Conservation Action Planning€¦ · 1.1.1. Conservation Action Planning (CAP) The planning process for the Living Flinders Project uses the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework

Conservation Action Planning June 2012 Summary

Living Flinders

A Collaborative, Landscape Planning Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in the Southern Flinders Ranges,

South Australia

Compiled by: Todd Berkinshaw and Mick Durant (Greening Australia)

for the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Living Flinders Conservation Action Planning Summary 2012 2

Acknowledgements Current and previous members of the Living Flinders Conservation Action Planning Team including Andy Sharp, Ian Falkenberg, Danny Doyle, Stuart Bienke, Jean Tuner, Dan Rogers, Lucy Dodd, Louise Gavin, Ben Denison, Daniel Bailey, Paul Koch, Matt Turner, Anne Brown, Todd Berkinshaw, Mick Durant, Dene Cuthbertson, Rebecca Redden, Ruth Coates, Kevin Teague, Jennifer Munro, Brooke Kerin, Wendy Fowler, Chris Rains, Trudie Stanley, Saideh Kent, Zita Stokes, Mary‐Anne Young, Tim Milne, Keith Bellchambers, Jane Luckraft, Millie Nicholls and Michael Richards. Individuals who have presented and/or contributed to the planning process: namely Greg Patrick (SAAL NRM Board), Andrew Moyland (Forestry SA), Monique Blasson (SA Water), Lynn Waldon (DEWNR), Anita Crisp (Central Local Government Association). This document may be cited as: Berkinshaw, T.D., Durant, M.D (2012) Living Flinders Conservation Action Planning Summary 2011/12. Report to the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and Department for Environment Water and Natural Resources, Greening Australia Version: 30/06/12


Contents Page 1. Background 5 1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. 5 1.2. Regional Context…..…………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………..………..... 6 1.3. Living Flinders Project Area……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………... 8 1.4. Social Context…………………………………………………………………………………...………………………………..……………………… 12 2. Identification of Conservation Assets 15 2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets ……………………………………………………………………………………… 15 2.2. Conservation Assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges………………………………..…………………………………………….…. 15 3. Viability of Conservation Assets 22 3.1. Methodology for Assessing Viability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges………..…………………….……………………….… 22 4. Threats to Conservation Assets 24 4.1. Methodology for Assessing Threats…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24 4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges…..……………………………………………………… 24 5. Setting Conservation Objectives 27 5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives………………………………………………………….…………………………… 27 5.2. Conservation Objectives of the Southern Flinders Ranges …..……………………………………………………………………… 28 6. Conservation Strategies, Actions Steps and Key Programs 30 6.1. Methodology for Developing Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs……………………………… 30 6.2. Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs ……..……………………………………………………………..……. 30 6.3. Foundational Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions ….…………………………………………………………………….. 31 6.4. Coastal Plains Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions .…………………..…………………………………………………… 32 6.5. Ephemeral Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions ………….…….............. 36 6.6. Grassy Woodlands and Grasslands Program ‐ Objectives and Strategic Actions ………………………………………. 38 6.7. Southern Ranges Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions ……………….…….………………………………………….…. 40 6.8 Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby and Feral Carnivore Control Program ‐ Objectives and Strategic Actions…….. 44 6.9. Arden Vale Ranges Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions …..…..…….……………………………………………….. 46 6.10. Eastern Plains and Ranges Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions .………………………………………………….. 48 6.11. Formal Protection of Under‐represented Ecosystems Program – Objectives and Strategic Actions.…………. 52 7. Monitoring and Evaluation 54 7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program…………………………………………………………………………………… 54 7.2. Monitoring Indicators for the Southern Flinders Ranges ……………………..……………………………………………………... 54 8. Appendices 57 Appendix 1: Plant Species of Conservation Significance in the Living Flinders Region …..………………………………………….. 57 Appendix 2: Fauna Species of Conservation Significance in the Living Flinders Region …..………………………………………… 60 Appendix 3: Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Goals………………………………………………………… 62 Appendix 4: Participants of the Southern Flinders Ranges CAP process…………………………………………………………………….. 64 9. References 65


Tables Table 1 Existing Biodiversity Programs and Legislation ………………….……………………………………………………….……….…... 6 Table 2 Selected Demographic Statistics from the 2006 Census……………………………..………………………………….………… 12 Table 3 Landholdings by Size Class……………………………………………………..……………………………………………………….……….. 12 Table 4 Key Ecological Attributes for Conservation Assets………………………………………………………………………….…...….. 23 Table 5 Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets………………………………………………..…………………………………….………….. 23 Table 6 Key Threats to Conservation Assets……………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…… 25 Table 7 Protected Areas Analysis……………………………………………………………….……………………………………………….………… 52 Table 8 Recommended Monitoring Indicators for Ecological Attributes of the Conservation Assets……………….... 55 Table 9 Existing Monitoring Data Available to support Viability Assessments of Conservation Assets………………… 56 Maps Map 1. Conservation Action Planning Sub‐regions within the Northern and Yorke NRM Region………………………... 7 Map 2. The Living Flinders Project Area………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Map 3. Selected Threatened Species (DENR 2007)…………………………………………………………………………………….………. 11 Map 4. Landholdings in the Living Flinders Project Area ……..……………………………………………………………………………… 13 Map 5. Conservation Assets of the Living Flinders Project Area ……………………………………………………………………….…. 17 Map 6. Coastal Plains Program Area – Recreational Impact and Weed Control Priority Areas ………………….……..… 33 Map 7. Coastal Plains Program Area – Vegetation Buffers and Linkages Priority Area………………………………………… 35 Map 8. Ephemeral Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Program Area ….…………………………………………………………………….. 37 Map 9. Grassy Woodlands and Grasslands Priority Area ……………………………………………………………………………………….39 Map 10. Southern Ranges Program Area – Temperate Weeds and Fire Management Priority Area …………………... 41 Map 11. Southern Ranges Program Area – Goat and Deer Control Priority Area …………..……………………………………... 43 Map 12. Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby and Feral Carnivore Control Program Area ………………………………………………….. 45 Map 13. Arden Vale Ranges Program Area – Goat and Cactus Control Priority Area ……………………………………….…... 47 Map 14. Eastern Plains and Ranges Program – Cactus, Goat and Rabbit Control Priority Area …………………….…..… 49 Map 15. Eastern Plains and Ranges Program – Stock Grazing in Arid Ecosystems Priority Area …………………….…..… 51 Map 16. Targeted Formal Protection of Lands Program Area………………………………………………………………………………… 53 Abbreviations CAP Conservation Action Planning DEWNR Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service NRM Natural Resources Management WONS Weeds of National Significance GA Greening Australia Aus Australia SA South Australia CE Critically Endangered E Endangered V Vulnerable R Rare


1. Background 1.1. Introduction This document summarises the progress of the Living Flinders Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process to the 30th June 2012. The process commenced in November 2007 and the planning team (refer Appendix 4) has met regularly to develop and refine the conservation plan for the region. The 1st Iteration CAP was summarised in 2009 and updated in 2010 and 2011. This document is the 3rd update and contains refinements made during 2011/2012. Achievements of the Living Flinders project to date include:

• the development of a 1st Iteration Conservation Action Plan • production of 15 scoping reports which provide detail and direction to the major issues identified in the CAP • improvements in mapping of conservation assets, threats and on‐ground works (i.e. development of a spatial

CAP planning tool) • a review of monitoring data to provide a basis for developing a landscape monitoring program for the Living

Flinders Project • targeted landholders engaged and surveyed • development of key communication tools including a project logo, promotional DVD and folder and

documented investors tour to showcase the region • a project launch and significant media coverage • demonstration sites established • major on‐ground works programs commenced (i.e. Arden Vale Ranges and Southern Ranges) • successful funding applications to the Biodiversity Fund and Native Vegetation Council Significant

Environmental Benefits Fund (i.e. Restoring the Grey Box Grassy Woodlands in the Southern Flinders Ranges, Mount Remarkable to the Sea)

