Recovery Action Plan for Grey Box community

2.Strategic Directions

2.1.Assessing State of patches

2.1.1.Assessment Methods

A number of different methods have been used to assess the condition of Grey Box woodland patches. Brown (2006) used an index of weed impact to describe condition, but this method did not collect data across all of the indicators, and so allocation of State to this data was problematic. Nield, C. and Sinel, A. (2010) directly assessed each site against the indicator criteria for all of the States, but noted that the lack of clear, objective, numeric criteria to differentiate the States would make consistent assessment difficult.

Milne (2013) used the BushRAT rapid assessment tool to assess Grey Box woodland sites. Whilst this tool has the advantage of collecting data across an array of habitat attributes, and also retaining compatability with other state government assessment processes (eg vegetation assessment for clearance, Significant Environmental Benefit offsets), it does not specifically address the indicator criteria for the different Grey Box States from the State and Transition Model. Thus the allocation of State is dependent upon post-hoc examination of the data and photopoints. This method is also relatively time consuming (2 hours per assessment) – whilst this does deliver benefits with regard to ongoing monitoring of individual condition attributes, this needs to be considered in the context of the large number of patches of Grey Box and the time it would take to assess all of them.
It is recommended that a quantified set of indicator criteria is developed for the different States. This would require refinement of the condition indicator criteria into numeric criteria, to assist in consistency of application. It is recommended these criteria are developed as a draft, and then reviewed by key experts prior to field testing. This could then be developed into a rapid assessment tool that could be easily used by observers to reliably place a site into the appropriate State. This tool could also be used to re-assess State over time, to underpin regional level monitoring (discussed in 3.1.3 below).

2.1.2.Mapping and Assessing Patches

There are many mapped patches of Grey Box woodland which require confirmation as to whether they are indeed Grey Box, as well as what their current condition is. It is recommended that the accuracy (both extent and classification) of mapping of all patches is confirmed through field survey. It is also recommended that mapping include an assessment of current State, and that all polygons are mapped by State.

These polygons then need to be stored on the Department for Environment, Water and Natural resources floristic vegetation database, with appropriate metadata (as it was noted during the development of this Action Plan that layers developed for Grey Box in 2006 were only stored internally, and had no metadata describing who, how or why the layers were developed, and what they actually displayed). It is suggested that Naturemaps would be an ideal place to make this data accessible to the public.

2.1.3.Monitoring and Evaluation at a Regional Scale

Monitoring and evaluation at a site based scale is discussed in section 2.5. However, if all polygons within the region were mapped by State, then a benchmark for the total area within the region belonging to each State could be established. Management interventions would be expected to bring about transition of State for remnant patches (as would a lack of management interventions in good patches). Thus re-assessment over time would be expected to demonstrate regional patterns of change. This could help underpin assessment of overall regional change in condition of Grey Box remnants.

2.2.Regional Scale Management

Implementation of successful recovery strategies at a landscape scale is a key priority for the successful conservation of Grey Box woodlands. Whilst there are currently numerous organisations and individuals working in Grey Box sites, management can be ad hoc and lack strategic direction, prioritisation, and targeted action. For this reason, it is recommended that:

• 
  a regional Recovery Team is established to set regional priorities and drive action
  
• 
  a regional Recovery Plan is prepared, once actions under 2.1 are complete
  

3.Acknowledgements

Anthony Abley, Kirstin Abley, Don Cranwell, Andrew Crompton, Rachel Gein,Sue Graham, Chris Gibson, Craig Gillespie, Randall Johnson, Liz McTaggart, Nicola Manos, Tim Milne, Ben Moulton, Ross Oke, Penny Paton, Darcy Peters, Joe Quarmby, Wendy Stubbs, Jason Van Weenen.

4.References

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (undated). Weed Management Techniques. Government of South Australia.

Barlow, T. (1998). Grassy Guidelines: How to manage grasslands and grassy woodlands on your property. Trust for Nature, Victoria.

Basnett G and Ezis D (2010) Briefing note on the principles of minimum disturbance techniques and how they benefit biodiversity conservation. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia.

Bond A (2011) Knowledge Review: Grey Box Grassy Woodland in the Southern Mt Lofty Ranges. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia.

Brown T (2006) Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Hills Face Zone Grassy Woodlands Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Clarke, I., Stokes, Z. and Wallace, R. (2010). Habitat Restoration Planning Guide for Natural Resource Managers. Government of South Australia, through Department for Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Davies R (1997) Weed management in temperate native grasslands and box grassy woodlands in South Australia. Black Hill. Flora Centre, Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, Adelaide.

DEWNR (2012). NVBMU BushRAT assessment and scoring Manual. Unpublished document, Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Waite.

Gould Group (2008). The Nestbox Book: Enjoy the wonder of nesting. Gould League, Moorabbin Victoria.

Kraehenbuehl DN (1996) Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the Gawler River to Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of SA, Adelaide South Australia.

McIvor JG (2002) Pastures (chapter 4) in S McIntyre JG McIvor & KM Heard (eds) Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands. CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, Victoria.

Native Vegetation Council (2012). Preparing Roadside Vegetation Management Plans. Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Nield, C. and Sinel, A. (2010). Field Validation of the State and Transition Model for Grey Box Woodlands. Prepared by EBS Ecology for the Department for Environment and Heritage.

Oliver, L., Rehwinkel, R. and McLeish, T. (2008). Possible Management Actions for Box Gum Woodlands. DECC, Canberra.

Paton P (2008) Field testing – condition thresholds – Inland Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Woodlands, South Australia. Report submitted to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. Canberra.

Prescott A and Turner D (2010) State and Transition Model of Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa). Report prepared for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board.

Prober S, Taylor S, Edwards R and Mills B (2009) Effectiveness of repeated autumn and spring fires for understorey restoration in weed-invaded temperate eucalypt woodlands. Applied Vegetation Science 12 p440-450.

Robertson EL (2010) Restoration of Grassy Woodland Watiparinga Reserve Management Plan 3^rd ed. National Trust of South Australia, South Australia.

Robertson MA (1998) A Biological Survey of Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands of the Lofty Block Bioregion South Australia. Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2010a) Commonwealth Listing Advice on Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2010b) Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Wilson A and Bignall J (2009) Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mt Lofty Ranges. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia: A guide to the identification, assessment and management of a nationally threatened ecological community. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.