Category Archives: Community involvement

Long Swamp, Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Victoria

Mark Bachmann

Key words: wetland restoration, Ramsar, hydrology, Glenelg River, drainage

Long Swamp is a 15 km long coastal freshwater wetland complex situated in Discovery Bay Coastal Park, approximately 50 km north-west from Portland in south-western Victoria. The wetland system supports a diverse suite of nationally threatened species and is currently undergoing a Ramsar nomination process. Despite its size, reserved status and impressive biodiversity values, including recognition on the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, the local community in Nelson had expressed concern for over a decade about the impact that two artificial outlets to the ocean were having on wetland condition. The outlets were cut during an era when the swamp was grazed, many decades before being dedicated as a conservation reserve in the 1970s.

The wetland originally discharged into the ocean via Oxbow Lake and the Glenelg River mouth at Nelson. These changes to hydrology caused an interruption of flows, contributing to a long-term drying trend within the wetland complex.    This was not immediately obvious to many as the gradual drying of wetlands in a natural area is often less noticeable than in a cleared agricultural area, driven by a seamless and gradual shift towards more terrestrial species within the composition of native vegetation (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Shrub (Leptospermum lanigerum) encroachment into sedgeland underway in Long Swamp.

In 2012, Nature Glenelg Trust (NGT) became actively involved in Long Swamp, working closely with Parks Victoria, the Nelson Coast Care Group, and the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. The initial involvement was to undertake a scientific review of the aquatic ecological values that might be impacted by the ecological shifts anecdotally observed to be underway. This early work identified that the more remote artificial outlet to the sea (White Sands) had in fact naturally closed, with a dune forming in front of the former channel several years earlier during the Millennium Drought (c. 2005). This formed an area of aquatic habitat immediately upstream of the former outlet that is now home to a diverse native freshwater fish community, including two nationally threatened fish species, the Yarra Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca obscura) and Dwarf Galaxias (Galaxiella pusilla). This observation and other investigations led to the planning of a restoration trial aimed at regulating or possibly blocking the second and final artificial outlet at Nobles Rocks to increase the availability, diversity and connectivity of aquatic habitats throughout Long Swamp, in order to benefit a wide range of wetland dependant species.

As well as undertaking basic monitoring across a broad range of taxonomic groups (birds, vegetation, frogs), the project has a particular emphasis on native freshwater fish populations as a primary indicator of project success.

Figure 2 – Aerial view of Nobles Rocks artificial outlet, detailing the location of the three trial sandbag structures.

Figure 2 . Aerial view of Nobles Rocks artificial outlet, detailing the location of the three trial sandbag structures.

Figure 3 - NGT staff members celebrate the completion of the third and final sandbag structure with some of the many dedicated volunteers from the local community.

Figure 3. Nature Glenelg Trust staff members celebrate the completion of the third and final sandbag structure with some of the many dedicated volunteers from the local community.

Reversal of artificial outlet impact over three phases.

The first two stages of the restoration trial in May and July 2014 involved 56 volunteers from the community working together to construct low-level temporary sandbag structures, initially at the most accessible and technically feasible sections of drain under flowing conditions. Tackling the project in stages enabled us to learn sufficient information about the hydrological conditions at the site in 2014, before commencing the third and final stage of the trial in March 2015. On the 27th April 2015, the main structure was completed, following two days of preparation and nine days of sandbagging (using about 6,600 sandbags), which were put in place with the dedicated help of over 30 volunteers (see Figs 3 and 4). To achieve our target operating height, the structure was raised by a further 30 cm in August 2015.

A series of gauge boards with water depth data loggers were also placed at key locations in the outlet channel and upstream into Long Swamp proper, to monitor the change in water levels throughout each stage of restoration and into the future.

Fig 4a. Long swamp

Figure 4a. View of the Phase 3 Restoration Trial Structure location prior to construction in March 2015.

Fig 4b. Long swamp

Figure 4b. Same location in June 2015, after construction of the Restoration Trial Structure.

Results to date.

Water levels in the swamp immediately upstream of the final structure increased, in the deepest portion of Long Swamp, from 34 cm (in April 2015) to 116 cm (in early September 2015). Further upstream, in a shallower area more representative of the impact on Long Swamp in the adjacent wider area, levels increased from being dry in April 2015, 14 cm deep in May, through to 43 cm deep in early September 2015, as shown in Figure 5. This is a zone where the shrub invasion is typical of the drying trend being observed in Long Swamp, and hence will be an important long-term monitoring location.

To evaluate the response of habitat to short and longer-term hydrological change, we also undertook longer-term landscape change analysis through GIS-based interpretation of aerial photography. This showed that we have currently recovered approximately 60 hectares of total surface water at Nobles Rocks, not including larger gains across downstream habitats as a result of groundwater mounding, sub-surface seepage and redirected surface flows that have also been observed.  These initial results and longer-term outcomes for targets species of native plants and animals will be detailed fully in future reports.

Fig 5a. Long swamp

Figure 5a. Further inland in the swamp after the Phase 3 structure was complete, shown here in May 2015. Depth – 14 cm.

Fig 5b. Long swamp

Figure 5b. Same photopoint 4 months later in September 2015. Depth – 43 cm.

Lessons learned and future directions.Meaningful community participation has been one of the most critical ingredients in the success of this project so far, leading to a strong sense of shared achievement for all involved. Monitoring will continue to guide the next steps of the project, with the ultimate aim of informing a consensus view (among those with shared interest in the park) for eventually converting the trial structure to a permanent solution.

Acknowledgements. Project partners include Parks Victoria, Nelson Coast Care Group, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA and the Friends of the Great South West Walk. Volunteers from several other groups have also assisted with the trials. Grant funding was generously provided by the Victorian Government.

Contact. Mark Bachmann, Nature Glenelg Trust, PO Box 2177, MT GAMBIER, SA 5290 Australia, Tel +61 8 8797 8181, Mob 0421 97 8181, Email: mark.bachmann@natureglenelg.org.au  Web: www.natureglenelg.org.au

See also:

Bradys Swamp EMR short summary

Picanninnie Ponds EMR short summary

Brady Swamp wetland complex, Grampians National Park, Victoria

Mark Bachmann

Key words: wetland restoration, Wannon River, hydrology, drainage, Gooseneck Swamp

A series of wetlands associated with the floodplain of the Wannon River (Walker, Gooseneck, and Brady Swamps), situated approximately 12 km north east of Dunkeld in western Victoria, were partially drained from the 1950s onwards for grazing purposes (Fig 1). A portion of these wetlands was later acquired and incorporated into the Grampians National Park (and other peripheral reserves) in the mid-1980s, managed by Parks Victoria. However, the balance of the wider wetland and floodplain area remained under private ownership, creating a degree of uncertainty surrounding reinstatement of water regime – an issue that was left unresolved for over two decades.

Many years of planning work, including modelling studies and biological investigations by a range of organisations, never quite managed to adequately resolve the best way to design and progress wetland restoration work in this area. To address the impasse, at the request of the Glenelg Hopkins CMA in early 2013, Nature Glenelg Trust proposed a staged restoration trial process which was subsequently agreed to by landowners, neighbours, government agencies, and local community groups.

Figure 1. Image from the present day: showing artificial drains (red lines/arrows) constructed to drain Walker, Gooseneck and Brady Swamps, as it operated from the 1950s–2013.