1.1.1. Conservation Action Planning (CAP) The planning process for the Living Flinders Project uses the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework developed by the US‐based conservation group The Nature Conservancy www.nature.org as its basis. This framework is widely used in the development of international conservation projects and is becoming more widely adopted in Australia for planning large scale conservation projects with multiple stakeholders. One of the underpinning goals of CAP planning is to move conservation projects from the site scale (10’s or 100’s of hectares) to the conservation and preservation of functional landscapes (100,000’s hectares) which are able to sustain biodiversity at an eco‐regional scale (Low 2003). The CAP process typically involves a series of conservation planning workshops with 5‐10 participants from multiple organisations. The process is facilitated by a trained CAP coach and uses a standard step‐by‐step methodology (refer Low 2003) and an Excel‐based program, or Miradi software, to guide participants through the development of a 1st iteration landscape conservation plan. Whilst built on solid scientific principles, the approach recognises that there are often large gaps in ecological knowledge and data sets and hence a strong on‐going adaptive management ethic is implied throughout the process. It also recognises that a large amount of knowledge exists with local conservation practitioners and therefore incorporates local practitioner input into the planning process. The major steps in the CAP process, as outlined in this document, are:

• an analysis of the regional context in which conservation is to occur; • the identification of conservation assets and nested assets (i.e. ecosystems, communities and species); • an analysis of the viability (i.e. health) of the conservation assets and the key threats; • the development of measurable objectives to achieve the long‐term conservation of the assets; • the development of conservation strategies, action steps and key programs to achieve the conservation

objectives; • the development of a practical monitoring and evaluation program and adaptive management framework.


1. Background 1.2 Regional Context 1.2.1 Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management (NRM) Board Region The NRM region extends from the northern Adelaide plains in the south to the Southern Flinders Ranges in the north, and includes the whole of the Yorke Peninsula. In total the Northern and Yorke NRM region covers over 3 million hectares and supports a population of approximately 95,000 people (Northern and Yorke NRM Board 2009). For conservation action planning purposes, the region has been divided into three separate sub‐regions based primarily on ecological characteristics (refer Map 1). The three sub‐regions are:

Southern Flinders Ranges (Living Flinders Project Area) Mid North Agricultural Districts Southern Yorke Peninsula

1.2.2 Biodiversity Conservation Organisations, Programs and Legislation The Living Flinders CAP process is a sub‐regional planning process which complements existing regional plans and strategies (refer Appendix 3 for Northern and Yorke NRM regional goals). It also contributes to national and state biodiversity conservation programs and funding priorities (refer Table 1 below) The principle organisations involved in biodiversity conservation in the region are the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board and the State Government Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources. These organisations underwent a merger in 2010/2011 and now function primarily as one organisation. Other contributors to biodiversity conservation in the region include large government landholders such as SA Water and Forestry SA, a number of non‐government organisations such as Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Nature Conservation Society of South Australia and Greening Australia, and a network of private lands managed partially or wholly for conservation (eg. the Southern Flinders Biodiversity Hotspots Program 2007‐2012). Aboriginal Lands such as Yappala, located west of Hawker, and the lands managed by the Nukuna community based at Baroota are also involved in natural resources management activities with support from the Aboriginal Lands Trust. Local farmers and pastoralists are also supported by organisations such as Rural Solutions of South Australia and Ag Excellence Alliance. Table 1: Existing Biodiversity Programs, Strategies and Legislation National State (SA) Regional (N&Y NRM) National and State Legislation• Caring for Our Country • Biodiversity Fund • Clean Energy Futures

Program • National Water

Initiative • National Strategy for

the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity

• Australian Government Climate Change Policies

• State Strategic Plan • Tackling Climate

Change • State Natural

Resources Management Plan

• No Species Loss • NatureLinks

• Northern and Yorke NRM Plan

• Northern and Yorke Biodiversity Plan

• DENR Biodiversity Strategy

• Threatened Species Recovery Plans

• Flinders‐Olary NatureLinks

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (National)

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA)

• Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA)

• Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA)

• Development Act 1993 (SA)


1. Background Map 1: Conservation Action Planning Sub‐Regions within the Northern and Yorke NRM Region


1. Background 1.3 Living Flinders Project Area The Living Flinders project area covers approximately 1.6 million hectares of the Southern Flinders Ranges from Port Pirie in the south, Hawker in the north, the Flinders‐Olary Plains to the east, and upper Spencer Gulf to the west (refer Map 2). 1.3.1 Regional Landforms Major landforms include: 1) the parallel ranges and valleys in the west of the region with steep gorges and rocky outcrops (i.e. from Beetaloo Valley to Hawker); 2) the extensive Willochra Plain in the centre of the region with the Willochra Creek flowing north and west through to Lake Torrens; 3) the coastal plains of the upper Spencer Gulf; and 4) the smaller ranges interspersed with undulating plains in the east. The highest point in the project area is Mount Remarkable at 960 metres (Graham et al 2001). 1.3.2 Climate and Rainfall The project area is subject to a typical Mediterranean climate with mild wet winters and hot dry summers. This pattern is most pronounced in the south of the region and becomes less so in the north where summer rainfall events are common. The climate and rainfall are strongly influenced by the topography of the main ranges with annual average rainfall in high altitude areas in excess of 600 mm while the northern plains country receives less than 200 mm. The region is prone to periodic drought periods which have occurred with relative regularity since records began (Schwertfeger & Curran in Davies et al 1996). 1.3.3 Aboriginal History The Southern Flinders Ranges have a rich Aboriginal history with the main language groups being the Nukunu of the main southern ranges, the Ngadjuri people of the woodlands to the east and south of the main range and the Pankarla from around Port Augusta and to the north. Jones & McEntee (in Davies et al 1996) also provides a good description of the influence of the Adnyamuthanha culture of the northern Flinders Ranges. The geographic range of people identifying with Adnyamathanha culture has increased and now reaches across much of the project area (Jones & McEntee in Davies et al 1996). The main contemporary Aboriginal communities are found at Port Augusta (Davenport), Yappala Range, Baroota and Quorn. Culturally significant sites and artefacts are found throughout the region. 1.3.4 Regional Land Use The dominant land uses in the region are stock grazing, public and private conservation reserves, eco‐tourism, forestry and water catchment (restricted to the main southern ranges), and residential development and heavy industry in coastal townships. Due to the southern boundary of the project area roughly coinciding with Goyders line (identified in 1865 as the extent of viable cropping in South Australia) cropping activities are limited. 1.3.5 Native Vegetation Approximately 1.2 million hectares is mapped as native vegetation in the project area (76% of the region), although the mapping is coarse and largely unverified. The condition of the vegetation varies considerably from relatively intact woodlands and mallee on the main ranges to more modified vegetation on the plains and low hills. Vegetation condition is not well mapped for the region. Broad vegetation types include low mangrove forests, samphire shrublands and tall dune shrublands along the coast, mallee communities on the plains and ranges, temperate forests and woodlands at high elevations in the ranges, grasslands and grassy woodlands on low hills and footslopes and extensive areas of arid shrublands and woodlands on low rainfall plains and hills.


