0.49995745 0.988032566 Invertebrates Ground Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 166 5.102409639 3.554987138 0.275920514 0.544790052 Invertebrates Ground Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 194 6.608247423 4.741082059 0.340389854 0.671361692 Large Wader Remnant native vegetation 8 1.125 0.353553391 0.125 0.295578031 Large Wader Willow infested 31 3.064516129 9.132124557 1.640177989 3.349690331 Large Wader Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 6 4.5 7.1484264 2.918332857 7.501813434 Large Wader Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 26 9.269230769 24.34182851 4.77382533 9.831877312 Nectarivore Remnant native vegetation 97 6.092783505 4.981387178 0.505783237 1.00397179 Nectarivore Willow infested 132 5.03030303 4.504348016 0.392053172 0.775574695 Nectarivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 159 4.968553459 5.183251245 0.411058562 0.811878507 Nectarivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 178 5.54494382 6.843752749 0.512960956 1.012306492 Piscivore Remnant native vegetation 1 1 NA NA NA Piscivore Willow infested 7 1.142857143 0.377964473 0.142857143 0.349558836 Piscivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 2 1 0 0 0 Piscivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 8 1.25 0.707106781 0.25 0.591156063 Reeds Remnant native vegetation 4 1 0 0 0 Reeds Willow infested 24 1.541666667 0.883627241 0.180369655 0.37312306 Reeds Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 10 1.5 0.527046277 0.166666667 0.377026194 Shorebird Willow infested 9 1.666666667 0.5 0.166666667 0.384334023 Shorebird Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 2 2 0 0 0 Vertebrates – Carnivore Remnant native vegetation 26 1.461538462 0.859337849 0.168530018 0.347094069 Vertebrates - Carnivore Willow infested 36 1.222222222 0.421637021 0.070272837 0.142661443 Vertebrates - Carnivore Willows removed/ revegetation (< 18 years) 41 1.292682927 0.601826488 0.093989507 0.189959879 Vertebrates - Carnivore Willows removed/ revegetation (> 18 years) 58 2.034482759 3.276527458 0.430229133 0.861518978

136 | P a g e

Appendix 6. List of Bird Species recorded for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. *denotes introduced species Guild Common Name Olinda Creek, willow-dominated Olinda Creek, staged removal Olinda Creek, willows removed Australian King-Parrot Granivore 1 1 1 Australian Magpie Invertebrates ground 1 1 1 Australian Wood Duck Grazer 0 1 0 Bassian Thrush Invertebrates Damp Grounds 0 1 1 Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 Brown-headed Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 0 Brown Goshawk Vertebrates 1 1 1 Brown Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Brush Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 *Common Blackbird - 1 1 1 Common Bronzewing Granivore 1 0 1 *Common Greenfinch - 0 0 1 Crested Shrike-tit Bark 0 0 1 Crimson Rosella Granivore 1 1 1 Eastern Rosella Granivore 0 1 0 Eastern Spinebill Nectarivore 1 1 1 Eastern Whipbird Invertebrates Damp Grounds 1 1 1 Eastern Yellow Robin Invertebrates Grounds 1 1 1 *European Goldfinch - 0 0 1 Fairy Martin Aerial Insectivore 0 1 0 Fan-tailed Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Galah Granivore 0 0 1 Gang-gang Cockatoo Granivore 0 0 1 Golden Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Grey Butcherbird Vertebrates 1 1 1 Grey Currawong Vertebrates 1 1 1 Grey Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Grey Goshawk Vertebrates 1 0 0 Grey Shrike-thrush Generalist 1 1 1 Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 0 0 1 Laughing Kookaburra Vertebrates 1 1 1 Leaden Flycatcher Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 0 Lewin's Honeyeater Frugivore 1 1 1 Little Raven Invertebrates Ground 1 0 1 Mistletoebird Frugivore 0 0 1 New Holland Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1 Olive Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 0 Pacific Black Duck Dabbler 0 1 1 Pied Currawong Vertebrates 1 1 0 Pink Robin Invertebrates Damp Ground 0 1 0 Purple-crowned Lorikeet Nectarivore 0 1 0 Rainbow Lorikeet Nectarivore 1 1 1 Red-browed Finch Granivore 1 1 1 Red-browed Treecreeper Bark 0 0 1 Red Wattlebird Nectarivore 1 1 1 Rose Robin Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Rufous Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Rufous Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 1 Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 Silvereye Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Spotted Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Striated Fieldwren Invertebrates Ground 0 0 1 Striated Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 1 Striated Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 1 Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Granivore 1 1 1 Superb Fairy-wren Invertebrates Ground 1 1 1 Superb Lyrebird Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 0 Tree Martin Aerial Insectivore 0 1 0 Welcome Swallow Aerial Insectivore 0 0 1 White-browed Scrubwren Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 1 1 White-browed Woodswallow Aerial Insectivore 0 0 1 White-eared Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 0 1 0 White-faced Heron Large Wader 0 0 1 White-naped Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1 White-plumed Honeyeater Nectarivore 0 0 1 White-throated Treecreeper Bark 1 1 1 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 1

137 | P a g e

Guild Common Name Olinda Creek, willow-dominated Olinda Creek, staged removal Olinda Creek, willows removed Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Granivore 1 1 1

