informing biodiversity conservation for the adelaide and ... · hero image - one image only no...

HERO IMAGE - ONE IMAGE ONLY NO COLLAGES

Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region South Australia PRIORItIES, StRAtEGIES ANd tARGEtS

www.environment.sa.gov.au

Department for Environment and Heritage

June 2010

Acknowledgements

The Department for Environment and Heritage coordinated the preparation of this document.

It is the culmination of several years project work, representing contributions from numerous individuals, agencies and other organisations.

The Department would like to acknowledge the many people and organisations who contributed to the development of this report.

Early drafts were compiled by Monique Blason and Sandy Carruthers. The primary author of the current version of the strategy is Lisa Farroway. Significant contributions to the finalisation of this version were made by Andrew Willson and Beatrice Hurrell.

The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efforts and support of various steering committee members including Wendy Stubbs, Brenton Grear, Jody Gates, Andrew West, Adrian Stokes, Chris Morony and Ben Moulton.

Other individuals who provide valuable expertise are Amelia Hurren, Julia Bignall, Ben Fee, Glen Sholtz and staff of DEH’s Adelaide Region Biodiversity Conservation Unit.

All information in this report was correct at the time of printing.

Except where otherwise indicated, all figures and photographs have been provided by the Department for Environment and Heritage.Cover photo - silky tea tree (Leptospermum lanigerum) swamp and candle bark forest (Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana), Sinclair’s Gully, Norton Summit. Photo by Sonia Croft.

Citation: DEH (2009) Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia. Priorities, Strategies and Targets.

© Department for Environment and HeritageProduced by the Corporate Communications BranchAll rights reservedJune 2010 FIS 90346 ISBN 978-1-921466-36-6

ContentsPARt 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose and scope 1

1.2 Region description 4 PARt 2 Biodiversity State and condition 7 2.1 What the region previously looked like 8

2.2 What the region currently looks like 9

PARt 3 Approaches and framework for conservation 16 3.1 Impacts of modification and landscape change on biodiversity 16

3.2 Conservation planning principles 17

PARt 4 Conservation of biodiversity 23 4.1 Conservation of terrestrial and coastal biodiversity 23

4.1.1 Conservation of landscapes 26

Fragmented high cover landscapes 28

Disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapes 30

Recently fragmented landscapes 34

Presumed fragmented landscapes 37

Fragmented coastal landscapes 40 Relictual landscapes 44

4.1.2 Conservation of ecological communities 47

Conservation targets for ecological communities 52

Heathy forest 55

Heathy woodland 57

Shrubland 60

Grassy woodlands 62

Grassland 66

Mallee 68

Riparian 71

Wetland 75

Coastal vegetation 77

4.1.3 Conservation of species 90

Threatened species 90

Declining species 95

Endemic species 96

Abundant native species and native species in conflict 98

4.1.4 Aquatic ecosystem conservation programs 103

4.2 Mitigation of threatening processes 109

PARt 5 Stakeholders 114

PARt 6 Improving planning integration, application and knowledge 118

PARt 7 References and further reading 119

PARt 8 Appendices 131

1 Informing Biodiversity Conservation for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region, South Australia

IntroductionThis part outlines what this report aims to achieve, and includes a regional description.

1.1 Purpose and scope

Informing biodiversity conservation in the regionIn South Australia, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) region is unique – relatively high rainfall, hilly topography and surrounded west and south by coastal environments. The diversity of landscapes within a comparatively small area supports a diverse array of ecosystems and species. Many species are endemic to the region or geographically separated from other State or interstate populations. The region is also home to over one million people residing in both urban and rural areas. The environmental health of the region is therefore important for both quality of life and economic prosperity.

However, historic native vegetation clearance has been significant and only approximately 13% of original native vegetation remains in the region. Species have become extinct and many more are continuing to decline.

Biodiversity conservation in the AMLR region aims to maintain, restore and halt the decline in ecological processes, vegetation communities and species. However, there is a limited amount of funding and resources available for biodiversity management, with an increasing level of accountability to ensure public funds are wisely spent. There is a need, therefore, to prioritise and ensure that works are targeted to meet specific and achievable outcomes.

This report aims to inform existing regional biodiversity programs and funding bodies about conservation priorities, and proposes strategies and targets to achieve effective management of these priorities. It does this by assessing the current biodiversity status of the region (mainly through an analysis of vegetation decline) using current landscape planning principles, and by linking with other relevant regional planning processes.

Conservation targets and actions are set at a variety of biological and spatial scales. There are high-level targets for managing landscapes as a whole, combined with targets for managing specific ecological communities, and targets related to conserving threatened species and other species that require conservation efforts. While many strategies and targets developed in this document are ambitious and require significant levels of additional resources to implement, others can be achieved with existing resources through improved information sharing, planning and regulatory processes.

This report also provides a framework with which to develop conservation management priorities. However, it is acknowledged that ‘one document cannot do all’ and there are challenges ahead to develop a fully integrated planning framework which can drive relevant regional biodiversity management at a variety of biological and spatial scales (and which is relevant to State and National conservation goals).

This document and the underlying analysis is intended to be dynamic, to change with new knowledge, new data and changing conditions. As mapping data is improved and new information becomes available from research and monitoring activities, strategies and targets should be modified.

PARt 1


Links to planning processes

AMLR NRM Plan

Outputs during the development of this report were used in formulating key biodiversity targets in the AMLR Natural Resource Management Board’s plan Creating a Sustainable Future – An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region. The Department for Environment and Heritage (Adelaide Region) is currently implementing several NRM threatened species and vegetation management programs, the direction of which have been guided by this integrated planning approach.

South Australia’s Strategic Plan and No Species Loss

South Australia’s Strategic Plan (SASP) details a series of targets that provide a path towards a prosperous and better future for South Australia. The plan includes targets relating to increasing economic growth, including expansion of mineral exploration and production, and increasing the population of South Australia. There are also environmental targets, including a target to lose no known native species as a result of human impact. This target is addressed through No Species Loss – A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007-2017, the implementation of which will be assisted by this report for the AMLR region.

NatureLinks

Another SASP target involves the development of five ‘NatureLinks’ biodiversity regions across the State. This report will help deliver the NatureLinks goal of integrated ecosystem management across the landscape. Regionally, the Cape Borda to Barossa NatureLink Strategy will facilitate the implementation of many priorities proposed in this report through assessing key challenges facing landscape scale conservation initiatives and progressing solutions to these challenges.

Photo: © DEH


the Plan for Greater Adelaide (2009-2038)

This plan guides how the state government proposes to balance population and economic growth with the need to preserve the environment and protect the heritage, history and character of the greater Adelaide region. The policies in this plan will have an important influence on statutory planning processes in relation to increasing the consideration of biodiversity in development planning processes. The implementation of these policies will rely heavily on priority-setting information such as that contained within this report.

Regional Recovery Pilot Project

This report and the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia were prepared concurrently and are closely integrated. Successful implementation of both species management requirements and habitat reconstruction targets are dependent on each other.Legislative context

Legislative context

The content in this report is guided by, and informs, legislation and policy. Appendix 1.1. lists core or primary relevance documents which drive or provide immediate and direct obligations and expectations on Australia and South Australia in biodiversity conservation and management. Partial or secondary relevance documents influence or provide more indirect obligations, mainly by promoting principles of ecologically sustainable development. In particular, it is hoped that this report may assist in the strategic operation of some elements of the Native Vegetation Act, such as the Significant Environmental Benefits scheme.

Conserving biodiversity will require partnerships and co-ordinated efforts

Conserving the native plants, animals and ecosystems of the AMLR will be a challenging task. Multiple and diverse conservation efforts will be required, across large spatial and temporal scales. Meeting this challenging task, and minimising the loss of native species from the region, will require partnerships between Government, non-government organisations, industry, scientists, indigenous peoples and community groups.

What does this report NOt do?

Marine biodiversity has not been covered by this report, to avoid duplication with separate marine specific planning processes. Marine Plans are being developed on a bioregional basis for all State waters, guided by the Marine Planning Framework for South Australia, with links to regional NRM Planning. Note that planning processes that are addressing biodiversity requirements for marine environments are included in Appendix 1.1.

This report does not propose species-specific management, or use concepts of species-based surrogacy for management (such as umbrella, flagship, indicator or keystone concepts).

It is not intended that this report acts as a ‘resource-inventory’ document. While a variety of summary statistics and lists are presented for biodiversity, other documents and planning tools exist in the region which can present more detailed information.

The emphasis of this report is the provision of ecological targets based on a regional landscape analysis. The report does not attempt to propose detailed strategies for management processes which mainly act at the broader State or National level (such as climate change policy).


1.2 Region descriptionThe Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region, as defined for this report, covers a total area of 780,000 ha, or 780 km2. The region includes metropolitan Adelaide, Willunga Basin, the Mount Lofty Ranges (including the foothills, hills-face and eastern flanks), the Fleurieu Peninsula, the northern Adelaide plains to the Light River, and the Barossa Valley. The region includes approximately 263 km of coastline, being bounded on the west by Gulf St Vincent, and on the south by the Southern Ocean. The planning region does not include marine waters generally below the high tide mark. Most of the planning region defined for this report falls within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management (NRM) region. The eastern flanks of the region fall within the South Australian Murray Darling Basin (MDB) region (Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1: The planning region used in this report


the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region is a biogeographically unique part of South AustraliaThe combination of relatively high rainfall and hilly topography in the AMLR is not found elsewhere in the state. The biodiversity of the region – the variety of plants and animals, communities and ecosystems, and the ecological processes that sustain them – is similarly distinctive.

A broad range of vegetation types are represented in the region, including wet heathy (sclerophyll) forests, drier heathy woodlands, grassy woodlands, grasslands, mallee, swamps, wetlands and various coastal and estuarine ecosystems.

This diversity of vegetation types supports a wide range of flora and fauna. Over 450 native fauna species have been recorded from the region, including over 75% of the bird species recorded within South Australia (including a number of oceanic bird species that may only be occasional visitors to the AMLR). The region also supports approximately 1,500 native vascular plant species.

the Mount Lofty Ranges is a terrestrial ‘island’ of habitatThe eucalypt forests and woodlands of the region represent an outlier of their distribution. These forests form an ‘island’ separated from the cores of their distribution in eastern Australia by an expanse of semi-arid mallee and dry woodland environments.

Reflecting this, many of the plants and animals that are found in the region represent populations that are isolated from the cores of their distribution, or are present at the very edges of their distribution.

The AMLR has high levels of endemism – species that are only found in the region. Many of these endemic species are nationally threatened.

the Mount Lofty Ranges is part of a biodiversity hotspotIn recognition of the wide diversity of native species and the high levels of endemism – and the fact that the remaining biodiversity is under a high level of threat – the Mount Lofty Ranges and Kangaroo Island region was identified as one of 15 National Biodiversity Hotspots in Australia by the Commonwealth Government in 2003.

The AMLR contains a number of significant and threatened ecological communities including nationally significant wetlands, such as the critically endangered Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula that provide habitat for significant fauna species, and Barker Inlet which provides habitat for a number of migratory bird species of international significance. In addition, several AMLR watercourses (the Currency, Tookayerta and Finnis Creeks) feed into the internationally significant Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar wetlands.

The region also contains the nationally threatened ecological communities Peppermint Box Grassy Woodland and Iron Grass Natural Temperate Grasslands.


the biodiversity of the AMLR is in a state of declineLike all agricultural regions of Australia, the AMLR has changed dramatically since European settlement. Vegetation clearance in the region has been extensive and only approximately 13% of the original native vegetation of the region remains, based on current mapping. The AMLR represents a highly fragmented landscape, with isolated remnants of native vegetation embedded in a matrix of urban and agricultural land uses.

There are few intact areas remaining in the region. Most native vegetation has been modified to some degree by human impact, and many areas are highly degraded. Many remnants are managed for production outcomes such as grazing and agriculture on private land.

The widespread vegetation clearance in the AMLR has led to extensive declines in most native species of the region. Many species have become extinct since European settlement, including nine mammal species, three reptile species and 17 bird species. Almost 400 species are formally listed as threatened under National or State legislation.

Many other species are considered to be declining or at risk of decline, most notably a large number of bird species, with over 60 species listed on an initial list of declining birds.

The threats to the biodiversity of the AMLR are varied and widespread. They include the ongoing impacts of historic clearance and fragmentation, combined with weed invasion, inappropriate grazing regimes, introduced fauna species, altered hydrological cycles and fire regimes, urban encroachment and recreational pressures. In the future, increasing populations and demands on natural resources, along with the forecast predictions of climate change, have the potential to further impact on and threaten biodiversity.

Conservation protectionApproximately 22% of the remnant vegetation is managed for conservation in dedicated reserves, both publicly managed reserves and on private land. However, not all vegetation communities are well represented in protected reserves. Analyses assessing the degree of protection for native vegetation are presented in the following sections of this report.


Biodiversity State and conditionThis part contains information on the state and condition of the biodiversity of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. Further information on the detailed condition and trend of specific biodiversity assets can be found within Part 4.

The terrestrial and aquatic environments of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges have been highly fragmented and modified.

The Mount Lofty Ranges are a well-defined stretch of ancient uplands and hills, extending from the Barossa Valley in the north to Cape Jervis on the Fleurieu Peninsula. These higher areas are flanked on their west and east by escarpments, undulating foothills, and then low-lying areas including outwash plains and flats. Together these areas form the planning region defined as the AMLR for this report (Figure 1.1 above). The topography varies across the region with the highest points exceeding 700 metres above sea level (MASL), steep fault-controlled escarpments ranging between 300-450 MASL, foothills between 150-300 MASL, and plains less than 150 MASL. This fine-scale topographic and climatic heterogeneity is unique in South Australia, and important in explaining the biodiversity value of the region.

The climate of the AMLR is Mediterranean-like, characterised by hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. However, there are significant climatic variations due to the topographic variability within relatively small geographic areas.

Figure 2.1: Diversity of terrestrial land uses of the AMLR region

PARt 2


2.1 What the region previously looked like

Pre-European vegetation patternsPrior to European settlement, the AMLR was typified by eucalypt forests and woodlands. The dominant vegetation type in the region was woodland communities with herbaceous understoreys, often generically called grassy woodlands, which covered over one third of the region. These were located in a wide arc either side of the central spine of the ranges, and also in valleys and on good soils within the ranges. These grassy woodlands had an understorey dominated by tussocks of perennial grasses and herbaceous species.

Other grassy ecosystems were also found in the region, although their distributions were not as extensive as that of grassy woodlands. Native grasslands were present on the low-lying plains to the east and west of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Grasslands with emergent trees or shrubs were found on the eastern flanks, joining the grassy woodlands found on their west and the grasslands to the east.

On the nutrient-deficient soils of the higher-rainfall central spine of the ranges, vegetation communities with a shrub-dominated understorey were found. These communities had an understorey dominated by many species of low shrubs, generally with small, hard leaves (sclerophyllous). Forests and woodlands with shrub-dominated understories covered approximately a quarter of the region. Drier open heathy woodlands were common, and were found in the northern parts of the ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Tall heathy forests were less common and were restricted to the high-rainfall, high-elevation areas of the central ranges and the southern Fleurieu Peninsula.

A variety of shrubland vegetation types were also present in the region, although their distribution was restricted, covering only 2% of the region. Shrublands included both arid-style chenopod

shrublands on near-coastal plains and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands on the infertile soils of the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Mallee was found on the periphery of the region, in the far north and the far east of the AMLR. This mallee was more typical of regions adjacent to the AMLR than the AMLR proper, and was connected to expansive distributions of mallee in the mid-north and the Murray mallee.

Heathy woodland in good condition (Photo: Kirstin Long)


There are a large number of ephemeral and permanent watercourses in the AMLR, draining from the uplands onto the plains, both west to Gulf St Vincent and east and south-east to the Murray River and Lake Alexandrina. A variety of riparian and wetland vegetation types are found in the region. Riparian vegetation was particularly widespread, covering approximately 15% of the region prior to European settlement. Wetlands were more restricted, but since European settlement have been significantly cleared and/or modified.

Coastal vegetation was found along the coastline adjacent to Gulf St Vincent and the Southern Ocean. This vegetation covered approximately 4% of the region at the time of European settlement. Coastal vegetation types represented in the region included samphire shrublands, mangrove forests, and sand dune and cliff vegetation.

the AMLR is relatively species richThe AMLR region has a high species richness, with a large proportion of South Australia’s native species found in the region (see Table 2.2). At the time of European settlement, over 450 fauna species were found in the region and over 1,500 flora species. There would also have been a diverse range of invertebrates, soil micro-biota and non-vascular flora, although information on the number of species that were present is unknown.

2.2 What the region currently looks like

Since European settlement, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region has changed dramatically The AMLR has been extensively modified since European settlement. Large tracts of native vegetation were cleared or modified as the region was converted for urban and agricultural use of land. The region is now a highly fragmented landscape, with only approximately 13% of the pre-European vegetation remaining.

The AMLR region is the most heavily populated region of South Australia, incorporating metropolitan Adelaide with a population of over one million people.

The AMLR contains some of the most productive land in the State, and supports a wide range of agricultural activities, including stock grazing, dairy cattle, cropping, and horticulture (including viticulture, orchard fruits and vegetable crops). Other land uses supported within the region include industry, forestry, recreation, and conservation (139 public conservation areas including National Parks, Conservation Parks, Conservation Reserves, Recreation Parks, Local Forest Reserves and Native Forest Reserves; and over 400 Heritage Agreements protecting native vegetation on private land and some public lands).

Widespread clearance and modification of the AMLR began shortly after European settlementClearance in some parts of the AMLR occurred shortly after the settlement of South Australia in 1836. While the early population remained concentrated around the settlement capital Adelaide, the use of land for agricultural pursuits expanded out into surrounding areas. Pioneer agriculture was focused in the fertile soils of the Adelaide Plains and southern vales, and the valleys and basins of the eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. Many of these areas had been cleared and converted for agricultural use by 1850. By this time, pastoral leases had been granted to cover the northern Adelaide Plains and the eastern plains adjacent to the Murray River.

Early pastoralists and agricultural land purchasers avoided the dense forest-like vegetation covering the high-elevation parts of the Mount Lofty Ranges, but although these areas were not cleared at this early stage, they were all cut for timber and may have been used for light pastoralism by some settlers.

By the 1860s, it was only the dense vegetation of the central spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Fleurieu Peninsula that had not been sold. These areas covered steep, rocky terrain or had nutrient-deficient soils that would not support crops. Many of these areas were not cleared until post-1945 when nutrient inputs that allowed for these soils to be used for productive agriculture had been developed.


Figure 2.2: Diversity of coastal land uses of the AMLR region

Vegetation on productive soils was cleared more extensively than vegetation on poor soilsThis widespread clearance and modification of the region’s ecosystems was conducted in a selective manner, targeting areas of productive soils that were most suitable for agricultural production.

Of the vegetation types that were dominant in pre-European times, it is the grassy ecosystems – grassy woodlands and grasslands – that have been the most extensively cleared (approximately 93% and 99% respectively), including to the coastline in many areas (Figure 2.2). Grassy ecosystems are located on deep, fertile soils and were favoured by settlers for agricultural pursuits. Many of these areas, such as the grassy woodlands and grasslands that were located where metropolitan Adelaide now lies, were cleared shortly after European settlement.

The extent of clearance of grassy ecosystems differs markedly to the clearance of vegetation with a shrub or heath-dominated understorey. These vegetation types are typically found on infertile sandy soils or in steep rocky areas unsuitable for agriculture. Overall, approximately 27% of the original heathy/shrubby vegetation of the region remains, although some shrublands that were found on

the Adelaide Plains have been extensively cleared.

The targeted clearance of productive soils also lead to extensive loss of aquatic ecosystems. In South Australia is estimated that approximately 70% of wetlands have been destroyed since European settlement, with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges area experiencing a disproportionate loss compared to other regions of the state.

Mosaic of improved pasture and remnant vegetation (Photo: Kirstin Long)


Remnant vegetation reflects the disproportionate clearance patternsThe remaining (or remnant) native vegetation in the AMLR reflects these selective clearance patterns. The most dominant vegetation type in the region is now heathy woodland, which has replaced the more extensively cleared grassy woodland as the dominant vegetation type (Table 2.1, Figure 2.3).

In many places, such as the Mount Lofty Ranges north of the Torrens River, the central hills face zone and the southern Fleurieu Peninsula, there are larger remnants of heathy woodland and heathy forest, many of which are under conservation tenure.

Grassy ecosystems such as grassy woodlands and grasslands which were heavily cleared predominantly remain as small or isolated remnants or scattered trees over pasture.

Protected areas provide a core for conservation efforts but are dominated by heathy vegetationApproximately 22% of the remnant vegetation in the AMLR is managed for conservation in dedicated protected areas (comprising of publicly managed reserves and Heritage Agreements on private land). These areas predominantly contain heathy forest and woodland, as they are typically located on infertile soils or steep, inaccessible areas that were not suitable for agricultural use.

These protected areas provide a core for conservation efforts in the AMLR, although work in these areas will need to be complemented by conservation efforts on the three quarters of remnant vegetation on private and public land not under dedicated conservation tenure. Many of these remnants on private land are managed for production outcomes such as grazing and agriculture. This will be particularly important for grassy ecosystems, which are under-represented in protected areas in the AMLR.

Remnant vegetation is in poor conditionAs the AMLR is a highly fragmented landscape, most remnants of native vegetation are small and isolated, and located within a mosaic of various urban, peri-urban and/or agricultural land uses.

Some large remnants remain in the AMLR; these are typically heathy forest or woodland remnants on infertile soils. The largest remnant remaining in the AMLR is the vegetation that comprises Deep Creek Conservation Park, with a size exceeding 4,200 ha.

Most remnant vegetation in the AMLR is modified to some extent. Many remnants are degraded and in fair or poor condition, and typified by high levels of weed invasion, grazing impacts, reduced native species diversity, and outbreaks of other threats such as dieback.

The remnant vegetation remaining in the best condition in the AMLR tends to be the larger remnants of heathy forest or woodland, which have not been as heavily or extensively modified as other vegetation types.

Much of the remnant vegetation in the region has a trend of ongoing or active decline. This trend of decline includes the larger remnants of heathy forest or woodland which have remained in relatively good condition until this time.


Native species have been lost or are decliningCurrently there are over 1,400 native vascular plant species in the AMLR, nearly half of the State’s total. The region is also relatively bird species-rich, however many of the resident native species of the AMLR have declined in abundance or distribution since European settlement. Over 130 native fauna and 250 native flora species of the AMLR are threatened at a State and/or National level (Table 2.2).

Some species have become extinct in the region, including mammals such as the Bilby, Burrowing Bettong and Eastern Quoll; and reptiles such as the Pygmy Bluetongue. A number of other species are considered to be functionally extinct in the region, most notably a number of threatened bird species. These species now occur only very infrequently in the AMLR and their ecological role in the region has been lost. Some threatened flora species have not been recorded within the region within the last 20 years – it is likely that these species no longer exist within the AMLR.

The AMLR also contains a large number of species that are declining, but not yet formally threatened. This includes a large number of woodland bird species that are actively declining in abundance and/or distribution in the region.

Other native species have increased in abundanceAlong with the decline in native species evident in the AMLR, some native species have increased in abundance and/or distribution, for example, Western Grey Kangaroo, Koala, Little Corella and Common Brushtail Possum. Such species are now present in larger numbers and/or over broader distributions than they were at the time of European settlement.

The decline in some species and the increase in others has altered species abundances in ecosystems, and the dominant species today are not necessarily those that were historically dominant.

Many threats to biodiversity have been introducedEuropean settlement has led to the introduction of many threats to biodiversity in the AMLR. These include a number of introduced flora and fauna species, including weeds that are now widespread and out-compete native flora species, and feral predators that prey on native fauna. Other threats to biodiversity include dieback, particularly Phytophora cinnomomi, inappropriate grazing regimes, inappropriate development, urban encroachment and recreational pressures. Climate change will provide a future threat to the biodiversity of the region.

Ecological processes have been alteredThe settlement and modification of the AMLR has altered the large-scale ecological processes of the region, including hydrological and fire regimes. The disruption of these regimes has contributed to a decline in the condition of native vegetation in the region, and consequent impacts on native flora and fauna.

The Eastern Quoll, now extinct in the AMLR (Photo: DEH)


table 2.1 Native vegetation extent and clearance in the AMLR

Broad vegetation group1

Pre-European2 (ha)

Pre-European (% of region)

Remnant3 (ha)

Remnant (% of total)

Clearance (% cleared)

Shrub-dominated understorey

Heathy forest

54,803 7% 15,398 16% 72%

Heathy woodland

119,372 15% 26,778 27% 78%

Shrubland 18,987 2% 194 < 1% 99%

Non-shrub dominated understorey

Grassy woodland

362,780 47% 26,322 27% 93%

Grassland 42,353 5% 549 <1% 99%

Mallee Mallee 22,172 3% 1201 1% 95%

Freshwater Riparian 113,001 14% 16,797 17% 85%

Wetland 15,029 2% 3,560 4% 76%

Coastal Exposed cliffs

2,247 <1% 1,114 1% 50%

Exposed dunes

576 <1% 115 < 1% 80%

Sheltered cliffs

1,592 <1% 141 < 1% 91%

Sheltered dunes

2,948 <1% 541 < 1% 82%

Sheltered tidal

24,142 3% 5,070 5% 79%

AMLR totals 780,003 97,780 87% (682,223 ha cleared)

Notes:

1 This plan describes the vegetation patterns of the AMLR using a generalised hierarchical vegetation classification that has been verified by vegetation experts. Broad vegetation groups provide a generalised assessment of vegetation patterns in the AMLR. They have been described based on broad floristic characteristics and environmental relationships (e.g. links between vegetation type and climate, soils and landform).

2 Based on mapping of pre-European vegetation completed by DEH. This mapping uses a combination of current vegetation patterns, historical information including records from early explorers, early land survey maps and photographs, and topographic and soils data.

3 Based on mapping of remnant vegetation completed by DEH. This mapping has been completed using aerial photography interpretation and site-based assessments. This mapping is likely to underestimate grassy ecosystems. Note, the remnant mapping (presence only) was over-layed with the pre-European mapping to determine changes in the vegetation groups.

Percentages have been rounded

Due to data processing discrepancies, the above statistics (and all in this report) do not include an area of 391 ha which were not coded with a broad vegetation group.


Figure 2.3 Vegetation patterns and clearance in the AMLRThe following maps show the vegetation patterns of the AMLR at two time periods: (a) prior to European settlement and (b) today. Vegetation types with a grass-dominated understorey are shown in shades of blue. Vegetation types with a heath or shrub-dominated understorey are shown in shades of green, and mallee is shown in brown. Inland wetland vegetation types are shown in yellow and orange. Coastal vegetation types are shown in purple. The white areas in map (b) represent areas that have been cleared and replaced with urban, peri-urban and agricultural land uses.

The pie charts graphically display the relative contribution of each vegetation type to the region. The larger a segment, the more widespread or dominant a vegetation type in the region. The pre-European chart shows that almost half of the vegetation of the AMLR was vegetation with a grassy understorey (shades of blue).

Comparing the pie charts between the pre-European and remnant time periods gives an indication of the differential clearance patterns and shows how the dominance of vegetation types in the remnant vegetation has changed.

The relative contribution of grassy ecosystems in the AMLR has declined, now representing a quarter of the remnant vegetation. Conversely, the relative dominance of heath or shrub-dominated vegetation has increased - these areas now represent over a third of remnant vegetation, compared to less than a quarter of pre-European vegetation. This is due to the fact that these vegetation types were not cleared as extensively as grassy ecosystems.

(a) Pre-European vegetation (b) Remnant vegetation


table 2.2 Native species of the AMLR

Species Group

# sp. SA 1, 2

# sp. AMLR 3

# sp. thr AMLR 4

% SA sp. in AMLR

% AMLR sp. thr

FAUNA

Mammals 140 45 (+ 1 n-ind 5)

20 (incl. 3 extinct)

32% 44%

Birds 467 350 95 (incl. 6 functionally extinct 7)

75% 27%

Reptiles 227 64 9 (incl. 1 extinct)

28% 14%

Amphibians 26 6 (+ 1 n-ind 5)

1 23% 17%

Invertebrates unknown unknown n.a. n.a. n.a.

FLORA

Vascular 3,378 1,430-1,625 6 252 (incl. 4 historical 8)

42-48% 16-18%

Non-vascular (e.g. mosses, liverworts, lichens, fungi)

1,880 unknown n.a. n.a. n.a.

1 Vertebrates of SA; includes marine mammals and reptiles. Other marine species and freshwater fish are not included.

2 Flora Census

3 Based on available biological survey and monitoring information.

4 Species proposed for listing under Schedules 7, 8, and 9 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

5 n-ind. denotes a non-indigenous native species that was introduced to the AMLR and did not previously occur in the region.

6 Flora data is subject to ongoing taxonomic revision. The AMLR data contains a number of non-current taxonomic names that require revision. The figures provided here indicate the probable range of the number of species.

7 Functionally extinct denotes species that now only occur very infrequently in the AMLR, and that have lost their ecological role within the region.

8 Historical denotes a species that has not been recorded in the region since 1 January 1984. These species may no longer be present within the AMLR.


Approaches and framework for conservationThis section details the conservation planning principles that are used in this report.

3.1 Impacts of modification and landscape change on biodiversity

The way we modify and develop natural environments has long-lasting impacts on the native plants and animals that use them.

Human settlement and conversion of land for urban, industrial and agricultural pursuits leads to clearance and modification of native habitats. These changes to environments lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of native species.

As native vegetation cover declines, species are lost from landscapesAs native vegetation is increasingly removed from a landscape, the lack of cover (and associated floristic diversity) begins to disadvantage native species. Species are eventually lost from a landscape when their habitat requirements are no longer present.

The particular habitat requirements differ greatly between species, but important thresholds for habitat intactness and species persistence appear to exist at 60-70% cover, 30% cover and 10% cover. It is at these points when the remaining habitat – and increasingly, the fragmented nature of remaining habitat – is no longer able to support native species. For example, at the 60-70% threshold, an integrated habitat converts to less viable isolated patches, and it is thought that when cover drops below 30% many woodland birds are lost from regions. Catastrophic loss of species can be expected when cover drops below 10%.

An extinction debt is species that are likely to be lost in the future as a result of modification that has occurredAlthough individuals of a species are immediately impacted by clearance and the fragmentation of landscapes, species may not be instantly lost from landscapes following clearance. Individuals may persist in remnant vegetation, however if the population is not viable (e.g. resources required for breeding are not available) then eventual extinction is inevitable. A lag between clearance or modification and the loss of a species is called an ‘extinction debt’. Reversing an extinction debt and preventing the loss of a species from a landscape can provide a significant challenge and require extensive resources.

PARt 3


Modification alters species relative abundanceEach native species responds differently to modification and change of native habitats. A majority of species decline in abundance in areas that are extensively modified. Other species may remain at similar abundances despite modification and loss at habitat. Some species may increase in abundance and/or distribution following modification. The response of a species depends on whether its resources are still met in the modified landscape, and whether it is able to adapt to utilise the resources provided in modified habitats.

The varying response of species means that the abundance and mix of species in particular ecosystems can change. Previously dominant species that decline may be replaced by new dominant species that have been advantaged by modification. These changes can lead to new competitive interactions between species.

In addition to the relative abundance of native species being altered, modification typically leads to the introduction or release of species that are not indigenous to the region. Introduced species can become widespread and many have significant impacts on the native flora and fauna of a region. For example, grasses introduced as pasture for stock can become widespread and out-compete native grasses, and the introduction of feral carnivores can lead to declines in native fauna that they prey upon.

Good condition native vegetation provides better habitatThe condition of native vegetation can also be a key determinant of whether or not a native species will persist in a landscape. Each native species has particular habitat requirements (e.g. food resources, breeding requirements, shelter, vegetation structure) that must be met for it to persist. If vegetation does not provide a species’ requirements it will not support that species.

When vegetation becomes degraded, it often loses critical habitat features that the species that are dependant upon it require. Thus, improving condition of vegetation and ensuring that species requirements are met can be important to ensure that biodiversity is conserved.

3.2 Conservation planning principlesThe targets in this report are based on recognised conservation planning principles and approaches to planning for biodiversity

target-setting at multiple levels of the biodiversity hierarchyBiodiversity exists at different levels of biological organisation, from genes and species, through to ecological communities, ecosystems and landscapes. This structure of biological organisation is hierarchical, which means that the higher levels of the biological hierarchy, such as landscapes and ecosystems, constrain and affect what happens at the lower levels of species and genes.

Researchers checking for signs of Bandicoots, the only remaining native medium-sized mammal in the AMLR (Photo: Forestry SA)


The biological hierarchy provides an efficient structure for setting targets to conserve biodiversity (Table 3.1). The higher levels of the hierarchy can be used as a ‘coarse filter’ to conserve a majority of species. This is because conservation actions delivered at the landscape or ecological community level will also meet the conservation requirements of many species that fall within those landscapes or communities. Conserving landscapes and ecological communities therefore provide general surrogates for conserving biodiversity.

However, some species will have idiosyncratic requirements that are not met by the higher-level targets. Species-specific targets can be used as a ‘fine filter’ to pick up any species whose needs are not met by conservation action at a landscape or ecological community level, and to assign tailored conservation efforts to those species.

Defining conservation targets at each level of the biodiversity hierarchy provides a planning approach that is likely to result in the conservation of a broad number of species – it is estimated that such an approach will result in the effective conservation of greater than 90% of species (including poorly-known taxa such as invertebrates, soil biota and non-vascular flora).

table 3.1 Levels of target setting used in this report

Coarse filter targets are a surrogate for the levels below them. This means that they are likely to secure the large number of non-threatened or common species that can be neglected through species-specific efforts.

Biological hierarchy level Why important Filter level

Landscapes Ecologically, landscapes are a mosaic of heterogeneous landforms, vegetation types, ecosystems and land uses. Practically, a landscape can be considered as an area of land or sea that is large enough to achieve positive ecological outcomes.

Landscapes represent large areas of biodiversity. Their impacts on lower levels of biodiversity mean that they are efficient surrogates for conserving much of their constituent biodiversity – what happens at the landscape level is important for levels below.

Coarse

Ecological communities An ecological community is a characteristic suite of interacting species that are adapted to particular conditions of soil, topography, water availability and climate.

These targets ensure that conservation efforts encapsulate the diversity of ecological communities, along with many of their component species.

Coarse

Species This section picks up those species that “fall through the gaps” of the higher-level targets and have particular requirements, and may include sub-species or varieties of species. These complement the higher-level targets set at the landscape and ecological community level.

Fine


Conservation actions should be focused on the biodiversity assets that are to be protectedThreatening processes lead to a decline in the condition of many biodiversity assets, including remnant vegetation and native species. The conservation focus for managing threatening processes should be on the asset which is threatened, and be related to the impacts of the particular threat and the condition outcome that is desired for the asset.

In some situations, a threat-based focus may be required to complement asset-based planning. This is particularly so for threats that have the potential to affect all or much of the region, affect multiple assets, or where there is a strategic advantage to focusing on the threat itself (e.g. preventing the introduction of a threat to a region).

Conservation efforts should be targeted to protect what is left, not what was once thereThe goal of biodiversity planning should focus on maintaining what we currently have – the variety of plants, animals and ecosystems found in a certain location.

Areas that have been extensively modified through agricultural or urban development may have lost many of their native plants and animals. In such environments, the goal of biodiversity planning should be to maintain the native species and ecological systems that remain in a region.

Landscape modification patterns can be used to describe landscapesLandscapes can be described by their extent of modification, in particular, by considering how much of the pre-European cover has been cleared. Modification descriptions can also be used to infer changes in landscape-scale ecological processes, such as species movements or fire regimes. With higher levels of cover remaining, landscapes are intact or variegated. In these landscapes, native vegetation cover is still the most dominant part of landscapes. More heavily modified landscapes are known as fragmented. It is in these landscapes where the reduction in cover starts to lead to isolation of remaining habitat and lack of connectivity in the landscape. Pre-European cover has been replaced by human land uses as the dominant part of landscapes. The most modified landscapes, with very little of their pre-European cover remaining, are relictual. These landscapes are typically located in highly modified locations such as urban environments (Figure 3.1).

the extent of modification and condition can help define conservation prioritiesThere is not a specific set of conservation actions that will be the most appropriate conservation priority for each landscape, ecological community or species. Typically, different conservation actions are required for each situation depending upon the level of modification that has

occurred, the extent of threats to biodiversity, and the current condition and trend of a particular biodiversity asset (Figure 3.1, Table 3.2).

It makes sense that conservation actions should be tailored to match a particular situation. Moreover, it ensures that limited resources are not wasted by conducting non-priority actions in a particular situation.

The Threatened Plant Action Group volunteers weeding threatened native orchid habitat (Photo: Joe Quarmby)


Figure 3.1 Planning model used in this report

Notes: Matrix refers to the predominant land cover type (habitat in intact and variegated landscapes; other land uses in fragmented and relictual landscapes). Patches are areas of least modified habitat surrounded by more modified habitat (most relevant to intact and variegated landscapes). Fragments are restricted areas of habitat within a matrix of other land uses. Buffers are those areas directly surrounding patches. Connecting areas refers to areas between fragments or patches. Source: Adapted from McIntyre & Hobbs (1999; 2000) & DEH (2007).

As well as being used to describe landscapes, modification patterns can be used to define the conservation priorities and appropriate actions for managing a particular landscape. These priorities are linked to objectives that aim to maintain good condition parts of the landscape, improve the condition of degraded parts of the landscape, and to reconstruct important parts of the landscape that have been reduced to such an extent that, for example, critical ecological processes or threatened species cannot continue to exist.