1. Background Map 2: The Living Flinders Project Area 2012


1. Background Plant Communities Coastal plant communities include low mangrove forests (Avicennia marina ssp. marina) and samphire (Tecticornia sp. and Sarcocornia sp. low shrublands) shrublands in inter‐tidal areas around Port Pirie and the Upper Spencer Gulf, and tall coastal shrublands (Olearia axillaris +/‐ Leucopogon parviflorus +/‐ Acacia spp. +/‐ Myoporum insulare) on coastal sand dunes. Major ephemeral creeks in the region support River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) woodlands with a rush and sedge dominated understorey. In drier areas, small tributaries and creeks are lined with mallee associations (eg. Eucalyptus porosa, E. odorata), Native Pine (Callitris glaucopylla) or Gum Barked Coolibah (E. intertexta). Temperate woodlands are restricted to the peaks and slopes of the main southern ranges and occur with either a densely shrubby understorey or a more open grass / sedge understorey. Eucalypt woodlands include the tall Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) woodlands of Mount Remarkable and other high elevations, and South Australian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon spp. pruinosa) and the nationally endangered Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) woodlands on the eastern slopes of moderate rainfall. Mallee Box (Eucalyptus porosa) and Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) woodlands occur on drier slopes and plains. Non‐eucalypt woodlands in the region are dominated by Drooping Sheoak (Allocasuarina verticillata), Southern Cypress‐pine (Callitris gracilis) and Northern Cypress‐pine (Callitris glaucophylla). Mallee vegetation occurs throughout the region but particularly in northern areas around Quorn through to Hawker and east around Orroroo and Peterborough. The project area also includes the northern extent of temperate grasslands in South Australia including the nationally endangered Iron Grass (Lomandra spp.) grasslands. The remainder of the region contains arid shrublands and open woodlands dominated by Bluebush (Maireana spp.), Black Oak (Casuarina pauper), Sugarwood (Myoporum platycarpum) and Mulga (Acacia aneura) with Western Myall (Acacia papyrocarpa) common in the west. Threatened Plant Species A high diversity of plant species is found in the project area including at least 118 species which are Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare at the state level under National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, and at least 16 which are rated nationally threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1996. Selected threatened flora records are displayed in Map 3 and Appendix 1 contains a complete list of state and nationally rated flora species. 1.3.6 Fauna Smith (in Davies et al 1996) recount that the early explorers to the Flinders Ranges encountered a diverse mammal fauna with as many as 50 species occurring in the greater Flinders Ranges area. Unfortunately approximately half of these species have become extinct and many are still declining. The Southern Flinders Ranges however still supports a diverse range of bird species owing to the topographic and climate variation between coastal, temperate and arid zones. The reptile fauna is similarly diverse. Threatened Fauna Species Approximately 74 fauna species of conservation significance at the state level occur within the project area. At least 4 species of national significance also occur including the vulnerable Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus). A further 17 species were assessed as regionally Endangered or Vulnerable by Gilliam & Urban (2008). Selected threatened flora records are displayed in Map 3 and Appendix 2 contains a complete list of state and nationally rated fauna species.


1. Background Map 3: Selected Threatened Species Records (DENR 2007)


1. Background 1.4 Social Context 1.4.1 Population The main population centres are Port Augusta and Port Pirie with a little over 13,000 people in each urban locality. Most other towns in the region are much smaller with 1,068 people at Quorn, 543 at Orroroo, 431 at Melrose, 229 at Hawker and 251 at Wirrabara. Total population is difficult to assess as the CAP boundary does not correspond to statistical boundaries, however an approximation using Local Government Areas gives a figure of 34,500 people (refer to Table 2 below). Table 2: Selected Demographic Statistics from the 2006 Census Location Population Labour Force Labour Force

involved in Farming Activities

% Involved in Farming Activities

Flinders Ranges LGA 1,730 695 72 11% Orroroo Carrieton LGA 935 457 163 37.5% Mount Remarkable LGA 2,842 1,302 329 26.2% Port Augusta LGA 13,874 6,062 0 0% Port Pirie Urban Locality 13,206 5,088 0 0% Peterborough LGA 1,904 601 73 14.1% Totals 34,491 14,205 637 ~ 1.4.2 Current Land Management and Ownership The following analysis is based on Stokes (2008) which adhered to the former NRM boundary and therefore did not include the Peterborough area. According to Stokes (2008) there are approximately 1,700 landholders in the region with potentially suitable land for conservation (refer to Table 3). The largest single landholder in terms of land area is the Minister for Environment with over 54,000 hectares of parks, reserves and other lands. It is also worth noting that only 3% (46 landholders) of the total number of landholders manage in excess of 40% of the land area. For additional information on land management and ownership in the Southern Flinders Ranges refer to CAP Scoping Report # 1 ‐ Land Holder Mapping. Table 3: Landholdings by Size Class Size Class (ha) No. of Landholders* % of Total No. of

Landholders* % of Land Area (hectares)

<10 526 31% <1% 10‐100 351 21% 1% 101‐500 392 23% 8% 501‐1000 165 10% 10% 1001‐5000 220 13% 40% 5000‐10,000 31 2% 18% >10,000 15 1% 23% Total 1,700 100% 100% 1.4.3 Attitudes to Conservation Landholder attitudes have been surveyed in the past by the Northern and Yorke NRM Board and more recently by Greening Australia. It was noted that most farmers are time‐poor when it comes to conservation and are focussed on maintaining farm profitability. Attitudes however are relatively accepting to conservation efforts provided there are appropriate incentives to undertake works. This point was demonstrated by a recent biodiversity stewardship tender which provided 5‐year stewardship payments to 26 landholders to undertake environmental works across 14,000 hectares of land (i.e. Southern Flinders Biodiversity Hotspots Program 2008‐2013). The region is also experiencing a growth in ‘lifestyle’ owners who purchase property based on the natural setting and who are generally conservation‐minded. The Quorn district is a good example of this. Tourism is also becoming popular as a way of diversifying and securing farm income and many landholders wish to see improvements in land condition to augment the scenic character of the region.


1. Background Map 4: Landholdings in the Living Flinders Project Area



2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1. Methodology for Identifying Conservation Assets The first step in the conservation action planning process involves the identification of a small number of focal conservation assets (i.e. ecosystems, communities or species) that collectively represent the biodiversity of a region. The explicit assumption within this process is that by conserving representative examples of broad‐scale communities and ecosystems, the majority of species will also be conserved. The list of focal conservation assets therefore need not be long and exhaustive; rather, it should be short and representative. In general, the CAP methodology recommends that no more than eight conservation assets are selected to be the focus of a landscape conservation program. The asset selection process begins by identifying the coarse‐scale ecosystems and communities for conservation. The issue of whether to lump individual ecosystems and communities together or split into individual conservation assets is often a difficult one. In general, ecosystems and communities are lumped together if they: ● co‐occur across the landscape; ● share similar ecological processes; ● share similar threats. The next step is to screen for species and communities occurring at smaller scales that are not well “nested” within the broader set of ecosystems or communities; that is, those species and communities whose conservation requirements are not met through the conservation of the coarse‐scale assets (as suggested by Noss et al. 1999; Margules and Pressey 2000; MacNally et al. 2002). This approach is known as the coarse filter – fine filter approach (Groves 2003). Examples of species often not captured by coarse‐scale assets include: ● rare, threatened and endemic species; ● species with highly disjunct (spatially separate) populations or restricted distributions; ● keystone or highly interactive species (those that have a disproportionate influence on the structure and ecological function of the community); ● wide‐ranging species. Species and communities that fall into the above categories may be captured by threatened species recovery programs or may need to be considered as separate conservation assets. Source: Adapted from Low (2003) 2.2. Conservation Assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges Nine key conservation assets have been identified by the Living Flinders planning team. Each conservation asset is associated with numerous nested assets (i.e. individual communities, species assemblages and threatened species) which are an important focus of conservation efforts and help further define the asset. The nine key conservation assets and associated nested assets are described in more detail in the following section. The spatial distribution of the assets is presented in Map 5 and Map 3 shows the distribution of some of the associated threatened species. For information relating to the conservation asset mapping methodology refer CAP Scoping Report # 3 – CAP Asset Mapping.