138 | P a g e

Appendix 7. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: Olinda.bird.in ~ season * `Survey Point Name`

Multivariate test: Res.Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) 112 season 111 1 49.659 0.009 ** `Survey Point Name' 109 2 168.775 0.001 *** season:`Survey Point Name' 107 2 54.946 0.01 ** – Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Australian Magpie Australian Wood Duck Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Brown Thornbill Fairy Martin Grey Fantail Laughing Kookaburra Little Raven Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 0.6418 0.984 1.3826 0.984 2.8671 0.742 1.1995 0.984 1.3826 0.984 6.6088 0.203 0.1363 0.99 0.0105 0.99 `Survey Point Name' 12.3995 0.032 2.0458 0.986 1.7195 0.986 14.5544 0.013 2.0458 0.986 16.505 0.003 6.2634 0.375 6.7318 0.332 season:`Survey Point Name' 0.3098 0.992 8.00E-04 0.992 4.00E-04 0.992 0.0996 0.992 8.00E-04 0.992 2.4446 0.944 3.9276 0.836 0.1301 0.992 Mistletoebird New Holland Honeyeater Rainbow Lorikeet Red-browed Finch Red Wattlebird Rufous Fantail Silvereye Striated Pardalote Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.3826 0.984 0.9768 0.984 0.6969 0.984 0.6042 0.984 6.8443 0.203 8.1083 0.101 0.0191 0.99 0.9455 0.984 `Survey Point Name' 2.2544 0.972 9.4588 0.111 2.4081 0.972 1.3877 0.986 3.6712 0.829 1.5987 0.986 1.5158 0.986 2.0253 0.986 season:`Survey Point Name' 8.00E-04 0.992 6.5748 0.421 3.2723 0.867 11.6972 0.056 1.4883 0.975 1.5751 0.975 2.1453 0.951 10.188 0.098 Striated Thornbill Superb Fairy-wren Tree Martin Welcome Swallow White-browed Scrubwren White-naped Honeyeater Yellow-faced Honeyeater Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.5643 0.951 0.793 0.984 1.3824 0.984 1.386 0.984 1.189 0.984 0.1402 0.99 9.3973 0.049 `Survey Point Name' 10.3252 0.077 20.969 0.002 2.0451 0.986 11.3749 0.048 10.9611 0.058 18.8361 0.002 7.679 0.214 season:`Survey Point Name' 0.257 0.992 4.7831 0.704 9.00E-04 0.992 0 0.992 0.4941 0.992 3.9548 0.836 1.6011 0.975 Arguments: Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation) P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

139 | P a g e

Appendix 8. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the species. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci)

Species Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci Australian Magpie MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 4 2.25 1.258305739 0.62915287 2.002245225 Australian Magpie MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 9 2.111111111 1.536590743 0.512196914 1.181128202 Australian Wood Duck MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 2 NA NA NA Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 2 NA NA NA Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 1 2 NA NA NA Brown Thornbill MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 33 9.303030303 4.811995743 0.837660939 1.706259498 Brown Thornbill MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 31 5.838709677 3.347603861 0.601247403 1.22791101 Brown Thornbill MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 35 9.685714286 5.603420324 0.947150906 1.924842227 Fairy Martin MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 2 NA NA NA Grey Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 19 2.052631579 1.025978352 0.235375577 0.494505737 Grey Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 31 2.483870968 1.434595593 0.257660975 0.526213912 Grey Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 32 3 1.849149761 0.326886584 0.666689583 Laughing Kookaburra MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 4 1.75 1.5 0.75 2.386834729 Laughing Kookaburra MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 10 1.6 0.699205899 0.221108319 0.500181768 Laughing Kookaburra MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 13 2.384615385 1.757766648 0.487516752 1.062207755 Little Raven MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 2 1.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Little Raven MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 4 3 2 1 3.182446305 Mistletoebird MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 1 2 NA NA NA New Holland Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 6 2 1.549193338 0.632455532 1.625778702 New Holland Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 3 2.666666667 2.081665999 1.201850425 5.171145013 New Holland Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 13 4.384615385 2.902253766 0.804940367 1.753814398 Rainbow Lorikeet MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 1 1 NA NA NA Rainbow Lorikeet MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 6 NA NA NA Rainbow Lorikeet MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 4 1.75 0.5 0.25 0.795611576 Red-browed Finch MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 7 4.714285714 3.498298906 1.322232703 3.23538687 Red-browed Finch MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 8 7.25 3.918819064 1.385511767 3.276214726 Red-browed Finch MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 11 6.363636364 6.087244488 1.83537327 4.089466491 Red Wattlebird MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 3 1 0 0 0 Red Wattlebird MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 2 25 33.9411255 24 304.9489137 Red Wattlebird MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 9 6.666666667 11.47824028 3.826080094 8.822956519 Rufous Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 2 1.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Rufous Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 4 2 1.414213562 0.707106781 2.250329363 Rufous Fantail MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 3 4.333333333 5.773502692 3.333333333 14.34217577 Silvereye MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 8 9.25 9.192388155 3.25 7.685028818 Silvereye MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 17 8.352941176 8.623667843 2.09154667 4.43388087 Silvereye MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 23 5.52173913 4.165546622 0.868576513 1.801317438 Striated Pardalote MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 2 1 0 0 0 Striated Pardalote MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 2 1.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Striated Pardalote MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 3 5 6.08276253 3.511884584 15.11041979 Striated Thornbill MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 1 NA NA NA Striated Thornbill MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 5 5 4.795831523 2.144761059 5.954811344 Superb Fairy-wren MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 18 3.777777778 2.486565208 0.58608904 1.236539787 Superb Fairy-wren MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 32 5.34375 2.483615666 0.43904537 0.895438935 Superb Fairy-wren MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 35 5.914285714 3.22099207 0.544447031 1.106449488 Tree Martin MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 3 NA NA NA Welcome Swallow MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 5 11.8 21.39392437 9.56765384 26.56406567 White-browed Scrubwren MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 22 2.954545455 2.011331535 0.428817324 0.891774444 White-browed Scrubwren MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 22 3.318181818 2.212224987 0.471647952 0.980845611 White-browed Scrubwren MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 29 5.379310345 4.31288595 0.800882815 1.640534078 White-naped Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 20 3.35 3.08263387 0.689297888 1.442717061 White-naped Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 6 1 0 0 0 White-naped Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 10 3.9 2.766867463 0.874960317 1.979297747 Yellow-faced Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 6 1.666666667 0.816496581 0.333333333 0.856860612 Yellow-faced Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 11 2 0.894427191 0.269679945 0.600884363 Yellow-faced Honeyeater MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 17 2.411764706 1.583462327 0.384046025 0.814141204

