vegetation works audit standard - water and catchments...document name 3278-01r01v01 depi audit...

Vegetation Works Audit Standard

May 2014

Department of Environment and Primary Industries Development of an Audit Standard

3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 ii

DOCUMENT STATUS

Version Doc type Reviewed by Approved by Distributed To Date issued

v01 Preliminary Checklist

Julian Martin Jamie Kaye Les Tate 24/03/2014

v02 Draft Report Jamie Kaye Jamie Kaye Les Tate 02/05/2014

PROJECT DETAILS

Project Name Development of an Audit Standard

Client Department of Environment and Primary Industries

Client Project Manager Les Tate

Water Technology Project Manager Jamie Kaye

Report Authors Jamie Kaye

Job Number 3278-01

Report Number R01

Document Name 3278-01R01v01 DEPI Audit Standard.docx

Cover Photo: Riparian Protection and Enhancement Works - Ridd property, Goulburn River,

Molesworth - Jamie Kaye, 9 April 2014.

Copyright

Water Technology Pty Ltd has produced this document in accordance with instructions from Department of Environment and Primary Industries for their use only. The concepts and information contained in this document are the copyright of Water Technology Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without written permission of Water Technology Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Water Technology Pty Ltd does not warrant this document is definitive nor free from error and does not accept liability for any loss caused, or arising from, reliance upon the information provided herein.

First Floor, 40 Rowan Street

Wangaratta VIC 3677

Telephone (03) 5721 2650

ACN No. 093 377 283

ABN No. 60 093 377 283


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

2. Vegetation Works Standards Specifications .................................................................... 2

2.1 Herbaceous Weed Control ...................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Plant Establishment (Seedlings) .............................................................................................. 4

2.3 Planting Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings ........................................................ 5

2.4 Stock Fencing ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.5 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management ..................................................................................... 9

3. Field Testing of Works Audit Standard .......................................................................... 10

3.1 General Comments and Findings .......................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Project Aim and Landuse ....................................................................................... 11

3.1.2 Activity Responsibility ............................................................................................ 12

3.2 Herbaceous Weed Control .................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Plant Establishment (Seedlings) ............................................................................................ 13

3.4 Plant Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings ........................................................... 13

3.5 Stock Fencing ......................................................................................................................... 14

3.6 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management ................................................................................... 16

4. Works Audit Standard Checklist/Fieldsheet .................................................................. 17

4.1 Fieldsheet testing and modification ...................................................................................... 17

Appendix A Auditor Guide and Fieldsheets

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1 Ridd Site photographs ................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3-2 Tumbling Waters Site photographs ............................................................................ 10

Figure 3-3 Robb Site photographs ................................................................................................ 11

Figure 3-4 Plantings less than 12 months old............................................................................... 12

Figure 3-5 Fences at the Ridd and Robb properties ..................................................................... 15

Figure 3-6 Fence with 9m spacing of inline posts ........................................................................ 16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Herbaceous Weed Control audit questions .................................................................. 2

Table 2-2 Plant Establishment (Seedlings) audit questions .......................................................... 4

Table 2-3 Planting Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings audit questions .................... 6

Table 2-4 Planting Density target calculation table ...................................................................... 7

Table 2-5 Stock Fencing audit questions ....................................................................................... 8

Table 2-6 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management audit questions ................................................ 9

Table 3-1 Target number of plants grouped by trees and understorey ..................................... 14


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 1

1. INTRODUCTION

It is understood that this project is to develop a set of audit tools ‘to establish to what extent delivery partners are undertaking riparian vegetation works according to the agreed Standards described in the Vegetation Work Standards’. This is an on-ground audit of the quality of a defined set of works types, those being:

5 Herbaceous Weed Control,

7 Plant Establishment,

8 Planting density, diversity and placement for seedlings,

10 Stock Fencing, and

11 Vertebrate pest animal management.

This is not a condition audit but an audit to determine if works have been undertaken according to the Vegetation Works Standard.

The outputs from this project are to provide tools to facilitate future technical audits of riparian revegetation activities undertaken as part of the ‘Securing Priority Waterways – Onground Works Program (SPW-OWP).

Each of the aforementioned works types form part of a state-wide set of standards for the delivery

of vegetation management activities through Victorian Investment Framework (VIF) projects at the

landholder scale. Where each of these activities is to be undertaken as part of a VIF project, these

standards MUST be applied.

Determining whether each activity is appropriate for a particular vegetation management project is

the responsibility of the project manager and will be dependent on a number of factors, including:

The project goal

The relevant ecological vegetation class (EVC) for the project site

The condition and extent of remnant vegetation at the project site, which in turn determines

whether the project will focus on:

o Protection of remnant vegetation

o Establishment of overstorey and/or understorey plants within a remnant

o patch i.e. supplementary planting

o Establishment of native vegetation in formerly cleared areas outside of a remnant patch

i.e. revegetation.

Specific site conditions e.g. soil type, slope

The type and severity of threats present.

Therefore, these standards should not be read in isolation, but rather sequenced and applied with

other relevant standards as appropriate.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 2

2. VEGETATION WORKS STANDARDS SPECIFICATIONS

The five standards for which an audit method is to be developed are described in the following sub-sections. These sub-sections provide a brief description of the scope (taken directly from the Vegetation Works Standard) of each of the five standards and conclude with a number of questions that can be asked to determine compliance with that standard. The questions have been derived from the Vegetation Works Standards where methods indicate that certain actions MUST occur. The page number from which the questions are derived is indicated in the table alongside each question. These questions have been field tested and refined where possible. Issues and findings from the field testing of the audit questions have been included in Section 3 of this report.