1. Coastal Mangrove and Samphire Communities 2. Sandy Coasts and Dunes 3. Ephemeral River, Creeks and Waterholes 4. Temperate Shrublands 5. Mallee Communities 6. Temperate Grasslands and Grassy Woodlands 7. Temperate Forests and Woodlands (shrubby) 8. Arid Ecosystems (hummock grasslands, shrublands and woodlands) 9. Escarpments, Gorges and Rocky Outcrops – Yellow footed Rock‐wallaby habitat


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1.1. Coastal Mangrove and Samphire Communities Coastal mangroves (Avicennia marina ssp. marina) and samphire communities occur within inter‐tidal ares of sheltered coastlines between Port Pirie and Port Augusta. Mangrove communities are exceptionally rich and productive environments and provide important marine habitat for commercial fish species. Samphire low shrublands occur on tidal flats and provide habitat for the nationally vulnerable Bead Samphire (Tecticornia flabelliformis) and a number of threatened bird species. The zone around Port Pirie is designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Bird Life Australia due to its importance for shore birds. This conservation asset is formally protected with Winninowie Conservation Park Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Mangrove (Avicennia marina ssp. marina) Forests PLANT COMMUNITIES Samphire Low Shrublands FISH ASSEMBLAGES Marine fish species BIRD ASSEMBLAGES Shorebirds, seabirds and waders THREATENED BIRDS Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra) RTHREATENED BIRDS Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis) VTHREATENED PLANTS Bead Samphire (Tecticornia flabelliformis) VU VKEY LOCATIONS Winninowie Conservation Park, Port Germein, Port Pirie mangroves –

Nationally Important Bird Area 2.1.2. Sandy Coasts and Dunes Sandy coasts and dunes occur in narrow, linear strips intermittently along the coast from north of Port Pirie to Port Augusta. This is a low energy coastline so the dunes tend to be low and stable and support tall shrublands dominated by Coastal Daisy‐bush (Olearia axillaris), Coastal Beard‐heath (Leucopogon parviflorus), Sea‐berry Saltbush (Rhagodia candolleana ssp. candolleana) and Boobialla (Myoporum insulare). Rear dunes support stands of Dryland Tea‐tree (Melaleuca lanceolata), Leafless Cherry (Exocarpus aphyllus), Quandong (Santalum acuminatum), Native Apricot (Pittosporum angustifolium) and Hop‐bush (Dodonaea viscosa spp. spathulata). Important nested fauna species include the State vulnerable Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis). Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Coastal Dune Shrublands (Olearia axillaris, Leucopogon parviflorus) BIRD ASSEMBLAGES Shorebirds, seabirds and wadersTHREATENED BIRDS Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis ) VTHREATENED BIRDS Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra ) RKEY LOCATIONS Mambray coast


2. Identification of Conservation Assets Map 5: Conservation Assets of the Living Flinders Project Area


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1.3. Ephemeral Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Two major river catchments occur in the project area: the Willochra catchment which drains from the eastern side of the main ranges through the plains north and west to Lake Torrens; and the Mambray Coast which drains the western side of the main ranges across the coastal plain to the sea. The region also includes parts of the Broughton catchment in the south west (Rocky River), Lake Torrens catchment in the north‐west, Lake Frome catchment in the east and the Murray‐Darling Basin catchment in the south‐east corner. Major creek systems in the region are dominated by River Red Gum (Eucalypt camaldulensis) woodlands which provide important habitat for species such as the Brush‐tail Possum (Tricosaurus vulpecula) and State vulnerable Carpet Python (Morelia spilota). Permanent waterholes and seeps occur along many of the ephemeral creek lines, particularly in the Willochra Catchment, and fractured rock‐springs occur in the ranges and rocky gorges. Permanent waterholes provide critical water for water‐dependant species such as native fish, amphibians and aquatic plants. Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) WoodlandsPLANT COMMUNITIES Aquatic Vegetation (Phragmites sp., Typha sp., Juncus sp., Cyperus spp.) THREATENED MAMMALS Common Brush‐tail Possum (Trichosaurus vulpecula) RTHREATENED REPTILES Krefts Tiger Snake (Notechis scutatus ater) VUTHREATENED REPTILES Carpet Python (Morelia spilota) RKEY LOCATIONS Mambray Creek, Willochra River, Rocky River

2.1.4. Temperate Shrublands Temperate shrublands provide important habitat for a range of bird species and act as ‘stepping stones’ between core habitat areas. Dominant shrub species include Yacca (Xanthorrhoea quadrangulata) and Sweet Bursaria (Bursaria spinosa) which occur on rocky ranges and low hills. Small and unique shrublands of Velvet Bush (Lasiopetalum spp.) and Cryptandra (Cryptandra spp.) also occur in the region. Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Grass‐tree (Xanthorrhoea quadrangulata) ShrublandsPLANT COMMUNITIES Sweet Bursaria (Bursaria spinosa) ShrublandsPLANT COMMUNITIES Velvet‐bush (Lasiopetalum sp.) Shrublands PLANT COMMUNITIES Cryptandra (Cryptandra sp.) ShrublandsPLANT COMMUNITIES Wattle (Acacia sp) Hop‐bush (Dodonaea sp), Senna (Senna sp)

Shrubland THREATENED PLANTS Spiny Daisy (Acanthocladium dockeri) CR EKEY LOCATIONS Western side of the main southern ranges


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1.5. Mallee Communities Mallee communities occur on plains, slopes and ranges with large areas occurring in the south‐east of the region around Orroroo and Peterborough. Elsewhere mallee communities occur in a patchy mosaic with Native Pine or Black Oak woodlands in drier country or Sugar Gum and box woodlands on the ranges. Fragmented mallee habitats also occur on the coastal plain between Port Pirie and Port Augusta and on the plains around Booleroo and Willowie. Dominant overstorey species include Beaked Red Mallee (Eucalyptus socialis), Yorrell (E. gracilis) and White Mallee (E. dumosa). Three mallee species are endemic to the region: Eucalyptus ‘Flinders Ranges’, Eucalyptus percostata and Eucalyptus flindersii. Mallee associations are critical to a range of declining bird species and support nationally vulnerable plants such as Silver Daisy Bush and Slender Bell fruit.

Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Yorrell (Eucalyptus gracilis) &/or Red Mallee (E. oleosa)PLANT COMMUNITIES Red Mallee (Eucalyptus socialis)PLANT COMMUNITIES Mallee Box (Eucalyptus porosa)BIRD ASSEMBLAGES Declining mallee birdsTHREATENED PLANTS Slender Bell fruit (Codonocarpus pyramidalis) VU ETHREATENED PLANTS Silver Daisy Bush (Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa) VU VKEY LOCATIONS Orroroo to Peterborough, Quorn to Hawker

2.1.6. Temperate Grassy Ecosystems Temperate grassy ecosystems include grassy woodlands on the main ranges and foothills and grasslands on non‐arable lands in the east of the region, particularly south of Peterborough. The vast majority are in private ownership, grazed by live stock and dominated by annual weeds. Nationally threatened ecosystems that form part of this asset include Peppermint Box grassy woodlands, Grey Box grassy woodlands and Iron Grass grasslands. Threatened fauna and flora species include the Plains Wanderer, Flinders Worm Lizard, Small Scurf‐Pea, Clover Glycine and Bayonet Spider‐orchid. Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Peppermint Box (Eucalyptus odorata) Grassy Woodlands CE EPLANT COMMUNITIES Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodland EN EPLANT COMMUNITIES Sheoak (Allocasuarina verticillata) Grassy Woodlands VPLANT COMMUNITIES Blue Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon) Grassy Woodland VPLANT COMMUNITIES Iron Grass (Lomandra spp) Grasslands CE EPLANT COMMUNITIES Spear Grass (Stipa spp.), Wallaby Grass (Danthonia spp.) Grassland PLANT COMMUNITIES Spinifex (Triodia spp) Temperate GrasslandsTHREATENED BIRDS Crested Shrike‐tit (Falcunculus frontatus) VTHREATENED BIRDS Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata) VTHREATENED BIRDS Painted Button‐quail (Turnix varia) RTHREATENED BIRDS Plains‐wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus) VU ETHREATENED BIRDS King Quail (Coturnix chinensis) ETHREATENED BIRDS Australian Bustard (Ardeotis australis) VTHREATENED REPTILES Flinders Worm Lizard (Aprasia pseudopulchella) VUTHREATENED PLANTS Bayonet Spider‐orchid (Caladenia gladiolata) EN ETHREATENED PLANTS Small Scurf‐Pea (Cullen parvum) EN VTHREATENED PLANTS Clover Glycine (Glycine latrobeana) VU VKEY LOCATIONS Grasslands ‐ Narien Range, Oladdie Range, Bellalie Range.

Grassy woodlands ‐ Peekina to Tarcowie, Beetaloo Reservoir to Mt Brown.