140 | P a g e

Appendix 9. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: Olinda.bird.in ~ season * `Survey Point Name`

Multivariate test: Res.Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) 112 season 111 1 19.276 0.188 `Survey Point Name' 109 2 122.796 0.001 *** season:`Survey Point Name' 107 2 22.755 0.35 – Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Tests: Bark foragers Dabblers Frugivores Grazers Generalists Granivores Invertebrates Damp Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.2404 0.944 0.1254 0.979 1.3826 0.944 1.3826 0.944 0.9418 0.944 5.9832 0.197 1.189 0.944 `Survey Point Name' 0.0157 0.991 3.2676 0.542 2.2544 0.672 2.0458 0.672 5.6811 0.194 28.8261 0.001 10.9611 0.041 season:`Survey Point Name' 2.0647 0.885 0.1498 0.974 8.00E-04 0.974 8.00E-04 0.974 1.2582 0.952 4.1007 0.693 0.4941 0.974 Invertebrates Ground Invertebrates foliage Aerial Nectarivores Carnivores Large Waders Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.1525 0.944 0.0491 0.979 2.3072 0.841 2.1086 0.841 0.0098 0.979 1.404 0.944 `Survey Point Name' 32.4958 0.001 6.6204 0.192 9.55 0.065 6.8551 0.192 12.0619 0.028 2.161 0.672 season:`Survey Point Name' 6.1287 0.454 0.5444 0.974 0.5662 0.974 2.9393 0.839 4.5062 0.676 8.00E-04 0.974 Arguments: Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation) P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

141 | P a g e

Appendix 10. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Olinda Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the guild was recorded. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci)

Guild Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci Aerial Insectivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 2 2.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Aerial Insectivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 5 11.8 21.39392437 9.56765384 26.56406567 Bark MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 8 1.25 0.46291005 0.163663418 0.387002487 Bark MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 10 1.1 0.316227766 0.1 0.226215716 Bark MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 10 1.1 0.316227766 0.1 0.226215716 Dabbling Duck MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 2 1 0 0 0 Dabbling Duck MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 2 1.5 0.707106781 0.5 6.353102368 Frugivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 1 2 NA NA NA Generalist MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 5 1.6 0.894427191 0.4 1.110578042 Generalist MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 18 1.222222222 0.427792632 0.10083169 0.212736271 Generalist MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 14 1.357142857 0.841897386 0.225006541 0.486097079 Granivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 25 5.12 4.003331946 0.800666389 1.652494209 Granivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 35 8.457142857 8.78616177 1.485132401 3.018152167 Granivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 37 15.7027027 16.64476038 2.73638175 5.549639412 Grazer MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 1 2 NA NA NA Invertebrates Damp Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 22 2.954545455 2.011331535 0.428817324 0.891774444 Invertebrates Damp Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 22 3.318181818 2.212224987 0.471647952 0.980845611 Invertebrates Damp Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 29 5.379310345 4.31288595 0.800882815 1.640534078 Invertebrates Foliage MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 35 12.74285714 8.637615606 1.460023516 2.967124774 Invertebrates Foliage MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 36 12.47222222 9.787706899 1.631284483 3.311683563 Invertebrates Foliage MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 37 17.54054054 8.716506036 1.432984765 2.906227806 Invertebrates Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 30 3.333333333 2.509751098 0.458215763 0.937156462 Invertebrates Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 36 5.861111111 2.779031463 0.463171911 0.940288968 Invertebrates Ground MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 38 7.289473684 3.72651489 0.604520541 1.224874965 Large Wader MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 1 1 NA NA NA Nectarivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 26 3.730769231 3.040495911 0.596290307 1.228082876 Nectarivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 23 4.826086957 10.24097019 2.135389898 4.428527598 Nectarivore MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 34 6.235294118 7.61600716 1.306134452 2.657350524 Vertebrates MWrbm Olinda Creek, willow-dominated 10 1.5 0.971825316 0.307318149 0.695201951 Vertebrates MWrbm Olinda Creek, staged removal 18 1.444444444 0.704792186 0.166121111 0.350484909 Vertebrates MWrbm Olinda Creek, willows removed 25 1.96 1.619670748 0.32393415 0.668567226