Figure 1. Image from the present day: showing artificial drains (red lines/arrows) constructed to drain Walker, Gooseneck and Brady Swamps, as it operated from the 1950s–2013.

Trials and permanent works undertaken.

Initial trials. The restoration process began in August 2013 with the installation of the first trial sandbag weir structure to regulate the artificial drain at Gooseneck Swamp. Its immediate success in reinstating wetland levels led to similar trials being initiated at Brady Swamp and Walker Swamp (Fig. 2) in 2014.

Figure 2. The volunteer sandbagging crew at the artificial drainage outlet from Walker Swamp - August 2014.

Figure 2. The volunteer sandbagging crew at the artificial drainage outlet from Walker Swamp – August 2014.

Permanent works were ultimately undertaken to reinstate the breached natural earthen banks at Brady and Gooseneck Swamps (Figure 3), implemented by Nature Glenelg Trust in early 2015.

Figure 3a. Trial Structure on the Brady Swamp outlet drain in 2014

Figure 3b. The same view shown in Figure 3a, after the completion of permanent works in 2015

Results. The works have permanently reinstated the alternative, original watercourse and floodplain of the Wannon River, which now activates when the water levels in these wetlands reach their natural sill level. This is predicted to have a positive impact on a wide range of flora and fauna species.

Monitoring is in place to measure changes to vegetation and the distribution and status of key fauna species, such as waterbirds, fish and frogs. Due to drought conditions experienced in 2015, to is too early to describe the full ecological impact of the works at this time.

4. Gooseneck Swamp in Sept 2014: the second season of the restoration trial, just prior to the implementation of permanent restoration works

Figure 4. Gooseneck Swamp in Sept 2014: the second season of the restoration trial, just prior to the implementation of permanent restoration works

Lessons learned. The success of these trials has been based on their tangible ability to demonstrate, to all parties involved, the potential wetland restoration outcome for the sites; made possible by using simple, low-cost, impermanent methods. To ensure the integrity of the trial structures, the sandbags used for this purpose are made of geotextile fabric, with a minimum field service life of approximately 5 years.

The trials were critical for building community confidence and collecting real operational data for informing the development of longer-term measures to increase the depth and duration of inundation.

A vital aspect of the trials has been the level of community participation, not only at the sandbagging “events”, but also the subsequent commitment to ecological monitoring, for helping evaluate the biological impacts of hydrological reinstatement. For example, the Hamilton Field Naturalists Club has been undertaking monthly bird monitoring counts that are helping Nature Glenelg Trust to develop a picture of the ecological value of these wetlands and their role in the wider landscape, including the detection of international migratory species.

Acknowledgements. Project partners include Parks Victoria, Hamilton Field Naturalists Club, the Glenelg Hopkins CMA, Macquarie Forestry and other private landholders. Volunteers from several other groups have also assisted with the trials. Grant funding was generously provided by the Victorian Government.

Contact. Mark Bachmann, Nature Glenelg Trust, PO Box 2177, MT GAMBIER, SA 5290 Australia. Tel +61 8 8797 8181, Mob 0421 97 8181; Email mark.bachmann@natureglenelg.org.au. Web| www.natureglenelg.org.au

See also:

Long Swamp EMR short summary

Picanninnie Ponds EMR short summary

Update of landowner and community engagement in Regent Honeyeater Habitat Restoration Project – Lurg Hills, Victoria

Ray Thomas

Key words: community engagement, environmental education, habitat restoration

The Regent Honeyeater Project in the Lurg Hills, near Benalla in Victoria, is a habitat restoration project that emphasises that a key to biodiversity conservation is working well with the people who live in the landscape.  In fact the biodiversity gains in the 21 years of remnant protection, plantings and habitat provision in the Lurg Hills, would not have been possible without the support of landowners (who have given their land, their enthusiasm and time to the project) and the many community groups and individuals who come to help with the plantings.  The latest update on landowner and community engagement quoted from the  March 2016 update is as follows.

Increased social engagement. In the last 6 years we have increased the number of visits to planting days by 50 per cent. There has been a steady growth in the number of new local landholders involved and the total number is now 160 landholders engaged, compared with 115 in 2009. Everyone we come across knows of the project and anyone new to the area hears about it from one of their neighbours. Very few people (you could count them on one hand), say they would rather not be involved. In fact we increasingly get cold calls from new people who have observed what has happened on their neighbour’s place and then phone us to say they want to be involved. It’s a positive indication that the project is part of the spirit of the area. This was further confirmed by the inclusion, of a very detailed Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) mural in a recent street art painting exhibition. The permanent artwork is the size of a house wall, and situated prominently in the heart of the parklands of Benalla.

Much of our work has relied heavily on volunteers, with a total of 10,344 students and 24,121 community volunteers involved over the past 21 years. City folk have fewer opportunities to be in nature, with the bushwalking clubs, university students and scouts in particular, really keen to come and roll up their sleeves.

Typically about 17 to 20 of the local schools, primary and secondary, help us with propagating the seedlings at the start of each year and then planting their own seedlings back out into the field in the winter and spring. And we are increasingly getting interest from metropolitan schools that come to the country for a week-long camp. Some of the schools even have their own permanent camps up here and they want to be involved with our hands on work too. “It’s simply part of our environmental responsibility”, is the way they express it.

Contact: Ray Thomas, Coordinator of the Regent Honeyeater Project Inc (PO Box 124, Benalla, Vic. 3672, Australia; Tel: +61 3 5761 1515. Email: ray@regenthoneater.org.au

READ MORE

Nowanup: Healing country, healing people

Keith Bradby, Eugene Eades, Justin Jonson, Barry Heydenrych.

Key words: Noongar, Gondwana Link, cultural restoration, ecological restoration, design

Introduction. Greening Australia’s 754 ha Nowanup property was one of the first purchased with donor funds to help achieve the Gondwana Link programme’s goal of reconnecting native habitats across south-western Australia (Fig 1). The ecological work of Gondwana Link is underpinned by the involvement of people living within the region’s landscapes.

Nowanup (Fig 2) is a visually compelling place, with rising breakaway mesas, broad sweeping plains, and views south down the Corackerup valley and south west to the Stirling Range. Its remaining native vegetation systems are dominated by mallee shrublands, mallet and moort woodlands and banksia heathlands. It contains large populations of the locally endemic eucalypts Corackerup Moort (Eucalyptus vesiculosa) and Corackerup Mallet (E. melanophitra) and it is expected that additional rare flora species will be found. It also supports populations of a range of threatened fauna species including Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata), Western Whipbird (Psophodes nigrogularis), Shy Groundwren (Hylacola cauta whitlocki), Crested Bellbird (Oreoica gutturalis gutturalis) and Black-gloved wallaby (Macropus irma). The original native vegetation remains in the upper section of the property (Fig 3), though much of this area has been cleared and burnt for farming, but never farmed. The farmland areas are now largely replanted.

Fig 1 Fitz-Stirling Corridor

Fig. 1. Nowanup is part of the broader Gondwana Link Program

Fig 2. Nowanup rock features

Fig. 2. Nowanup has visually compelling rock features and expansive landscapes.

Cultural significance. The groups involved in Gondwana Link support a range of social and cultural activities involving donors, farmers, government agencies, research bodies, industry groups and various landcare and natural resource management groups. Primary among these are the Aboriginal People, which for Nowanup is the local Noongar community.

