A Review of the Application of the Landscape Design for … Review of the Application of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery

A Review of the Application of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural

Diversity Recovery Catchment

InSight Ecology

for

Project BM2: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment

WA Department of Environment and Conservation

1 June 2007

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Review of BMNDRC Landscape Design for Bird Conservation – InSight Ecology – 1 June 2007 i

Summary Research undertaken by CSIRO in 2001-04 produced a set of quantitative and spatially explicit habitat creation and management recommendations to conserve declining woodland and shrubland birds in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment. Based on a modified version of the focal species approach (sensu Lambeck 1997), this strategy included the protection and management of priority remnant habitat and creation of habitat linkages and ‘stepping stones’ to link key habitat neighbourhoods. Since 2004, the Department of Environment and Conservation and project partners have been implementing these actions in the catchment. This is one of only a handful of efforts to properly apply the focal species approach in real agricultural landscapes in Australia. It is the first application of the latest version of this conservation tool nationally. A key recommendation of this research was that the implementation of the design be assessed to determine its performance in slowing the decline of focal bird species in the catchment. These birds are at substantial risk of local extinction in this highly fragmented wheatbelt landscape. A new project was established to undertake this work and prepare a long-term monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategy. The intention is that this strategy will help guide the recovery of focal bird species and possibly other biodiversity of the catchment. This goal is enshrined in DEC’s Draft Recovery Plan for the catchment. This report fulfills a pre-requisite to the preparation of the M&E strategy by reviewing the application of the landscape design (and thus the focal species approach) for bird conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment. While very much a work-in-progress, the implementation of the first phase (2004-2006) of this design is examined to determine its performance in achieving its objectives, provide details of works undertaken, and identify measures of success, learnings gained, issues encountered, social dimensions, and areas for improvement. The remaining parts of this report discuss the current status of the landscape design, levels of knowledge and adoption of the design among key stakeholders, and the value of including other sites in the application of the design and overall M&E strategy in the catchment. The review concludes that the first phase of the design’s application in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment has been generally successful in providing future habitat for focal bird species at two sites. The Hyde habitat linkage has been particularly well designed and implemented and will become an important demonstration and research site. What happens next is critical to the ongoing success of the restoration effort in the catchment. The success of the Hyde and Noble applications need to be transferred to other priority sites. There is an urgent need to establish woodland (and heath/shrub/mallee) ‘stepping stones’, fence out livestock from high quality remnants, and develop more habitat linkages. This will require adequate funding, technical support, and long-term (inter-generational) farmer commitment. Some of this effort can build on past revegetation attempts such as on O’Callaghan’s property off Thomas Road. There is also a pressing need to ensure that current practices such as road verge maintenance and the removal or loss of condition of remnant native vegetation on private and other public

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Review of BMNDRC Landscape Design for Bird Conservation – InSight Ecology – 1 June 2007 ii

lands do not compromise the integrity or negate the achievements of the landscape design. This review recognises that the development and maintenance of relationships of trust, respect and confidence among stakeholders are central to the success of any landscape restoration program. The current project, together with other initiatives such as the Integrated Catchment Management Project and the council road verge education program, has forged the basis for this success through some key partnerships. The challenge will be to further develop these relationships while establishing new ones with other stakeholders in the catchment, especially the “other 60%” of farmers yet to be actively engaged in the application of the landscape design and local councils. Finally, we should all be aware of the unique opportunity that this project provides. This is to firmly establish Buntine-Marchagee as a model study catchment of national significance for the recovery of its declining bird (and possibly other) fauna. The lessons learnt and achievements won in this landscape may then help other regions that also face the unthinkable prospect of losing their ‘bush gems’ - forever.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Review of BMNDRC Landscape Design for Bird Conservation – InSight Ecology – 1 June 2007 iii

Acknowledgements I am grateful to the DEC Buntine-Marchagee Catchment Recovery Team for giving willingly and cheerfully, in the office and field, of their time, knowledge and experience to assist in the preparation of this document. They include Gavan Mullan, Jodie Watts, Indre Asmussen, Lindsay Bourke, Rowan Dawson, and Megan Jones of DEC, and Robyn Nicholas and Donna Rayner of NACC. I am equally indebted to the heart and soul of the catchment – the farmers – for permission to work on their properties and the opportunity to learn from them. I particularly thank Alison Doley, Fiona & David Falconer, Bruce & Gwen Hyde, Helen & John Nankivell, Gerard, Richie & Neil Noble, John & Robyn Stacy, Vern & Jan Muller, Michael & Julia O’Callaghan, Ian & Helen Hunt, Mark & Janet Mailey, Des & Jen Counsel, Frank & Jeanie Crago, Lindsay & Robyn Cousins, Albert Rayner, and Beth & Sam Southcott. I also thank Jenny Borger, Fiona Falconer and Alison Doley for their botanical knowledge of road verges and paddock remnants in the catchment. I am appreciative of the opportunity to discuss, on various occasions over the past decade, the conceptual framework, theory and application of the focal species approach in Australian agricultural landscapes with a number of NRM landscape planners, managers, research scientists, and field extension officers. The responses of current and past practitioners and critics of the focal species approach in WA, Victoria, ACT, NSW and Queensland to the ‘six questions survey’ and related discussions provided valuable material for this review. They included Anne Smith and Robert Lambeck (Greening Australia, WA), Jodie Watts and Gavan Mullan (DEC Geraldton), Denis Saunders (WWF-Australia), Ken Wallace (DEC Perth), Lesley Brooker, Doug Robinson (Trust For Nature, Victoria), Geoff Park (North Central CMA, Victoria), Doug Phillips (Greening Australia, Victoria), John Rees (Greening Australia, Victoria), Chris Pitfield (Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Victoria), Jim Radford and Andrew Bennett (Deakin University), David Freudenberger (Greening Australia, ACT), Geoff Barrett (CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra), David Lindenmayer and Joern Fischer (ANU, Canberra), Nadeem Samnakay (Land & Water Australia, ACT), Michael Weston (Birds Australia, Melbourne), Stuart Collard (Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Water, Queensland), and Greg Ford (Queensland Murray-Darling Committee). I also acknowledge the opportunity provided me by CSIRO to work on focal species research during my time as a wildlife research scientist in Perth. Photographs on front cover: all of a landscape design-based habitat linkage planted on Hyde’s property at Wubin in July 2004 but taken in October 2006; photo on the right is of the Wubin Bird Field Day, 21 April 2007 (G. Mullan).