142 | P a g e

Appendix 11. List of bird Species recorded during the Monbulk Creek Willow Works Evaluation surveys. *denotes introduced species Common Name Guild Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site Monbulk Creek Works Site Australian King-Parrot Granivore 1 1 Australian Magpie Invertebrates Ground 1 1 Australian Raven Invertebrates Ground 1 0 Australian Wood Duck Grazer 0 1 Bassian Thrush Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Brown-headed Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Brown Gerygone Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Brown Goshawk Vertebrates 1 0 Brown Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 *Common Blackbird - 1 1 *Common Myna - 0 1 Crescent Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 0 Crested Shrike-tit Bark 1 0 Crimson Rosella Granivore 1 1 Dusky Moorhen Grazer 0 1 Eastern Rosella Granivore 1 1 Eastern Spinebill Nectarivore 1 1 Eastern Whipbird Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 Eastern Yellow Robin Invertebrates Ground 1 1 Fan-tailed Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Galah Granivore 1 1 Golden Whistler Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Grey Butcherbird Vertebrates 1 1 Grey Currawong Vertebrates 1 0 Grey Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Grey Shrike-thrush Generalist 1 1 Large-billed Scrubwren Bark 1 0 Laughing Kookaburra Vertebrates 1 1 Lewin's Honeyeater Frugivore 1 1 Little Pied Cormorant Piscivore 0 1 Little Raven Invertebrates Ground 0 1 Long-billed Corella Granivore 1 1 Magpie-lark Invertebrates Ground 0 1 Mistletoebird Frugivore 1 1 Musk Lorikeet Nectarivore 1 0 Noisy Miner Nectarivore 0 1 Olive Whistler Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 Pacific Black Duck Dabbler 0 1 Pied Currawong Vertebrates 1 1 Pink Robin Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 Rainbow Lorikeet Nectarivore 1 1 Red-browed Finch Granivore 1 0 Red-browed Treecreeper Bark 1 0 Red Wattlebird Nectarivore 1 1 Rose Robin Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Rufous Fantail Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Satin Bowerbird Frugivore 1 1 Satin Flycatcher Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 Silvereye Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 *Spotted Dove - 0 1 Spotted Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Striated Pardalote Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Striated Thornbill Invertebrates Foliage 1 1 Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Granivore 1 1 Superb Fairy-wren Invertebrates Ground 1 1 Superb Lyrebird Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 0 Tawny Frogmouth Invertebrates Ground 1 1 Varied Sittella Bark 1 0 Wedge-tailed Eagle Vertebrates 1 0 Welcome Swallow Aerial Insectivore 1 1 White-browed Scrubwren Invertebrates Damp Ground 1 1 White-eared Honeyeater Invertebrates Foliage 1 0 White-naped Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 0 White-throated Needletail Aerial Insectivore 1 0 White-throated Treecreeper Bark 1 1

143 | P a g e

Common Name Guild Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site Monbulk Creek Works Site Yellow-faced Honeyeater Nectarivore 1 1 Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Granivore 1 1

144 | P a g e

Appendix 12. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Species for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: monbulk.bird.in ~ season * 'Survey Point Name' Point Name`

Multivariate test: Res.Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) 99 season 98 1 37.557 0.011 * Survey Point Name' 97 1 143.94 0.001 *** season:'Survey Point Name' 96 1 32.772 0.008 ** – Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Tests: Australian Wood Duck Brown Thornbill Eastern Rosella Galah Grey Fantail Long-billed Corella Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 4.1149 0.454 0.755 0.968 1.2921 0.967 0.9486 0.967 0.8375 0.968 0.8024 0.968 Survey Point Name' 23.2634 0.001 11.3066 0.012 1.5585 0.799 11.0654 0.013 0.2421 0.929 2.34 0.736 season:'Survey Point Name' 0 0.871 0.882 0.87 0.6836 0.871 0.327 0.871 16.8865 0.002 1.8683 0.814 Musk Lorikeet Pacific Black Duck Rainbow Lorikeet Red-browed Finch Red Wattlebird Silvereye Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.2087 0.967 0.8238 0.968 0.0397 0.969 0.315 0.968 15.3895 0.002 0.0195 0.969 Survey Point Name' 1.3781 0.891 13.8791 0.007 5.5113 0.147 13.4162 0.008 3.4717 0.403 1.2783 0.891 season:'Survey Point Name' 5.00E-04 0.871 0 0.871 0.1681 0.871 0 0.871 1.7965 0.814 2.6059 0.691 Striated Thornbill Superb Fairy-wren Varied Sittella Wedge-tailed Eagle White-browed Scrubwren White-naped Honeyeater Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 2.0936 0.879 0.4058 0.968 1.6167 0.936 1.2088 0.967 1.3836 0.967 0.3511 0.968 Survey Point Name' 0.0425 0.953 0.0012 0.977 1.3767 0.891 1.3784 0.891 2.0333 0.742 43.1852 0.001 season:'Survey Point Name' 0.6175 0.871 1.4104 0.814 6.00E-04 0.871 5.00E-04 0.871 1.1275 0.852 0 0.871 Yellow-faced Honeyeater Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 3.9509 0.454 Survey Point Name' 7.212 0.089 season:'Survey Point Name' 4.3974 0.385 Arguments: Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation) P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