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1.7. Temperate Forests and Woodlands with a shrubby u/storey Temperate forests and woodlands with a shrub dominated understorey are restricted to the main southern ranges. Common overstorey tree species include Sugar Gum and Long‐leaf Box at high elevations, and Blue Gum, Mallee Box and Peppermint Box on the lower slopes. Common non‐eucalypt tree species include Drooping Sheoak and Southern Cypress‐pine. These areas support important habitat for declining woodland birds and nationally threatened orchids. Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) Forest PLANT COMMUNITIES Long‐leaf Box (Eucalyptus goniocalyx) Woodland PLANT COMMUNITIES Blue Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon) Woodland PLANT COMMUNITIES White Box (Eucalyptus albens) Woodlands THREATENED BIRDS Crested Shrike‐tit (Falcunculus frontatus) VTHREATENED BIRDS Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata) VTHREATENED REPTILES Tree Goanna (Varanus varius) RTHREATENED REPTILES Flinders Worm Lizard (Aprasia pseudopulchella) VU THREATENED PLANTS Flinders Ranges White Caladenia (Caladenia xantholeuca) EN ETHREATENED PLANTS Woolcock’s Spider‐orchid (Caladenia woolcockiorum), Pale Leek Orchid

(Prasophyllum pallidum), Mt Remarkable Leek‐orchid (P. validum) VU V

KEY LOCATIONS Mount Remarkable National Park 2.1.8. Arid Ecosystems Arid ecosystems occur mainly on perpetual lease or pastoral country in areas receiving less than 250 mm annual rainfall. Characteristic shrublands are dominated by Pearl Bluebush, Black Bluebush and other chenopod species (e.g. Atriplex spp., Sclerolaena spp.). Characteristic woodlands include Black Oak, Sugarwood, Bullock Bush and Northern Cypress Pine with Western Myall occurring in the north‐west. Hummock grasslands are mainly dominated by Spinifex. Rare and threatened fauna species include the White‐browed Treecreeper, Short‐tailed Grasswren and Plains Wanderer. Nested Assets AUS SAPLANT COMMUNITIES Sugarwood (Myoporum platycarpum) Woodlands PLANT COMMUNITIES Black Oak (Casuarina pauper) Woodlands PLANT COMMUNITIES Mulga (Acacia aneura) Low Woodland VPLANT COMMUNITIES Western Myall (Acacia papyrocarpa) Woodlands PLANT COMMUNITIES Northern Native Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) Woodlands PLANT COMMUNITIES Bullock Bush (Alectryon oleifolius) Woodlands VPLANT COMMUNITIES Bluebush (Maireana sedifolia), Blackbush (M. pyramidata) shrublands PLANT COMMUNITIES Bladder Saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria) shrubland PLANT COMMUNITIES Spinifex (Tridoia irritans) Hummock Grassland THREATENED MAMMALS Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) VU VTHREATENED BIRDS White browed Treecreeper (Climacteris affinis), Redthroat

(Pyrrholaemus brunneus), Slender‐billed Thornbill (Acanthixa iredalei) R

OTHER BIRDS Short‐tailed Grasswren (Amytornis merrotsyi) THREATENED PLANTS Slender Bell fruit (Codonocarpus pyramidalis) VU ETHREATENED PLANTS Superb Groundsel (Senecio megaglossus) VU VTHREATENED PLANTS Spidery Wattle (Acacia araneosa) VU EKEY LOCATIONS


2. Identification of Conservation Assets 2.1.9 Escarpments, Gorges, Rocky Outcrops and Scree Slopes ‐ Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby Habitat Escarpments, gorges, rocky outcrops and scree slopes are important geological features which support unique habitats and species assemblages. A key fauna species is the nationally vulnerable Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) which inhabits these areas almost exclusively. Populations of the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby occur between Dutchmans Stern Conservation Park and the township of Hawker, and within Mount Remarkable National Park on the main southern range. A number of raptor species also use these areas for hunting and nesting. This asset is also thought to be important for a range of reptile species. Nested Assets AUS SATHREATENED MAMMALS Yellow‐footed Rock Wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) VU VBIRD ASSEMBLAGES Raptor species (e.g. Pergrine Falcon) REPTILE ASSEMBLAGES Rock habitat specialists KEY LOCATIONS Dutchman’s Stern Conservation Park, Arden Vale Ranges, Mount

Remarkable National Park


3. Viability of Conservation Assets 3.1. Methodology for Assessing the Viability of Conservation Assets The second step in the conservation action planning process is an assessment of the viability (or overall health) of the conservation assets. This is a four step process. Step 1 Identification of a small number (3 ‐ 5) of key ecological attributes for each conservation asset. Key ecological attributes represent the critical factors required for the long term viability of the conservation assets. These factors relate to the size, condition and landscape context of the assets and include attributes such as hydrological regimes, fire regimes, water quality, vegetation condition, fauna diversity, total remnant area and the size and configuration of patches (refer Table 4). Step 2 Identification of appropriate monitoring indicators for each key ecological attribute. Monitoring indicators are easily measurable factors closely related to the status of the key ecological attributes. For example, the frequency, duration and timing of flood events may be an appropriate monitoring indicator for hydrological regimes. Similarly, the presence or absence of a habitat‐sensitive species may be an appropriate indicator for species diversity or habitat condition. Step 3 Development of criteria for rating the current status of each indicator. The development of criteria for rating the status of each indicator is an iterative process that typically starts as a simplified qualitative assessment (e.g. lots, some, few) and is progressively developed into more refined, numeric value ranges (e.g. 1,000 megalitres of water for 3 months during late spring). Step 4 Ranking the current status of each indicator to determine the overall viability of the conservation assets. The final step in assessing the viability of the conservation assets is to rank the current status of each indicator based on the criteria for poor, fair, good and very good (described below). These individual ratings are rolled up in the Conservation Action Planning software to provide an assessment of the overall viability for each asset (refer table 4). POOR ‐ allowing the factor to remain in this condition for an extended period of time will make restoration or preventing extirpation practically impossible. FAIR – the factor is outside its range of acceptable variation and requires human intervention. If unchecked, the target will be vulnerable to serious degradation. GOOD – the factor is functioning within its range of acceptable variation; it may require some human intervention. VERY GOOD – the factor is functioning at an ecologically desirable status, and requires little human intervention. Source: adapted from Low (2003) 3.2. Viability of the Conservation Assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges The overall viability of the conservation assets, as assessed by the planning team, is displayed in Table 5. Viability was determined by identifying and rating the current status of the key ecological attributes of each conservation asset based on considerations of size, condition and landscape context (refer Table 4). These assessments were supported by existing monitoring data for some key ecological attributes (refer Table 9) and in other cases were based on local expert opinion. The absence of quantative data for assessing the viability of many key ecological attributes highlights a gap in the existing biodiversity monitoring program and an area for future development (refer section 7). Table 5 shows that coastal mangrove and samphire communities, mallee communities, arid ecosystems and rocky escarpments (Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby habitat) were assessed to be of good overall viability. The remainder of the conservation assets were assessed to be of fair overall viability with the exception of rivers, creeks and waterholes which were assessed to be poor. . .


3. Viability of Conservation Assets Table 4: Key Ecological Attributes of Conservation Assets Conservation Asset Landscape Context

Condition

Size

Coastal Mangrove & Samphire Communities

● natural idal flows ● connectivity to terrestrial vegetation communities

● fauna species diversity ● flora species diversity ● water quality

● total area remaining and patch size

Sandy Coasts and Dunes

● dune formation processes ● connectivity to adjacent vegetation communities

● fauna species diversity ● flora species diversity


Ephemeral Creeks and Permanent Waterholes

● hydrological regime ● connectivity to adjacent vegetation communities

● fauna species diversity ● flora species diversity ● bank stability ● tree crown health

not applicable

Temperate Shrublands

● fire regime ● connectivity to adjacent vegetation communities



Mallee Communities




Temperate Grassy Ecosystems


● fauna species diversity ● flora species diversity ● soil condition


Temperate Forests & Woodlands




Arid Ecosystems ● connectivity to adjacent vegetation communities

● fauna species diversity ● flora species diversity ● soil condition


Escarpments, Gorges, Rocky Outcrops and Scree Slopes

● connectivity to adjacent vegetation communities


not applicable

Note: Status of Key Ecological Attribute ‐ Poor, Fair, Good Table 5: Overall Viability Ratings for Conservation Assets