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Review of BMNDRC Landscape Design for Bird Conservation – InSight Ecology – 1 June 2007 iv

CONTENTS Summary i Acknowledgements iii 1. Introduction 1 2. Objectives 1 3. Methods 2 4. Applying the landscape design 3

4.1 Overview 3

4.2 Revegetation and habitat protection program 4

4.2.1 Objectives and application 4 4.2.2 Measures of performance or success 10 4.2.3 Learnings gained and barriers to implementation 13 4.2.4 Social dimensions 15 4.2.5 Future improvement 16

4.3 Current status of the landscape design 17 4.4 Knowledge and adoption 18 4.5 Inclusion of other sites 19

5. Concluding views 22 References 23

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Review of BMNDRC Landscape Design for Bird Conservation – InSight Ecology – 1 June 2007 1

1. Introduction A research report produced by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems (Perth) presented a Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in the Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment (BMNDRC) (see Huggett et al. 2004). Based on a focal bird species analysis, this report was provided to CALM (now Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC]) to guide strategic revegetation and native vegetation management in the BMNDRC. The research in the BMNDRC was part of the Testing Approaches to Landscape Design in Cropping Lands Project undertaken by CSIRO in southern Australian agricultural landscapes over the period 2001-2004 (see Freudenberger 2004). A key recommendation of this report was that the implementation of the landscape design be assessed to determine its performance in slowing the decline of woodland and heath/shrub/mallee focal bird species in BMNDRC. A new project (the “BM2 Project”) has been designed to establish the monitoring and evaluation framework for achieving this objective (DEC 2007). This work commenced in October 2006 and involves the design and implementation of a program to collect, analyse and report on data from key sites in BMNDRC. This will help quantify the influence of current and proposed revegetation, especially the creation of habitat linkages and ‘stepping stones’, and prioritised habitat protection and management activities on the decline of focal bird species over the short- and longer-term in the catchment. It will also guide the development of a strategic long-term research plan in the catchment. 2. Objectives An important initial step in developing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan or program is to review the achievements of past and current landscape restoration initiatives (Martin et al. 2007; Radford et al., ms). Approaches used, information obtained, and experiences gained from these projects can be instrumental in structuring the M&E plan and, over time, reviewing its performance against ‘best practice’ industry benchmarks, if available. In this document, I review the application of the landscape design for bird conservation in BMNDRC, as prepared by Huggett et al. (2004). Four objectives underpin this review. They are:

1. Review whether the environmental, social and economic objectives of the landscape design have been met, details of the design’s application (brief, see Objective 2), measures of its performance or success, learnings gained and barriers to implementation, social dimensions, and areas for improvement;

2. Determine the current status of the landscape design, including progress achieved, work remaining, and key issues with implementation;

3. Assess the level of knowledge and adoption of the design by agencies, regional natural resource management (NRM) organisations, and farmers;

4. Determine the value of including a wider suite of sites in the long-term M&E strategy such as the Water Demonstration Site Project. Also, consider the applicability of the design to other agricultural catchments in southern Australia.


3. Methods A list of six questions was sent to the BMNDRC Recovery Catchment Officer at DEC on 4 July 2006 (Table 1) and responses to these questions were received on 18 July 2006 (see Section 4.2). These were distributed as part of a related review of the focal species approach in Australia, completed by InSight Ecology for Land & Water Australia (see LWA 2007). These questions addressed Objective 1 above. Table 1: Questions concerning the objectives, design, performance, learnings, and other aspects

of the landscape design for bird conservation in BMNDRC

Question What were the landscape restoration objectives and have they been met? If so (or if not), why? What were the details of the focal species-based work undertaken, ie. hectares planted, type of revegetation, species mix, location, monitoring? Are they any measures of the performance or success of the project to date and what have these been? What aspects of the project have or have not worked and why? What have been the learnings gained? Any barriers to implementation, monitoring, data acquisition, coordination? What are the social dimensions of the work – how engaged have the landholders been, and how important is this in any future focal species-based work? What could have been done better or differently? What should be included in a ‘new generation’ or follow-up focal species-based study of the project’s performance, effectiveness, and knowledge adoption? Are there specific guidelines or rules that could be followed to improve the potential for project success? What might these be?

The current status of the landscape design was determined through a series of email, telephone, and face-to-face discussions with the DEC Recovery Catchment Officer in 2006 and 2007. In addition, field inspections of progress achieved and issues associated with implementation of the design were conducted in 2006 (21-23 August and 16-27 October 2006). This latter period occurred during the first (Spring 2006) round of bird surveys undertaken for this project in the catchment. An assessment of the knowledge and adoption of the landscape design by key stakeholders was conducted using information obtained through meetings and discussions with the DEC Recovery Catchment Officer and staff, the Biodiversity Program Leader and staff of the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council (NACC), the Marchagee Catchment Group and individual farmers. These were held from May 2006 to April 2007. An assessment was also undertaken of the value of including other sites, in addition to those recommended in the landscape design, in the monitoring strategy being prepared for the catchment. Further, the utility of the design to other farming zones in southern Australia was considered. Again, several meetings and discussions were undertaken in 2006 to provide the required information, including consultation with LWA staff, other NRM organisations in Western Australia, Victoria, southern NSW, ACT and Queensland, and individual farmers and scientists.


4. Applying the landscape design 4.1 Overview There have been two rounds of revegetation completed in BMNDRC which have been based on the landscape design for bird conservation (see Huggett et al. 2004). These were initiated through approaches made to interested landholders by the DEC Recovery Team’s revegetation officer in 2003-04 (Mullan, pers comm). The first round occurred in July 2004 at two sites – on part of the Hyde family’s property in the eastern sector of the catchment (Plates 1-2), and on Cousins’ farm in the south-western sector. The second round of planting was undertaken in August 2006 on Noble’s property “Belmore Park” in the south-western part of the catchment (Plates 3-4). Plate 1: Mixed heath/shrub/mallee planting as a Plate 2: The new habitat linkage on Hyde’s habitat linkage, Hyde’s property, Wubin (April property, showing linkage with an existing 2007) remnant in the background (April 2007)

(Photo: G. Mullan)

Plate 3: Heath/shrub/mallee habitat linkage Plate 4: Noble’s new habitat linkage, showing Connecting two key remnants on Noble’s farm furrows ripped deeply through a lateritic crust (April 2007) (Photo: G. Mullan) (April 2007)


Strategic plantings of shrubs and mallees were also completed in August 2006 on ten hectares of Stacy’s property “Calecono Springs” in the north-western sector (Plates 5-6). These were part of the separate Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Project (see Section 4.5) and so did not strictly conform with the landscape design. However, this work did enhance the width and connectivity of existing priority woodland and shrubland remnants along a lateritic ridgeline. Plate 5: Part of a ten-hectare planting to enhance Plate 6: A priority salmon gum remnant will be an existing remant at ‘Calecono Springs’ (photo widened by this planting on Stacy’s farm taken August 2006) (photo taken August 2006)

More plantings are planned in a staged implementation of the landscape design, ideally over the next 5-10 years if funding is available. Specific priority revegetation targets include the establishment of ‘stepping stones’ and habitat linkages inserted between core remnants to facilitate the dispersal and movement of focal bird species and other fauna. The protection of existing core habitats through fencing to exclude livestock and feral animal and weed control is also a key part of the design’s implementation. The following information relates to the 2004 and 2006 rounds of revegetation undertaken as part of the landscape design in BMNDRC. 4.2 Revegetation and habitat protection 4.2.1 Objectives and application Two of the three revegetation sites (Hyde and Noble) were selected for the establishment of habitat linkages or potential ‘corridors’. The objective at Hyde’s site was to create a 60 metre-wide link of heath/shrub/mallee habitat between high priority remnants along Mullewa-Wubin Road and the adjacent railway line, a 25 ha within-paddock shrubland/mallee remnant, and the 96.5 ha Wubin Townsite Crown Reserve (Plates 7-8). All of these remnants are currently being surveyed for bird species richness, abundance and habitat use, as part of the BM2 Project. At Noble’s site, the aims were to re-connect two priority heath/shrub/mallee remnants by planting a habitat linkage and protect and expand existing habitat. Fencing has been recently completed at this site using Envirofund resources. Bird surveying is also currently occurring throughout this site. The third site (Cousins) attempted to establish a ‘stepping stone’ between two high priority woodland remnants.