145 | P a g e

Appendix 13. Mean numbers of the different species recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the species was recorded. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci)

Species Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci Australian Wood Duck MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 14 4.714285714 6.615001267 1.767933454 3.81938802 Brown Thornbill MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 39 2.461538462 1.294647968 0.207309589 0.419676322 Brown Thornbill MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 47 3.063829787 1.45070081 0.211606461 0.425941715 Eastern Rosella MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 1 2 NA NA NA Eastern Rosella MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 3 2.666666667 1.154700538 0.666666667 2.868435153 Galah MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 4 2.25 1.892969449 0.946484724 3.012136814 Galah MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 19 2.578947368 1.464991068 0.336092001 0.706103093 Grey Fantail MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 39 1.948717949 1.336702895 0.214043767 0.433308952 Grey Fantail MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 29 2.344827586 1.968971125 0.365628759 0.748956561 Long-billed Corella MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 3 1.666666667 0.577350269 0.333333333 1.434217577 Long-billed Corella MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 7 3.285714286 2.811540842 1.062662553 2.600241594 Musk Lorikeet MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 1 3 NA NA NA Pacific Black Duck MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 9 2.555555556 2.833333333 0.944444444 2.177892794 Rainbow Lorikeet MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 10 2.4 0.966091783 0.305505046 0.691100429 Rainbow Lorikeet MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 24 2.375 1.468880082 0.299833891 0.620253661 Red-browed Finch MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 9 3.111111111 1.900292375 0.633430792 1.460694025 Red Wattlebird MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 12 3.75 3.441062204 0.993349095 2.186346617 Red Wattlebird MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 32 2.125 1.313699529 0.232231461 0.473639188 Silvereye MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 28 3.142857143 2.120696701 0.400774005 0.822320335 Silvereye MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 17 3.352941176 3.408466966 0.826674666 1.752472005 Striated Thornbill MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 33 4.363636364 1.597227712 0.278041656 0.56635232 Striated Thornbill MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 29 4.448275862 1.824167264 0.338739357 0.693876118 Superb Fairy-wren MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 11 2.363636364 0.504524979 0.152120005 0.338944493

146 | P a g e

Species Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci Superb Fairy-wren MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 12 2.25 1.138180366 0.32856437 0.723165303 Varied Sittella MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 1 2 NA NA NA Wedge-tailed Eagle MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 1 2 NA NA NA White-browed Scrubwren MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 41 2.170731707 0.919305146 0.143571343 0.290168508 White-browed Scrubwren MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 36 1.888888889 1.089633694 0.181605616 0.368679 White-naped Honeyeater MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 25 2.08 1.222020185 0.244404037 0.504425141 Yellow-faced Honeyeater MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 27 2.518518519 2.860478314 0.550499308 1.131567534 Yellow-faced Honeyeater MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 19 1.631578947 0.830697586 0.190575096 0.40038342

147 | P a g e

Appendix 14. Community Composition Analysis of Bird Guilds for Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek. ‘Survey Point Name’ = Site. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Analysis of Deviance Table

Model: monbulk.bird.in ~ season * `Survey Point Name' Point Name`

Multivariate test: Res.Df Df.diff Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) 99 season 98 1 26.267 0.019 * `Survey Point Name' 97 1 77.008 0.001 *** season:`Survey Point Name' 96 1 20.547 0.026 * – Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Univariate Tests: Aerial Bark Foragers Dabblers Frugivores Grazers Generalists Granivores Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 2.4353 0.712 0.1933 0.987 0.8238 0.931 2.5347 0.712 4.2169 0.376 0.0011 0.991 0.3152 0.986 `Survey Point Name' 0.1904 0.986 17.7357 0.001 13.8791 0.003 6.1726 0.096 28.7053 0.001 2.7457 0.563 0.1047 0.986 season:`Survey Point Name' 0 0.94 3.3747 0.39 0 0.94 3.0335 0.41 0 0.94 2.7902 0.41 0.0123 0.94 Invertebrates Damp Ground Invertebrates Ground Invertebrates Foliage Nectarivores Piscivores Carnivores Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) Dev Pr(>Dev) (Intercept) season 1.3836 0.885 0.8904 0.931 0.0339 0.991 11.7874 0.009 1.5969 0.876 0.0548 0.991 `Survey Point Name' 2.0333 0.673 0.164 0.986 0.7544 0.937 0.1131 0.986 1.4306 0.799 2.9788 0.488 season:`Survey Point Name' 1.1275 0.721 5.8947 0.136 0.2708 0.94 0.2477 0.94 6.00E-04 0.94 3.7949 0.361 Arguments: Test statistics calculated assuming uncorrelated response (for faster computation) P-value calculated using 999 iterations via PIT-trap resampling.

