Download Western Grassland Reserves interim management

Western Grassland Reserves
Interim Management
I
Citation: DSE (2011) Western Grassland Reserves: Interim Management. Department of
Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.
Photos: Steve Sinclair, 2010
Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment
Melbourne, March 2011
© The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2011
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance
with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne.
ISBN 978-1-74287-066-3 (online)
For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do 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 which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, such as large print or
audio, please telephone 136 186, or through the National Relay Service (NRS) using a modem
or textphone/teletypewriter (TTY) by dialling 1800 555 677, or email
[email protected]
This document is also available in PDF format on the Internet at www.dse.vic.gov.au
Table of contents
1.
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5
The Western Grassland Reserves ......................................................................................... 5
Nature conservation in a human landscape ...................................................................... 7
The interim period .................................................................................................................. 7
Status and scope of this document ..................................................................................... 7
2.
Management overview ..................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9
Broad goals ............................................................................................................................... 9
Understanding the system: the Werribee Plains environment .................................... 10
Geomorphology.................................................................................................................. 10
Natural grasslands ............................................................................................................ 10
Other native vegetation ................................................................................................... 12
Native fauna ....................................................................................................................... 13
Indigenous land use and culture .................................................................................... 14
The pre-colonial landscape .............................................................................................. 14
Ecological impacts from European land use ................................................................ 15
A conceptual model of grasslands .................................................................................... 17
Adaptive management approach ....................................................................................... 18
Summary of values protected in the reserves ................................................................. 21
Summary of persistent threats ........................................................................................... 22
Summary of potential stakeholders .................................................................................. 24
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) ............................................................................... 26
3.
Management of private land in the interim period ................................................ 27
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 27
Landholder liaison and land access................................................................................... 28
Grassland weed control on private land .......................................................................... 30
Prioritisation ....................................................................................................................... 30
Implementation .................................................................................................................. 35
Monitoring and reporting ................................................................................................ 37
3
Non-complying properties ............................................................................................... 37
Pest animal control ............................................................................................................... 38
4.
Immediate requirements when land is purchased ................................................. 38
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 38
Biological survey .................................................................................................................... 38
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 38
Vegetation and threatened flora surveys ..................................................................... 39
Golden Sun Moth ............................................................................................................... 40
Grassland Earless Dragon ............................................................................................... 41
Growling Grass Frog ......................................................................................................... 41
Plains-wanderer ................................................................................................................. 42
Striped Legless Lizard ....................................................................................................... 43
Cultural heritage survey....................................................................................................... 44
General infrastructure survey ............................................................................................. 45
Preparation of New Parcel Plans......................................................................................... 46
5.
Looking ahead................................................................................................................... 49
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 49
The Park Establishment process ........................................................................................ 49
Long-term data management and storage ....................................................................... 50
Burning .................................................................................................................................... 50
The future of agriculture: grazing and cropping ........................................................... 51
Ecological quarantine ........................................................................................................... 51
Ecological restoration of vegetation .................................................................................. 52
Faunal re-introductions ........................................................................................................ 53
Dealing with native’ pests’ ................................................................................................... 53
Planning for recreation ......................................................................................................... 53
Infrastructure and assets ..................................................................................................... 54
Research .................................................................................................................................. 54
6.
References ......................................................................................................................... 55
4
1.
Introduction
The Western Grassland Reserves
The Victorian Government is reserving 15,000 hectares of land to protect native
grasslands in Melbourne’s west. Natural grasslands are some of the most important
areas for conservation in Australia. The grasslands of Victoria’s fertile volcanic plain
once extended from Melbourne almost to South Australia. They offered rich
agricultural opportunity, and were a historically important inducement for the
foundation of Melbourne by graziers in the 1830s (Batman 1835). As a consequence
of agriculture development, at least 95 percent have been cleared. Intact examples
are very rare, and many grassland species are threatened. Lowland grasslands have
suffered similar declines around the world, and their conservation is a global
challenge (Lunt 1991, Watkinson and Ormerod 2001, Williams et al. 2005).
The Western Grassland Reserves will form a new grassland park, covering two large
areas: around Mt Cottrell and north of Little River. They will protect the largest
concentration of remaining grassland of this type anywhere in the world. They are
intended to provide sufficient habitat to allow the persistence of a number of
threatened species. They will also cover a range of other habitat types including
ephemeral wetlands, waterways, rocky knolls and open grassy woodlands. Figure 1
shows their location.
The establishment of the reserves is a result of the Victorian Government’s decision
to expand Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The expansion will inevitably
result in the loss of native vegetation and habitat for native plants and animals,
some of which are listed under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA) on the
potential impact of expanding Melbourne’s UGB (DPCD 2009), conducted by the
Victorian Government, recommended several ways of mitigating the environmental
losses, including the establishment of the reserves. The reserves are being
established outside the UGB, in areas now covered by a Public Acquisition Overlay. A
formal acquisition process has begun, with the reserves to be acquired by the
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) within ten years. The reserves
are also covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay, and are Rural
Conservation Zone.
The major mechanism of mitigating losses from within the expanded UGB is
offsetting. Offsets for native vegetation will occur under Victoria’s existing native
vegetation framework (Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for
Action, hereafter The Vegetation Framework, NRE, 2002). DSE’s Native Vegetation
Credit Register will administer and track all offset trades utilising the same approach
as the established BushBroker scheme (DSE 2009). Other offsets for species habitat
will be guided by prescriptions for Matters of National Environmental Significance
approved by the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts; as part
of the SIA.
The Western Grassland Reserves will accommodate all grassland offsets from
clearance within the expanded UGB, and most of the offsets for individual species.
Grassland offsets arising elsewhere will be accommodated elsewhere. The grassland
reserve and clearing for the expansion of Melbourne thus form a closed offset
5
system, composed of multiple offset events that are co-located and amalgamated in
the reserve area. The reserves also provide offsets in advance of the clearing. An
important purpose of the SIA was to improve outcomes for the environment by
planning ahead, rather than in an ad hoc way (Dripps 2010). Modelling of
reservation and offset options supports this approach (DSE 2009; Gordon et al.
2011).
Figure 1. The location of the Western Grassland Reserves
6
Nature conservation in a human landscape
The primary aim of the Western Grassland Reserves will be nature conservation. The
reserves will be ‘protected areas’ in line with international standards (IUCN; Dudley
2008). However, the exact legal status of the reserves is yet to be determined, and an
over-all vision for their future is yet to be enunciated.
It is certain that the Western Grassland Reserves will not protect a pristine natural
system. The area is currently a human landscape, supporting agricultural, cultural
and recreational activities. For example, approximately one fifth of the reserve area
is current or recent cropland. The reserves are also bordered by a major city. While
the primary aim of the reserves will be nature conservation, places, objects and
activities with purely cultural value may be retained or protected where they do not
threaten ecological values. The integration of cultural elements in nature
conservation reserves is a worldwide trend (McNeely 1994, Thomas and Middleton
2003, Dudley 2008); potentially enhancing the value of the reserves, but also
increasing the complexity of management.
The area encompassed by the reserves has a long history of indigenous cultural
practise and land management. Co-management arrangements with the traditional
owners will be pursued, to ensure continuing cultural connection, and create new
opportunities for indigenous people. Management and cultural advice for the
southern part of the reserve will be sought from the Wathaurung Aboriginal
Corporation, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for that area under the Victorian
Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (The northern part of the reserve is covered by two
RAP-applications currently before Council). The advice of another aboriginal group
will also be sought (Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative). This group is a landholder
within the reserve area, and is already involved in an environmental training and
development program with Greening Australia. This program will be strengthened
by the establishment of the reserves.
The reserves may also protect ‘European’ cultural and historic artefacts and places,
preserve public open space, and offer opportunities for passive recreation (Moloney
2006, West and Jones 2009). The reserve may also support agriculture in many
places for years to come; but only if the agricultural practice is helpful in managing
ecological values, or ecologically harmless and of significant cultural value.
The interim period
This Interim Management Strategy will guide management of land that will comprise
the Western Grassland Reserves, during the initial period of land acquisition and
mixed ownership. That period of time before the state has practical control over
lands under the Public Acquisition Overlay is one of significant risks. Property
owners faced with compulsory acquisition may lose the incentive to properly manage
their lands, which may lead to the degradation of the very values the reserves seek to
protect. Mixed land ownership also complicates the ability to gather information.
These challenges are addressed in this document.
Status and scope of this document
The preparation of this document is mandated in the Program Report (DSE 2009)
that describes the works to which DSE is committed under the Melbourne Strategic
7
Assessment (DPCD 2009). It is not a management plan prepared under the Victorian
National Parks Act 1975 (such a plan will be produced by Parks Victoria in 2012).
This document applies to the whole reserve area, not single parcels. It does not
include other outlying areas of land earmarked for grassland conservation in the
Program Report (DSE 2009) (such as Clarkes Rd). This document covers an array of
technical matters, but does not address legal or economic issues, nor the process by
which the reserve will be integrated into the Victorian parks system. It is expected
that elements of this document will be incorporated into a future management plan
for a unified public park (2012, to be updated 2022). Every attempt has been made
to ensure its content is consistent with the aspirations and requirements of broader
reserve planning (Thomas and Middleton 2003; VNPA 2010).
This is an interim management strategy, with an emphasis on the first couple of
years of mixed land ownership. It is divided into four further sections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Management overview;
Management of private land in the interim period;
Immediate requirements when land is purchased; and
‘Looking ahead’.
Table 1 clarifies which aspects of reserve management DSE considers to be crucial in
the interim period, whether they will be emphasised in this plan, and in which
section they are covered.
Table 1: Coverage of this Interim Management Plan
Aspects of management
Interim Management
Strategy
Section
Values, goals and approach
Understanding of the system
Threats
Stakeholders & community liaison
Data control and record keeping
Weed control
Inter-agency communication
Ecological inventory (survey)
Cultural heritage inventory (survey)
Pest animal control
Infrastructure development
Infrastructure maintenance
Public education
Ecological restoration
Park staffing
Reintroduction of significant species
Timelines
Monitoring and Reporting
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
start-up only
No- watching brief
No
No
No
Planning & start-up
No
Planning & Start-up
Yes
Yes
1
1
1
1,2,3
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
2,3,4
3
3,4
4
4
2,3,4
2
8
2.
Management overview
Introduction
This section covers the introductory material relevant to any management plan,
regardless of this plan’s focus on the ‘interim period’. It will form the basis of future
management plans. It outlines:





DSE’s general goals and management approach;
our understanding of the ecology of the reserve area;
specifically what the reserve intends to protect;
the threats that must be managed;
why and for whom we are managing.
The next sections detail some of the intended mechanisms that will be used to
manage.
Broad goals
The over-arching goals of management for the Western Grassland reserves are
intended to be consistent with those adopted by the IUCN (Dudley 2008). They are
to:







conserve and restore the composition, structure, function and evolutionary
potential of biodiversity occurring within the reserve;
contribute to broader regional conservation strategies (as core reserves,
buffer zones, corridors, steppingstones for migratory species etc.);
maintain the values for which the reserve was assigned in perpetuity;
operate under the guidance of a management plan, and a monitoring and
evaluation programme that supports adaptive management;
possess a clear and equitable governance and management system.
acquire new knowledge that assists conservation and management;
provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the values protected in the
reserves, and learn about the environment.
More specific goals are to







retain all existing (2010) patches of native vegetation;
manage grasslands so their quality improves;
ensure all EPBC-listed species known to be in the reserve persist in
perpetuity;
manage the reserves in a way that allows the maximum number of other
locally native species to persist in perpetuity;
preserve the character of geomorphic sites of interest and permit natural
geomorphic processes to operate;
restore native vegetation cover to much of the current agricultural land, using
the pre-colonial patterns of vegetation as a guide;
preserve the cultural and historic values of the area, notably the array of dry
stone walls and indigenous cultural sites;
ensure that any agriculture continuing within the reserve area is consistent
with the primary aims of biodiversity conservation; or is in the process of
being phased out.
9




ensure that areas without significant ecological values (such as crops) are not
abandoned and do not present a management liability;
use the reserves as a place for study, and facilitate ecological research to take
place there;
preserve a large area of open space for the enjoyment of the public; and
educate the public about the values protected in the reserve.
Specific target-setting is described in the body of this document. More specific goals
will be elaborated in future management plans.
Understanding the system: the Werribee Plains
environment
This section summarises the current ecological understanding of the system to be
managed (it is not a comprehensive literature review). Native grasslands are the
primary focus.
Geomorphology
The nature of the terrain and soils is a primary determinant of the patterns of
vegetation, land-use history, and the options available for management and
restoration. The reserves are located entirely on relatively recent lava flows,
generally between 4.5 and 2.2 million years old (Stewart 1977, Rosengren 1999, Hare
et al. 2005, Gray and McDougall 2009). These form flat or undulating plains.
Drainage patterns are irregular and poorly formed, and are still influenced by the
paths of the lava flows. The soils are fertile (by Australian standards), shallow and
heavy (small-particles), with many rocks at or near the surface. The Mt Cottrell lava
shield is considered to be a feature of state significance (Rosengren 1986).
Natural grasslands
Perhaps the most obvious feature of the area is the scarcity of trees. Historic
sources show that most of the reserve area was treeless or thinly-wooded at the time
of colonisation (1835). The causes of treelessness in lowland grasslands have been
the topic of much discussion in southern Australia (Sutton 1916-1917, Patton 1935,
Willis 1964, Lang 2008) and worldwide, (e.g. Coupland 1979). It is generally agreed
that moisture stress excludes trees. This is a function not of rainfall alone, but also
the soil. Soil with a high proportion of fine particles (‘heavy’ soils), such as those
formed on recent basaltic flows, make water less available for uptake by plants. Soil
cracking in summer, a common feature of heavy soils, exacerbates summer drought
stress. Those trees that do grow on the Werribee Plains grow in areas where ‘lighter’
soils have been deposited or are exposed (e.g. Grey Box forests and Buloke
Woodlands); on rocky rises where the difficulties of the clay soil are moderated (e.g.
She-oaks and large shrubs); in wetter depressions (e.g. Red Gums), or because they
have been planted and have bypassed the need to survive as seedlings. Frequent fire
is also cited as a cause of treelessness in many places (e.g. Hulbert, 1984, Lunt 1997),
and it is likely to have played a secondary role in preventing the establishment of
woody plants.
The vascular flora of the Werribee Plains is well known (Sutton 1916-17, Patton 1935,
Willis 1964, Stuwe and Parsons 1977, Carr 1999). The treeless plains naturally
support vegetation dominated by tussock grasses (Poaceae), particularly Kangaroo
10
Grass Themeda triandra, Spear-grasses Austrostipa spp., and Wallaby-grasses
Austrodanthonia spp.. Between the tussocks grow a diversity of other plants,
notably broad-leaved native herbs, often with white, yellow or blueish flowers. Many
of these are daisies (Asteraceae), with Lemon Beauty-heads Calocephalus citreus and
Common Everlasting Chrysocephalum apiculatum being particularly abundant at
relatively intact sites. The prominence of the Poaceae and Asteraceae are a recurring
feature of temperate grasslands world-wide (Coupland 1979). Many other plants
from a variety of families also occur. Prominent are lilies that retreat underground
over summer (such as Arthropdium spp.), herbs or sub-shrubs with very deep roots
(such as Pimelea and Cullen spp.), dwarf chenopod shrubs (such as Maireana spp.)
and herbs that spread vegetatively (such as Asperula conferta). Some plants show
interesting affinities with inland Australia, highlighting the area’s status as an
outlying island of aridity south of the Great Dividing Range.
Less well known is the non-vascular flora. A crust of native, tiny photosynthetic
organisms often forms on the soil. It is made up of bryophytes (mosses, liverworts),
lichens and algae (Scarlett 1994, Morgan 2004, Bowker 2007). This crust may play
important ecological roles such as soil-binding and nutrient-fixation (Bowker 2007).
The composition of the crust in the reserve area is known from only a few studies,
but clearly varies between sites (Scarlett 1994, Morgan 2004).
Grassland vegetation is well adapted to the removal of surface biomass by fire, or
grazing by some herbivores. In fact, the lack of biomass removal is a threat: when
good rainfall promotes vigorous grass growth a diversity of herbaceous species may
be excluded (Stuwe and Parsons 1977). After fire, most plants re-sprout quickly
from underground storage organs such as tubers and corms. The subterranean
energy stores of fire-tolerant non-grass species were an important food source for
aboriginal people, promoting the use of fire as a management tool (Gott 1999).
All native grassland vegetation within the Western Grassland Reserves is considered
Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (DEWHA, 2008;
Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999). Victoria currently uses Ecological
Vegetation Classes (EVCs) to describe vegetation types (see www.dse.vic.gov.au). The
grassland vegetation of the Werribee Plains is almost all referrable to Plains
Grassland (EVC 132), which is endangered throughout the state. Small areas support
very open woodlands of Buloke, and these areas are similar to Plains Woodland (EVC
803, also considered endangered). Figure 2 shows an example of intact grassland
vegetation.
The Grassland Reserves support two plant species that are EPBC-listed:


Spiny Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens). Critically
Endangered.
Clover Glycine (Glycine latrobeana). Vulnerable.
Several other EPBC-listed plants probably once occurred within the reserves, and will
be candidates for reintroduction from nearby areas:



Button Wrinklewort. (Rutidosis leptorhynchoides). Endangered.
Large-fruit Fireweed (Large-headed Groundsel) (Senecio macrocarpus).
Vulnerable.
Small Golden Moths (Diuris basaltica). Endangered.
11

Sunshine Diuris (Diuris fragrantissima). Endangered.
Information on all these species is available from the Australian Government EPBC
Act 1999 website.
[Figure 2. Grassland on the Werribee Plains.]
This photograph was taken within the southern section of the grassland reserve. It represents
one of the most floristically intact sites, and is not typical of the reserve as a whole.
Other native vegetation
Two permanent streams cross the area (see Figure 1). These support bands of
riparian and aquatic vegetation (described by numerous EVCs). River Red Gums
Eucalyptus camaldulensis line the stream-banks, along with shrubs such as River
Bottlebrush Callistemon seiberi. The rivers are both bordered by spectacular, steep
rocky slopes, with large, exposed basalt blocks. They support a range of woody
vegetation not generally found elsewhere, including shrubs such as Hop Bush
Dodonea viscosa, Rock Correa Correa glabra, Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa, and
several species of Wattle Acacia spp. Rocky rises on the lava plains are also covered
naturally by shrubs, notably Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa. Woody plants can
persist in these rocky locations because the factors excluding them from the plains
are relieved. In the reserve area, the EVCs Escarpment Shrubland (EVC 895) and
Stony Knoll Shrubland (EVC 654) are used to describe these areas.
There are many wetlands within the reserves (over 50). These range from ephemeral
drainage lines that are barely distinguishable from the surrounding grasslands; to
large depressions that support ancient River Red Gums. Many of the wetlands have
been formed as a result of the haphazard surface topography of the recent lava
flows. Some have no apparent relationship to the surrounding streams. All
wetlands on the Werribee Plains are to some degree ephemeral. The limited historic
record suggests this is a long-standing, natural situation (e.g. Nixon 1859). When
dry, their heavy soils are subject to deep cracking, which allows water to disappear
underground. After drought-breaking rains, which may cause pooling of water
elsewhere on the grassland plains, the wetlands may be the driest places in the
landscape. Not until sustained rainfall will they hold water; and then they may
remain full for years. These wetlands are thus one of the harshest and most extreme
places for perennial vegetation to grow: Plants must be tolerant of prolonged
drought, and prolonged inundation.
The more substantial wetlands support low, spreading forms of River Red Gum
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, frequenly with large expanses of Barren Cane-grass
Eragrostis infecunda, clumps of tangled Lignum Muehlnbeckia florulenta, and a range
of herbs. Other wetlands support a range of herbs, with few grasses and no woody
plants; while others support a sward of grasses including Common Tussock-grass
Poa labillardierei. The wetlands require a number of EVCs to adequately describe
their diversity. The most prominent include Red Gum Swamp (EVC 292), Lignum
Wetland EVC 104), Ephemeral Drainage Line Grassy Wetland (EVC 678), Cane Grass
Wetland (EVC 291), and Plains Grassy Wetland (EVC 125). None of the wetlands on
the Werribee Plains are currently EPBC-listed.
[Figure 3. A wetland on the Werribee Plains (Edgars Swamp)]
12
This wetland is shown in a dry phase. It is not within the grassland reserve, as no
photographs were available of those wetlands.
Native fauna
The geomorphology and vegetation have influenced the development of a grassland
faunal community, including some grassland specialists. Animals must contend
with an absence of tree cover and tree hollows, but may exploit the productive and
diverse growth of herbs and grasses, abundant sunlight, the cover of rocks and the
abundance of deep soil cracks.
Unfortunately, many animal species are now locally extinct. Eastern Grey Kangaroos
Macropus giganteus remain common, but many other herbivorous marsupials are
gone, and we know little about the distribution or habits of those that have
disappeared. Some reptiles remain common, including Cunningham’s Skink Egernia
cunninghami and Common Bluetongue Tiliqua scincoides, which uses rock crevices
and Dry Stone Walls. The invertebrate fauna of the Werribee plains is particularly
poorly known, even as it exists today (Yen 1999).
Several animal species occur (or probably occur) locally that are EPBC-listed.
Together, they provide insight into the fauna of the grasslands:

Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus). Vulnerable. This small grounddwelling bird probably still occurs in the reserve area, a single bird being
recorded for the first time in many years in 2009. Nothing is known of its
local distribution or population size. It inhabits only treeless grasslands with
sparse groundcover. The Werribee Plains population represents a southern
outlier in the distribution of this species; a conspicuous link to more arid
parts of Australia. The Plains-wanderer is of particular scientific interest,
being the only member of its family (Baker-Gabb 1999).

Striped Legless-lizard (Delma impar). Vulnerable. This small lizard is a
grassland specialist, sheltering in grass tussocks, under rocks and in soil
cracks, and feeding on invertebrates. It is currently known from only one site
in the Northern reserve, but is likely to be more widespread.

Grassland Earless Dragon (Tympanocryptus pinguicolla) Endangered. This
tiny lizard may be extinct in Victoria, but the most recent records apparently
come from the grassland reserve area (Little River Gorge; Schulz et al. 1991).
It is a cryptic grassland specialist that retreats when disturbed, and inhabits
soil cracks and spider burrows.

Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana). Critically Endangered. This mediumsized, day-flying moth lives and feeds on grasses including Wallaby-grasses
(Austrodanthonia spp.). It has been recorded recently on several properties
spread across the reserves and is currently assumed to be widespread in the
reserve (GAA 2010a, b, c, d).

Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis). Vulnerable. This large frog inhabits
wetlands with emergent vegetation, particularly clusters of wetlands. It has
been recorded in several places in the southern portion of the reserve, but
apparently not within the northern portion (GAA 2010a, b). Most records are
several decades old (pre-drought), and its current status is largely unknown.
13
Several other EPBC-listed species once occurred in the area but are now extinct, at
least locally. These include
Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Parameles gunnii). Endangered.

Eastern Bettong (mainland) (Bettongia gaimardi gaimardi). Extinct.
Information on all these species is available from the Australian Government EPBC
Act 1999 website. Their ecology is described in more detail in relation to survey
requirements in Section 3, below.
Numerous animal species of state- or local-significance also occur within the reserve
area. These include a range of birds, mammals (including Fat-tailed Dunnart
Sminthopsis crassicaudata) reptiles (including Cunninghams Skink Egernia
cunniinghamii) and invertebrates (including the Grassland (or Small) Copper
Butterfly Lucia limbaria).
Indigenous land use and culture
We know that the Werribee Plains were inhabited, used and managed by indigenous
people (Gott 1999). The Registered Aboriginal Party for much of the grasslands
reserve area are the Wathaurung (or Wadawurrung) (west of Werribee River). Root
crops were actively managed through fire, and some re-planting of plant material.
Very early accounts of the Werribee Plains confirm that they were frequently burnt
(Fleming 1803, Hovell 1824 (in Moloney 2006), Batman 1835, King 1837 (in Moloney
2006)). Unfortunately, we know little of the timing, coverage or frequency of
management burns. Most of the herbaceous species with subterranean storage
organs are edible, and were available in large numbers. The Murnong (Microseris sp.)
is the most frequently mentioned, and was once extensive on the Werribee Plains
(Gott 1999). Game would no doubt have been available on the plains, and fish
including eels in the rivers; but we have little direct evidence of their utilisation.
[Figure 4. The Wurdi Youang stone arrangement.]
Despite being productive, the plains lacked cover, and it has been suggested that
they were inhabited seasonally or sporadically (VEAC 2010). Regardless of the
pattern of use, several remaining campsites and numerous artefact sites attest to
significant occupation (Massola 1969). As well as utilitarian sites, at least one
significant cultural site is known: the Wurdi Youang stone arrangement (Figure 4),
located on Aboriginal land within the reserve area (Lane 2009).
The pre-colonial landscape
Historic sources enable us to reconstruct the patterns of vegetation that covered the
Werribee Plains at the time of colonisation (1835). These patterns tell us about what
has changed since colonisation, and provide some guidance for restoration.
McDougall (1987) has published an excellent reconstruction of part of the relevant
region, showing the distribution of woodlands, forests and grasslands, and the
predominant tree species. Figure 5 shows a more detailed reconstruction of the
whole region using a wider range of sources. Its compilation will be the subject of a
forthcoming publication (Sinclair, in prep.).
Much of the pre-colonial landscape was covered in grassland, as described above.
Other areas were covered in woodlands or forests of Grey Box, although it seems
14
these did not quite extend into the reserve area (and are not discussed further here).
Importantly, two distinctive vegetation types once occurred within the reserve that
are now effectively extinct, and were not described above. Both of these may be
subject to restoration efforts:

Oak and Honeysuckle ‘savannah’. This vegetation type is almost extinct in
Victoria. It is an open woodland of non-eucalypt, relatively fire-sensitive trees,
over a rich grassy lower layer. It is locally dominated by Drooping She-oak
Allocasuarina verticillata, Buloke Allocasuarina luehmannii, Lightwood Acacia
implexa and Silver Banksia Banksia marginata (called ‘Honeysuckle’ in the
19th century). The understorey of this vegetation type is closely related to
grassland, and if a grassy layer remains in these areas, they would be
comfortably described as Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian
Volcanic Plain or Plains Grassland. The word savannah is used here loosely
(see McDougall 1999).

Red Box Woodlands. Red Box woodlands cover some slopes of the You
Yangs, the granite hills immediately west of the grassland reserves. These
woodland trees extend onto the basalt plain in some places within the
reserve, presumably in areas with some granitic outwash. They are evidently
now depleted. Intact examples would probably correspond to Plains Grassy
Woodland (EVC 55) or Plains Woodland (EVC 803). Their relationship to
EPBC-listed communities is unclear, but of minor importance given their
limited extent.
[Figure 5. The pre-colonial distribution of vegetation in the reserve area. ]
Taken from Sinclair and Atchison (under review).
Ecological impacts from European land use
The grasslands of the Werribee Plain were quickly and intensively exploited by
Europeans, as soon as Victoria was settled in 1835. Several important changes to
management can be identified that have caused substantial ecological changes:

Stock Grazing: Inappropriate grazing by stock changes the composition of
grasslands, in ways that are not easily or quickly reversible: palatable species
are quickly depleted (e.g. Rutidosis leptorhynchoides, Senecio macrocarpus,
Microseris spp.); grazing tolerant species proliferate (e.g. Austrostipa spp., and
numerous exotics); the cryptogamic crust is reduced or removed; and the soil
is compacted by hard-footed stock (e.g. Stuwe and Parsons 1977, Scarlett
1994, Lunt and Morgan 1999, Dorrough et al. 2004a, Zimmer et al. 2008).

Introduction of exotic plants: Exotic plants have been introduced deliberately
(e.g. for pasture, as ornamentals, etc.) and inadvertently, often as a result of
the transport of stock or agricultural produce or machinery. These plants
compete with and displace native species (Carr et al. 1992, McLaren et al.
2004). They may also change the physical or chemical structure of the
grasslands, affecting fauna.
15

Fertiliser application: The application of fertilisers increases soil nutrients,
notably phosphorous and nitrogen; for the purpose of encouraging palatable
introduced pasture species, or encouraging crop growth. Most native species
compete best under lower nutrient levels than pasture species, and are
generally out-competed when fertilizer is applied, or accumulates over time
(although the results of trials are sometimes unclear; Fisher 1974, Morgan
1998, Allcock 2002, Garden et al. 2003, Dorrough et al. 2004b, Gibson-Roy
2007a, b, Dorrough and Scroggie 2008). Although known to be a major issue
in many southern-Australian areas, the extent to which nutrient enrichment
is a problem in the reserve areas is unknown. It is possible that the low local
rainfall reduces its impact (see Schulz et al. 2010), and further investigation
is required.

Rock removal and ploughing: The disturbance of the original soil and rock
layer is highly destructive, leading to the removal of fauna habitat, the
disturbance of soil invertebrate communities, and the removal of most native
vegetation. Recent technological advances in rock removal are allowing
cropping to spread into areas once considered too rocky.

Introduction of exotic pests (see above for discussion of stock). A wide range
of pests have been introduced, with wide ranging consequences. Predators
such as the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and the domestic cat (Felis catus) prey on
or compete with native animals, resulting in the extinction of several
mammal species (see above). Herbivores such as European Rabbits
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) and Common Hares (Lepus capensis) compete with
native species, and may cause damage to the vegetation and the soil.

Altered fire regimes: It is difficult to trace changes in fire regime from precolonial times, through the period of early settlement, to the present day.
Given the known sensitivity and of grasslands to fire, and the subtlety of
their ecological response, it is highly likely that any alteration to fire regimes
would have caused changes. In at least some cases, a lack of burning has
resulted in the over-growth of Tussock-grasses (notably Themeda triandra),
at the expense of herbs (Stuwe and Parsons 1977, Lunt and Morgan 2002,
Morgan and Lunt 1999).

Planting and building: The landscape has been physically transformed by the
erection of buildings and the planting of windbreaks, in particular nonindigenous Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx). As well as removing small
areas of grassland, these tall structures provide shade for small animals and
perching opportunities for birds. These changes may be detrimental to the
native fauna that are adapted to the pre-colonial environment.