The revegetation and habitat protection activities at each of these sites also had a number of common objectives. These were to:

• Achieve a high seedling survival rate; • Use a local provenance seed source for propagation of seedlings at local

nurseries; • Address high recharge and surface water runoff areas while protecting soil

resources from wind and water erosion; • Commence the process of cultural change by involving the landholder as much as

possible from the outset; • Monitor the survival and performance of seedlings planted.

Plate 7: Heath/shrub/mallee corridor along Great Plate 8: Railway line corridor of heath/shrub/ Northern Highway between Wubin and Dalwallinu mallee adjacent to Mullewa-Wubin Road

At each of these sites a revegetation plan was designed and implemented. Planting was undertaken by DEC staff, local farmers and catchment group members. Seedlings were inserted in the prepared soil through the use of a ‘Pottiputki’ (see http://www.treemax.com.au/revegetation/pottiputki.html) or tube-type tree-planting tool, in preference to a machine planter. This technique aimed to improve seedling survival rates by controlling the depth, location and angle of planting. At Hyde’s site a total of 18,457 seedlings were planted across 14.5 ha at a density of 1,273 stems/ha. The planting was undertaken in four sections which reflected four different vegetation associations that were likely to have occurred on the site prior to clearance for agriculture. These were low shrubland, open mallee over low Melaleuca shrubland, mallee shrubland, and Melaleuca shrubland, with a range of species and seedling densities used (Figure 1 – pages 7-8). A series of 10x10 m2 dense habitat patch plantings of one or two shrub species per patch (ie. Allocasuarina campestris, Melaleuca uncinata, M. cordata, M. coronicarpa, Calothamnus quadrifidus) were inserted into the link. This latter innovation was designed to provide structural diversity within the planted link for birds and other fauna and to stimulate the re-establishment of in-situ native vegetation. This site experienced a seedling survival rate of approximately 85%. At Cousins’ site, 13,218 seedlings were planted over 10.2 ha at a density of 1,296 stems/ha. The planting focused on two moist mound areas with a significant weed


burden, especially of couch grass. It also attempted to create a buffer on the edge of habitat patches along with a new Banksia woodland planted between the mounds and the patch’s outer edge. Four 10x10 m habitat patches, comprising Calothamnus quadrifidus and Melaleuca uncinata, were planted near the mounds. Within the habitat patches and mounded areas, seedling survival was 80-90% but elsewhere very few seedlings survived, largely because of couch invasion. Figure 2 (pages 9-10) shows the location and species composition and densities of plants inserted at this site. At Noble’s site, 16,000 seedlings were planted across 10 ha at a density of 1,600 stems/ha (95% survival rate). In addition, 100 ha of remnant native vegetation identified as high priority in the landscape design, were fenced to exclude livestock. The planting included the establishment of a habitat linkage and expansion of existing habitat beside one of the remnants (Plates 9-10). This site could be considered to be a ‘test case’ for seedling survival regionally, especially for the use of species sourced from local provenance seed. Information on site design, species composition and seedling quantities and densities used at this site was not available for this review but will be reported later in the project. Plate 9: The new habitat linkage at Noble’s property Plate 10: Eight month-old Melaleuca cordata and showing deep furrows through a thick lateritic cap and mallee seedlings in Noble’s new habitat and an existing remnant in the background (April 2007) linkage (April 2007)


Figure 1: Revegetation plan to connect neighbourhood patches using a new habitat linkage at Hyde’s site

Image not to scale, courtesy DEC (G. Mullan)

Note: Yellow also = section 1, Red = section 2, Green = section 3, Blue = section 4 Species composition/area planted and seedling amounts/densities, including habitat patches:

Low Shrubland 3.8ha Total seedlings planted/total no. stems

(including habitat patches) = 4724/80 Allocasuarina acutivalvis Black Tamma 164/2.5 Banksia benthamiana Bentham’s Banksia 360/6


Eucalyptus hypochlamydea White Flowered Mallee 960/16 Eucalyptus leptopoda Tammin Mallee 120/2 Allocasuarina campestris Tamma 60/1 Hakea coriacea Pink Spiked Hakea 300/5 Hakea erecta 60/1 Melaleuca cordata 420/7 Melaleuca uncinata Broombush 600/10 Melaleuca radula Graceful Honeymyrtle 1200/20

Habitat patch 10 x 10 m 2 trays/patch

2 Calothamnus quadrifidus 240 2 Melaleuca uncinata 240 Open mallee over low Melaleuca shrubland 1.6ha 2360/38

Eucalyptus kochii Oil Mallee 540/9 Eucalyptus leptopoda Tammin Mallee 120/2 Eucalyptus stowardii Fluted Horn Mallee 120/2 Calothamnus quadrifidus One-sided Bottlebrush 60/1 Allocasuarina acutivalvis Black Tamma 60/1 Melaleuca eleuterostachya 600/10 Melaleuca uncinata Broombush 360/6 Senna artemisiodes Desert Cassia 380/6.5 (Scattered individually throughout the block)

Habitat patch 10x10 m 2 trays/patch 1 Melaleuca uncinata 120

Mallee shrubland 5.0ha 6233/104

Banksia benthamiana Bentham’s Banksia 460/7.5 Eucalyptus sheathiana Ribbon Barked Gum 600/10 Eucalyptus kochii Oil Mallee 1620/27 Eucalyptus stowardii Fluted Horn Mallee 1177/19.5 Allocasuarina campestris Tamma 60/1 Calothamnus quadrifidus One-sided Bottlebrush 120/2 Hakea erecta 60/1 Hakea scoparia 108/1.5 Melaleuca adnata 1008/16.5 Melaleuca aff. scabra Rough Honeymyrtle 60/1 Melaleuca conothamnoides Wheatbelt Honeymyrtle 600/10 6233

Habitat patch 10 x10 m 2 trays/patch 2 Calothamnus quadrifidus 240 1 Melaleuca cordata 120

Melaleuca Shrubland 4.1ha 5140/85

Acacia anthochera 600/10 Eucalyptus subangusta Black Marlock 1600/26.5 Eucalyptus erythronema

var. marginata Red-flowered Mallee 120/2 Allocasuarina campestris Tamma 60/1 Allocasuarina corniculata Grey Tamma 120/2 Melaleuca aff. scabra Rough Honeymyrtle 60/1 Melaleuca conothamnoides Wheatbelt Honeymyrtle 60/1 Melaleuca cordata 120/2 Melaleuca coronicarpa 660/11


Melaleuca eleuterostachya 840/14 Melaleuca radula Graceful Honeymyrtle 660/11 Habitat patch 10x10m 2 trays/patch 1 Allocasuarina campestris 120 1 Melaleuca coronicarpa 120 Fill-in species (yellow and blue codes only): Eucalyptus erythronema var. marginata Red-flowered mallee 1080/18