Many Noongar elders knew the area well before it was cleared for farming, and speak of its cultural significance. Cultural mapping on the property has underlined that significance by locating a number of cultural sites and concentrations of artefacts. After purchase in 2004 the property was made available to the Noongar community, to support their aspirations, and Noongar leader Eugene Eades resides on Nowanup. Initially employed by Greening Australia as an Indigenous Engagement Officer, and now running camps and events at Nowanup as a Noongar led program, Eugene liaises with educational, corrections and welfare institutions and agencies to coordinate a range of educational and rehabilitation programmes. Eugene has also managed, with a team of young Noongar men, construction of a ‘Meeting Place’ that has assumed considerable significance for the local Noongar community (Fig 4).

Located in the heart of the Fitz-Stirling section of Gondwana Link, with its striking scenic qualities, a powerful sense of place, basic building infrastructure, cultural ‘Meeting Place’, and resident Noongar manager, Nowanup has become the focus for educational and cultural activities and programmes in the Fitz-Stirling, including an increasing level of Noongar involvement in the restoration plantings. These have included planting seedlings during community days and the expert planting of thousands of seedlings by four Noongar boys undertaking an eight week justice diversion program under Eugene Eades.

Fig 3 Nowanup aerial 2014. Courtesy Airpix

Fig. 3. The upper section of the property contains remnant or regrowth native vegetation, with the rest actively farmed prior to the revegetation

Approximately 340ha of the northern portion of the property is remnant bushland, with approximately 350 hectares of cleared land to the south, which has now been largely revegetated, including with trials of local species with commercial potential.

Some of the earlier plantings reflected a low-diversity revegetation approach, which was later improved across Gondwana Link plantings to better reflect the goal of ecological restoration modelled on local reference sites (see Monjebup summary). Nowanup’s early revegetation efforts were also impacted by difficulties in achieving good germination of a number of species on the sites difficult clay soils, with the result that many areas are dominated by a few species of eucalypts and acacias. These have been enriched recently by in-fill plantings which also demonstrate an improvement in the standard of work over 10 years. This has included improvements in the agronomy of direct seeding techniques (by Geoff Woodall), such as using direct drilling instead of scalping, that Greening Australia undertook in 2014, and which has subsequently been more widely used. In addition, integration of cultural and ecological aspects was advanced through a 2015 direct seeding project collaboratively designed by Eugene Eades and restoration practitioner Justin Jonson, which integrates indigenous cultural meaning and values into an ecological restoration project (Fig 4). The planting is only a year old, but the integration of cultural values and the sites biophysical conditions into one inclusive design is a powerful and innovative step forward. The site has been coined ‘Karta-Wongkin-Jini’ by Mr. Eades, which means ‘place where people come together’, and , with fantastic germination to date, is on track to serve as an important demonstration of culturally informed ecological restoration in practice.

Fig 4. Cultural EcoRestoration Systems 2015

Fig. 4. Eco-restoration design by Eugene Eades and Justin Jonson

Fig5. Cultural presentation Nowanup

Fig. 5. Schoolchildren enjoying a cultural presentation at the ‘Meeting Place’

Healing nature, healing people. Greening Australia was committed from the outset to engagement of the Noongar community in its operation in the Fitz-Stirling section of Gondwana Link. A cultural benefit of the project that was largely unforeseen but which developed rapidly has been the realization of the opportunities Nowanup presents for a range of programmes that support young Noongars at risk, as well as for rehabilitation and respite care. Eugene Eades has already supervised several Court arranged and respite care programmes on the property, and there is intense interest from a wide range of organisations in utilizing Eugene and Nowanup for running an extended range of programmes in the future (Fig 5). A project focused on the healing of country has great potential also for healing people.

The running of such programmes is out of scope for a conservation NGO whose mission is the transformation of landscape at scale. The programmes to date have made do with the very basic infrastructure that currently exists on Nowanup, with Greening plus supporters and donors subsidizing Eugene’s role in managing the programmes. Even while operating on this ad hoc basis, the programmes have proved Nowanup’s enormous potential for expanded cultural and social endeavours in the future. Greening Australia is keen to contribute to a transition that will allow for Nowanup’s full potential for such purposes to be realized.

Fig 6. Noongar planters by Ron D'Raine

Fig 6. Elder Aden Eades, Eugene Eades and Bill Woods lead a community planting day on Nowanup

Issues and Options. The framework plantings and larger scale direct seeding on Nowanup is now essentially complete, with the last significant works having been undertaken in 2015 – although infill plantings and seeding will occur as funding allows (Fig 6). From this point on, continuing conservation management of the property is required to ensure its contribution to ecological health in the Fitz-Stirling increases as the restoration work matures. With Greening Australia’s key focus on ecological restoration, there is no reason why properties that have been restored should not be subsequently divested to alternative ownership, so long as the necessary conservation covenants and management arrangements are in place. With Nowanup this would ideally be a body representative of local Noongar community interests. With both the original habitat areas and the revegetation and restoration areas already under protective covenant, the agreements and arrangements can be put in place to provide certainty for investment by corrections and/or welfare agencies into the infrastructure required to run properly-resourced programmes on the property. Nowanup will then be better placed to realize its full potential in healing country and people.

Funding: Revegetation costs were largely met through the Reconnections program, funded by Shell Australia, the Commonwealth Government’s Biodiversity Fund and 20 Million Trees Programme. Eugene Eades funds the cultural and social programs as a private business. Gondwana Link Ltd and Greening Australia provide support as needed.

Contact: Keith Bradby, Gondwana Link. PO Box 5276, Albany WA 6332. Phone: +61 (0)8 9842 0002. Email: bradby@gondwanalink.org

Read also EMR project summaries:

 

Donaghy’s Corridor – Restoring tropical forest connectivity

Key words: tropical forest restoration, habitat connectivity, small mammal recolonisation, ecological processes, community partnerships.

Introduction. Closed forest species are considered especially susceptible to the effects of forest fragmentation and habitat isolation. The Wet Tropics of north Queensland contains many forest fragments between 1ha and 500ha, mostly surrounded by dairy and beef pastures, and crops such as maize, sugar cane and bananas. Larger blocks are often internally fragmented by roads and powerlines. The Lake Barrine section of Crater Lakes National Park is a 498ha fragment that is 1.2km distant from the 80,000ha Wooroonooran N.P, and ecologically isolated since the 1940s with detectable effects on genetic diversity of rainforest mammals.

In 1995 the Qld Parks and Wildlife Service, along with landholders and the local ecological restoration group TREAT Inc., began riparian forest restoration along Toohey Creek to re-connect the Barrine fragment to Wooroonooran and to document colonisation by small mammals and native plants typically associated with rain forest environments (Fig 1).

AERIAL VIEW

Fig 1. Donahy’s Corridor, Atherton Tablelands, linking Crater Lakes NP and Wooroonooran NP, Qld (Photo TREAT).

Connectivity Works. Prior to works commencement, small mammal communities (e.g. Rattus spp. and Melomys spp.) along and adjacent to Toohey Creek were sampled, along with a full vegetation survey, to determine base-line community composition and structure. Permanent stock exclusion fencing was erected and off-stream stock watering points established.

A 100m wide corridor of vegetation was established over a four year period using local provenances of 104 native species comprising around 25% pioneer species, 10% Ficus spp., and the remainder from selected primary and secondary species. In total, 20,000 trees, shrubs and vines were planted along the creek, and a three-row shelterbelt was planted adjacent to the corridor to reduce edge effects. Species were selected on a trait basis, including suitability as food plants for targeted local fauna e.g. Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii).