The ‘Maintain, Improve and Reconstruct’ approach means different things in different landscapes. With changing levels of clearance and modification, the priority actions vary. For example, reconstruction (revegetation) will generally not be a priority in areas that still have high cover as enough habitat remains in these landscapes to support native species (Figure 3.1, Table 3.2). In contrast, a fragmented landscape may not have enough habitats remaining, or remaining habitats may be too isolated. Reconstruction of vegetation in particular areas may be a priority to ensure species are not lost.


Some areas may require more urgent conservation efforts than othersAreas that have been extensively modified may not require urgent action. This is because in heavily modified areas (particularly where modification occurred relatively early during settlement) condition is likely to already be at low levels, and as a consequence, many native species may already have been lost. There may be little risk of further decline as the only species remaining in the landscape may be stable, particularly if they have been able to adapt to use the resources provided in the modified landscape.

This is in contrast to an area that remains in relatively good condition that is undergoing active decline. In this case the risk of losing species may be very high as a majority of native species may still be present. Urgency of conservation efforts including management of key ecological processes may be required to ensure that condition is maintained and that native species are not lost.

However, this does not mean that poor condition areas

should be ignored completely in favour of good condition areas. Instead it means that different actions may be the most appropriate for these areas, and these may relate to implementing localised, targeted efforts to ensure that condition does not decline any further, instead of broad-scale high-level action to improve condition.

Volunteers protecting threatened native orchids from grazing (Photo: Joe Quarmby)


table 3.2 Strategies to Maintain, Improve and Reconstruct landscapes

Landscape conservation activity

Why important Where important

Maintain good condition Maintaining the condition of habitats that remain in good condition or are largely unmodified.

Native vegetation in good condition supports a high diversity of native species. Maintenance of good condition is an important activity – it is much easier and cheaper to avoid the effects of degradation than it is to try and reverse them.

Large and whole-of-landscape focus in less modified environments where most habitats remains in good condition. In fragmented landscapes, applies to those remnants that remain in good condition.

Improve degraded condition Improving the condition of habitats that are degraded or that have been modified.

Where improvement in condition is required to ensure the persistence of native flora and fauna. Improvement requires more effort and resources than maintenance, highlighting the importance of maintaining remnants in good condition.

Less focus in more intact landscapes. In fragmented and relictual landscapes, improvement has a large focus, as a majority of ecosystems are modified and/or degraded.

Reconstruct habitat elements or resources that have been lost, using revegetation and assisted regeneration. Reconstruction can take a number of forms including re-establishment of buffers to protect existing remnants, re-establishment of connecting areas to restore connectivity, re-establishment of specific habitats lost through preferential clearance patterns, and large-scale habitat re-establishment.

In extensively cleared landscapes the remaining extent and/or configuration of habitat may no longer be enough to support the native species that are present. Where this occurs, native vegetation may need to be reconstructed to increase the total area of available habitat and/or restore connectivity. Reconstruction is a difficult and expensive option, and will not come close to replacing pre-European habitat.

Less focus in more intact landscapes where native habitats remain (though reconstruction may be appropriate in some situations). In fragmented and relictual landscapes reconstruction of vegetation may be necessary to ensure the long-term viability of existing remnants, to restore connectivity, and/or to provide sufficient habitat for native species.


Conservation of biodiversityThis section contains conservation targets and priorities to ensure that terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR is conserved for future generations.

4.1 Conservation of terrestrial and coastal biodiversity

ScopeThe terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR encompasses all inland, coastal and aquatic (freshwater and estuarine) ecosystems. Some information on the conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems has been included in the sections relating to the four target setting scales of landscapes, ecological communities, species and threatening processes. However, a separate section of the report has been dedicated to highlighting some of the current projects that are underway at the National, State and regional levels relating to aquatic ecosystems (see Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Programs, Section 4.1.4). The proposed outcomes of these projects will address knowledge gaps and add to and refine the management priorities in other sections of the report.

target setting at multiple scalesConservation priorities and targets for terrestrial and coastal biodiversity have been set at four levels:

Landscapes•

Ecological communities•

Species•

Threatening processes.•

terrestrial and aquatic Biodiversity – Summary of long-term targetsConservation targets detailed in this section will help to achieve the following outcomes and ensure that the current terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of the AMLR is conserved:

An improved condition of remnant vegetation in the AMLR, relative to current levels. This •improvement of condition will be reached through actively managing 100% of remnant native vegetation for biodiversity, by 2030.

An increase in the extent of native vegetation cover in the AMLR. This will be achieved •through reconstruction of over 58,000 ha of native vegetation by 2030, in accordance with defined restoration priorities for each landscape of the AMLR. This reconstruction effort is equal to reconstructing an area greater than half of the current remaining vegetation in the AMLR, and will increase the native cover of the region from 13% to 20%.

Increased proportion of under-represented ecological communities in the (legislatively •dedicated) protected area network, by 2030. Indicative target is 15% of pre-European vegetation (from 5 year target of 7%) = additional 62,400 ha.

A halt to the decline and loss of native species in the AMLR (see Section 4.1.3 for targets).•

An increased understanding of, and acceptance of, biodiversity and living with wildlife.•

Improved understanding and management of aquatic ecosystems (including better •integrated management of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity across local, sub-regional and regional scales) through pursuing the strategies in Section 4.1.4.

PARt 4


What is ‘active management for biodiversity’ and how is it measured?The term ‘active management’ is used throughout this report. In general it refers to on-ground management undertaken at a level sufficient to achieve defined goals for improving the condition of biodiversity. Active management can apply across all of the broad management strategies (maintain, improve, reconstruct) used in this report.

Implicit in this definition is the need to define the scale of measuring active management over any given area of native vegetation. More importantly, is the need to monitor the outcome of the management and not just the activities per se. For example, for weed control targeting threatened species habitat, the question for measuring the success of the management may be “how did the threatened species respond to weed control?” rather than just “how many weeds were eradicated?”. Similarly, for management aimed at conserving habitats or communities, the question may be more about the effect of weed control on habitat floristics and/or structure. However, this becomes more complex when there are threatened species of interest present dependant on particular habitat characteristics, or if important ecological processes such as fire or hydrological regimes need to be considered.

Such questions aimed at management outcomes rather than management activities could (and should) be asked both at a site scale and at a regional scale. To achieve this, however, flexible condition indicators need to be developed to facilitate both measurement and target-setting for management. At a habitat or vegetation community level, this also requires an understanding of ‘baselines’, which is in part a determination of an ‘ideal’ condition for any particular community. In highly modified natural environments such as in the AMLR region this can be challenging. Currently there is a project being undertaken by DEH and the AMLR NRM Board to develop ‘biodiversity baselines’ for the AMLR region.

defining ‘conservation tenure’In the AMLR region, remnant native vegetation occurs on private land and public land managed by various land management agencies (e.g. DEH, SA Water, Forestry SA and local government). Although native vegetation is broadly protected by the Native Vegetation Act, not all native vegetation can be considered securely protected and designated for conservation purposes. Custom definitions for conservation tenure have been devised and classified for the purposes of this report. Tenure has been broadly divided into public or private, and sub-divided according to the level of tenure security and tenure type dedicated for conservation purposes (see map, Figure 4.1).

Public – designated conservation

Public land legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this category, all land managed by DEH and Native Forest Reserves managed by Forestry SA is included.

Private – designated conservation

Private land legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this category, all land under Heritage Agreements (secured with land title) are included. Some Heritage Agreements managed by local government in the AMLR are also included.

Public – not designated conservation

Public land which is not legislatively dedicated and secured for conservation purposes. In this category, there are a variety of land managers, the largest being SA Water, Forestry SA (‘Locality Forests’ or other areas that may be zoned for conservation), local government and crown land reserves managed by other government agencies.

Note that this analysis does not include consideration of some forms of conservation on private land, such as those areas included under the ‘Significant Environmental Offset’ scheme operating under the Native Vegetation Act.

Further information and analysis on conservation tenure is presented in the sections below. See also Section 4.1.2 for a more detailed discussion.


Figure 4.1 Conservation tenure classification used in this report


4.1.1 Conservation of landscapes This section defines landscapes of the AMLR, and sets conservation priorities and targets in each landscape. Note that more detailed maps of landscapes (with other relevant mapping layers) are available through DEH’s online mapping tool NatureMaps.

defining ‘landscapes’Nine terrestrial landscapes and two coastal landscapes have been defined for the purposes of this report (Figure 4.2). Landscapes are largely ecologically meaningful sub-regional ‘windows’ which facilitate finer scale analysis and allow users of the report to determine management priorities for their area of interest. However, the boundaries should be considered approximate. In the situation where an area of interest is close to the boundary of an adjoining landscape and where remnant vegetation may be contiguous, management priorities of the adjoining landscape may also need to be considered.

These landscapes have been defined based on biogeographic characteristics including soils and geological landform mapping and pre-European vegetation patterns, and as such, they represent relatively distinct regional-scale ecological units of the AMLR. Coastal environments have been separated from terrestrial environments using pre-European vegetation mapping and the DEH coastal boundary.

The landscapes identify the high rainfall central spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges, the near-coastal plains and colluvial areas of the Adelaide Plains, grassland ecosystems on the eastern plains, and the fertile hills and valleys of grassy woodland in the Barossa and Eastern Hills. Coastal sub-regions include the sheltered tidal zones and sand dunes of the northern coastline, and the exposed cliffs of the southern coastline.

Figure 4.2 Landscapes and landscape modification in the AMLR.


Each landscape has been modified differentlyThe landscapes differ in their pre-European characteristics, and also the nature and extent of modification since European settlement. Most defined landscapes of the AMLR fall into the fragmented category of landscape classification (refer back to previous section; between 10% and 60% native cover remaining). Two heavily modified landscapes fall into the relictual category (less than 10% cover remaining).

However, each landscape has distinct characteristics, including the extent and timing of clearance, the particular patterns of clearance and modification and the land uses that are now dominant in each landscape.

Some areas, such as the flat near-coastal Adelaide Plains were cleared shortly after European settlement in 1836. Other areas were cleared over 100 years later. In particular, many parts of the Fleurieu peninsula were not cleared until after the 1940s (though were utilised for agricultural and timber production for many decades prior), when a soldier settlement land scheme and the development of nutrient inputs allowed for the clearance of heathy vegetation and the agricultural use of infertile soils.

Some landscapes were cleared relatively evenly across all vegetation types, whereas others display disproportionate clearance patterns where some vegetation types were cleared more heavily than others.

Based on the extent of clearance, clearance patterns and time since clearance, the landscapes of the AMLR fall into six broad categories:

Fragmented high cover landscapes•

Disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapes•

Recently fragmented landscapes•

Presumed fragmented landscapes•

Fragmented coastal landscapes•

Relictual landscapes.•

Conservation priorities for each landscapeThe modification patterns evident in each landscape help to determine the conservation priorities for each of the landscape types. These priorities reflect the actions that are the most important to protect a range of species in each landscape, and importantly, they also reflect what conservation outcomes can feasibly be achieved in each landscape. However, it is recognised that at this level, ‘fine filter’ management considerations need to be incorporated to cater for many threatened species (e.g. species that have declined to critical levels where urgent site-specific management and/or ex-situ conservation may be required).

This section groups landscapes by their modification type. Each of the six modification types has a modification summary, a number of defined conservation priorities and a landscape conservation strategy. In addition, each of the 11 landscapes has a summary page displaying biogeographic and modification statistics along with the conservation targets for each landscape.


Fragmented high cover landscapesLandscapes that are fragmented, but have more than a third of their native cover remaining.

Where in the AMLR?One landscape falls into this category: Northern Lofty Ranges.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are fragmented, but native cover remains greater than 30%, and therefore above •the threshold at which many species are lost.

Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident. Grassy ecosystems and riparian areas have •been more heavily cleared than shrubby/heathy ecosystems.

Clearance and fragmentation has been relatively recent, with variegated cover (greater than •60% native vegetation) still remaining in the 1940s.

Large, well-connected remnants remain.•

A large proportion of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system, either under formal •conservation tenure, or land managed by Forestry SA or SA Water.

Land use mosaic is agricultural, dominated by grazing and horticulture. Intensive land use has •been historically low, with a current trend of increasing intensification and development.

Condition is good relative to many other parts of the AMLR.•

Condition trend is considered stable to slightly declining.•

Conservation prioritiesThe immediate priority is to ensure that the good condition of the landscape is maintained (Table 4.1). This landscape is unique as few areas where this can be feasibly achieved remain in the AMLR.

Maintaining the current condition will involve restricting new or increasing threats to biodiversity in the landscape, and actively managing remnant vegetation to maintain or improve its condition. Active management of vegetation should initially focus on the large, well-connected remnants in the protected area network, and on large remnants on public land. The large extent of remnant vegetation under conservation tenure provides a core for conservation efforts in the landscape. These areas need to be actively managed now to ensure that they are maintained in good condition, or improved to good condition where they are currently degraded.

The longer-term focus is on more intensive improvement of remnant vegetation across the landscape, and reconstructing disproportionately cleared vegetation types. This will ensure that there is enough of these more extensively cleared habitats to support the species that are dependant on them for resources.

table 4.1 Landscape conservation strategies for fragmented high cover landscapes

✓ = indicates the relative extent of effort and resources that should be directed towards each conservation strategy (maximum 3 ticks).

Immediate focus (0-5 years) Longer-term focus (5-20 years)

Maintain good condition ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓

Improve degraded condition ✓ 1 ✓ ✓

Reconstruct vegetation ✓ 2

1 Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and public lands 2 Reconstruction of disproportionately cleared habitats only


Area and landforms 30,216 ha. 3.9% of the region. Low, steep and rolling hills with prominent rocky ridges. Low slopes, flats and rises.

Pre-European vegetation patterns

Dominated by vegetation with shrubby understorey, which covered half of the landscape; predominantly heathy woodland (42%), with some areas of heathy forest (8%). Grassy woodland in valleys and on productive soils, and riparian vegetation, each comprised approximately 25% of the landscape.

Landscape modification and clearance patterns

Fragmented. 12,473 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (41%). Some fragmentation is relatively recent. In the 1940s the level of cover was greater than 60%. Alluvial valleys and areas of good soil were cleared first as they were most suitable for agriculture. Clearance was focused on good soils, with a disproportionate loss of grassy woodland and riparian vegetation. Less than 30% of the pre-European extent of these vegetation types remains, compared to almost 60% of the pre-European extent of heathy woodland remaining.

Remnant vegetation patterns and conservation protection

Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy woodland, which comprises almost two thirds of the vegetation in the landscape. Grassy woodland and riparian vegetation cover approximately 17% each. Nearly half of remnant heathy woodland is protected on public lands, while approximately a quarter of grassy woodland and riparian is also each protected on public lands. A similar amount of these vegetation groups also occur on public lands that is not protected for conservation. In terms of the proportion of pre-European vegetation, grassy woodland, riparian and heathy forest are under represented in public and private lands (legislatively designated for conservation). Total areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 37% remnant, 15% pre-European Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 29% remnant, 12% pre-European Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 2% remnant, 1% pre-European

Land use Major: grazing, conservation Other: forestry, horticulture, peri-urban

Important threatened species/ broad vegetation group associations

Flora: heathy woodland, grassy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)

Conservation targets

5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 4,855 ha). Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 1,520 ha) management actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015. Development controls to ensure development takes place in a manner that does not impact on biodiversity assets developed and implemented, by 2015. Landscape-level threat management programs1 developed and implemented, by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent, by 2030 (target = 300 ha). 1 The relative intactness of this landscape means that co-ordinated landscape-scale threat management may achieve significant landscape-scale biodiversity outcomes; co-ordination and integration of activities such as feral animal control means that land managers are more likely to achieve sustained reductions in feral animals and their impacts.

* Remnant vegetation pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.

Northern Lofty Landscape (fragmented high cover) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


disproportionately cleared fragmented landscapesLandscapes that are fragmented, have less than a third of pre-European cover remaining and show preferential clearance patterns.

Where in the AMLR?Two landscapes fall into this category: Foothills and Hills Face, and Central Lofty.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold •below which many species are lost from landscapes.

Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident. Grassy ecosystems and riparian areas have •been more heavily cleared than shrubby/heathy ecosystems.

Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape started early, with pre-European cover cleared •to below 50% by the 1940s.

Large, well-connected remnants remain in some parts of the landscape.•

Over a quarter of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system, either under formal •conservation tenure, or land managed by Forestry SA or SA Water.

Land use mosaic is agricultural and peri-urban, dominated by grazing, horticulture and lifestyle •blocks.

Intensification of land use is increasing in some areas, with other areas (e.g. Hills Face) protected •from development.

Condition of the landscape is modified.•

Condition trend is considered to be actively degrading in many places.•

Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priority for these landscapes is to halt or slow the current decline in condition (Table 4.2). This declining condition is linked to the poor current condition of many remnants and the fact that they exist in a highly fragmented mosaic surrounded by intensive agricultural land use. Edge effects from adjacent land use are common and leading to further degradation of remnants. Ensuring the proper application of development controls in the Hills Face Zone may assist in slowing the decline in biodiversity condition.

Halting the current decline in condition will require active management of remnant vegetation to improve condition. This active management may involve containment of threats in degraded parts of the landscape, or large-scale management of threats in areas with higher remnant cover. The large amount of remnant vegetation in conservation areas, or on other public lands, provides a


table 4.2 Landscape conservation strategies for disproportionately-cleared fragmented landscapes



Maintain good condition ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓

Improve condition ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓


1 Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and public lands, with additional improve focus on poorly protected vegetation types. 2 Reconstruction of disproportionately cleared habitats only, where possible to buffer and connect existing remnants.

core for conservation efforts in the short-term. Poorly protected vegetation types may also require immediate active management to improve their condition. The large number of lifestyle blocks/ hobby farms in these landscapes provides an opportunity to get native vegetation under active management for biodiversity, as land is not managed for economic outcomes.

Longer-term priorities include improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation across the landscape and ongoing threat containment and management, and the reconstruction of disproportionately-cleared habitats. This reconstruction focus will ensure that grassy ecosystems and riparian areas are increased in extent to provide resources for species that are dependent upon them, and it will also serve to increase indigenous vegetation cover to greater than 30% of the landscape.


Area and landforms 25,668 ha. 3.3% of the region. Steep hills and dissected escarpments (south). Steep low hills, sandy ridges and dissected slopes (north).


Almost half of landscape (47%) was covered with grassy woodland, including box grassy woodlands which were common among the foothills. Other common vegetation types were riparian (27%), heathy woodland (16%) and heathy forest (10%).


Fragmented. 6,837 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (27%). Many areas (e.g. foothills) were cleared prior to 1940s. Clearance was selective towards good soils. Vegetation on steep hills and escarpments was cleared less extensively than other vegetation. Almost half (44%) of the pre-European extent of heathy forest remains as remnant vegetation. All other vegetation types were over 70% cleared.

Remnant vegetation and conservation protection

Grassy woodland (40%) remains the dominant vegetation type in remnant vegetation followed by riparian at nearly 30%. Less-cleared vegetation such as heathy forest (17%) are relatively more dominant than they were historically. Grassy woodland and heathy forest are equally-represented in protected public lands – however the pre-European dominance of grassy woodland is not reflected in the proportions of vegetation in protected public lands. There are significant amounts of grassy woodland in unprotected public lands. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 23% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 13% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant

Land use Major: peri-urban Other: grazing, viticulture, conservation


Flora: heathy woodland, grassy woodland, wetland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,772 ha). Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 1,010 ha) management actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015. Opportunities for landscape-scale conservation clusters1 on private and public lands identified and developed, by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types2 reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent, by 2030 (target = 1,000 ha). 1 Conservation clusters are multi-property sites that are actively managed for biodiversity. Sites encompass private and public lands and provide a buffer around conservation cores (protected areas). 2 Excludes reconstruction of heathy woodland. Although cleared to below 30%, reconstruction of heathy woodland in the hills face is not considered a priority given the relatively large extent of this vegetation type remaining in the rest of the AMLR.


Hills Face / Foothills Landscape (disproportionately cleared fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Area and landforms 71,833 ha. 9.2% of the region. High elevation central divide. Dissected escarpments, precipitous cliffs, deep, narrow gorges, steep to moderately steep slopes and rises with undulating crests. Gentle slopes and flats, broad elongate valleys and rolling low hills. Strongly dissected by watercourses and narrow creek flats.


Dominated by heathy forest (40%) and riparian vegetation (33%). Other vegetation types included grassy woodland (14%) and heathy woodland (13%).


Fragmented. 18,500 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (26%). Clearance is relatively long-term, with over half of the pre-European vegetation cleared by the 1940s. Clearance was selective towards good soils, with a disproportionate loss of grassy woodland and riparian vegetation. Only 14% of the pre-European extent of grassy woodland, and 20% of riparian vegetation, remains, compared to over 30% of the original extent of heathy vegetation types.


Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy woodland, with this vegetation type comprising almost 50% of remnant vegetation in the landscape, followed by riparian at 25%. Protection of remnant vegetation is relatively proportioned across vegetation groups. There are also significant amounts of remnant vegetation on public land (not legislatively protected) managed by SA Water. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 21% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 22% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 4% of remnant

Land use Major: peri-urban Other: grazing, horticulture, conservation


Flora: wetland, heathy woodland, grassy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 4,566 ha). Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA (target = 2,780 ha) management actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015. Identify and develop opportunities for landscape-scale conservation clusters1 on private and public lands, by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Disproportionately-cleared vegetation types reconstructed to greater than 30% of their pre-European extent, by 2030 (target = 3,900 ha). 1 Conservation clusters are multi-property sites that are actively managed for biodiversity. Sites encompass private and public lands and provide a buffer around conservation cores (protected areas).

* pie chart represents relative proportions of vegetation types remaining after clearance.

Central Lofty Landscape (disproportionately cleared fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


table 4.3 Landscape conservation strategies for recently fragmented landscapes



Maintain condition ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓

Improve condition ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 ✓ ✓ ✓

Reconstruct vegetation

✓ ✓ 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ 3

1 Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas, public lands and large remnants. 2 Initial reconstruct focus is to buffer and connect existing remnants. 3 Reconstruct to increase cover to >30%.

Recently fragmented landscapesLandscapes that are fragmented with less than a third of pre-European cover remaining, with fragmentation resulting from a relatively recent clearance history.

Where in the AMLR?Two landscapes fall into this category: Southern Fleurieu and Fleurieu.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold below •

which many species are lost from landscapes.

Most vegetation types were cleared at similar levels. Strong disproportionate clearance patterns are •

not evident.

Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape has been relatively recent, with large amounts of •

vegetation cleared after the 1940s.

Some large remnants remain, although small, isolated remnants are also numerous.•

A relatively large proportion of remnant vegetation is in the public lands system under dedicated •

conservation tenure.

Land use mosaic is agricultural, dominated by grazing and dairies on improved pastures.•

Agricultural land use is becoming more intensive in some areas, with land uses such as farm forestry •

also increasing.

Condition of the landscape is modified.•

Condition trend is considered to be actively declining.•

Conservation prioritiesHalting and reversing the current decline in condition is the immediate priority of these landscapes (Table

4.3). As much of the clearance occurred relatively recently, there is likely to be a window of opportunity

to improve condition before species are lost. This will require active management of remnants to improve

condition, along with reconstruction of native vegetation to increase cover to exceed 30% of the

landscapes.

Both active management of remnants and reconstruction of vegetation should commence immediately,

to reflect the urgency and high priority of capitalising on this opportunity before further species decline or

are lost from these areas. The immediate focus of remnant management should be on remnants that are

currently in good condition, which is likely to be remnants under conservation tenure, large remnants, or

remnants that are buffered from the impacts of intensive land use. The immediate focus of reconstruction

should be to buffer and connect existing remnants, while also taking account of land availability

opportunities that may arise.

In the longer term, significant improvement – incorporating both remnant management and large-

scale reconstruction of vegetation – will be required to maintain the current species present in these

landscapes. The extent of conservation efforts required in these landscapes is large – capacity building

will also be required to ensure targets can be met.


Area and landforms 29,007 ha. 3.7% of the region. Large, elevated Parawa plateau and moderate to steep slopes flanking the plateau.


Heavily dominated by heathy forest (38%) and heathy woodland (37%), with wetlands (18%) also well-represented. Other vegetation types were uncommon and included grassy woodlands (6%) and riparian (1%).


Fragmented. 6,321 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (22%). Much clearance is relatively recent and occurred post-1940s. In the 1940s pre-European vegetation still covered approximately 80% of the landscape. Most vegetation types were equally cleared, with strongly disproportionate clearance patterns not evident. Most vegetation types are approximately 80% cleared, although wetlands were less cleared, approximately 60%.


Remnant vegetation is dominated by heathy forest, heathy woodland and wetland vegetation, with each comprising just over 30% of remnant vegetation. 45% of heathy forest, 34% of heathy woodland and 29% of wetland remnant vegetation is legislatively designated within public lands. An additional 12% of heathy woodland is privately protected (Heritage Areas). Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 35% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 6% of remnant

Land use Major: grazing on modified pastures Other: irrigated modified pastures, conservation, forestry, horticulture


Flora: wetland, heathy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 2,592 ha). Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA tenure (target = 746 ha) actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015. 10% of long-term revegetation target reconstructed by 2015 (target = 240 ha).

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 30%, by 2030 (target = 2,400 ha). 1 Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants.


Southern Fleurieu Landscape (recently cleared fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Area and landforms 101,546 ha. 13% of the region. Undulating hills and valleys, rounded hills, steep hills and hill slopes.


Almost half of the pre-European cover of the region was heathy woodland (49%). Many other vegetation types were represented, including grassy woodland (24%), heathy forest (9%), riparian (8%) and wetlands (8%).


Fragmented. 17,857 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (18%). Fragmentation of the landscape is relatively recent. In 1945, native vegetation cover still covered approximately 70% of the landscape. Most vegetation types were cleared equally, with clearance rates of 80-85% applying to most vegetation types.


The proportions of remnant vegetation types reflect the pre-European patterns, with heathy woodland the most dominant remnant vegetation type (54%). Grassy woodland represents 16% of remnants and heathy forest 12%, with both riparian and wetland vegetation representing approximately 8%. Nearly one third of heathy woodland remnants are under conservation tenure, representing the majority of legally protected vegetation in the landscape. Grassy woodland is under-represented in legally protected public lands. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 20% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 9% of remnant

Land use Major: grazing on modified pastures Other: irrigated modified pastures, forestry, conservation


Flora: wetland, heathy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 5,235 ha). Remnant vegetation under SA Water and Forestry SA tenure (target = 2,520 ha) actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015. 10% of long-term revegetation target reconstructed (target = 1,260 ha), by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 30%, by 2030 (target = 12,620 ha). 1 Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants.


Fleurieu Landscape (recently cleared fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Presumed fragmented landscapesLandscapes that have been heavily cleared, but where it is presumed that greater than 10% of pre-European cover remains.

Where in the AMLR?Two landscapes fall into this category: Barossa Valley and Eastern Hills, and Eastern Flanks.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are presumed fragmented, with pre-European cover likely to fall between 10% and 30% of •

the landscape. Obtaining an accurate estimate of cover is difficult due to difficulties in mapping grassy

ecosystems using standard vegetation mapping techniques.

Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape commenced early, with landscapes heavily cleared •

and utilised for pastoralism since before the 1940s. Remnants are located within a mosaic of agricultural

land use. Many remnants are small and isolated.

Low levels of remnant vegetation are formally protected under conservation tenure.•

Land use is dominated by extensive grazing, with intensive agriculture common in some areas. Land use •

trend is for increasing intensification.

Condition is modified to highly modified. Condition trend is considered to be stable to slightly declining.•

Conservation prioritiesEnsuring that these landscapes maintain their current native species will require extensive improvement of

remnant vegetation, broad-scale reconstruction of native vegetation, and an improvement in our current

understanding and knowledge.

Improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation is the most important short-term priority (Table 4.4).

As the current extent of grassy ecosystems in these landscapes is unclear, investigations to map all existing

remnant vegetation should be completed to inform conservation efforts. There is also a need to increase

recognition of remnant grassy ecosystems as native vegetation, and to better integrate the requirements

of these systems with appropriate grazing management practices. This will be achieved by providing land

managers with tools that will allow them to better manage land to improve the condition of remnant

vegetation (e.g. appropriate stock grazing practices).

The immediate focus of active management efforts should be on remnants in the best condition. These are

likely to be larger remnants, and/or areas that have been only lightly grazed or that have had good grazing

management. However, for grassy ecosystems the reverse can often be true – that small areas such as

cemeteries and road reserves that have historically been subject to little modification, such as grazing, can

often be in relatively good condition.

Learning more about the restoration of grassy ecosystems is also a short-term priority, as significant

reconstruction of these extensively cleared vegetation types will be necessary to ensure that the species of

these landscapes are conserved in the longer-term.

In the longer-term, these landscapes will require an improvement of condition across the landscape,

combined with extensive reconstruction to increase the cover of the landscape to a level that will support

the current species (provisionally set to greater than 20% cover, based on current mapping). Unlike other

parts of the AMLR, a large extent of this reconstruction may be achieved through assisted regeneration and

improvement of currently grazed remnants of grassy ecosystems. This type of reconstruction will require less

effort than the reconstruction required in many other parts of the AMLR.

table 4.4 Landscape conservation strategies for presumed fragmented landscapes



Maintain condition ✓ 1 ✓ ✓


Reconstruct vegetation ✓ 2 ✓ ✓ 3

1 Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and large remnants. 2 Restoration and reconstruction trials for grassy ecosystems only. 3 Reconstruct to increase cover to >20%. Although the size of the target is large, significant amounts of this reconstruction may be met through assisted natural regeneration, and will therefore require less effort than reconstruction in some other landscapes


Area and landforms 172,499 ha. 22.1% of the region. Undulating to rolling low rises and low hills, flat to gently sloping valleys, broad alluvial flats and plains, and deeply incised watercourses with steep banks.


Pre-European vegetation strongly dominated by grassy woodland (62%), with riparian (27%) and heathy woodland (10%) vegetation also present.


Presumed fragmented. 13,495 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (8%). This is likely to be an under-estimate due to the difficulties of mapping grassy ecosystems. Many areas were cleared prior to 1945, with pastoralism widespread by this time. Most vegetation types were over 90% cleared, with grassy ecosystems cleared the most extensively. Grassy woodlands were 93% cleared, riparian areas 91% cleared and heathy woodland 87% cleared.


Grassy woodland remains the dominant vegetation type (52% of remnant vegetation). Riparian vegetation comprises 31% of remnant vegetation. The proportion of heathy woodland has increased relatively, now representing 16% of remnant vegetation. The amount of remnant vegetation in protected conservation lands is very small. Protected areas are dominated by heathy woodland. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 6% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 4% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 3% of remnant

Land use Major: grazing on modified pastures or native vegetation Other: viticulture, horticulture


Flora: wetland (south), grassy woodland (north) Fauna: grassy woodland , heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,211 ha). The extent of remnant grassy ecosystems in the landscape accurately mapped, by 2015. Tools for improved integration of primary production and biodiversity outcomes developed and promoted, by 2015. Trials to increase knowledge of restoration and reconstruction of grassy ecosystems conducted, by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 20%2 of the landscape, by 2030 (target = 21,000 ha). 1 Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants (assisted regeneration may be more appropriate than revegetation). 2 This target is preliminary and may change following improved identification of remnant vegetation extent in the landscape.


Barossa and Eastern Hills Landscape (low cover presumed fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Area and landforms 107,070 ha. 13.7% of the region. Rough hill country with steep rocky low hills and hills, rocky outcrops and escarpments; and gentler country with rolling low hills, undulating rises, broad valleys and flats, and alluvial flood plains. Watercourses and narrow river valleys dissect the landscape in an east-west direction.


The pre-European vegetation of the landscape is dominated by grassy ecosystems, most notably grassy woodlands (74%) and grasslands (9%). Other vegetation types include riparian vegetation (8%) and mallee (6%).


Presumed fragmented. 9,045 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (8.5%). This is likely to be an under-estimate due to the difficulties of mapping grassy ecosystems. Many areas were cleared prior to 1945, with pastoralism widespread by this time. All vegetation types have been extensively cleared (grassy woodlands 92%, grasslands 95%, riparian 89% and mallee 88%).


Grassy woodland is the most dominant vegetation type (73% of remnant vegetation). Grassland was heavily cleared with approximately 5% remaining. Other remnant vegetation types include riparian (10%), mallee (8%) and grasslands (5%). Less than 10% of remnant vegetation is protected in formal conservation areas. Those areas that are conserved are dominated by grassy woodlands (34% of protected vegetation), and mallee (24%). The amount of remnant vegetation in protected conservation lands is small. Protected areas are mostly private, protecting grassy woodland (10%) and mallee (15%). Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 1% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 9% of remnant

Land use Major: grazing on modified pastures or native vegetation Other: cropping, horticulture


Flora: mallee Fauna: grassy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 923 ha). The extent of remnant grassy ecosystems in the landscape accurately mapped, by 2015. Tools for improved integration of primary production and biodiversity outcomes developed and promoted, by 2015. Trials to increase knowledge of restoration and restoration of grassy ecosystems conducted, by 2015.

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Native vegetation reconstructed1 to greater than 20%2 of the landscape, by 2030 (target = 12,370 ha). 1 Excludes reconstruction of mallee, which is not considered a priority due to its peripheral distribution in the AMLR. Where possible, vegetation should be reconstructed to buffer and connect existing remnants 2 This target is preliminary and may change following better identification of remnant vegetation extent.


Eastern Flanks (low cover presumed fragmented) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Fragmented coastal landscapesLandscapes that are fragmented, have less than a third of pre-European cover remaining, and are situated in coastal environments.

Where in the AMLR?Two landscapes fall into this category: Northern Coastline and Southern Coastline. These cover the coastal zone stretching from the Light River, along Gulf St Vincent, around Cape Jervis and along the southern coast to Goolwa.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are fragmented, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 30%, the threshold •below which many species are lost from landscapes. Some parts of the landscape were cleared early, shortly after settlement.

In the Northern Coastline landscape, clearance of all vegetation types has been substantial, •with most vegetation types cleared to similar low levels.

Disproportionate clearance patterns are evident in the Southern Coastline landscape, with •sheltered cliff, sheltered dune and exposed dune vegetation types cleared more extensively than exposed cliff vegetation types. In the adjacent hinterland areas grassy woodlands were cleared more than heathy woodlands.

Well-connected remnants remain along the coastline in the Northern Coastline landscape •(mostly in sheltered tidal mangrove vegetation), whereas remnants are small and highly scattered in the Southern Coastline landscape.

Approximately half of the remnant vegetation is legislatively designated in the public lands system.•

Land use mosaic is urban (Northern Coastline) or agricultural dominated by grazing (Southern •Coastline). Land use trend is for increasing urban development and recreation.

Condition is modified to highly modified. Condition trend is considered to be stable (where •extensive modification has already occurred) to actively degrading.


table 4.5 Landscape conservation strategies for fragmented coastal landscapes



Maintain condition ✓ 1 ✓ ✓



1 Initial maintain and improve focus is on protected areas and large remnants, 2 Reconstruct to buffer and connect existing remnants.

Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priority for these landscapes is to halt or slow the current decline in condition. This declining condition is linked to on-going weed invasion, increasing urban development and encroachment, inappropriate and unmanaged access and on-going grazing.

Halting the current decline in condition will require active management of remnant vegetation to improve condition (Table 4.5). This active management may involve mitigation and containment of threats in degraded parts of the landscape (e.g. controlling access, fencing to exclude grazing, erosion control, weed removal or containment of weed spread to prevent incursion into more intact areas). Larger-scale management of threats may be required in areas with higher remnant cover. The large amount of remnant vegetation in conservation areas, or on other public lands, provides a core for conservation efforts in the short-term. Poorly protected vegetation types may also require immediate active management to improve their condition.

Preventing inappropriate urban and recreational development, and managing for the potential impacts of climate change are also important components of managing the threats to these landscapes. Longer-term priorities include improvement of the condition of remnant vegetation across the landscape and ongoing threat containment and management, and the reconstruction of disproportionately-cleared habitats. This reconstruction should focus on buffering and connecting existing remnants.


Area and landforms 21,665 ha. 2.8% of the region. Coastal and near-coastal plains, broad alluvial plains and floodplains, outwash fans, flat to very gently inclined plains, low lying estuarine and coastal tidal flats, and coastal dunes and sub-dunes.


Coastal vegetation dominated by sheltered tidal zones (83%), with some sheltered dunes (10%). Terrestrial vegetation in hinterland dominated by shrubland (7%).


Fragmented. 5,203 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (24%). Some parts of this landscape were cleared early, shortly after settlement. Clearance has been extensive in many parts of the landscape, with the coastal suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide having replaced the native vegetation. Almost all of the near-coastal shrubland has been lost (>99%). Sheltered tidal areas have been less cleared (73%) than sheltered dunes (83%), although much of the supratidal zones adjacent to intertidal areas have been lost.


The majority of remnant vegetation in the landscape is sheltered tidal vegetation (>90%), primarily mangroves and saltmarsh. Sheltered dunes are also represented (7%). Very few remnants of other vegetation types remain. Approximately one half of sheltered tidal areas are legislatively protected, mostly at Barker Inlet Aquatic Reserve and Port Gawler Conservation Park. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 48% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 27% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 0%

Land use Major: urban Other: horticulture, industrial, conservation


Flora: coastal, grassy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 2,483 ha).

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Vegetation to buffer and connect existing remnants reconstructed, by 2030 (target = 800 ha).