For more explanation of the standards to be adopted for each of the actions, refer to the Vegetation Works Standard document.

2.1 Herbaceous Weed Control

This standard provides technical information for a range of chemical, mechanical and manual methods to control herbaceous weeds:

In preparation for replanting

To assist native species regeneration within remnant vegetation.

This standard does not provide advice on:

Assessing the problem (e.g. weeds present, mode of spread etc.)

Undertaking risk assessments (e.g. plant densities/distributions) to determine if particular control methods are required/appropriate.

Table 2-1 Herbaceous Weed Control audit questions

Page Number

HERBACEOUS WEED CONTROL

TECHNIQUE

34 Has strip or blanket spraying been avoided?

34 Has spot spraying 1-1.5m diameter been used?

35 If amongst remnants, did weed contractors have specialist plant identification and

herbicide application skills?

36 Was the use of residual herbicides avoided near waterways?

TIMING

36 If difficult to control weeds are/were present, did pre-season weed control occur (i.e. at

least one full year before planting)?

36 Did pre-planting weed control occur?


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 3

Page Number


MAINTENANCE

38 Is there evidence of post planting weed control?

39 Has the area within 1m of plantings been kept weed free for at least 2 summers post-

planting?

MULCH

41 If mulch is present, is it ≤ 100mm thick?

41 If mulch is present, is it clear of seedling stems?

WEED MATTING

42 If matting is present, is the rainfall in the area>500mm, or, is weed competition here a

greater issue than moisture availability?

42 Was matting laid after 2 weed sprays, one initial spray and one pre-planting?

GRAZING IN NATURAL REGENERATION SITES

44 Has grazing for weed control been avoided when soil moisture levels are high (e.g. is

there evidence of pugging away from the stream edge)?

44 Has grazing been avoided during very dry conditions (e.g. is there evidence of soil

erosion)?

44 Is there NO evidence of recent overgrazing (e.g. short grasses, browsed woody

vegetation, excessive manure)?

GRAZING IN REVEGETATION SITES (TUBESTOCK)

44 Has grazing been excluded from the site?

Note: If grazing has occurred when most of the plants are above browsing height (i.e.

>1m for sheep, or >2m for cattle) then tick yes/comply


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 4

2.2 Plant Establishment (Seedlings)

This standard covers typical methods to establish plants as part of a revegetation project, namely:

Direct Seeding

Seedling planting

Long-stem planting

Introducing seed banks to wetlands.

It does not cover the establishment of plants by encouraging natural regeneration, although this method SHOULD always be considered the first option for a revegetation project.

Table 2-2 Plant Establishment (Seedlings) audit questions

Page

Number

PLANT ESTABLISHMENT (SEEDLINGS)

GUARDING

60 Has appropriate guarding been used? i.e.

- Only used for large scale projects if absolutely necessary to ensure success of the

plantings due to the high cost.

- Have tall guards (600mm) been used if browsing animals are present?

63 If the seedlings are healthy and well established (usually after 3-4 years), have tree

guards been removed?

TIMING

64 If plantings have not established well (e.g. 500mm) = Autumn or Spring, or

frost prone areas = Spring.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 5

2.3 Planting Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings

This standard covers approaches to determining the density, diversity and placement of seedlings for planting projects. It does not cover approaches to determining the density, diversity and placement of seed as part of direct-seeding projects.

It can be presumed that the typical objective for riparian revegetation works is to improve, rather than to restore, the structure and diversity of native vegetation. Riparian revegetation works usually aim to improve riparian and instream habitat, improve longitudinal continuity/connectivity, improve water quality and improve bank stability. The Vegetation Work Standards (P.71) state that, if the objective is to rehabilitate landscapes (e.g. streambank stabilisation), the approach to replanting SHOULD reference EVC benchmarks and Net Gain density targets. It is therefore acknowledged that for a range of practical or functional reasons, rehabilitation revegetation may not adhere closely to the Vegetation Works Standards. Reasons for divergence from the standard include:

Time constraints due to rapid response requirements

A lack of sufficient tubestock or species diversity

A lack of funds to plant at the prescribed density

There may be a justified expectation for a level of natural recruitment

Knowledge and experience that certain species have a poor success rate and other species may thrive

Plant species and densities may be selected for their function and not adhere to the optimal EVC density and diversity. For example, mass plantings of a single species may be desirable for stability purposes

Pest plants or animals may limit the likelihood of success of a range of species or lifeforms. For example, an abundance of Phalaris or rabbits may encourage the planting of trees and sub-canopy species, ignoring small shrubs and graminoids that might otherwise not compete well.

The revegetation may also be staged, where other lifeforms (e.g. graminoids and herbs) will be planted at a later date once the overstorey is established.

Prior to entering the field the following tasks need to be undertaken:

1. Determine the Bioregion and Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) for the site

The works documentation may provide details of the EVC adopted for the site. In some circumstances the adopted EVC will differ from the DEPI mapped EVC. This may be due to inaccuracies in the mapping, changes in stream morphology, or changes in the streams hydrology necessitating the adoption of a more applicable EVC. The following approach should be used to determine the Bioregion and EVC applicable for the revegetation site.