Ecological furniture (e.g., rocks, logs) was placed prior to planting. On completion, the 16ha Donaghy’s Corridor Nature Refuge was declared over the area, recognising the Donaghy family’s significant land donation and the corridor’s protection by legislation. A three year monitoring program, conducted quarterly, commenced on completion of planting.

TREAT2012Donaghy'sCorridor22

Fig. 2. Developing rainforest in Donahys Corridor (Photo Campbell Clarke)

Monitoring. Flora monitoring was conducted along transects bisecting the four annual plantings (1995/96/97/98), and small mammal colonisation in 11, 20m x 20m plots located in the plantings, adjacent open paddocks, and in forests at either end. Small mammal sampling included mark-recapture and DNA studies, to determine colonisation and movement patterns and genetic effects.

Results. Three years after establishment, over 4000 native plants were recorded – representing 119 species from 48 families. This included 35 species naturally dispersed from the adjacent forest (Figs 2 and 3). Small mammal sampling showed 16 long-distance movements by Rattus species and the appearance of an FI hybrid Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes) in the central section of the corridor in the third year of the study. The rainforest rodent Fawn-footed Melomys (Melomys cervinipes) had established territories in the second year of the study. A study of wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera)in ecological furniture showed 18 morpho-species in a three year period. Many other orders/families were also recorded.

Water quality in Toohey Creek was not studied but has continued to increase since the replacement exotic grasses with woody vegetation, and the exclusion of cattle from accessing the stream. There is increased shade available for stock and less pressure on the limited number of existing paddock shade trees.

TREAT2012Donaghy'sCorridor18

 Fig. 3. Indicators of rainforest structure (species and layering) and functions (habitat providion, nutrient cycling, recruitment) are now highly evident. (Photo Campbell Clarke).

What we learned.

  • Plant colonisation was rapid, dominated by fleshy-fruited species (10-30mm diameter), of which a proportion are long-lived climax species
  • Plant colonisation was initially highest in the interior, close to the creek margin, but has become more even over time
  • Vegetation structural complexity and life form diversity have continued to increase since establishment
  • Small mammal communities changed in response to habitat structure, grassland species dominate until weeds are shaded out when they are replaced by closed forest species
  • Many long distance mammal movements occurred that were only detected by genetic analysis
  • Monitoring showed small mammals used the new habitat to traverse from end to end until resources were worth defending: at that time long distance movements declined and re-capture of residents increased
  • Partnerships between government, research bodies, community groups, and landholders are essential if practical solutions to fragmentation are to be developed and applied

Acknowledgements: Trees for the Evelyn and Atherton Tableland acknowledges and appreciates the support of all the volunteers involved in this project, staff from the Qld Parks and Wildlife Service-Restoration Services, , James Cook University, University of Qld, Griffith University and UCLA Berkely. In particular we would like to acknowledge the Donaghy family.

Contact: TREAT Inc. PO Box 1119, Atherton. 4883 QLD Australia. http://www.treat.net.au/

SEE ALSO:

Global Restoration Network Top 25 report: http://www.treat.net.au/projects/index.html#donaghy

Watch the video on RegenTV – presented by Nigel Tucker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update on Regent Honeyeater Habitat Restoration Project (7 years on) – Lurg Hills, Victoria

Ray Thomas

Key words: Agricultural landscape, faunal recovery, community participation, seed production area

Twenty-one years of plantings in the Lurg Hills, Victoria, have seen a consolidation of the work described in the 2009 EMR feature Regent Honeyeater Habitat Restoration Project.  The priorities of the Project are to protect and restore remnants and enlarge them by add-on plantings. Together, this work has protected relatively healthy remnants by fencing; restored depleted remnants by planting or direct seeding; and revegetated open areas that had been cleared for agriculture. Other restoration activities include mistletoe removal, environmental weeding, environmental thinning; feral animal control, kangaroo reduction, nest box placement, and systematic monitoring of a range of threatened and declining woodland birds and hollow-dependent mammals.

Updated outputs since 2009. A further 540 ha of private land has now been planted (150 additional sites since 2009). This means the total area treated is now 1600ha on over 550 sites. The oldest plantings are now 19 years old and 10m high (compare to 12 years old and 6m high in 2009) (Fig 1).

The total number of seedlings planted is now approx. 620,000 seedlings compared with 385,000 in 2009. Some 280km fencing has been established compared with 190 km in 2009. Mistletoe now treated on scores of heavily infested sites

Foster's Dogleg Lane 19 yrs

Fig. 1. Ecosystem attributes developing in 19-year-old planting at Dogleg Lane (Foster’s). Note pasture grass weeds are gone, replaced by leaf litter, logs, understorey seedling recruitment, open soil areas.

Improvements in genetics and climate readiness. As reported in 2009, seed collection is carried out with regard for maximising the genetic spread of each species, to prevent inbreeding and more positively allow for evolution of the progeny as climate changes. This has meant collecting seed in neighbouring areas on similar geological terrain but deliberately widening the genetic base of our revegetation work. We are also attempting to create as broad bio-links as possible so that they are functional habitat in their own right (not just transit passages). This may allow wildlife to shift to moister areas as the country dries out. With a species richness of 35–40 plant species for each planting site, we also enable natural selection to shift the plant species dominance up or down slope as future soil moisture dictates.

2016 Update: In recent years we have engaged with geneticists from CSIRO Plant Division in Canberra, to improve the genetic health of our plantings. Many of our local plants that we assumed to be genetically healthy, have not recruited in our planting sites. For example, Common Everlasting (Chrysocephalum apiculatum) produces very little if any fertile seed each year because it is sterile to itself or its own progeny (Fig 2 video). In fragmented agricultural landscapes, it seems that many of our remnant plants have already become inbred, and it is seriously affecting fertility, form and vigor. The inbreeding level has affected fertility in this particular case, but we have several other cases where form and vigor are seriously affected as well.

Fig 2. Andie Guerin explaining the importance of collecting seed from larger populations. (Video)

Seed production area. We have now set up a seed production area (seed orchard) for about 30 local species that are ‘in trouble’, to ensure that the plants have sufficient genetic diversity to reproduce effectively and potentially adapt, should they need to as a result of a shifting climate. This will allow these populations to become self-sustaining. Each species is represented in the seed production area by propagules collected from typically10-15 different sites (up to 20kms and sometimes 50kms distant) and as many parents as we can find in each population.

We aim for at least 400 seedlings of each species, to ensure the genetic base is broad enough to have the potential for evolution in situ. The planting ratios are biased towards more from the bigger populations (that should have the best diversity), but deliberately include all the smaller populations to capture any unique genes they may have. We plant each population in separate parallel rows in the seed orchard to maximise the cross pollination and production of genetically diverse seed for future planting projects. We have noticed that the health of some of these varieties is greatly improving as a result of increasing the genetic diversity. On one site we direct-sowed Hoary Sunray, sourced from a large population, and it has since spread down the site very quickly (Fig 3).

Gary Bruce wildflower patch Orbweaver

Fig 3. Small sub-shrubs and herbaceous species are generally not planted in stage 1 of a project, as the weed levels are often too high for such small plants to succeed. These plants are only introduced in stage 2, when the weeds have diminished up to a decade later. This approach has been very successful with direct seeding and planting some of our rarer forbs.