Altered hydrological regimes: Approximately 75 dams have been constructed
in the reserve area, and many more elsewhere on the Werribee Plains. A few
weirs have also been placed across the Little River. These structures deprive
wetlands and streams of their natural flows, affect the movements of aquatic
species and presumably permit higher numbers of herbivores to graze in
naturally dry areas.
Agricultural land use has also left a legacy with great heritage value. A conspicuous
part of this legacy in the grassland reserve is the extensive network of dry stone
16
walls, and other structures including sheep pens, all built largely between 1850 and
1870 (McLellen 1995, Moloney 2006). These are listed as assets requiring protection,
and are flagged as being of further interest for surveys and mapping.
Overall, these changes have led to widespread changes in the extent, structure and
composition of the native ecosystems. These and other factors are detailed further
under ‘Persistent threats’. Figure 6 shows our current understanding of the main
human land-uses in the reserve area. Part of the challenge for management is to
understand these human mediated changes, including their extent and seriousness;
and to develop means of reversing or stopping the undesirable changes.
[Figure 6. Current ‘land use’ in the reserve.]
A conceptual model of grasslands
An explicit conceptual model of the grassland ecosystem is being developed, to
guide management of the reserves, incorporating some of the information above.
The model only applies to grasslands; not wetlands, escarpments or riparian areas.
It will be used for the following:

To set goals (e.g. areas of grassland changed from state to state, below);

To guide management (see ‘Adaptive management’, below);

To guide experiments;

To report on broad-scale changes over time.
The model is conceived as a ‘State-and-transition model’ (Figure 7), and has been
constructed with reference to existing grassland models (e.g. McIntyre and Lavorel
2007). This format is useful for describing systems that are changeable, and may
exist in multiple ‘states’ that are discrete, describable and relatively stable. It has
proven particularly useful in systems that are characterised by seasonal variability
(Westoby et al. 1989; Rumpff et al. 2010), and is used to define and describe
Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (Beeton et al. 2009).
Individual sites may change between states (i.e. make transitions). In some cases, the
‘states’ are internally stable, and require external forces to cross thresholds into new
states; sometimes stability is imposed by consistent external forces (e.g.
management) (Scheffer et al. 2001, Bestelmeyer 2006). Grasslands are good
candidates for state-and-transition models: management occurs in large, discrete
units, and management regimes are consistent and few in number. Importantly,
management acts as a strong ecological filter, that produces areas with distinct
ecological profiles that can be relatively easily described (species richness, weed
levels, etc.).
The model has several noteworthy properties:

Broad states are described by ‘management’ that causes discrete, profound
state changes: notably cropping/de-rocking and fertiliser application.
17

Other important changes are described by variation within these broad states
(incremental changes caused by grazing, biomass accumulation and weed
invasion).

Some states are more desirable than others. This involves value judgement,
which is essential for management (Thomas and Middleton 2003).

Some states do not currently exist. They may be created only when managers
begin restoration attempts.
The model is a work in progress. It may be altered as new information comes to
light. The thresholds for recognising each state have not yet been determined.
Figure 7 indicates which parameters will likely be used to describe the states, but the
details are deliberately omitted at present.
The states will be defined in a way that allows them to be mapped (with a simple
assessment of the abundance of some plants or groups of plants, and a basic
knowledge of site history). DSE is in the process of assigning all areas of the
reserves to a state; based on a combination of on-ground surveys and default scores
assigned by aerial photograph interpretation. This dataset will be used and
improved over time and more sites are visited. An area value has been estimated for
each state. One of the prime aims of management is to shift areas from less- to
more-desirable states. This allows specific quantification of the goals presented
above. Precise targets are yet to be set.
It is important to note that the state model presented here is not the only view of
vegetation condition. The states will not be used for offset appraisal or accounting.
Adaptive management approach
Techniques are not currently available for achieving some of the desirable
transitions in figure 5. This is a classic case for adaptive management (AM): an
iterative process of acting and learning, appropriate in complex systems where
action is required immediately, but elements of the system are unknown or uncertain
(Westoby et al. 1989). The aim of AM is to learn by incorporating feedback on the
success or failure of past actions. It is “learning by doing” (Holling 1978, Walters
1986, Ringold et al. 1996, Lee 1999, Johnson 1999). Victoria is bound by the
program report to implement AM (DSE, 2009).
A system of AM will be implemented, involving replicated experimental plots. It will
inform management in all cases where management transitions must be made, the
means of doing so are uncertain, and there are competing plausible management
options available. It is important to note that such experimental work is only
appropriate in uncertain cases, not where sufficient knowledge is available to guide
confident action; and its implementation in such cases would be wasteful. Neither is
it appropriate in unique or unimportant scenarios where investment in learning
would have little on-going consequence.
18
It is notable that AM lends itself to the use of Bayesian inference; a statistical process
where new observations are continually used to update the probability that a
particular statement regarding a transition is true (Dixon and Ellison 1996, Ellison
1996). Techniques already exist to embed Bayesian inference into an AM-framework
(in the form of ‘Bayes Nets’) based on state/transition models (Rumpff et al. 2010).
Experiments within an AM framework will be used to answer questions in four broad
areas (see also Figure 7). The likely main domains for that learning are described
below. The design of the AM program has not yet been determined. Sampling
design will be finalised with assistance from the Technical Advisory Group (see
below), but may involve methods already developed by DSE where these are deemed
appropriate (e.g. Rumpff 2009, also see Field et al. 2007).

Restoring native cover to degraded rocky areas. Promising large-scale
grassland restoration experiments have involved removal of the soil surface.
This removes the layer of soil that has been nutrient-enriched by agricultural
practices, so that pasture weeds are no longer advantaged (Gibson-Roy et al.
2007a, b). Such soil manipulation is not possible in rocky areas, like much of
the grassland reserves (and nutrient enrichment may not be a major
problem). If restoration is to be successful in these areas, new techniques
must be developed.

Restoring herb diversity in rocky, species-poor grasslands. Large areas within
the grassland reserve are known to have a continuous cover of grazingtolerant native grasses (mostly Austrostipa bigeniculata), but very few other
native species (see figures 7 and 8). These areas are often rocky, and retain a
natural soil and rock substrate that should not be disturbed in restoration
activities. The restoration problem here resembles that described above, but
is perhaps more difficult due to the cover of native grasses.

Biomass control using fire and grazing. Some grasslands require periodic
biomass removal to maintain their open structure and species diversity
(Stuwe and Parsons 1977, Lunt and Morgan 1999). This is particularly the
case after substantial rainfall, as occurred during 2010. The optimal
combination and seasonality of grazing and burning are not yet fully known.

Cost-effective weed control in native pastures and grasslands. Techniques
for controlling most of the important weeds are well known (and widely
available in the ‘grey literature’). However, the best and most cost-effective
way to use them in combination with each other, and in combination with
grazing and burning (above) in native grasslands is less well known. A
number of researchers, including as DPI, have established research interests
in this area (e.g. Phillips 2000, Badgery et al. 2005, Gaur et al. 2005, Grech et
al. 2005, Hocking 2005, McLaren et al. 2005) and DSE will actively pursue
research partnerships for this aspect of AM.
Most other aspects of management will not be covered by formal experiments, as
sufficient existing knowledge is available. They will be covered by (“best practice”)
management guidelines.
19
Figure 7: a conceptual model of grasslands (draft)
Detailed state definitions are not given here. Dotted lines represent slow or uncertain
transitions.
20
Summary of values protected in the reserves
The Western Grassland Reserves will protect a myriad of values, many of which have
been described above. Table 2 states which values are currently explicitly recognised
by DSE. The list is not exhaustive, and may be expanded. It focuses on EPBC-listed
‘matters of national environmental significance’ (MNES), as a result of the genesis of
the reserves (see above). The values will not be present on all parcels of land. It is
essential that each newly acquired parcel be surveyed to determine where these
values are located (see below).
Table 2: Values protected in the reserve
Y = known to be present, N = not present, ~ = unsure due to imperfect data.
Value
Occurrence
EPBC-listed matters of national environmental significance
North
Y
South
Y
~
Y
~
Y
Y
~
~
~
Y
Y
~
~
Y
~
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
~
Y
Y
Y
~
Y
Y
Y
Y
“Natural Temperate Grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plain” (critically
endangered ecological community)
Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana (vulnerable plant)
Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana (endangered animal)
Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptus pinguicolla (endangered
animal)
Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis (vulnerable animal)
Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus (vulnerable animal)
Spiny Rice Flower Pimelea spinescens (critically endangered plant)
Striped Legless Lizard Delma impar (vulnerable animal)
Other natural assets
Ephemeral Grassy Wetlands (EPBC-nominated community)
Woody Wetlands
Victorian Rare or Threatened Plant species (numerous)
Victorian Rare or Threatened Animal Species (numerous)
Invertebrate communities of native pastures and grasslands
A relatively intact assemblage of EVCs representative of the Werribee
Plains
Cultural assets
The Wurdi Youang (Mt Rothwell) Aboriginal stone arrangement
Aboriginal cultural sites
Undeveloped open space
Dry stone walls and other dry stone features (notably the Mt Cottrell Dry
Stone Wall Precinct)
European cultural heritage sites (nineteenth century farm buildings, ruins,
wells, sheep yards, etc)
21
Summary of persistent threats
The values described above are typically under threat. Threats to ecological systems
are generally complex; involving social, economic, ecological, evolutionary and
stochastic elements. The threats facing the Grassland Reserves are no exception.
They are also profoundly interactive. The threats considered important are listed
below according to the land-use practice or ecological phenomenon that drives the
threatening process. The dot points describe the impact of the process, and allow
cross-references to be made between processes that influence each other.
It is also important to note that the impact of each threat may change over time:
Some threats had a massive impact in the past, and now have more moderate ongoing impacts (e.g. sheep grazing), others are only now emerging (e.g. climate
change), while others may act at any time in large or small increments (e.g.
expansion of cropping). Table 3 lists the persistent threats recognised by DSE as
threatening the values within the reserves:
Table 3. Threats acting within the grassland reserves
Destruction of the soil and rock layer (i.e. de-rocking, rock-pushing, cropping)
 Reduction of grassland extent, leading to reduced populations of many native species
 Increased fragmentation of relict habitat
Weed invasion
 Competition with native plants
 Alteration of grassland structure
Fertiliser application leading to nutrient over-enrichment
 Encouragement of weeds
 Imbalance in bryophyte, algal, fungal and bacterial assemblages
Application of ‘biocides’ (i.e. herbicides, insecticides, including locust control)
 Inadvertent destruction of beneficial native species
 Loss of services provided by native species (e.g. Locust biomass control)
Stock grazing
 Grazing animals consuming important plants
 Over-grazing excessively reducing biomass
 Cattle causing damage to the soil (pugging)
 Stock causing damage to cultural sites (dry stone walls)
 Increased variability between nutrient enriched or depleted areas
 Possible reduction in selective biomass control by native species
Over-abundant native herbivores
 Grazing animals consuming important plants
 Over-grazing excessively reducing biomass
Introduced predators
 Reduction in numbers of native animal species
 Extinction of native animal species
 Reduction in selective biomass control and soil disturbance by native species
Introduced herbivores (i.e. rabbits)
 Rabbits warrens providing niches for weeds
 Rabbits consuming important plants
 Rabbits excessively reducing biomass
22
Exotic invertebrates (note Australian Plague Locust is a native species)
 Competition with native species that perform important ecological functions
 Excessive consumption of plant material, including native germinants
Lack of burning leading to biomass accumulation
 Reduction in germination space for some native species
 Alteration of grassland structure (reduction of inter-tussock space)
Loss of species with important functions
 Loss of native animals that influence natural grassland and soil properties
 Loss of plant pollinators & dispersers
 Loss of native predators that control other animals
 Loss of tussocks that control stable grassland structure
 Loss of burning refugia
Spatially fragmented land-use patterns
 Increase in native grassland edges; greater exposure to external threats
 Increased risk of local losses of important species
Population and genetic decline
 Reduced fitness or fecundity of organisms due to genetic problems
 Loss of unique locally adapted ecotypes
 Increased risk of chance extinction for small populations
 Loss of evolutionary potential
Disruption of natural hydrological patterns
 Dams on ephemeral drainage lines depriving wetlands of water
 Dams on major streams causing pooling and disrupted flows
 Groundwater extraction
Planting
 Ecologically inappropriate restoration
 Genetic pollution, through use of plants with inappropriate provenance
 Replacement of open areas by trees (and increased risk of aerial predation)
 Changes in vegetation structure and decomposition processes
Vehicle use
 Soil and crust damage from vehicles (which may in turn encourage weed invasion)
 Transportation of weed propagules (including by slashers)
 Death of animals or physical destruction of animals habitat (burrows, etc)
Vandalism
 Damage to cultural heritage sites (including dry stone walls)
 Removal of cultural material (including aboriginal artefacts)
 Dumping of spoil and rubbish, leading to ugliness, soil disturbance and invasion of
pests
 Damage to fences and other necessary farm infrastructure
Climate change & drought
 Altered conditions leading to poor germination
 Drought leading to increased mortality of native species
 Niche shifts causing uncertainty in management goals
Lack of knowledge or capacity
 Loss of indigenous management practices and cultural associations
 Lack of scientific or inventory knowledge
 Inability to judge the risks and promises of competing management interventions
 Insufficient or insecure funding to manage
 Insufficient expertise to manage (including in government agencies)
23
Summary of potential stakeholders
The reserve managers (DSE and Parks Victoria) acknowledge that the conservation
outcomes are more likely to be achieved by developing co-operative, collaborative
relationships with a range of people and organisations with interests in the reserve
area. Table 4 summarises the initial list of organisations or community sectors
recognised as important ‘stakeholders’. This list is not exhaustive or complete: it
excludes some minor stakeholders and will be expanded to incorporate additional
groups as required. Private individuals are not listed, but are taken to be covered
under an appropriate head (e.g. ‘landowners’). Table 4 also shows the mechanism by
which information will flow between park managers and the listed party. It is
important to note that NOT all potential stakeholders have yet been contacted, and
their inclusion in this list does not imply their support or co-operation for any
aspect of the current project.
Several forums have been established to facilitate communication and consultation
with stakeholders on a range of issues related to the reserves. These include:

ERG: Environmental Reference Group (Local government and community
groups)

TAG: Scientific Technical Advisory Group (see below).

The employment of a dedicated Community Liaison Officer at DSE, to
communicate directly with individual landholders.

Inter-agency technical group (DSE, Local Government staff involved with land
management, CMA). This forum is an important means of sharing detailed
management information at the site-level.