Step 1 – Locate the geographical area of interest

Use DEPI’s Biodiversity Interactive Map http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim

Step 2 – Identify the Bioregion and EVC for the area of interest

Click vegetation folder under map layer and change map scale to ≤ 1:100,000

Click refresh map (map will now display 1750 EVCs map layer)

Click mouse on area of interest

Read off EVC name, EVC number and Bioregion

Confirm by ground-truthing, with particular emphasis on: o Where the site is placed in the landscape e.g. slope, gully, plain o The dominant overstorey structure, either remnant canopy on site or in nearby remnant

vegetation e.g. forest, woodland, shrubland

http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 6

o The dominant understorey structure, either remnants on site or in nearby remnant vegetation e.g. grassy, sedgy, shrubby

o Any other site attributes e.g. soils, moisture, aspect o Local knowledge (including local revegetation guides)

Download the relevant EVC benchmark from DSE EVC benchmarks for each bioregion http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion

2. Calculate the revegetation survival target

Table 2-4 provides the basis for calculating the target Life Form numbers for a particular EVC. Once in the field, count the various lifeforms over a measured area of revegetation (e.g. identify an area within revegetation 20m x 50m = 0.1ha) to determine if the planting density targets have been met.

Table 2-3 Planting Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings audit questions

Page

Number

PLANTING DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PLACEMENT FOR SEEDLINGS

PLANTING DENSITY

70 See Table 2-4 to determine overall compliance.

SPECIES DIVERSITY

74 Were plants indigenous to the area/EVC used in the revegetation?

74 Has a diversity of life forms (e.g. trees, sub-canopy, large shrubs, small shrubs,

graminoids) been planted?

74 Has a diversity of species been planted? Ideally, but not necessarily, more than one

species is planted within each lifeform.

PLANTING PLACEMENT

76 Have species plantings been placed appropriately? This will require knowledge of

where species naturally occur or where remnants are positioned (e.g. relative to a bank

profile or floodplain position)

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregionhttp://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 7

Table 2-4 Planting Density target calculation table

Tick appropriate response

Life Forms

Target number of plants/ha (for each 5% cover in EVC benchmark)

^ % cover of life

form in EVC benchmark

Target

number of plants per

hectare

Area assessed

in hectares

DENSITY

Target number of

plants within assessed area

DENSITY

Actual number of plants within assessed area

(tally below)

DENSITY Target

number met =

complies

DENSITY Target

number not met =

not comply

N/A

DIVERSITY

No. of species in each Life

Form (tally below)

Riparian Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

Riparian Forest

Overstorey Trees or Canopy n/a 50 150 X 1.0 = X =

(T) Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 50 50 50 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

(MS) Medium Shrub 200 200 200 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

(SS) Small Shrub 500 500 500 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

*(LTG) Large Tufted Graminoid 500 500 500 X 1.0 = X =

Total plant numbers (all Life Forms)

* Ground covers and native grasses are often substantially reduced in planting programs due to the high risk of failure. Only assess LTG’s if planted within the revegetation site, otherwise ignore target.

^ Insert % cover stated within the understorey life form section of the relevant EVC benchmark.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 8

2.4 Stock Fencing

This standard covers typical methods to exclude the most common domestic livestock that can threaten areas of native vegetation, in particular:

Beef cattle

Dairy cattle

Sheep.

This standard does not cover methods to exclude pest animals (e.g. rabbits). For these animals, refer to the Pest Animal Management standard.

Table 2-5 Stock Fencing audit questions

Page

Number

STOCK FENCING

FENCE APPLICABILITY

86 Is the fence type appropriate for the current stock type? Is the fence effectively

excluding the adjacent grazing animals?

86 Is the fence type appropriate for the location (e.g. if at risk of flooding, is the fence

collapsible or easily cut or repaired)?

FENCING TECHNIQUE

87 Are fences located a suitable distance from existing mature native vegetation (i.e.

outside the drip line of the canopy)?

87 Has suitable consideration been given to the fence location relative to gullies and slopes

and floodways?

89 If wildlife is known to be present, or being encouraged to use the site, is the fence

wildlife friendly?

90 If excluding stock, are in line posts a maximum of 10m apart?


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 9

2.5 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management

This standard covers methods for the control of the most common (state-wide) vertebrate pest animal species and overabundant native herbivores that can threaten native vegetation projects, namely:

Rabbits

Hares

Pigs

Goats

Deer

Native herbivores (particularly kangaroos and wallabies).

This standard does not cover:

Preliminary site assessments (e.g. pest animal densities/distributions) to determine if control methods are required

Methods for the control of invertebrate pest animal species.

Table 2-6 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management audit questions

Page

Number

VERTEBRATE PEST ANIMAL MANAGEMENT

RABBITS AND HARES

93 Are rabbit densities within acceptable limits and not impacting on revegetation success

(e.g. low rabbit densities in a high rainfall area may be acceptable but low rabbit density

in a semi-arid area may still pose a risk to vegetation)?

104 Hares can be far more destructive to revegetation than rabbits. Is there little or no

evidence of hares within vegetation rehabilitation areas?

LARGE PEST AMIMALS (GOATS, DEER, PIGS)

105 Is there little or no evidence of large grazing pest animals impacting the vegetation

rehabilitation/revegetation site?

NATIVE HERBIVORES

115 Is there little or no evidence of damage (e.g. browsing, grazing, camping) to

revegetation attributable to native herbivores (e.g. kangaroos, wallabies, wombats)?


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 10

3. FIELD TESTING OF WORKS AUDIT STANDARD

A field testing day was held on the 9th April 2014 in the upper Goulburn catchment. Jamie Kaye (method author), Les Tate (DEPI Project Manager) and Sue Kosch (GBCMA River Health Officer) met at the Goulburn Broken CMA’s Yea office to discuss the Works Audit Standard questions and to decide on a sites to test the method. A number of comments and issues regarding the audit questions application and assessment were raised during the day, both in the office and in the field.