Recruitment of Eucalypts now evident. Nearly 20 years on from the first plantings, we can report that quite a number of sites have eucalypts old enough to be flowering and seeding, and some of them are now recruiting. We are delighted that our early efforts to broaden the planting genetics are demonstrating success with such natural processes (Figs 1 and 3). Ironbark recruitment from our plantings commenced in 2014 and Red Box commenced in 2015.

Recruitment can also be seriously affected by herbivore problems, particularly rabbits. In recent years we have been undertaking careful assessments of rabbit load on a potential planting site and have gained some advantage by deploying an excavator with a ripper attached to the excavator arm. The excavator allows us to rip a warren right next to a tree trunk (in a radial direction), or work close to fence without damaging either. We’re finding this is providing a very good result. On one site we suspected there were a few warrens but it turned out to be just short of 30 warrens within 100 m of the site – each with 30-40 rabbit holes. After ripping all of those, we ended up with activity in only 2 of the warrens, which were then easily retreated.

We have had such good results with the rabbits on some sites that we are trialing planting without tree guards – it’s much more efficient on time, labour, and costs. And adjacent to bush areas, where kangaroos and wallabies are a significant threat to plantings, this process has an extra advantage. It seems that macropods learn that there is something tasty in the guards, so a guard actually attracts their attention. Our initial trials are producing some good results and given us confidence to expand our efforts with thorough rabbit control.

Faunal updates. An important objective of the project is to reinstate habitat on the more fertile soils favoured for agriculture, to create richer food resources for nectarivorous and hollow-dependent fauna including the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). In 2009 the Regent Honeyeater was nationally Endangered and was thought to be reduced to around 1500 individuals. By 2015, it was thought to be reduced to 500 individuals, and so has been reclassified as Critically Endangered.

Regent Honeyeaters have turned up in recent years in gully areas where the soils are deeper, the moisture and nectar production is better, and there is a bit more density to provide cover against the effects of aggressive honeyeaters like the Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala). The Regent Honeyeaters have been able to remain on such sites for around for a week or more, but have not bred on the sites to date. But breeding has occurred about 15kms away on the eastern edge of our project area. Radio-tracking showed that these breeding birds were some of the captive-bred birds released at Chiltern 100km further NE, and that the birds came towards Lurg after the Chiltern Ironbarks had finished flowering. We consider it to be just a matter of time before the Regent Honeyeaters will find the many habitat sites we’ve planted on higher productivity soils in the Lurg area.

Formal monitoring of Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis) for the past last 13 years has documented a rapid rise (due to some wetter years) from 60 birds in 19 family groups to approx. 220 birds in 21 family groups. There is also exciting evidence that the endangered Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) is returning to the Lurg district. The distinctive shredded Stringybark nests are now found in scores of our next boxes (up to 10km from the site of our first records of 2 dead specimens in the south of our project area in the mid 1990s). This dramatic population spread is presumably a direct result of our carefully located corridor plantings that have bridged the habitat gaps all across the district.

Increased social engagement. In the last 6 years we have increased the number of visits to planting days by 50 per cent. There has been a steady growth in the number of new local landholders involved and the total number is now 160 landholders engaged, compared with 115 in 2009. Everyone we come across knows of the project and anyone new to the area hears about it from one of their neighbours. Very few people (you could count them on one hand), say they would rather not be involved. In fact we increasingly get cold calls from new people who have observed what has happened on their neighbour’s place and then phone us to say they want to be involved. It’s a positive indication that the project is part of the spirit of the area. This was further confirmed by the inclusion, of a very detailed Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) mural in a recent street art painting exhibition. The permanent artwork is the size of a house wall, and situated prominently in the heart of the parklands of Benalla.

Much of our work has relied heavily on volunteers, with a total of 10,344 students and 24,121 community volunteers involved over the past 21 years. City folk have fewer opportunities to be in nature, with the bushwalking clubs, university students and scouts in particular, really keen to come and roll up their sleeves.

Typically about 17 to 20 of the local schools, primary and secondary, help us with propagating the seedlings at the start of each year and then planting their own seedlings back out into the field in the winter and spring. And we are increasingly getting interest from metropolitan schools that come to the country for a week-long camp. Some of the schools even have their own permanent camps up here and they want to be involved with our hands on work too. “It’s simply part of our environmental responsibility”, is the way they express it.

Contact: Ray Thomas, Coordinator of the Regent Honeyeater Project Inc (PO Box 124, Benalla, Vic. 3672, Australia; Tel: +61 3 5761 1515. Email: ray@regenthoneater.org.au

READ MORE

 

 

Conserving and restoring biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef through the Representative Areas Program (RAP)

Key words: Coral reef, no take zones,

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem (344,400 square km) and a World Heritage Area on the north-east coast of Australia. It contains a high diversity of endemic plants, animals and habitats. It is a multiple-use area with different zones in which a wide range of activities and uses are allowed, including tourism, fishing, recreation, traditional use, research, defence, shipping and ports. Components of the ecosystem have been progressively showing symptoms of decline.

TroutBarra3

Coral Trout is one of more than 1625 fish found on the Great Barrier Reef

Existing ecosystems. Coral reefs are like the building blocks of the Great Barrier Reef, and comprise about seven per cent of the ecosystem. The balance is an extraordinary variety of other marine habitats and communities ranging from shallow inshore areas to deep oceanic areas over 250 kilometres offshore and deeper than 1000 metres, along with their associated ecological processes. The abundant biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef includes:

  • Some 3000 coral reefs built from more than 400 species of hard coral
  • Over one-third of all the world’s soft coral and sea pen species (150 species)
  • Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle
  • The largest aggregation of nesting green turtles in the world
  • A globally significant population of dugongs
  • An estimated 35,000 square kilometres of seagrass meadows
  • A breeding area for humpback whales and other whale species
  • More than 130 species of sharks and rays
  • More than 2500 species of sponges
  • 3000 species of molluscs
  • 630 species of echinoderms
  • More than 1625 species of fish
  • Spectacular seascapes and landscapes such as Hinchinbrook Island and the Whitsundays
  • 215 species of bird
Crown-of-thorns single injection (C) GBRMPA cropped

Diver injecting Crown of Thorns Starfish

Impacts on the ecosystem. The main threats to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem are:

  • Climate change leading to ocean acidification, sea temperature rise and sea level rise
  • Catchment run-off of nutrients, pesticides and excessive sediments
  • Coastal development and associated activities such as clearing or modifying wetlands, mangroves and other coastal habitats
  • Overfishing of some predators, incidental catch of species of conservation concern, effects on other discarded species, fishing of unprotected spawning aggregations, and illegal fishing.
4. GBRMPA staff - public consultation(2)

GBRMPA staff meeting to plan and discuss Representative Areas Program (RAP) at Townsville offices

Restoration goals and planning. A primary aim of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is to increase biodiversity protection, with the added intent of enabling the recovery of areas where impacts had occurred. A strong foundation for this has been achieved through the Representative Areas Program, by developing a representative and comprehensive network of highly protected no-take areas, ensuring they included representative examples of all different habitat types.

The rezoning also provided an opportunity to revise all the zone types to more effectively protect the range of biodiversity.

A further aim was to maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts of rezoning on the existing Marine Park users.