ITF: Inter-departmental Task Force (DSE, Department of Premier and Cabinet,
Department of Treasury and Finance, Department of Transport, Department
of Planning and Community Development, Growth Areas Authority,
Department of Business and Innovation).
Table 4: Important potential stakeholders in the Grassland Reserves. It is important to
note that this list is not exhaustive: it excludes some minor stakeholders, and may be
expanded at any time. Listings are in alphabetical order.
Party or sector
Likely mechanism of
communication
Government
City West Water (neighbouring property)
City of Greater Geelong
Country Fire Authority (CFA)
Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD)
Department of Premier and Cabinet
Department of Primary Industries (DPI)
Department of Transport (DoT)
Growth Areas Authority (GAA)
Not yet determined
ERG
Not yet determined
ITF
ITF
TAG & direct
communication
ITF
ITF
24
Melbourne Water
Melton Shire Council
Moorabool Shire Council
Parks Victoria (PV)
Port Phillip and Westernport CMA
Trust for Nature
VicRoads
Vision for the Werribee Plains program (DSE)
Western Water (Surbiton Park) (corporation under the Water Act
1989)
Wyndham City Council
ERG
ERG
ERG
internal
ERG
TAG & internal
Not yet determiend
Internal
None yet established
ERG
Community
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
Dry Stone Wall Association of Australia
Friends of Toolern Creek
Greening Australia (Victoria) (GAV)
Invasive Species Council (ISC)
Iramoo Sustainable Living Centre
Landowners bordering the reserve
Landowners within the acquisition overlay
Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC)
Pinkerton Landcare and Environment Group (PLEG)
Recreational users
Greater Melbourne Cemeteries Trust (for Truganina Cemetery)
Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA)
Victorian Volcanic Plains Conservation Management Network (VVP
CMN)
Wadawurrong (a.k.a. Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation)
(Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for areas west of Werribee
River)
Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative (landowner)
Western Melbourne Catchments Network (WMCN)
Western Plains North Green Wedge Coalition Group
Western Region Environment Centre
ERG (via VNPA)
Not yet determined
ERG (via VNPA)
ERG (via VNPA)
ERG (via VNPA)
ERG (via VNPA)
Direct
Direct
ERG
ERG (possibly via VNPA)
Unknown
Direct
ERG
ERG
ERG & possibly TAG
ERG
ERG (possibly via VNPA)
ERG (possibly via VNPA)
ERG (possibly via VNPA)
Commercial enterprises
Barro Group (landowner)
Ecological Consultants (numerous)
Hanson (HeidelbergCement Group) (landowner)
Mount Rothwell Biodiversity Interpretation Centre (neighbour)
Direct
TAG, contract services
Direct
None yet established
Academics and experts
Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology (ARCUE, Royal
Botanic Gardens & University of Melbourne)
CSIRO
Universities
TAG, contract services
TAG
TAG
25
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
DSE has established a 13-member Technical Advisory Group, to support
consideration of reserve management. This was a commitment made by DSE in the
program report (DSE 2009). This group met twice in 2010, and has visited the
grassland reserve area. Its broad aims are to:




advise on the best approach to conservation planning and strategy;
assist in articulating a long-term, broad-scale conservation and restoration
vision for the reserves;
advise DSE on current directions in conservation and ecological research, and
help determine exactly what research is required.
encourage research within or relevant to the reserves. This will include
preparing research briefs for PhD candidates and other researchers in the
reserve areas.
The TAG provides advice on the following:











species biology and habitat requirements;
ecological survey techniques;
weed control techniques;
sustainable grazing;
sustainable farm management;
seed collection, storage, and propagation;
ecological restoration techniques;
ecological burning;
decision making and risk assessment;
the use of statistics; and
science communication.
Advice from the TAG has already helped to shape this document.
The following organisations or sectors are represented by experts on the TAG:








University of Melbourne;
LaTrobe University;
CSIRO;
Department of Primary Industries;
Trust for Nature;
Ecological consultants;
Weed control industry;
Ecological restoration industry.
DSE understands that perceived conflicts of interest may arise, where TAG members
may tender for work from DSE; such as weed control or survey work. DSE will
manage these issues case by case, generally by ensuring that tenders are awarded
after consideration by a properly constituted panel, using clear selection criteria, and
that all potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. This may include the
appointment of a probity auditor or advisor as required, in line with DSE purchasing
rules and Victorian Government Purchasing Board (VGPB) policies.
26
3.
Management of private land in the
interim period
Overview
This section explains how DSE intends to deal with the fact that much of the land
requiring management will remain under private ownership for a number of years
before it is formally acquired by DSE. It deals with establishing relationships with
landowners, and providing grants and incentives to influence private land
management. The main objectives of interim management on private land are to:

meet the commitments to the Commonwealth as part of the EPBC Strategic
Assessment program (DSE 2009);

allow management, planned according to a strategic, ‘whole-of-landscape’
approach, to commence as soon as possible;

involve landholders in the process of managing the land for conservation;

provide support to landholders to help them manage (while ensuring support
is allocated in an open, equitable and transparent manner);

reduce the risk of landholders allowing their land to degrade;

ensure that landholders do not apply inappropriate management techniques
that may be destructive;

gather useful information on land-use practices and their history from
landowners before it is lost;

establish relationships with land management providers (e.g. weed and pest
control contractors);

gain access to large areas of the reserve so that DSE’s background datasets
are improved (assets, threats, etc); and

ensure that landholders comply with their legal obligations (under the
Victorian Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act), Planning and
Environment Act 1987 (PaE Act) and the Commonwealth EPBC Act).
The Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) for the reserves covers 216 individual land
parcels forming 153 properties, in two large areas totalling 15,000 hectares. These
properties are currently in the hands of 116 title holders / 106 individual
landowners (in some cases the same landowner owns land under different title
holder names). Land within the reserve areas is subject to a wide variety of land use,
including a range of agricultural, commercial, cultural and recreational activities.
There are 28 houses with landholders or tenants currently in residence within the
area covered by the reserve PAO, and an additional 16 houses outside the reserve on
parcels partially within the reserve.
At the time the reserve PAO was established eight parcels totalling 62.3 hectares
were already part of the crown land estate, under management by DSE or Parks
Victoria. They are six small river frontages on the Werribee and Little Rivers and two
27
native vegetation offset sites: one on Troups Road South (44.3 ha) in the north east
corner of northern reserve; and one small site along Kirksbridge Road in the
southern reserve.
The Victorian government intends acquiring all of the parcels for the grassland
reserves within the 10 year period 2010-2020. The only exceptions are two active
quarries within the reserves, which will be allowed to complete their operations
before being incorporated into the reserve.
Landholder liaison and land access
Communication between DSE and landholders within the Public Acquisition Overlay
is important for all concerned. It is important that:

landholders get accurate information, that assists them to make informed
decisions about their options for sale and management (including
encouragement to seek legal advice);

landholders are aware of their basic obligations under the EPBC, PaE and
CaLP Acts;

DSE establishes a relationship with landholders that allows DSE to access
their properties as freely as possible for survey and management;

DSE receives as much information as possible about the intentions of
landholders, and when they prefer to sell their property.
In mid-2010, DSE appointed a dedicated officer to deal one-on-one with land-holders
affected by the reserve proposal. The issues above are being dealt with for each
property and each landholder. All correspondence is being managed by DSE in a
confidential manner in accordance with Victorian Privacy Legislation.
Landholder liaison will also involve the collection of valuable baseline data on land
management history. Valuable information that could assist management and
learning could be irretrievably lost unless DSE systematically collects and stores it.
Near the end of acquisition negotiations, a brief interview will take place between
DSE staff and the landowner (or the property manager). It should be semistructured, resulting in answers to the questions posed in table 5. A property map
should be available during the interview, to allow landholders to make explicit
location references. This data will be stored in a database that is linked to the
spatial data for the reserve (see below).
28
Table 5. Information that will be gathered from landowners.
Basic question
Further detail
How long have you or your family managed
the property?
Have you ever sown seeds for pasture
improvements? Which species?
Have you ever applied fertiliser?
Years
Have you ever sprayed insecticide?
Have you ever grazed horses?
Have you ever grazed cattle?
Have you ever grazed sheep?
Have you ever grazed other livestock?
Have you ever cropped?
Have you ever removed rocks prior to
cropping?
Have you ever done any chemical weed
control?
Have you ever tried to manage native
vegetation?
Do you know the history of the buildings on
the property?
Did you construct any dams on the property?
Do you remember any native trees that once
grew on the property, but are now gone?
Have you ever seen any unusual animals
(incl. birds, reptiles, etc) on the property?
Are you aware of any aboriginal sites on the
property?
Have you ever found any unexploded bombs
or other military debris?
Do you have any stories related to the
property that may be of general interest?
Which species? When? Where?
Where? At what rate? For how long? When
was the last time you applied it?
Which chemical? When? Where?
Where? At what intensity? For how long?
When was the last time they were grazed?
Where? At what intensity? For how long?
When was the last time they were grazed?
Where? At what intensity? For how long?
When was the last time they were grazed?
Where? At what intensity? For how long?
When was the last time they were grazed?
Since what date? Where? When was the last
time you ploughed and sowed?
Where from? Did you export them from the
property?
Which chemical? Did you use aerial spraying?
Boom spraying? A vehicle rig? Spot spraying
by foot? When/where was the last time you
sprayed?
How? Did you plant? Did you consciously
use grazing, fire or herbicide to manage it?
When were they built? What was their
purpose?
When? Where?
What sort? Where?
Description. Where?
Stone flakes? Tools? Stone arrangements?
Etc.
Description. Where?
Record story
29
Grassland weed control on private land
Prioritisation
Weeds are a massive problem in Victoria (Carr et al. 1992, McLaren et al. 2004), and
probably the most important management issue immediately confronting the
reserves. Weeds are relevant to virtually all private land parcels, and they will
worsen if land management and weed control practices do not improve. The
problem is so large that it cannot be solved in the short term. It requires ongoing
treatment, which must be strategically planned so as not to waste resources.
A strategic response to weed control requires an understanding of the dynamics of
weed invasion and its impacts (Hobbs and Humphries 1994). There are several
considerations:

The potential of a particular weed to cause damage. Some weeds are more
damaging than others. Predicting this is very difficult (Pysek and Richardson
2007, Moles et al. 2008). The only general rules are very broad: successful
invaders are often perennials with large native ranges and the ability to
produce many propagules. For established weeds, the degree of damage can
be assessed by direct observation.

The spatial dynamics of weed invasion. Weeds spread in complex ways, with
dense fronts and emerging foci (Lovett Doust 1981, Wilson and Lee 1989,
Higgins and Richardson 1996). Controlled simulations show it is almost
always most effective to control new foci as well as the main invasion (Moody
and Mack 1988, Fagan et al. 2002, Travis and Park 2004).

The spatial arrangement of the assets. The assets we wish to protect are not
uniform (see figures 6 and 7).

The temporal dynamics of weed invasion. Hobbs and Humphries (1994) note
that many weeds invade according to a typical pattern:
 First- a ‘lag phase’ where the weed is in few locations at low abundance;
 Second- an explosive range expansion; and
 Third- once the weed has occupied most of its range, expansion slows.
The costs and feasibility of control vary in parallel. In the ‘lag phase’
eradication is possible and cheap.

The tractability of weeds to control techniques: Some weeds are relatively
easy to control, others require techniques that are expensive or risky. Others
may not be controllable despite best efforts.

Weeds are often a symptom of altered site conditions: Controlling weeds
may not be a sufficient response to the weed problem. Conditions may
favour exotic species, and any successful management program must focus
broadly on making environmental changes that favour native species. This
may include abiotic changes like reducing nutrient loads, or biotic changes
such as ensuring native species are present to fill niches otherwise vulnerable
to usurpation by invasive species (Funk et al. 2008).
30
DSE has developed a strategic control response to guide weed control on private
land. This approach has been applied since this program commenced on-ground in
September 2010. The approach will be used across the whole reserve once the
acquisition program is complete. Its implementation has five elements (not
including monitoring and learning), the first of which is the most complex:

prevent the emergence and establishment of new weeds by concerted control
efforts;

protect the assets we have, by keeping the established weeds at bay in the
most cost-effective way possible;

undertake surveillance of sites that are ostensibly weed-free;

ensure desirable species are able to fill the ‘spaces’ left following weed
removal;

establish good quarantine measures to prevent the spread of propagules.
This approach, based on protecting assets, is consistent with DSE’s current focus:
success is measured by protection, not degree of weed removal (Williams and West
2000, McArthur and Platt 2005, Platt et al. 2006, Environmental Weeds Working
Group 2006).
Preventing establishment of new weeds
Over-and-above the asset-protection approach described below, there are some
weeds that will be targeted wherever they are found (regardless of their proximity to
assets). These are the species that are considered to be in the ‘lag’ phase of
emergence, and which pose a significant threat. The aim is to eradicate these species
entirely. The list of weeds in table 6 has been provided to DSE’s weed controllers
(see below), so they can be treated when encountered. The list was compiled in
consultation with a range of land managers, botanists, government agency staff,
volunteer groups and weed control contractors with recent experience in the area.
The list will be continually expanded.
31
Table 6. Weed species present in the Grassland Reserves, thought to be in the ‘lag’
phase of expansion: draft list
Scientific name
Common name
Classification*
(CaLP Act 1994)
Berkheya rigida
Eragrostis curvula
Eragrostis mexicana
Gazania linearis
Lophopyrum ponticum
Nassella hyalina
Nassella leucotricha
Opuntia aurantiaca
Physalis viscosa
Scolymus hispanicus
African Thistle
African Love-grass
C
Mexican Love-grass
Gazania
Tall Wheat-grass
Cane Needle-grass
Texas Needle-grass
Tiger Pear
Prairie Ground-cherry
C
Golden Thistle
C
* The classification refers to species listed under the CaLP Act 1994 (C= regionally controlled
weed). Classifications are relevant in defining the obligations of landholders, and the ability of
the DPI to issue notices (see below)
Controlling established weeds to protect assets
DSE’s approach to asset protection divides the reserve up into many small
management units, of homogeneous asset (type and quality) and threat profile.
These units are nested within parcels. Each unit is assigned a score that represents
the priority for weed control at that site.
The prioritisation considers two main data elements:

the quality of the assets; and

the urgency of the weed threat.
The prioritisation is expressed as a score ranging from 0-32:
Priority (1 lowest -32 highest) = Grassland quality (0-16) + Control Urgency (1-16)
The extent and urgency of the weed problem is a composite measure:
Control urgency = Category of worst weed (1-4) X Extent of worst weed (1-4)
Table 7 details the scoring applied to each unit (polygon).
The measure of grassland quality will be altered as better data is collected.
Currently this information comes from multiple sources, including habitat hectares
(raw) data, and incidental observations on the likely state at a given site (see Figure
7). This imperfect situation will be improved over time.
32
Table 7: Scoring system used to assign a weed control priority to grassland polygons
‘Grassland quality’ currently relies on imperfect data; the descriptions are indicative only (i.e.
many of these parameters were not measured) and not perfectly aligned with the ‘states’.
Scoring for ‘Grassland quality’
Score
Description
16
12
8
4
0
“High quality” grassland (uncropped; understorey score 15-25,
Themeda frequently common, native herbs diverse and abundant, weed
cover <25%).
“Medium quality” grassland (uncropped; understorey score 15-25;
Themeda frequently common, native herbs present (rarely any other
than Convolvulus, Euchiton, Pseudognaphalium, Acaena, Atriplex,
Chenopodium, Einadia or Oxalis), weeds <25%; OR as below, but any
EPBC -listed species present.
“Low quality” native grassland / pasture (uncropped; understorey score
generally 15; Themeda <5%, herbs below threshold above; weeds <
25%).
Re-established native pasture.
No longer native grassland vegetation, not the EPBC-listed community.
Most likely states
(see figure 7)
NG
NG, TP
AP
IP, DP, DIP,
IP, DP, DIP, BG1,
BG2, C, other
Scoring to determine ‘category of worst weed’
Score
Description
4
One or more high-threat Emerging weeds. These are identical to those presented in table 6.
3
Highly invasive and destructive non-woody weeds that have already escaped the lag phase,
and are established (such as Nassella neesiana, Nassella trichotoma,etc.), OR apparently no
2
weeds present.
Moderately invasive species, that have escaped the lag phase, including weeds of disturbed
sites and woody weeds (e.g. Marrubium vulgare, Galenia pubescens, Lycium ferrossismum).
Slightly invasive or destructive species
1
Scoring to describe the ‘extent of worst weed’
Score
Definition
4
<5% cover of worst weed
3
5-25% cover of worst weed
2
25-50% cover of worst weed
1
>50% cover of worst weed
Patch area and site context
NA
Once the prioritisation scores (above) are applied:
 Each polygon is assigned membership of a larger patch of contiguous native
vegetation,
 Each patch is assigned an area.
 Ties in the scores (1-32) are resolved by ordering the polygons by patch area.
 Remaining ties broken by polygon area (larger most important)
Using the process described above, the entire grassland reserve has been divided
into units (~1400 units of native vegetation, average size ~8 ha). Each is represented
by a polygon, where the scoring procedure has been applied. A map of these zones
showing the priority for weed control is shown in figure 8. These zones have been
33
used to direct the first round of interim weed control, as described below under
‘implementation’.
The weed priority dataset has been compiled from multiple sources, all of which are
imperfect. Some of the data were derived from default scores applied to patterns
visible on an aerial photograph. These imperfections are inevitable at first, given we
do not have access to many areas. The dataset should be considered preliminary,
and will gradually be updated as field surveys provide new data.
[Figure 8. Weed control priorities in the Western Grassland Reserves. ]
Non-grassland EVCs were assigned default scores (not described here) in this prioritisation.
Surveillance
DSE acknowledges that under the prioritisation described above, the very best sites those considered weed free – will not be ranked highly. Such sites do not need to be
targeted by weed control contractors, but they do need to be inspected regularly to
ensure weeds do not become a problem. There are no sites currently in this
category.
Replacing weeds with desirable native species
It is important to minimise the chances of weeds re-occupying the spaces left after
control. This will often involve ‘passive’ changes to site management to provide a
competitive advantage to desirable species (such as reducing grazing pressure). It
may also involve active re-introduction of native species, where they are deemed
unable to re-occupy the site. The replacement of Boxthorn with locally depleted or
extinct native shrubs (e.g. Acacia implexa, Bursaria spinosa, Banksia marginata, etc.)
may be one important example of active replacement. During the interim period,
DSE’s ability to influence site management or commence an active regeneration
program is limited, and this element of weed control will become more important in
later years. Naturally, it will be integrated with restoration projects.
Quarantine
Quarantine measures can prevent the spread of weeds, saving significant costs.
Long-distance dispersal of the important weeds in the grassland reserves is achieved
via 3 means:

Wind. Serrated Tussock is often dispersed by wind. This factor is largely
uncontrollable by quarantine measures.

