* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Western Grassland Reserves interim management
Survey
Document related concepts
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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