Three sites were visited to test the draft Audit Field Checklist:

1. Les Ridd, Goulburn River - This site is located on the Goulburn River near Molesworth. This site involved willow removal, fencing and revegetation. A small section of the bank was also rock beached.

Figure 3-1 Ridd Site photographs

2. Tumbling Waters, Rubicon River – This site is public roadside park that was reconstructed after the floods. Substantial bank reinstatement and stabilisation works included rock beaching and pile field alignment training combined with high density revegetation. The high density plantings were undertaken to deter the public from recreating within the pile field area.

Figure 3-2 Tumbling Waters Site photographs


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 11

3. Di Robb, Rubicon River – This site involved included broad fencing of the frontage and revegetation.

Figure 3-3 Robb Site photographs

A summary of comments and findings from the field testing day relevant to each section of the audit are documented in the following Section 3.1.

3.1 General Comments and Findings

3.1.1 Project Aim and Landuse

It became immediately apparent that the aims of a particular works site, and the future landuse of the frontage, influence the approach and works specifications. Each of the sites visited had differing project aims that influenced the type and function of works undertaken. This variation in functional requirement led to differing works specifications. The project aims therefore need to be clearly understood by an assessor prior to auditing a site.

The three sites visited had varying project aims that influenced the way in which works were undertaken and specified.

1. The Ridd frontage had approximately 300m of mature willows removed from the bank. The revegetation was therefore to provide long term stability and longitudinal continuity to the frontage. It was therefore important for the revegetation to be relatively dense, broad and continuous. The adjacent landuse was beef cattle grazing and therefore the fencing needed to be appropriate and effective to ensure stock did not enter the frontage and damage the revegetation.

2. The Tumbling Waters Site is a public reserve used for recreation. The site has a carpark, toilet and playground and is also used for water play and fishing. Although the site needed significant stabilisation and rehabilitation works after flooding, the ongoing use is for recreation and therefore the specifications for revegetation and fencing were quite different from the other sites. Revegetation was confined to the pile field area to provide long term stability, and the high density planting was used to deter the public from playing on the pile fields. The remainder of the site was deliberately kept free of revegetation to allow visual and physical access to the river frontage. Bollard fencing, rather than post and wire fencing specified in the Vegetation Works Standards, was used to exclude cars yet allow personal access to the frontage.

3. The Robb property is used as a commercial horse riding property and therefore the aim of the works was not only to enhance bank stability through revegetation, but to improve the habitat corridor and provide an aesthetically pleasing area to ride. The revegetation was undertaken in a patch like arrangement with large open areas between.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 12

3.1.2 Activity Responsibility

Some of the activities are undertaken by the Landholder rather than the works Authority. This is often due to the cost sharing arrangements or the availability of materials or skills from the landholder. This can result in the construction or management standards being undertaken without any scrutiny or adherence to the Vegetation Works Standards. For instance, the landholder may be responsible for pre and post planting weed control, the fence construction or vermin control. It is unlikely the Landholder is aware of the Vegetation Works Standards or ever given this information. Being part of the cost sharing arrangement, the landholder may also insist on using their own methods or standards if they are in effect paying for those actions or assets. It is therefore important to know which activities are not being funded directly by DEPI as these activities should probably not be audited. However, if the Landholder contributed actions affect the success of the project overall, these actions should be reviewed (audited) to inform adaptive management or revision of the Vegetation Works Standard.

3.2 Herbaceous Weed Control

TECHNIQUE

Has strip or blanket spraying been avoided? - It was indicted that the GBCMA never undertake strip or blanket spraying prior to planting. However, blanket spraying of patches was undertaken by at the Robb site to indicate the areas to be revegetated. This harps back to the issue of Activity Responsibility and lack of control or direction for particular activities. Interestingly, the landholder regretted this form of spraying as it led to the incursion of thistles and other weeds. In this case the Vegetation Works Standard was validated and the landholder would have benefited had that standard been followed.

Has spot spraying 1-1.5m diameter been used? - Spot spraying is often done by the landholder as part of the cost sharing arrangement and therefore, unless informed of the standard, control is lost over the size of application. The size of the spot was discussed and it was agreed that 0.5-1m diameter was more realistic and adequate rather than 1-1.5m. It is also very difficult to determine when spraying had occurred. The plants in Figure 3-4 had been planted less than 12 months prior and it was impossible to determine if spot spraying had occurred, let alone the diameter of the spray. This observation led to the direction that ‘Technique’ and ‘Timing’ weed control questions need to be answered from the desktop because, unless the site is audited soon after spraying, it will be impossible to determine the timing and size of sprayed areas.

Figure 3-4 Plantings less than 12 months old


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 13

Was the use of residual herbicides avoided near waterways? - Sue Kosch indicated that residual herbicides are never used the GBCMA in the upper Goulburn, and certainly would not be used near waterways.

TIMING

These questions need to be answered from the desktop. It is very difficult to determine whether spraying had occurred prior to planting unless auditing very soon afterwards (i.e. within 3 months of spraying).

MAINTENANCE

The GBCMA Riparian Management Agreement states within the Maintenance clause that ‘The long-term maintenance and management of the project/site will remain the landholder’s responsibility’. This reaffirms the issue around activity control and standards adopted. The agreement does not state any specific requirements for weed control around revegetation.

Has the area within 1m of plantings been kept weed free for at least 2 summers post-planting? - It was suggested that follow up maintenance is usually the responsibility of the Landholder and that the CMA would never meet this standard.