Contaminated stock. Some species, including Nassella species, are spread by
sheep (adherence to wool) (Gardner et al. 2003a, b).

Contaminated machinery. Vehicles, including those used in weed control, can
transport propagules from a range of weeds (Tyers et al. 2004, Moerkerk
2005). For example, Moerkerk (2005) found that 8 of 18 DPI vehicles sampled
during wash-down carried Weeds of National Significance or noxious weeds.
34
Extensive quarantine measures cannot be implemented in the interim period, when
most vehicle and stock movement is not under the control or influence of DSE or PV.
In the interim period, the only hygiene control is a requirement that contractors
employed by DSE (or PV) undertake regular vehicle hygiene (described in Tyers et al.
2004). Future quarantine measures will be very important in controlling weeds.
Implementation
DSE is not the only government body with an interest in weed control on private land
in the reserve area. The following also have roles:

Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA):
provides funds from state and federal government grant schemes for local
government to carry our strategic weed control.

Department of Primary Industries: Administers the CaLP Act 1994, and may
issue compliance notices.

Wyndham City Council: funds contractors to carry out works on private land,
with a requirement for landowners to fund matched works of their own.

Shire of Melton: Administers a rate-rebate scheme, where landowners commit
to doing certain works, and receive rate rebates.

Moorabool Shire Council & City of Greater Geelong: local governments for
small portions of the southern reserve; however neither currently fund nor
administer any management activities within the reserve area.

Parks Victoria: will become manager of the reserves.
DSE must work with these agencies to ensure works are carried out strategically and
efficiently; avoiding confusion for landholders and with accountability for public
money.
An interagency working group has been formed, including representatives working
at the implementation level of DSE and all relevant local government areas, and the
PPWCMA. This working group will meet three times yearly (July, December,
February). Technical information will be shared freely among members of this
group, unless it is subject to privacy constraints.
DSE’s preferred approach to implement weed control is to directly fund works done
by contractors. These contractors work on private land, sanctioned by access
agreements with landowners. Two other approaches were considered but rejected:

Boosting the funds of existing weed control schemes administered by local
governments. This approach has the advantage that existing knowledge and
relationships could be immediately exploited. However, it has two significant
drawbacks: It postpones DSE’s engagement in the reserve area; and it
perpetuates differences in approach between local government areas, at the
expense of reserve-wide management planning.

Providing grants directly to landowners to allow them to carry out works,
awarded on the basis of tenders. This approach was rejected because quality
control would be difficult, and the tender process would be cumbersome.
Table 8 shows the process by which the weed control priority data are used to effect
weed control.
35
The ‘compliance’ step in Table 8 will sometimes be linked to DSE’s formal adaptive
management approach. Where weed control is tackling a transition earmarked for
AM learning (see above), it will be part of the experimental design for AM, and the
sites may be sampled intensively. Given there are over a thousand management
units, not all will be sampled. In many cases, the sites will be inspected by DSE
simply to make sure the site management plan has been adequately followed.
The approach outlined above has several benefits:

It is fair and transparent. The process is driven by data, not the relationship
between agencies and landholders. This is important given DSE is expending
funds on private land; and

It will encourage certain contractors to develop “ownership” of specific sites.
DSE foresees a future where a range of contractors will have long-term
contracts to manage species areas. They will participate in AM experiments,
and compete to develop novel techniques.
Table 8. Implementation of weed control works on private land
Task
Description
Optimal
timing
1. Site
prioritisation
2.
Landholder
contact
3. Access
agreement
4. Initial site
assessment
Landowners with ‘top tier’ assets selected,
given budget and contractor capacity constraints.
DSE sends letters, offering weed services to landholders.
Dedicated DSE liaison officer negotiates with landholder,
and describes the weed control process.
Site access granted, formal agreement signed
(between landholder and DSE).
Contractor (and/or DSE) assesses site.
Contractor confirms or re-draws management units.
Contractor recommends works to best protect assets.
Contractor prepares a site management plan, detailing:
 Which weeds will be controlled, where;
 Which techniques will be used (incl. herbicide
rates);
 When the works will be completed;
 The total cost of completing the works.
The plan may also recommend complimentary
management (e.g. burning, fencing)
DSE approves plan.
Weed control according to the approved plan.
DSE inspects works to ensure they accord reasonably with
the site management plan.
Payment of contractor.
DSE’s spatial data is updated to reflect post-works
conditions, and on site access.
Return to step 1.
Apr-Jun
5. Site
Management
plan
6. Works
7.
Compliance
8. Data
update
9. Re-iterate
Jun-Oct
Jun-Nov
Jul-Nov
Aug-Nov
Aug-Feb
Feb-Apr
36
Monitoring and reporting
It is important that the success or failure of weed control is monitored. There will be
two levels of monitoring:

Basic compliance. Basic qualitative checks will be made to ensure weed
control contractors are complying with their agreed Site Management Plans.
These will be carried out by DSE staff. They may involve site visits during or
after the completion of weed control works (allowing sufficient time to see
the effects of spraying if appropriate). The observations will include an
estimate of weed cover in each management unit, with only enough precision
that the ‘state’ of grassland present at the site can be recorded and updated.
Sites treated in one year will usually be treated in subsequent years (given the
prioritisation approach), so the second year’s site management plan will serve
as a means of monitoring site re-invasion by weeds.

Adaptive management. Some weed control activities will be part of the
broader adaptive management experiments (see above). These will be
sampled intensively before and after weed control.
Reports on the progress of the Interim Management Plan will be provided to the
Commonwealth government every 6 months in 2010-11 then annually until the land
is fully acquired, as required by the Program Report (DSE 2009). These reports will
provide a summary of the activities and outcomes of interim management for the
reporting period including:

Summary of key events and activities

Details of weed control contracts and works

Partnership and research activities

Community involvement
Non-complying properties
Some land-owners with important assets or serious weed problems may not cooperate with the approach outlined above. There are several options to deal with
non-compliance:

Under the CaLP Act 1994, the secretary of DPI may issue a Directions Notice
(or a Land Management Notice) to landowners who fail to comply with their
obligations. Those obligations include eradicating regionally prohibited
weeds and preventing the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds.
There are apparently no regionally prohibited weeds within the area. The
most important regionally controlled weed locally is Serrated Tussock
(Nassella trichotoma); but other regionally controlled weeds include African
Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum), African Lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula),
Apple of Sodom (Solanum linaeanum), Artichoke Thistle (Cynaria
cardunculus), Bathurst Burr (Xanthium spinosum), Hemlock (Conium
maculatum), Horehound (Marrubium vulgare), Paterson’s Curse (Echium
plantagineum), Prickly Pear (Opuntia spp.), Saffron Thistle (Carthamus
lanatus) and Sweet Briar (Rosa rubiginosa). Directions Notices may specify a
37
course of control action and a timeframe for control. Failure of a landowner
to comply with such a notice is an offence.

Some Local Governments (e.g. Wyndham) have local laws that allow directions
notices to be issued, directing landholders to control weeds. If control is not
done, fines can be imposed. DSE will work with Local Government to try to
ensure landholders comply.

In extreme cases, DSE may initiate compulsory acquisition to bring a property
into the reserve, and under immediate DSE/PV management.
Pest animal control
DSE does not have adequate data at present on the extent of pest animal issues.
Rabbits are clearly a problem, but where they require immediate control is not
known. DSE is currently maintaining a ‘watching brief’ on this problem, with the
starting assumption (based on informal advice from experts and landholders) that it
is less important for immediate action than weed control. All DSE-appointed
contractors are explicitly asked to include pest control observations or
recommendations in their site management plans.
4.
Immediate requirements when land is
purchased
Introduction
This section details what must happen immediately after DSE purchases a parcel;
from a technical perspective. Legal and administrative issues are not considered
here. This section assumes that DSE has selected and purchased properties based on
a consideration of their biological values, their risk of degradation if not purchased,
their offset value, and their availability for purchase. This process of prioritisation is
not described here.
DSE is currently data-limited. Adequate data showing the spatial extent and quality
of the assets is available inconsistently across the reserve area. It is generally
sufficient to allow the design of overall strategies for management and land
purchase; but often (not always) insufficient for site-by-site activity planning. This
section deals with fixing this problem: making sure DSE collects the right data
immediately, to allow land parcels to be brought in to the reserve smoothly, without
their values being compromised, or their liabilities threatening other nearby parcels.
Biological survey
Introduction
DSE will do biological surveys on each new parcel as it is acquired. The aims are to
learn as much information as possible relevant to management. Our ultimate aim
must be to learn as much as possible about how the local ecosystems function (see
also ‘Looking ahead’, below). However, much of the initial survey work will be
focussed on individual species that are listed under the EPBC-Act. The information
gathered using the initial surveys described here may be insufficient to answer some
38
management problems, and further targeted surveys may be done in future, to
answer particular ecological questions. This section is concerned with the
automatic, minimum survey requirements only.
The surveys will be based partly on the standards published by the Victorian
Government in DSE’s Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit (DSE 2010), which
describes the survey requirements for preparation of a Precinct Structure Plan. The
requirements here sometimes differ from those described for Precinct Structure
Plans, reflecting the different needs of the surveys (avoiding and offsetting vs.
managing).
Surveys should take place as soon as any parcel is purchased; unless there are
ecological reasons why the survey should be postponed. All surveys should be
completed within two years of purchase (see New Parcel Plans, below). It is expected
that surveys are done by suitably qualified and experienced specialists, whether DSE
staff or consultants.
It is important to note that the results of initial surveys will not be used as the final
determinant of where habitat will be managed for a given species. Organisms are
mobile, and may use habitat in future where they are currently absent, or may find
new habitat once it is created through management. It is also noted that the
guidelines offered here do NOT guarantee that all species will be detected. DSE
understands that some species, or local populations of given species, will remain
undetected. These guidelines may be altered in future, if survey data suggest they
are inadequate.
Vegetation and threatened flora surveys
General vegetation surveys should be done between September and January, by a
qualified and experienced botanist, able to identify all relevant species on the
Werribee Plains, even when they are immature, grazed or shrivelled. Surveys for
each parcel should generally occur within 1 year of purchase; but not within 1 year
of a fire, nor within 1 year of heavy grazing being removed.
Detectability studies in grasslands show that the time taken to detect the presence of
a species with a known level of certainty varies between species, and depends on the
density of grass at the site (Garrard 2009). Detectability models may be used to
design targeted surveys for species of interest; however this requires data we do not
have for the grassland flora in general. Instead, the minimum survey intensity
requirements below should be followed for all grassland areas within the reserve:

every discrete patch of un-cultivated grassland (i.e. non-arable land, including
stony knolls) on a property should be visited;

each parcel to be surveyed should be walked so that no sizable area remains
unsurveyed. For large parcels, this should be done by dividing the site
arbitrarily into ~50 ha units before survey commences, and treating each unit
as an individual patch;

for grassland patches where total grass cover is >30%, 1.5 hours per hectare
should be spent searching for plants; unless no new plant taxon has been
detected for over 30 mins within the patch;
39

for grassland patches where total grass cover is <30%, 1 hour per hectare
should be spent searching for plants; unless no new plant taxon has been
detected for over 30 mins within the patch;

every wetland or drainage line visible on the aerial imagery should be visited;
and surveyed with an intensity similar to that for grasslands;

for non-native vegetation: 5 min per hectare should be spent searching;

the aim of the surveyor should be to compile a list of species for the property
that is as exhaustive as possible;

populations of any species considered ‘significant’ should be mapped (e.g.
EPBC- or FFG-listed species, species considered rare or threatened by either
the DSE advisory list (DSE ) or by Walsh and Stajsic (2008), or any species
targeted for seed collection under the restoration program (to be
determined)).
It is assumed that all relevant EPBC-listed plant species will be adequately covered by
these guidelines, however, additional targeted surveys should be carried out
wherever the habitat seems promising (and the species were not already detected).
This includes all ‘patches’ referrable to states TP, NG or RG; or any ‘patch’ where
more than one of the following species were recorded: Calocephalus citreus,
Chrysocephalum apiculatum, Dianella spp. Dichelachne crinita, Eryngium ovinum,
Leptorhynchos squamatus, Lomandra spp., Pimelea spp., Plantago gaudichaudii, Poa
seiberiana and Wahlenbergia spp. (These co-occur in >50% of quadrats in DSE’s flora
data with any one of the EPBC-listed taxa; and are thought to be confined to
relatively intact habitat). Targeted surveys should be timed as follows (i.e. targeted
‘patches’ should be visited on three occasions):

Pimelea spinescens should be targeted in April-August, when in flower
(DEWHA 2009).

Diuris basaltica, Diuris fragrantissima and Senecio macrocarpus should be
targeted between mid-September and late October.