Northern Coastline Landscape (fragmented coastal) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Area and landforms 9,328 ha. 1.2% of the region. Undulating rises, steep to precipitous hillslopes and coastal cliffs, localised coastal flats and low sandy rises, and the undulating coastal plain surrounding Cape Jervis.


Coastal vegetation dominated by cliffs, both sheltered (15%) and exposed (11%), with sheltered dunes (8%) and exposed dunes (6%) also present. Terrestrial vegetation in the hinterland adjacent to coastal areas was dominated by grassy woodland (40%) and heathy woodland (10%). Wetland vegetation covered approximately 3%.


Fragmented. 2,059 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (22%). Some parts of this landscape were cleared shortly after settlement. Clearance has not been equal across all vegetation types. Sheltered cliff (90% cleared), sheltered dune (79%) and exposed dune (80%) vegetation has been more extensively cleared than exposed cliff vegetation (35% cleared). Hinterland areas have also been subject to disproportionate clearance, with grassy woodlands (95% cleared) and markedly lower clearance of heathy woodland (37%).


Remnant vegetation comprises coastal vegetation and hinterland vegetation. The most dominant vegetation types include exposed cliff vegetation (33% remnant vegetation) and heathy woodland (28%), along with sheltered cliff (7%), sheltered dune (8%) and exposed dune (5%). Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 69% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 17% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 0%

Land use Major: grazing on improved pastures Other: conservation


Flora: coastal Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 1,426 ha).

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Vegetation to buffer and connect existing remnants reconstructed, by 2030 (target = 500 ha).


Southern Coastline Landscape (fragmented coastal) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


table 4.6 Landscape conservation strategies for relictual landscapes



Maintain condition ✓

Improve condition ✓ 1 ✓

Reconstruct vegetation ✓ 2 ✓ 2

1 Initial improve focus is on protected areas and larger remnants. Maintenance of good condition is not a priority as it is assumed that all vegetation has been modified and will require an improvement in condition to remain viable.

2 Reconstruction is to buffer existing remnants, for research and for community engagement.

Relictual landscapesLandscapes that have been extensively cleared and heavily modified, and have less than 10% of pre-European cover remaining.

Where in the AMLR?Two landscapes fall into this category: Adelaide Plains and Willunga Basin.

Landscape modification summaryLandscapes are relictual, with pre-European cover cleared to less than 10%, the threshold below •which catastrophic loss of species is predicted.

Most vegetation types have been extensively cleared and modified. Some have been •completely lost.

Clearance and fragmentation commenced early, with many areas cleared shortly after •European settlement in the AMLR.

Remnant vegetation is typified by small, isolated remnants within a highly modified matrix•

Little remnant vegetation is formally protected under conservation tenure, typically less •than 10% of remnants.

Land use mosaic is urban and intensive agricultural, with a trend for increasing urban •encroachment and intensification of agricultural areas.

Condition of the landscape is heavily modified.•

Condition trend is considered to be stable (where extensive modification has already occurred) •to declining (where modification has been less extreme).

Conservation prioritiesMuch of the biodiversity and ecological function of these landscapes has already been lost. The goal is not to return lost species; it is about managing what is left, and maintaining and protecting the species that remain. In these heavily modified landscapes this will often require site-specific or species-specific efforts to maintain the viability of individual remnants or species, instead of programs aimed at achieving landscape-scale improvement. The conservation priorities are to improve the condition of remnant vegetation to maximise the long-term viability of individual remnants, and to use conservation efforts for research and community engagement (Table 4.6). The large population resident in these landscapes provides an opportunity to engage and educate people about biodiversity.

Ensuring that individual remnants remain viable will probably also require the reconstruction of buffering vegetation, both to increase remnant size and to protect remnants from the impacts of adjacent land use. This may frequently involve focusing on improving connectivity with contiguous vegetation in adjoining landscapes. Where reconstruction of buffers is not possible (e.g. urban areas), development and land use should be managed to ensure that there is a buffer around remnants to minimise detrimental impacts on remnants. In addition to buffering remnants, habitat reconstruction will also have a role in promoting community understanding and engagement and increasing our knowledge of reconstructing vegetation to achieve ecological goals. Ecological outcomes of reconstruction may be limited due to the extensive long-term modification of these landscapes.


Area and landforms 55,422 ha. 7.1% of the region. Undulating to steep slopes, undulating rises and hills, dissected escarpments, steep rocky hills and hillslopes.


Pre-European vegetation dominated by grassy woodland (70%). Other vegetation types included heathy woodland (16%), riparian (9%) and small areas of shrubland (2%) and grassland (2%).


Relictual. 2,970 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (5%). Clearance and fragmentation of the landscape commenced early, with vegetation on good soils cleared prior to the 1940s for agricultural development. All vegetation types have been at least 90% cleared. Grassy woodland have been more extensively cleared (96%) than other vegetation types (riparian, shrubland and heathy woodland approximately 90% cleared).


Remnant vegetation is dominated by grassy woodland (48%), with heathy woodland (31%) and riparian vegetation (16%) also represented. 30% of grassy woodland is legislatively designated on public lands which is disproportionate to it’s pre-European extent. However, a further 11% is represented in other public lands. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 25% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 11% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 5% of remnant

Land use Major: grazing on modified pastures Other: urban, viticulture, horticulture


Flora: grassy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 903 ha).

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Vegetation reconstructed to buffer existing remnants and/or to increase connectivity to adjoining landscapes. Reconstruction may also serve education and amenity purposes, by 2030 (target = 1,500 ha).


Willunga Basin Landscape (relictual) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


Area and landforms 155,747 ha. 20% of the region. Flat to moderately sloping country, gentle to moderate slopes, gentle low rises and rolling low hills, gently inclined plains, and expansive outwash fans. Gently undulating sandhill – swale dunefields are present in the north-west.


Grassy woodland was the most dominant vegetation type, covering 50% of the landscape. Grasslands were also well-represented, covering 20% of the landscape. Other vegetation types included shrubland (10%), mallee (10%) in the north of the landscape, and riparian (4%) along the east-west watercourses flowing from the ranges to Gulf St Vincent.


Relictual. 3,021 ha pre-European vegetation remaining (2%). Clearance and modification of the landscape commenced soon after European settlement. Over 90% of the pre-European vegetation had been cleared by the 1940s. All vegetation types were extensively cleared, with most over 95% cleared (grassy woodland 98%, shrublands 99%, grasslands 99%, mallee 97%). Grassy ecosystems and vegetation types on the alluvial plains were heavily cleared soon after settlement. Riparian vegetation has been cleared less extensively (87%) than other vegetation types.


Very little native vegetation remains. Almost half of remnant vegetation is grassy woodland (47%). Other remnant vegetation types include riparian (27%), mallee (15%) and grassland (3%). The area of remnants under protected conservation tenure on public lands is very small. However there are significant areas on public lands not protected for conservation. Total remnant areas under various levels of protection include: Public lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 7% of remnant Public lands (not legislatively designated for conservation): 14% of remnant Private lands (legislatively designated for conservation): 1% of remnant

Land use Major: urban Other: horticulture, cropping, grazing on modified pastures.


Flora: grassy woodland Fauna: grassy woodland, heathy woodland See Willson and Bignall (2009)


5yr 100% of remnant vegetation under protected public and private conservation tenure actively managed for biodiversity, by 2015 (target = 223 ha).

20yr 100% of remnant vegetation actively managed for biodiversity, by 2030. Vegetation reconstructed to buffer existing remnants and/or to increase connectivity to adjoining landscapes. Reconstruction may also serve education and amenity purposes, by 2030 (target = 1,500 ha).


Adelaide Plains Landscape (relictual) Pre-European vegetation Remnant vegetation*


4.1.2 Conservation of ecological communitiesThis section describes the terrestrial broad vegetation groups of the AMLR, summarises their modification patterns and condition, and sets targets to ensure their effective conservation. This includes defining the active management priorities for remnant vegetation in varying levels of condition, to help meet the target of 100% of remnant vegetation in the AMLR being actively managed for biodiversity within 20 years.

The target of 100% of remnant vegetation being under active management provides a surrogate for achieving an improvement in the condition of remnant vegetation – a widespread improvement in the condition of vegetation across the AMLR is considered necessary to ensure that the current species of the AMLR are maintained.

this report provides a generalised vegetation hierarchical grouping for the AMLRThe information used in this section is based on detailed vegetation mapping, both of pre-European vegetation types and of the extent of remnant vegetation.

Although vegetation mapping provides the most detailed assessment of vegetation in the region, this information can be difficult to summarise. With over 130 pre-European vegetation mapping descriptions for the AMLR, it can be difficult to define general patterns.

To overcome this, this plan describes the vegetation patterns of the AMLR using a generalised hierarchical vegetation classification. This classification has been supported by vegetation experts. The classification is based on the pre-European vegetation mapping descriptions, but its simple hierarchical nature allows for it to provide a more generalised assessment of vegetation patterns that are more easily recognisable.

The vegetation descriptions provided in this section are intentionally broad, and aim only to describe the general vegetation patterns in the AMLR. In reality, the structure and composition of vegetation, and the environments in which the different communities occur are a continuum. Distinctions between vegetation types may not be as clear-cut in reality and this section should be considered as a guide only.

Broad vegetation patterns of the AMLR are described by broad vegetation groupsBroad vegetation groups are used to summarise the general vegetation patterns of the AMLR. They have been described based on broad floristic characteristics and environmental relationships (e.g. links between vegetation type and climate, soils and landform) and expert opinion.

Thirteen broad vegetation groups have been described for the AMLR (Table 4.7). These include vegetation with a shrub-dominated understorey, vegetation with a non-shrub (i.e. native grass) dominated understorey, mallee vegetation more typical of adjacent regions than the AMLR, inland freshwater vegetation and coastal vegetation.

More detailed vegetation patterns are defined by ecological communitiesUnderneath the broad vegetation groups sits a finer level of vegetation classification. Ecological communities define the more detailed floristic patterns and communities that are found under each broad vegetation group. They also provide an impression of the diversity of vegetation that are found under each broad vegetation group. Seventy-one ecological communities have been defined for the AMLR, comprising 36 terrestrial, six inland wetland and 29 coastal.

Active management priorities differ with vegetation type and vegetation conditionThis report sets a target for actively managing all remnant vegetation for biodiversity. What this means in practice will differ according to the type of vegetation and also the condition that vegetation is in. The different broad vegetation groups in the AMLR have differing patterns of condition. The condition that remnant vegetation exists in today is linked to both historical and current land use and management regimes.

Almost all remnant vegetation in the AMLR was subject to historical impacts. Many areas were converted to agricultural use or used for pastoralism shortly after European settlement. Nearly all forest and woodland vegetation was selectively timber-harvested by early settlers, including the dense heathy forests of the central spine of the ranges.


table 4.7 Vegetation hierarchy for AMLR

Broad vegetation group

Ecological communities

tEC3/t4 distribution


Heathy forest

Heathy woodland

Shrubland

1

10

6

-/-

-/3

-/1

High-rainfall areas, central spine of MLR

Widespread. Spine of MLR, Fleurieu Peninsula

Restricted. Northern Adelaide Coastline, Northern Adelaide Plains, Fleurieu Peninsula.

Non-shrub -dominated understorey

Grassy woodland

Grassland

12

3

1/8

1/2

Widespread. Wide arc either side of spine of MLR, and on good soils in ranges.

Located on plains either side of the spine of the MLR.

Mallee Mallee 4 -/- Peripheral. Northern and eastern boundaries of region

Freshwater 1 Riparian

Wetland

2

4

-/1

1/2

Widespread. Restricted to riparian zones.

Restricted. Fleurieu Peninsula and Adelaide Plains.

Coastal 2 Exposed cliffs

Exposed dunes

Sheltered cliffs

Sheltered dunes

Sheltered tidal

7

7

4

4

7

-/-

-/-

-/-

-/-

-/1

Restricted. Coastline of Southern Ocean.

Restricted. Coastline of Southern Ocean.

Restricted. Coastline of Gulf St Vincent.

Restricted. Coastline of Gulf St Vincent.

Restricted. Coastline and areas surrounding Barker Inlet, and north of the inlet.

1 Lists ecological communities defined at a very broad scale only. Finer scale communities and patterns are not recorded. 2 Lists common ecological communities of coastal landforms only. 3 TEC denotes ecological communities that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999. 4 T denotes ecological communities that are provisionally listed as threatened in the AMLR.


More recent land use patterns and management regimes also determine the condition of remnant vegetation. Often, vegetation in better condition today reflects early conversion to conservation, while poorer condition vegetation may reflect ongoing intensive use such as agriculture or intensive grazing and/or past poor management regimes (including inappropriate or insufficient management of threats).

In this report, the definition of vegetation condition has been simplified into three categories:

Good condition.• Vegetation in good condition has low levels of degradation and remains largely intact. This vegetation retains high levels of compositional, structural and functional integrity.

Fair condition.• Vegetation in fair condition has been degraded but retains recovery potential. Degradation may include reductions to compositional, structural and/or functional integrity.

Poor condition.• Vegetation in poor condition has been highly modified and degraded. Recovery potential may be lost or very low, or only possible with intensive recovery efforts. Compositional, structural and functional integrity are all likely to be heavily altered.

Maintaining good condition vegetation is a priority but all remnant vegetation requires some form of managementGood condition vegetation is likely to provide more resources for native species, and therefore more likely to support a range of native flora and fauna.

While maintaining good condition remnant vegetation should always be the first priority, all remnant vegetation in the AMLR needs to be actively managed for biodiversity.

For remnant vegetation in poor condition this may mean making sure that the condition doesn’t decline any further, or containing threats to ensure that they don’t spread into adjacent remnant vegetation in better condition. These activities are often necessary to ensure that the condition of good condition vegetation is maintained.

Some ecological communities are threatened or of conservation concernA number of ecological communities in the AMLR are threatened or of conservation concern due to extensive clearance, poor condition of remnants or low levels of protection in formal conservation areas. Threatened ecological communities have a disproportionately high number of threatened or declining species associated with them.

Nationally threatened ecological communities are recognised under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Where applicable, ecological communities that are formally listed as nationally threatened ecological communities are denoted by (TEC).

Unlike the national system, there is currently no formal process for the listing of threatened ecological communities in South Australia. However, threatened ecological communities in South Australia are recognised under the Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (DEH, last updated 2005). In this list ecological communities have been designated a rating (based on expert opinion) to describe State-wide conservation status, on the basis of whether they have been extensively cleared, are naturally rare and/or have been very highly modified or degraded. These conservation status ratings used in this report from the State list should be considered provisional, until a formal framework for assessing and defining threatened ecological communities in South Australia is developed. Where applicable, ecological communities that are provisionally considered threatened in the state are denoted by a (T).

Protection for conservation varies between vegetation groupsDefinitions of the way conservation protection has been classified for the purposes of this report is presented above in Section 4.1.1.

Twenty two percent of remnant vegetation is protected on public land legislatively designated for conservation (which includes DEH managed land and Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA). Thirty three percent of remnant heathy woodland is protected - which comprises the majority of public conservation estate (41%). Heathy forest is the next best reserved at 16% of the estate.


Grassy woodland, considering its pre-European dominance, is under-represented – only 9% of its total remnant area is protected which is 11% of the conservation estate. Similarly, grassland is not represented in protected conservation land.

A further 5% of remnant vegetation is legislatively designated for conservation on private lands (Heritage Agreements), mostly comprised of terrestrial vegetation groups, particularly heathy woodland and heathy forest but also grassy woodland. It should be noted that many large Heritage Agreements in the Monarto area on the eastern edge of the region, which have been included in this analysis, are of a different type than most other agreements in that they have an expiry date (upon which they will be reviewed).

A further 13% of remnant vegetation occurs on public land which is not legislatively designated for conservation (including lands under SA Water, FSA (‘Locality Forests’), council reserves and other crown lands). These areas comprise significant amounts of heathy woodland, heathy forest, grassy woodland and riparian vegetation.

How well does the reserve system protect the region’s native vegetation? CAR principles for conservation protectionNational guidelines recommend that reserve systems should be based on the principles of ‘CAR’ - comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness.

Comprehensiveness – the reserve system should include the full range of vegetation associations recognised by an agreed national scientific classification at appropriate hierarchical levels.

Adequacy – the reserve system should be able to maintain ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities.

Representativeness – the areas that are selected for inclusion in reserves should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity within the communities.

Ideally reserves should be legislatively dedicated to ensure the highest level of tenure security for conservation purposes, however it is recognised there are many different form of conservation tenure. For example in the AMLR region there are significant areas of native vegetation on other public and private lands which are protected in principle by the Native Vegetation Act but these areas may or may not be managed for conservation purposes – such ‘informal’ conservation tenure is important in the region (e.g. SA Water lands), but does not offer the highest level of tenure security for conservation.

Due to available data limitations, a full CAR analysis could not be undertaken for the AMLR region, however a coarse assessment of the comprehensiveness of the reserve system was done based on the broad vegetation groups, using legislatively dedicated conservation tenure. For the purposes of this report, this includes all land managed by DEH, Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA, and Heritage Area Agreements managed mostly by private landowners.

For each broad vegetation group the area currently under dedicated conservation tenure as a proportion of the pre-European extent was assessed (Table 4.9). The results show that some groups are vastly under-represented in the reserve system, particularly those which were dominant in their pre-European extent such as grassy woodland and riparian. Other under-represented terrestrial groups include grassland, shrubland, mallee and wetland. The best represented terrestrial groups in the reserve system are heathy woodland and heathy forest. For coastal groups, exposed cliffs are over-represented while sheltered cliffs and sheltered dunes are vastly under-represented in the reserve system.

Table 4.10 shows remnant vegetation groups within public lands that are not legislatively dedicated for conservation, highlighting opportunities to improve the tenure of these areas to contribute to the protected reserve system, particularly for heathy systems, freshwater systems and most coastal groups.

National guidelines recommend a 15% target (as a proportion of the pre-European extent) of each vegetation group for secure conservation protection (though it is recognised that such targets need to be flexible to cater for regional circumstances). However, in the AMLR this target is not practicable for some disproportionately cleared groups as it considerably exceeds current remnant extent for grassy woodland, grassland, riparian and shrubland.


It should be noted that for this type of analysis, it is highly probable that accuracy and scale issues relating to the vegetation mapping data are affecting the results. To further assess CAR principles in the AMLR, further planning particularly at the sub-regional scale is required (with improved vegetation mapping data).

Despite the analysis limitations, broad targets have been devised at the regional scale with priorities proposed for disproportionately cleared vegetation groups. This is essentially increasing the amount of land legislatively dedicated to conservation (public and private) by 18,820 ha or 7% of the region (from the current 4.6%), targeting disproportionately cleared vegetation groups as priority. This is an amount equivalent to over one third of the currently public and private dedicated protected area.

More specific targets should be devised after knowledge concerning the pre-European extent and the current distribution of remnant vegetation has improved.

the condition of remnant vegetation in the AMLR needs to be benchmarked and monitoredThis plan sets a target for actively managing 100% of remnant vegetation in the AMLR within 20 years. This target is a surrogate for an improvement in the current condition of vegetation; improved condition is considered necessary to ensure that the current species of the AMLR are maintained. This active management target is used instead of a quantitative condition-based target as we do not know enough about the current condition of vegetation in the AMLR, nor is there a methodology available for conducting a region-wide condition monitoring program. Tools for region-wide monitoring of the condition of remnant vegetation, along with benchmarks that define current condition states and allow for condition trends to be measured, need to be developed.

the extent of remnant grassy ecosystems needs to be better understoodCurrent mapping of remnant vegetation for the AMLR under-estimates the extent of grassy ecosystems such as native grasslands. These vegetation types are difficult to detect using aerial photography interpretation. Increasing our knowledge of the extent of grassy ecosystems in the AMLR will be required to ensure that remnants of these heavily cleared vegetation types are effectively managed and conserved. This may require use of innovative mapping methods such as remote sensing, along with site-based assessments.

threatened ecological communities justify targeted conservation effortsThreatened ecological communities have high conservation significance. Good condition remnants of threatened communities should be identified and be given a high priority for conservation efforts. There is also an urgent need to undertake identification and mapping of the distributions of communities that are threatened within the AMLR.


Conservation targets for ecological communitiesThe conservation priorities for ecological communities include increasing our knowledge of their condition, ensuring that threatened ecological communities are adequately protected, and ensuring that the protected area network contains a representative sample of all vegetation types remaining in the region (Table 4.8).

table 4.8 Conservation targets for ecological communities

5yr •Aframeworkforidentifyingandmappingecologicalcommunitiesthatarethreatenedwithin the AMLR1 developed and implemented, by 2015.

•Vegetationconditionmonitoringtooldeveloped,andimplementedatascalewhichallows for accurate assessment of regional vegetation condition, and detection of trends in vegetation condition, by 2015.

•Biodiversityconditionbenchmarksdevelopedforallbroadvegetationtypesintheregion,by 2015.

•Increasedunderstandingoftheextentandmanagementofremnantgrassyecosystems,by 2015.

•ThreatenedecologicalcommunitiesidentifiedwithintheAMLRincludedwithinthe multi-species recovery and threat abatement plan, and implementation of recovery actions commenced, by 2015.

•Increasedproportionofunder-representedecologicalcommunitiesinthe(legislativelydedicated) protected area network, by 2015. Indicative target is 7% of the AMLR region (current 4.6%) = additional 18,820 ha. Priority should be (1) grassy ecosystems, (2) freshwater ecosystems and (3) other disproportionately cleared vegetation groups.

20yr •Increasedproportionofunder-representedecologicalcommunitiesinthe(legislativelydedicated) protected area network, by 2030. Indicative target is 15% of pre-European vegetation (from 5 year target of 7%) = additional 62,400 ha.

•100%ofremnantvegetationactivelymanaged2, in accordance with defined active management priorities for broad vegetation groups and condition states, by 2030.

Note: see other related ecological community targets for individual landscapes above. 1 Ecological communities marked as (T) in this document are provisional only. 2 Active management of remnant vegetation is used as a surrogate for improved condition – this target is provisional and should be replaced with quantitative condition-based measures (see 5 year targets above) once the condition and benchmarks have been identified.


table 4.9 dedicated conservation protection on public and private lands

Conservation protection


Pre-European (ha)

Public - dedicated1

Private – dedicated2

Combined %3


Heathy forest

Heathy woodland

Shrubland

54,803

119,372

18,987

3,498

8,839

117

915

1603

2

8%

9%

1%


Grassy woodland

Grassland

362,780

42,353

2,366

0

1343

<1

1%

0%

Mallee Mallee 22,172 98 123 1%

Freshwater Riparian

Wetland

113,001

15,029

2,248

838

435

102

2%

6%


Exposed dunes

Sheltered cliffs

Sheltered dunes

Sheltered tidal

2,247

576

1,592

2,948

24,142

1,019

62

15

78

2,480

2

0

0

0

0

45%

11%

1%

3%

10%

total 1 780,003 ha 21,656 ha 4,525 ha 3.3%

total 2 27,157 ha 8,624 ha 4.6%

Total 1 – sum of conservation tenure over mapped remnant vegetation Total 2 – sum including additional conservation tenure over areas not mapped as remnant vegetation (true total of regional conservation tenure)

1 DEH managed land and Native Forest Reserves managed by FSA 2 Heritage Agreements managed mostly by private landholders 3 Combined percentage (of each broad veg group pre-European area)

from sum of both public and private dedicated areas Mapping limitations relating to this analysis is discussed above Percentages have been rounded


table 4.10 Native vegetation not under dedicated conservation protection


Pre-European (ha)

Public – not dedicated1

%2


Heathy forest

Heathy woodland

Shrubland

54,803

119,372

18,987

2709

3569

16

5%

3%

0%


Grassy woodland

Grassland

362,780

42,353

2323

15

1%

0%

Mallee Mallee 22,172 72 0%

Freshwater Riparian

Wetland

113,001

15,029

2201

243

2%

2%


Exposed dunes

Sheltered cliffs

Sheltered dunes

Sheltered tidal

2,247

576

1,592

2,948

24,142

17

31

83

346

1212

1%

5%

5%

12%

5%

AMLR totals 780,003 ha 12,837 ha 1.6%

Notes: 1 Public lands not legislatively dedicated for conservation, e.g. SA Water, FSA (Locality Forests),

local government, other crown lands. 2 Percentage (of pre-European total)

Mapping limitations relating to this analysis is discussed above Percentages have been rounded


Heathy forestWhat is heathy forest?

Heathy forest is an open forest with a canopy dominated by eucalypts, and a dense understorey comprising many species of low shrubs, generally with small, hard leaves (sclerophyllous). The understorey is dominated by the families Dilleniaceae (e.g. Hibbertia spp.), Epacridaceae (e.g. Acrotriche fasciculiflora, Astroloma humifusum), Leguminosae (e.g. Pultenaea involucrata, Platylobium obtusangulum, Acacia myrtifolia) and Proteaceae (e.g. Hakea rostrata). The understorey also contains abundant lilies and orchids, and sparse but diverse native grasses.

A sparse midstorey of Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon, Native Cherry Exocarpus cupressiformis and banksias Banksia spp. may be present. The understorey and midstorey density is heterogeneous, with structure dependant upon fire history and other disturbance.

Heathy open forest near Mount Lofty (Photo: Kirstin Long)

table 4.11 Heathy forest extent in the MLR

Pre-European 54,803 ha 7% of region

Remnant 15,398 ha 28% PE extent

16% of remnant total

Protection* 3,498 ha

2,709 ha

915 ha

8,278 ha

Public (protected)

Public (not protected)

Private (protected)

Private (not protected)

* see definitions Section 4.1

Many of the protected areas in the MLR contain heathy forest, and this vegetation type is relatively well-represented in the protected area network compared to other vegetation types.

types of heathy forest in MLRAll heathy forest in the MLR is dominated by stringybarks.

One vegetation community is defined in this report:

Messmate Stringybark • Eucalyptus obliqua and/or Brown Stringybark Eucalyptus baxteri heathy open forest.

Conservation statusHeathy forest is not considered threatened or poorly protected in the AMLR.

Where is heathy forest found in the MLR?The pre-European extent of heathy forest in the MLR was restricted to areas of high rainfall, such as along the high elevation spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges and on the Fleurieu Peninsula (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). Prior to European settlement, this vegetation covered less than 10% of the region (Table 4.11).

Heathy forest has not been cleared as extensively as many other vegetation types in the AMLR and almost 30% of the pre-European extent remains. This is because heathy forest is typically located on shallow infertile soils or areas that are too steep or inaccessible for agriculture.


Notable flora and fauna Heathy forest provides habitat for a wide range of species. Fauna such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Nat. E), Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E), Painted Button-quail (State R) and Bassian Thrush (State R) rely on the dense cover provided by the understorey. Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoos (State V) forage in the understorey plants and nest in large hollow-bearing trees. Many honeyeaters and insectivorous birds forage on the abundant nectar and invertebrates in this habitat. There are several plant species of conservation significance associated with heathy forest including Mount Compass Oak Bush (Nat. E), Bushy Clubmoss (State E), Mount Lofty Speedwell (State E) and Mount Lofty Phebalium (State R).

ConditionDue to the relatively inaccessible location of heathy forest and the nutrient poor soils which characterise this vegetation type, it has remained relatively intact in comparison to other vegetation types. However, almost all heathy forest was logged at some point post-European settlement and overstorey trees are predominantly regrowth. This vegetation type is vulnerable to weed invasion and dieback and much of the remnant heathy forest has been degraded by these threats.

threatsHigh

Weed invasion, predominantly woody weeds, with 22 species identified as posing a medium to •high threat

Drought and climate change•

Dieback, particularly • Phytophthora cinnamomi

Other

Altered fire regimes•

Nutrient inputs•

Altered hydrological regimes.•

Conservation priorities

The conservation priorities for heathy forest differ according to the condition it is in (Table 4.12). Active management varies from excluding stock from remnants and undertaking weed control activities to simply containing threats to prevent their spread.


table 4.12: Active management of heathy forest in the AMLR

Vegetation condition Amount Active management priorities

Good condition

Overstorey and ground layers intact with low levels of weed invasion. High levels of structural, functional and compositional integrity.

Some Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds and Phytophthora.

Implement strategic fire management.

Fair condition

Overstorey intact, understorey with grassy and some woody weeds, linked to grazing. Midstorey absent or sparse. May be poor tree health.

Some Manage priority weeds and Phytophthora.


Manage grazing pressure including stock, feral grazing animals and kangaroos where impacts are being sustained.

Poor condition

Overstorey intact, woody weeds dominate midstorey and understorey. Where high grazing pressure present, understorey may be absent with soil compaction.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and/or poor soil condition.

Fence out stock and manage weed incursions to ensure they do not spread into fair or good condition vegetation.

Where recovery likely, conduct targeted removal of weeds.

Heathy woodlandWhat is heathy woodland?Similar to heathy forest, heathy (open) woodland has a dense understorey and midstorey of a variety of low small-leaved (sclerophyllous) shrubs. These layers have high structural diversity, but contain fewer species than that of grassy woodlands. Most of the midstorey and understorey species listed under heathy forest would also be found in heathy woodland. The overstorey is more widely spaced and usually lower than in heathy forest. Most heathy woodland is dominated by eucalypts (often stringybarks), although some is dominated by native pines.

Where is heathy woodland found in the AMLR?Heathy woodland was a common vegetation type in the AMLR, with its pre-European extent covering 15% of the region (Table 4.13). This vegetation was found along the spine of the Mount Lofty Ranges, the Fleurieu Peninsula, and on poorer soils on the foothills and eastern flanks (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Heathy woodland has been cleared less extensively than

other vegetation types in the AMLR. This is because it is typically found on infertile soils or steep areas that are unsuitable for agriculture. Over 20% of the pre-European extent of heathy woodland remains in the AMLR as remnant vegetation.

Heathy woodland is the most dominant vegetation type in the protected area network, comprising over 40% of the vegetation in protected areas.

Heathy woodland (Photo: Peter Lang)


table 4.13 Heathy woodland extent in the MLR





3,569 ha

1,603 ha

12,767 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



types of heathy woodland in the AMLRMany types of heathy woodland are found in the AMLR, with ten ecological communities defined for this report:

Brown Stringybark • Eucalyptus baxteri heathy woodland

Brown Stringybark • Eucalyptus baxteri, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland

Messmate Stringybark • Eucalyptus obliqua, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland

Messmate Stringybark • Eucalyptus obliqua, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland

Messmate Stringybark • Eucalyptus obliqua, Long-leaved Box Eucalyptus goniocalyx, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland

Cup Gum • Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland

Long-leaved Box • Eucalyptus goniocalyx heathy woodland

Blue Gum • Eucalyptus leucoxylon heathy woodland (T)

Pink Gum • Eucalyptus fasciculosa heathy woodland (T)

Southern Cypress Pine • Callitris gracilis heathy woodland (T).

Conservation statusMost communities of heathy woodland are not considered threatened as they have been less extensively cleared than other vegetation types, and are generally well-protected in conservation areas. However, three communities are considered threatened within South Australia. Both Southern Cypress Pine heathy woodland and Blue Gum heathy woodland are extensively cleared and considered threatened because remnant examples are degraded with modified understoreys. Pink Gum heathy woodland has also been more extensively cleared than other heathy woodlands. This community is considered threatened due to widespread poor health and dieback of Pink Gums.

Notable flora and fauna Heathy woodland provides habitat for numerous fauna species. As with heathy forest, fauna species such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Nat. E), Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E), Painted Button-quail (State R) and Bassian Thrush (State R) rely on the dense cover provided by the understorey. Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoos (State V) forage in the understorey plants and nest in large hollow-bearing trees. Many of the historical records of the MLR Spotted Quail-thrush (Nat. CE; now believed to be extinct) were from heathy woodland. Many honeyeaters and insectivorous birds forage on the abundant nectar and invertebrates in this habitat. The Brown Toadlet (State R) is also present in heathy woodlands.

Several Nationally threatened orchid species occur in heathy woodland habitats, including the White Beauty Spider-orchid (Nat. E) and the Pink-lip Spider-orchid (Nat. E).


ConditionThere is a greater amount of remnant heathy woodland in good condition than other vegetation types in the AMLR. This is because heathy woodland has not been used as extensively for productive use as other vegetation types.

The remnant heathy woodland on nutrient-poor rocky soils in the northern parts of the AMLR has been largely resistant to the threat posed by weeds. However, there are significant amounts of remnant heathy woodland that are in degraded or declining condition, with threats including weed invasion (often linked to nutrient inputs), excessive grazing pressure, altered disturbance regimes, altered hydrology and dieback.

threatsHigh

Weed invasion, predominantly woody weeds, with 16 species identified as posing a medium to •high threat.

Altered grazing regimes (kangaroos)•



Other

Nutrient inputs•

Altered hydrological regimes•

Pollinator limited, due to decline of woodland birds.•

Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priorities for heathy woodland are to maintain the condition of good condition remnants, and to improve the condition of fair condition remnants (Table 4.14). This includes threat exclusion and managing current threats including weed invasion and Phytophythora and developing and implementing strategic fire regimes. In more degraded remnants, excluding stock and managing grazing pressure may also be priorities.

table 4.14 Active management of heathy woodland in the AMLR


Good condition

Overstorey, midstorey and understorey intact, with limited weed invasion. Trend for increasing weed invasion.

Some Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds and Phytophthora.


Monitor impacts of grazing to ensure grazing remains at sustainable levels.

Fair condition

Species diversity still high, but reduced regeneration of overstorey and understorey. Woody and grassy weed invasion. Leaf litter disturbed and soil compacted. Reduced plant health.

Some - common

Manage priority weeds and Phytophthora.


Manage grazing pressure including stock, feral grazing animals and kangaroos where impacts are being sustained.

Poor condition

Scattered trees over sparse remnant understorey plants (e.g. bracken) or high levels of woody weed invasion. Trees may be senescent with little regeneration. Reduced species diversity. Soil fertility increased, soil compacted.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and poor soil condition. Manage weed incursions and Phytophthora to ensure they do not spread into fair or good condition vegetation.

Where recovery likely, conduct targeted removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.


ShrublandWhat is shrubland?Shrubland is vegetation with an open to very dense layer of shrubs up to 2 metres in height, with few or no trees. Shrubland types in the AMLR include coastal chenopod shrublands, low-rainfall open plains shrublands, and high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands.

Where is shrubland found in the AMLR?At the time of European settlement, shrubland covered around 2% of the region, focused in three distinct locations: the chenopod shrublands of the northern Adelaide coastline, the open shrublands of the northern Adelaide plains, and the high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrublands of the central spine of the ranges and the Fleurieu Peninsula (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Shrubland has been extensively cleared and modified since European settlement (Table 4.15). Many plains shrublands were cleared shortly after European colonisation. Mapping suggests that only approximately 1% of its pre-European extent remains as remnant vegetation. Most of this remaining shrubland is high-rainfall sclerophyllous shrubland, with very little of the semi-arid Adelaide Plains shrublands or coastal chenopod shrublands remaining (also see Sheltered Tidal Zone vegetation).

Remnant shrubland is poorly represented in the protected area network, with shrubland vegetation comprising around 1% of the total extent of vegetation under conservation tenure in the AMLR.

table 4.15 Shrubland extent in the AMLR


Remnant 194 ha 1% PE extent

< 1% of remnant total

Protection* 117 ha

16 ha

2 ha

59 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



Photo: Banksia marginata, Peter Croft


types of shrubland in the AMLRSix communities of shrubland are defined in the AMLR:

Common Oak Bush • Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp. muelleriana heath

Silver Banksia • Banksia marginata shrubland (T)

Port Jackson Pine • Callitris rhomboidea shrubland

Cotton Bush • Maireana aphylla chenopod shrubland

Broombush • Melaleuca uncinata shrubland

Desert Senna • Senna artemisioides ssp. petiolaris, +/- Weeping Emu Bush Eremophila longifolia shrubland.

Conservation statusSilver Banksia Banksia marginata shrubland is considered to be a threatened vegetation community because of its limited distribution, high levels of modification and poor representation in formal reserves. However, the threat status of all the above communities should be reviewed, given the extremely limited distribution of remnant shrubland in the AMLR.

The shrublands of the Adelaide Plains and northern Adelaide coastline have been very extensively cleared and very few remnant examples remain. Remnants of these communities have high conservation value.

Notable flora and fauna The dense sclerophyllous shrublands of the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula provide habitat for the MLR Southern Emu Wren (Nat. E), the MLR Chestnut-rumped Heath-wren (Nat. E) and the Heath Goanna (State V). The high nectar production of these shrublands provide excellent foraging habitat for nectarivorous species such as the Western Pygmy-possum, Eastern Spinebill and New Holland Honeyeater. Prior to their extensive clearance, the semi-arid shrublands of the Adelaide Plains supported the declining species Chestnut-rumped Thornbill, Southern Whiteface, Jacky Winter and Hooded Robin.

ConditionShrublands are relatively poorly understood in comparison to the other vegetation groups of the region, perhaps because so little remains.

The condition of shrubland is generally highly degraded. Most remnant shrubland exists in very small fragments so is vulnerable to edge effects, however the patches of remnant sclerophyllous shrubland protected with conservation reserves remain in relatively good condition. This is because this community occurs on relatively nutrient-poor rocky soils and is more resistant to weed invasion.

threatsHigh


Roadside management•

Other

Disturbance (linked to being in roadside reserves and inappropriate access and works)•

Altered grazing regimes•

Weed invasion, in particular the highly invasive Asparagus weeds (Bridal Creeper and Bridal Veil) •


Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priorities for shrublands are to identify, protect and recover the condition of all remnants, particularly on the northern Adelaide Plains (Table 4.16). Shrubland remnants in roadside vegetation are particularly vulnerable. Identifying opportunities to reduce the effects of fragmentation by buffering remnants is also a priority for all shrublands.


table 4.16 Active management of shrubland in the AMLR


Good condition

Largely intact, with high species diversity and high compositional integrity. Weed invasion low.