MULCH

Mulch is not used by the GBCMA in riparian areas due to the risk of removal by floodwater. Mulch tends to be used in more formal parkland areas.

WEED MATTING

Was matting laid after 2 weed sprays, one initial spray and one pre-planting? - The GBCMA would ideally spray twice but there is usually not the time between signing of the agreement and planting.

3.3 Plant Establishment (Seedlings)

GUARDING

It was noted that deer are a high threat pest in the upper Goulburn catchment where they browse the top off revegetation. It is probably unnecessary and expensive to always use tall tree guards in case deer enter the site. However, known problem locations should probably use the taller guards.

If the seedlings are healthy and well established (usually after 3-4 years), have tree guards been removed? - It is usually the responsibility of the land manager to remove the tree guards when appropriate as part of the ongoing maintenance.

TIMING

If plantings have not established well (e.g. 500mm) = Autumn or Spring, or frost prone areas = Spring. - An understanding of local conditions is important when determining compliance to with this specification. In the upper Goulburn, where the rainfall exceeds 500mm/annum, planting is done in Autumn because Spring is often too wet for machinery access, and follow up rainfall can be unreliable. These local climate trends need to be understood when auditing the appropriateness of the timing of planting.

3.4 Plant Density, Diversity and Placement for Seedlings

The Vegetation Works Standards specifies revegetation planting density based on the relevant EVC Benchmark’s percentage covers for relevant Life Forms. It was presumed that few if any CMA’s would follow this method. Sue Kosch indicated that the GBCMA tend to adopt a general 30% trees to 70% shrub ratio in the upper catchment. Interestingly, if the Canopy and Sub-canopy Life Forms


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 14

are combined in the benchmarks (HNF Bioregion), the relative percentage of trees to shrubs is close to 30% for the upper catchment (Riparian Forest) areas. Table 3-1 shows the plant numbers per hectare and the relative percentage of Trees to Shrubs for both Riparian Woodlands and Forests.

Table 3-1 Target number of plants grouped by trees and understorey

Target Number of Plants per ha. / Relative %

Riparian Woodland (EVC 56) Riparian Forest (EVC 18)

Overstorey Trees or Canopy

+

(T) Understorey Tree or Large Shrub

150 plants / 18%

350 plants / 33%

(MS) Medium Shrubs

+

(SS) Small Shrubs

700 plants / 82%

700 plants / 67%

Total plants per ha. 850 plants / 100% 1050 plants / 100%

This table indicates that in Woodlands there should be 18% trees to 82% shrubs, and a Forest should have 32% trees to 68% shrubs. This approximates 30% trees in Forests and 20% trees in Woodlands. Sue Kosch later indicated that the CMA reduces the relative tree numbers in woodland areas. This suggests that a 30% (Forests) and 20% (Woodland) tree rule, if used by CMA’s, is likely to be relatively close to the Life Form diversity proportions within the Standard.

On review of the plant list for the Robb property, it was determined that the trees and sub-canopy (including the tall Acacia species) made up 32% of the number of woody species planted.

It should be acknowledged that the number of plants and Life Forms counted in the field may not represent the number or types of seedlings planted if there have been a number of deaths. If a plant list is available, this may be a better guide to what was planted and compliance with the Standard in respect to diversity.

The Diversity, Density and Placement is also influenced by the design intent. For instance, the plantings at Tumbling Waters were designed to keep the public from climbing over pile fields and for aesthetics. The plantings were very dense with grasses on the outside edge. The planting arrangement was unconventional from a Standards perspective but served the purposes of forming a barrier, providing bank stability and aesthetics. Regardless of the Density, Diversity and Placement, the plantings met the objectives for the site. This was an example of why it is important to be aware of the design intent/aims/objectives for a site before undertaking the field audit.

3.5 Stock Fencing

FENCE APPLICABILITY

It is important that fences function to control stock access, do not harm native wildlife and are located in practical locations so as not to require excessive repair or unnecessary replacement. The fences observed during the field audit generally reflected these requirements.

FENCING TECHNIQUE

Are fences located a suitable distance from existing mature native vegetation (i.e. outside the drip line of the canopy)?

The discussion was had that often a works supervisor will negotiate with a landholder to widen a fenced frontage to incorporate a large tree. If this is negotiated, often the fence will incorporate the trunk but not extend outside the canopy which is often very large. It is understood that keeping the fence outside the canopy helps to protect the critical root zone and prevents limb drop from


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 15

damaging the fence. However, it was the opinion of the reviewers that if the incorporation of a large tree into the revegetation area can be negotiated, non-compliance for having a fence within the dripline should be waived. Fences along well treed frontages may also not be able to avoid passing under the driplines of trees. A landholder may also only be willing to fence off a particular width of frontage and avoiding trees may complicate harm negotiations. The practicalities of fencing and reducing the number of bends, as well as fencing in ‘appropriate locations’, might make avoiding tree canopies impossible.

If excluding stock, are in line posts a maximum of 10m apart?

Both the Ridd and Robb properties were excluding livestock (cattle and horses respectively). Both fences function effectively as shown in Figure 3-5, however, the inline posts exceeded the Standards specification of ≤10m apart. Both fences had a single additional hot wire (electric wire) which may have given the authority/landholder confidence in the fences function and reduced the requirement for as many inline posts.