Rutidosis leptorhynchoides should be targeted between late October and late
January.
Golden Sun Moth
Golden Sun moth is known to be present in the reserve (GAA 2010a, b, c, d). The
purposes of the initial surveys should be to determine its general extent of
occurrence within the reserve; leaving more intensive surveys to be carried out later,
once the overall picture is clearer, and a sampling stratification can be sensibly put
in place.
This species is only readily detectable when weather conditions are warm and sunny.
Given such conditions only occur in the warmer months, properties need not be
surveyed for Golden Sun moths immediately after purchase. A ‘batch’ of properties
should be surveyed each summer.
The surveys suggested by DSE (2010) are necessarily intensive. Their purpose is to
provide evidence of the absence of Golden Sun Moth, in situations where a false
40
absence may lead to the destruction of habitat. The purposes of management are
different, and require less intensive survey at first. DSE proposes to survey not every
parcel. The precise survey intensity is yet to be determined, but methods will be
similar to those in DSE (2010).
Grassland Earless Dragon
The first purpose of Grassland Earless Dragon surveys is simply to establish whether
the species is present. Every contiguous patch of grassland vegetation of 50-200 ha
should support a survey site, and every site >200 ha should include 1 ‘survey site’
every 200 ha (~50 sites in total, based on existing data). Any smaller grassland
patches should be surveyed if there is any indication that they may be promising
habitat. Generally, a ‘site’ will cover ~1 ha, sampled as described below. Not every
property must support a survey. A ‘batch’ of sites / properties should be surveyed
during the appropriate time (below).The survey coverage and intensity may be
altered by DSE if the species is detected within the reserve. The following
methodology below is slightly modified from that recommended by the National
Recovery Team.
The use of artificial arthropod burrows (‘spider tubes’) is the basic method to be
applied. ‘Spider tubes’ will be installed in the ground with a shade roof above each
tube. The trapping layout within a patch / site should be planned to achieve a
comprehensive geographic coverage and to include the range of habitat types
present. Trap spacing within a grid or transect should be 10 metres apart, with a
minimum of 100 ‘spider tubes’ required per site. After installation, spider tubes
should be allowed to sit undisturbed for at least seven days before checking.
Subsequently they should be checked no more frequently than every second day, for
at least 30 checks per tube (i.e. tubes in field for a minimum of 67 days).
Rocks (up to 1000, where present) must also be manually turned to search for
sheltering lizards. Each rock must be replaced in its original position after turning.
Where soil cracks are present, ‘mini-pitfall traps’ should also be used (at least 100 if
employed, layed out as for ‘spider tubes’), and should be shaded as for the spider
tubes. They do not require drift fences. After installation, pitfall traps should be
checked at least daily and for at least 10 consecutive days. Where soil cracks are
present, inspection of soil cracks or arthropod burrows using an endoscope (or
similar) is also required (at least 100 if employed).
Spider tubes and mini-pitfalls should only be used between January and April
(inclusive). This period is specified because the presence of juveniles at this time
markedly increases the chance of detecting the species. Rock turning should be
undertaken during autumn, winter or spring. Endoscopic inspections should be
undertaken February to April (inclusive). If the species is found during the survey,
and the primary objective has been fulfilled (i.e. to determine the presence or
absence of Grassland Earless Dragons), further survey effort is not immediately
required at that site.
Growling Grass Frog
Growling Grass Frogs have been more intensively studied than most other species in
the reserve areas (e.g. Pyke 2002, Hamer and Organ 2008, Heard et al. 2008, Heard
and Scroggie 2009, Heard et al. 2010). The species displays classic meta-population
41
dynamics, occurring naturally as discrete populations, occasionally be connected by
migrants. Some populations occasionally become locally extinct, but may be
occasionally re-established by migrants. The wetlands most likely to support
populations in the long term are those that have high aquatic vegetation cover above
and below the water level, long hydroperiod (i.e. permanent or nearly so, rather than
ephemeral) and are close to other suitable wetlands (Heard et al. 2010).
Growling Grass Frogs have been recorded in the southern portion of the reserve, but
not the northern. Most records are old (decades, pre-drought). Most of the
‘wetlands’ in the reserves are of low suitability for this species- being very much
ephemeral and generally containing low vegetation cover. Although the species may
occur elsewhere, only three types of wetlands in the reserve offer stable and suitable
habitat:

The few large wetlands that may hold water for some time (Rabbiters Lake,
Rabbiters Swamp, Richmonds Swamp, Bath Swamp, and a couple of unnamed swamps).

Wetlands associated with the gorges of the Werribee and Little Rivers

Farm dams (about 70 within the reserves)
Surveys should only be conducted at those sites, and only in farm dams that have
some vegetation (anticipated to be very few). It is expected that fewer than 30 sites
across the reserve areas will be surveyed in total, for the initial assessment of
whether the species is present.
Heard et al. (2010) recommend survey techniques for detecting adult Growling Grass
Frogs (based on Crump and Scott 1994). These are summarised below, but Heard et
al. (2010) should be consulted for points of detail.

10 minutes should initially be spent quietly listening and observing the
wetland, using call playback if necessary to induce males to call.

The site should then be systematically searched for frogs with the aid of
spotlights, including actively searching under debris.

Data should be collected in the format recommended by Heard et al. (2010).
Heard et al. (2010) suggest that to attain a cumulative detection probability of 0.99 at
a site, 3 night-time 1 hour-long surveys in October or November and 4 night-time 1
hour-long surveys in December and March are appropriate (using the methods
above). This survey intensity should be adopted here.
Plains-wanderer
Virtually nothing is known about the current status of the Plains-wanderer within the
reserve area, with only a few individuals having been seen in recent years. The
primary purpose of Plains-wanderer surveys is, therefore, to confirm the presence of
this species in the reserve. The surveys should be skewed to maximise the chances
of detecting this species. Any habitat within any parcel that is potential Plainswanderer habitat should be surveyed; and habitat considered ‘optimal habitat’
according to expert opinion should be sampled at twice the intensity:
42

Areas requiring survey include all native grassland with a total cover of
grasses and herbs not exceeding 75% (minimum survey effort 1 hour per
10ha).

Optimum habitat for surveys includes hard, red-brown earths with a sparse
covering of native herbs and grasses, more than 200m away from trees. Such
areas contain about 50% bare ground with fallen litter making up a further
10%. The more robust plants in the grassland are generally spaced 10-20cm
apart and rarely exceed 30cm in height. Most of the vegetation is less than
5cm tall. Suitable habitat may also contain scattered rocks (minimum survey
effort 1 hour per 5 ha)
Surveys should be conducted at any time of the year, as soon as practical after the
purchase of the parcel. Males can be more difficult to detect when they are
incubating eggs, which takes place mainly in spring and summer, but nests have
been found in all months of the year. Surveys should not be carried out if it is windy
or raining, or a period of high fire danger.
The following methods should be employed:

Surveys should be conducted at night from a vehicle travelling at <5kph
(unless the area is very high quality grassland, too rocky, or the ground is
wet). A spotlight, preferably roof-mounted, will detect most birds within 1015m of the vehicle.

If a vehicle is not suitable, spotlighting surveys should be conducted on foot.
This technique is often more successful with a small group of observers
walking 10 - 15m apart in a line.

Muzzled dogs have been used to assist with additional diurnal surveys of
rocky areas or high quality native grasslands. The dog must be well trained
and under voice control at all times to avoid contact with birds.
Striped Legless Lizard
This species has been recorded in the past at a couple of sites within the reserve.
Little is known about the current extent of its distribution (GAA 2010a, b, c, d). The
primary purpose of surveys for this species is to confirm its presence in the reserve,
and gain some understanding of its spatial distribution. The spatial arrangement
and intensity of survey is yet to be determined for this species, however it is likely to
be similar to that suggested for Grassland Earless Dragon (i.e. surveys will be
distributed according to the distribution of contiguous grassland patches, and not
every property will be surveyed).
This species should be surveyed using pitfall trapping, placement of tile grids
(artificial shelter sites) and hand searching under natural cover (e.g. rocks). Site
conditions will determine which combination of techniques is appropriate. Tile grids
should always be used in the present context; while pitfall trapping and hand
searching may be deployed if suitable at the site.
Tile grids are the preferred survey method. Each tile grid should contain 50 tiles, at
5 m spacing (given site constraints). Ideally, tiles should be placed in winter, with
checking to begin in early spring – at least one month must be allowed after
43
placement before checking. The optimum period for checking tiles is from
September to December, but may extend until March. At least seven checking
sessions are required, at intervals of no less than two weeks. It is important to check
tiles when the lizards are expected to be inactive and under shelter – consequently,
checking should be conducted only when air temperature is low, preferably at dawn
or with high cloud cover, and importantly before tile temperature is elevated above
25oC.
Pitfall traps should be placed at intervals of approximately 5m, and should be used
in conjunction with drift fence typically 30cm high and embedded in the ground.
Site constraints will influence pitfall trap configuration, but lines of 10 traps along a
50m drift fence are recommended as a minimum. Traps must be checked at least
twice daily, including at dusk and dawn, in mid-late spring.
Weather conditions prevailing at survey times must be recorded, including cloud
cover, shaded air temperature just above ground level, temperature under
tiles/rocks, temperature of tiles, relative humidity, relative humidity under
tiles/rocks, and soil temperature.
The prescriptions for Striped Legless Lizard suggest that translocation of individuals
from areas within the UBG to the grassland reserve may be an appropriate action.
Given this, suitable recipient sites will need to be found within the reserves.
Cultural heritage survey
In order to manage the reserve and allow its assets to be fully appreciated by the
public, DSE and PV will need to gather information about its cultural heritage values,
objects and places. It is possible that some future activities (such as construction of
infrastructure) will require cultural heritage surveys to be completed under Victorian
legislation; however this is not likely to be relevant in the interim period (Cultural
heritage is administered in Victoria under the Heritage Act 1995, the Aboriginal
Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007).
While some heritage values are obvious to the lay observer, most may only be
revealed after intensive survey. The spatial design and intensity of surveys across
the reserve is yet to be determined. Further advice will be sought from archeological
professionals, and all relevant Registered Aboriginal Parties (currently only the
Wadawurrong (a.k.a. Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation)), who have an explicit role
in cultural heritage planning under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal
Heritage Regulations 2007. Surveys may, however, be targeted using the following
considerations:

A reserve-wide stratification for archaeological sites. Environmental variables
that may influence the occurrence or persistence of sites may be able to
guide a broad-scale survey approach. Data such as cropping history may be
useful in this regard.

Documented sites. New surveys may be targeted to and in the vicinity of
known sites; to better document these sites themselves, or to increase the
probability of finding associated sites.
44

Suspected sites of interest discovered during other survey activities. Field
workers carrying out biological surveys may suspect that a site carries
cultural heritage value, but be unable to make an expert judgement. Such
sites should be prioritised for follow-up survey.

Dry Stone walls. Nineteenth century stone walls are a special case: they are
very extensive within the grassland reserve, and their presence (but not their
age or condition) is obvious to the lay observer. A targeted dry stone wall
project is probably required, and would take place in consultation with the
Dry Stone Wall Association
Clearly, not every newly-acquired parcel will be the subject of cultural heritage
surveys, and such surveys will often not be urgent. Cultural heritage survey
requirements that are ‘compulsory’ for all new parcels will be confined to
documenting any known or suspected values.
General infrastructure survey
Parks Victoria has an established process for assessing the assets and liabilities
associated with infrastructure on land newly incorporated into the Victorian parks
system. That is part of the Park Establishment Planning (PEP) process noted below.
During the interim period, however, there will be ‘gaps’, where properties acquired
by DSE are not yet within the Parks system. There is a risk during this period that
assets will degrade (e.g. valuable buildings may be vandalised) or adversely affect the
public or neighbouring landholders (e.g. fire hazards, weeds, litter).
DSE must have some immediate indication of what assets and liabilities are on each
property:

To assess the need for immediate maintenance (fencing, etc);

To begin to budget for clean up and demolition works;

To make decisions as to which parts of the reserve are best suited to which
management needs (some objectives will require agricultural infrastructure
such as dams, fences etc, other will not); and

To prevent harm and remove danger (such as fire hazards, asbestos, loose
metal sheets, etc).
A general infrastructure survey must be done that includes, at least, the following
elements. This survey should not replace the more intensive PEP process. Moredetailed inspection will, of course, be needed before building demolition,
maintenance or restoration:

A statement of the likely degree of fire hazard.

A map showing and categorisingo
all buildings (including aerials, animals houses, sheds, etc).
o
all fences and gates (including a spatial representation of their
condition)
45
o
all dry stone walls
o
all water-points, including type (dam, trough, etc.)
o
all roads and vehicle tracks (including their type- gravel, sealed, etc)

For each building, a description of its current use and condition.

Photographs of all buildings.
Preparation of New Parcel Plans
This Interim Management Strategy addresses DSE’s intentions for the entire reserve.
Each parcel, however, must be the subject of a parcel plan, which details the
sequence of management actions required to bring the parcel in to the reserve
system. These plans should be very brief (<3 pages text plus maps and lists), and
should refer to this Interim Management Plan (or its successors) for all background
and contextual information.
New Parcel Plans should be completed within ~1 year of purchase, and have a
lifespan of two years from the date of purchase. After this time has elapsed, the
parcel should be fully absorbed into the reserve-wide planning system, and require
no further parcel plans (a reserve-wide plan will be in place by 2012). Collectively,
New Parcel Plans will be an important data source for the PEP process (below). New
Parcel Plans will generally come after the basic surveys listed above, but may precede
some surveys that require further reserve-wide planning or must await certain
conditions. New Parcel Plans should include the content shown in Table 9.
As described above, the weed problem is so large that a reserve-wide response is
needed. New Parcel Plans should not recommend weed control actions without
reference to the rest of the reserve. The following process should apply:

The data from the new parcel is added to the whole-of-reserve dataset;

A new weed control prioritisation is run each year (in April, see table 8);

A list of worthy weed control activities is written into each New Parcel Plan;

Activities that fit the priorities and budget for the whole reserve are funded.
This approach means that weed control funds will not be apportioned evenly to each
parcel, and it is conceivable that some parcels will receive little or no attention. Two
weed control activities over-ride this process:

The control of all high threat emerging weeds will be funded where possible;
and

If a patch is newly-found to be highly-significant (e.g. States NG, TP), control
activities may be funded regardless of the most-recent reserve-wide
prioritisation.
46
Table 9: Content of a “Grassland Reserve: New Parcel Plan”
Property description
Basic property summary
 Title information & address; size of parcel, etc.
 Date of purchase
 Means of acquisition (negotiated sale, compulsory acquisition) & summary of process.
Summary of DSE-funded interim management
 Name of contractors (if any) employed on site & summary of previous expenditure on
site
 Site management plan(s) for contract weed control works (appended).
 Comment on whether the Site management plans adequately describe the works
actually done (if not describe variation)
Summary of works already undertaken
 Description (including costs) of any works (fencing, etc) already done.
Summary of biological values
 Description of biological surveys already completed (when, what special constraints
applied, who surveyed, survey effort)
 Current vegetation map (using EVCs), showing vegetation condition (habitat
hectares) and states (refer state definitions)
 Vascular plant species list for property, tabulating distribution of species among EVCs
and zones / patches.
 Results of targeted fauna surveys (append when completed)
 List and map of any EPBC-listed or other significant species known to occur on site
 List and map of any high threat emerging weeds.
Ecological offset summary
 Summary of habitat hectares on property (BushBroker is the primary custodian of this
data)
 Summary of intended or completed offset trades (including reference / link to
tracking system)
Summary of cultural values and liabilities
 Map and description of all buildings (may be updated following cultural heritage
survey)
 Map showing dams / waterpoints and fences and gates on site, including a summary
of fence type and condition
 Map showing extent and type of dry stone walls
 Map showing any known or suspected historic or culturally significant sites (including
scatters) (Append cultural heritage survey results when completed)
Summary of previous use
 Results of landholder survey
 Description of stocking rate at time of purchase
Data destination statement
 Statement confirming that all relevant data was submitted to the appropriate
custodians (see below).
Table of actions & recommendations
Weed and pest control
47