Some

(heath shrublands only)

Manage current priority threats, including weed invasion, Phytophthora and lack of pollinators for plants (e.g. birds, insects).

Investigate and implement appropriate disturbance regimes.

Fair condition

Increased shrub density, grassy layer largely gone and replaced by weeds. Changed composition due to altered disturbance.

Reduced diversity of shrubs due to historical and current grazing.

Some

(open plains shrublands)

Targeted roadside management, including use of Roadside Markers.

Weed control and fencing of remnants to remove grazing pressure.


Poor condition

Open structure as a result of ongoing grazing. Remnant shrubs within a grazed paddock.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and poor soil condition. Reduce grazing pressure.

Manage weed incursions to ensure they do not spread into fair or good condition vegetation.

Where recovery feasible, conduct targeted removal of weeds and assisted regeneration.

Grassy woodlandsWhat are grassy woodlands?Grassy woodlands are woodlands with an understorey dominated by grasses, herbaceous species (e.g. daisies, lilies) and sedges, a scattered shrub layer and a discontinuous tree layer.

Grassy woodlands have an overstorey typically dominated by eucalypts, including smooth-barked gums and/or box. Tree density is variable, but a typical grassy woodland may have a tree density of approximately 30 trees per hectare, which results in some open areas without canopy. In high rainfall areas, tree density may be higher resulting in woodlands that resemble forests.

The mid-storey of grassy woodlands may contain scattered woody shrubs. Shrub density is highly variable between communities and individual patches of vegetation, probably reflecting soil quality and fire history.

The grassy woodland group also includes areas mostly in the east of the region which intergrade with grasslands and have an emergent layer of occasional trees or shrubs, which are present only in a sparse or widely scattered fashion.

Grassy woodlands contain a very high diversity of native plant species. This diversity is particularly apparent during spring, when many species of wildflower emerge from spaces between grass tussocks.

Grassy woodland in the eastern AMLR (Photo: Jean Turner)


Where are grassy woodlands found in the AMLR?Grassy woodlands were the most common vegetation type in the AMLR at the time of European settlement, covering almost 50% of the region (Table 4.17). Their distribution was a wide arc either side of the spine of the ranges, covering the Adelaide and Willunga Plains, the Barossa Valley and the Eastern hills and flanks. They were also present throughout the ranges in alluvial valley flats and on more fertile soils (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

table 4.17 Grassy woodland extent in the AMLR





2,323 ha

1,343 ha

20,290 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



Over 90% of grassy woodland in the AMLR has been cleared since European settlement. Grassy woodlands have been preferentially cleared in the AMLR, as the fertile soils on which these woodlands are found were favoured by settlers for grazing and agricultural pursuits. Reflecting this, the relative representation of grassy woodlands in the AMLR has declined, dropping from 47% of the pre-European vegetation to 27% of the remnant vegetation.

Remnant grassy woodlands are poorly represented in the protected area network, comprising <15% of the total extent of protected remnant vegetation.

types of grassy woodland in the AMLRGrassy woodlands in the AMLR include smooth-barked gum grassy woodlands and box grassy woodlands. Twelve communities of grassy woodland have been defined in the AMLR for this report:

Red Gum • Eucalyptus camaldulensis grassy woodland

Blue Gum • Eucalyptus leucoxylon grassy woodland

Blue Gum • Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. pruinosa +/- Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata grassy woodland (T)

Bull Mallee • Eucalyptus behriana + Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata grassy woodland (T)

Peppermint Box • Eucalyptus odorata grassy woodland (TEC)

Mallee Box • Eucalyptus porosa grassy woodland (T)

Grey Box • Eucalyptus microcarpa grassy woodland (T)

Rough-Barked Manna Gum • Eucalyptus viminalis ssp. cygnetensis grassy woodland (T)

Drooping Sheoak • Allocasuarina verticillata (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents) (T)

Silver Banksia • Banksia marginata grassland with (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents)

Southern Cypress Pine • Callitris gracilis grassland with (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents) (T)

Pink Gum • Eucalyptus fasciculosa and Blue Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon (grassy woodland/grassland with emergents) (T) – note sometimes shrubby

Blue Gum and/or Red Gum grassy woodlands are found throughout the region. These vegetation types were the most widespread ecological communities prior to European settlement, and were dominant in many parts of the region. Box grassy woodlands were found primarily on the Adelaide Plains and foothills and on the eastern flanks.


Conservation statusBecause grassy woodlands have been extensively cleared, and are under-represented in the conservation network relative to other vegetation types, remnants of grassy woodland are a conservation priority.

Peppermint Box grassy woodland is formally recognised as a nationally threatened ecological community.

Many other grassy woodland communities are considered threatened in the AMLR. These include other box communities such as Grey Box grassy woodland, Mallee Box grassy woodland, and Bull Mallee and Peppermint Box grassy woodland. There are few remnants of these communities that once covered large parts of the region, and those that do remain are in poor condition.

Similarly Blue Gum +/- Peppermint Box grassy woodland and Rough-Barked Manna Gum grassy woodland have also been extensively cleared and modified, and are considered threatened.

Notable flora and fauna Grassy woodlands provide habitat for many threatened woodland birds, such as the Diamond Firetail (State V), Black-chinned Honeyeater (State V), Restless Flycatcher (State R) and Crested Shrike-tit (State R), and numerous declining species especially Chestnut-rumped Thornbill, Southern Whiteface, Jacky Winter, Hooded Robin and Brown Treecreeper. These habitats were historically important for the nationally threatened Regent Honeyeater (Nat. E) and Swift Parrot (Nat. E), however these species are now only very occasional visitors to the region.

Grassy woodlands have high flora species diversity, with over 100 native species being recorded in some patches. Several threatened orchids are found in grassy woodlands, such as the Bayonet Spider-orchid (Nat. E) and the Leafy Greenhood (Nat. V). A range of plant species are considered grassy ecosystem specialists, such as the rare Pale Flax-lily (State R), Red-leg Grass (State R) and the Blue Devil (State V).

ConditionGrassy woodlands in the AMLR have been modified through long-term historic use including grazing, pasture improvement and tree clearance. Today, most remnants are in degraded condition, with reduced recruitment of trees and high weed loads, in particular pasture grasses and woody weeds.

Because of their high fertility, grassy woodlands are particularly vulnerable to weed invasion. Unlike the shrub-dominated vegetation types, the invasion of woody weeds into grassy woodland dramatically alters the structure (and consequently the habitats provided) and woodland fauna species are at high risk. Grassy woodland remnants in good condition are uncommon in the AMLR.

threatsVery High

Weeds, with 50 weeds listed as posing a major threat to grassy woodland•

High

Inappropriate disturbance regimes (e.g. altered herbivory regimes, altered fire regimes)•

Excessive grazing (stock, kangaroos)•

Other

Nutrient inputs•

Conservation prioritiesThe management priorities for grassy woodland depend upon the condition of the woodland, and the type of woodland (Table 4.18). Priority activities vary from prevention and management of weed incursions, to biomass management including slashing, burning and fire. Increasing conservation protection is also a priority.


table 4.18 Active management of grassy woodland in the AMLR


Good condition

Relatively intact understorey and overstorey. High diversity of native species retained. Annual weeds present, and frequently minor incursions of woody weeds. Typically in remnants where historical grazing and cultivation was limited. Recruitment evident.

Uncommon Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, but also targeted control of current weed infestations.

Buffer remnants, investigate and implement appropriate disturbance regimes to maintain perennial grass structure.

Fair condition

Intact overstorey; understorey degraded with annual weed invasion; midstorey usually with woody weed invasion. Reduced native species diversity, with palatable species lost and replaced by annual grasses. Altered grazing regimes. Recruitment and regeneration limited by ongoing grazing pressure. Condition is variable according to grazing pressure and current management.

Some – common

Reduce biomass, manage grazing, control woody weeds, reduce nutrient loads in soil.

Buffer remnants, investigate and implement appropriate disturbance regimes.

Multiple management actions may be required.

Poor condition

Remnant overstorey over very degraded understorey dominated by annual weeds, +/- high levels of woody weeds. Some native species persist but are declining. Overstorey trees may be in poor health. Highly degraded remnants may exist as scattered trees over pasture.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and poor soil condition.

Priority is to implement management regimes that help recover structure through biomass control.




GrasslandWhat are grasslands?

A native grassland is vegetation with few or no trees, and an understorey dominated by native grasses and herbs. Grasslands may have patches of shrubs in the mid-storey, particularly on shallow and rocky soils.

All grasslands in the AMLR are tussock grasslands, having discrete clumps or tussocks of grasses, herbs or sedges. Inter-tussock spaces consist of bare ground with a diverse range of herbs and annual plans emerging in spring.

Grasslands with an emergent tree or shrub layer have been classified in this document as grasslands with emergents. However, in reality, vegetation is a continuum with subtle intergrades between grasslands, grasslands with emergents and grassy woodlands.

Where are grasslands found in the MLR?The pre-European distribution of grasslands in the AMLR was over 40,000 ha, or 5% of the region (Table 4.19). Grasslands were common in the Adelaide and Northern Adelaide Plains, and the hills and plains to the east of the spine of the ranges (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Grasslands have been highly modified and extensively cleared since European settlement. Many grasslands – particularly those on the Adelaide plains – have been cleared for urban and industrial development. Vegetation mapping suggests that approximately 1% of the pre-European distribution of grasslands remain in the region, although this is likely to be an underestimate given the difficulties associated with mapping grasslands.

Grasslands are poorly represented under conservation tenure in the AMLR, with less than 1% of remnants formally protected in conservation areas.

table 4.19 Grassland extent in the AMLR


Remnant 549 ha > 1% PE extent

~ 1% of remnant total

Protection* 0 ha

15 ha

<1 ha

533 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



Native grassland in the eastern AMLR (Photo: Jean Turner)


types of grassland in the MLRThree grassland ecological communities are identified in the AMLR in this report:

Iron Grass • Lomandra effusa +/- Lomandra multiflora ssp. dura tussock grassland * (TEC)

Speargrass • Austrostipa spp. and Wallaby Grass Austrodanthonia spp. tussock grassland (T)

Kangaroo Grass • Themeda triandra tussock grassland (T).

(* not technically a grassland as iron grasses are lilies, but takes the structural formation of a grassland and native grasses are present).

Conservation statusAll grassland communities in the AMLR are considered threatened and all remnant grasslands have very high conservation significance. Grasslands have been extensively cleared and highly modified as a result of their location on fertile soils.

Iron Grass natural temperate grassland is a nationally threatened ecological community because of a severe decline in condition and distribution. Wallaby Grass/ Spear Grass grassland, Kangaroo Grass Grassland and Iron-grass Tussock Grassland are considered threatened in South Australia.

Notable flora and faunaBirds found in grasslands include the Plains Wanderer (Nat. V; now very rarely found in the region), Brown Quail (State R) and Red-chested Button-quail (State R). Historically, these habitats also supported the Bustard (State V), which is now an extremely rare visitor.

Grasslands also provide habitat for grassy ecosystem specialist plant species.

ConditionThe very small areas of native grasslands which remain in the region are degraded through grazing and invasion of pasture grass weeds. Grasslands are particularly susceptible to weed invasion due to their often more fertile soils. Remnant grasslands in good condition are very uncommon. Increasing conservation protection is also a priority.

threatsVery High

Weed invasion, with 50 species listed as posing a moderate to high threat to grasslands•

High

Excessive grazing (stock)•


Other

Altered disturbance regimes•

Inappropriate revegetation•

Increased nutrient loads.•

Conservation prioritiesConservation priorities for grasslands are to determine their remnant distribution in the AMLR and to improve the condition of remnants through reducing grazing pressure and controlling weeds (Table 4.20).


table 4.20 Active management of grasslands in the AMLR


Good condition

High native grass biomass, but reduced vigour, and inter-tussock space. Species composition changed due to altered disturbance. Soil condition intact. Annual weeds present in low densities.

Very uncommon

Investigate and implement appropriate disturbance regimes to maintain perennial grass structure.

Preventing new incursions and contain new outbreaks of priority weeds, control current weed threats.

Buffer remnants.

Fair condition

Native grasses dominate understorey. Palatable species lost. Inter-tussock space annual weeds. Reduced recruitment.

Uncommon Reduce biomass, manage grazing, control woody weeds, reduce nutrient loads in soil.

As per short-term. Assisted regeneration may need to be supplemented with native seed inputs.

Poor condition

Native species diversity and density reduced. Grassy and herbaceous weeds dominate understorey. Reduced recruitment of native species due to competition with weeds. Degraded soil structure. Legumes and/or woody weeds may be abundant.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and degraded soil quality.


Manage biomass and reduce soil nutrient levels.


MalleeWhat is mallee?

Mallee is a term used to describe vegetation with low, characteristically multi-stemmed trees. Mallee may have a grassy or shrubby understorey, or a mixture of both – the type of understorey is dependant upon soil and rainfall patterns. Chenopod low shrubs are dominant in arid areas, sandy soils support a more grassy understorey with Triodia spp. hummocks, and in high rainfall areas, mallee may have a midstorey comprising sclerophyllous shrubs. Mallee has a dense ground layer of twigs and leaf litter and good soil crust.

Where is mallee found in the AMLR?Mallee vegetation was once found in the far north of the AMLR region in the Northern Adelaide Plains, and along the far eastern boundary of the region on the Murray Plains (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). While mallee is not well represented in the AMLR and its distribution was peripheral, this mallee forms part of the extensive distribution of mallee in adjacent regions.

Mallee in the AMLR has been extensively cleared, with only an estimated 1% of its pre-European extent remaining (Table 4.21). However, large remnants of mallee remain in regions adjacent to the AMLR.

Most of the remnant mallee vegetation within the AMLR is protected in formal conservation areas. These are also large remnants of mallee within conservation areas in adjacent regions.

Mallee (Photo: Jean Turner)


types of mallee in the AMLRThree mallee ecological communities are defined for the AMLR in this report:

Ridge-fruited Mallee • Eucalyptus incrassata mallee

Sessile-fruit White Mallee • Eucalyptus phenax, Water Mallee Eucalyptus dumosa and Red Mallee Eucalyptus socialis mallee

Eucalyptus calycogona• var. calycogona +/- Eucalyptus dumosa over shrubs/grasses

Other mallee ecological communities are known from regions adjacent to the AMLR, and despite not being identified here, these communities may also be present in the AMLR.

Conservation statusMallee communities are not considered threatened in the AMLR. Mallee is not a conservation priority within the AMLR. This is based on the peripheral distribution of this vegetation in the region, and the large cores of mallee that remain in regions adjacent to the AMLR. Remnant mallee in the AMLR is heavily modified compared to the much better condition examples of mallee that exist in adjacent regions.

Notable fauna and floraBecause mallee is peripheral in the AMLR region, many of the fauna species typical of mallee habitats are at the edges of their distribution in the region. The region is not core habitat for these species, despite their occasional presence.

The Malleefowl (Nat. V) is an iconic mallee species. Although it is known from mallee remnants in adjacent regions, it is unlikely to still be present in the AMLR. Other threatened species which may occur in the mallee of the region include the Red-lored Whistler (Nat. V), Gilberts Whistler (State R), Shy Heathwren (State R) and Striped Honeyeater (State R).

ConditionMost mallee remnants in the AMLR are in poor condition, with high levels of weed invasion and limited regeneration of native species (Table 4.22). Many remnants are located along roadsides and are being degraded through roadside maintenance activities. Remnant mallee in good condition is very uncommon.

threatsHigh

Weed invasion, with 11 species listed as posing a moderate to high threat to mallee•

Excessive grazing (rabbits)•

Other

Altered disturbance regimes•

Salinity.•

Conservation prioritiesThe management priority for mallee is to prevent the further decline of remnants through ensuring appropriate roadside management activities and management of weed invasions (Table 4.22).


table 4.21 Mallee extent in the AMLR



<1% of remnant total

Protection* 98 ha

72 ha

123 ha

908 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



table 4.22 Active management of mallee in the AMLR


Good condition

Species diversity maintained but less vigour and reduced recruitment. Trees may be senescing. Weeds invading. Condition declining due to altered disturbance regimes. Leaf litter present. Trees may be even age class.

Very uncommon

Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, also control existing weeds.


Fair condition

Species composition changed with palatable species lost and less grasses. Reduced recruitment. Annual weed invasion. Reduced leaf litter, soil crust patchy or sparse.

Some Targeted roadside management, including use of Roadside Markers.

Control weed invasions and reduce grazing pressure.

Poor condition

Senescing mallee trees over bare ground or degraded understorey and ground cover. Little recruitment or regeneration. Annual and herbaceous weed invasion. Weeds invading shrub layer. Limited scope for regeneration.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and poor soil condition.




RiparianWhat is riparian vegetation?Riparian vegetation is vegetation found along watercourses and on flood plains. Riparian zones represent transition areas between land and water. The indigenous vegetation of these areas usually reflects the better soils and moist conditions found in the lower parts of the landscape.

In the AMLR, riparian zones can be separated into two distinct types. The first is the creeks and gullies of the steeper slopes and ridges of the Mount Lofty Ranges, where riparian zones are dominated by tall open forests of Candlebarks, Manna Gums, Swamp Gums, Blackwoods and Stringybarks. The second type of riparian zone is the Red Gum dominated drainage lines of the foothills and eastern flanks.

Riparian zones support typically dense vegetation, with dense understorey, shrublayer and overstorey. Red Gum drainage lines support more open vegetation, with some open grassy patches in the understorey.

Where is riparian vegetation found in the AMLR?The pre-European distribution of riparian vegetation covered much of the AMLR, including east-west watercourses stretching from the hills to drain in Gulf St Vincent, high elevation creeks and gullies in the Mount Lofty Ranges and the Fleurieu peninsula, and expansive creeks and plains in the eastern hills. Although subject to error due to the broad scale of mapping, it is estimated that the pre-European distribution of riparian vegetation covered approximately 15% of the AMLR (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Riparian zones have been extensively cleared and modified in the AMLR. It is estimated that remnant vegetation remains across 15% of its former range, with riparian vegetation on many watercourses (e.g. those crossing metropolitan Adelaide) completely removed or replaced (Table 4.23).

Approximately 17% of remnant riparian vegetation is formally protected in conservation areas.

table 4.23 Riparian vegetation extent in the AMLR





2,201 ha

435 ha

11,913 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



Riparian vegetation (Photo: Sonia Croft)


types of riparian vegetation found in the AMLRCurrent vegetation mapping is at a broad scale, and doesn’t adequately reflect the specific ecological communities of riparian zones in the AMLR. At a finer scale, many and varied riparian zone ecological communities would occur. Two riparian communities are defined in this report based on current mapping:

River Red Gum • Eucalyptus camaldulensis riparian or grassy woodland *

Manna Gum • Eucalyptus viminalis +/- Candlebark Eucalyptus dalrympleana riparian woodland (T)

(* The broad scale of mapping means that some non-riparian River Red Gum woodland may have been mapped as riparian when it more appropriately fits under grassy woodland. Statistics should be interpreted with caution).

Conservation status

Candlebark woodland/forest is considered threatened due to its very limited distribution in high rainfall parts of the AMLR. It has suffered high levels of modification from weed invasion and it is poorly protected in conservation reserves.

Notable fauna and floraRiparian ecosystems provide habitat for aquatic fauna, such as fish and frogs. Species of conservation significance which occur in the riparian zone include the Climbing Galaxis, Mountain Galaxis, River Blackfish, Congolli and Brown Toadlet (State R). Rocky cliffs of river gorges provide habitat suitable for Cunningham’s Skink (State E) and Peregrine Falcon (State R), dense reeds and sedges support birds such as Latham’s Snipe (State R) and Buff-banded Rail, and the tree canopy supports species such as the Black-chinned Honeyeater (State V) and Crested Shrike-tit (State R).

Candlebark Gum and Manna Gum are both rated as rare in South Australia. Other plants of conservation significance which occur in riparian ecosystems include King Fern (State E), Skeleton Fork-fern (State E), Coral Fern (State R), Fishbone Water-fern (State R) and Native Broom (State R).

ConditionRiparian zones have been some of the most heavily impacted areas in the AMLR, and there are few remnants remaining in good condition. Remnants have been degraded through altered flow regimes, erosion, and heavy weed invasion. Often the ground and shrub layers are gone leaving only remnant trees. In this report, condition has been assessed separately for high elevation creeklines and Red Gum drainage lines.

threatsVery High

Weed invasion, with 39 species listed as posing a moderate to high risk to riparian vegetation•

Altered hydrological regimes (and water use)•

High



Other

Erosion•

Conservation PrioritiesThe highest priority for the riparian zone is fencing of watercourses to exclude grazing. Grazing has substantial impacts on water quality through nutrient inputs, sedimentation and erosion. The control of weeds, in particular willows Salix spp., is also a high priority for management. On a broader scale, improving hydrological regimes is also a high priority for management (Table 4.24, 4.25).


table 4.24: Active management of riparian vegetation in the AMLR – Red Gum drainage lines of the foothills and plains


Good condition

Relatively intact with a diverse layer of reeds and sedges remaining. Weeds may be starting to invade.

Uncommon Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.

Manage grazing, particularly stock, also feral grazing animals and kangaroos where impacts are being sustained.

Fair condition

Significantly modified with little native ground cover, but retains sparse trees and shrubs. Phalaris aquatica may be dominant. Willows may be present. Reduced recruitment. Reduced tree health.

Common Control priority weeds (particularly woody weeds – willows).


Maintain soil stability and water quality (Phalaris may assist to filter nutrients – crash graze at appropriate time).

Assisted regeneration of native understorey species.

Poor condition

Native species reduced and outcompeted by weeds. Heavy weed invasion in understorey and midstorey. Soil structure changed due to weeds. Active erosion may be occurring

Some – common

Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass.


Control high priority weeds (e.g. willows) and undertake works to mitigate erosion.



table 4.25 Active management of riparian vegetation in the AMLR – high elevation creeks and gullies of the Mount Lofty Ranges


Good condition

Overstorey and ground layer in good condition, but very open or absent midstorey. Little to no weed invasion. Generally first order streams so few impacts from hydrological changes.

Uncommon Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.


Fair condition

Good tree health, understorey degraded as a result of weed invasion, with weed front moving upstream and upslope. Midstorey less dense.

Common Control priority weeds.


Maintain soil stability and water quality.

Consider restoration adjacent to good and fair condition areas, e.g. assisted regeneration of native understorey species.

Poor condition

Native species reduced and outcompeted by weeds. Heavy weed invasion in understorey and midstorey. Soil structure changed due to weeds.

Some – common

Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass.


Consider restoration adjacent to good and fair condition areas, e.g. assisted regeneration of native understorey species.

Where recovery likely, conduct targeted control of priority weeds.


WetlandWhat is wetland vegetation?A number of wetland types are found in the AMLR. Discussion of these wetlands and their conservation requirements is included under freshwater aquatic biodiversity. However, native ecological communities specific to freshwater wetlands are considered in this section.

In the AMLR, wetland vegetation is associated with: freshwater swamps of the MLR and lower Fleurieu Peninsula; seasonal wetlands of the Adelaide Plains; estuarine creeks of the south coast (considered under coastal); and Red Gum wetlands along creeks featuring waterholes with fringing reeds (considered under riparian).

Freshwater swamp vegetation in the AMLR is shrub-dominated and typically very dense. This vegetation has high structural and floristic diversity, and contains many endemic and rare plants. Seasonal wetlands on the Adelaide plains were flat areas with open water and fringing vegetation such as macrophytes, lignum and samphire.

Where is wetland vegetation found in the AMLR?

Estimates of the extent of wetland vegetation are confounded by the broad scale of mapping. Mapping suggests that freshwater wetland vegetation covered approximately 2% of the AMLR (Table 4.26). This vegetation was concentrated in the southern MLR and Fleurieu Peninsula, with small pockets on the Adelaide plains (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Mapping suggests that approximately a quarter of wetland vegetation is remaining in the region. This remaining vegetation is concentrated around the southern Fleurieu Peninsula.

Approximately a quarter of remnant freshwater wetland vegetation is formally protected in conservation areas.

Freshwater wetland at Cleland CP (Peter Lang)

table 4.26 Wetland vegetation extent in the AMLR



4% of remnant total

Protection* 838 ha

243 ha

102 ha

493 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)




types of wetland vegetation in the AMLRAs with riparian vegetation, current vegetation mapping does not pick up on the fine scale of wetland vegetation pattern and composition in the AMLR. Based on mapping, four freshwater wetland ecological communities are defined in the AMLR:

Swamp Gum • Eucalyptus ovata woodland over wet heath (T)

Cutting Grass • Gahnia filum +/- Salt Club-rush Bolboschoenus caldwellii

Common Reed • Phragmites australis +/- Bulrush Typha sp. sedgeland

Silky Tea-tree • Leptospermum lanigerum shrubland (T).

Conservation statusThe swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula are a nationally critically endangered ecological community. A variety of ecological communities are included in the definition of the Fleurieu Peninsula swamps. Silky Tea-tree closed shrubland is considered threatened as a result of limited formal conservation of this community and threats such as drainage. Swamp Gum woodland is also considered threatened due to its poor representation in formal reserves and high levels of modification and fragmentation.

Notable fauna and floraThe Southern Emu-wren (Nat. E) and Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Nat. E) occur within swamps; the dense cover required by these ground-birds is provided within this vegetation type. Latham’s Snipe (State V) also occur inhabit wetlands.

Condition Wetlands have been heavily degraded through modification, and most wetlands in the AMLR are in poor condition. Wetlands, being groundwater dependent ecosystems, are threatened by altered hydrology and are likely to be at considerable risk in the face of climate change. Alterations to land use surrounding swamps is likely to cause further decline, in particular water extracting activities. In most cases, wetlands are experiencing ongoing decline.

threats Very High

Altered hydrological regimes (groundwater extraction)•

High

Weed invasion, with 17 species posing a moderate to high threat to wetlands.•



Inappropriate disturbance regimes•

Other

Inappropriate adjacent land use.•


The highest priority for wetlands is fencing to remove grazing which has substantial impacts on remnant vegetation and water quality (Table 4.27). The control of weeds is also a high priority for management, as is maintaining hydrological processes for these groundwater dependent ecosystems.


table 4.27 Active management of wetland vegetation in the AMLR


Good condition

Relatively intact with low levels of weed invasion (e.g. bird-spread weeds but no annual grasses). Restricted to freshwater swamps with near-natural hydrological regimes.

Very uncommon

Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds.

Buffering of swamps from adjacent land management.

Ensure appropriate land use and zoning on adjacent land.


Fair condition

Condition fair but declining due to edge effects, grazing and altered hydrology. Reduced health and species diversity, with loss of some hydrologically sensitive species. Reduced recruitment. Weed invasion, some areas may be choked with weeds. Native species declining, habitat values diminishing (includes seasonal wetlands of the Adelaide Plains).

Uncommon – some

As above.

Control weed infestations.

Improve hydrological processes at landscape level.

Poor condition

Low native cover and species diversity, dominated by introduced grasses and other weeds. May be heavy grazing pressure.

Common Difficult to manage due to high weed biomass and other multiple threats.

Where recovery likely, conduct targeted removal of weeds and assisted regeneration, manage grazing.

Coastal vegetationWhat is coastal vegetation?Coastal vegetation is vegetation that is subject to the influences of coastal environments. Coastal vegetation faces different environmental conditions than terrestrial vegetation, and in particular, it must be able to tolerate exposure, high salt content and unstable substrates such as sandy soils and eroded cliff-tops.

Where is coastal vegetation found in the AMLR?Coastal vegetation is found along the coastline of Gulf St Vincent, and along the exposed coastline of lower Fleurieu Peninsula abutting the Southern Ocean. The pre-European distribution of coastal vegetation covered 4% of the region (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Just over 20% of the pre-European extent of coastal vegetation remains in the AMLR (Table 4.28). Clearance of coastal vegetation has been preferential, with some vegetation types – such as those found alongside the metropolitan coastline – cleared more extensively than others.

Approximately a quarter of remnant coastal vegetation is protected within formal conservation reserves. Reflecting the disproportionate clearance patterns of coastal vegetation, these protected areas are biased towards some coastal vegetation types.


table 4.28 Coastal vegetation extent in the AMLR



7% of remnant total


1,689 ha

2 ha

1,636 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)


These figures summarise the individual coastal groups below. * see definitions Section 4.1

defining coastal vegetation types in the AMLREnvironmental parameters such as geology and level of exposure are important determinants of the type and composition of coastal vegetation that will persist at a particular coastal location. This plan uses level of exposure, landform (e.g. cliffs, dunes, tidal zones) and geology to classify coastal vegetation of the AMLR into 5 broad categories:

Exposed coastlinesExposed cliffs on non-calcareous substrates•

Exposed dunes on non-calcareous substrates•

Sheltered coastlinesSheltered cliffs on non-calcareous substrates•

Sheltered dunes on non-calcareous or calcareous substrates•

Sheltered tidal zones.•

Coastal vegetation mappingThe statistics presented in this section are based on separate vegetation mapping completed for terrestrial and coastal environments (the latter at a finer-scale). There is some overlap between the mapping datasets, and some broad vegetation groups have not been accurately mapped. The figures provided here should be considered as approximate.

defining coastal ecological communities This section notes the common ecological communities that are found in each coastal broad vegetation group. These lists are not exhaustive.


Exposed cliffsWhat are exposed cliffs?

Coastal vegetation on cliffs on exposed coastlines forms as a variety of shrubland and woodland communities. Where present, the overstorey forms an open canopy of emergents. Exposed cliff vegetation in the AMLR is predominantly low open woodland, varying from semi-arid mallee-style open woodland in drier areas to vegetation with a dense shrub layer in wetter areas. Very little ground layer occurs under the dense shrub layer. Trees usually occur sparsely, including Pink Gum Eucalyptus fasciculosa, Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Cup Gum Eucalyptus cosmophylla, Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata and Melaleuca spp.

Where are exposed cliffs found in the AMLR?

Coastal vegetation subject to high levels of exposure occurs along the southern Fleurieu coastline, south and east of Cape Jervis (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). This mainly rocky coast has steep, high wind-exposed cliffs that support coastal vegetation.

Almost half of the pre-European extent of exposed cliffs remains in the AMLR (Table 4.29).

A large proportion of these remnants are protected in formal conservation areas – almost 90% of remnant exposed cliff is in protected areas.

Photo: Peter Canty

table 4.29 Exposed cliff vegetation extent in the AMLR

Pre-European 2,247 ha <1% of region




17 ha

2 ha

76 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)




types of exposed cliff vegetation in the AMLR

Common ecological communities found on exposed cliffs include:

Mallee Box • Eucalyptus porosa, Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata and Dryland Tea Tree Melaleuca lanceolata grassy woodland

Coastal White Mallee • Eucalyptus diversifolia mallee

Kangaroo Thorn • Acacia paradoxa, Common Oakbush Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp. muelleriana shrubland

Twiggy Daisy Bush • Olearia ramulosa, Coast Bearded Heath Leucopogon parviflorus shrubland

Cup Gum • Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland

Spinifex • Triodia sp. Hummock grassland

Drooping Sheoak • Allocasuarina verticillata grassy woodland.

Conservation status

The ecological communities occurring in Exposed Cliff environments are not considered threatened. A reasonable proportion of these communities are conserved within conservation reserves.

Notable fauna and flora

The White-bellied Sea-eagle (State E) patrols the cliffs of the southern coastline. The dense vegetation of exposed cliffs may provide habitat for nationally threatened fauna, including Southern Brown Bandicoots (Nat. V), Southern Emu Wrens (Nat. E) and Chestnut-rumped Heathwrens (Nat. E). Rocky cliffs may provide habitat for Cunningham’s Skinks (State E).

Condition

Approximately half of the exposed cliff vegetation in the region is formally conserved and its condition is relatively intact. However, this vegetation is considered to be in decline as a result of lack of disturbance regimes and the results of fragmentation. Other areas have experienced degradation as a result of grazing, erosion and inappropriate access, and are in active decline.

threats

Changed disturbance regimes (fire)•

Weed invasion•

Erosion•

Inappropriate access / uncontrolled recreational use•

Excessive grazing pressure (e.g. rabbits).•


Management priorities for exposed cliff vegetation are to exclude stock and manage recreational access to reduce erosion (Table 4.30). Weed control is also a priority activity. Buffering remnants to reduce the impacts of edge effects is required.


table 4.30 Active management of exposed cliffs in the AMLR


Good condition

Relatively intact in all layers, with similar species diversity but reduced abundance of some species. Weed invasion occurring. No historical grazing.

Common Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, and controlling existing weed priorities.

Monitor and manage recreational impacts.

Fair condition

Relatively intact overstorey, but degraded shrub and ground layer. Species diversity reduced, with palatable species missing. Weed invasion, including pasture grasses. Erosion due to past livestock grazing and clearing.

Some As above.

Manage grazing impacts.

Poor condition

Overstorey and midstorey sparse to absent, with groundcover present at some locations (e.g. cliff-tops and cliff-faces). Wind and water erosion. Historical and current grazing.

Common Fencing to exclude stock, manage recreational access.



Exposed dunesWhat is exposed dune vegetation?

Exposed dune vegetation is vegetation that forms on sand dunes in areas with high levels of exposure. This vegetation generally forms as open, low shrublands (<2 m). Common species include Olearia spp. Where dune systems are wide, substantial rear dune systems with dominant Coastal White Mallee Eucalyptus diversifolia and Acacia uncifolia are present.

Where is exposed dune vegetation found in the AMLR?

Exposed dune vegetation in the AMLR was historically restricted in its distribution, to small sandy embayments along the exposed southern coastline (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2).

Approximately 20% of the pre-European extent of exposed dunes remains in the AMLR (Table 4.31).

Few examples of remnant exposed dune vegetation are found within the protected area network in the AMLR.

Photo: Coast Protection Board 2008


table 4.31 Exposed dune vegetation extent in the AMLR

Pre-European 576 ha <1% of region



Protection* 62 ha

31 ha

0 ha

22 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



types of exposed dune vegetation in the AMLR

Common ecological communities found on exposed coastal cliffs in the AMLR include:

Mallee Box • Eucalyptus porosa, Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca lanceolata grassy woodland

Coastal White Mallee • Eucalyptus diversifolia mallee

Kangaroo Thorn • Acacia paradoxa, Common Oak Bush Allocasuarina muelleriana ssp. muelleriana shrubland

Twiggy Daisy Bush • Olearia ramulosa, Coast Bearded Heath Leucopogon parviflorus shrubland

Cup Gum • Eucalyptus cosmophylla heathy woodland

Spinifex Triodia• sp. hummock grassland

Drooping Sheoak • Allocasuarina verticillata grassy woodland

Conservation status

The ecological communities occurring in exposed dune environments are not considered threatened.


Exposed dunes provide habitat for Hooded Plovers (State V). This species uses bare dunes for both breeding and shelter. Other waders such as Red-capped Plovers also use these habitats.

Condition

Much of the remnant exposed dune vegetation has been, and continues to be, subjected to degrading processes, such as grazing, unmanaged recreational access and urban encroachment. Weed invasion is also contributing to the declining condition of this vegetation.

threats (not rated)

Urban encroachment and development•

Erosion•

Revegetation with non-local species•

Inappropriate access (e.g. human, horse, vehicle)•

Weed invasion•

Grazing.•


The management of recreational access to exposed dunes and control of weeds are the priority management activity to reverse the decline of this vegetation (Table 4.32).


table 4.32 Active management of exposed dunes in the AMLR


Good condition

Overstorey and midstorey relatively intact, with sedgy ground layer and soil crusts missing following disturbance. Species composition changed, with increased disturbance-tolerant species. Heavy weed infestations, particularly Asparagus weeds (e.g. bridal creeper, bridal veil).

Some Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, and controlling existing weed priorities, particularly Asparagus weeds.


Monitor and manage erosion.

Fair condition

Shrub layer and ground layer present but degraded and sparse. Retains habitat values for bird species. Woody weed invasion.

Some As above.

Manage grazing impacts.

Poor condition

Degraded dune systems, shrubs almost non-existent. Dominated by cosmopolitan coastal weeds. Only human-tolerant birds supported.

Common Difficult to manage due to urban encroachment.


Sheltered cliffsWhat is sheltered cliff vegetation?

Sheltered cliff vegetation forms on coastal cliffs in sheltered environments along the coastline of Gulf St Vincent. Generally the vegetation forms open woodland dominated by eucalypts with an arid-style chenopod understorey.

Common species include Mallee Box Eucalyptus porosa, Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca lanceolata. Other eucalypts are also present including Coastal White Mallee Eucalyptus diversifolia, Yorrell Eucalyptus gracilis and Peppermint Box Eucalyptus odorata.

Where is sheltered cliff vegetation found in the AMLR?

Sheltered coastal cliffs occur in the AMLR along the coastline

between Maslins Beach and Delamere (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). This coastline abuts the lower wave energy environment of Gulf St Vincent. These habitats were historically restricted in the AMLR, covering less than 1% of the total region (Table 4.33).

Coastal cliffs have been heavily cleared and modified by European settlement, with less than 10% of their pre-European extent remaining as remnant. Clearance of escarpments has led to the loss of much of this vegetation.

Very few examples of sheltered cliff vegetation are formally protected under conservation tenure.