Conservation Asset Landscape Context Condition Size Overall Viability

1 Coastal Mangrove & Samphire Communities Fair Good Good Good

2 Sandy Coasts and Dunes Poor Fair Fair Fair

3 Ephemeral Creeks and Permanent Waterholes Poor Poor ‐ Poor

4 Temperate Shrublands Fair Fair Fair Fair

5 Mallee Communities Good Fair Good Good

6 Temperate Grassy Ecosystems Fair Poor Fair Fair

7 Temperate Forests & Woodlands Fair Fair Good Fair

8 Arid Ecosystems Good Fair Good Good

9 Escarpments (Gorges, Outcrops, Scree Slopes) Good Fair ‐ Good

Overall Landscape Viability Fair


4. Threats to Conservation Assets 4.1. Methodology for Assessing Threats The third step in the conservation action planning process involves the identification of high priority threats to the conservation assets. This is a two step process. The first step involves an assessment of the severity of the key stresses to the conservation assets. Stresses are inversely related to the key ecological attributes (refer section 3) and may include altered fire regimes, altered hydrological regimes, altered species diversity, reduced water quality, habitat fragmentation, etc. Stresses are ranked from very high to low based on: ● severity of damage where it occurs i.e. what level of damage can reasonably be expected within 10 years under current circumstances (Very High ‐ destroys or eliminates the conservation asset, High ‐ seriously degrades, Medium ‐ moderately degrades, Low ‐ slightly impairs); ● scope of the damage i.e. what is the geographic scope of impact on the conservation asset that can be reasonably expected within 10 years under current circumstances (Very High ‐ very widespread, High ‐ widespread, Medium ‐ localised, Low ‐ very localised). The second step in the process involves the identification and ranking of the source of stresses (i.e. the direct threats). For example, the source of stress for reduced species diversity may be total grazing pressure or the source of stress for altered hydrological regimes may be river extraction. Sources of stress are ranked from very high to low based on: ● contribution of the source to the stresss i.e. expected contribution of the source, acting alone, to the full expression of the stress under current circumstances (i.e. Very High ‐ very large contributor, High ‐ large contributor, Medium ‐ moderate contributor, Low ‐ small contributor). ● irreversibility of the stress caused by the source (Very High ‐ not reversible, High ‐ reversible, but not practically affordable, Medium ‐ reversible with reasonable commitment of resources, Low ‐ easily reversible at low cost). Once the stresses and sources are ranked according to the above criteria, a summary rating for each threat is generated by the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) software. This results in the threats summary table (refer Table 6) that allocates a ranking for each threat from very high to low, both in terms of the threat to the individual conservation assets and to the collective impact of the threat across the landscape. Source: adapted from (Low 2003) 4.2. Threats to the Conservation Assets in the Southern Flinders Ranges The key threats to the conservation assets, as assessed by the planning team, are displayed in Table 6. The table shows that inappropriate stock grazing, environmental weeds, loss of vegetation buffers, feral herbivores and carnivores and inappropriate fire regimes were assessed as the highest ranked threats to the conservation assets across the region. The most highly threatened assets were assessed as rivers, creeks and waterholes, temperate grassy ecosystems and arid ecosystems. Some of the key threats have been described in greater detail below. Inappropriate Stock Grazing and Access The majority of agriculture in the region is based on stock grazing activities and continuous grazing (or set‐stocking) is the dominant form of grazing management. Continuous grazing with inadequate rest time leads to decline in vegetation condition and in extreme cases can result in the loss of vegetative cover leading to soil erosion. Permanent waterholes are the focal points for stock in the landscape and are often highly degraded by continual grazing and trampling impacts. Encroachment of Agriculture / Loss of Vegetation Buffers The loss of adjacent native vegetation buffers, particularly to coastal and riparian ecosystems, can lead to a significant decline in vegetation condtion, habitat quality and landscape connectivty. The encroachment of agriculture on narrow, fragmented ecosystems results in ‘edge effects’ such as spray drift, invasion of weed species, altered micro‐climatic conditions and disturbance by vehicles and machinery.


4. Threats to Conservation Assets Table 6: Key Threats to Conservation Assets

Threats Across Targets

Coastal Mangrove

& Samphire

Sandy Coasts

and Dunes

Creeks & Water-holes

Temperate Shrub-lands

Mallee Communities

Temperate

Grassy Ecosystems

Temperate Forest &

Woodland

Arid Eco-

systems

Escarp.. Gorges, Rocky

Outcrops, Scree Slopes

Overall Threat Rank

Project-specific threats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Inappropriate Livestock Grazing & Access

- Medium High High Medium High Low High

High

Encroachment of Agriculture (loss of vegetation buffers)

Medium Medium High Low - Medium - -

Medium

Environmental Weeds

Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium

Medium

Feral Herbivores (goats, deer, rabbits)

- Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium Medium

Feral Carnivores (foxes, cats)

- Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Excessive Water Extraction & Harvesting

- - High - - - - -

Medium

Inappropriate Fire Regimes - - - Low Low Low Medium Medium

Medium

Abundant Native Species (kangaroos)

- - Low Low - Low - Medium Medium Medium

Incompatible Housing Development

Medium Medium - - - Low Low -

Medium

Historical Land Clearance (habitat fragmentation)

- - - - Medium Medium Low -

Medium

Firewood Collection

- - Low - Low Medium Low Low

Low

Inappropriate Off-road Vehicle use

Low Medium - - - - Low Low

Low

Feral Aquatic Fauna - - Medium - - - - -

Low

Industrial and Township Impacts

Low - - - - - - -

Low

Infrastructure Restricting Tidal Flows

Low - - - - - - -

Low

Mining - Low - - - - - -

Low

Threat Status Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High Medium

High


4. Threats to Conservation Assets Environmental Weeds High priority environmental weeds in the region include opuntioid cacti species such as Prickly Pear, Wheel Cactus and Creeping Opuntia in mallee and arid communities, African Boxthorn (Lycium ferocissimum) in coastal, mallee and arid ecosystems and Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) in temperate forests and woodlands. All of these species are listed as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS). A number of other emerging temperate weeds occur in higher rainfall areas such as Olives (Olea europea), Roses (Rosa spp.), Desert Ash (Fraxinus angustifolius), Montpellier Broom (Genista monspessulana) and Blackberry (Rubus spp.). Feral Herbivores Goats, rabbits and deer cause widespread damage to native vegetation and soil condition. Goats are a particular issue in the Arden Vale Ranges (north of Quorn), Telowie Gorge (main southern range) and in the east of the reigon around Orrorroo and Peterborough. Rabbits are widespread throughout the region and deer are restricted to the main southern range. Feral Carnivores Foxes and cats are a significant threat to ground‐dwelling birds within grassy ecosystems (e.g. Australian Bustard, Quail, Plains Wanderer) and the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) on rocky outcrops and in gorges. It is recognised however that feral predators may also play an important regulatory role in maintaining healthy populations of some native species. Further research is required to understand these interactions. Excessive Water Extraction and Storage Excessive water extraction impacts the hydrological flows of rivers, creeks and waterholes and can reduce the amount of water available to natural ecosystems. Extraction includes pumping from permanent waterholes and groundwater, direct watering of stock and the creation of dams along watercourses. Inappropriate Fire Management / Suppression Fire management and suppression activities alter the frequency, intensity, extent and timing of fire in the landscape. Fire suppression can lead to reduced regeneration of fire‐dependent plants, increased homogeneity of habitat and increased risks of high intensity fires. Conversely too frequent or too intense fire can also have negative impacts. Inappropriate fire regimes are a particular threat to temperate forests and woodlands in the main southern range and to the spinifex hummock grasslands of the Arden Vale Ranges. An additional component of the threat of fire is the subsequent weed invasion and grazing pressure during the post‐fire recovery period. Abundant Native Species Abundant native species principally refers to kangaroos which can occur in high numbers in agricultural landscapes. Abundant kangaroos contribute to the total grazing pressure and can have significant impacts on native vegetation condition. Large numbers of Corellas can also cause significant damage to tree health as experienced in the Red Gum woodlands around Melrose and Quorn. Inappropriate Off‐road Vehicle Use Off‐road vehicle use is a significant threat to coastal and arid ecosystems where impacts include direct damage to vegetation and disturbance to native fauna (eg. breeding/nesting birds). Impacts occur on private and public lands and are often concentrated near townships. High impact zones have been identified in coastal areas around Port Pirie, Port Augusta and around shack towns such as Miranda near Winninowie Conservation Park.