Figure 3-5 Fences at the Ridd and Robb properties

A fence observed along the entrance driveway to the Robb property (Figure 3-6) had inline posts 9m apart and was therefore compliant with the Standard. This entrance fence almost looked ornamental with so many inline posts; however, in the absence of a hotwire, this is probably a reasonable spacing in certain areas of the State where stock may push hard against wires to graze across/through the fence.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 16

Figure 3-6 Fence with 9m spacing of inline posts

If the fence audited is effectively excluding stock, the spacing of inline posts is of little consequence. It is likely that many fences across the State will not comply with the 10m maximum spacing of inline posts.

3.6 Vertebrate Pest Animal Management

The sites visited had little or no evidence of vertebrate pest animal damage to revegetation.

LARGE PEST AMIMALS (GOATS, DEER, PIGS)

Is there little or no evidence of large grazing pest animals impacting the vegetation rehabilitation/revegetation site?

There was some evidence of Deer damage at the Robb site however this was not significantly impacting upon the success of the revegetation. If there was considerable damage to revegetation caused by large pest animals, the auditor would indicate non-compliance with the Standard. There is the issue that large pest animals can travel large distances, are transient and are almost certainly not resident within the revegetation area. The ability of the landholder to control large pest animals may be limited and unjustified if these animals emerge from adjacent bushland to graze/browse. The question may be better worded to ask, ‘if large pest animals are threatening the establishment and health of the revegetation, are control measures being implemented to limit the damage?’

NATIVE HERBIVORES

Is there little or no evidence of damage (e.g. browsing, grazing, camping) to revegetation attributable to native herbivores (e.g. kangaroos, wallabies, wombats)?

It was suggested that wombats cause the greatest damage to revegetation in the upper Goulburn region. If wombats were observed to be causing damage to revegetation at a site, the auditor would be compelled to suggest non-compliance with the Standard. This raises issues around the definition of ‘pest’ animals and the control or exclusion of native animals. This aspect of the Audit Standard requires some discussion and potential modification.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014 17

4. WORKS AUDIT STANDARD CHECKLIST/FIELDSHEET

The Works Audit Standard fieldsheet has been developed through the following process:

A review of the five relevant vegetation management activity standards within the Vegetation Works Standards document was undertaken to generate relevant, assessable questions regarding activities that MUST occur

The questions were discussed with a works supervisor and field tested at a number of riparian enhancement sites within the upper Goulburn catchment

The fieldsheet was then refined in the following ways: o Questions were reworded where necessary to make them clearer to the auditor o Additional site information was added including licence types, funding arrangements,

project aims, works quantities, timing and responsibilities for works, photograph details, existing mapping and a site sketch

o Compliance response totals and questions regarding the auditors opinion on the success of the site were added to each section and overall

o A single page auditor guide was produced. This guide provides information on the tasks to be undertaken before and during field assessment

The final Fieldsheet and Auditor Guide (version 1.1) have been provided in Appendix A.

4.1 Fieldsheet testing and modification

The Vegetation Works Audit Standard (Auditor Guide and Fieldsheets (version 1.1)) is to be used in the first round of riparian works audits planned for the autumn-winter of 2014. Feedback from auditors following these assessments will help refine the questions and provide advice regarding the practicalities of application and appropriateness/validity of results. This feedback will then be considered and the Works Audit Standard will be updated as necessary.


3278-01 / R01 v02 - 02/05/2014

APPENDIX A AUDITOR GUIDE AND FIELDSHEETS

Auditor Notes Version 1.1

Audit Standard - Vegetation Works

Auditor Guide This document provides guidance to the application of the field audit for vegetation works in riparian areas. This audit has been designed to establish to what extent delivery partners are undertaking riparian vegetation works according to the agreed standards described in the ‘Vegetation Work Standards’ (DSE 2011). This is an on-ground audit of the quality of a defined set of works types, those being:

Herbaceous weed control (Section 5 of the ‘Vegetation Works Standards’),

Plant establishment (Section 7),

Planting density, diversity and placement for seedlings (Section 8),

Stock fencing (Section 10), and

Vertebrate pest animal management (Section 11).

This is not a condition audit but an audit to determine if works have been undertaken according to the Vegetation Works Standard.

Prior to entering the field:

Identify the site(s) to be audited and gather as much information about the works as possible, including:

1. Works Management Agreement 2. Identify and contact the Works Supervisor 3. Frontage Licence agreement and maps 4. Spatial outputs (attach copies to the back of the field sheets) 5. Pre-works photographs if available (print and label with file name/description). 6. Fill in as much of the Fieldsheet as possible, particularly the front page and italicised questions 7. Identify the Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) or Vegetation Guide/Profile adopted for revegetation at

the site. Print off the plant list/schedule if available 8. See the Fieldsheet Page 5 for instructions on how to access the DEPI’s Biodiversity Interactive Mapping

to determine the Bioregion and mapped EVC for the relevant site(s). Print the EVC Benchmark and calculate the target number of plants per hectare for each relevant Life Form

9. Contact the landholder/land manager to seek access permission and directions as required 10. Complete Job Safety Analysis and gather field equipment including all paperwork, GPS, camera,

measuring tapes/rangefinder, first aid kit and vegetation identification references if required.

Field assessment:

Once at the site, read over the questions prior to viewing the frontage. This will ensure the Auditor is tuned into the features to be assessed. If the entire works frontage can be easily accessed, observe the full length prior to beginning the audit. Once the site has been viewed commence the audit:

1. If copies of pre-works photographs are held, try to replicate these views if possible. Alternatively take new photographs of pertinent features from permanent locations where possible (e.g. Fence corners, large trees)

2. Record GPS coordinates towards the middle of the site and note the zone (i.e. z54 or z55) 3. Identify an area within the revegetation for sampling the planting density, diversity and placement.