Summary of suggested beneficial weed control (a brief ‘wish list’) that may or may
not correspond with the reserve-wide priorities. This list should guide (and not
contradict) any Site Management Plan arising from the reserve-wide process.
 Description and maps of high threat emerging weeds that must be controlled overand-above reserve-wide interim weed management.
 Recommendation for control of above weeds, in the form of a Site Management Plan
(may be prepared by a contractor).
 Any contract information related to the control of high-threat emerging weeds.
Fencing
 Description and map of any fence maintenance that must still take place to
immediately secure the assets on the property.
Rubbish removal
 Recommendation specifying rubbish for immediate removal to manage immediate
risk to DSE or the assets on site (ignoring minor or invisible litter).
Burn plan
 Details of fire management plan- approach to be decided.
Survey recommendations
 List of surveys (flora, fauna, cultural heritage) that remain outstanding.
48
5.
Looking ahead
Introduction
This document will eventually be superseded by a reserve-wide management plan.
That plan will be freer from the constraints of mixed-ownership and poor data
coverage. Its focus will be the long-term goals set for the reserve (see above).
Without pre-empting the content of the forthcoming management plan, this section
attempts to map out some of those long-term projects that will commence early in
the interim period. This section provides a brief summary of the challenges now
being met. The following overview is neither final nor comprehensive, it is
necessarily speculative in parts.
The Park Establishment process
Parks Victoria has a regular procedure for establishing parks, following notification
that PV will manage an area. This procedure is guided by a Park Establishment Plan
(PEP). PEPs follows a standard format. The PEP for the Western Grassland Reserves
will be particularly complex, given it will follow research and establishment work
done by DSE (including this document), and that the reserves must satisfy the
agreements between the Victorian and Australian Governments, and must operate to
receive environmental offsets for years to come, through interaction with DSE’s
Credit Register. The New Parcel Plans and the spatial data produced by DSE in the
interim period will assist the PEP process.
The basic elements of a PEP may be summarised as follows:


Administrative
o
Establish Project Control Group
o
Clarify boundaries and parcel status (including areas such as road
reserves, easements, etc)
o
Make any Planning Scheme amendments necessary, given park context
o
Add to internal Parks Victoria databases
Resourcing
o


Staff and Resourcing plan
Asset and risk analysis and ‘Due Diligence’
o
Document all assets within reserve
o
Document all risks associated with the reserve (including fire, damage
to neighbouring properties, etc.)
o
Assets added to PV Asset Inventory System
o
Decide and document the fate of all assets
Communications and engagement
49
o
Select a name for park (if required)
o
Develop park notes and signage plan

Capital Works Planning

Future directions planning (this will involve liaison with DSE and other
stakeholders, and involves many of the ideas discussed here, see below)
Long-term data management and storage
Reserve establishment and management will require complex datasets, which must
be maintained and stored. Table 10 outlines which important datasets will be
generated, and who will be their likely custodian. DSE will formulate a more detailed
data management plan over coming months.
Table 10. Overview of Data management. TBD= to be determined.
Spatial data:
Custodianship
cadastral data etc. (static)
EVC data (static)
Locations of cultural heritage sites
existing DSE corporate data
possible integration into DSE’s corporate
vegetation layers (extant and pre-1750)
Bushbroker / native vegetation credit
register.
TBD-DSE
TBD- DSE
TBD- likely to be stored among planned
larger database of statewide monitoring
data
TBD- likely to be stored among planned
larger database of statewide monitoring
data
TBD-DSE
VBA (DSE’s Victorian Biodiversity Atlas
which will replace the well-established
Flora Information System and Victorian
Fauna Database / Atlas)
Not determined
Aspatial data:
Custodianship
New Parcel Plans
Contracts
Legal and planning documents
Species lists relating to parcels or habitat zones
Handed to PV during PEP process
DSE contract register
DSE internal files / archives
TBD- possibly VBA
Habitat hectares data
Weed management zones and priority scores
Land use and infrastructure data
AM datasets (numerous, structure TBD)
records of restoration activity
Seed collection data
Location records for species of interest
Burning
Given native grasslands which retain a herb component are ideally burnt at least
every 7 years (Cheal, 2010), the amount of ecological burning within the reserve area
may be very large. The logistics of carrying out a large scale, permanent burning
program are formidable:
50

ecological outcomes must be balanced with the need to protect public property
and life,

smoke may blow eastwards over Melbourne and the proposed outer-metropolitan
ring road (which will adjoin the reserve). This must be managed through
consultation with VicRoads and the public,

A decision must be made as to whether burns are carried out by consultants,
existing units within government agencies, the Country Fire Authority, or a new
dedicated grassland burning team. This is yet to be determined.
Following drought-breaking rains in 2010, grass growth has been vigorous and high.
Austrostipa species stand shoulder high in many places. Burning may be essential in
some places within 12-18 months.
The future of agriculture: grazing and cropping
As noted above, grazing is an important existing land-use, and will remain so on
private land for the interim period. Grazing may also be a relatively easy way to
maintain pasture areas in their current condition for some years to come. Grazing is
not, however, ideal for native grasslands; and may be highly destructive unless it is
manipulated subtly. DSE and PV will need to consider:

a long term grazing strategy, that dictates how far and how quickly grazing will
be reduced or removed from the reserve;

access to stock that can be moved around quickly, cheaply, with flexible timing,
and without the financial constraints of farm business;

whether incentives should be used to reduce grazing intensities on private land;
and

whether any on-going grazing can be utilised to demonstrate sustainable land-use
practices.
Cropping currently occupies about one fifth of the reserve area. Ideally, cropped
areas would be restored to native vegetation; but this aim is unlikely to be met in the
short or medium term. It is likely that some areas will continue to be cropped once
in public ownership, as a means of holding these sites in their current state without
the need for survey, weed control or restoration funds. Once publicly owned,
constraints may be put in place that restrict the use of some agricultural chemicals,
such as fertilisers. It is yet to be determined how this will be achieved.
Ecological quarantine
As noted above, the movement of stock and vehicles may spread weeds, including
many of the high-threat emerging weeds. Once most of the reserve land is under
management for conservation, a number of quarantine measures may be
appropriate. These will be developed in consultation with DPI and others, and may
include:

a ban on stock being moved from infestations to ‘clean’ areas, based on weed
spatial data;
51

removal of stock from some sensitive areas;

the use of dedicated ‘clean’ flocks for grazing in clean areas;

the use and maintenance of dedicated ‘clean’ vehicles (slashers, etc), or
dedicated vehicles for certain confined areas; and

an approach to weed control where up-wind infestations are seen as liabilities
(not currently included).
Ecological restoration of vegetation
Protecting existing assets will always be a concern of managers, but management
must also aim for improvement. This is important for native vegetation, where
improvements in site quality will be a clear requirement for meeting offset targets.
There is significant scope to enhance the ecological value of the reserve through
vegetation restoration. DSE and PV intend to run a long-term vegetation restoration
program, commencing before 2012. The primary aims of this program will be to:

restore some of the natural character and biological diversity of the native
grasslands, by re-establishing a range of site-indigenous species;

ensure that ecological conditions in the reserves allow restored populations
of plant species to reproduce and persist;

ensure that any ‘spaces’ created by weed removal are filled with desirable
native species;

ensure that the many rare local plant taxa (whether EPBC-listed or not;
whether full species or not) do not become extinct, by maintaining insurance
populations in the nursery, and establishing new populations in the field;

include relevant restoration techniques and sites in the broader AM
approach, to make sure knowledge is permanently gained.

use the restoration of wildflower populations as a tool to engage the wider
community.
All reintroductions will be guided by our understanding of what the local
environment was like before it was modified by agriculture (i.e. pre1750). This goal
does not suggest that there is anything sacrosanct about the environment as it once
was- merely that the pre1750 state is known to have supported a maximal range of
species; has a character related to the indigenous cultures who shaped it; and was
important historically in shaping Victoria.
There are some published studies to guide restoration work (e.g. Morgan 1999,
Gibson-Roy 2007a, b, 2008), but most of the accumulated knowledge resides in the
grey literature or with individual people’s experience. A small restoration forum will
be held in 2011 with the aim of ‘extracting’ this information. Until the information is
collated, the design of the restoration program will remain unfinished. It is,
however, likely to include the following elements:

planning; particularly determining which species will be included in
restoration efforts, where they should be sourced from, and where they
should be introduced;
52

collection of seed (or other propagules) from wild populations of relevant
plants;

bulking up the seed supply with nursery cultivation;

design of relevant AM experiments (combinations of site preparation, seeding
or planting technique and site management);

reintroduction in the field;

site management;

monitoring and data analysis in accordance with AM;