Figure 2: Revegetation plan for a ‘stepping stone’ to link neighbourhood patches at Cousins site

Image not to scale, courtesy DEC (G. Mullan)


Mound area 2.4ha @ 2m spacing 4016/67 Acacia microbotrya Manna wattle 732/12.5 Casuarina obesa Swamp Sheoak 1004/16.5 Eucalyptus loxophleba York Gum 660/11 Melaleuca halmaturorum Swamp Paperbark 300/5 Melaleuca pentagona 180/3 Melaleuca uncinata Broombush 960/16 Melaleuca viminea Mohan 180/3

Other areas 7.8ha @ 3x3m spacing 9202/162 Banksia woodland between buffer and mounds Actinostrobus pyramidalis Cypress pine 144/2.5 Allocasuarina campestris Tamma 120/2 Banksia attenuata Slender Banksia 269/4.5 Banksia prionotes Acorn Banksia 420/7 Calothamnus quadrifidus One-sided Bottlebrush 660/11 Eremaea beaufortioides 120/2 Eucalyptus leptopoda Tammin Mallee 72/1.5 Eucalyptus loxophleba York Gum 1524/25.5 Eucalyptus semivestita 1062/17.5 Eucalyptus kochii Oil Mallee 300/5 Melaleuca cordata 286/4.5 Melaleuca halmaturorum Swamp Paperbark 300/5 Melaleuca pentagona 120/2 Melaleuca uncinata Broombush 624/10.5 Melaleuca viminea Mohan 120/2 Xylomelum angustifolium Woody Pear 261/4.5 Patch 10x10m 2 trays/patch 2 Calothamnus quadrifidus 240 2 Melaleuca uncinata 240 Create a buffer on the outer edge of the patch (approximately 5 rows wide) Allocasuarina campestris Tamma 100/1.5 Calothamnus quadrifidus One-sided Bottlebrush 600/10 Eremaea beaufortioides 120/2 Eucalyptus kochii Oil Mallee 900/15 Eucalyptus loxophleba York Gum 600/10

4.2.2 Measures of performance or success The revegetation program in BMNDRC is a work-in-progress. The group of three sites that have now been planted out – Hyde, Noble and Cousins – represents the first phase in this program of re-building the catchment’s native vegetation links and protecting core remnants using the focal species approach. Measurement of the performance or success of these actions in helping to restore landscape function and structure through the landscape design and other initiatives will ultimately use a number of ecological (and social and economic) variables. The ecological parameters include, but are not limited to, improvement in occupancy rate of focal bird species in re-joined remnants, recorded breeding of previously absent species or of species present but not recorded breeding in remnant vegetation before (or at an early stage of) revegetation, provision of structurally complex habitat for more individuals of the


focal and declining species than were present prior to intervention, and recorded movement of focal species between remnants linked or ‘stepping-stoned’ by the new plantings. However, this work will take time, good planning, and adequate resourcing to provide the data needed to quantify the design’s success as a practical restoration tool. At this early stage in the restoration program it is therefore premature to attempt to comment on the success or otherwise of the revegetation plan for the conservation of focal bird species per se in the catchment. However, some useful indirect measures of performance exist. These consider the contribution of the plantings to the provision of potential future foraging, breeding and refuge habitat for focal bird species in the catchment. They include seedling survival rate, the type, location, size and shape of plantings relative to the landscape design’s recommendations, field observations of focal and candidate focal bird species utilising habitat near the planted links, and the use of planted habitat by the same or similar target species in studies conducted elsewhere in the WA wheatbelt. The ability of planted links and better managed remnants to attract declining woodland and shrubland bird species from outside the catchment (ie. within the larger region or bioregion) should also be considered. In terms of seedling survival rate, both the Hyde and Noble plantings have been markedly successful in providing future habitat for bird and other fauna in BMNDRC. With rates of between 85 (Hyde) and 95 (Noble) percent of seedlings surviving after the first winter and summer, both sites have established the basis for future growth and structural development as foraging and, in time, breeding habitat for Western Yellow Robin, Southern Scrub-robin, Crested Bellbird, Redthroat, Malleefowl, Blue-breasted Fairy-wren and other declining wheatbelt bird species. The fact that this has occurred during the driest winter on record (2006 – Mullan pers comm) and a generally drought-stricken period in the northern WA wheatbelt, highlights the quality of this result. However, an apparent lack of adequate preparation of the soil to remove deep-rooted couch and other weeds before the planting of seedlings occurred has contributed to a poor overall seedling survival rate at the Cousins site. The type, location, size and shape of plantings completed at the Noble and Hyde sites conformed closely to the landscape design. The former site was planted as a habitat linkage between two key heath/shrub/mallee remnants that continue to support important local and isolated populations of key woodland- and shrubland-dependent species such as Western Yellow Robin, Redthroat, White-browed Babbler, and, in winter, Grey Fantail. It also included plantings to expand existing shrubland and mallee habitat on the northern edge of one of the remnants and new fencing to exclude livestock from 100 ha of medium-high quality heath/shrub/mallee habitat. Similarly, Hyde’s site was planted as a habitat linkage connecting two important heath/shrub/mallee neighbourhoods, as recommended by the landscape design (see Fig. 21, page 61 of Huggett et al. 2004). With the exception of the northwest corner of the linkage in which weed control was not undertaken, this intervention has been well planned and implemented. In doing so, it has provided an excellent opportunity, in time, for Crested Bellbird, Southern Scrub-robin, Malleefowl, Redthroat, White-browed Babbler, Blue-breasted Fairy-wren and Western Yellow Robin among other bird species to move between Wubin Townsite Reserve, the paddock remnant and remnant vegetation along the road and rail system which connects eventually to Buntine NR, 9 km to the north. The