148 | P a g e

Appendix 15. Mean numbers of the different guilds recorded according to Site/Treatment within the Melbourne Water’s Works Evaluation Sites at Monbulk Creek. N is the number of surveys during which the guild was recorded. Standard Deviation (sd), Standard Error (se) and Coefficient Interval (ci)

Guild Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci guild Survey Point Name N Individual Count sd se ci Aerial Insectivore MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 1 1 NA NA NA Aerial Insectivore MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 1 2 NA NA NA Bark MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 20 1.2 0.410391341 0.091766294 0.19206906 Bark MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 3 1 0 0 0 Dabbling Duck MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 9 2.555555556 2.833333333 0.944444444 2.177892794 Frugivore MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 11 1.181818182 0.404519917 0.121967344 0.271760178 Frugivore MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 3 1 0 0 0 Generalist MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 7 1 0 0 0 Generalist MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 2 1 0 0 0 Granivore MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 46 6.260869565 3.895494735 0.574359364 1.156819141 Granivore MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 47 6.170212766 3.778193432 0.551106153 1.109319149 Grazer MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 17 4.117647059 6.112306775 1.482452144 3.142658156 Invertebrates Damp Ground MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 41 2.170731707 0.919305146 0.143571343 0.290168508 Invertebrates Damp Ground MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 36 1.888888889 1.089633694 0.181605616 0.368679 Invertebrates Foliage MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 48 11.20833333 5.906931858 0.852592175 1.715194219 Invertebrates Foliage MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 49 9.551020408 4.860817937 0.694402562 1.396189928 Invertebrates Ground MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 30 2.133333333 1.224275531 0.223521108 0.457151996 Invertebrates Ground MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 28 2.5 1.575271875 0.297698402 0.610826666 Nectarivore MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 39 5.512820513 4.751020915 0.760772208 1.540102817 Nectarivore MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 46 4.304347826 3.017501286 0.444906292 0.896087271 Piscivore MW - Monbulk Creek Works Site 1 1 NA NA NA Vertebrates MW - Monbulk Creek Upstream Control Site 19 1.631578947 1.422459775 0.326334653 0.685603666

149 | P a g e

Appendix 16. Wetland bird species. Common name Scientific name EPBC Act VROT

Magpie Goose Anseranas semipalmata NT

Plumed Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna eytoni

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis Migratory EN

Pink-eared Duck Malacorhynchus membranaceus

Cape Barren Goose Cereopsis novaehollandiae

Black Swan Cygnus atratus

Australian Shelduck Tadorna tadornoides

Hardhead Aythya australis VU

Australasian Shoveler Spatula rhynchotis VU

Northern Shoveler Spatula clypeata Migratory

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa

Grey Teal Anas gracilis

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea

Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa Migratory EN

Musk Duck Biziura lobata VU

Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata

Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae

Hoary-headed Grebe Poliocephalus poliocephalus

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus

Lewin's Rail Lewinia pectoralis VU

Buff-banded Rail Hypotaenidia philippensis

Australian Spotted Crake Porzana fluminea

Baillon's Crake Zapornia pusilla VU

Spotless Crake Zapornia tabuensis

Australasian Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa

Black-tailed Native-hen Tribonyx ventralis

Eurasian Coot Fulica atra

Brolga Antigone rubicunda VU

South Island Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus finschi

Australian Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris

Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus NT

Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus leucocephalus

Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

Pied Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory EN

Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva Migratory VU

American Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica

150 | P a g e

Common name Scientific name EPBC Act VROT

Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficapillus

Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus Migratory

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus EN/Migratory CR

Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii VU/Migratory CR

Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus Migratory

Hooded Plover Thinornis cucullatus VU

Black-fronted Dotterel Elseyornis melanops

Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles

Red-kneed Dotterel Erythrogonys cinctus

Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis EN CR

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Migratory VU

Little Curlew Numenius minutus Migratory

Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis CR/Migratory VU

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica VU/Migratory

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Migratory

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Migratory VU

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Migratory VU

Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris CR/Migratory EN

Red Knot Calidris canutus EN/Migratory EN

Ruff Calidris pugnax Migratory

Broad-billed Sandpiper Calidris falcinellus Migratory

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Migratory

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea CR/Migratory EN

Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta Migratory NT

Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis Migratory

Sanderling Calidris alba Migratory NT

Little Stint Calidris minuta

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos Migratory NT

Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii Migratory NT

Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus Migratory EN

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Migratory VU

Grey-tailed Tattler Tringa brevipes Migratory CR

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia Migratory VU

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Migratory VU

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Migratory VU

Wilson's Phalarope Steganopus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Migratory