These aims were achieved through a comprehensive program of scientific input, community involvement and innovation.

More information on the extensive consultation process is available at http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au.

6. green and yellow zone examples

An example of Green Zones (marine national park) and Yellow Zones  (conservation park)

Monitoring. An independent scientific steering committee with expertise in Great Barrier Reef ecosystems and biophysical processes was convened to define operational principles to guide the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of no-take areas in the Marine Park (Fernandes et al 2005). Science (both biophysical and social science) provided the best available information as a fundamental underpinning for the Representatives Areas Program.

There are currently over 90 monitoring programs operating in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchment. These programs have largely been designed to address and report on specific issues, location or management.

Reef management. GBRMPA’s 25-year management plan outlines a mix of on-ground work, policies, strategies and engagement. The actions include:

  • increasing compliance focus to ensure zoning rules are followed
  • controlling Crown-of-thorns Starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks
  • ensuring cumulative impacts are considered when assessing development proposals
  • setting clear targets for action and measuring our success
  • monitoring the health of the ecosystem on a Reef-wide scale
  • implementing a Reef Recovery program to restore sites of high environmental value in regional areas — regional action recognises the variability of the Reef over such a large area and the variability of the issues and interests of communities and industries in each area.

Benefits of zoning to date. The benefits reef ecosystem health are already occurring including:

  • More and bigger fish: Larger fish are important to population recovery as they contribute more larvae than smaller fish. James Cook University research shows the network of no-take marine reserves benefits species of coral reef fish targeted by fishers (especially Coral Trout), with not only more fish, but bigger fish in reserves — some zones have around twice as much fish biomass compared to zones open to fishing.
  • Improved fish recruitment: Research in the Keppel Islands suggests increased reproduction by the more abundant, bigger fish in reserves. This not only benefits populations within those reserves, it also produces a ‘spill over’ when larvae are carried by currents to other reefs, including areas open to fishing.
  • Improved resilience: The spillover effects also mean the connectivity between reserve reefs is intact. Spatial analysis shows most reserve reefs are within the dispersal range of other reserve reefs, so they are able to function as a network.
  • Sharks, dugongs and turtles: These species are harder to protect because they are slow growing and slow breeding. They are also highly mobile, moving in and out of protected zones. Despite this, available evidence shows zoning is benefiting these species.
  • Reduced crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks: Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish appear to be less frequent on reserve reefs than fished reefs. This is particularly important as Crown-of-thorns Starfish have been the greatest cause of coral mortality on the Reef in recent decades.
  • Zoning benefits for seabed habitats: Zoning has improved protection of seabed habitats, with at least 20 per cent of all non-reefal habitat types protected from trawling.

How the project has influenced other projects. In November 2004, the Queensland Government mirrored the new zoning in most of the adjoining waters under its control. As a result, there is complementary zoning in the Queensland and Australian Government managed waters within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The approach taken in the Representative Area Program is recognised as one of the most comprehensive and innovative global advances in the systematic protection and recovery of marine biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades and has gained widespread national international, and local acknowledgement of the process and outcome as best practice, influencing many other marine conservation efforts.

Stakeholders. As a statutory authority within the Australian Government, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is responsible for managing the Marine Park. However, as a World Heritage Area, management of the ecosystem is complex jurisdictionally.

Both the Australian and Queensland governments are involved in managing the waters and islands within the outer boundaries through a range of agencies. GBRMPA works collaboratively with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service through the joint Field Management Program to undertake day-to-day management of the Great Barrier Reef, including its 1050 islands, many of which are national parks. The program’s activities include surveying reefs and islands, dealing with environmental risks such as ghost nets and invasive pests, responding to incidents, maintaining visitor facilities, and upholding compliance with Marine Park legislation and the Zoning Plan.

A wide range of stakeholders have an interest in the Great Barrier Reef, including the community, Traditional Owners, a range of industries and government agencies, and researchers. The public, including the one million people who live in the adjacent catchment (around 20 per cent of Queensland’s population), benefit from economic activities. In recent years, the number of tourists carried by commercial operators to the Great Barrier Reef averaged around 1.6 to 2 million visitor days each year (GBRMPA data) with an estimate of an additional 4.9 million private visitors per annum.

Resourcing. The resourcing required for rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef over the five-year period of the RAP (1999–2003) was significant. It became a major activity for the agency for several years, requiring the re-allocation of resources particularly during the most intense periods of public participation. However, the costs of achieving greater protection for the Reef are readily justified when compared to the economic benefits that a healthy Great Barrier Reef generates every year (about AUD$5.6 billion per annum).

Further information: www.gbrmpa.gov.au

Contact: info@gbrmpa.gov.au

All images courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

 

Dewfish Demonstration Reach: Restoring native fish populations in the Condamine Catchment

Key words: native fish, riparian habitat, fish passage, aquatic habitat, Native Fish Strategy

The Dewfish Demonstration Reach is a 110 kilometre stretch of waterway in the Condamine catchment in southern Queensland consisting of sections of the Condamine River, Myall Creek and Oakey Creek near Dalby. The Reach was established in 2007 with the purpose of promoting the importance of a healthy river system for the native fish population and the greater river catchment and demonstrating how the restoration of riverine habitat and connectivity benefits native biodiversity and local communities. Landholders, community groups, local governments and residents have worked together to learn and apply new practices to improve and protect this part of the river system.

The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how the restoration of riverine habitat and connectivity benefits native biodiversity and promote the importance of a healthy river system for native fish and the greater river catchment. The goal is to restore native fish populations to 60% of pre-European settlement levels and improve aquatic health within the Reach.

Image 3 - Adding structural timber to Oakey Creek

Fig 1. Adding structural timber to Oakey Creek

Image 4 - Installing a fish hotel into Oakey Creek

Fig 2. Installing a fish hotel into Oakey Creek

Works undertaken. A range of activities to improve river health and native fish communities have been undertaken primarily at seven key intervention sites within the Dewfish Demonstration Reach. These include:

  • Re-introduction of large structural habitat at five sites, involving the installation of 168 habitat structures consisting of trees, fish hotels, breeding pipes and Lunkers (simulated undercut banks).
  • Improvement of fish passage (by more than 140 km) with the upgrade of the fishway on Loudoun Weir and the installation of two rock-ramp fishways on crossings in Oakey Creek.
  • Ongoing management of pest fish, involving carp angling competitions, carp specific traps, electrofishing and fyke nets.
  • Rehabilitation of the riparian vegetation over 77 km of the Reach using stock exclusion fencing, off-stream watering points, weed control and replanting of native vegetation. In Dalby, a 1 metre wide unmown buffer was established on the banks Myall Creek.

Twice-yearly monitoring using a MBARCI model (multiple-before-after-reference-control-intervention) was undertaken to detect the local and reach-wide impacts of the intervention activities. Surveys involved sampling of the fish assemblage at fixed sites and assessment of the instream and riparian habitat.

Image 5 - Wainui crossing before the fishway

Fig. 3 Wainui crossing before the fishway

Image 6 - Wainui crossing after installation of the rock-ramp fishway

Fig 4. Wainui crossing after the installation of the rock ramp fishway

Results. The surveys indicated many of the intervention activities had a positive impact. The fish assemblage and riparian habitat improved at all intervention sites in the Dewfish Demonstration Reach since rehabilitation activities commenced.