importance of this connection within the highly fragmented local landscape and its maintenance over time to the conservation of these fauna cannot be over-stated. In contrast, the Cousins site was poorly designed and located in relation to the recommendations of the landscape design. That is, this site was identified in the 2004 program of works as a woodland ‘stepping stone’ when the design specified a habitat linkage was needed at a location approximately 500 m to the north-east along Mason Road (see Fig. 30, page 68 of Huggett et al. 2004). In its current position in the landscape and given the low seedling survival rate at this site, this planting is unlikely to be of much value to the future movement of and resource utilisation by focal and declining bird species. In this sense, the intervention has failed to achieve its objective of providing suitable habitat to facilitate focal bird species’ movement and habitat use. Recent bird surveys undertaken in remnants on each side of newly planted linkages at the Hyde and Noble sites have indicated that some focal bird species may enter and possibly use these plantings once sufficient cover and structural complexity is available. This includes the presence of leaf litter and woody debris for ground-foraging species such as White-browed Babbler and Southern Scrub-robin. This is proximate data that can be used to provide an indication of the likely future success of the landscape design. At Hyde’s linkage, Crested Bellbird and Southern Scrub-robin were heard calling and two individuals of each species were observed moving along roadside remnants near the north-eastern perimeter of the linkage. Red-capped Robin, White-fronted Chat, Striated Pardalote, Weebill, Rufous Whistler, Singing Honeyeater, Zebra Finch, and Chestnut-rumped Thornbill were all observed foraging in the planted link and flying between isolated individual established shrubs and mallees along the eastern fenceline of sections 1 and 3 of the link (see Figure 1). A total of 11 species were observed during the autumn 2007 survey utilising fenceline vegetation and/or foraging in 1.5-2 m tall (nearly two year-old) planted mallee foliage of the linkage. In the young mallees of section 3 of the linkage, four (4) Weebill and two (2) Striated Pardalote were observed gleaning lerps from the foliage. This use of fenceline vegetation demonstrates the role of even individual remnant shrubs and trees in facilitating bird use of recently planted areas. It also suggests that care is needed in assessing bird movement and use of new ‘corridor’ plantings to distinguish between motives for bird entry into these areas, especially when testing hypotheses based on bird foraging, dispersal and movement theory. That is, are birds only present in the linkage because of the ‘safer’-foraging or least-risk (ie. concealment from predators) advantages offered by clumps of remnant fenceline vegetation, or are they there because of the attractiveness, as foraging habitat, of new plantings per se, or are they foraging in both types of vegetation? How might this influence the location, configuration and shape of future linkages and ‘stepping stones’, especially when planting new shrubs and trees along existing fencelines is often attractive to farmers for practical reasons? My observations in Hyde’s linkage tend to support a corridor access role for remnant fenceline vegetation. That is, birds appeared to be willing to fly from Wubin Townsite Reserve to the south and the road/rail reserve vegetation to the north-east across small (20-50m+) gaps and into the linkage along the fenceline. Some of these birds then moved through ca. two-year-old mallees and shrubs in the linkage itself in search of food before


flying back to the safety of denser cover along the fenceline. Either way, the conservation goal is achieved and in time the linkage itself will provide denser contiguous habitat for a wider range of species willing to travel along and forage in the genuine corridor. Finally, an indication of how a revegetation program may perform in returning bush birds to a landscape can also be obtained from the results of similar projects conducted in other parts of the wheatbelt. Work undertaken by Denis Saunders and colleagues over the past 23 years in the Kellerberrin district of the central WA wheatbelt suggest that some woodland- and shrubland-dependent bird species may return to forage in revegetated patches as soon as two-three years after planting (Saunders and Hobbs 1991; Saunders pers comm). Use of this habitat for breeding can take at least a further 5-10 years, depending on a range of factors such as patch size, proximity to and condition of existing remnants, matrix condition and metrics, disturbance history, plant species mix, plant growth rates, structural complexity, and population biology of the bird species themselves (Loyn 1987; Arnold 2003; Lindenmayer and Fischer 2006). There is potential for the use of the results of Saunders’ work to help evaluate the success of the landscape design in BMNDRC over the longer-term. 4.2.3 Learnings gained and barriers to implementation Some important learnings and practical outcomes have emerged from the planning and implementation of the landscape design and its revegetation strategy in BMNDRC to date. These include:

• The importance of consulting and working with farmers from the outset in the design and implementation of revegetation works in the catchment. This distinguishes the current work in BMNDRC from earlier attempts to revegetate catchments using the focal species approach (e.g. Dongolocking Pilot Planning Project – see Lambeck 1998; Mullan pers comm);

• The need for flexibility and practicality when negotiating the selection and implementation of the landscape design on individual properties with individual farmers. An understanding among DEC staff, landscape planners/scientists, and hopefully landholders has been gained of the value of the design as a science-based tool for negotiating on-ground works. Its three-tier approach (ie. creation of habitat linkages, insertion of ‘stepping stones’, and habitat protection and management activities) has also provided an entry-point for agency staff to build trust and valuable working relationships with the Buntine-Marchagee farming community, the benefits of which can flow-on to other initiatives in the catchment such as the ICM Project;

• Increased knowledge and improved understanding of the practical constraints and benefits that landholders experience when helping to implement the design ‘to the letter’. These include operational aspects (e.g. paddock access, grazing management, fenceline re-location), economic costs (ie. the opportunity cost of setting aside otherwise productive land for nature conservation), and social factors (e.g. peer and industry recognition of sustainable farm management practices including the restoration of native vegetation with flow-on benefits to salt and erosion control);

• Appreciation by all stakeholders of the scale and complexity of planting programs and of the resources required to insert a new habitat linkage or ‘stepping stone’


into one individual farm in the catchment. This includes issues such as the harvesting in advance of local seed and growing-on of seedlings in local nurseries, preparation of sites for planting, planting techniques, fencing, weed management, seedling maintenance and infill, labour requirements, and long-term continuous improvement to make revegetation projects more effective, save time and money, and easier to operate (Mullan pers comm);

• Realisation of each planting as being one part of a larger and longer-term effort to restore ecological structure and function to the catchment. This “bigger-picture” approach includes increased awareness of other initiatives (and resources, including Federal government funding options) in the catchment, such as the ICM Project and roadside vegetation values and management training of local council staff through NACC-funded projects (Borger pers comm).

With these learnings have come a number of potential (P) or actual (A) barriers to the effective implementation of the landscape design in BMNDRC over all timeframes. These are the:

1. difficulty of obtaining landholder agreement to revegetate on higher quality land such as the deep sands of valley floors (A). This will lead to a lack of representation of these soil landscape units in the restored habitat network in the catchment and, concomitantly, the region/bioregion;

2. amount of land required to establish 60 m-wide linkages and ‘stepping stone’ block plantings (A);

3. securing of adequate funds to ensure ongoing implementation and monitoring of the design over time (P);

4. perceived costs versus benefits of farmers entering into long-term agreements to set aside land for wildlife, maintain fencing, and protect planted habitat for birds (A);

5. knowledge, experience, and continuity of tenure of field extension staff to develop and maintain productive working relationships with farmers (P);

6. participation rates in revegetation among catchment farmers (ie. a few farmers getting involved but the rest not engaged) (A – although constrained by funding and labour/time resources);

7. concern over whether collective action will be sufficient to bring back locally extinct species (e.g. Bush Stone-curlew, Western Rosella, Thick-billed Grasswren, Western Whipbird) and retain extant threatened and/or declining bush birds (e.g. Western Yellow Robin, Southern Scrub-robin, Crested Bellbird, Shy Heathwren, Rufous Fieldwren, Malleefowl) in the catchment (A);

8. deleterious impact of activities such as road verge clearing in the catchment on the objectives and implementation of the landscape design across the total catchment – the perception that “we all need to be rowing in the same direction” (A);

9. time required for all this to happen, especially in the face of rising secondary salinity and unknown or unanticipated drought/climate change impacts on existing habitats (A/P).

On the basis of the results of recent bird surveys (Huggett 2007 and in prep) and a solid on-ground knowledge of issues in the catchment, Barriers 1, 3, 4, and 8 are likely to present the highest risk to the successful implementation of the landscape design in


BMNDRC. Stage 2 of the BM2 Project will be developed to address Barrier 3 and a new project proposal has been drafted to tackle Barrier 8. Barriers 1 and 4 will require further intensive liaison between DEC and individual farmers, with support from NACC, Marchagee Catchment Group, and Coorow and West Nugadong LCDCs.