151 | P a g e

Common name Scientific name EPBC Act VROT

Australian Pratincole Stiltia isabella NT

Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum Migratory

Black Noddy Anous minutus

Silver Gull Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae

Pacific Gull Larus pacificus NT

Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus

Bridled Tern Onychoprion anaethetus Migratory

Little Tern Sternula albifrons Migratory VU

Fairy Tern Sternula nereis VU EN

Australian Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon macrotarsa EN

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Migratory NT

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida NT

White-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus Migratory NT

White-fronted Tern Sterna striata NT

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Migratory

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea

Crested Tern Thalasseus bergii

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus EN EN

Australian Little Bittern Ixobrychus dubius EN

Nankeen Night-Heron Nycticorax caledonicus NT

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Migratory

White-necked Heron Ardea pacifica

Great Egret Ardea alba Migratory VU

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia EN

White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae

Little Egret Egretta garzetta

Eastern Reef Egret Egretta sacra

Australian White Ibis Threskiornis moluccus

Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis

Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia NT

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus Migratory NT

Little Pied Cormorant Microcarbo melanoleucos

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

Black-faced Cormorant Phalacrocorax fuscescens NT

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius NT

Australasian Darter Anhinga novaehollandiae

152 | P a g e

Common name Scientific name EPBC Act VROT

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Swamp Harrier Circus approximans

White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster VU

Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster CR CR

Azure Kingfisher Ceyx azureus NT

White-fronted Chat Epthianura albifrons

Golden-headed Cisticola Cisticola exilis

Little Grassbird Poodytes gramineus

Australian Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus australis Migratory [sic]

153 | P a g e

Appendix 17. Sites that were not surveyed during 2019/2020. Site number Site name Wetlands

1 MWrbm Hallam Valley Floodplain, O'Grady Road

2 MWrbm Deans Marsh, Rockbank

3 MWrbm WTP - 95E North

4 MWrbm WTP -115E Borrow Pit Cells

5 MWrbm Tootgarook Swamp B

6 MWrbm Greens Rd Swamp East No. 2

7 MWrbm Kirks Bridge Road West Wetland

8 MWrbm Rabbiters Swamp

9 MWrbm Chirnside Swamp

10 MWrbm Bombing Range Dam

11 MWrbm Eynesbury Road Swamp

12 MWrbm Holden Road Wetland

13 MWrbm Former Epsom Racecourse

14 MWrbm Peninsula Link interchange

15 MWrbm Greens Road Rail Reserve

16 MWrbm Woodlot Lane

17 MWrbm Old Melbourne Road wetland

18 MWrbm Greens Road, Manor Lakes

19 MWrbm Mt Derrimut Grassland Reserve

20-27 MWrbm Unnamed Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands (84 to 91 in Priority Wetland list) 28 MWrbm Wyndham Vale Swamp