Photo: Ron Sandercock


table 4.33 Sheltered cliff vegetation extent in the AMLR




Protection* 15 ha

83 ha

0 ha

43 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



types of sheltered cliff vegetation in the AMLR

Ecological communities found on sheltered cliffs in the AMLR include:

Acacia cupularis• shrubland

Pale Turpentine Bush • Beyeria lechenaultii +/- Acrotriche patula shrubland

Marsh Saltbush • Atriplex paludosa ssp. cordota +/- Short-leaf Bluebush Maireana brevifolia chenopod shrubland

Mallee Box • Eucalyptus porosa, Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Dryland Tea-tree Melaleuca lanceolata grassy woodland.

Conservation status

The majority of sheltered cliff vegetation has been cleared with the result being erosion of these environments. However, there is very little sheltered cliff vegetation remaining, and little is formally conserved.


Sheltered cliffs provide habitat for birds of prey, including Peregrine Falcons and Wedge-tailed Eagles, who soar alongside cliffs in thermals and updraughts. Prior to European settlement, many other species would have used the resources provided by sheltered cliffs; these species are no longer found in this vegetation as their resources are not provided in the degraded habitats that remain.

Condition

Remnant vegetation on coastal cliffs is in a state of rapid decline, and most remnant examples are in poor condition. Active erosion as a result of clearance of vegetation is occurring and is difficult to manage. Unmanaged recreational access is further exacerbating this degradation.

threats (not rated)

Active erosion•

Urban encroachment •

Grazing•

Unmanaged recreational access.•


The priority for sheltered cliffs is to fence cliffs to exclude grazing. Managing the active erosion of these cliffs is likely to be challenging and will require innovative solutions (Table 4.34).


table 4.34 Active management of sheltered cliffs in the AMLR


Good condition

None present.

None

Fair condition

Overstorey present but species composition changed, with species such as Eucalyptus porosa typically absent. Understorey in good condition with dense shrubs. Woody weeds at low levels and generally stable. Native herbaceous species missing due to erosion.

Some Controlling existing weed priorities.

Monitor and manage recreational impacts and erosion.

Poor condition

Sparse chenopod shrubs and other native coastal species present, but dominated by woody weeds and exotic grasses. Habitat values reduced.

Common Difficult to manage due to active erosion and adjacent urban development.


Sheltered dunesWhat is sheltered dune vegetation?

Sheltered dune vegetation forms on sand dunes along sheltered (i.e. low wave energy) coastlines. Dune vegetation is highly adapted to the salt laden winds of the coast, and helps to stabilise dunes by keeping sand in place and trapping sand blown up from the beach. Sheltered dune vegetation comprises of foredunes, swales and rear dunes. Foredunes are unstable areas supporting colonising grasses and herbs (e.g. Spinifex spp.), swales are semi-stable areas that support an open cover of shrubs (e.g. Coast Daisy-bush Olearia axillaris, Coast Beard-heath Leucopogon parviflorus) and ground plants (e.g. flax-lilies Dianella spp., riceflowers Pimelia spp.), and rear dunes support denser shrublands and woodlands (e.g. Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Common Boobialla Myoporum insulare, and Acacia spp.).

Where is sheltered dune vegetation found in the AMLR?

Sheltered dune vegetation occurs in the AMLR along the coastline from Tennyson Dunes to Normanville (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). This coastline abuts the low wave energy environment of Gulf St Vincent.

Approximately 17% of the pre-European extent of sheltered dunes remains in the AMLR (Table 4.35). Less than 10% of this remnant vegetation is protected in conservation areas.Photo: Ron Sandercock


table 4.35 Sheltered dune vegetation extent in the AMLR




Protection* 78 ha

346 ha

0 ha

117 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



types of sheltered dune vegetation in the AMLR

The dunal zones tend to support distinct vegetation communities, although there is often significant species overlap between the zones. Common ecological communities of sheltered dunes include:

Acacia cupularis• shrubland

Coast Daisy Bush • Olearia axillaris, Coastal Wattle Acacia longifolia ssp. sophorae shrubland

Pale Turpentine Bush • Beyeria lechenaultii shrubland

Nitre Bush • Nitraria billardierei, Coast Saltbush Atriplex cinerea shrubland.

Conservation status

While none of the vegetation communities are formally listed as threatened, sheltered dunes are generally highly modified with little conservation protection for this vegetation. Threats are severe and often difficult to manage.


The generally high levels of disturbance and high recreational use has reduced the quality of sheltered dunes as habitat for fauna, although species that have been able to adapt to these modified habitats are still common (e.g. Silver Gulls). Some of the less disturbed dunes may provide habitat for the Hooded Plover (State V).

Condition

As a result of the location of sheltered dunes, primarily close to urban areas, the pressures on these systems are very high, and most remnant examples are in poor condition. In most locations, urban encroachment has caused the loss of the swales and rear-dunes with only degraded foredunes remaining. The pressure from recreational use is very high, the resilience of these systems to disturbance is low and the condition of remnant sheltered dunes is declining.

threats (not rated)


Urban encroachment•

Weed invasion•

Edge effects•

Inappropriate access.•


Many of the threats to sheltered dunes are very difficult to manage as they relate to urban encroachment and associated threats. However, priority activities include weed control and management of recreational use (Table 4.36).


table 4.36 Active management of sheltered dunes in the AMLR


Good condition

Intact dune system with all zones present, and low weed cover. Species diversity high but composition altered, with some species increased (e.g. Leucopogon parviflorus). Some areas may have been revegetated post-mining with non-local species.

Some Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, and controlling existing weed priorities.


Fair condition

All zones present or rear dunes absent and just foredunes and swales remaining. Remaining zones degraded by weed invasion and recreational impacts.

Some As above, however difficult to manage due to urban encroachment.

Poor condition

Rear dunes and swales absent. Foredunes present but often greatly reduced in extent. Native plant cover low to absent, weed cover high. Some dunes may have been artificially created.

Common Difficult to manage due to urban encroachment and high recreational pressure.


Sheltered tidal zonesWhat is sheltered tidal vegetation?

Sheltered tidal vegetation occurs in sheltered coastal areas where vegetation is subject to tidal change. These areas can be non-estuarine (i.e. marine only, no freshwater input) or estuarine (i.e. with freshwater input). Sheltered tidal vegetation has three distinct zones: inter-tidal mangrove forests at the seaward edge fringing tidal creeks, inter-tidal saltmarsh communities immediately inland of the mangroves, and supra-tidal flats supporting communities of samphire and chenopod shrubland inland of the inter-tidal saltmarsh. This third zone was the largest of the three and graded into sparse mallee at its landward extremity.

Where is sheltered tidal vegetation found in the AMLR?

Sheltered tidal vegetation occurs in Barker Inlet, and along the sheltered coastline north of Barker Inlet (Figure 2.3, Section 2.1.2). Sheltered tidal zones were the most dominant coastal vegetation type in the AMLR; greater than 90% of the Pre-European coastal vegetation was sheltered tidal zones.

Approximately 20% of the sheltered tidal zone vegetation of the AMLR remains (Table 4.37). This remaining vegetation is predominantly mangroves and inter-tidal saltmarsh, with supra-tidal saltmarsh and chenopod shrublands extensively cleared. Over 70% of remnant coastal vegetation is sheltered tidal zones.

A little over 10% of the remnant extent of sheltered tidal vegetation is protected in formal conservation areas.Photo: Tony Robinson


table 4.37 Sheltered tidal vegetation extent in the AMLR



5% of remnant total


1,212 ha

0 ha

1378 ha

Public (protected)


Private (protected)



types of sheltered tidal vegetation in the AMLR

Ecological communities that occur in sheltered tidal zones include:

Pale Turpentine Bush • Beyeria lechenaultii shrubland

Swamp Paperbark • Melaleuca halmaturorum woodland

Saw-sedge • Gahnia trifida/Gahnia filum sedgeland (T)

Beaded Samphire • Sarcocornia quinqueflora shrubland

Nitre Bush • Nitraria billardierei +/- Salt Bluebush Maireana oppositifolia chenopod shrubland

Grey Mangrove • Avicennia marina woodland

Samphire • Halosarcia spp. +/- Sclerostegia spp. shrubland.

Conservation status

Gahnia spp. sedgelands are considered threatened due to degradation as a result of drainage, increased salinity and grazing. Although not formally recognised as threatened, coastal chenopod shrubland on the northern Adelaide coastline has been heavily cleared.


The sheltered tidal zone supports the nationally threatened Bead Samphire (Nat. V).

The sheltered tidal zone provides a range of habitat features and supports a diversity of threatened bird species, including the Slender-billed Thornbill (Nat. V) which inhabits the samphire flats. Other species of conservation significance known from this area include threatened raptors (White-bellied Sea-eagle, State E; Osprey, State E) and wading birds (Eastern Curlew, State V; Banded Stilt, State V). In addition, tidal zones support the nationally threatened Little Tern (Nat. E), and the secretive Australasian Bittern (State V) and Little Bittern (State E).

Condition

Much of the mangrove vegetation within the sheltered tidal vegetation is in good condition. In places this vegetation is actually increasing in extent and encroaching on inter-tidal saltmarsh as a result of sea level rise. However, some areas of mangrove are declining in health as a result of sedimentation.

The condition of other ecological communities within the sheltered tidal zone is declining as a result of industrial encroachment, weed invasion and alterations to tidal influence.


table 4.38 Active management of sheltered tidal vegetation in the AMLR


Good condition

Healthy mangroves with intact inter-tidal saltmarsh. Supra-tidal saltmarsh and chenopod shrubland zone virtually all cleared but some small areas remaining. Mangroves increasing in extent and encroaching on saltmarsh. Weed invasion.

Common Emphasis on preventing new incursions and containing new outbreaks of priority weeds, and controlling existing weed priorities, particularly Suaeda baccifera (introduced shrub) and weedy grasses.

Rising sea levels as a result of land subsidence and climate change is a major threat. Strategies to address these threats must be identified and implemented.

Fair condition

Mangroves and saltmarsh intact, supra-tidal saltmarsh and chenopod shrubland zone absent. Mangroves dead or in poor health due to permanent inundation and sedimentation. Weed invasion.

Some As above.

Manage land-based hydrological impacts, in particular improving storm-water quality and reducing sediment loads.

Rising sea levels as a result of land subsidence and climate change is a major threat. Strategies to address these threats must be identified and implemented.

Poor condition

Mangrove zone intact, but inter-tidal saltmarsh degraded and supra-tidal zone absent. Inter-tidal saltmarsh isolated from the sea by levees, with consequent alteration to species composition and vegetation becoming more supra-tidal than inter-tidal. Weed invasion, in particular African Boxthorn.

Some Difficult to manage due to major alterations to surrounding landscape (e.g. development, levee banks).

Investigate possibility of altering levee banks to allow inundation of saltmarsh.

threats (not rated)


Ground-water extraction resulting in land subsidence•

Alteration to tidal inundation patterns•

Weed invasion•

Sedimentation•

Development.•


Priorities for the sheltered tidal zone are control and/or eradication of weeds (Table 4.38). The main threats to this zone are related to surrounding land uses, and opportunities to mitigate these impacts need to be investigated.


4.1.3 Conservation of speciesThis section details species that will require species-specific conservation or management efforts in the AMLR, and sets conservation priorities and targets for each species group.

Both species that have declined or increased in abundance since European settlement may require targeted conservation efforts in the AMLRThe native species of the AMLR have responded differently to the modification that has happened in the region, with many species declining, others remaining stable, and some increasing in abundance or distribution.

While many of the stable or common species will be conserved effectively through the conservation efforts detailed at the landscape and ecological community level (including those species groups that are poorly known), species that have declined or become more abundant may require targeted conservation and/or management efforts.

Threatened species or species that are actively declining will require targeted efforts to manage specific threats to their ongoing persistence. Many of these species have declined as they have idiosyncratic requirements that are no longer met in the region, and conservation efforts will also need to ensure that these requirements are met.

Species that have become more abundant in the region will require targeted effort to ensure that these species – which can cause detrimental environmental, economic and social impacts – are managed in a manner that does not detrimentally impact on their long-term conservation.

Native species that are located close to residential areas or areas used for agriculture may also require targeted efforts. These species located in close proximity to other land uses can also lead to unwanted detrimental impacts; impacts that can be caused irrespective of whether they are present in large numbers or not.

Species that are only found in the AMLR need to be conserved to ensure they do not become extinctEndemic species – species that are only found in the AMLR – usually justify targeted conservation efforts and status assessment. In many instances, these species will be formally listed as threatened.


This section defines conservation priorities and sets conservation targets for the following species groups in the AMLR:

Threatened species•

Declining species•

Endemic species•

Abundant native species and native species in conflict.•

threatened speciesSpecies that decline in abundance or distribution to such an extent that their long-term survival is considered to be at risk can be formally listed under legislation as threatened with extinction. Threatened species lists are developed at a national level under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and at a State level under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NP&W Act).

Formally threatened species are assigned a conservation rating, based on the level of threat to their continued survival. Species can be listed as extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or conservation dependent under the EPBC Act, and endangered, vulnerable or rare under the NP&W Act.

Listing of a species as threatened may result when species are naturally rare, decline to low levels due to their idiosyncratic requirements or extensive loss of habitat resources, or when the future viability of a species is under a high level of threat.


Nationally threatened terrestrial species of the AMLRFifteen fauna species of the AMLR are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act (see Table 4.40), including two critically endangered, 8 endangered and 5 vulnerable species. This list includes four species that are extinct in the AMLR and an additional six species that are considered to be functionally extinct in the AMLR (i.e. they now occur only very infrequently and their ecological role in the region has been lost).

Thirty-one flora species of the AMLR are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act (see Table 4.41.). This includes two critically endangered, 13 endangered and 16 vulnerable species. A number of these species have not been recorded in the AMLR within the last 20 or so years; these species may be extinct within the region.

Recovery plans are prepared for species listed under the EPBC Act. These plans detail the recovery actions that need to occur to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, threatened species. Most of these plans are single-species recovery plans, although multi-species recovery plans have been developed more recently. Recovery plans that have been completed for threatened species of the AMLR include single-species plans for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and the MLR Southern Emu-wren and a multi-species plan for 12 threatened orchids.

State threatened terrestrial species of the AMLRApproximately 80 terrestrial extant species of fauna are listed as threatened in South Australia under the NP&W Act in the AMLR. This includes 14 species endangered, 19 vulnerable and 47 rare species.

Two hundred and fifty-two terrestrial flora species considered extant in the AMLR are listed as threatened in South Australia under the NP&W Act. This includes 48 endangered, 51 vulnerable and 153 rare species.

A revision of the threatened species schedules of the NP&W Act was recently adopted. This process included a review of known population trends of species, and any other changes in knowledge of species, including distribution and abundance, threats, and taxonomic revision. The review led to an increased number of species being listed as threatened in the AMLR. This increase was in part due to the use of broadened criteria for listing, in particular the criteria used to list species as rare. However, many currently listed species were not able to be reviewed (in which case their rating did not change). The NP&W Act does not currently include native fish.

State, or even National conservation ratings for threatened species do not necessarily reflect their high conservation importance on a regional level. The AMLR region has many regionally threatened and declining species which may not be highly threatened (or even listed) at a State or National level. To prevent regional extinctions or further regional declines, such species may require focussed recovery management. However, there is an urgent need to clarify decline trends for all threatened species to inform immediacy of recovery management.

Plum Leek-orchid(Photo: Joe Quarmby)


A regional multi-species recovery and threat abatement plan for the AMLRTraditionally, the conservation of threatened species – including the development of recovery plans and implementation of recovery actions – has been based on a single-species approach. However, there is a limit to the rate at which recovery plans can be developed, and there are insufficient resources available to implement species-specific recovery actions for all threatened species. The need to rationalise the recovery planning and implementation processes is even more pronounced given the increasing number of threatened species that are being listed.

A multi-species approach to threatened species planning has been conducted in the AMLR. The Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges was adopted in 2009. This plan incorporates over 200 priority plant, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and freshwater fish species, and a number of ecological communities at risk in the region. The plan integrates prioritised recovery and threat abatement actions for these threatened species and ecological communities. It is hoped that this approach will provide more efficient and effective outcomes (across a wider range of species).

threatsThe threats to the threatened species of the AMLR are numerous and diverse, and include impacts associated with habitat fragmentation and loss, spatial or temporal lack of required habitat resources (e.g. food resources, breeding requirements), feral predators and altered disturbance regimes (e.g. fire, grazing). On a broad level, the threats that affect threatened species are those that affect their habitat, e.g. weed invasion and other land use pressure related impacts. A regional level assessment of threats is limited because there are always site-specific threats which may vary from one sub-population to the next, therefore smaller-scale planning is always required for threatened species (and threatened ecological communities). Nevertheless, to identify regional level significant threats to threatened flora, fauna and freshwater fish species, a comprehensive threat assessment for the AMLR region has been undertaken as part of the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges. They are not presented here, however priorities have been reflected in Section 4.2 (Mitigation of threatening processes). Similarly, management strategies and targets for the broader level threats which affect species (e.g. climate change) are not presented here.

Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priorities for threatened species are to identify and implement recovery actions (Table 4.39). This will include implementing actions detailed in existing recovery plans for species present in the AMLR, and also the implementation of priority recovery actions developed through Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges, which identifies priority species based on their regional threat level and other related risk factors.

Increasing our understanding of trends in conservation status of species is also a priority, and criteria to identify and evaluate trends in species that are threatened at a regional level should be developed and implemented. This will allow a better assessment and monitoring of species that are threatened or at risk within the AMLR.

Other important needs for improving recovery of threatened species involve improving our management – particularly in regards to integrating and coordinating efforts (between government, non-government and community groups) to better reflect regional priorities.


table 4.39 Conservation targets for threatened species

5yr Actions in recovery plans for Southern Brown Bandicoots, MLR Southern Emu-wren •and MLR threatened orchids resourced and implemented, by 2015.

Implementation of actions in the regional multi-species recovery and threat •abatement plan (covering regional priority1 listed threatened flora and fauna species and threatened ecological communities, and Nationally listed key threatening processes) commenced, by 2015.

Regional rating framework and criteria to allow for robust and repeatable •assessment of trends in conservation status developed and implemented, by 2015.

20yr No downward trend in conservation status occurring with a portion of species’ •trends increasing (using assessment developed in action above) compared to current situation, by 2030.

1 A prioritisation process to define priority species for conservation action in the AMLR has been conducted. This process may exclude some legislatively listed threatened species that are present in the AMLR, if implementing recovery actions for these species in the AMLR is not considered a priority (e.g. species that are only occasionally present in the AMLR or where the core of a species is located in another region).

table 4.40 Nationally threatened fauna species of the AMLR

Category Common name Scientific name Status in AMLR Recovery plan?

Critically Endangered

Spotted Quail-thrush Cinclosoma punctatum anachoreta

Funct. Ext.1

Orange-bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster

Extant ✓

Endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot

Isoodon obesulus obesulus

Extant ✓ draft, MLR

Burrowing Bettong Bettongia lesueur Extinct ✓ draft

Eastern Quoll Dasyurus viverrinus Extinct

Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (MLR subspecies)

Calamanthus pyrrhopygius parkeri


Southern Emu-wren (MLR subspecies)

Stipiturus malachurus intermedius


Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor Funct. Ext.1

Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia Funct. Ext.1 ✓ draft,

Pygmy Bluetongue Tiliqua adelaidensis Extinct

Vulnerable Bilby Macrotis lagotis Extinct ✓ draft

Red-lored Whistler Pachycephala rufogularis

Extant4

Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata Funct. Ext.1 ✓

Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus Funct. Ext.1 ✓ draft

Flinders Worm Lizard Aprasia pseudopulchella

Extant

Golden Bell Frog 3 Litoria raniformis Not indigenous ✓ draft

1 Funct. Ext. denotes a species that is considered to be functionally extinct in the AMLR. This means that the species now occurs only very infrequently in the AMLR and their ecological role in the region has been lost. 2 (NC) indicates that a species is subject to taxonomic revision and the name reported here may be non-current. 3 The Golden Bell Frog is not an indigenous species of the AMLR. It was introduced to the region. 4 Possibly a vagrant with extremely peripheral distribution in the AMLR.


table 4.41 Nationally threatened flora species of the AMLR

Category Common name Scientific name Status Recovery plan?

Critically Endangered

Hindmarsh Greenhood Pterostylis bryophila ✓

Blue Top Sun-orchid Prasophyllum murfetii

Thelymitra cyanapicata

Endangered Fat-leaf Wattle Acacia pinguifolia ✓ 3

Mount Compass Oak-bush Allocasuarina robusta

White Beauty Spider-orchid Caladenia argocalla ✓

Pink-lip Spider-orchid Caladenia behrii ✓

Coloured Spider-orchid Caladenia colorata ✓ draft 3

Bayonet Spider-orchid Caladenia gladiolata ✓

Stiff White Spider-orchid Caladenia rigida ✓

Mount Compass Swamp Gum

Eucalyptus paludicola

Mueller’s Eyebright1 Euphrasia collina ssp. muelleri

Hist.1

Osborn’s Eyebright Euphrasia collina ssp. osbornii

✓

Monarto Mintbush Prostanthera eurybioides ✓ 3

Hale Greenhood (NC)2 Pterostylis sp. Hale (R.Bates 21725)

Metallic Sun-orchid Thelymitra epipactoides ✓ 3

Vulnerable Menzel’s Wattle Acacia menzelii ✓ 3

Resin Wattle Acacia rhetinocarpa ✓ 3

Winter Spider-orchid Caladenia brumalis Hist.1 ✓ draft 3

Kangaroo Island Spider-orchid

Caladenia ovata ✓ draft 3

Hindmarsh Correa Correa calycina var. calycina

✓ 3

Finniss Helmet-orchid Corybas dentatus

Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana

Bead Samphire Halosarcia flabelliformis Coastal ✓ draft

Silver Daisy-bush Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa

✓ 3

Pale Leek-orchid Prasophyllum pallidum

Sandhill Greenhood Pterostylis arenicola ✓ 3

Leafy Greenhood Pterostylis cucullata ✓

Large-fruit Groundsel Senecio macrocarpus Hist.1 ✓ draft 3

Large-flower Groundsel Senecio megaglossus

Butterfly Spyridium Spyridium coactilifolium

Spiral Sun-orchid Thelymitra matthewsii Hist.1 ✓ 3

1 Hist. indicates that a species has not been recorded in the AMLR since 1 January1984. These species may no longer be present within the region. 2 (NC) indicates that a species is subject to taxonomic revision and the name reported here may be non-current. 3 Species is included in National or regional Recovery Plans from outside AMLR region.


declining speciesMany species in the AMLR are undergoing a continuing decline in distribution and/or abundance but do not yet formally meet the criteria to be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act or NP&W Act. Despite this, these declining species are considered a conservation priority because their decline trajectory suggests that many of them will eventually become threatened with extinction.

Actions to halt and reverse these declines should be implemented as a priority to prevent species from becoming threatened. Investment now is seen as a cost-effective conservation measure; acting now, rather than neglecting species’ requirements until they have declined to the extent of being officially listed as endangered or vulnerable, when resource-intensive recovery programs are required. Furthermore,

identifying and managing the threatening processes contributing to the decline of numerous species is likely to achieve multiple conservation outcomes, including even non-target species.

Finally, the formal process of listing species as threatened can be slow and difficult to comprehensively review on a regular basis. Processes that rely on statutory lists for setting species conservation priorities can be insensitive to ecological changes that are occurring.

Although species from many groups in the AMLR are likely to be declining (and possibly adding to the ‘extinction debt’ in the future), birds are the only group for which a structured process has been undertaken to identify declining species, and which has been used in the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges discussed above.

declining birds of the Mount Lofty RangesA list of bird species considered to be declining in the AMLR has been developed using a combination of approaches: by identifying species already listed under the EPBC Act and NP&W Act, by using an expert panel of scientists and local ornithologists, and by using existing data for birds in the AMLR to analyse temporal changes in reporting rates for species.

An initial list of 65 declining bird species was prepared. An analysis of the threats to these species was undertaken, and recommendations were made for management and for improving our knowledge base. These analyses and recommendations were in part incorporated into the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan that has been prepared for the AMLR.

An ongoing regional monitoring program (The Mount Lofty Ranges Bird Survey) is underway by the Nature Conservation Society of SA and the University of Queensland aiming to detect trends in woodland birds in response to anticipated climate change, the extinction debt and to assist in the planning of habitat restoration and rehabilitation.

threatsThe threatening processes responsible for the ongoing declines in non-threatened species are likely to be contributing to the decline in threatened species. Including declining species in a regional species-threat analysis is therefore likely to improve the outcomes of this process.

Chestnut-rumped Thornbill – a declining bird species in the region (Photo: Brian Furby)


Conservation prioritiesThe priority for declining species is to include them in planning for species conservation in the region. Before this can occur, a process for evaluating regional trends in species distribution and abundance and classifying species status as secure, declining or threatened should be developed and implemented. This process should be integrated with State level assessments of species conservation status.

The process undertaken to develop the declining bird list should be reviewed, and a similar approach applied to other groups. The methodology for evaluating species status should be robust and repeatable to enable species-specific and region-wide trends in status to be monitored and evaluated (Table 4.42).

table 4.42 Conservation targets for declining species

5yr Develop and implement a repeatable process for evaluating regional trends in •species distribution and abundance to identify declines and classify the conservation status of species, by 2015.

Include declining species for consideration in multi-species recovery plan •development and implementation, by 2015.

Identify connectivity-limited species (in fragmented landscapes) and identify •scale at which lack of connectivity occurs, by 2015.

20yr No downward trend in conservation status occurring and some species’ trends •increasing (using assessment developed in action above) compared to current situation, by 2030.

Endemic speciesThe AMLR contains many species and sub-species that are endemic to this region – that is, they are not found anywhere else in the world. Regional extinction of any endemic species represents global extinction, therefore special attention should be given to ensuring that their conservation requirements are addressed. However, not all endemic species or sub-species that occur in the AMLR are considered threatened (e.g. White-throated Treecreeper).

Endemic species of the AMLRSome of the endemic species and sub-species in the AMLR are listed in Table 4.44.

threatsThe threatening processes applying to threatened species of the AMLR are likely to also apply to endemic species. An analysis of threats applying to priority endemic species has been completed as part of the multi-species recovery planning process for AMLR.

Conservation prioritiesTo ensure that the conservation requirements of endemic species are explicitly considered, priority endemic species and sub-species of the AMLR have been included in the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species and Ecological Communities of Adelaide and the Mount Lofty Ranges (Table 4.43).

Thelymitra cyanapicata – a regionally endemic orchid (Photo: Joe Quarmby)


table 4.43 Conservation targets for endemic species

5yr Species endemic to AMLR included in multi-species recovery and threat abatement plan, and implementation of recovery actions commenced, by 2015.

20yr No currently non-threatened endemic species are listed under formal threatened categories, by 2030. The number of endemic species listed as threatened is reduced, compared to current levels, by 2030.

table 4.44 Significant endemic species of the AMLR1

Common name Scientific name Status

Fauna Spotted Quail-thrush Cinclosoma punctatum anachoreta

Nat. CE

Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (MLR subspecies)

Calamanthus pyrrhopygius parkeri

Nat. E

Southern Emu-wren (MLR subspecies)

Stipiturus malachurus intermedius

Nat. E

Flora Prasophyllum murfetii Nat. CE

Mount Compass Oak-bush Allocasuarina robusta Nat. E

Pink-lip Spider-orchid Caladenia behrii Nat. E

Stiff White Spider-orchid Caladenia rigida Nat. E

Hindmarsh Correa Correa calycina var. calycina Nat. V

Finniss Helmet-orchid Corybas dentatus Nat. V

Butterfly Spyridium Spyridium coactilifolium Nat. V

Deep Creek Correa Correa eburnean

Aldinga Dampiera Dampiera lanceolata var. intermedia

Mount Lofty Phebalium Leionema hillebrandii

Mount Lofty Daisy-bush Olearia grandiflora

Shade Tussock-grass Poa umbricola

Plum Leek-orchid Prasophyllum pruinosum

Hindmarsh Greenhood Pterostylis bryophila Nat. CE

Mount Lofty Bush-pea Pultenaea involucrata

Blue Top Sun-orchid Thelymitra cyanapicata Nat. CE

1 This list is not exhaustive and is not intended to indicate all of the endemic species of the AMLR.


Abundant native species and native species in conflictSome native species are more abundant or widespread than they used to beThe extensive modification of the AMLR has led to changes in the abundance and distribution of native species, most notably with significant declines in a large number of species. However, some native species in the AMLR have benefited from the extensive modification to the region.

Species that have been able to adapt to changing land use and habitat patterns have become more abundant and/or widespread than they were prior to European settlement. These species have often become more dominant in ecosystems, as other native species have declined or become extinct. Some native species have been able to access new or altered habitats and expand their range. Some species have adapted to the resources provided by urban habitats, and now live in close proximity to humans.

The ability of some species to use modified areas means that the biodiversity of the AMLR is not confined to remnants of native vegetation. With the great reduction in the extent of pre-European vegetation in the region, and the provision of new modified habitats, many native species now move across the landscape in search of their habitat requirements.

Koalas, which are relatively abundant in the region, are considered to be introduced from Qld, NSW and Vic prior to the 1940s (and subsequently used to seed a population in the Riverland). Koala populations have greatly expanded in the AMLR to occupy much of the suitable habitat, and are often reported in urban and peri-urban areas where they can come into conflict with dogs and traffic.

Native species can be in conflict with other land usesNative species, particularly those that are abundant, can cause unwanted detrimental economic, social or environmental impacts, and can be regarded as pests. However, native species do not have to be abundant to be regarded as pests. A native species can cause unwanted impacts even if present only in low numbers. Native species that are in close proximity to humans and their land uses can cause unwanted impacts, with wildlife found in urban and peri-urban areas particularly likely to come into conflict with humans.

Abundant or impact-causing native species of AMLRThere are a number of native species in the AMLR that can cause unwanted detrimental impacts. Notable species include mammals such as kangaroos, koalas and possums (Table 4.46), and birds such as swooping birds, flocking birds and silver gulls (Table 4.47). Some of these species are abundant, with impacts linked to localised congregations in large numbers; others are not abundant yet can still cause unwanted impacts.

The unwanted impacts caused by native species in the AMLR vary in nature, and include environmental damage (e.g. erosion of embankments and excessive grazing or browse pressure on remnant vegetation or on revegetation projects), economic damage (e.g. grazing on crops or pasture, damage to fences and houses), and social impacts (e.g. excessive noise, damage to gardens and potential to generate health risks).

The Little Corella – an abundant native species in the region (Photo: Brian Furby)


An integrated management approach that leads to a reduction in impacts should be usedThe best practice approach for managing the impacts of native species is to use an integrated approach incorporating a variety of methods. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, in accordance with certain criteria, landholders can apply for a permit to destroy a specified number of a native species that are causing detrimental impacts. While destruction may provide a solution in some cases, in most cases it is likely that non-lethal techniques – such as exclusion netting, scare guns, habitat modification or removal of certain resources – may be required in combination with destruction; or that non-lethal methods will provide a solution without the need to destroy animals. Often, long-term solutions are non-lethal.

Importantly, management approaches and actions need to be linked to ensure that the impacts of a given species will be mitigated or minimised, rather than focussing on a reduction in the number of the target species. It is also important to note that there may not always be a solution that achieves the desired outcome and a greater acceptance of this by the community is required.

Community attitudes towards wildlife are importantAbundant species and impact-causing species are an important component of the region’s biodiversity. Many of the impacts that they cause today are linked to changes that have been brought about through human modification and settlement of the region.

The consequence of these changes is that humans and wildlife co-exist in modified habitats; despite this close presence, people often have little appreciation or understanding of the native species that are present in urban habitats and the habitat resources that these species require or utilise. Increasing understanding of wildlife behaviour, the requirements of wildlife, and promoting positive community attitudes and perceptions towards wildlife, are important components of ensuring their effective management. A philosophy of ‘living with wildlife’ should be promoted and adopted.

Conservation prioritiesThe conservation priorities for abundant species and native species in conflict in the AMLR include the provision of a suite of management responses and actions that will lead to the mitigation of unwanted impacts. This may require integration of current techniques, and/or the development of new techniques and innovative solutions. Promoting pre-impact planning and early thinking about when conflicts with native species may occur or arise is also important.

Our development and modification of the environment is responsible for advantaging species and leading to their consequent unwanted impacts. Consequently, another priority is to develop and incorporate a wildlife pre-impact planning approach into the development planning framework. This will ensure that the development approval process requires identification of native species that may be advantaged through specific developments and potential conflicts that may arise, and that measures to avoid, mitigate and/or minimise the conflicts are implemented as the development is undertaken (i.e. preventing impacts instead of implementing action to mitigate impacts once the impacts have occurred).

Improving community perceptions and understanding of wildlife is also a priority; initially this will involve benchmarking current community attitudes towards wildlife and their understanding of the role of modified environments (e.g. urban areas) in providing habitat for native species.

Importantly, while providing management approaches that allow for impacts to be minimised, management also needs to be conducted in a manner that does not compromise the viability of populations of the species to ensure that they remain secure in the AMLR into the future (Table 4.45).


table 4.45 Conservation targets for abundant native species and native species-in-conflict

5yr Decision-making frameworks incorporating integrated management of species •through lethal and non-lethal methods implemented, by 2015.

Community perceptions of wildlife benchmarked, by 2015.•

Pre-impact planning approach1 for identifying potential native species impacts •and required mitigation measures developed, and integrated into development planning framework, by 2015.

Management responses for emerging conflicts between kangaroos and •revegetation projects developed and implemented, by 2015.

Increased understanding of koala numbers, population trends and their impacts •on biodiversity, by 2015.

Increased research into the population ecology of key abundant native species •(e.g, Little Corellas) by 2015, to improve management decisions.

20yr Community perceptions and attitudes towards ‘living with wildlife’ and impact-•causing native species improved from current levels, by 2030.

Management frameworks for impact-causing species that lead to a reduction in •unwanted impacts implemented, by 2030.

No decline in conservation status of abundant or impact-causing species, in •2030.

1 Pre-impact wildlife planning for development should include a requirement for the development approval process to identify native species that will potentially be advantaged through the development and potential conflicts and impacts that may arise, and the requirement that measures and management actions to avoid, mitigate and/or minimise the conflicts and impacts are implemented as the development is undertaken.


table 4.46 Notable abundant or impact-causing native species in the AMLR – Mammals

Species/species group

Major impacts/conflicts

Where? Management responses

Western Grey Kangaroos Macropus fuliginosus

Excessive grazing pressure or trampling of remnant vegetation or on revegetation projects.

Economic damage to crops, pasture or property.

Road/traffic risks.

Northern and central Mount Lofty Ranges, Fleurieu Peninsula, peri-urban environments.

A combination of non-lethal methods, along with targeted destruction in some situations, may be required.

Non-lethal management responses include: amending revegetation planting design to reduce edge effects, electric and/or kangaroo proof exclusion fencing, installation of swing gates at well-used access points along fencelines, and scaring regime using lights, vehicles and noise-generating devices to deter kangaroos.

Koalas1 Phascolarctos cinereus

Potential for browse pressure on remnant vegetation.

Traffic disruptions.

Attacks by dogs.

Suburbs of Adelaide, peri-urban environments, central Mount Lofty Ranges.

Management responses related to increasing awareness of koala behaviour, and preventing impacts from occurring including: placement of tree collars around critical tree species to prevent defoliation, and placement of wildlife (koala) traffic signs at hazardous sites where koalas have been sighted.

Possums Common Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula

Social impacts through use of alternative shelters for refuge (e.g. roof spaces,) and damage to ornamental and fruit/vegetable gardens foraging for food.

Economic impacts from repairs and possum proofing of house.

Suburbs of Adelaide, peri-urban environments.

Management techniques detailed in ‘Living with Possums strategy’, including: increasing public awareness of non-lethal methods of possum management, use of possum boxes as alternative habitat, and preventing access into roof spaces by blocking off access points

Where necessary, a permit can be obtained to capture a possum in a roof space and release the animal back onto the same property.

1 The koala is considered not an indigenous species of the AMLR, being introduced to the region in the 1930s and 1960s.


table 4.47 Notable abundant or impact-causing native species in the AMLR – Birds

Species/ species group

Major impacts/conflicts

Where? Management responses

Flocking cockatoos

Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita

Galah Cacatua roseicapilla

Economic damage to crops and property.

Cumulative damage to trees through pruning behaviour over many seasons.

Erosion of embankments and potential for increased nutrient loads in waterways.

Social impacts on residents through noisy roosting behaviour, which also has the potential to generate heath risks

Willunga Basin (particularly Onkaparinga area), Eastern Flanks (particularly Strathalbyn area), Fleurieu Peninsula.

Develop and implement local action plans for the management of the impacts of the species, including scaring techniques.

Where necessary to reduce impacts, a program to trap and gas birds can be implemented under a permit.

Research into population ecology.

Silver Gulls Larus novaehollandiae

Impacts related to scavenging in large numbers including spread of disease and contamination of water storage areas.

Potential bird strike at airports.

Predation of the eggs and chicks of other species.

Adelaide plains near-coastal areas, where food supplies are available (e.g. rubbish landfill sites, waste transfer stations, food processing factories, populated beaches) and surrounding areas.

Develop and implement local action plans for the management of the impacts of the species.

Implement integrated management approach including best practice principles for waste management, public education to encourage the public to refrain from feeding wildlife and potentially lethal methods (e.g. egg oiling or egg pricking to curb population increases).

Orchard birds

Crimson (Adelaide) Rosella Platycercus elegans adelaidae

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus

Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna

Economic damage to orchards, vineyards and market gardens (e.g. damage to fruit).