Choose an area that is generally representative of the overall site and that excludes bare areas (e.g. maintenance access areas). Set out a sampling plot within a revegetated area, ideally at least 0.05ha (e.g. 10x50m or 20x25m), and tally the plants within the plot by lifeform (Page 5)

4. Answer all questions on pages 1-7. Transfer all compliance responses to the Overall Professional Summary table on Page 8 and write a response to questions regarding the successfulness of works

5. Provide a sketch of the works on Page 9. Compare and describe the differences between reported outputs with what was observed in the field

6. Ensure that all questions are answered prior to leaving the site.

Project ID: Site / Assessment number:

Assessors: Date:

CMA Region: CMA Project Officer:

Delivery Funding Model: Cost Share:

Date works completed: Type of licence/agreement:

Site Owner: Contact Number:

Site Address:

Site Coordinates (MGA) - Circle relevant zone: z54 or z55 E N

Project Aim / Design Intent:

Estimated Crown Area Protected: Freehold Protected:

Bioregion and revegetation EVC or planting guide adopted:

Description of Works:

Audit Standard - Vegetation Works

PAGE 1

Fieldsheet Version 1.1

Vertebrate Pest Management

Description (direction/feature)(e.g. d/s showing fence and revegetation)

Pre-works photo #(only if available)

New Photo #(frame number off camera)

Taken from(e.g. fence cnr, large tree)

Timing ResponsibilityQuantities - if applicableAuditable Works Activity

Weed Control (pre-planting)

Weed Control (post-planting)

Fencing

Revegetation

Fieldsheet Version 1.1 Tick the appropriate response

HERBACEOUS WEED CONTROLVegetation Works Standards - Section 5

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

Questions in italics are likely to be answered from the desktop, based on information supplied by the project officer or

information within the landholder works agreement. It is unlikely that the answers to italicised questions will be able to

be determined in the field and, if unanswerable, should be noted as unknown.

TECHNIQUE

1. Has strip or blanket spraying been avoided?

2. Has spot spraying to 1-1.5m diameter been implemented?

3. If amongst remnants, is there little to no off-target damage evident? (i.e. did weed

contractors have specialist plant identification and herbicide application skills?)

4. Was the use of residual herbicides avoided near waterways?

TIMING

5. If difficult to control weeds are/were present, did pre-season weed control occur (i.e.

at least one full year before planting)?

6. Did pre-planting weed control occur?

MAINTENANCE

7. Is there evidence of post planting weed control?

8. Has the area within 1m of plantings been kept weed free for at least 2 summers post-

planting?

MULCH

9. If mulch is present, is it ≤ 100mm thick?

10. If mulch is present, is it clear of seedling stems?

WEED MATTING

11. If matting is present, is the rainfall in the area >500mm/annum, or, is weed

competition here a greater issue than moisture availability?

12. Was matting laid after 2 weed sprays, one initial spray and one pre-planting.

GRAZING IN NATURAL REGENERATION SITES

13. Has grazing for weed control been avoided when soil moisture levels are high (e.g.

is there no evidence of pugging away from the stream edge)?

14. Has grazing been avoided during very dry conditions (e.g. is there no evidence of

soil erosion)?

15. Is there no evidence of recent overgrazing (e.g. short grasses, browsed woody

vegetation, excessive manure)?

GRAZING IN REVEGETATION SITES

16. Has grazing been excluded from the site? Note: If grazing has occurred when most

of the plants are above browsing height (i.e. >1m for sheep, or >2m for cattle) then tick

YES comply.

Sub Totals /16 /16 /16 /16

Response % (Sub Total/16 x 100) % % % %

Have these works been delivered to a standard that meets the aims and intent of the

site?YES NO

Have these works been delivered to a standard that leads the auditor to believe the site

will have long-term (>10 years) success?YES NO

Circle

appropriate

responses


PLANT ESTABLISHMENTVegetation Works Standards - Section 7

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

GUARDING

17. Has appropriate guarding been used? i.e.

- Only used for large scale projects if absolutely necessary to ensure success of the

plantings due to the high cost.

- Have tall guards (600mm) been used if browsing animals are present?

18. If the seedlings are healthy and well established (usually after 3-4 years), have tree

guards been removed?

TIMING

19. If plantings have not established well (e.g. 500mm) = Autumn or Spring, or

frost prone areas = Spring.

Sub Totals /3 /3 /3 /3



site?YES NO



Notes:

Circle

appropriate

responses


PLANTING DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PLACEMENTVegetation Works Standards - Section 8

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

PLANTING DIVERSITY

20. Were plants indigenous to the area/EVC used in the revegetation?

21. Has a diversity of life forms (e.g. trees, sub-canopy, large shrubs, small shrubs,

graminoids) been planted?

22. Has a diversity of species been planted? Ideally, but not necessarily, more than one

species is planted within each life form?

PLANTING PLACEMENT

23. Have species plantings been placed appropriately? This will require knowledge of

where species naturally occur or where remnants are positioned (e.g. relative to a bank

profile or floodplain position). Planting should also be in clumps rather than rows.

PLANTING DENSITY

Complete the 'Planting Density target calculation table' on Page 5 to answer the

following questions:

24. Was the overall planting density target met?

25. Was the planting density met for all life forms?




site?YES NO



Notes:

Circle

appropriate

responses


The following tasks need to be undertaken prior to entering the field:

1. Determine the Bioregion and Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) for the site

The works documentation may provide details of the EVC adopted for the site. In some circumstances the adopted EVC will differ from the DEPI mapped EVC. This may be due to inaccuracies in the mapping, changes in stream morphology, or changes in the streams hydrology necessitating the adoption of a more applicable EVC. The following approach should be used to determine the Bioregion and EVC applicable for the revegetation site.