29 MWrbm Werribee CSIRO Swamp (now Heathdale Glen Orden Wetland)

30 MWrbm Djerriwarrh Reservoir

31 MWrbm Pykes Creek Reservoir

32 MWrbm Rosslynne Reservoir

33 MWrbm Kalparrin Gardens Lake

34 MWrbm Sharkeys Swamp (former)

35 MWrbm Galada Tamboore wetlands

36 MWrbm Mt Rothwell Homestead Dam

37 MWrbm Live Bomb Wetland

38 MWrbm Baths Swamp

39 MWrbm Target Range Swamp

40 MWrbm Sewells Road Swamp

41 MWrbm West Quandong Swamp

42 MWrbm Rockbank Railway Swamp

43 MWrbm Rockbank No. 1

44 MWrbm Rhyll Swamp

154 | P a g e

Site number Site name 45 MWrbm Portsea Swamp

46 MWrbm Bayles Fauna Reserve

47 MWrbm Riverend Park Training Facility

48 MWrbm Grasmere Creek Wetland

49 MWrbm Cherry Swamp

50 MWrbm Cherry Tree Creek pool - WTP

51 MWrbm Greens Road Swamp East No. 2

52 MWrbm Altona Sewage Farm

53 MWrbm Bambra Park Swamp

54 MWrbm Davis Swamp

55 MWrbm Balliang East Dam

56 MWrbm Ross Swamp

57 MWrbm Paynes Road South Wetland

58 MWrbm Mt Cottrell Road Swamp

59 MWrbm O'Herns Road Swamp

60 MWrbm Black Swamp

61 MWrbm Greenvale Reservoir

62 MWrbm Silvan Reservoir

63 MWrbm Toorourrong Reservoir

64 MWrbm Unnamed wetland, Boneo

65 MWrbm Sorrento Golf Club wetland

66 MWrbm Ripley Road Swamp

67 MWrbm Unnamed wetland, Main Ridge

68 MWrbm Jensz Swamp

69 MWrbm Melton Reservoir

70 MWrbm Browns Road Wetland

71 MWrbm Coldstream West Billabong

72 MWrbm Koala Conservation centre

73 MWrbm Trib of Coolart Creek Wetland

74 MWrbm Unnamed wetland Larwill & Costello 1016

75 MWrbm Unnamed wetland, Larwill & Costello 1028 Sommers

76 MWrbm The Briars Park

77 MWrbm Robinson Road Swamp

78 MWrbm Annulus Billabong

79 MWrbm Tarneit SHW

80 MWrbm Chartwell No.2

81 MWrbm Mambourin

82 MWrbm Bulban Road

83 MWrbm One Tree Hill Swamp

155 | P a g e

Site number Site name 84 MWrbm Chartwell No.3

85 MWrbm Chartwell No.1

86 MWrbm Barnbam Swamp

87 MWrbm Richmond's Grass Swamp

88 MWrbm Kororoit Creek No. 3

89 MWrbm Paul and Belfrages Wetland - WTP

90 MWrbm Walshes Lagoon Ponds 1 & 6 - WTP

91 MWrbm Paradise Road Ponds - WTP

92 MWrbm Lang Lang River old course

93 MWrbm Hawkstowe Wetlands

94 MWrbm Yallock Creek billabongs and palaeochannel

95 MWrbm Yarra Bridge Steamside Reserve

96 MWrbm Altona Lakes Golf Course

97 MWrbm Bevnol Road Wetlands

98 MWrbm Cox's Property billabongs

99 MWrbm Baillieu Wetlands

100 MWrbm Q4 Wetland - WTP

101 MWrbm Unnamed wetland Larwill & Costello 795A

102 MWrbm Domain Chandon Billabongs

103 MWrbm Laurimar Park Estate Wetland

104 MWrbm Beaconsfield Reservoir

105 MWrbm Muddy Gates Lane Swamp complex

106 MWrbm Muddy Gates Lane

107 MWrbm Cobbledick Road Ford Wetlands

108 MWrbm Spring Street Swamp, Beveridge

109 MWrbm Dry Creeks Dam, Chartwell

110 MWrbm Sewells Road dams

111 MWrbm Greens Road West Swamps

112 MWrbm Green Hills Swamps

113 MWrbm Simons Creek Wetland

114 MWrbm Hanns Creek Wetland

115 MWrbm Hays Paddock Wetland

116 MWrbm Melton Recycled Water Plant

117 MWrbm Mornington Peninsula National Park

118 MWrbm Brushy Creek sed ponds

119 MWrbm Caulfield Park Lake

120 MWrbm Towts Swamp

121 MWrbm Toorourong Reservoir marsh

122 MWrbm Black Forest Road Wetland

156 | P a g e

Site number Site name 123 MWrbm Dwarf Galaxias Conservation pond, Hallam

124 MWrbm Dwarf Galaxias habitat ponds (Enhancing Our Dandenong Creek)

125 MWrbm Balls Swamp/ Wetland complex

126 MWrbm Herne Swamp (remnant)

127 MWrbm Pobblebonk Wetland Reserve

128 MWrbm Rabbiters Lake

129 MWrbm Kororoit Creek No. 2

130 MWrbm Scenic Estate Conservation Reserve

131 MWrbm Kalkallo Creek Wetland

132 MWrbm Little River Wetland

133 MWrbm The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve wetlands

134 MWrbm French Island coastal and freshwater wetlands

135 MWrbm Gordon Rolfe Reserve wetland

136 The Triangle, WTP

137 WTP operational ponds - 115E Lagoon

138 WTP operational ponds - 55E Lagoon

139 WTP operational ponds - 25W Lagoon

140 WTP operational ponds - 85W Lagoons

141 Lake Borrie

142 The Doughnut, ETP

143 Edgars Road Swamp

144 Spectacle Lake

145 RAAF Lake

146 Binghams Swamp

147 William Angliss Native Grassland

148 Ryans Swamp WTP

149 Altona Tip Wetland

150 Paynes Road North Swamp (North Swamp)

151 Abey Road Wetland

152 Cardinia Reservoir

153 Sugarloaf Reservoir

154 Deanside West

155 Banyule Swamp

156 Bailey’s Billabong

157 Spadonis Reserve Central

158 SERO Wetland

159 Cunninghams Swamp

160 Yarra Flats Billabong (Yarra Glen Billabongs)

161 Cardinia Creek Retarding Basin

157 | P a g e

Site number Site name 162 Mill Park Lakes

163 Police Road Retarding Basin

164 Truganina Swamp

165 Dunnetts Road Swamp

166 Button-grass Wetland, Bunyip State Forest

167 Bass Recreation Reserve Billabong

168 Tooronga Plateau Wetlands

169 Kitty Miller Wetland

170 Holden Proving Ground wetlands

171 Wetland 70,662

172 Wetland 72,248

Streamside sites

173 MW - Werribee River downstream control

174 MWrbm Werribee River Works Site

175 MW works evaluation - Arthurs Creek, site 11

176 MW works evaluation - Arthurs Creek, site 12

177 MW works evaluation - Arthurs Creek, site 16

178 MWrbm A to C via Aqueduct

179 MWrbm A Track

180 MWrbm Aqueduct N of Yanakie

181 MWrbm Aqueduct west of A track

182 MWrbm B track

183 MWrbm Watsons Crk S of Bridge

184 MWrbm Briars woodland

185 MWrbm Market Garden Bend (Catani Boulevard- Warrandyte Kinglake NCR)

186 MWrbm Gongflers Peninsula

187 Gardiners Creek Reserve

188 Gardiners Creek, Ashwood

189 Jingella Park, Gardiners Creek, Ashwood

190 Gardiners Creek, Ashburton

191 Gardiners Creek, Station Street to Burwood Highway

192 Ashwood - Queens Parade (Gardiners Creek)

193 Gardiners Creek Trail, Burwood Highway to Highbury Road

194 MWrbm Kororoit Creek Escarpments North, Kororoit

195 MWrbm Kororoit Creek Escarpments South, Kororoit

158 | P a g e