Northern Adelaide Plains and Adelaide Hills.

Damage can be of greater severity during poor environmental conditions when natural food sources are in short supply.

Implement an integrated management approach to prevent and/or minimise impacts, including: noise generating devices, exclusion netting, and ensuring crops are not planted close to areas of remnant vegetation that birds will use for refuge. Destruction of a few animals by shooting may also be required to reduce impacts.

Australian Wood duck Chenonetta jubata

Grazing impacts on improved pastures and golf courses.

Social impacts from fouling areas around artificial lakes and swimming pools.

Adelaide Hills, including Clarendon, Macclesfield and Echunga areas.

Responses to prevent impacts, including: planting crops away from water bodies or planting a screening strip of tall vegetation around crops, noise-generating devices and bird hides to minimise duck presence, and exclusion of ducks using overhead netting or fishing line.


4.1.4 Aquatic ecosystem conservation programs

How does this report address the needs of aquatic ecosystems?This report provides a mechanism of dividing the AMLR region into ecologically meaningful management units (landscapes and ecological communities) that assist in implementing priority conservation actions.

The planning and priority setting framework in this report is primarily based on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems interact and are exposed to many of the same impacts. Consequently, the planning and priority setting presented in the previous sections (4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3) is relevant to aquatic ecosystems. For example, the Riparian, Wetland and Sheltered Tidal ecological communities form part of many of the aquatic ecosystems in the region. Also, aquatic ecosystems can be found in many of the sub-regional landscapes.

However, the aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR may extend or link across landscapes (e.g. creeks and rivers linking the higher elevation swamps with seasonal wetlands on the Adelaide plains and estuaries on the coast). Also, some of the drivers of aquatic ecosystem type and condition are different to those for terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, the regional planning and priority setting framework established in this report may not be entirely appropriate for identifying priority conservation actions for aquatic ecosystems.

This report does not provide a planning and priority setting framework specific to aquatic ecosystems as this is currently being developed through various collaborative national and state projects. These and many other projects and programs currently underway at the national, state and regional levels collectively aim to mitigate threats to aquatic ecosystems, and address some of the root causes of these threats. This includes improving knowledge and documentation of aquatic ecosystems, and facilitating better, more integrated management of aquatic ecosystems.

Many of these projects are not working in isolation and they aim to improve decision making across jurisdictions on development impact assessment, what the priority conservation actions should be and where, and provide a standard framework for monitoring and reporting on aquatic ecosystem condition.

This section summarises some of the key projects, plans and strategies that relate to aquatic ecosystems. These initiatives will help users of the report to add to or refine the conservation priorities and actions contained in the previous sections, which will enable better integration of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity management. Users of the report should seek further information on these initiatives before conducting any works that may impact (positively or negatively) on aquatic ecosystems. Further information on the initiatives listed in Appendix 1.2 and Appendix 1.3 can be found by going to the website addresses provided in the tables.

Aquatic ecosystems consist of many different typesUsing the definition of wetlands under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, aquatic ecosystems comprise “…areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”.

Using the classification system in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, aquatic ecosystems can be divided into three broad categories:

Marine and coastal zone ecosystems (includes estuaries, and inter-tidal mangrove and •saltmarsh areas)

Inland ecosystems (includes watercourses and swamps)•

Human-made aquatic environments (reservoirs, dams, salt pans, and wetlands or ponds that •manage stormwater and wastewater)

Aquatic ecosystems in the planning region include examples of all three categories. Scattered throughout the region are many human-made wetlands (such as reservoirs, dams, wastewater/stormwater treatment ponds and salt pans), seasonal and permanent watercourses, seasonal and permanent freshwater lakes, swamps, mudflats and mangroves, estuaries and near-shore environments including seagrass meadows and tidal systems.


Aquatic ecosystems are important biodiversity assetsThe large number and high diversity of aquatic ecosystem types in the AMLR is an indication of the important biodiversity value of aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems provide a range of ecosystem and other services, including services that fulfil important economic, social and cultural needs.

The range of services provided by inland aquatic systems includes:

Ecosystem services

Recycling nutrients and maintaining water quality•

Supporting biodiversity (providing refuge habitat, food and water, and facilitating the movement •of species across the landscape)

Supporting vital ecological processes such as breeding requirements and important cues for •different life stages of flora and fauna

Providing breeding and nursery areas for commercial and recreational fisheries•

Important feeding and breeding areas for resident and migratory shorebirds•

Economic, social and cultural services

Providing water for human consumption•

Providing water and nutrients for agricultural production and industries•

Supporting sites for urban development and industries such as boat building, power stations •and salt production

Outlets for waste water and stormwater•

Providing important shipping channels and commercial harbours•

Stormwater and flood control•

Storm protection•

Supporting cultural heritage, tourism, lifestyle pursuits•

Aquatic ecosystems also support many national, state and regionally threatened flora and fauna species and communities, including:

Bead Samphire (• Halosarcia flabelliformis) - Nationally Vulnerable (EPBC Act 1999). Found on Garden Island in Barker Inlet and in Port Gawler Conservation Park.

Several flora species identified as regionally threatened in the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan that •are associated with the Wetland ecological community group (most of these species also have a State or national rating). For example, Hibbertia tenuis (State and regionally Endangered), and the AMLR endemic orchid species Thelymitra cyanapicata and Prasophyllum murfetti (both nationally Critically Endangered, State and regionally Endangered). Note: the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan identified the Wetland ecological community group as supporting the highest proportion of threatened flora species in the AMLR region compared with any other broad vegetation groups.

Golden Haired Sedge-skipper Butterfly (• Hesperilla chrysotricha). One of the rarer butterflies in the Adelaide Hills, now confined to a few swampy areas in the southern Fleurieu Peninsula (its habitat is the regionally threatened Saw-sedge sedgeland).

Several fish species classified as regionally threatened in the AMLR Regional Recovery Plan •including the regionally Endangered Southern Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca obscura) and River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus).

The MLR sub-species of the Southern Emu-wren (• Stipiturus malachurus intermedius) - Nationally Endangered (EPBC Act 1999).

Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula – Nationally Critically Endangered (EPBC Act 1999).•

Regionally threatened ecological communities: Swamp Gum over wet heath, Silky Tea-Tree •shrubland, Manna Gum +/- Candlebark riparian woodland and Saw-sedge sedgeland.


There are 16 aquatic ecosystems listed as nationally significant in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, including four estuaries (see Table 4.48).

Many aquatic ecosystems are important feeding and breeding sites for internationally and nationally significant migratory and threatened bird species (including EPBC Act listed species and bird species listed under the CAMBA, JAMBA and ROKAMBA international migratory bird agreements that seek to conserve migratory birds of the East Asia-Australasian Flyway). Coastal areas are particularly important for migratory birds with key areas including Port Gawler Conservation Park, Port River/Barker Inlet area, Onkaparinga River estuary (included in the Port Noarlunga Reef Aquatic Reserve) and the Penrice Saltfields. The saltfields qualifies as an internationally important site as part of the East Asia-Australasian Flyway network.

Also, the Barker Inlet – St Kilda area is nationally considered to be a good example of temperate mangrove and saltmarsh communities, and is the largest area of mangroves in the Gulf. The St Kilda-Chapman Creek and Barker Inlet Aquatic Reserves include these mangrove areas. The proximity of this mangrove stand to Adelaide is considered to be an important feature, there being few other similar stands in or near any major city in Australia.

table 4.48 Nationally significant aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR as listed in the directory of Important Wetlands in Australia

Name (dIWA)1 Estuary Landscape2

Ambersun - West Swamp Fleurieu

Barker Inlet & St Kilda Y Northern Coastline

Cleland Perched Swamps Central Lofty Ranges

Clinton Northern Coastline

Congeratinga Swamp Southern Fleurieu

The Coorong, Lake Alexandrina & Lake Albert (peripheral to region only)

Eastern Plains & Barossa and Eastern Hills

Engelbrook Reserve Central Lofty Ranges

Gold Diggings Swamp Southern Fleurieu

Illawong Swamp Southern Fleurieu

Maylands Swamp Southern Fleurieu

Onkaparinga Estuary Y Southern Coastline & Willunga Basin

Port Gawler & Buckland Park Lake Y Northern Coastline

Stipiturus Conservation Park (Glenshera Swamp)

Fleurieu

Tookayerta & Finniss Catchments Fleurieu

Upper Boat Harbour Creek Wetlands Southern Fleurieu

Washpool Lagoon Y Southern Coastline

1 Name given in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia 2 The landscapes as defined in this report


Many aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR are in poor condition and are under threatThe aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR have been extensively modified over time to support human settlement, economic development and to provide recreational opportunities.

The remaining extent of the vegetation communities associated with aquatic ecosystems is an indication of the degree of impact on these systems. As stated in Part 2 the percentage clearance of Inland Riparian, Wetland and Sheltered Tidal communities is 85%, 76% and 79% respectively.

Aquatic ecosystems have not only been modified by direct destruction and vegetation clearance, but also impacts to the surface and groundwater resources that sustain them. Surface and ground water catchments of the Mount Lofty Ranges contain significant watershed areas that provide metropolitan Adelaide and peri-urban areas with domestic water supplies. Apart from the domestic use of water, surface waters and groundwater sustain critical aquatic ecosystems that maintain biodiversity within the Mount Lofty Ranges. These two aspects are intrinsically linked, the quality of our domestic and agricultural water supplies depends on the health of aquatic ecosystems.

The few remaining aquatic ecosystems of the AMLR are subject to many threats and associated impacts. These include:

Direct destruction of wetlands (through clearance and drainage of wetlands to create new or •expand existing developments, or over-grazing of wetlands and fringing areas)

Changes to water regimes including the volume, frequency, timing, duration and velocity •of flows (for example, through a change in land use such as intensive plantation forestry, channelisation of waterways, and regulation and over-use of surface waters and groundwater)

Declines in water quality (as a result of seepage from septic treatment systems, activities that •destabilise soils and exacerbate erosion, through inappropriate land-use practices that increase salinity, or from high chemical and nutrient-laden runoff from urban, industrial and rural areas)

Introduced plant and animal species (such as Weeping Willows, introduced grasses and pines, •introduced predators of native fish, e.g. Mosquito fish, Gambusia holbrookii, sheep and cattle). Introduced species can reduce the amount of water available for native species, decrease water quality, increase erosion and movement of sediment downstream, increase nutrient loads, remove vegetation and contribute to losses of fauna such as fish, birds and invertebrates)

Recreational activities (such as power boating, four-wheel driving, trail bike riding, camping and •fishing)

Potential impacts of climate change and other severe climatic/weather events (such as sea •level rise and storm damage)

Aquatic ecosystem conservation and management involves many different land tenuresAquatic ecosystems, their supporting processes and threats extend over a wide variety of land tenures including conservation parks, Heritage Agreements, marine parks, Aquatic Reserves (under the Fisheries Management Act 2007), SA Water Land, Council reserves and private urban and rural properties. Consequently, effective conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems will require significant co-ordination of actions across all sectors of the community.

Regional conservation and management strategies and targetsThe projects and programs listed in Appendix 1.2 and Appendix 1.3 will fill important knowledge gaps and provide information and tools that will lead to more effective and integrated conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems. The following table (Table 4.49) presents a brief summary of some of the key knowledge and information gaps that are being addressed by the projects and programs listed in the Appendices.


table 4.49 Summary of key information gaps that are being addressed to guide regional management

National level

Development of a national list of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems •based on a set of tested, nationally consistent and agreed criteria (to assist in identifying priority aquatic ecosystems)

Development of a set of nationally consistent and agreed aquatic bioregions •and an aquatic ecosystem type classification system to facilitate national, state and regional reporting on aquatic ecosystem condition reporting that is comparable across bioregions and jurisdictions

State level Mapping of aquatic ecosystem boundaries, and gathering and collation of •baseline information on aquatic ecosystems

Development of databases and mapping tools that can be accessed by •governments industries and the community, potentially through one access point

Development of conceptual models to identify aquatic ecosystem condition •indicators through capturing best current knowledge of ecosystem functions and processes

Improved monitoring and understanding of shorebird populations, their habitats •and threats to improve development impact assessment and decision making

Regional level

Improved understanding of the environmental water requirements of streams •and wetlands in the eastern and western Mount Lofty Ranges

Most of the work highlighted in the above table is work that is being done at a broader scale than the AMLR. Nevertheless, it is important that regional managers use the results of this work as it is designed to facilitate cross-regional and cross-jurisdictional conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems. Also, the outcomes of this work will assist in determining regional investment priorities and it is likely that they will be used to guide future national and State investment decisions.

Table 4.50 below lists key regional strategies and targets to guide regional conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems in the next five years. Please refer to sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 for other more specific targets that relate to aquatic ecosystems. Also, section 4.2 proposes strategies to manage priority threats and threatening processes affecting both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity.


table 4.50 Key strategies and targets to guide aquatic ecosystem (AE) management in the AMLR region

Increase understanding of aquatic ecosystems (to develop best practice management)

Fund additional research projects to fill gaps in aquatic ecosystem inventories and mapping by •2015, including work to improve the consistency of scale of current aquatic ecosystem mapping in the AMLR through the SA AE GIS layer project (see Appendix 1.3) by 2015.

DEH and the AMLR and SA MDB NRM Boards to continue to work with DWLBC• 1 to develop conceptual understandings of AE type processes and identify ecosystem threat and condition indicators to develop best practice monitoring and management actions by 2015.

Fund on-ground trials of the conceptual models and the threat and condition indicators being •developed as part of the State-wide SA AE Program (see Appendix 1.3) by 2015.

Fund projects (including on-ground testing of existing models) to refine knowledge of the •environmental water requirements of aquatic ecosystems in the AMLR by 2015.

Improve data management

Link project databases and mapping into State information systems by 2015 (such as the •DWLBC Natural Resources Information Management System (NRIMS) and the DEH Biological Data Project), to ensure that information is coordinated.

All documentation of aquatic ecosystem management and research is linked to State and •National aquatic ecosystem bioregionalistion and type classification systems by 2015 (to achieve more efficient and integrated management of aquatic ecosystems and increase funding opportunities). This target has links with adaptive management target below.

Adopt integrated and adaptive management processes

By 2015, State government, regional NRM Boards, local Councils, and other local and regional •managers adopt an adaptive management approach (on-going monitoring, reporting and reviewing of management actions) using a framework that captures conceptual understandings of ecosystem function and processes, against which management interventions can be evaluated. Monitoring and reporting should use state and nationally agreed standards and indicators to enable comparisons across regional, state and national scales (refer to the framework developed as part of the SA AE Program (see Appendix 1.3).

Incorporate aquatic ecosystem requirements into development planning and assessment

The best available information on aquatic ecosystems is used in development planning and •impact assessment by 2015, including a mechanism to incorporate new information into decision making as it becomes available

Improve community education and awareness

By 2015, fund additional education programs to increase understanding of aquatic ecosystem •biodiversity, requirements and threats, and to encourage adoption of appropriate management actions

1 DEH = SA Department for Environment and Heritage, AMLR & SA MDB NRM Boards = Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges & SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Boards, DWLBC = SA Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation


4.2 Mitigation of threatening processesThreatening processes are environmental factors, or practices, that threaten or could threaten the survival or evolutionary development of species, populations, ecological communities or ecosystems.

Nationally important ‘key threatening processes’Under the EPBC Act a threatening process is defined as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) if it threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. There are 17 KTPs listed under the EPBC Act, nine of which are considered relevant to the AMLR Region (excluding marine processes):

Competition and land degradation by feral goats*•

Competition and land degradation by feral rabbits*•

Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (• Phytophthora cinnamomi)*

Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridomycosis*•

Land clearance•

Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases•

Predation by feral cats*•

Predation by the European red fox*, and•

Psittacine circoviral (beak and feather) disease affecting endangered psittacine species*.•

KTPs marked with an asterisk have an approved or draft National Threat Abatement Plan (TAP). Once a threatening process is listed under the EPBC Act, a TAP can be put into place if it is shown to be ‘a feasible, effective and efficient way’ to abate the threatening process.

AMLR threatening processesTable 4.51 below categories the primary threats and threatening processes affecting the biodiversity of the region. Note that more detailed descriptions of threats can be found in the AMLR Regional NRM Plan, and the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species & Ecological Communities of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 2009-2014.

In describing the threats for the region, a distinction between ‘current direct threats’ and ‘ecological stresses’ have been made. The categories of current direct threats in Table 4.51 below combine and interact to cause a number of ecological stresses at multiple levels – ecosystem, community and species. Threat abatement at the site scale is usually aimed at managing current direct threats while habitat revegetation, restoration or reconstruction activities are often aimed at managing ecological stresses (though they often may also involve on-going threat abatement activities such as weed control). Ecological stresses include:

Fire can be both a threat to biodiversity and a valuable management tool (Photo: Ian Tanner)


Habitat fragmentation•

Edge effects, spatial and temporal provision of resources•

Ecosystem conversion, habitat loss and modification•

Ecosystem degradation•


Altered hydrological regimes•

Fragmentation of existing habitat (isolation of populations)•

Barriers to dispersal•

Reduced reproduction/ recruitment•

Edge effects•

Distance effects (isolation)•

Species mortality•

Road mortality•

Species disturbance•

Indirect species effects (e.g. inbreeding, loss of pollinator or host, increased competition)•

To inform restoration priorities and strategies, further research and planning is required to determine important ecological stresses particularly for threatened fauna species.

Grass-trees killed by Phytophthora (Photo: Kirstin Long)

Cattle grazing in wetland vegetation (Photo: Joe Quarmby)


table 4.51 Categories of direct threats impacting biodiversity in AMLR

Agriculture

Threats from grazing and agricultural expansion, intensification (e.g. hobby farms), and change in agricultural land use.

Biological Resource Use

Threats from consumptive use (illegal and legal) of biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species. Specific threats include: firewood harvest; rock removal; fishing; harvesting of aquatic resources; and hunting and collection of wildlife.

Climate Change, drought & Severe Weather

Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events that are outside of the natural range of variation, and which can potentially cause local extinctions of vulnerable species or habitat.

Energy Production & Mining

Threats from production and harvesting of non-biological resources, e.g. mining of rock, sand and production of salt.

Human Intrusions & disturbance

Threats from human activities that alter, destroy and disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources, such as recreational activities and associated site disturbance.

Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes

Threats from introduced and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes, or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity (e.g. through predation, competition, destruction or disease) following their introduction, spread and/or increase in abundance. Specific concerns include: a range of weed species, Phytophthora, honey bees, foxes, uncontrolled and feral cats, feral goats and deer, problematic native species (e.g. overabundant kangaroos), introduced birds, introduced fish, uncontrolled dogs, genetic contamination, hybridisation and genetically modified organisms.

Natural System Modifications

Threats from actions that convert or degrade habitat in service of “managing” natural or semi-natural systems, often to improve human welfare. This includes fire management activities, inappropriate fire regimes, inappropriate site management, and water management and use (e.g. water regulation, diversion and extraction affecting flow and water quality).

Pollution & Poisoning

Threats from the introduction of exotic and/or excess materials such as chemicals, solid rubbish or energy, from point and non-point sources.

Residential & Commercial development

Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint.

transportation & Service Corridors

Threats associated with the construction, use and maintenance of road, rail and utility services, including vehicle related wildlife mortality.

Vegetation Clearance

Although vegetation clearance is primarily an historical threat in the region, nevertheless incremental legal and illegal clearance continues (often caused by threats described above, such as residential development).


Priority threats in the AMLR regionTargets for priority threats and threatening processes affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are proposed in Table 4.52. Threat mitigation strategies and targets which have been devised for threats are presented under the following priority themes:

Land use pressure•

Total grazing pressure •

Invasive species•


Inappropriate fire regimes•

table 4.52 Key strategies and targets to guide threat abatement in the AMLR region

Reduce the impact of land use pressure

Provide improved and targeted information from biodiversity planning processes to agencies •responsible for regional planning and development, and ensure incorporation of information, by 2015

Develop collaborative links to incorporate biodiversity planning results into DEH’s Protected •Areas on Private Land planning project, by 2015

Ensure collaboration and active contribution to Water Allocation Planning by key stakeholders •involved in biodiversity planning to ensure sustainable use of water resources and improvement in hydrological regimes , by 2015

Develop collaborative links between agencies to ensure the provision of up to date information •on regional biodiversity conservation priorities to improve decision-making processes for legal clearance matters, by 2015.

Reduce the impact of total grazing pressure

Strengthen collaboration between AMLR regional NRM Boards, DEH Abundant Species Unit •and regional biodiversity managers, and research institutions to review and improve total grazing pressure management, by 2015

Develop best practice grazing guidelines aiming to enhance native biodiversity whilst •undertaking grazing as a livelihood, by 2015

Increase regional-based monitoring and research on grazing impacts caused by excessive •kangaroo populations to inform appropriate management options, by 2015

Develop and implement a duty of care as defined in the Natural Resources Management Act •2004, for all land managers based on performance indicators to manage excessive total grazing pressure, by 2030.

Reduce the impact of invasive species

Implement invasive species related actions from the State Biosecurity Strategy, NRM Plans •and other invasive species plans that are relevant to the AMLR region, by 2015

Target invasive species management in areas according to the management principles and •results of this report, by 2015

Ensure invasive species management is coordinated across tenure and properties to maximise •effectiveness, by 2015

Conduct a review and comprehensive threat analysis to better determine the significance of •predation impacts on fauna biodiversity, by 2015

Determine feasibility and develop biodiversity-based performance indicators for pest •management activities where biodiversity outcomes are sought, by 2015

Implement improved hygiene control measures to prevent new infestations of weeds in •conservation areas, by 2015.


Improve education and capacity for landholders, contractors and land management •agencies to implement best practice according to the Phytophthora Management Guidelines (2006), by 2015.

Increase targeted educational programs and strengthen local government by-laws regarding •responsible cat and dog ownership, by 2015.

Support research into the ecology and management of priority invasive species threats •(such as feral cats, foxes, rabbits, Phytophthora and Weeds of National Significance), by 2015.

Reduce the impact of drought and climate change

Conduct risk analyses for priority threatened communities and species in conjunction with •predictive modelling of projected climate change impacts for the region, by 2015.

Incorporate results of further climate change research and knowledge into the next review of •this strategy, by 2020.

Incorporate priorities from this report into the development of the Cape Borda to Barossa •NatureLinks Plan, and integrate appropriate NatureLinks planning processes into the next review of this report, by 2020.

Reducing the impact of inappropriate fire regimes

Determine priority regional-specific fire ecology knowledge gaps and initiate an adaptive •management program to address gaps, by 2015.

Strengthen collaboration between DEH Fire Management Branch, DEH regional managers, •other land managers, research organisations and CFS to review and improve fire management practices, by 2015.

Improve systems for assessing the positive and negative cumulative impacts of prescribed •burning on biodiversity, through an adaptive management framework, by 2015.


PARt 5

StakeholdersEffective partnerships and community engagement are important for increasing understanding and awareness of biodiversity, sharing and improving knowledge on appropriate management actions and carrying out those management actions in an adaptive, integrated manner with limited resources. It is essential that successful partnerships are formed to achieve a balance between biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

The biodiversity conservation strategies and targets proposed in this report span large spatial and temporal scales. Achieving effective biodiversity conservation across these scales will require substantial collaboration between all levels of government, non-government organisations, industry, scientists, indigenous peoples and community groups.

The AMLR NRM Board, and the SA Murray Darling Basin NRM Board will provide a key mechanism for delivery of biodiversity outcomes. However, as the region is the most densely populated in the State, there are ongoing challenges to fully coordinate the diversity of government agencies, local community groups, NGOs and other agencies involved with biodiversity management within the region.

Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 below highlight the diversity of stakeholders involved in the region and the large number of land management administrative areas encompassed by the region. For example, there are more than 40 Friends of Parks groups with DEH’s Adelaide Region. Similarly, there are 28 local government areas either wholly or partially encompassed by the region. The tables below do not include the numerous private landholders who manage native vegetation for conservation.

table 5.1 Summary of organisations involved in conservation management

National

Australian Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts

State

Department for Environment and Heritage

Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation

Department of Transport Energy and Infrastructure

Forestry SA

Primary Industries and Resources South Australia

Country Fire Service

SA Water

Non-government Environmental and allied Organisations

Conservation Council of SA

Field Naturalists’ Society

Greening Australia SA Inc

Native Orchid Society of South Australia

Nature Conservation Society of SA

Nature Foundation SA Inc

SA Native Fish Association

South Australian Farmers Federation

Threatened Plant Action Group

Threatened Species Network

Trees for Life

Weed Management Society SA


Regional

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resource Management Board

AMLR NRM Sub groups (see below)

Various environmental community groups, e.g. Landcare Groups, Catchment Groups, Local Action Planning Groups, Friends of Parks

Adjoining regions

South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board

Northern and Yorke NRM Board

South East NRM Board

DEH Murraylands and South-East Regions

Regionally relevant Conservation/Recovery Programs and staff

Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program

Threatened Fauna Ecologist (Heathy Ecosystems) (Adelaide Region DEH)

Southern Emu-wren/Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery Program

Murraylands Threatened Species Project

OBP Survey Co-ordinator

Threatened Flora Ecologist (Adelaide Region DEH)

Hindmarsh Tiers Biodiversity Group

Program Leader & MDBC Native Fish Strategy Coordinator PIRSA

South Para Biodiversity Project

Urban Forest Biodiversity Program/ Million Trees Program

Ecologist, River Murray Corridor Fauna

Ecologist, Threatened Mallee Birds

SA Water, Manager, Policy & Planning

Forestry SA, Conservation & Recreation Planning Unit

Local Government (see below for full list)

Indigenous Groups

Four Nations Governance Group (Kaurna, Ngarrindjeri, Ngadjuri, Peramangk and Nganguraku)

Research Institutions

CSIRO

University of Adelaide, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences

Flinders University, School of Biological Sciences

University of South Australia, School of Natural and Built Environments


table 5.2 Summary of land management agency administrative areas

Land Management Agency Area

AMLR NRM Board

Southern Group Whole

Fleurieu Group Whole

Central Group Whole

Northern Group Whole

SA MdB NRM Board

Ranges to River Group Partial

dEH

Adelaide Region (Southern Lofty District) Whole

Adelaide Region (Fleurieu District) Whole

Adelaide Region (Northern Lofty District) Majority

Murraylands Region (Mallee District) Partial

Murraylands Region(Riverland District) Partial

South-East Region (Coorong District) Partial

Urban Forests Biodiversity Program Whole

Forestry SA

Mount Lofty Ranges Region Majority

SA Water

Local Government Area

Adelaide City Council Whole

Adelaide Hills Council Whole

Alexandrina Council Partial

Campbelltown City Council Whole

City of Burnside Whole

City of Charles Sturt Whole

City of Holdfast Bay Whole

City of Marion Whole

City of Mitcham Whole

City of Onkaparinga Whole

City of Playford Whole

City of Port Adelaide Enfield Whole

City of Salisbury Whole

City of Tea Tree Gully Whole

City of Unley Whole

City of Victor Harbor Whole

City of West Torrens Whole

Light Regional Council Partial

Mid Murray Council Partial

The Barossa Council Majority


The City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters Whole

The City of Prospect Whole

The Corporation Of The Town of Walkerville Whole

WholeThe District Council of Mallala Partial

The District Council of Mount Barker Whole

The District Council of Yankalilla Whole

The Rural City of Murray Bridge Partial

Town of Gawler Whole


PARt 6

Improving planning integration, application and knowledgeThis section contains broad management strategies to address a wide range of issues relating to planning integration, and thus implementation of on-ground activities (across landscapes, communities and species). Due to the plethora of biodiversity-related management strategies and plans currently administered at a variety of levels by various agencies (over various land tenures), this section does not intend to be a fully comprehensive coverage of issues that affect the management of biodiversity, rather only priority issues relevant to the AMLR region that would influence the implementation of this report have been incorporated (Table 6.1). In particular, many partnership, community engagement and education issues are achieved through broader planning process, e.g. through DEH’s NatureLinks and No Species Loss.

table 6.1 Strategies and targets – Improving planning integration, application and knowledge

Improve integration and application of biodiversity conservation planning in the region

Dedicate resources to coordinate implementation of the strategies contained in this report, •by 2011.

Implement ongoing review of the analyses in this report and integrate with other biodiversity •planning processes occurring in the region, by 2011.

Develop a dynamic framework to aid implementation (and to facilitate ongoing analysis •updates and performance reporting), by 2015.

Develop an implementation framework to align management priorities and target-setting •between all key government and non-government organisations, by 2011.

Undertake additional sub-regional (landscape) scale analyses to better define spatial priorities •areas to inform on-ground management, by 2011.

Review and update the approach and analyses undertaken in this report, by 2015.•

Inform development planning and assessment decision-making processes

Prepare a ‘how to use’ education package to assist users of this report, by 2011.•

Promote adoption and ownership of the report by key statutory agencies and other bodies, •by 2011.

Inform development planning and assessment decision-making processes

Promote adoption and ownership of the strategy by key statutory agencies and other bodies, •by 2011.

Conduct supplementary analysis and planning to define guidelines to improve biodiversity •considerations in development planning, by 2011.

Conduct supplementary analysis and planning to define guidelines to improve biodiversity •considerations in development planning, by 2011.

Improve biological data and base-line knowledge

Support regional projects developing ‘biodiversity baselines’ and vegetation condition targets, •by 2011.

Implement key knowledge gap actions in the Regional Recovery Plan for Threatened Species •and Ecological Communities of AMLR, by 2015.


PARt 7

References and further readingPart 1Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region. Volume A - State of the Region Report. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.

Armstrong, d. M., Croft, S. N. and Foulkes, J. N. (2003). A Biological Survey of the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2000-2001. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1996). The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (2001). Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Cale, B. (2005). Towards a Recovery Plan for the Declining Birds of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Scientific Resource Document for Birds for Biodiversity. Unpublished Report.

Crocker, R. L. and Wood, J. G. (1947). Some historical influences of the development of the South Australian Vegetation Communities and their bearing on concepts and classification in ecology. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 71 (1): 91-136.

CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems. Ecosystem Services. Available from http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/ecosystemservices.htm.

department for Environment and Heritage (2005). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (unpublished and provisional). Updated 2005.

department for Environment and Heritage (2007). No Species Loss. A Nature Conservation Strategy for South Australia 2007–2017. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/pub.html).

department for Environment and Heritage (2008). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Regional Biodiversity Strategy Project Database. Unpublished data extracted and edited from departmental data sources.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. About the EPBC Act. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html (accessed March 2009).

department of Planning and Local Government. Planning the Adelaide we all want. Progressing the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Draft for consultation. July, 2009.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Biodiversity Hotspots. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/index.html.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Threatened Ecological Communities Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities.html.

Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Third Edition. Environment Australia. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/wetlands/directory.html).

Government of South Australia (2007). South Australia’s Strategic Plan. (Available from: http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/).


Green, P. S. (1994). Vegetation Ecology of the Central Mount Lofty Ranges. Department of Botany, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Hyde, M. K. (1995). The Temperate Grasslands of South Australia: their composition and conservation status. Australian Heritage Commission.

Hyde, M. K. (1996). Eucalyptus odorata Woodland in South Australia. Report to Australian Heritage Commission., Canberra.

Lange, R. t. (1976). Vegetation. Page 189. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia, Inc., Adelaide.

Laut, P., Heyligers, P. C., Keig, G., E.Loffler, C.Margules, Scott, R. M. and Sullivan, M. E. (1977). Environments of South Australia: Province 3: Mt. Lofty Block. Division of Land Use Research, CSIRO, Canberra.

Oke, R. (1997). Conserving Adelaide’s biodiversity: a planned approach. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, Australia.

PMSEIC (2002). Sustaining Our Natural Systems and Biodiversity. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council.

South Australian Murray-darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Regional NRM Plan Volumes 1-4. Draft for Consultation. South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, south Australia.

Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide.

turner, M. S. (2001). Conserving Adelaide’s Biodiversity: Resources. Urban Forest Biodiversity Program, Adelaide.

twidale, C. R., tyler, M. J. and Webb, B. P., eds. (1976). Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.

tyler, M. J., Gross, G. F., Rix, C. E. and Inns, R. W. (1976). Terrestrial fauna and aquatic invertebrates. Pages 121-129. In: C. R. Twidale, M. J. Tyler, and B. P. Webb, eds. Natural History of the Adelaide Region. Royal Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.

Wallace, H. R., ed. (1986). The Ecology of the Forests and Woodlands of South Australia. The Flora and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee, Government Printer, South Australia, Adelaide.

Part 2Adamson, R. S. and Osborn, t. G. B. (1924). The ecology of the eucalyptus forests of the Mount Lofty Ranges (Adelaide District), South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48: 87-145.

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region. Volume A - State of the Region Report. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.


Bardsley, d. (2006). There’s a Change on the Way - an initial integrated assessment of projected climate change impacts and adaptation options for natural resource management in Adelaide and Mt Lofty Ranges region. DWLBC Report 2006/06. Government of South Australia, through Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.

Barker, W. R., Barker, R. M., Jessop, J. P. and Vonow, H. P., eds. (2005). Census of South Australian vascular plants. 5th Edition. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens Supplement 1. Botanic Gardens of Adelaide and State Herbarium, Adelaide.

Boomsma, C. d. and Lewis, N. B. (1980). The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South Australia (Bulletin 25). Woods and Forests Department, South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.


Caldicott, R. (1977). Vegetation Clearance in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Town and Country Planning Association.


Caton, B., Fotheringham, d., Lock, C., Royal, M., Sandercock, R. and taylor, R. (2007). Southern Fleurieu Coastal Conservation Assessment and Action Plan. AMLRNRM Board, Alexandrina Council, City of Victor Harbor, Department for Environment and Heritage, Goolwa to Wellington LAP and Alexandrina Council.

daniels, C. B. and tait, C. J. (2005). Adelaide. Nature of a City: The Ecology of a Dynamic City from 1836 to 2036. BioCity, Adelaide.


Government of South Australia (2007). Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide. Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

Government of South Australia (2007). Planning Strategy for the Outer Metropolitan Adelaide Region. Government of South Australia, Adelaide.

Griffin, t. and McCaskill, M., eds. (1986). Atlas of South Australia. South Australia Jubilee 150 Board and Wakefield Press, Adelaide.

Harris, C. R. (1976). Vegetation Clearance in South Australia / Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Vegetation Clearance in South Australia. Department of the Environment, Adelaide.

Harris, C. R. (1982). Towards a historical perspective. Page 16. Reprinted from Proceedings, Royal Geographical Society of Australasia South Australian Branch 1977. Royal Geographical Society of Australasia, South Australian Branch, Adelaide.

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


Laut, P., Heyligers, P. C., Keig, G., E.Loffler, C.Margules, Scott, R. M. and Sullivan, M. E. (1977). Environments of South Australia: Province 3: Mt. Lofty Block. Division of Land Use Research, CSIRO, Canberra.

Long, M. (1999). A Biological Inventory of the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Heritage and Biodiversity Section, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.

Maiden, J. H. (1907). A century of botanical endeavor in South Australia. Rep. Aust. Adv. Sci. 11: 159-199.

Owens, H., ed. (2009). Census of South Australian Vertebrates. Department for Environment and Heritage and the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia (in preparation, web product only: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plants-animals/overview.html).

Paton, d. C., Prescott, A. M., davies, R. J.-P. and Heard, L. M. (2000). The distribution, status and threats to temperate woodlands in South Australia. In: R. J. Hobbs, and C. J. Yates, eds. Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology Conservation, Management and Restoration. Surrey Beatty & Sons, PTY Limited.

Robinson, A. C., Kasperson, K. d. and Hutchinson, M. N., eds. (2000). A List of the Vertebrates of South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia.



Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide, Adelaide.

Suppiah, R., Preston, B., Whetton, P. H., McInnes, K. L., Jones, R. N., Macadam, I., Bathols, J. and Kirono, d. (2006). Climate Change Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions in South Australia, An Updated Report on: Assessment of Climate Change, Impacts and Risk Management Strategies Relevant to South Australia. Climate Impacts and Risk Group, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

tait, C. J., daniels, C. B. and Hill, R. S. (2005). Changes in species assemblages within the Adelaide Metropolitan Area, Australia, 1836-2002. Ecological Applications 15 (1): 346-359.



Wood, J. G. (1937). The Vegetation of South Australia. Government Printer, Adelaide.

Part 3Andrén, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71 (3): 355-366.

Barrett, G. (2000). Birds on farms - ecological management for agricultural sustainability. Wingspan 10 (4): Supplement i-xvi.

Bennett, A. F. and Ford, L. A. (1997). Land use, habitat change and the conservation of birds in fragmented rural environments: a landscape perspective from the Northern Plains, Victoria, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 244-261.

Craig, J. L., Mitchell, N. and Saunders, d. A., eds. (2000). Nature Conservation 5: Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.

dEH (department for Environment and Heritage) (2007). Planning Concepts for the Conservation of Biodiversity: Information to Support Natural Resources Management Planning. Unpublished Document, Biodiversity Conservation Program, Science and Conservation Directorate.

Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 12 (2): 346-353.

Ford, H. A. and Howe, R. (1980). The future of birds in the Mt Lofty Ranges. South Australian Ornithologist 28 (4): 85-89.

Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner’s Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, USA.

Mace, G. M., Possingham, H. P. and Leader-Williams, N. (2006). Prioritizing choices in conservation. Pages Pp 17-34. In: D. W. Macdonald, and K. Service, eds. Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, USA.

McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1282-1292.

McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (2000). Human impacts on landscapes: matrix condition and management priorities. Pages 301-307. In: J. Craig, N. Mitchell, and D. Saunders, eds. Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

McIntyre, S., McIvor, J. G. and Heard, K. M., eds. (2002). Managing and Conserving Grassy Woodlands. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.


Pearson, S. M., turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H. and O’Neill, R. V. (1996). An organism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation. Pages 77-95. In: R. C. Szaro, and D. W. Johnston, eds. Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.

Poiani, K. A., Merrill, M. d. and Chapman, K. A. (2001). Identifying conservation-priority areas in a fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella species concept and selection of large patches of natural vegetation. Conservation Biology 15 (2): 513-522.

Poiani, K. A., Richter, B. d., Anderson, M. G. and Richter, H. E. (2000). Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. (Cover story). Bioscience 50 (2): 133-146.

Possingham, H. (2000). The extinction debt: the future of birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The Harrier June 2000: 2-3.

the Nature Conservancy. Ecoregional Assessments. Available from http://www.waconservation.org/ecoregionalAssessments.shtml.

tilman, d., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65-66.

Wiens, J. A. (1997). Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. Pages 43-62. In: I. A. Hanski, and M. E. Gilpin, eds. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, New York.

Part 4Adamson, R. S. and Osborn, t. G. B. (1924). The ecology of the eucalyptus forests of the Mount Lofty Ranges (Adelaide District), South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48: 87-145.

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (2008). Creating A Sustainable Future. An Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region. Volumes A-D. Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Adelaide.

Anon. Inland Grey Box Woodland Ecological Community - Nomination for Listing a Threatened Ecological Community Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Appendices 1-12 and the Draft EC Distribution Map. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/inland-grey-box-woodland.html.


Australasian Legal Information Institute. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. Available from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/ and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/ (accessed March 2009).

Australasian Legal Information Institute. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Available from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/.

Australasian Legal Information Institute. National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Schedules 7, 8 and 9. Available from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/ (accessed March 2009).

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (1998). National Koala Conservation Strategy. Commonwealth of Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/koala-strategy/index.html).

Baker, J. L. (2004). Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report. Prepared for Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Barker, W. R., Barker, R. M., Jessop, J. P. and Vonow, H. P., eds. (2005). Census of South Australian vascular plants. 5th Edition. Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens Supplement 1. Botanic Gardens of Adelaide and State Herbarium, Adelaide.

Blakers, M., davies, S. J. J. F. and Reilly, P. N. (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU and Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.


Bomford, M. and Sinclair, R. (2002). Australian research on bird pests: impact, management and future directions. Emu 102 (1): 29-45.

Boomsma, C. d. (1948). I. The Ecology of the Fleurieu Peninsula, II. The Ecology of the Eastern Half of County Hindmarsh. M. Sc. Thesis. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Boomsma, C. d. and Lewis, N. B. (1980). The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South Australia (Bulletin 25). Woods and Forests Department, South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.

Bryan, B. A. (1995). The Ecological, Psychological and Political Issues Surrounding the Management of Koalas in the Southern Mt. Lofty Ranges (Unpublished Masters Thesis). Maswon Centre for Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide.

Burgman, M. A. and Lindenmayer, d. B. (1998). Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.


Carter, O. (2005). Draft Recovery Plan for Halosarcia flabelliformis (Bead Glasswort) in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria 2006- 2010. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Croft, S. J. (2006). Vegetation Condition of Eucalyptus dalrympleana ssp. dalrympleana (Candlebark) Vegetation Types in the Mont Lofty Ranges. Dissertation submtted in partial fulfilment of the coursework requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies. Mawson Graduate Centre for Environmental Studies. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

department for Environment and Heritage. Living with Wildlife. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/lw_wildlife.html.

department for Environment and Heritage. Living with Wildlife Information Sheet: Swooping Birds - How We Can Learn to Live With Them. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/lw_wildlife_swooping.html).

department for Environment and Heritage. Marine Parks. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/marineparks/index.html.

department for Environment and Heritage. Possums. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plants-animals/possums.html.

department for Environment and Heritage. Sustainable Use - Kangaroo Conservation and Management Program South Australia. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/sustainable-use/kangaroo.html.

department for Environment and Heritage. Threatened Species. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened-species/threatened.html (accessed March 2009).

department for Environment and Heritage. Wetlands of South Australia. Available from http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/wetlands/wetlands.html.

department for Environment and Heritage (2005). Provisional List of Threatened Ecosystems of South Australia (unpublished and provisional). Updated 2005.

department for Environment and Heritage (2007). Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Region Estuaries Information Package. Government of South Australia.

department for Environment and Heritage (2007). The Kangaroo Conservation and Management Plan for South Australia 2008-2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/sustainable-use/kangaroo.html).

department for Environment and Heritage (2007). Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea) resource document. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia (Available from: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/living-with-wildlife/little_corellas.html).



department for Environment and Heritage & SA Arid Lands NRM Board (2008). South Australia Arid Lands Biodiversity Draft. Region-wide Priority Actions.

department for Environment and Heritage & department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (2003). Wetlands Strategy for South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. About the EPBC Act. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html (accessed March 2009).

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Listed Key Threatening Processes. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Recovery Plans. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html (accessed March 2009).

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Threatened Ecological Communities Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities.html.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Waterwatch SA. Available from http://www.sa.waterwatch.org.au/.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). Technical Workshop Report: Inland Grey Box Woodland, Wagga Wagga NSW, 26-27 March 2008. Draft for Public Consultation. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/inland-grey-box-woodland.html.

department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/water/environmental/wetlands/ramsar/index.html.

department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). EPBC Act policy statement 3.7 - Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia and Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/peppermint-box-iron-grass-policy.html).

department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Peppermint Box Grassy Woodland and Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland - Map of Ecological Communities. (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/maps/peppermint-box-iron-grass.html).

department of the Environment and Water Resources (2007). Southern brown bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus Threatened Species Day fact sheet. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68050).

department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Information Sheet: Assessing Bird Damage in Vineyards. Available from http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/bio_pest_bird_asses_damage.pdf.

department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Information Sheet: Determining Best Practice Vineyard Management for Minimising Losses Due to Birds. Available from http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/assets/files/bio_pest_bird_guidline_min_loss.pdf.

department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Water Allocation Planning. Available from http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/water/allocation_plans/index.html.

Environment Australia (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Third Edition. Environment Australia. Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/wetlands/directory.html).


Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis. Ecological Applications 12 (2): 346-353.

Ford, H. A. and Howe, R. (1980). The future of birds in the Mt Lofty Ranges. South Australian Ornithologist 28 (4): 85-89.

Fox, M. d. (1995). Conserving biodiversity: impact and management of exotic organisms. In: R. A. Bradstock, T. D. Auld, D. A. Keith, R. T. Kingsford, D. Lunney, and D. P. Sivertsen, eds. Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. Surrey Beaty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW.

Garnett, S. t. and Crowley, G. M. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Commonwealth of Australia.

Government of South Australia (2005). Estuaries of South Australia: Our Vision for the Future. Draft Estuaries Policy and Action Plan for Public Consultation.

Green, P. S. (1994). Vegetation Ecology of the Central Mount Lofty Ranges. Department of Botany, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Griffin, t. and McCaskill, M., eds. (1986). Atlas of South Australia. South Australia Jubilee 150 Board and Wakefield Press, Adelaide.

Haby, N. and Long, K. (2005). Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2004 to 2009. SA Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Hammer, M., Wedderburn, S. and Van Weenen, J. (2007). Action Plan for South Australian Freshwater Fishes: 2007-2012 Draft. Native Fish Australia (SA) Inc., Adelaide.

Harding, C. L. (2005). Wetland Inventory for the Fleurieu Peninsula, South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Heddle, E. M. (1975). Effects of man on the vegetation in national parks of South Australia. PhD Thesis. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Horgan, M. A. (1998). Home Range Behaviour and Sterilisation of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Bachelor of Science with Honours. Department of Zoology. University of Adelaide.

Jackson, E. A. (1957). A Survey of the Soils and their Utilization in Portion of the Mt Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Soils and Landuse Series 21. CSIRO Division of Soils.

JANIS (Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee) (1997). Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Jessup, R. W. (1946). The ecology of the area adjacent to Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. Transaction of the Royal Society of South Australia. 70 (1): 3-34.

Jones, d. (2002). Magpie Alert: Learning to Live with a Wild Neighbour. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales.

Lamprey, S. E. and Mitchell, L. H. (1979). Biogeographical and Landform Survey of Fleurieu Peninsula South Australia. Australian Heritage Commission, Adelaide.


Long, M. (1999). A Biological Inventory of the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Heritage and Biodiversity Section, Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, South Australia.

Lunney, d. and Burgin, S. (2004). Urban Wildlife: More than Meets the Eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales.

Lunney, d., Eby, P., Hutchings, P. and Burgin, S. (2007). Pest or Guest: the Zoology of Overabundance. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales.


Lunney, d., Munn, A. and Meikle, W. (2008). Too Close for Comfort: Contentious Issues in Human-Wildlife Encounters. Royal Zoological Society of New South wales, Mosman, New South Wales.

Mackay, S., Pikusa, E., Arene, S., Edwards, C., Fee, B., Gabas, I., McEvoy, P., McNeil, d., Metzeling, L., Marsh, N., Rooney, G. and Williams, t. (2008). Application of the Ecological Modeller Software Tool to the Werribee River (Victoria) and Onkaparinga River (South Australia). eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.

Major, R. E., Christie, F. J. and Gowing, G. (2001). Influence of remnant and landscape attributes on Australian woodland bird communities. Biological Conservation 102 (1): 47-66.

Martin, R. and Handasyde, K. (1999). The Koala: Natural History, Conservation and Management. Australian Natural History Series. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

McGilp, J. N. (1937). Southern movements of northern birds. South Australian Ornithologist 14 (4): 83-86.

McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (1999). A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1282-1292.

McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R. (2000). Human impacts on landscapes: matrix condition and management priorities. Pages 301-307. In: J. Craig, N. Mitchell, and D. Saunders, eds. Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Melzer, A., Carrick, F., Menkhorst, P., Lunney, d. and John, B. S. (2000). Overview, critical assessment, and conservation implications of Koala distribution and abundance. Conservation Biology 14 (3): 619-628.

Moritz, K. N. (2007). Draft Recovery Plan for the Nationally Endangered Osborn’s eyebright Euphrasia collina spp. osbornii (W.R. Barker) 2007-2012. Report to the Species Listing, Recovery and Policy Section, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra.

Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamp Recovery team (2007). Draft Recovery Statement for the Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps 2007 - 2011. Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide.

Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery team (2007). Recovery Plan for the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus intermedius: 2006-2011. Conservation Council of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.

Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu Emu-wren and Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps Recovery team (2007). Protecting Fleurieu Peninsula Swamps and the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu Emu-wren. A Guide for Landowners, Land Advisers, Property Planners and Developers. Conservation Council of South Australia Inc.

National Water Commission. National Water Initiative. Available from http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/117-national-water-initiative.asp.

NPWSA (2001). Koala Survey in the Mount Lofty Ranges 2001 (Unpublished). Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Owens, H., ed. (2009). Census of South Australian Vertebrates. Department for Environment and Heritage and the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia (in preparation, web product only: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/plants-animals/overview.html).

Parker, S. A. (1988). The origin of the populations of the Eastern Rosella inhabiting the Mount Lofty Ranges and Adelaide Plains, South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 30: 132.

Paton, d. C., Carpenter, G. and Sinclair, R. G. (1994). A second bird atlas of the Adelaide region. Part 1: changes in the distribution of birds: 1974-75 vs 1984 -85. South Australian Ornithologist 31 (7): 151-193.

Paton, d. C., Carpenter, G. and Sinclair, R. G. (1994). A second bird atlas of the Adelaide region. Part 2: distribution maps 1984-1985. South Australian Ornithologist 31 (8).


Penck, M., torcello, J. C. and Sanderson, K. J. (1995). Observations of coexistence between Adelaide and Eastern Rosellas (Platycercus spp.) in Adelaide. South Australian Ornithologist 32: 25-32.

Phillips, S. S. (2000). Population trends and the Koala conservation debate. Conservation Biology 14 (3): 650-659.

Pickett, M. (2007). Assessment of the Distribution, Habitat and Conservation Status of the Chestnut-rumped Heathwren Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Department for Environment and Heritage (Unpublished report).

Possingham, H. (2000). The extinction debt: the future of birds in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The Harrier June 2000: 2-3.

Quarmby, J. P. (2006). Recovery Plan for Twelve Threatened Orchids in the Lofty Block Region of South Australia 2007 - 2012. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Robertson, E. L. (1999). Restoration of Grassy Woodland: Watiparinga Reserve Management Plan. National Trust of South Australia, Adelaide.

Robertson, M. A. (1998). A Biological Survey of Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands of the Lofty Block Bioregion South Australia 1995-1996. Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Adelaide.

Robinson, A. C. (1978). The Koala in South Australia. Pages 132-143. In: T. J. Bergin, ed. The Koala, Proceedings of the Taronga Symposium on Koala Biology, Management and Medicine. Sydney 11th and 12th March 1976. Zoological Parks Board of NSW: Sydney.

Robinson, A. C., Kasperson, K. d. and Hutchinson, M. N., eds. (2000). A List of the Vertebrates of South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia.

Robinson, A. C., Spark, R. and Halstead, C. (1989). The distribution and management of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in South Australia. The South Australian Naturalist 64 (1): 4-24.

Scholz, G. and Fee, B. (2008). A Framework for the Identification of Wetland Condition Indicators: A National Trial - South Australia. Project DEP19 South Australian Wetland Condition Indicators (SAWI). Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.

Scoular, G. (1880). The geology of the Hundred of Munno Para. Part II - the upland Miocene and fundamental rocks and economics. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 3: 106-128.

Seaman, R. L. (2002). Wetland Inventory for the Mount Lofty Ranges. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Seaman, R. L. (2002). Wetland Inventory of the Northern Agricultural Districts South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.

Sinclair Knight Merz (2007). High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems Project - identifying, categorising and managing HCVAE. Final Report. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, Victoria (Available through: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/ecosystems/hcvae.html).


Specht, R. L. (1972). The Vegetation of South Australia. 2nd. Government Printer: Adelaide, Adelaide.

Specht, R. L. (1979). The sclerophyllous (heath) vegetation of Australia: the eastern and central states. Pages 125-210. In: R. L. Specht, ed. Ecosystems of the World, Volume 9A, Heathlands and Related Shrublands: Decsriptive Studies. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Specht, R. L. and Perry, R. A. (1948). The plant ecology of part of the Mount Lofty Ranges (1). Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 72 (91-132).

Stratford, E., Mazur, N., Lunney, d. and Bennett, d. (2000). Managing the Koala problem: interdiciplinary perspectives. Conservation Biology 14 (3): 610-618.


Strathalbyn Naturalists Club, I., ed. (2000). Natural History of Strathalbyn & Goolwa Districts. Strathalbyn Naturalists Club Inc., Strathalbyn.

Suding, K. N. and Gross, K. L. (2006). The dynamic nature of ecological systems: multiple states and restoration trajectories. In: D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer, and J. B. Zedler, eds. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Island Press, Washington.

taylor, J. K. and O’donnell, J. (1932). The soils of the southern portion of the Hundred of Kuitpo, South Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 56: 3-14.

temby, I. (2005). Wild Neighbours: the Humane Apoproach to Living with Wildlife. Citrus Press, Broadway, New South Wales.

terrill, S. E. and Rix, C. E. (1950). The birds of South Australia: their distribution and habitat. South Australian Ornithologist 19 (6-8): 53-100.

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2001). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Isoodon obesulus obesulus. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68050).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2003). Commonwealth Listing Advice for the Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/fleurieu-swamps.html), Canberra.

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Mt Lofty Ranges) (Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67071).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Chestnut-rumped Heathwren (Mt Lofty Ranges) (Hylacola pyrrhopygia parkeri). Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67071_.

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2006). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Eucalyptus paludicola. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/eucalyptus-paludicola-advice.pdf).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/l-effusa.pdf).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/l-effusa.pdf).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2007). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/e-odorata.pdf).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Approved Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Iron-grass Natural Temperate Grassland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/37-conservation-advice.pdf).

threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Approved Conservation Advice for Eucalyptus paludicola (Mount Compass Swamp Gum). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/64276-conservation-advice.pdf).


threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodland of South Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra (Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/36-conservation-advice.pdf).

tilman, d., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. and Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: 65-66.



Williams, M. and Goodwins, d. (1987). Conservation of biological diversity on the Fleurieu Peninsula. Parts 1 and 2. The South Australian Naturalist 63 (2 and 3).

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

Wood, J. G. (1930). An analysis of the vegetation of Kangaroo Island and the adjacent peninsulas. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 48: 105-139.

Wood, J. G. (1937). The Vegetation of South Australia. Government Printer, Adelaide.


PARt 8

Ap

pe

ndic

es

Ap

pe

ndix

1.1

Le

gis

latio

n &

Po

licy

driv

ers

a

t Int

ern

atio

nal,

Na

tiona

l, St

ate

and

Re

gio

nal L

eve

l

(ad

ap

ted

fro

m d

EH (

2007

) N

o S

pe

cie

s Lo

ss. A

Na

ture

Co

nse

rva

tion

Stra

teg

y fo

r So

uth

Au

stra

lia 2

007

–201

7)

Co

re re

leva

nc

e (

driv

ers

)

Inte

rna

tion

al

Na

tion

al

Sta

teRe

gio

na

l

Co

nve

ntio

ns

Asi

a-P

ac

ific

M

igra

tory

Wa

terb

ird

Co

nse

rva

tion

St

rate

gy:

20

01–2

005

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n

Bio

log

ica

l Div

ers

ity

1992

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n

Inte

rna

tion

al T

rad

e in

En

da

ng

ere

d S

pe

cie

s o

f W

ild F

au

na

an

d

Flo

ra (

1975

)

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n t

he

C

on

serv

atio

n o

f M

igra

tory

Sp

ec

ies

of

Wild

An

ima

ls (

Bon

n

Co

nve

ntio

n 1

979)

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n

We

tlan

ds

of

Inte

rna

tion

al

Imp

ort

an

ce

(Ra

msa

r C

onv

en

tion

197

1)

Loc

al A

ge

nd

a 2

1 (1

992)

Bio

div

ers

ity C

on

serv

atio

n R

ese

arc

h: A

ust

ralia

’s

Prio

ritie

s (2

001

)

Dire

ctio

ns

for t

he

Na

tion

al R

ese

rve

Sys

tem

: A

Part

ne

rsh

ip A

pp

roa

ch

(20

05)

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pro

tec

tion

an

d B

iod

ive

rsity

C

on

serv

atio

n A

ct

1999

Inte

rgo

vern

me

nta

l Ag

ree

me

nt

on

a N

atio

na

l Wa

ter

Initi

ativ

e

Na

tion

al B

iod

ive

rsity

an

d C

lima

te C

ha

ng

e A

ctio

n

Pla

n 2

004

–20

07

Na

tion

al F

ram

ew

ork

for M

an

ag

em

en

t a

nd

M

on

itorin

g o

f A

ust

ralia

’s N

ativ

e V

eg

eta

tion

(20

01)

Na

tion

al G

ree

nh

ou

se S

tra

teg

y (1

998)

Reso

urc

es

Au

dit

Na

tion

al L

an

d a

nd

Wa

ter N

atio

na

l Ob

jec

tive

s a

nd

Ta

rge

ts fo

r Bio

div

ers

ity C

on

serv

atio

n 2

001

–20

05

Na

tion

al S

tra

teg

y fo

r th

e C

on

serv

atio

n o

f A

ust

ralia

’s

Bio

log

ica

l Div

ers

ity (

1996

)

Na

tion

al T

hre

at

Ab

ate

me

nt

Pla

ns

for K

ey

Thre

ate

nin

g P

roc

ess

es

rele

van

t to

th

e A

MLR

Na

tion

al t

hre

ate

ne

d s

pe

cie

s re

co

very

pla

ns

for

spe

cie

s o

cc

urr

ing

in t

he

AM

LR

A W

ee

d S

tra

teg

y fo

r SA

Ad

ela

ide

Do

lph

in S

an

ctu

ary

Ac

t 20

05

Blu

ep

rint

for t

he

SA

Re

pre

sen

tativ

e S

yste

m o

f M

arin

e P

rote

cte

d

Are

as

Co

ast

an

d M

arin

e P

lan

nin

g P

olic

y

Co

ast

Pro

tec

tion

Ac

t 19

72

Co

de

of

Pra

ctic

e fo

r th

e M

an

ag

em

en

t o

f N

ativ

e V

eg

eta

tion

to

Re

du

ce

th

e Im

pa

ct

of

Bush

fire

(20

09)

Cro

wn

La

nd

s A

ct

1929

DEH

Dra

ft E

co

log

ica

l Fire

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Gu

ide

line

s fo

r SA

Pa

rks

an

d N

ativ

e V

eg

eta

tion

(20

09)

De

velo

pm

en

t A

ct

1993

Envi

ron

me

nt

Pro

tec

tion

Ac

t 19

93

Estu

arie

s o

f SA

(Po

licy

an

d A

ctio

n P

lan)

Livi

ng

Co

ast

Str

ate

gy

for S

A (

2004

)

Na

tion

al P

ark

s a

nd

Wild

life

Ac

t 19

72

Na

tive

Ve

ge

tatio

n A

ct

1991

Na

tura

l Re

sou

rce

s M

an

ag

em

en

t A

ct

2004

Na

ture

Lin

ks (

2003

)

No

Sp

ec

ies

Loss

– A

na

ture

co

nse

rva

tion

str

ate

gy

for S

A

De

velo

pm

en

t p

lan

s

Ma

rine

pla

ns

Na

tura

l re

sou

rce

s m

an

ag

em

en

t p

lan

s

Na

tura

l re

sou

rce

s m

an

ag

em

en

t p

lan

s

Reg

ion

al

bio

div

ers

ity p

lan

s

Rese

rve

m

an

ag

em

en

t p

lan

s (u

nd

er t

he

N

atio

na

l Pa

rks

an

d W

ildlif

e A

ct

1972

an

d t

he

W

ilde

rne

ss

Pro

tec

tion

Ac

t 19

92)

Wa

ter a

lloc

atio

n

pla

ns


(co

ntin

ue

d)

(ad

ap

ted

fro

m d

EH (

2007

) N

o S

pe

cie

s Lo

ss. A

Na

ture

Co

nse

rva

tion

Stra

teg

y fo

r So

uth

Au

stra

lia 2

007

–201

7)

Co

re re

leva

nc

e (

driv

ers

)

Inte

rna

tion

al

Na

tion

al

Sta

teRe

gio

na

l

Ag

ree

me

nts

Ag

ree

me

nt

on

th

e

Co

nse

rva

tion

of

Alb

atr

oss

es

an

d

Petr

els

(20

01)

Ch

ina

Au

stra

lia

Mig

rato

ry B

ird

Ag

ree

me

nt

(CA

MBA

19

88)

Jap

an

Au

stra

lia

Mig

rato

ry B

ird

Ag

ree

me

nt

(JA

MBA

19

81)

Rep

ub

lic o

f Ko

rea

-A

ust

ralia

Mig

rato

ry

Bird

Ag

ree

me

nt

(RO

KA

MBA

20

07)

Wild

life

Co

nse

rva

tion

Pl

an

for M

igra

tory

Sh

ore

bird

s

Na

tion

ally

Ag

ree

d C

rite

ria fo

r th

e E

sta

blis

hm

en

t o

f a

C

om

pre

he

nsi

ve, A

de

qu

ate

an

d R

ep

rese

nta

tive

Re

serv

e S

yste

m fo

r Fo

rest

s in

Au

stra

lia (

1997

)

Na

tive

Fis

h S

tra

teg

y fo

r th

e M

urr

ay-

Da

rlin

g B

asi

n

2003

–201

3

Na

tive

Titl

e A

ct

1993

Na

tura

l He

rita

ge

Tru

st o

f A

ust

ralia

Ac

t 19

97

Stra

teg

ic P

lan

of

Ac

tion

for t

he

Na

tion

al

Rep

rese

nta

tive

Sys

tem

of

Ma

rine

Pro

tec

ted

Are

as

(199

9)

We

tlan

ds

Polic

y o

f th

e C

om

mo

nw

ea

lth G

ove

rnm

en

t o

f A

ust

ralia

(19

97)

NR

M P

olic

ies

on

ma

na

ge

me

nt

of

de

cla

red

pla

nt

& a

nim

al

spe

cie

s u

nd

er N

RM

Ac

t, &

oth

er N

RM

Po

licie

s fo

r un

de

cla

red

w

ee

ds

Phyt

op

hth

ora

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Gu

ide

line

s (2

006

)

Pla

nn

ing

Str

ate

gy

for S

A

Pre

mie

r’s

Rou

nd

Ta

ble

on

Su

sta

ina

bili

ty

Resp

on

sib

le N

atu

re-b

ase

d T

ou

rism

Str

ate

gy

2004

–20

09

Riv

er M

urr

ay

Ac

t 20

03

Sou

th A

ust

ralia

’s S

tra

teg

ic P

lan

Sou

th A

ust

ralia

n T

ou

rism

Pla

n

Sta

te N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pla

n 2

006

Sta

te o

f En

viro

nm

en

t re

po

rtin

g

Stra

teg

y fo

r Ab

orig

ina

l Ma

na

ge

d L

an

ds

in S

A

Tac

klin

g C

lima

te C

ha

ng

e: S

A’s

Gre

en

ho

use

Str

ate

gy

We

tlan

ds

Stra

teg

y fo

r SA

Wild

ern

ess

Pro

tec

tion

Ac

t 19

92

Port

Wa

terw

ays

W

ate

r Qu

alit

y Im

pro

vem

en

t Pl

an

(M

ay

2008

)

Ad

ela

ide

Co

ast

al

Wa

ter Q

ua

lity

Imp

rove

me

nt

Pla

n (

in

de

velo

pm

en

t)


Pla

n/St

rate

gy

Lea

d

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

sta

tus/

use

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pla

ns/

pro

jec

ts

liste

d2

Na

tion

al

Na

tion

al

Wa

ter

Qua

lity

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Stra

teg

y (N

WQ

MS)

DEW

HA

De

velo

pe

d t

o c

oo

rdin

ate

a n

atio

na

l ap

pro

ac

h t

o

imp

rovi

ng

wa

ter q

ua

lity

in A

ust

ralia

’s w

ate

rwa

ys. I

t is

a

ckn

ow

led

ge

d in

th

e N

atio

na

l Wa

ter I

niti

ativ

e (

NW

I).

The

ma

in p

olic

y o

bje

ctiv

e o

f th

e N

WQ

MS

is to

a

ch

ieve

su

sta

ina

ble

use

of

the

na

tion’

s w

ate

r re

sou

rce

s b

y p

rote

ctin

g a

nd

en

ha

nc

ing

th

eir

qu

alit

y w

hile

ma

inta

inin

g e

co

no

mic

an

d s

oc

ial

de

velo

pm

en

t.

The

NW

QM

S p

roc

ess

invo

lve

s c

om

mu

nity

an

d

go

vern

me

nt

de

velo

pm

en

t a

nd

imp

lem

en

tatio

n o

f a

m

an

ag

em

en

t p

lan

for e

ac

h c

atc

hm

en

t, a

qu

ifer,

est

ua

ry, c

oa

sta

l wa

ter o

r oth

er w

ate

rbo

dy.

Th

is

inc

lud

es

use

of

na

tion

al g

uid

elin

es

with

loc

al

imp

lem

en

tatio

n.

Imp

lem

en

tatio

n o

f th

e N

WQ

MS

in t

he

AM

LR in

clu

de

s se

vera

l SA

EPA

pro

jec

ts, s

uc

h a

s th

e d

eve

lop

me

nt

of

Wa

ter Q

ua

lity

Imp

rove

me

nt

Pla

ns

(se

e t

ab

le b

elo

w)

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.go

v.a

u/w

ate

r/q

ua

lity/

nw

qm

s/

NW

I , S

A E

PA

WQ

IPs

(an

d o

the

r SA

EPA

Pro

jec

ts

Sta

te

SA W

etla

nd

s St

rate

gy

for

SA

(200

3)

DEH

/DW

LBC

Pro

vid

es

ob

jec

tive

s, a

ctio

ns

an

d p

erf

orm

an

ce

m

ea

sure

s to

gu

ide

inte

gra

ted

ma

na

ge

me

nt

of

AEs

in

SA

Wh

ile t

he

str

ate

gy

lac

ks c

urr

en

cy

(e.g

. it

refe

rs t

o

leg

isla

tion

th

at

is o

ut

of

da

te),

ma

ny

of

the

ac

tion

s in

th

e p

lan

are

stil

l re

leva

nt

to t

he

ma

na

ge

me

nt

of

AEs

.

It p

rovi

de

s d

irec

tion

for s

tate

an

d re

gio

na

l NR

M

Pla

ns.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/b

iod

ive

rsity

/w

etla

nd

s/w

etla

nd

s.h

tml

NR

M P

lan

s

dra

ft Es

tua

ries

Polic

y a

nd

A

ctio

n Pl

an

for

SA (

2005

)

DEH

/DW

LBC

Polic

y &

Ac

tion

Pla

n t

ha

t a

ims

to im

pro

ve t

he

he

alth

o

f SA

’s e

stu

arie

s th

rou

gh

a c

oo

rdin

ate

d

ma

na

ge

me

nt

ap

pro

ac

h.

Spe

cifi

es

ac

tion

s to

ac

hie

ve 5

ke

y o

utc

om

es

(re

late

d

to im

pro

vin

g p

rote

ctio

n &

ma

na

ge

me

nt,

de

velo

pin

g

pla

nn

ing

de

cis

ion

to

ols

, co

mm

un

ity e

du

ca

tion

, an

d

rese

arc

h &

mo

nito

ring

)

Pub

lic c

om

me

nt

in J

un

e 2

005

. DEH

is c

urr

en

tly

revi

ew

ing

su

bm

issi

on

s a

nd

am

en

din

g t

he

dra

ft

do

cu

me

nt.

Som

e o

f th

e a

ctio

ns

are

be

ing

ad

dre

sse

d b

y o

the

r p

roje

cts

list

ed

in t

he

ta

ble

be

low

(se

e li

nks

on

rig

ht)

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/c

oa

sts/

ind

ex.

htm

l

SA E

stu

ary

In

ven

tory

, SA

AE

Pro

gra

m, S

A A

E G

IS la

yer,

EPA

WQ

m

on

itorin

g, A

MLR

Es

tua

ries

Info

rma

tion

Pa

cka

ge

, AM

LR

NR

M P

lan

Ap

pe

ndix

1.2

Key

pla

ns a

nd s

trate

gie

s re

leva

nt to

a

qua

tic e

cosy

ste

m (

AE)

ma

nag

em

ent

in th

e A

MLR


Pla

n/St

rate

gy

Lea

d

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

sta

tus/

use

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pla

ns/

pro

jec

ts

liste

d2

Reg

ion

al

AM

LR a

nd

SA

M

dB

Na

tura

l Re

sou

rce

s M

an

ag

em

en

t Pl

an

s (N

RM

Pla

ns)

AM

LR &

SA

M

DB

NR

M

Boa

rds

Eac

h p

lan

de

scrib

es

the

cu

rre

nt

sta

te o

f n

atu

ral

reso

urc

es

in t

he

ir re

gio

n a

nd

sp

ec

ifie

s re

gio

na

l ta

rge

ts, s

tra

teg

ies

an

d a

ctio

ns

to h

elp

ac

hie

ve a

n

inte

gra

ted

ap

pro

ac

h t

o n

atu

ral r

eso

urc

es

ma

na

ge

me

nt.

The

ta

rge

ts in

th

ese

pla

ns

tha

t a

re re

leva

nt

to A

Es

ha

ve a

bro

ad

er f

oc

us

tha

n ju

st A

Es. N

eve

rth

ele

ss,

ac

tion

s in

lin

e w

ith t

he

se t

arg

ets

will

imp

rove

th

e

ma

na

ge

me

nt

an

d c

on

diti

on

of

AEs

. Re

fer t

o p

lan

s fo

r fu

rth

er d

eta

il

htt

p:/

/ww

w.n

rm.s

a.g

ov.

au

& h

ttp

://w

ww

.am

lrnrm

.sa

.go

v.a

u &

htt

p:/

/ww

w.s

am

db

nrm

.sa

.go

v.a

u

WA

Ps, M

LR E

WR

s,

SAA

E P

rog

ram

Wa

ter

Allo

ca

tion

Pla

ns

(WA

Ps)

AM

LR &

SA

M

DB

NR

M

Boa

rds/

D

WLB

C

NR

M B

oa

rds

are

req

uire

d u

nd

er t

he

NR

M A

ct3

to

p

rep

are

WA

Ps fo

r all

Pre

scrib

ed

Wa

ter R

eso

urc

es

in

the

ir b

oa

rd a

rea

. Th

e p

lan

s se

t th

e r

ule

s u

nd

er w

hic

h

wa

ter c

an

be

allo

ca

ted

on

lic

en

ce

s &

de

scrib

e t

he

w

ate

r aff

ec

ting

ac

tiviti

es

tha

t re

qu

ire a

pe

rmit.

En

viro

nm

en

tal n

ee

ds

mu

st b

e t

ake

n in

to a

cc

ou

nt.

In t

he

pla

nn

ing

reg

ion

use

d in

th

is re

po

rt

the

re a

re 1

1 p

resc

ribe

d w

ate

r re

sou

rce

s,

3 h

ave

en

do

rse

d W

APs

, 4 h

ave

dra

ft W

APs

a

nd

4 a

re m

an

ag

ed

un

de

r th

e W

ate

r Re

sou

rce

s (P

en

rice

Exe

mp

tion

Re

gu

latio

n 1

997)

.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.d

wlb

c.s

a.g

ov.

au/

wa

ter/

allo

ca

tion

_p

lan

s/in

de

x.h

tml

NW

I, N

RM

Pla

ns,

M

LR E

WR

s,

Wa

terR

AT

AM

LR N

RM

Reg

ion

Estu

arie

s In

form

atio

n Pa

cka

ge

DEH

Ove

rvie

w o

f th

e k

no

wn

env

iron

me

nta

l, so

cia

l an

d

ec

on

om

ic v

alu

es

for e

stu

arie

s in

th

e A

MLR

NR

M

Reg

ion

. In

clu

de

s ke

y in

form

atio

n g

ap

s a

nd

po

ten

tial

dire

ctio

ns

to g

uid

e m

an

ag

em

en

t.

Go

od

so

urc

e o

f in

form

atio

n o

n e

stu

arie

s a

nd

gu

ide

to

prio

rity

ma

na

ge

me

nt

ac

tion

s. S

om

e o

f th

e

info

rma

tion

ga

ps

an

d p

ote

ntia

l dire

ctio

ns

are

be

ing

a

dd

ress

ed

by

oth

er p

roje

cts

in t

he

ta

ble

be

low

.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/c

oa

sts/

ind

ex.

htm

l

AM

LR N

RM

Pla

n,

SA E

stu

ary

In

ven

tory

, SA

AE

Pro

gra

m, M

LR

EWR

s, W

APs

Reg

ion

al

Rec

ove

ry P

lan

for

the

AM

LR

DEH

(in

p

art

ne

rsh

ip

with

DEW

HA

&

NR

M B

oa

rds)

Mu

lti-t

axa

rec

ove

ry p

lan

th

at

inte

gra

tes

prio

ritis

ed

re

co

very

an

d t

hre

at

ab

ate

me

nt

ac

tion

s fo

r ma

ny

of

the

th

rea

ten

ed

sp

ec

ies

an

d e

co

log

ica

l co

mm

un

itie

s w

ithin

th

e A

MLR

.

Pilo

t p

roje

ct

to t

est

fea

sib

ility

of

inte

gra

ted

reg

ion

al

rec

ove

ry a

nd

th

rea

t a

ba

tem

en

t a

ctio

ns.

Pla

n s

ub

mitt

ed

to

Co

mm

on

we

alth

for a

do

ptio

n a

s a

Re

gio

na

l Re

co

very

Pla

n u

nd

er t

he

EPB

C A

ct4

. Aim

s to

imp

rove

eff

ica

cy

of

reg

ion

al m

an

ag

em

en

t o

f th

rea

ten

ed

sp

ec

ies

an

d in

cre

ase

ca

pa

city

of

NR

M

bo

ard

s to

inc

orp

ora

te re

co

very

ac

tion

s in

to re

gio

na

l N

RM

pla

ns

an

d in

vest

me

nt

stra

teg

ies.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/b

iod

ive

rsity

/th

rea

ten

ed

-sp

ec

ies/

reg

ion

al-

rec

ove

ry-p

ilot.

htm

l

NR

M P

lan

s, o

the

r re

co

very

pla

ns

for

thre

ate

ne

d

spe

cie

s a

nd

c

om

mu

niti

es

in

the

AM

LR (

no

t in

th

ese

ta

ble

s)

1 Le

ad

ag

en

cie

s: D

EH =

SA

De

pa

rtm

en

t fo

r Env

iron

me

nt

& H

erit

ag

e; D

WLB

C =

SA

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f W

ate

r, La

nd

& B

iod

ive

rsity

Co

nse

rva

tion;

AM

LR N

RM

& S

A M

DB

NR

M B

oa

rds

= A

de

laid

e a

nd

Mt

Loft

y Ra

ng

es

& S

A M

urr

ay-

Da

rlin

g B

asi

n N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Boa

rds.

2 Th

e a

cro

nym

s lis

ted

in t

his

co

lum

n a

re fo

r oth

er p

roje

cts

/pla

ns

liste

d in

th

is a

nd

th

e t

ab

le b

elo

w.