5. Setting Conservation Objectives 5.1. Methodology for Setting Conservation Objectives The fourth step in the conservation action planning process involves setting measurable objectives that, if achieved, would ensure the long term conservation of the assets. In particular, objectives are developed in line with the S.M.A.R.T principles (i.e specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time‐bound) and are aimed at addressing high priority threats or achieving improvements in size, condition and landscape context attributes. Some useful considerations for setting conservation objectives relating to size, condition and landscape context are described below: Size: Species‐area curves provide useful guidelines for setting goals relating to the amount of habitat required for conservation. A variety of studies indicate that, as a general rule, retaining 30‐40 percent of pre‐European extent will conserve 80‐90 percent of species associated with a particular habitat type (Dobson 1996, Nachlinger et al. 2001). As a general rule, a minimum 30‐40 percent area target may be applied for conservation assets that have not been subject to broad scale clearance. For highly depleted or restricted conservation assets this may be raised to 50 percent. Condition: Condition attributes such as native flora and fauna diversity / composition and water quality are often poorly recorded at the landscape scale but are integral to the concept of functional landscapes. Maintaining ecological integrity over long time periods requires condition attributes functioning within their natural range of variation over specified geographical areas and time periods. Historical condition benchmarks (i.e. pre‐European), when available, provide a useful reference point for goal setting; however, caution should be applied due to the likely influence of climate change (Harris et al. 2006) and historical degradation (e.g. salinity). In some regions, benchmark conditions may be referenced to regional condition monitoring manuals (e.g. NCSSA Bushland Condition Monitoring) Landscape Context: The spatial distribution of habitat “patches” and key disturbance events such as fire and hydrological regimes are critical to conservation at the landscape scale. Much of the theory relating to the spatial distribution of habitat is underpinned by metapopulation theory in which independent species populations may eventually go extinct due to the incremental impacts of wildfire, weeds, predation and population dynamics. The protection and management of existing populations, habitats and refugia, together with the restoration of terrestrial and aquatic processes is therefore critical to landscape conservation. Factors for goal setting relating to the spatial distribution of patches include the size, shape, number and distance between patches. Goals for fire and hydrological regimes should consider the timing, frequency, duration and extent. 5.2. Conservation Objectives of the Southern Flinders Ranges Based on the threat assessment for the medium and high ranked threats to the conservation assets of the Southern Flinders Ranges (refer Table 6), 16 conservation objectives have been developed by participants in the CAP workshops. Three foundational objectives are also presented in this section. Foundational objectives underpin the development and successful implementation of landscape‐scale projects and address funding, community engagement and knowledge gaps. An analysis of the formal protection status of each conservation asset (ie. within conservation reserves and private Heritage Agreements) has also been undertaken to help set numerical area targets for conservation objectives (refer Table 8). The analysis is based on the simplified 30‐40% vegetation cover principle as outlined in section 5.1. above.


5. Setting Conservation Objectives 3 Foundational Objectives Funding Objective: From 2010, attract sufficient annual funding for the successful implementation of the Living Flinders project. Community Support and Partnerships Objective: By 2012, consolidate organisational partnerships and community support for the Living Flinders project. Knowledge Gaps and Research Objective: By 2015, secure key ecological knowledge for the successful implementation of the Living Flinders project. 16 Conservation Objectives Asset: Coastal Dunes, Mangroves and Samphire, Threat: Off‐road Vehicles and Recreational Use By 2015, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition in priority coastal areas impacted by recreational use (off‐road vehicles, people, camping) and permanently or seasonally restrict access to highly sensitive coastal habitats. Asset: Coastal Dunes, Threat: Environmental Weeds By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of priority coastal weeds (e.g. African Boxthorn, Carrion Flower, Gazania, Iceplant) and on‐going 10% annual reduction of core infestations to conserve high value habitat. Asset: Coastal Dunes, Mangroves and Samphire, Threat: Loss of Vegetaton Buffers By 2020, re‐establish 1,500 hectares of native vegetation to enhance connectivity between high priority coastal habitats, riparian zones and the main southern ranges and to buffer coastal and riparian ecosystems from incompatible land management practices and predicted sea‐level rise. Asset: Coastal Dunes, Mangroves and Samphire, Threat: New Developments By 2015, new coastal developments and associated clearance are restricted to environmentally appropriate designs and locations and no further developments occur in regionally signficant ecological areas. Asset: Rivers, Creeks & Waterholes, Threat: Stock Grazing, Environmental Weeds and Loss of Adjacent Vegetation By 2020, 7,000 hectares of high priority river reaches achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and are permanently free from stock grazing and weed invasion, and adequately buffered by native vegetation. Asset: Rivers, Creeks & Waterholes, Threat: Altered Hydrological Regimes By 2020, restore adequate hydrological regimes, within the limits of climatic variation, in priority sub‐catchments of the Rocky River, Willochra River and Mambray Coast Creeks to sustain the long viability of regionally significant, water‐dependent ecosystems. Asset: Temperate Forests and Woodlands, Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regimes By 2020, restoration of fire regimes in temperate forests and woodlands to encourage the regeneration of fire dependent plants, provide a mosaic of habitat at different successional stages and to minimise the risk of large, high intensity fires destroying threatened species populations.


5. Setting Conservation Objectives Asset: Temperate Forests and Woodlands, Threat: Environmental Weeds By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of temperate weed infestations, with priority to Weeds of National Significance (Bridal Creeper, Blackberry), and on‐going 10 % annual reduction of core infestations to protect high value habitat. Asset: Temperate Forests and Woodlands, Threat: Feral Herbivores By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares of temperate forests and woodlands impacted by overabundant rabbits, goats, kangaroos and deer. Asset: Grassy Woodlands and Grasslands, Threat: Inappropriate Stock Grazing By 2020, sustainable stock grazing regimes achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved diversity and abundance of woodland birds across 17,000 hectares of grassy woodlands and grasslands, with priority to the restoration of nationally threatened ecosystems (e.g. Grey Box and Peppermint Box woodlands, Iron‐grass grasslands). Asset: Escarpments, Gorges and Rocky Outcrops (Yellow‐footed Rock Wallaby Habitat), Threat: Feral Carnivores By 2020, achieve desired distribution, population size and age classes of threatened fauna, particularly the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby, impacted by feral carnivores (i.e. foxes and cats). Asset: Arid and Mallee Ecosystems, Threat: Environmental Weeds By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of opuntioid cactus and African Boxthorn and on‐going 10% annual reduction of core infestations to conserve high value mallee and arid ecosystems Asset: Arid and Mallee Ecosystems, Threat: Feral Herbivores By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares of priority mallee and arid ecosystems impacted by overabundant goats, rabbits and kangaroos. Asset: Arid Ecosystems, Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regimes By 2015, restore appropriate fire regimes within Spinifex (Triodia) grasslands of arid ecosystems, particularly in the Arden Vale Ranges, to maintain habitat values for key fauna species such as the Short‐tailed Grasswren. Asset: Arid Ecosystems, Threat: Inappropriate Stock Grazing By 2020, sustainable stock grazing regimes achieve optimum vegetation condition (i.e. possible under stock grazing) across 250,000 hectares of arid ecosystems, with priority to higher quality areas that support threatened species habitat and / or key landscape linkages Threat: Under‐represented Ecosystems By 2020, long term, formal protection (private land agreements, formal reserves) across 9,000 hectares of coastal mangroves and samphire, 7,000 hectares of riparian vegetation, 17,000 hectares of grassy ecosystems, 26,000 hectares of mallee and and 30,000 hectares of arid ecosystems, with priority to higher quality, representative areas that support threatened species habitat and key landscape linkages.