The fish assemblages at introduced habitat structures were very similar to those found on natural woody debris, suggesting the introduced habitat is functioning well as a surrogate.

There were significant increases in the abundance of larger fish species, including Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua) (up to 5-fold), Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) (from absent to captured every survey), Spangled Perch (Leiopotherapon unicolor) (up to 9-fold) and Bony Bream Nematolosa erebi (up to 11-fold) in intervention sites following re-snagging. Murray Cod and Golden Perch are now consistently being caught from introduced woody structures and local anglers are reporting that the fishing has improved greatly. Despite this increase there is still limited evidence of recruitment in the area. There have also been small increases in Eel-tailed Catfish (Tandanus tandanus) and Hyrtls Tandan (Neosilurus hyrtli) abundances and a limited amount of recruitment has been observed for these species.

The abundance of smaller native fish has improved significantly in response to the intervention activities undertaken, especially where bankside and instream vegetation was improved. In Oakey Creek Carp Gudgeon (Hypseleotris spp.) abundance increased 1200-fold, Murray-Darling Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis) increased 60-fold and the introduced species Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) increased 9-fold following intervention activities.

Establishment of a bankside unmown buffer on Myall Creek has enabled natural regeneration of vegetation and resulted in significant increases in aquatic vegetation and native trees. This has led to substantial increases in the smaller bodied native fish assemblage, including a 3-fold increase in Bony Bream, 237-fold increase in Carp Gudgeon, 60-fold increase in Murray-Darling Rainbowfish and a 35-fold in the introduced Mosquitofish.

The abundance of pest fish remains low, except for Mosquitofish which have increased in abundance with the improvements in the aquatic vegetation. There is little evidence of Carp recruitment (Cyprinus carpio), suggesting active management may continue to suppress the population and minimise this species impacts in the Reach.

Image 1 - Myall Creek prior to restoration

Fig 5.  Myall Creek prior to restoration

Image 2 - Myall Creek after restoration

Fig 6. Myall Creek after restoration

Lessons learned and future directions. Improvements of the waterway health and ecosystems can lead to positive responses from native fish populations.

  • Targeting rehabilitation activities to specific classes of fish has been very effective.
  • Introducing habitat structures has been effective for larger fish, and
  • Re-establishing healthy bankside and aquatic vegetation has been vital in boosting the abundance of juveniles and smaller species.

Improvements in the extent of aquatic vegetation have unfortunately also resulted in increased numbers of the introduced pest, Mosquitofish. However, the overall benefits to native fish far outweigh impacts from the increase in the Mosquitofish population.

Stakeholders and Funding bodies. A large number of stakeholders have been involved in this project. The project’s success is largely due to the high number of engaged, involved and committed stakeholders. Without this broad network, costs to individual organizations would be higher and strong community support less likely.

Major funding has been provided by the Murray Darling Basin Authority, Condamine Alliance, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and Arrow Energy.

 

Contact. Dr Andrew Norris, Senior Fisheries Biologist, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Bribie Island Research Centre, PO Box 2066, Woorim, QLD 4507; Tel (+61) 7 3400 2019; and Email: andrew.norris@daf.qld.gov.au

READ MORE:

Finbox demonstration reach toolbox: http://www.finterest.com.au/finbox-a-demonstration-reach-toolbox/

Native Fish Strategy – first 10 years. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/emr.12090

Demonstration reaches – Looking back, moving forward http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/emr.12092

Monitoring in demonstration reaches https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2014/01/25/establishing-a-framework-for-developing-and-implementing-ecological-monitoring-and-evaluation-of-aquatic-rehabilitation-in-demonstration-reaches/

 

Re-introducing burning to Themeda Headland Grassland EEC, Narooma, NSW.

Tom Dexter, Jackie Miles, Deb Lenson

Key Words: Fire management, threatened ecosystem, Kangaroo Grass, weed management, Themeda

Introduction: In 2012, Eurobodalla Shire Council commenced a project to preserve local stands of declining Themeda Headland Grassland on Council managed land on three small headlands north of Narooma, NSW. Themeda Grassland on Seacliffs and Coastal Headlands is an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) that grows on higher fertility soils and is listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

Burning was trialed at two of the three sites to test whether fire could improve the environmental integrity of these sites. This trial has potential implications for the much larger stands of this EEC in various conservation reserves scattered along the NSW coastline as there are many which are not currently actively managed.

The three sites were slashed annually until 2010. While the dominant grass, Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra) was still present on all sites, the sites exhibited some decline in Kangaroo Grass cover and vigour, with weed present on all three sites (Fig 1). Slashing had kept the headlands free from shrubs however windrows of slashed grass suppressed Kangaroo Grass and appeared to encourage weed invasion. One of the sites, which was left unburnt for logistic reasons, was initially in worse condition than the other two due to the presence of an old vehicle track and more extensive weed cover particularly from Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum).

The intensity of a burn is likely to vary on a seasonal basis and is dependent on the build-up of dead thatch and the prevailing conditions on the day. There is basis to believe that the traditional aboriginal burning would have taken place in Autumn and would have been a relatively cool burn. The optimum time to burn when considering the constraints of weed invasion is early spring.

Fig 1. Mowing damage at Duesburys Beach headland

Fig 1. Lines of bare ground indicate the location of windrows of dead grass from a history of mowing at Duesburys Beach headland

Works undertaken: Two successive burns were conducted in early spring on 2 of the 3 headlands, in August 2013 and August 2014 (Fig 2). The burn in 2013 was hotter than the burn in 2014 due to a higher build up of Kangaroo Grass thatch prior to the burn.

Follow-up weed control was implemented after the burns as the fire created gaps between the grasses and allowed targeted chemical control minimizing off target damage to Kangaroo Grass and other native species.

Data were collected on three occasions using ten 1 x 1 m quadrats, established along a 50 m transect spaced at 5 m intervals (one of these for each headland). The initial baseline data were recorded in Nov 2012, prior to the spring burns, and in each successive summer (2013/14 and 2014/15) following the burns.

Fig 2. Dalmeny Headlands burn 2015

Fig 2. Typical burn on the headlands

Results to date: The burnt areas (Figs 3 and 4) showed a significant decrease of annual exotic grasses; especially of Quaking Grass (Briza maxima) and Rats Tail Fescue (Vulpia spp.). The burnt areas also showed vigorous Kangaroo Grass growth and moderate seed production of that species. Two native species -Dwarf Milkwort (Polygala japonica) and Matgrass (Hemarthria uncinata Fig 5) not recorded prior to treatment were found after treatment in the quadrats. The most abundant native forbs, Swamp Weed (Selliera radicans) and Indian Pennywort (Centella asiatica) have persisted on the quadrats but not increased (Fig 6). Some exotic forbs – e.g. Yellow Catsear (Hypochaeris radicata) and Scarlet Pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis) have taken advantage of the removal of grass biomass and have also increased, further future analysis will determine whether this increase will impact on the native forbs. Perhaps the most important finding is the Coast Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) seedlings were killed by the fire allowing the sites to remain grassland.

The unburnt headland continues to deteriorate, with ongoing evidence of continued senescense of Kangaroo Grass, no Kangaroo Grass seed production, and exotic plants continuing to replace Kangaroo Grass in parts of the site. Kikuyu is the main exotic species on this site and is responsible for continued suppression of the native components of the grassland. There is also evidence of shrub invasion beginning to occur. It is anticipated that this site will be burnt in spring 2015.