3 N

RM

Ac

t =

Na

tura

l Re

sou

rce

s M

an

ag

em

en

t A

ct

2004

(SA

Go

vern

me

nt

Ac

t)


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

o

utc

om

es

&/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e p

roje

cts

lis

ted

2

Na

tion

al

Ram

sar

Co

nve

ntio

n o

n W

etla

nd

s o

f In

tern

atio

na

l Im

po

rta

nc

e

(No

te: n

on

e in

pla

nn

ing

re

gio

n)

DEW

HA

Me

ch

an

ism

to

list

of

we

tlan

ds

of

inte

rna

tion

al

imp

ort

an

ce

be

ca

use

of

the

ir e

co

log

ica

l, b

ota

nic

al,

zoo

log

ica

l, lim

no

log

ica

l or

hyd

rolo

gic

al

imp

ort

an

ce

.

- Re

co

gn

itio

n fo

r in

tern

atio

na

lly im

po

rta

nt

we

tlan

ds

& li

ste

d

we

tlan

ds

trig

ge

r EPB

C

Ac

t

- si

gn

ato

ry c

ou

ntr

ies

ag

ree

to

ma

na

ge

site

s to

ma

inta

in e

co

log

ica

l c

ha

rac

ter

Refe

r to

we

bsi

te

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.g

ov.

au/

wa

ter/

env

iron

me

nta

l/w

etla

nd

s/ra

msa

r/in

de

x.h

tml

DIW

A, H

CV

AE

dire

cto

ry o

f Im

po

rta

nt

We

tlan

ds

in A

ustr

alia

(d

IWA

)

(No

te: 1

6 in

pla

nn

ing

re

gio

n)

DEW

HA

- M

ec

ha

nis

m t

o li

st

we

tlan

ds

of

na

tion

al

imp

ort

an

ce

- A

sso

cia

ted

da

tab

ase

st

ore

s d

eta

iled

in

form

atio

n o

n e

ac

h

we

tlan

d

- Re

co

gn

itio

n fo

r n

atio

na

lly im

po

rta

nt

we

tlan

ds

- So

urc

e o

f in

form

atio

n

on

we

tlan

ds

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.g

ov.

au/

wa

ter/

pu

blic

atio

ns/

env

iron

me

nta

l/w

etla

nd

s/d

irec

tory

.htm

l

DIW

A w

ill re

ma

in.

Ho

we

ver t

he

HC

VA

E lis

t w

ill re

pla

ce

DIW

A fo

r m

an

ag

ing

prio

ritie

s u

nd

er N

WI

Ram

sar,

HC

VA

E

Na

tion

al W

ate

r In

itia

tive

(N

WI)

(inte

rgo

vern

me

nta

l a

gre

em

en

t b

etw

ee

n

Co

mm

on

we

alth

& S

tate

/Te

rrito

ry G

ove

rnm

en

ts)

DEW

HA

Ob

jec

tive

s in

clu

de

e

sta

blis

hin

g, r

eg

ula

tory

a

nd

pla

nn

ing

ba

sed

sy

ste

m o

f m

an

ag

ing

su

rfa

ce

an

d

gro

un

dw

ate

r re

sou

rce

s o

ptim

isin

g e

co

no

mic

, so

cia

l an

d

env

iron

me

nta

l o

utc

om

es.

Pro

vid

es

the

leg

isla

tive

a

nd

po

licy

fra

me

wo

rk,

co

mm

ittin

g s

tate

s to

(a

mo

ng

st o

the

r th

ing

s):

(1)

pre

pa

re w

ate

r pla

ns

with

pro

visi

on

for t

he

e

nviro

nm

en

t

(2)

de

al w

ith o

ver-

allo

ca

ted

or s

tre

sse

d

wa

ter s

yste

ms.

Refe

r to

we

bsi

te

htt

p:/

/ww

w.n

wc

.go

v.a

u/w

ww

/htm

l/11

7-n

atio

na

l-w

ate

r-in

itia

tive

.asp

NW

I wa

s d

rive

r be

hin

d

est

ab

lish

me

nt

of

WA

Ps,

HC

VA

Es, M

LR E

WR

s

Ap

pe

ndix

1.3

Key

pro

jec

ts a

nd p

rog

ram

s re

leva

nt

to a

qua

tic e

cosy

ste

m (

AE)

ma

nag

em

ent

in th

e A

MLR


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

o

utc

om

es

&/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e p

roje

cts

lis

ted

2

Hig

h C

on

serv

atio

n V

alu

e

Aq

uatic

Ec

osy

ste

ms

(HC

VA

E)

DEW

HA

in c

o-o

pe

ratio

n

with

sta

tes/

terr

itorie

s-

Esta

blis

h li

st o

f h

igh

c

on

serv

atio

n v

alu

e A

Es

ba

sed

on

na

tion

ally

a

gre

ed

crit

eria

- Re

qu

irem

en

t u

nd

er N

WI

(cla

use

25x

)

- In

clu

de

s a

ll Ra

msa

r si

tes,

all

East

Asi

a-

Au

stra

lasi

an

Fly

wa

y si

tes

(inte

rna

tion

ally

im

po

rta

nt

site

s fo

r m

igra

tory

wa

terb

irds:

o

ne

in A

MLR

– P

en

rice

Sa

ltfie

lds)

, an

d s

om

e

Wo

rld H

erit

ag

e s

ites

(de

pe

nd

ing

on

im

po

rta

nc

e o

f A

Es t

o t

he

si

te li

stin

g).

Inte

rim li

st t

ha

t re

qu

ires

ap

plic

atio

n a

nd

tria

llin

g

of

the

crit

eria

(r

ep

rese

nta

tive

ne

ss,

div

ers

ity, d

istin

ctiv

en

ess

, vi

tal h

ab

itat,

evo

lutio

na

ry h

isto

ry a

nd

n

atu

raln

ess

).

- To

ol t

o a

ssis

t id

en

tifyi

ng

p

riorit

ies

for f

un

din

g/

ma

na

ge

me

nt

- M

ec

ha

nis

m t

o a

ch

ieve

n

atio

na

l co

nsi

ste

nc

y in

id

en

tifyi

ng

hig

h

co

nse

rva

tion

va

lue

AEs

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.g

ov.

au/

wa

ter/

pu

blic

atio

ns/

env

iron

me

nta

l/e

co

syst

em

s/h

cva

e.h

tml

NW

I, A

NA

ECS,

Aq

ua

tic

Bio

reg

ion

s, S

AA

E P

rog

ram

, Sh

ore

bird

s 20

20

Aus

tra

lian

Na

tion

al

Aq

uatic

Ec

osy

ste

m

Cla

ssifi

ca

tion

Sch

em

e

(AN

AEC

S)

DEW

HA

in c

o-o

pe

ratio

n

with

sta

tes/

terr

itorie

sRe

vie

w o

f st

ate

/te

rrito

ry

AE

cla

ssifi

ca

tion

sys

tem

s to

cre

ate

a n

atio

na

lly

ag

ree

d f

ram

ew

ork

for

na

min

g/c

lass

ifyin

g A

E ty

pe

s

In p

rog

ress

- Es

tab

lish

a n

atio

na

lly

ac

ce

pte

d s

et

of

na

me

s fo

r AE

typ

es

tha

t o

cc

ur

ac

ross

juris

dic

tion

s.

- To

be

use

d b

y re

gio

ns

&

sta

tes

in re

po

rtin

g o

n

we

tlan

d c

on

diti

on

to

Fe

de

ral G

ove

rnm

en

t (p

ote

ntia

lly re

po

rtin

g b

y A

qu

atic

Bio

reg

ion

s)

HC

VA

E, A

qB,

SA

AE

Pro

gra

m


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

A

ge

nc

ies1

de

scri

ptio

nC

urr

en

t u

ses/

ou

tpu

tsPr

op

ose

d F

utu

re

ou

tco

me

s &

/or

ga

ps

Lin

kag

es

to

the

pro

jec

ts

liste

d2

Na

tion

al

(co

ntin

ue

d)

Wa

terw

atc

h A

ustr

alia

DEW

HA

Wa

terw

atc

h p

rog

ram

wa

s e

sta

blis

he

d

in19

93.

It is

a n

atio

na

l co

mm

un

ity w

ate

r q

ua

lity

mo

nito

ring

ne

two

rk t

ha

t e

nc

ou

rag

es

co

mm

un

ity t

o g

et

invo

lve

d in

th

e p

rote

ctio

n a

nd

m

an

ag

em

en

t o

f w

ate

rwa

ys a

nd

c

atc

hm

en

ts.

Wa

terw

atc

h g

rou

ps

co

nd

uc

t b

iolo

gic

al a

nd

ha

bita

t a

sse

ssm

en

ts

plu

s p

hys

ica

l an

d c

he

mic

al w

ate

r te

sts.

Cu

rre

ntly

30

00

Wa

terw

atc

h g

rou

ps

mo

nito

ring

wa

ter q

ua

lity

at

ove

r 70

00

site

s th

rou

gh

ou

t 20

0 c

atc

hm

en

ts.

Loc

al w

ate

rwa

tch

fac

ilita

tors

an

d

co

-ord

ina

tors

su

pp

ort

loc

al g

rou

ps.

Co

mm

on

we

alth

Go

vt c

o-o

rdin

ate

s a

ctiv

itie

s a

cro

ss A

ust

ralia

an

d e

nsu

res

co

nsi

ste

nt

sta

nd

ard

s, in

form

atio

n s

ha

ring

, a

nd

su

pp

ort

.

See

we

bsi

te

htt

p:/

/ww

w.w

ate

rwa

tch

.o

rg.a

u/

Wa

terw

atc

h

SA, E

PA

pro

jec

ts, N

RM

Pl

an

s

Sho

reb

irds

2020

Bird

s A

ust

ralia

(in

c

olla

bo

ratio

n

with

A

ust

rala

sia

n

Wa

de

r Stu

die

s G

rou

p, W

WF

– A

ust

ralia

a

nd

DEH

WA

)

Co

-ord

ina

ted

na

tion

al s

ho

reb

ird

mo

nito

ring

pro

gra

m (

mig

rato

ry a

nd

re

sid

en

t sp

ec

ies)

to

co

llec

t d

ata

on

sh

ore

bird

nu

mb

ers

ove

r tim

e, h

ab

itat

an

d lo

ca

tion

info

rma

tion

an

d

info

rma

tion

on

th

rea

ts.

Build

s a

nd

exp

an

ds

on

exi

stin

g c

ou

nt

site

s a

nd

me

tho

ds.

Ove

r th

e la

st y

ea

r:

- D

eve

lop

ed

a m

on

itorin

g p

rog

ram

th

at

will

allo

w d

ete

ctio

n o

f n

atio

na

l po

pu

latio

n

tre

nd

s.

- M

ap

pe

d im

po

rta

nt

sho

reb

irds

are

as

(na

tion

ally

).

- D

eve

lop

ed

on

line

co

un

ters

to

olk

it a

nd

tr

ain

ed

vo

lun

tee

r co

un

ters

.

- Su

rve

yed

ove

r 70

site

s la

st s

um

me

r (n

atio

na

lly).

- O

ct/

No

v 08

na

tion

al a

eria

l an

d

on

-gro

un

d s

urv

ey

of

907

imp

ort

an

t w

etla

nd

s in

Au

stra

lia (

Ram

sar &

DIW

A

we

tlan

ds)

. Fin

al r

ep

ort

rele

ase

d b

y Ju

ne

20

09 a

nd

th

e n

atio

na

l da

tab

ase

of

wa

terb

ird d

ata

will

be

pu

blic

ly a

cc

ess

ible

a

t: w

ww

.we

triv

ers

.un

sw.e

du.

au.

ID n

ew

we

tlan

ds

of

imp

ort

an

t fo

r sh

ore

bird

s

De

term

ine

lon

g-

an

d

sho

rt-t

erm

po

pu

latio

n

tre

nd

s, e

xplo

re c

au

ses

of

the

se c

ha

ng

es

an

d

rela

tion

ship

be

twe

en

h

ab

itat

qu

alit

y a

nd

th

rea

ts o

n t

he

d

istr

ibu

tion

an

d

ab

un

da

nc

e o

f sh

ore

bird

s.

Info

rm d

ec

isio

n-m

ake

rs

thro

ug

h a

na

lysi

s a

nd

re

po

rtin

g (

imp

rove

d

eve

lop

me

nt

imp

ac

t a

sse

ssm

en

t)

Ram

sar

pro

gra

m,

DIW

A, H

CV

AE


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

A

ge

nc

ies1

de

scri

ptio

nC

urr

en

t u

ses/

ou

tpu

tsPr

op

ose

d F

utu

re o

utc

om

es

&/o

r g

ap

s

Lin

kag

es

to t

he

p

roje

cts

lis

ted

2

Sta

te

Aq

uatic

Bi

ore

gio

na

lisa

tion

(Aq

B)

DW

LBC

/ D

EHC

rea

te e

co

log

ica

lly m

ea

nin

gfu

l a

qu

atic

reg

ion

s a

cro

ss S

A.

Still

be

ing

refin

ed

(in

terim

re

gio

ns

exi

st),

be

ing

eva

lua

ted

a

s p

art

of

HC

VA

E c

rite

ria a

nd

a

s p

art

of

SAA

E P

rog

ram

.

To d

ivid

e A

Es in

to m

ore

ma

na

ge

ab

le u

nits

, &

cre

ate

co

nte

xt fo

r Sta

te &

reg

ion

al

bo

die

s to

rep

ort

at

na

tion

al l

eve

l on

sta

te

AEs

.

HC

VA

Es,

AN

AEC

S,

SAA

E P

rog

ram

SA A

qua

tic

Eco

syst

em

Pr

og

ram

(SA

AE

Pro

gra

m)

DW

LBC

in

co

llab

ora

tion

w

ith D

EH,

EPA

,NR

M

Boa

rds,

oth

er

sta

te

juris

dic

tion

s,

DEW

HA

De

velo

p a

n a

pp

roa

ch

for S

A t

o

ma

p a

nd

cla

ssify

AEs

, de

velo

p

co

nc

ep

tua

l mo

de

ls o

f e

co

syst

em

fu

nc

tion

, de

term

ine

A

E p

ress

ure

an

d c

on

diti

on

in

dic

ato

rs, a

nd

rep

ort

on

AE

co

nd

itio

n a

t a

ran

ge

of

sca

les

(na

tion

al,

sta

te &

reg

ion

al).

- D

raft

SA

AE

GIS

laye

r (se

e

be

low

).

- In

terim

aq

ua

tic b

iore

gio

ns

for

SA.

- In

terim

AE

typ

e c

lass

ific

atio

n

syst

em

(st

ill b

ein

g re

fine

d)

tha

t c

an

be

ma

tch

ed

to

inte

rsta

te

cla

ssifi

ca

tion

s.

- C

on

ce

ptu

al m

od

els/

dia

gra

ms

of

AE

typ

es

to id

en

tify

driv

ers

of

ec

osy

ste

m f

un

ctio

n a

nd

p

roc

ess

es.

- Id

en

tify

we

tlan

d p

ress

ure

s &

c

on

diti

on

(in

dic

ato

rs f

rom

c

on

ce

ptu

al m

od

els)

, d

eve

lop

ed

in li

ne

with

in

ters

tate

mo

de

ls t

o h

elp

a

ch

ieve

na

tion

al c

on

sist

en

cy.

- C

on

ce

ptu

al m

od

els/

dia

gra

ms

an

d A

E p

ress

ure

s a

nd

co

nd

itio

n

ind

ica

tors

de

velo

pe

d fo

r all

AE

typ

es

in S

A

- C

om

ple

tion

of

AE

ma

pp

ing

in

co

llab

ora

tion

with

NR

M B

oa

rds.

- A

pp

lica

tion

of

an

ag

ree

d c

lass

ific

atio

n

me

tho

do

log

y fo

r all

AEs

in S

A.

- C

on

ce

ptu

al d

iag

ram

s &

ind

ica

tors

of

AE

pre

ssu

res

an

d c

on

diti

on

de

velo

pe

d fo

r all

AE

typ

es

in S

A.

- O

n-g

rou

nd

tria

ls o

f c

on

ce

ptu

al m

od

els

a

nd

ind

ica

tors

with

NR

M B

oa

rds

(no

t ye

t fu

nd

ed

).

- A

do

ptio

n o

f fr

am

ew

ork

by

SA G

ovt

, NR

M

Boa

rds

an

d F

ed

era

l Go

vt.

SA A

E G

IS

laye

r, M

LR

EWR

s,

AN

AEC

S,

HC

VA

Es,

Aq

B,

Wa

terR

AT,

EP

A W

Q

SA A

qua

tic

Eco

syst

em

GIS

la

yer

(SA

AE

GIS

la

yer)

DEH

- M

ap

pin

g a

ll A

E e

xte

nt

&

dis

trib

utio

n in

to a

sin

gle

GIS

sp

atia

l la

yer (

usi

ng

exi

stin

g d

ata

).

- Id

en

tific

atio

n a

nd

so

me

c

olla

tion

of

da

ta s

ets

co

nta

inin

g

AE

info

rma

tion

.

- Id

en

tific

atio

n o

f g

ap

s in

m

ap

pin

g a

nd

info

rma

tion

on

A

Es.

Ma

ny

diff

ere

nt

da

ta s

ets

b

rou

gh

t to

ge

the

r, b

ut

still

in

pro

gre

ss. H

as

be

en

use

d in

va

riou

s st

ate

pro

jec

ts (

see

lin

ks

co

lum

n).

- G

ap

an

aly

sis

of

AE

ma

pp

ing

in

co

llab

ora

tion

with

NR

M B

oa

rds.

- G

rou

nd

tru

thin

g &

ne

w m

ap

pin

g o

f A

Es

wh

ere

req

uire

d.

- U

ltim

ate

ly, a

sin

gle

GIS

laye

r at

a

co

nsi

ste

nt

sca

le t

ha

t lin

ks t

o v

ario

us

da

ta

sets

with

AE

info

rma

tion

(b

ase

d o

n u

niq

ue

w

etla

nd

ide

ntif

ier)

.

SAA

E P

rog

ram

, A

NA

ECS,

M

LR E

WR

s,

Wa

terR

AT,

W

APs

.


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

ou

tco

me

s &

/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pro

jec

ts li

ste

d2

Sta

te (

co

ntin

ue

d)

East

ern

& W

est

ern

M

t Lo

fty

Ran

ge

s En

viro

nm

en

tal

Wa

ter

Req

uire

me

nts

A

sse

ssm

en

t (M

LR

EWRs

)

DW

LBC

/AM

LR &

SA

MD

B N

RM

Bo

ard

s

Co

nc

ep

tua

l mo

de

ls o

f st

rea

m

& w

etla

nd

typ

es

(usi

ng

a

vaila

ble

hyd

rolo

gic

al a

nd

e

co

log

ica

l da

ta)

to d

ete

rmin

e

env

iron

me

nta

l wa

ter

req

uire

me

nts

of

AE

co

mp

on

en

ts (

flora

, fis

h,

ma

cro

inve

rte

bra

tes

&

ge

om

orp

ho

log

y w

ere

th

e fo

cu

s o

f th

is st

ud

y)

Envi

ron

me

nta

l wa

ter

req

uire

me

nts

of

stre

am

s a

nd

w

etla

nd

s in

th

e A

MLR

reg

ion

d

ete

rmin

ed

usi

ng

ava

ilab

le

da

ta c

on

ce

ptu

al m

od

els

Fun

din

g re

qu

ired

to

te

st m

od

els

o

n-g

rou

nd

, mo

nito

r re

spo

nse

s to

w

ate

r ava

ilab

ility

& e

valu

ate

e

nviro

nm

en

tal w

ate

r re

qu

irem

en

ts o

f A

E c

om

po

ne

nts

(a

nd

th

ere

fore

wa

ter r

eso

urc

e

ma

na

ge

me

nt)

. Th

is w

ill a

lso

he

lp

to f

ill g

ap

s in

da

ta.

NW

I, W

APs

, NR

M

Boa

rds/

Pla

ns,

SA

A

E G

IS la

yer

Wa

ter-

de

pe

nd

en

t e

co

syst

em

Ris

k A

sse

ssm

en

t to

ol

(Wa

terR

At)

DW

LBC

GIS

-ba

sed

de

cis

ion

su

pp

ort

to

ol.

Ena

ble

s a

pre

limin

ary

a

sse

ssm

en

t o

f th

e p

ote

ntia

l d

irec

t a

nd

cu

mu

lativ

e im

pa

ct

of

de

velo

pm

en

t o

n w

ate

r re

sou

rce

s a

nd

sig

nifi

ca

nt

ec

osy

ste

ms.

Ac

ce

ss f

rom

inte

rna

l Sta

te

go

vern

me

nt

ne

two

rk o

nly

at

this

st

ag

e (

bu

t w

ill b

e a

vaila

ble

on

p

ub

lic w

eb

site

in 2

009

/10)

. Use

d

to in

form

an

ap

pro

pria

te le

vel

of

ass

ess

me

nt

req

uire

d b

y th

e

pro

po

ne

nt

to in

vest

iga

te a

nd

a

dd

ress

an

y c

on

seq

ue

ntia

l im

pa

cts

htt

p:/

/e-n

rims.

dw

lbc

.sa

.go

v.a

u/W

ate

rRA

T/M

LR.a

spx

(inte

rna

l g

ovt

ac

ce

ss o

nly

)

- G

ap

s in

th

e m

ap

pin

g o

f A

Es

(se

e S

A A

E G

IS la

yer p

roje

ct

ab

ove

) a

nd

da

ta o

n w

he

the

r A

Es a

re g

rou

nd

wa

ter o

r su

rfa

ce

w

ate

r fe

d, l

imit

the

ca

pa

city

of

this

too

l to

eff

ec

tive

ly a

sse

ss

imp

ac

ts in

all

ca

ses.

Pro

jec

ts

tha

t fil

l th

e a

bo

ve g

ap

s w

ill

imp

rove

th

is to

ol.

- Pl

an

s to

cre

ate

a v

ers

ion

a

cc

ess

ible

to

pu

blic

th

at

pro

vid

es

pro

po

ne

nts

with

an

in

dic

atio

n o

f lik

ely

ap

pro

val

pro

ce

sse

s re

qu

ired

an

d t

he

ir o

utc

om

e.

NW

I, SA

AE

pro

gra

m, S

A A

E G

IS la

yer,

MLR

EW

Rs,

WA

Ps

EPA

Mt L

oft

y Ra

ng

es

Wa

ters

he

d

Pro

tec

tion

Off

ice

(E

PA W

PO)

EPA

WPO

(p

roje

cts

ca

n

invo

lve

c

olla

bo

ratio

n

with

oth

er

org

an

isa

tion

s a

nd

c

om

mu

nity

)

Esta

blis

he

d in

199

8. U

nd

ert

ake

s p

roje

cts

an

d w

ork

s th

at

ass

ist

in

pro

tec

ting

an

d im

pro

vin

g t

he

w

ate

r re

sou

rce

s in

th

e M

t Lo

fty

Ran

ge

s w

ate

rsh

ed

(a

rea

e

nc

om

pa

ssin

g A

de

laid

e’s

e

xist

ing

an

d p

oss

ible

wa

ter

sup

ply

ca

tch

me

nts

)

Pro

jec

t a

rea

s in

clu

de

: o

n-g

rou

nd

-wo

rks,

mo

nito

ring

p

rog

ram

s, in

pu

t in

to

de

velo

pm

en

t a

sse

ssm

en

t a

nd

p

lan

nin

g p

olic

y, le

gis

lativ

e

co

mp

lian

ce

, ed

uc

atio

n.

Pro

jec

ts a

re o

n-g

oin

g.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

pa

.sa

.go

v.a

u/w

po

_ab

ou

t.h

tml

MLR

EW

Rs,

WA

Ps,

NR

M B

oa

rds/

Pla

ns


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

ou

tco

me

s &

/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pro

jec

ts li

ste

d2

Sta

te (

co

ntin

ue

d)

EPA

mo

nito

ring

of

Sta

te’s

wa

ter

qua

lity

(EPA

WQ

m

on

itorin

g)

EPA

Wa

ter Q

ua

lity

Gro

up

Sta

tew

ide

wa

ter q

ua

lity

mo

nito

ring

pro

gra

m o

f in

lan

d

wa

terc

ou

rse

s (u

p t

o e

stu

arin

e

influ

en

ce

), g

rou

nd

wa

ter a

nd

n

ea

r-sh

ore

ma

rine

e

nviro

nm

en

ts

Pro

vid

es

ba

selin

e d

ata

fro

m

wh

ich

to

me

asu

re e

ffe

ctiv

en

ess

o

f a

ctio

ns/

leg

isla

tion

in

imp

rovi

ng

sta

te’s

wa

ter q

ua

lity.

Info

rms

Sta

te o

f th

e E

nviro

nm

en

t Re

po

rtin

g.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

pa

.sa

.go

v.a

u/w

ate

r_q

ua

lity.

htm

l

Revi

ew

ing

me

tho

do

log

y to

p

ote

ntia

lly d

eve

lop

me

tho

ds

to

ass

ess

co

nd

itio

n o

f w

ate

rco

urs

es,

pla

cin

g g

rea

ter

em

ph

asi

s o

n e

co

log

ica

l p

ara

me

ters

th

an

in t

he

pa

st.

De

velo

pin

g c

oa

sta

l & m

arin

e

co

nd

itio

n a

sse

ssm

en

t m

eth

od

olo

gy

(e.g

. Se

ag

rass

a

nd

alg

al h

ea

lth)

Ga

p: a

sse

ssm

en

t o

f e

stu

arie

s (t

his

ma

y b

e a

dd

ress

ed

th

rou

gh

SA

Est

ua

ry In

ven

tory

Pro

jec

t –

see

be

low

)

NR

M P

lan

s, E

PA

WPO

ac

tiviti

es,

SA

Es

tua

ry In

ven

tory

Wa

ter

Qua

lity

Imp

rove

me

nt

Pla

ns

(WQ

IPs)

EPA

De

tail

stra

teg

ies

for w

ate

r q

ua

lity

imp

rove

me

nt

in a

d

efin

ed

are

a. T

he

y a

re

env

iron

me

nta

l ma

na

ge

me

nt

pla

ns

tha

t im

ple

me

nt

Au

stra

lia’s

Na

tion

al W

ate

r Q

ua

lity

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Stra

teg

y (N

WQ

MS)

an

d t

he

Na

tion

al

Prin

cip

les

for t

he

Pro

visi

on

of

Wa

ter f

or E

co

syst

em

s.

Two

rele

van

t to

AM

LR:

1. P

ort

Wa

terw

ays

Wa

ter Q

ua

lity

Imp

rove

me

nt

Pla

n (

Ma

y 20

08)

2. A

de

laid

e C

oa

sta

l Wa

ter

Qu

alit

y Im

pro

vem

en

t Pl

an

(in

d

eve

lop

me

nt)

Refe

r to

we

bsi

te: h

ttp

://w

ww

.e

pa

.sa

.go

v.a

u/w

ate

r_p

lan

.htm

lN

WQ

MS,

NW

I ,

EPA

WPO

a

ctiv

itie

s , N

RM

Pl

an

s, S

A E

stu

ary

In

ven

tory

(a

lso

se

e p

roje

ct

be

low

)

EPA

(I

mp

lem

en

ting

th

e N

atio

na

l W

ate

r Q

ualit

y M

an

ag

em

en

t St

rate

gie

s &

d

ete

rmin

ing

e

nviro

nm

en

tal

valu

es

for

Sta

te’s

w

ate

rs)

EPA

Wa

ter Q

ua

lity

Gro

up

Ass

ess

me

nt

of

co

mm

un

ity

pe

rce

ptio

ns

an

d v

alu

es

reg

ard

ing

aq

ua

tic e

co

syst

em

s

Cu

rre

ntly

ru

nn

ing

wo

rksh

op

s in

M

t Lo

fty

Ran

ge

s re

gio

n a

nd

R

ive

rlan

d

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

pa

.sa

.go

v.a

u/w

ate

r_q

ua

lity.

htm

l

Eva

lua

tion

of

eff

ec

tive

ne

ss o

f d

iffe

ren

t w

ork

sho

p

me

tho

do

log

ies

Resu

lts w

ill in

form

EPA

of

valu

es

to a

sso

cia

te w

ith d

iffe

ren

t w

ate

r w

ays

an

d h

ow

to

pro

tec

t th

ese

va

lue

s

EPA

WQ

m

on

itorin

g, E

PA

WPO

ac

tiviti

es,

N

RM

Pla

ns


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

ou

tco

me

s &

/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pro

jec

ts li

ste

d2

Sta

te (

co

ntin

ue

d)

Wa

terw

atc

h SA

See

Wa

terw

atc

h

Au

stra

lia.

In S

A,

Wa

terw

atc

h is

su

pp

ort

ed

by

SA

Go

vt t

hro

ug

h

NR

M B

oa

rds

an

d

oth

er

org

an

isa

tion

s in

clu

din

g lo

ca

l g

ove

rnm

en

t a

nd

K

ESA

B.

In S

A W

ate

rwa

tch

is a

ne

two

rk

of

tra

ine

d c

oo

rdin

ato

rs h

elp

ing

p

eo

ple

to

ca

re fo

r th

e q

ua

lity

of

wa

ter i

n t

he

ir lo

ca

l w

ate

rwa

ys.

A w

ate

rwa

y is

de

fine

d a

s a

c

ree

k, d

am

, la

ke, g

rou

nd

wa

ter

sup

ply

, we

tlan

d, r

ive

r, e

stu

ary

o

r ma

ng

rove

.

Pro

gra

m p

rovi

de

s w

ate

r qu

alit

y d

ata

, tra

inin

g in

wa

ter q

ua

lity

mo

nito

ring

, co

mm

un

ity a

nd

sc

ho

ol e

du

ca

tion

, he

lp w

ith

pla

nn

ing

on

-gro

un

d a

ctiv

itie

s,

he

lp w

ith d

eve

lop

ing

m

on

itorin

g p

lan

s.

See

we

bsi

te

htt

p:/

/ww

w.s

a.w

ate

rwa

tch

.org

.a

u/

Wa

terw

atc

h

Au

stra

lia, E

PA

pro

jec

ts, N

RM

Pl

an

s

Sta

tew

ide

Est

uary

In

ven

tory

(SA

Est

uary

In

ven

tory

)

DEH

Ma

pp

ing

est

ua

ry b

ou

nd

arie

s

De

skto

p c

olla

tion

of

exi

stin

g

info

rma

tion

.

Fie

ld s

urv

eys

to

fill

ga

ps

in d

ata

.

In p

rog

ress

, co

ntr

ibu

tion

s to

SA

A

EGIS

laye

r, SA

AE

Pro

gra

m.

Da

ta s

ou

rce

to

info

rm

de

velo

pm

en

t p

lan

nin

g a

nd

im

pa

ct

ass

ess

me

nt.

GIS

laye

r ava

ilab

le o

n w

eb

(se

e

est

ua

ry b

ou

nd

arie

s, s

ele

ct

est

ua

ry a

nd

ac

ce

ss in

form

atio

n

on

th

e e

stu

ary

).

Ma

p b

oo

ks o

f e

stu

arie

s a

nd

su

mm

ary

info

rma

tion

.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/c

oa

sts/

ind

ex.

htm

l.

SA A

E G

IS la

yer,

SAA

E P

rog

ram

, M

arin

e P

lan

nin

g

of

DEH

(se

e

be

low

), E

PA W

Q

mo

nito

ring

, Dra

ft

Estu

ary

Ac

tion

Pl

an

an

d A

MLR

Es

tua

ry

Info

rma

tion

Pa

cka

ge

(se

e

tab

le a

bo

ve).


Pro

gra

m/

Pro

jec

tLe

ad

Ag

en

cie

s1d

esc

rip

tion

Cu

rre

nt

use

s/o

utp

uts

Pro

po

sed

Fu

ture

ou

tco

me

s &

/o

r g

ap

sLi

nka

ge

s to

th

e

pro

jec

ts li

ste

d2

Sta

te (

co

ntin

ue

d)

Enc

ou

nte

r a

nd

U

pp

er

Gu

lf St

V

inc

en

t Ma

rine

Pa

rks

DEH

Pro

cla

ime

d u

nd

er t

he

Ma

rine

Pa

rks

Ac

t 20

07. T

wo

in A

MLR

re

gio

n (

the

y in

clu

de

5 o

f th

e

est

ua

ries

in t

he

AM

LR).

Aim

to

pro

tec

t re

pre

sen

tativ

e

ma

rine

bio

div

ers

ity a

nd

e

co

syst

em

pro

ce

sse

s, a

nd

c

on

trib

ute

to

wa

rds

sust

ain

ab

le

fish

erie

s m

an

ag

em

en

t.

Cu

rre

ntly

un

de

rgo

ing

c

om

mu

nity

co

nsu

ltatio

n,

bo

un

da

ries

ma

y b

e re

vise

d,

ma

na

ge

me

nt

pla

ns

to b

e

de

velo

pe

d b

y m

id-2

011.

See

we

bsi

te

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.go

v.a

u/m

arin

ep

ark

s/in

de

x.h

tml

SA E

stu

ary

In

ven

tory

, Dra

ft

Estu

ary

Ac

tion

Pl

an

, NR

M P

lan

s

Reg

ion

al

Mt L

oft

y Ra

ng

es

Sou

the

rn E

mu-

wre

n (S

EW)

an

d

Fle

urie

u Pe

nin

sula

Sw

am

ps

(FPS

) Re

co

very

p

rog

ram

CC

SA/

MLR

SEW

&FP

S Re

co

very

Te

am

Rec

ove

ry P

rog

ram

for t

he

n

atio

na

lly E

nd

an

ag

erd

SEW

a

nd

na

tion

ally

Crit

ica

lly

End

an

ge

red

FP

S Ec

olo

gic

al

Co

mm

un

ity

Cu

rre

nt

rec

ove

ry a

ctio

ns

inc

lud

e o

n-g

rou

nd

su

rve

ys,

mo

nito

ring

, wo

rkin

g w

ith

lan

dh

old

ers

to

imp

rove

sw

am

p

pro

tec

tion

& m

an

ag

em

en

t.

See

we

bsi

te fo

r fu

rth

er d

eta

ils.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.c

csa

.asn

.au

AM

LR N

RM

Pla

ns,

M

LR E

WR

s

We

tlan

d

Inve

nto

ries

DEH

Fie

ld-b

ase

d p

roje

cts

th

at

pro

vid

e in

form

atio

n o

n t

he

e

co

log

ica

l, b

iolo

gic

al a

nd

h

ydro

log

ica

l att

ribu

tes

of

we

tlan

ds

(inc

lud

ing

ma

pp

ing

o

f w

etla

nd

bo

un

da

ries)

. W

etla

nd

inve

nto

ry d

ata

info

rms

po

licy

an

d a

ssis

ts p

lan

nin

g a

nd

d

ec

isio

n m

aki

ng

.

Ass

ists

in t

he

ide

ntif

ica

tion

of

hig

h c

on

serv

atio

n v

alu

e

we

tlan

ds

an

d t

he

rec

og

niti

on

a

nd

inc

lusi

on

of

we

tlan

ds

in

lan

d-u

se p

lan

nin

g, N

RM

an

d

ma

na

ge

me

nt

pla

nn

ing

p

rac

tice

s.

htt

p:/

/ww

w.e

nviro

nm

en

t.sa

.g

ov.

au/

bio

div

ers

ity/w

etla

nd

s/w

etla

nd

s.h

tml

Thre

e w

etla

nd

inve

nto

ries

co

mp

lete

d in

AM

LR: F

leu

rieu

Pe

nin

sula

(20

05),

Mt

Loft

y Ra

ng

es

(20

02),

No

rth

ern

Ag

ricu

ltura

l D

istr

icts

(20

02).

Ga

ps

inc

lud

e: m

an

y w

etla

nd

s n

ot

ab

le t

o b

e in

clu

de

d in

th

e

stu

die

s, s

om

e s

ites

no

t ye

t g

rou

nd

-tru

the

d.

NR

M P

lan

s, S

A A

E G

IS la

yer,

SAA

E P

rog

ram

.

1 Le

ad

ag

en

cie

s: D

EWH

A =

Co

mm

on

we

alth

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f th

e E

nviro

nm

en

t, W

ate

r, H

erit

ag

e a

nd

th

e A

rts;

DEH

= S

A D

ep

art

me

nt

for E

nviro

nm

en

t a

nd

He

rita

ge

; D

WLB

C =

SA

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f W

ate

r, La

nd

an

d B

iod

ive

rsity

Co

nse

rva

tion;

EPA

= E

nviro

nm

en

t P

rote

ctio

n A

uth

orit

y (S

A);

PIR

SA =

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f P

rima

ry In

du

strie

s a

nd

Re

sou

rce

s SA

; SA

RD

I = S

A R

ese

arc

h a

nd

De

velo

pm

en

t In

stitu

te; A

MLR

NR

M &

SA

MD

B N

RM

Bo

ard

s =

Ad

ela

ide

an

d M

t Lo

fty

Ran

ge

s &

SA

Mu

rra

y-D

arli

ng

Ba

sin

N

atu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Boa

rds;

CC

SA =

Co

nse

rva

tion

Co

un

cil

of

Sou

th A

ust

ralia

.2

The

ac

ron

yms

liste

d in

th

is c

olu

mn

are

for o

the

r pro

jec

ts/p

rog

ram

s lis

ted

in t

his

an

d t

he

pre

vio

us

tab

le.

informing biodiversity conservation for the adelaide and ... · hero image - one image only no...

Documents