Step 1 – Locate the geographical area of interest

Use DEPI’s Biodiversity Interactive Map http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim

Step 2 – Identify the Bioregion and EVC for the area of interest

Click vegetation folder under map layer and change map scale to ≤ 1:100,000

Click refresh map (map will now display 1750 EVCs map layer)

Click mouse on area of interest

Read off EVC name, EVC number and Bioregion

Confirm by ground-truthing, with particular emphasis on: o Where the site is placed in the landscape e.g. slope, gully, plain o The dominant overstorey structure, either remnant canopy on site or in nearby remnant vegetation e.g. forest, woodland, shrubland o The dominant understorey structure, either remnants on site or in nearby remnant vegetation e.g. grassy, sedgy, shrubby o Any other site attributes e.g. soils, moisture, aspect o Local knowledge (including local revegetation guides)

Download the relevant EVC benchmark from DSE EVC benchmarks for each bioregion http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion

2. Calculate the revegetation survival target

The following table provides the basis for calculating the target Life Form numbers for a particular EVC. Once in the field, count the various lifeforms over a measured area of revegetation (e.g. identify an area within revegetation 20m x 50m = 0.1ha) to determine if the planting density targets have been met.

Planting Density target calculation table Tick appropriate response

Life Forms

Target number of plants/ha (for each 5% cover in EVC benchmark)

^ % cover of life

form in EVC benchmark

Target

number of plants per

hectare

Area assessed

in hectares

DENSITY

Target number of

plants within assessed area

DENSITY

Actual number of plants within assessed area

(tally below)

DENSITY Target

number met =

complies

DENSITY Target

number not met =

not comply

N/A

DIVERSITY

No. of species in each Life

Form (tally below)

Riparian Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

Riparian Forest

Overstorey Trees or Canopy n/a 50 150 X 1.0 = X =

(T) Understorey Tree or Large Shrub 50 50 50 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

(MS) Medium Shrub 200 200 200 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

(SS) Small Shrub 500 500 500 X ^ ÷ 5 = X =

*(LTG) Large Tufted Graminoid 500 500 500 X 1.0 = X =

Total plant numbers (all Life Forms)

* Ground covers and native grasses are often substantially reduced in planting programs due to the high risk of failure. Only assess LTG’s if planted within the revegetation site, otherwise ignore target.

^ Insert % cover stated within the understorey life form section of the relevant EVC benchmark.

http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bimhttp://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion


STOCK FENCINGVegetation Works Standards - Section 10

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

FENCE APPLICABILITY

26. Is the fence type appropriate for the current stock type? Is the fence effectively

excluding the adjacent grazing animals?

27. Is the fence type appropriate for the location (e.g. if at risk of flooding, is the fence

collapsible or easily cut or repaired)?

FENCING TECHNIQUE

28. Are fences located a suitable distance from existing mature native vegetation (i.e.


29. Has suitable consideration been given to the fence location relative to gullies and

slopes and floodways?

30. If wildlife is known to be present, or being encouraged to use the site, is the fence

wildlife friendly?

31. If excluding stock, are in line posts a maximum of 10m apart?




site?YES NO



Notes:

Circle

appropriate

responses


VERTEBRATE PEST ANIMAL MANAGEMENTVegetation Works Standards - Section 11

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

RABBITS AND HARES

32. Are rabbit densities within acceptable limits and not impacting on revegetation

success (e.g. low rabbit densities in a high rainfall area may be acceptable but low

rabbit density in a semi-arid area may still pose a risk to vegetation)?

33. Hares can be far more destructive to revegetation than rabbits. Is there little or no

evidence of hares within vegetation rehabilitation areas?

LARGE PEST ANIMALS (GOATS, DEER, PIGS)

34. Are fences located a suitable distance from existing mature native vegetation (i.e.


NATIVE HERBIVORES

35. Is there little or no evidence of damage (e.g. browsing, grazing, camping) to

revegetation attributable to native herbivores (e.g. kangaroos, wallabies, wombats)?




site?YES NO



Notes:

Circle

appropriate

responses


Overall Professional Summary

YES

co

mp

ly

N/A

Un

kno

wn

NO

no

t co

mp

ly

Vegetation Works Standards - Compliance Summary


PLANT ESTABLISHMENT

PLANTING DENSITY, DIVERSITY AND PLACEMENT

STOCK FENCING

VERTEBRATE PEST ANIMAL MANAGEMENT

Sub Totals /35 /35 /35 /35


Considering all works at the site, have these works been delivered to a standard that

meets the aims and intent of the site?YES NO

Considering all works at the site, have these works been delivered to a standard that

leads the auditor to believe the site will have long-term (>10 years) success?YES NO

Circle

appropriate

responses

36. Please elaborate on your response to the above questions (i.e. have the aims of the project been met and

is the site likely to be successful in the long-term?):

enter totals from previous pages


Site Sketch and Spatial Comparison Reporting

PRIOR TO ENTERING THE FIELD - Attach a printed map of spatial outputs for the site, as reported by

CMA/Delivery Partner.

Site Sketch and Assessment Locations:

37. Are there any differences between the spatial outputs reported for the site, and the actual outputs

observed at the site? If so, provide a description:


Attach a printed map of spatial outputs for the site, as reported by CMA/Delivery Partner.

vegetation works audit standard - water and catchments...document name 3278-01r01v01 depi audit...

Documents