Fig 2. Duesburys Point just after fire, Sept 2013

Fig 3. Duesburys Point just after burning, Sept 2013

Fig 3. Same site 11 months later, Aug 2014

Fig 4. Same site 11 months later, Aug 2014

What we learned: Kangaroo Grass remains vigorous throughout the burnt sites. The results to date show annual burning to be generally beneficial to the herbaceous components and associated grasses of this EEC. There was a higher success of exotic annual grass control in the first year which is most likely attributed to a hotter fire and perhaps timing. The first year also had accumulated multiple years of thatch which may have assisted fire intensity. Supplementary chemical control was effective, particularly when the fire created gaps between the grasses, allowing for better targeted chemical control.

Future directions: So far the results have shown that an August fire followed by the targeted chemical control of exotic grasses has considerable positive influence on the overall environmental integrity of this ecosystem. The annual burning allows the EEC to remain a grassland by killing off Coast Banksia and Coastal Acacia seedlings. It invigorates Kangaroo Grass growth and reduces the biomass of exotic perennial grasses at least in the short term. This again creates an opportunity in the aforementioned targeted chemical control. The herbaceous composition of the headland also remains intact and future analysis will determine whether burning has either a neutral or positive effect on growth. Kikuyu, Paspalum (Paspalum dilitatum) and annual exotic weeds continue to be the main problem. Increased post-burn selective herbicide application or hand weeding and planting of Kangaroo Grass tubestock may help to restore the grassland more rapidly than use of fire with limited weed control alone. Ongoing funding is being sought to continue the works over coming years and achieve further positive future outcomes.

Acknowledgements: The works were undertaken by Eurobodalla Shire Council with funding from the NSW Environmental Trust. Fire assistance from the NSW Rural Fire Service and cultural advice provided by Elders of the Walbunja people.

Contact: Tom Dexter; Environment and Sustainability Project Officer; Eurobodalla Shire Council (PO Box 99 Vulcan St Moruya 2537, Australia. Email: tom.dexter@eurocoast.nsw.gov.au).

Fig 5. Hemarthria uncinata was more evident after fire. (Duesburys Beach headland.)

Fig 5. Hemarthria uncinata was only evident after fire. (Duesburys Beach headland.)

Fig 5. More forbs among the grass after fire at Duesburys Point – e.g. Sellaria radicans

Fig 6. The forb Sellaria radicans persisted  among the grass after fire.

 

Twelve years of healing: Rehabilitating a willow-infested silt flat – Stormwater Management.

Alan Lane

Key words: urban stream, erosion, siltation, soft engineering, head wall

Introduction: Popes Glen Creek is a small permanent stream rising close to the centre of the township of Blackheath, NSW, Australia. Its upper catchment (10 ha) comprises low-permeability urban development, roadways, shops and parklands.

The funneling of runoff from the low-permeability catchment into the headwaters of Popes Glen Creek resulted in intense and destructive runoff after rain, carrying down large and small debris, depositing sheets of silt, uprooting or burying vegetation, causing erosion of the creek banks and threatening to undermine the head wall of the silt flat downstream. This resulted in the formation of a 1 ha silt flat at the headwaters of the creek, covered with dense infestations of mature Crack Willow (Salix fragilis), Purple Ossier (S. purpurea) and mid-storey and ground-layer weeds. This has been revegetated as a permanent wetland as described in a previous summary (https://site.emrprojectsummaries.org/2015/02/22/)

This summary describes the runoff management aspects of the project, where the aims were:

  1. to reduce the impact of runoff
  2. to reduce the incursion of silt
  3. to remediate the main channel
  4. to stabilise the head wall.
Fig 1: Notched weir diverting water towards sedimentation pond.

Figure 1: Notched weir diverting water towards sedimentation pond.

Figure 2: Sedimentation pond

Figure 2: Sedimentation pond

Works carried out:

1. Diversion of part of the flow and capturing sediment. A diversion channel was constructed with flow regulated by a notched weir in the main stream. This diverts approximately half the volume of the flow into a sedimentation pond were silt is captured, reducing the quantity deposited downstream (Figures 1 and 2).

2. Construction of low-impact detention cells. “Soft engineering” detention cells constructed across the silt flat from coir logs and woody debris found on site retain and slow the release of flow, dispersing it across the silt flat and raising the water table, suppressing weeds and supporting the vegetation of the created wetland (Figures 3 and 4).

3. Elimination of the highly incised main channel. Natural debris falling into the main channel creates a series of small pondages. These retain and slow the flow and allow overflow to disperse across the silt flat. (Figure 5).

4. Protection of the creek banks. Dense plantings of deep-rooted swamp vegetation e.g. Red-fruited Saw Sedge (Gahnia sieberiana) and Black Wattle (Callicoma serratifolia) (Figure 6), and loosely woven structures constructed from woody debris (Figure 7) protect creek banks and silt flat from erosion and scouring.

5. Stabilisation of the headwall. Contractors employed with funds from the Environmental Trust have constructed a major structure with railway sleepers and rock armouring to stabilise the head wall (Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 3: Volunteers building a detention cell from woody debris found on site.

Figure 3: Volunteers building a detention cell from woody debris found on site.

Figure 4: Raised water table enabled wetland sedges (Carex gaudichaudiana and Eleocharis sphacolata) to displace Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens).

Figure 4: Raised water table enabled wetland sedges (Carex gaudichaudiana and Eleocharis sphacolata) to displace Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens).

 

Lessons learned and future directions:  This project is on track to replace the forest of willows with wetland vegetation, transform a highly incised creek and weed-infested silt flat into a healthy Upper Blue Mountains Swamp – an endangered ecological community scheduled under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The volunteer group will continue working with Council and contractors to complete the planting program and to monitor the evolution of the site, including its vegetation, water quality and colonisation by macroinvertebrates, birds and frogs.

Stakeholders and funding bodies: This work is supported by a grant from the Government of New South Wales through its Environmental Trust and by the Blue Mountains City Council,  which also oversaw the engineering works. All photographs: Alan Lane and Paul Vale.

Figure 5: A natural pondage formed when debris was allowed to remain in the stream.

Figure 5: A natural pondage formed when debris was allowed to remain in the stream.

Figure 6: Dense plantings of Black Wattle (Calicoma serratifolia) and Gahnia (Gahnia sieberiana) protect creek banks from erosion.

Figure 6: Dense plantings of Black Wattle (Callicoma serratifolia) and Gahnia (Gahnia sieberiana) protect creek banks from erosion.

Figure 7: Volunteers using woody debris to protect the silt flat from scouring.

Figure 7: Volunteers using woody debris to protect the silt flat from scouring.

Figure 8: Part of the original head wall approximately 3 m high and 20 m wide.

Figure 8: Part of the original head wall approximately 3 m high and 20 m wide.

Figure 9:  Part of structure constructed to stabilise the head wall.

Figure 9: Part of structure constructed to stabilise the head wall.

Contact information: Dr Alan Lane, Coordinator Popes Glen Bushcare Group, PO Box 388, Blackheath NSW 2785, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4787 7097; Paul Vale, Deputy Coordinator Popes Glen Bushcare Group, 81 Prince Edward St, Blackheath NSW 2785, Australia. Tel: +61 2 4787 8080; and Ray Richardson, Chairman of Steering Committee, Environmental Trust Grant 2011/CBR/0098. Tel: +61 2 4759 2534.