4.2.4 Social dimensions A number of landholders in BMNDRC are clearly aware of the objectives and have been involved in helping to implement the BMNDRC initiative, revegetation program, and the landscape design on which it is based. This has been achieved through a series of presentations, field days, and workshops conducted since 2002 by DEC in partnership with NACC, WWF Woodland Watch, other agencies, CSIRO, and Latham, Coorow, West Nugadong and Waddy Forest LCDCs. The degree to which this awareness and basic understanding of the design work has engaged the catchment community (the “social hook” factor – see Lindenmayer and Fischer 2003) appears to be limited, typically, to a core of enthusiastic and involved farmers and a dedicated technical support team. However, this partial engagement of the farming community has translated into two (Noble and Hyde) good demonstration sites for the on-ground application of elements of the landscape design. Stacey’s site also has some currency in this respect. This has established the basis for the extension of habitat linkages, ‘stepping stones’ and priority habitat protection and management activities to other properties in the catchment, especially in the highly fragmented central and northern sectors. Despite this progress, I cannot over-state how essential it is to increase the level of farmer ‘sign-on’ and support of the landscape recovery and revegetation program in the catchment. This should happen over time, provided adequate resourcing occurs and other issues such as the ongoing clearance of road-verge habitat (see Huggett 2007) and management of pest plants and animals are satisfactorily addressed. There are some actions that could be pursued to ensure a fuller engagement of the Buntine-Marchagee Catchment community, especially the farmers, LCDCs and local councils in the application, continual refinement, and monitoring of the landscape design. These include:

• Conduct field-based workshops visiting existing (ie. Noble, Hyde and possibly Stacy farms) and ‘candidate’ (e.g. Mailey, O’Callaghan, Bothe, Doley, Nankivell, Southcott farms) applications of the landscape design in the catchment. This would allow practical demonstration of the design and stimulate discussion of how to fit new habitat linkages, ‘stepping stones’ and habitat protection work into each property given site-specific and production constraints;

• Integrate farmers into the paddock-scale planning of new design-based interventions and involve them in field surveys, where possible/practicable (see also above point). Provide opportunities for their input to new draft plans of proposed applications of the design and the monitoring and review of these applications in the field;


• Develop a suitable way of recognising the contributions of farmers involved in implementing the landscape design, perhaps some practical mechanism which acknowledges their efforts;

• Run a regular series of articles in the local media (ie. NAR News, Buntine-Marchagee Newsletter, newspapers, Liebe Group, council bulletins) to provide updates of progress with implementation and refinement of the design and related activities (e.g. bird surveys, road-verge conservation workshops, etc.), particularly prior to each winter planting of new linkages and ‘stepping stones’;

• Develop a project-based website or adjunct to an existing website, preferably hosted by NACC, Coorow (http://www.coorow.wa.gov.au/) or Dalwallinu (http://www.dalwallinu.wa.gov.au/) Shire Councils, with a community forum capability for questions/answers and feedback on the project and related NRM activities;

• Promote access to and transfer of the results of latest research on landscape restoration tools and approaches in Australian agricultural landscapes;

• Consider inviting key farmers and possibly council representatives to a small working group (possibly as an adjunct to BMNDRC Steering Committee) that helps develop new and innovative ways of engaging catchment stakeholders in restoration activities based on the landscape design and other approaches, and provides constructive feedback on implementation of the landscape design in BMNDRC.

4.2.5 Future improvement There are a number of activities that could be included in a follow-up study of this project’s performance, effectiveness, and knowledge adoption. This would help provide the basis for an improvement in the utility and effectiveness of the landscape design as a practical landscape restoration tool in BMNDRC and as a potential model for the restoration of other catchments in the WA wheatbelt. These activities include:

• Strengthen and develop the landscape designer/planner and farmer relationship through the engagement-enhancing avenues suggested in Section 4.2.4;

• Integrate the objectives, desired outcomes and works program of the landscape design with the environmental management and biodiversity conservation policy frameworks of Coorow and Dalwallinu Shire Councils. This will require the development of relationships with council planning staff and councillors (e.g. Helen Nankivell, Moira Girando, John Stacy) in a sensitive and productive way. If these councils lack this policy structure or it is inadequate, then explore ways to promote or facilitate its development, possibly through WALGA (WA Local Government Association – see Section 4.4). Note that focal species-based landscape planning is being trialled as a tool to support the local government planning scheme at SurfCoast Shire in rural southwest Victoria (Corangamite CMA 2006);

• Aim to add at least one new ‘stepping stone’, habitat linkage, and/or habitat protection action (e.g. fencing moderate-high quality habitat) to the schedule of activities implemented under the landscape design each year. Emphasis should be placed on planting a new woodland ‘stepping stone’ and habitat linkage this winter (2007) if possible. Additional funding should be sought from Envirofund, National Landcare Program (NLP), Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), NACC, WWF’s


Threatened Species Network and perhaps some private funders to assist in these activities;

• Communicate the results of all work undertaken as part of the landscape design, through a project website or as part of existing NACC, DEC and/or local council sites (seee Section 4.2.4). Make reports and articles readily available to all stakeholders in this way and through local and regional media outlets and talks. Share and exchange the results of this work with other catchments in WA and the eastern states through presentations at conferences, workshops and field days;

• Review the science driving the landscape design to keep abreast of latest advances in the development and application of multi-species landscape restoration approaches in Australia and abroad (see LWA 2007; Radford et al., ms);

• Review and monitor, through ongoing research and support, the way in which the design is being implemented in BMNDRC, the effectiveness of its application, and barriers to knowledge and adoption. This is the focus of the M&E Strategy currently being developed for BMNDRC. The attempt to apply the design at Cousins site is an example of a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the recommendations of Huggett et al. (2004) and this should be avoided in the future;

• Explore options for value-adding to existing or proposed environmental restoration and management initiatives in or near the catchment. These could include the ICM Project (Section 4.5), conservation and management of roadside vegetation as part of the NACC project on local government engagement in NRM planning in the Northern Agricultural Region, university research projects, and any new initiatives supported by NACC, WWF and/or DEC in the catchment. Value-adding is being used in other applications of focal species-based landscape plans such as in northern Victoria (Park and Alexandra 2005);

• Investigate whether ‘new-generation’ focal species-based projects could be funded by ongoing incentive schemes such the new Federal government-funded Environmental Stewardship Programme (DEWR/DAFF 2007).

4.3 Current status of the landscape design A total of three sites covering 36.7 ha or 0.16% of the remnant native vegetation (22,340 ha) of BMNDRC (Huggett et al. 2004) have been revegetated using the recommendations of the landscape design. At the Noble site an additional 100 ha of quality habitat have been protected by fencing while 10 ha of Stacey’s property have also been planted out to enhance priority woodland and shrubland remnants. Collectively, these activities represent the first phase of implementation of the landscape design in the catchment. Therefore, the design is clearly a work-in-progress and is planned for staged implementation over the next 10-20 years, in keeping with the recovery plan’s aspirational goal (see DEC 2007). At least one new planting, preferably of a woodland ‘stepping stone’, is proposed for the 2007 winter with more new habitat linkages, ‘stepping stones’ and habitat protection activities to follow in subsequent winters. Maintenance of the initial round of plantings will also be needed to control weeds and infill for plants that have died or been damaged or removed by kangaroo grazing. Issues regarding implementation of the design have been presented in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 above.