record keeping, so all material can be traced.
This program will undoubtedly require extensive planning, and the development of
infrastructure and capacity. It should see the growth of the indigenous nursery
industry.
Faunal re-introductions
The philosophy behind re-establishing faunal populations is somewhat similar to
that for vegetation restoration. Despite this, the balance of cost, ecological risk,
probability of success, and difficulty in monitoring, may make faunal reintroductions less immediately attractive (Reinert 1991, Fischer and Lindenmayer
2000, Cunningham 2002). Much of the cost is in constructing and maintaining
predator-proof exclusion fences, which are often used to protect re-introduced
faunal populations (Moseby and Read 2005). Nonetheless it can be done; as shown
by the success of the Mount Rothwell property adjacent to the reserves, which
supports populations of numerous threatened mammals. For some species, it is
perhaps the only conservation option. The details of any faunal re-introduction
program is yet to be decided, and will be the subject of further discussions with the
TAG and interested parties. Populations of animal species not locally extinct (i.e.
augmentation or supplementation) will not be translocated; with one exception: The
prescriptions for Striped Legless Lizard may result in the translocation of animals
from areas within the UGB to the grassland reserves.
Dealing with native’ pests’
Kangaroo numbers are likely to increase markedly once land is taken out of
agricultural production. This may present problems, both ecological and social, and
any culling program must be designed with economics, animal welfare, social and
economic factors well-balanced (Clarke and Ng 2009). Plagues of the native
Australian Plague Locust may also present difficulties, particularly from a social and
administrative perspective. A locust response plan must be formulated, that does
not compromise the values of the grassland reserve by allowing excessive insecticide
use, and treats locusts as native species.
Planning for recreation
Allowing public access for recreation is an important aim of the grassland reserves.
The construction of paths and facilities will presumably not occur for years, but the
spatial layout of this infrastructure must be carefully planned. The public must be
53
discouraged from visiting the most sensitive areas, encouraged to see interesting and
beautiful sites and views, both natural and cultural. Large areas of open pains
should also remain un-tracked, to preserve the disappearing character of the plains.
Points of access to neighbouring places must also be carefully considered (The You
Yangs, Mount Rothwell, Eynesbury, Werribee, the ring road corridor, etc). Parks
Victoria will be instrumental in designing the layout of Park infrastructure. It will be
planned with reference to the surveys described here and the principles outlined in
Parks Victorias Linking People and Spaces strategy (Parks Victoria 2002, 2009), and in
conjunction with open space planning through the adjacent growth areas.
Infrastructure and assets
Private properties contain a range of non-biological assets and structures. Some
parts of this ‘inherited infrastructure’ will be of obvious value, others will be
liabilities, and others will be difficult to assess. Some will be kept and maintained,
some will be removed. A strategic response is necessary, as the distribution of
infrastructure like dams, windbreak plantings, fences and buildings across the whole
reserve will affect its ecology and visual appeal at a large scale, and must be planned
in overview.
Research
This document only deals with the basic survey and research activities required
within the narrow scope of this Interim Management Strategy. It is important to note
that the reserves could support a much broader research program. Research
projects from a range of institutions and disciplines should be encouraged within
the reserve.
54
6.
References
Allcock KG (2002) Effects of phosphorous on growth and competitive interactions of
native and introduced species found in White Box woodlands. Austral Ecology
27, 638–646.
Badgery WB, Kemp DR, Michalk DL (2005) The ecology and management of serrated
tussock (Nassella trichotoma) in native pastures. In: proceedings of the
Tussock Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005), pp. 20-21.
Baker-Gabb D (1999) Plains-wanderers, native grasslands and biodiversity. In: Barlow
T & Thorburn R (Eds.) Balancing Conservation and Production in Grassy
Landscapes, Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference Clare,
South Australia, 19-21 August 1999. pp. 51-55.
Batman J (1835) Diary. 10th May-11th June 1835. In: Harcourt R (2001) Southern
Invasion, Northern Conquest. Story of the Founding of Melbourne. Golden Point
Press, Blackburn South. pp. 143-157.
Beeton RJS, McGrath C, et al. (2009) Developing an approach to the listing of
ecological communities to achieve conservation outcomes. The Australasian
Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy 13, 61-91.
Bestelmeyer BT (2006) Threshold concepts and their use in rangeland management
and restoration: the good, the bad, and the insidious. Restoration Ecology 14,
325-329.
Bowker MA (2007) Biological soil crust rehabilitation in theory and practice: an
underexploited opportunity. Restoration Ecology 15, 13-23
Carr GW (1999) Checklist of the vascular flora of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (1997).
In: Jones R (1999) (Ed.) The Great Plains Crash. Proceedings of a conference on
the grasslands and grassy woodlands of Victoria. Victorian Institute of
Technology, October 1992. Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association & Victorian
National Parks Association. 91-119 (Appendix 1)
Carr GW, Yugovic JV & Robinson KE (1992) Environmental Weed Invasions in Victoria.
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Ecological Horticulture
Pty Ltd. East Melbourne and Clifton Hill.
Cheal D (2010) Growth stages and tolerable fire intervals for Victoria’s native
vegetation data sets. Fire and adaptive management report No. 84. Department
of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.
Clarke M, Ng Y-K (2009) Population Dynamics and Animal Welfare: Issues Raised by
the Culling of Kangaroos in Puckapunyal. Social Choice and Welfare 27, 407422.
Coupland RT (1979) The nature of grassland. In: Coupland RT (Ed) (1979) Grassland
ecosystems of the world. Pages 23-30. International Biological Program 18,
Cambridge University Press, UK.
55
Crump ML, Scott NJ (1994) Visual encounter surveys. In: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA,
McDiarmid RW, Hayek L-AC, Foster MS (1994) Measuring and monitoring
biological diversity. Standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institute
Press, Washington. Pp. 84-92.
Cunningham AA (2002) Disease risks of wildlife translocations. Conservation Biology
10, 349-353.
DEWHA (2008) Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. EPBC
Act Policy Statement 3.8. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts.
DEWHA (2009) Significant impact guidelines for the critically endangered spiny
rice‑flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens). Nationally threatened
species and ecological communitites. EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.11.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Dixon P & Ellison A (1996) Bayesian Inference. Introduction: Ecological applications
of Bayesian Inference. Ecological Applications 6, 1034-1035.
Dorrough J, Ash J, McIntyre S (2004a) Plant responses to livestock grazing frequency
in an Australian temperate grassland. Ecography 27, 798-810.
Dorrough J, Yen A, Turner V, Clark SG, Crosthwaite J & Hirth JR (2004b) Livestock
grazing management and biodiversity conservation in Australian temperate
grassy landscapes. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 55, 279-295.
Dorrough J, Scroggie MP (2008) Plant responses to agricultural intensification.
Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1274-1283.
DPCD (2009) Delivering Melbourne’s newest sustainable communities. Strategic
impact assessment report for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. Department of Planning and Community Development,
East Melbourne.
Dripps K (2010) Strategic Impact Assessments. Planning News 36, 12-13.
DSE (2004) Native Vegetation: sustaining a living landscape, Vegetation Quality
Assessment Manual – guidelines for applying the Habitat Hectare scoring
method (Version 1.3). Department of Sustainability and Environment, East
Melbourne, Victoria.
DSE (2009) Delivering Melbourne’s newest sustainable communities. Program Report.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.
DSE (2010) Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit. Department of Sustainability
and Environment, East Melbourne.
Dudley N (Ed.) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management
Categories. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Ellison A (1996) An introduction of Bayesian Inference for ecological research and
environmental decision-making. Ecological Applications 6, 1036-1046.
56
Environmental Weeds Working Group (2006) Interim guidelines and procedures for
managing the environmental impacts of weeds on public land in Victoria 2006.
Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne.
Fagan WF, Lewis MA, Neubert MG & van den Driessche P (2002) Invasion theory and
biological control. Ecology Letters 5, 148-157.
Field SA, O'Connor PJ, Tyre AJ & Possingham HP (2007) Making monitoring
meaningful. Austral Ecology 32, 485-491.
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal
relocations. Biological Conservation 96, 1-11.
Fisher HJ (1974) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on a kangaroo grass (Themeda australis)
grassland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal
Husbandry 14, 526-532.
Fleming J (1803) The voyage of his majesty’s colonial schooner “Cumberland” from
Sydney to King Island and Port Phillip in 1802-3. In: Shillinglaw. J.J. (1878)
Historical Records of Port Phillip (Reprinted 1972), Heinemann, Melbourne. pp.
12-39.
Funk JL, Cleland EE, Suding KN, Zavaleta ES (2008) Restoration through reassembly:
plant traits and invasion resistance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 695703.
GAA (2010a) Biodiversity Assessment Report (Native Vegetation): Melton-Wyndham
Investigation Area – Section A. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne.
GAA (2010b) Biodiversity Assessment Report (Native Vegetation): Melton-Wyndham
Investigation Area – Section B. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne.
GAA (2010c) Biodiversity Assessment Report (Native Vegetation): Melton-Wyndham
Investigation Area – Section C. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne.
GAA (2010d) Biodiversity Assessment Report (Native Vegetation): Melton-Wyndham
Investigation Area – Section E. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne.
Garden DL, Ellis NJS, Rab MA, Langford CM, Johnston WH, Shields C, Murphy T,
Holmberg M, Dassanayake KB, Harden S (2003) Fertiliser and grazing effects on
production and botanical composition of native grasslands in south-east
Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 843–859.
Gardener MR, Whalley RDB & Sindel BM (2003a) Ecology of Nassella neesiana, Chilean
needle grass, in pastures on the northern tablelands of New South Wales. I.
Seed production and dispersal. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54,
613-619.
Gardener MR, Whalley RDB & Sindel BM (2003b) Ecology of Nassella neesiana, Chilean
needle grass, in pastures on the northern tablelands of New South Wales. II.
Seedbank dynamics, seed germination, and seedling recruitment. Australian
Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 621-626.
57
Garrard GE (2009) Dealing with imperfect detectability in biological surveys for
native grassland management. School of Global Studies, Social Science and
Planning. PhD Thesis. RMIT University, Melbourne.
Gaur S, McLaren D, Butler K (2005) Spraytopping as a management tool to reduce
seed production in Chilean needle grass infestations. In: proceedings of the
Tussock Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005), pp. 36-42.
Gibson-Roy P, Delpratt J & Moore J (2007a) Restoring the Victorian Western (Basalt)
Plains grassland. 1. Laboratory trials of viability and germination, and the
implications for direct seeding. Ecological Management and Restoration 8, 114122.
Gibson-Roy P, Delpratt J & Moore J (2007b) Restoring the Victorian Western (Basalt)
Plains grassland. 2. Field emergence, establishment and recruitment following
direct seeding. Ecological Management and Restoration 8, 123-132.
Gibson-Roy P (2008) Reconstructing Complex Grassland on Agricultural Sites by
Direct Seeding: Learnings from a 3 Year, Field-scale, Experimental Study.
Australasian Plant Conservation 16, 22-23
Gordon A, Langford WT, White MD, Todd JA, Bastin L (2011) Modelling trade offs
between public and private conservation policies. Biological Conservation 144,
558-566.
Gott B (1999) Koorie use and management of the Plains. In: The Great Plains Crash.
Proceedings of a conference on the grasslands and grassy woodlands of
Victoria. R. Jones (Ed.) Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association, Melbourne, pp.
41-45.
Gray CM, McDougall I (2009) K-Ar geochronology of basalt petrogenesis, Newer
Volcanic Province, Victoria. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 245-258.
Grech C, McLaren D, Chapman D, Sindel B (2005) Chilean needle grass (Nassella
neesiana) – integrated grazing for success. In: proceedings of the Tussock
Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005), pp. 11-14.
Hamer AJ, Organ A (2008) Aspects of the ecology and conservation of the Growling
Grass Frog Litoria raniformis in an urban fringe environment, southern
Victoria. Australian Zoologist 34, 393-407.
Hare AG, Cas RA, Musgrave R, Phillips D (2005) Magnetic and chemical stratigraphy
for the Werribee Plains basaltic lava flow-field, Newer Volcanics Province,
southeast Australia: implications for eruption frequency. Australian Journal of
Earth Sciences 52, 41-57.
Heard GW, Robertson P, Scroggie MP (2008) Microhabitat preferences of the
endangered Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) in Souther Vicitoria,
Australia. Australian Zoologist 34, 414-425.
Heard GW, Scroggie M (2009) Assessing the impacts of urbanisation on Growling
Grass Frog metapopulations. Report to the Victorian Department of
Sustainability and Environment. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental
Research, Heidelberg.
58
Heard GW, Scroggie M, Clemann N (2010) Guidelines for managing the endangered
Growling Grass Frog in urbanising landscapes. Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research Technical report 208. Department of Sustainability
and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.
Higgins SI & Richardson DM (1996) A review of models of alien plant spread.
Ecological Modelling 87, 249-265.
Hobbs RJ, Humphries SE (1994) An integrated approach to the ecology and
management of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 9, 761-770.
Hocking C (2005) Chilean needle grass – potential impacts and control. In:
proceedings of the Tussock Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005),
pp. 27-31.
Hulbert LC (1984) Fire effects on tall-grass prairie. Proceedings of the 9th North
American Prairie Conference. pp 138-142.
Johnson BL (1999) Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management scientifically sound, socially challenged? Conservation Ecology 3, 10. [online]
URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art10/
Lane S (2009) Aboriginal Stone Structures in Southwestern Victoria. A report to
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Quality Archealogical Consulting, Collingwood, Vic.
Lang RD (2008) Defining the original extent and floristic composition of the
naturally-treeless grasslands of the Liverpool Plains, North Western Slopes, New
South Wales. Cunninghamia 10, 407-421.
Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3, 3. [online]
URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/
Lovett Doust L (1981) Population dynamics and local specialisation in a clonal
perennial (Ranunculus repens). 1. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting
habitats. Journal of Ecology 69, 743-755.
Lunt ID (1991) Management of remnant lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands
for nature conservation: a review. The Victorian Naturalist 108, 56-66.
Lunt ID (1997) Effects of long-term vegetation management on remnant grassy
forests and anthropogenic native grasslands in south-eastern Australia.
Biological Conservation 81, 287-297.
Lunt ID, Morgan JW (1999) Vegetation Changes after 10 Years of Grazing Exclusion
and Intermittent Burning in a Themeda triandra (Poaceae) Grassland Reserve in
South-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 47, 537-552.
Lunt ID, Morgan JW (2002) The role of fire regimes in temperate lowland grasslands
of south-eastern Australia. In ‘Flammable Australia: the Fire Regimes and
Biodiversity of a Continent’. (Eds R Bradstock, JWilliams, AM Gill) pp. 305–326.
(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Massola A (1969) Journey to Aboriginal Victoria. Rigby Ltd.
59
McArthur K & Platt SJ (2005) New Initiatives for Weed Management on Public Land in
Victoria. Plant Protection Quarterly 20, 103-104.
McDougall K (1987) Sites of Botanical Significance in the Western Region of
Melbourne. Western Region Commission Incorporated and Department of
Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria.
McDougall K (1999) Grassland, grassland, über alles. In: Jones R (1999) (Ed.) The
Great Plains Crash. Proceedings of a conference on the grasslands and grassy
woodlands of Victoria. Victorian Institute of Technology, October 1992.
Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association & Victorian National Parks Association.
pp. 47-52.
McIntyre S & Lavorel S (2007) A conceptual model of land use effects on the structure
and function of herbaceous vegetation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
119, 11–21.
McLaren DA, Stajsic V & Iaconis L (2004) The distribution, impacts and identification
of exotic stipoid grasses in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 2004.
McLaren DA, Ramasamy S, Lawrie AC, Pritchard G, Morfe TA (2005) The national
serrated tussock survey – impacts and implications of its resistance to the
herbicide flupropanate in Australia. In: proceedings of the Tussock
Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005), pp. 46-52.
McLellen R (1995) The dry stone walls of Victoria’s western district. Historic
Environment 11.
McNeely JA (1994) Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to
society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3, 390-405.
Moerkerk M (2005) Machinery hygiene – what’s on our vehicles? In: proceedings of
the Tussock Terminators Research Forum (2-3 November2005), pp. 50-52.
Moles AT, Gruber MAM & Bonser SP (2008) A new framework for predicting invasive
plant species. Journal of Ecology 96, 13-17.
Moloney D (2006) Shire of Melton Heritage Study (draft) Available at:
www.melton.vic.gov.au
Moody ME & Mack RN (1988) Controlling the spread of plant invasions: the
importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology 25, 1009-1021.
Morgan JW (1998) Patterns of invasion of an urban remnant of a species-rich
grassland in southeastern Australia by non-native plant species. Journal of
Vegetation Science 9, 181-190.
Morgan JW (1999) Have tubestock plantings successfully established populations of
rare grassland species into reintroduction sites in western Victoria? Biological
Conservation 89, 235-243.
Morgan JW (2004) Bryophyte composition in a native grassland community subjected
to different long-term fire regimes. Cunninghamia 8, 485-489
60
Morgan JW & Lunt ID (1999) Effects of time-since-fire on the tussock dynamics of a
dominant grass (Themeda triandra) in a temperate Australian grassland.
Biological Conservation 88, 379-386.
Moseby KE, Read JL (2005) The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion fence
designs for threatened species protection. Biological Conservation 127, 429437.
Nixon T (1859) Country lots in the Parishes of Balliang and Mouyong, County of
Grant. Crown Lands Office (PROV Features Plan 240)
NRE (2002) Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management - A framework for Action.
Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.
Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the
‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management and Restoration 4, 29-38.
Parks Victoria (2002) Linking people and spaces: a strategy for Melbourne’s open
space network. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
Parks Victoria (2009) Linking People and Spaces 2010. A Background Paper: October
2009.
Patton RT (1935) Ecological studies in Victoria. Part IV- Basalt plains association.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 48, 172-191.
Phillips A (2000) A method for replacing serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma) with
Kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) in lowland native grassland remnants.
Master of Science Thesis, Vitoria University.
Platt S, Adair R, White M, Sinclair S (2006) Regional priority-setting for weed
management on public land in Victoria. Second Victorian Weed Conference—
Smart weed control, managing for success.
Pyke GH (2002) A review of the biology of the Southern Bell Frog Litoria raniformis
(Anura: Hylidae) Australian Zoologist 32, 32-48.
Pysek P & Richardson DM (2007) Traits associated with invasive alien plants: where
do we stand? Pp 98-111. In: Nentwig W (Ed) Biological Invasions, SpringerVerlag, Berlin.
Reinert HK (1991) Translocation as a conservation strategy for amphibians and
reptiles: some comments, concerns, and observations. Herpetologica 47, 357363.
Ringold PL, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Mulder BS, Tolle T & Burnett K (1996) Adaptive
monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6, 745747.
Rosengren N (1986) Sites of Geological and Geomorphological Significance in the
Western Region of Melbourne. Prepared by the Department of Geography,
University of Melbourne for Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands,
Arthur Rylah Institute, Ecological Inventory and Evaluation Section.
61
Rosengren N (1999) Geology and geomporphology of Victoria’s grassland regions. In:
Jones R (1999) (Ed.) The Great Plains Crash. Proceedings of a conference on the
grasslands and grassy woodlands of Victoria. Victorian Institute of
Technology, October 1992. Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association & Victorian
National Parks Association. 7-10.
Rumpff L, Duncan DH & Tolsma AD (2009) Detecting short-term change in the
structure and composition of dry grassy forest. Australian Government,
Department of the Environment Water, Heritage and the Arts. Landscape Logic,
Technical report 10 (www.landscapelogic.org.au).
Rumpff L, Duncan DH, Vesk PA, Keith DA, Wintle BA (2010) State-and-transition
modelling for Adaptive Management of native woodlands. Biological
Conservation [in press Dec 2010].
Scarlett N (1994) Soil crusts, germination and weeds- issues to consider. The
Victorian Naturalist 111, 125-130
Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C & Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in
ecosystems. Nature 413, 591-596.
Schulz M, Beardsell C & Sandiford k (1991) Sites of faunal significance in the western
wetlands of Melbourne. Wildlife Branch, Department of Conservation and
Environment, East Melbourne.
Schultz NL, Morgan JW, Lunt ID (2010) Effects of grazing exclusion on plant species
richness and phytomass accumulation vary across a regional productivity
gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science [in press]
Sinclair SJ, Atchison K (under review, Cunninghamia) The pre-colonial distribution of
grasslands, woodlands and forests on the Werribee Plains, Victoria.
Stewart G (1977) The Newer Volcanics lava field between Deer Park and the Werribee
River. Geological Survey of Victoria, 1977/26.
Stuwe J, Parsons RF (1977) Themeda australis grasslands on the Basalt Plains,
Victoria: Floristics and management effects. Australian Journal of Ecology 2, 67476.
Sutton CS (1916-1917) A sketch of the Keilor Plains flora. The Victorian Naturalist
33, 112-143.
Thomas L, Middleton J (2003) Guidelines for management planning of protected
areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 79pp.
Travis JMJ & Park KJ (2004) Spatial structure and the control of invasive alien species.
Animal Conservation 7, 321-330.
Tyers G, Grech C, Baldyga N (2004) Machinery Hygeine. Landcare Notes January 2004
LCO425. Department of Primary Industries.
VNPA (Victorian National Parks Association) (2010) Issues Paper: Planning Process
failing Victoria’s alpine parks.
62
Walters C.(1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New
York.
Waters CM (2001) Guiding the delimitation of local provenance for Australian native
grasses. Second National Conference of the Native Grasses Association.
Watkinson AR, Ormerod SJ (2001) Grasslands, grazing and biodiversity: editors’
introduction (to special issue). Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 233-237.
Wedge JH (1835) ‘Field book’. State Library of Victoria [available online:
www.slv.vic.gov.au]
West S, Jones C (2009) The contribution of public land to Melbourne’s liveability.
McCaughey Centre Melbourne University, NiCHE Research Group, Deakin
University; and The Centre for Design RMIT University (2009). Available at:
http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/reports/0909_liveability_lowres.pdf.
Westoby M, Walker B, Noy-Meir I (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands
not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42, 266-274.
Williams JA & West CJ (2000) Environmental weeds in Australia and New Zealand:
issues and approaches to management. Austral Ecology 25, 425-444.
Williams NSG, McDonnell MJ, Seager EJ (2005) Factors influencing the loss of an
endangered ecosystem in an urbanising landscape: a case study of native
grasslands from Melbourne, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 71, 3549.
Willis JH (1964) Vegetation of the basalt plains in western Victoria. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Victoria 77, 397–418.
Wilson JB & Lee WG (1989) Infiltration invasion. Functional Ecology 3, 379-382.
Yen A (1999) Grassland Invertebrates of the Western Victorian Basalt Plains: Plant
Crunchers or Forgotten Lunches? In: Jones R (1999) (Ed.) The Great Plains
Crash. Proceedings of a conference on the grasslands and grassy woodlands of
Victoria. Victorian Institute of Technology, October 1992. Indigenous Flora and
Fauna Association & Victorian National Parks Association. pp 57-68.
Zimmer H, Turner V, Mavromahalis J & Moxham C (2008) Monitoring the on-farm
grazing management of critically endangered natural temperate grasslands of
the Victorian Volcanic Plain. Proceedings of the 6th STIPA National Native
Grasslands Conference Horsham, Vic. 9th – 11th November 2008. pp. 52-60.
63