4.4 Knowledge and adoption The amount of knowledge of the landscape design and the extent of the adoption of its key recommendations varies across stakeholder groups in the catchment. DEC possesses detailed knowledge of the design by virtue of its close association with the landscape designers and its onground role in implementing the recommendations. This organisation is the main body responsible for developing and implementing the recovery plan and as such is committed to seeing the recommendations of the design adopted in the catchment. However, continuity and upskilling of field and planning staff, knowledge transfer, mentoring, and succession management are areas that will require consistent attention by DEC in planning the long-term implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the landscape design in BMNDRC. Other WA government agencies such as Department of Agriculture & Food (DAFWA) and Department of Water (DoW) and universities (Murdoch and UWA) have less advanced levels of knowledge of the design, gained primarily from representation on the BMNDRC Steering Committee and WA Salinity Investment Framework taskforce and ICM Project meetings with DEC. The Federal government agencies, CSIRO (Sustainable Ecosystems) and Department of the Environment & Water Resources (DEWR), also possess a level of knowledge and understanding, reflective, in the case of the former agency, of its past landscape design role and field research activities in the region. These are not organisations with direct responsibilities for ensuring the design outcomes are adopted but some of these (mainly DAFWA and DoW) have a part to play in supporting DEC and NACC in this work. In this sense, there is room for improvement among these bodies. The regional NRM group – NACC – is currently upskilling its biodiversity-trained field staff to have a working knowledge of the landscape design, its adoption, and implications for sustainable NRM in the Northern Agricultural Region. A field day and bird walk was recently organised by NACC in partnership with DEC and WWF which helped transfer knowledge of the ecology and conservation of focal bird species and landscape design-based revegetation to NACC and WWF staff working in the catchment. This upskilling process will take time and will depend on the ongoing funding of NACC positions and regular training events (see NACC 2004). Community-based landcare groups such as the Coorow, Waddy Forest, Latham and West Nugadong LCDCs and Marchagee Catchment Group are likely to have low-moderate levels of knowledge and understanding of the landscape design, with perhaps Coorow and Waddy Forest LCDCs (or individuals within) being more advanced than the other bodies. However, these groups have an important role to play in promoting and supporting the adoption of the design’s recommended actions in the catchment. More work is needed here too. Local government organisations such as Coorow and Dallwallinu Shire Councils together with WALGA are likely to have almost no knowledge and commitment to the adoption of the landscape design. However, biodiversity-trained staff exist within WALGA (Ryan Taylor and team) in Perth and experienced local consultants such as Jenny Borger service, for example, Coorow Shire’s requirements for information on the values and


management of native plant communities in the catchment. Relationships need to be built or strengthened with these organisations and individuals. This will help raise levels of knowledge and support for the adoption of the landscape design’s priority actions. It may also help ensure that the impact on the performance of the landscape design of current poor management practices (e.g. the removal of native road-verge vegetation by road grading operations) will have a greater chance of being minimised. The level of knowledge and adoption of the landscape design among individual farmers in the catchment is also variable. Farmers such as the Noble brothers, Helen and John Nankivell, John and Robyn Stacy, Alison Doley, Frank and Jeanie Crago, Michael and Julia O’Callaghan, Vern and Jan Muller, and Charles and Gwen Hyde have been exposed to the development and implementation of the design and so should possess moderate to high levels of basic knowledge. High levels of adoption are evident on the Hyde and Stacy properties where recent plantings have occurred. Sixteen farmers are also involved in the ICM Project in the western part of the catchment and this has the potential to help increase and disseminate knowledge of the revegetation work (see Section 4.5). However, over 60% of farmers in the catchment have yet to engage with the project. So there is ample scope for DEC and NACC to develop productive relationships with these landholders using the example set by the key farmers and so improve existing knowledge and adoption levels at the ‘grass roots’ level across the entire catchment. The 2005 BMNDRC Landholder Survey (CALM and Colmar Brunton 2005) should also be consulted to assist in this process. 4.5 Inclusion of other sites There is potential for the inclusion of other sites in the M&E strategy, providing concurrence with the objectives and structure of the landscape design can be demonstrated and adequate resources can be provided. Areas of well-planned recent revegetation such as 10 ha of heath/shrub/mallee on Stacy’s property, planted as part of the ICM Project, could be included in the landscape design. This is because this site expands an existing priority woodland and shrubland remnant which is part of a wooded ridgeline extending south into Crago’s property. The Stacy planting will eventually add to the amount of native vegetation that is locally available for birds attempting to move between high quality remnants on O’Callaghan’s property to the east and Crago’s to the south. In doing so, Stacy’s work represents an important contribution to providing new habitat patches at the landscape scale in the catchment. Fencing will be required to exclude livestock from the newly planted area on this property. Some potential exists for the inclusion of patches of past revegetation in the landscape design. This would be a novel retrospective step which augments the existing design. Sites that occur within or near proposed new habitat linkages and ‘stepping stones’ or enhance remnants identified for priority habitat protection should be targeted. An audit of revegetation established in BMNDRC is currently underway and this will allow a more detailed assessment of the suitability for inclusion of sites in the landscape design’s implementation program. In the interim, ‘candidate’ sites of past revegetation include:

• 7-8 year-old (estimated) plantings on O’Callaghan’s farm (part of a proposed ‘corridor’ or habitat linkage) (Plates 11-12);


• parts or all of the “Marchagee Corridor” that links, at a sub-catchment scale, a large saline system with significant patches of heath/shrub/mallee across the western part of the catchment (Plates 13-14);

• rows of oil mallees on Stacy’s property near Buntine-Marchagee Road (Plates 15-16);

• road/rail corridor plantings between Dalwallinu and north to beyond Buntine Nature Reserve – a locally and regionally significant movement corridor for several focal bird species which requires ongoing protection and monitoring (Plates 17-18);

• individual, structurally complex plantings inserted to provide foraging and possibly breeding habitat for Malleefowl in the catchment.

A review of the suitability and feasibility of these works and the results of other initiatives such as habitat management and restoration activities funded by Envirofund, NLP, NHT and State Salinity Investment Framework should also be undertaken, where possible. Care will be needed, however, not to compromise the scientific rigour with which data were collected and analysed, models constructed, and recommendations made as part of the original landscape design process. Plate 11: Part of a failed former ‘corridor’ between Plate 12: Failed former ‘corridor’ that aimed to two high quality fenced remnants on O’Callaghan’s connect two heath/shrub/mallee remnants on property off Thomas Road (October 2006) O’Callaghan’s property (October 2006)


Plate 13: Part of the ‘Marchagee Corridor’ linking a Plate 14: Part of a 25 ha heath/shrub/mallee large saline system to the west with remnants to remnant in the ‘Koobabbie’ east block (April 07) east and south (Image: DEC 2006) connected to the saline system (see Plate 13)

Plate 15: Rows of oil mallees on Stacy’s farm may Plate 16: Five year-old oil mallees planted help birds move between key remnants (April 2007) along fences and ridgelines on Stacy’s farm (April 2007)


Plate 17: Part of the locally and regionally Plate 18: Mallees and shrubs planted in the late- significant Dalwallinu-Buntine road-rail movement 1980s (C. Hyde pers comm) along Gt Northern corridor for birds near Wubin (October 2006) Highway opposite Rayner’s property (April 2007)

5. Concluding views Field applications of strategic revegetation and habitat protection plans based on the focal species approach are uncommon in Australia. This is surprising given the amount of data collection, analysis and vigorous scientific debate that have characterised the use of this approach as a landscape restoration tool (reviewed in LWA 2007). The application of a landscape design based on the focal species approach in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment (Huggett et al. 2004) is a type of working model or proof-of-concept. It represents one of only a handful of science-driven attempts to specify where, how, and how much native vegetation needs to be planted to slow the decline of populations of wheatbelt bush birds. In doing so, the design has provided farmers and land managers with, for the first time, practical and achievable targets to aim at in the long and challenging battle to bring back the bush and promote agricultural productivity over the long term. This is happening in an agricultural landscape where the economic viability of farms is being increasingly threatened by the effects of secondary salinity and prolonged drought (see DEC 2007; Keighery et al. 2001), uncertainty associated with the impacts of climate change (see Kershaw et al. 2003), and changes to the social structure of the family farm (reviewed in Barr et al. 2005). Although no singular conservation tool or scheme can be expected to ‘save’ the native biodiversity of a landscape (LWA 2007), the design being implemented in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment holds more promise than previous efforts. Despite their best intentions, these earlier interventions have been piecemeal contributions with minimal scientific basis and lacking spatial and temporal context at the catchment scale. The application of the Buntine-Marchagee design is an important step forward in applying the principles and theory of landscape ecological science to bird conservation across a large and heterogeneous catchment. This review has shown that early application of the landscape design has been generally successful in establishing a basis for the provision of suitable habitat for focal bird species over time. The Hyde site has been particularly well designed and implemented - it will perform a valuable demonstration and research role in the long-term M&E strategy. The


willingness and commitment of a small group of local farmers and support organisations to establishing these habitat linkages and protecting existing core habitat has been very encouraging. The prognosis for expansion of the program onto other key farms and road/rail reserves in the catchment is reasonably healthy, providing adequate funding and technical support can be obtained. Relationship-building will be critical to this process, especially between the farmers, DEC, NACC, local government and catchment groups. However, the success of this early phase of the plan has not come without cost, in both financial and emotional terms. While the actual cost of the works to date should be obtained, the amount of emotional energy and technical know-how that landscape planners, scientists, managers, farmers, and NRM officers have invested in this project is substantial and deserves recognition. This is why we, as a ecological restoration team, must ensure that this ‘good start’ is converted into a model study of national significance for the eventual recovery of threatened and declining bird species in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment and other agricultural landscapes in Australia. That is the challenge that lies ahead! References Arnold, G. W. 2003. Bird species richness and abundance in wandoo woodland and in

tree plantations on farmland at Baker’s Hill, Western Australia. Emu 103: 259-269. Barr, N. Karunaratne, K., Wilkinson, R., 2005. Australia’s farmers: past, present and

future - June 2005. Report to Land & Water Australia, Canberra ACT and Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne.

CALM and Colmar Brunton, 2005. Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery

Catchment: Landholder Survey 2005 - 2010. Geraldton, Western Australia, Report prepared by the Department of Conservation and Land Management (now DEC) and Colmar Brunton

Corangamite CMA, 2006. Comments on the application of the focal species approach in

Corangamite Catchment Management Area, Colac, Victoria (email transcript 25 July 2006 from Chris Pitfield, Biodiversity Coordinator, Corangamite CMA)

DEC, 2007. Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment Draft Recovery

Plan: 2007-2027. April 2007 version, Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

DEWR/DAFF, 2007. The Environmental Stewardship Programme. Department of

Environment and Water Resources and Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra – Excerpt of May 2007 ministerial announcement.

Freudenberger, D., 2004. Overview and Recommendations from Components 1,2 and 3

Reports – Testing Approaches to Landscape Design in Cropping Lands (CSE9). Unpubl. Report by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems to Land & Water Australia, Canberra.


Huggett, A.J., Parsons, B.C., Atkins, L.A., Ingram J.A. 2004. Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Catchment, WA. Technical report on Component 1 of Testing Approaches to Landscape Design in Cropping Lands (CSE9 Project) by CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems (Perth) to CALM WA and Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

Huggett, A., 2007. Progress Report 1: Results of the Spring 2006 Baseline Bird Survey.

Report by InSight Ecology to Department of Environment and Conservation for Project BM2: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment.

Huggett, A., in prep. Progress Report 2: Results of the Autumn 2007 Baseline Bird

Survey. Report by InSight Ecology to Department of Environment and Conservation for Project BM2: Monitoring and Evaluation of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery Catchment.

Keighery, G., Halse, S., McKenzie, N., 2001. Why wheatbelt valleys are valuable and

vulnerable: The ecology of wheatbelt valleys and threats to their survival In Dealing with Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys: Processes, Prospects and Practical Options. Papers, Proceedings and outcomes of the Field Tour/Conference/Workshop July 31 - August 2001, Merredin, Western Australia.

Kershaw, P., Moss, P., Van Der Kaars, S., 2003. Causes and consequences of long-term

climatic variability on the Australian continent. Freshwater Biology 48, 1274-1283 Lambeck, R.J., 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation.

Conservation Biology 11: 849-856. Lambeck, R.J., 1998. Nature conservation at the landscape scale – adequacy of habitat.

In Dongolocking Pilot Planning Project for Remnant Vegetation Ed. by K.J. Wallace. A report commissioned by Environment Australia.

Lindenmayer, D.B., and Fischer, J., 2003. Sound science or social hook – a response to

Brooker’s application of the focal species approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 62, 149-158.

Lindenmayer, D.B., and Fischer, J., 2006. Landscape Change and Habitat

Fragmentation. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Loyn, R.H., 1987. Effects of patch area and habitat on bird abundances, species numbers and tree health in fragmented Victorian forests. pp. 65-75 In Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbridge, and A.J.M. Hopkins (eds.), Surrey Beatty & Sons & CSIRO, Sydney.

LWA, 2007. A review of the focal species approach in Australia. Report by InSight

Ecology for Land & Water Australia, Canberra.


Martin, J., Kitchens, W. M., Hines, J. E., 2007. Importance of well-designed monitoring programs for the conservation of endangered species: case study of the Snail Kite. Conservation Biology 21, 472-481.

NACC, 2004. Draft Regional Natural Resource Management Strategy: Northern

Agricultural Region of Western Australia. Northern Agricultural Catchments Council, Perenjori, WA.

Park, G., Alexandra, J., 2005. Integrate or perish – lessons in integrated NRM fron north

central Victoria. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 12: S47-56. Radford, J., Williams, J., Park, G., ms. Effective landscape restoration for native

biodiversity in northern Victoria. Saunders, D. A. & Hobbs, R. J., 1991. Responses of bird species to habitat fragmentation

in the wheatbelt of Western Australia: interiors, edges and corridors in Saunders, D. A. & Hobbs, R. J. (Eds.) Nature Conservation 2 - The role of corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney.

Documents

A Review of the Application of the Landscape Design for … Review of the Application of the Landscape Design for Bird Conservation in Buntine-Marchagee Natural Diversity Recovery