6 Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs 6.1. Methodology for Developing and Prioritising Conservation Strategies The fifth step in the conservation action planning process involves the identification of effective strategies and action steps to achieve the conservation objectives developed in Section 5. This is a three step process. Step 1 Conduct a thorough situation analysis of the key factors related to the conservation objectives. This includes consideration of the causal factors underlying particular threats and potential hurdles for enhancing the condition of conservation assets (e.g. social, cultural, economic and individual motivations). This can help pinpoint opportunities for intervention and guide decisions about which delivery mechanisms are best employed to achieve the conservation objectives (e.g. direct landholder targeting, use of volunteers or contractors, market based instruments, education programs, or legislative and policy changes). Step 2 Brainstorm conservation strategies and action steps. Conservation strategies and action steps are the broad courses of action required to achieve the conservation objectives. There are essentially three “pathways” for strategy development that should be considered for threat abatement objectives. These include: ● direct protection or management of land or water; ● influencing a key decision maker; ● addressing a key underlying factor. Once the major strategies are identified, they may be broken down into smaller, more detailed action steps. Step 3 Prioritise conservation strategies and action steps according to a cost‐benefit and feasibility analysis. Useful considerations for prioritising strategies and action steps include the relative biodiversity value of the asset (e.g. nationally threatened habitat type), its level of threat, the contribution of the strategy to meeting the conservation objective, the duration of the benefit achieved and the potential leverage of the action (e.g. high profile site that provides a catalyst for further action). Feasibility of implementation should also be considered including the total cost and time required to implement the strategy, the ease of land access and the degree to which a lead individual / institution exists to implement the strategy. It may be useful to initially prioritise a small number of conservation strategies that provide a mix of high benefit and high feasibility (i.e. low hanging fruit) actions. In particular the high feasibility actions ensures that projects can get some early ‘runs on the board’ to leverage investment into the more complex and costly strategies. The use of specialised prioritisation tools such as the Investment Framework for Envrionmental Resources – INFFER (http://www.inffer.org/) can aid this process. Use of Conceptual Models Conceptual models are increasingly being used for strategy development in conservation planning. A conceptual model is a visual method (diagram) of representing a set of causal relationships between factors that are believed to impact on one or more of the conservation assets. A good model should explicitly link the conservation assets to the direct threats impacting them, the factors (i.e. indirect threats) influencing the direct threats, and the strategic activities proposed to mitigate those factors (WWF 2005). The Miradi software program (www.miradi.org) can be used to develop conceptual models and fully supports the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process. It is recommended that conservation projects that have applied the CAP process investigate the use of the Miradi software and conceptual models during the strategy development stage. 6.2. Conservation Strategies and Action Steps and Key Programs for the Southern Flinders Ranges The following section presents the conservation strategies and action steps developed by the planning team to achieve the 3 foundational objectives and 16 conservation objectives identified in Section 5. It also orders the objectives, strategies and actions steps into 9 key program areas which reflect the implementation approach currently taken by on‐ground operational teams. An indication of the progress made toward achieving the objective is also given in this section through the use of the terms On Track or Completed next to the Action Steps (where applicable).


6 Conservation Strategies, Action Steps and Key Programs Actions 6.3. FOUNDATIONAL PROGRAM ‐ OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: From 2010, gain sufficient annual funding for the successful implementation of the Living Flinders project. Strategy: Investment and Fund‐raising Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Ongoing submission of funding applications through traditional NRM sources ‐ On Track 2. Development of investment prospectus and individual project briefs ‐ On Track 3. Development of promotional DVD to support investment prospectus ‐ Completed 4. Project Launch with DVD and investment prospectus to promote awareness and investment ‐ Completed

5. Engagement with corporates and the philanthropic sector to secure investment for projects ‐ On Track 6. Carbon offset viability assessment to determine options for attracting carbon investment Objective: By 2012, consolidate organisational partnerships and community support for the Living Flinders project. Strategy: Community Engagement and Organisational Partnerships Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Landholder mapping and targeted landholder contact in priority areas ‐ On Track 2. Community workshops, presentations, site visits and community group development ‐ On Track

3. Development of project name, branding and promotional resources. – Completed 4. Development of project website 5. Newsletters and media to keep community and partner organisations informed 6. Signage for high profile sites to promote awareness 7. Partnership agreement (MOU) between lead organisations ‐ On Track 8. Engagement of other key project partners ‐ On Track 9. Engagement with indigenous community leaders and land managers ‐ On Track Objective: By 2015, secure key ecological knowledge for the successful implementation of the Living Flinders project. Strategy: Knowledge, Research and Monitoring and Evaluation Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Ongoing conservation action planning and prioritisation process (CAP, LAF, INFFER) ‐ On Track 2. Collation of historical monitoring data, production state of environment report and development of a

landscape monitoring framework ‐ On Track 3. Resource condition assessments of conservation assets including bushland condition, woodland birds,

shorebirds, threatened species populations and threatening processes 4. Establishment of monitoring sites to evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions (before, after, control

sites) ‐ On Track 5. Habitat condition mapping and improved threat (weeds, grazing) mapping across the region ‐ On Track

6. Research population dynamics, distributions and trends for key nested flora and fauna species 7. Climate change impact predictions across all assets and nested assets.

8. Detailed florisitc vegetation mapping for areas missing data 9. Develop state and transition models for key ecosystem types


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.4. UPPER SPENCER GULF COASTAL PLAINS PROGRAM ‐ OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2015, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition in priority coastal areas impacted by recreational use (off‐road vehicles, people, camping) and permanently or seasonally restrict access to highly sensitive coastal habitats. Strategy: Recreational Impact Management on the Upper Spencer Gulf Coastal Plains Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Identify highly sensitive coastal habitats and high impact recreational areas – Completed

2. Identify critical timing to concentrate protection efforts and overlay with understanding of peak time for coastal recreational use (e.g. summer, long weekends)

3. Collect baseline site condition data at high priority coastal protection sites ‐ On Track 4. Engage different recreational groups causing adverse impacts (e.g. fishers, campers, motorbike riders, 4WDs) and key land managers to understand their attitudes to different control options 5. Identify best‐practice control methodologies including establishment of different zones suitable for different levels of impact (i.e. complete exclusion, low level interaction, high level) and develop a costed implementation plan for priority sites ‐ On Track 6. Implement improved infrastructure projects (i.e. access tracks, signage, camp grounds) and education program for less sensitive areas 7. Establish protection zones for complete exclusion at set times (track closures, access points, physical barriers, volunteer rangers) for highly sensitive coastal habitats 8. Increase enforcement and prosecution effort for those illegally causing damage through targeted blitz at peak times, lobbying for strengthening of penalties and for changes to policy of beaches as public roads. 9. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation. Follow up any actions and implement changes as required

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 11 – Management of Coastal Recreational Impacts in Southern Flinders Ranges Objective: By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of priority coastal weeds (e.g. African Boxthorn, Carrion Flower, Gazania, Iceplant) and on‐going 10% annual reduction of core infestations to conserve high value habitats. Strategy: Targeted Weed Control on the Upper Spencer Gulf Coastal Plains Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Collate distribution data and map coastal weed infestations and outlying occurrences ‐ On Track

2. Identify, map and prioritise high value coastal dunes threatened by weeds ‐ On Track 3. Baseline site condition assessments of priority weed control sites ‐ On Track

4. Identify current weed control programs (Authorised Officers, Council, Community Groups, DEWNR) and improve integration and communication across projects and tenures 4. Review existing literature to understand biology, vectors and best practice control techniques for priority environmental weeds and develop ‘Strategic Coastal Weed Control Strategy’ (inc site prioritisation and budgets) 5. Community education and training activities re identification, best‐practice control techniques and reporting of priority coastal weeds including a campaign to ensure local nurseries do not sell them 6. Greater legislative enforcement of control of proclaimed weeds on public and private lands 7. Engage and support volunteer community groups and NGOs to undertake weed control on high priority sites as per ‘Strategic Coastal Weed Control Strategy’ 8. Engage commercial contractors, Authorised Officers and council staff to undertake weed control on high priority sites 9. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of weed control sites and strategy to ensure it is effective. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 10 – Control of Coastal Weeds in the Southern Flinders Ranges


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions

Map 6: Coastal Plains Program – Recreational Impact and Weed Priority Areas


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.4. UPPER SPENCER GULF COASTAL PLAINS PROGRAM ‐ OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS (CONTINUED) Objective: By 2020, re‐establish 1,500 hectares of native vegetation to enhance connectivity between high priority coastal habitats, riparian zones and the main southern ranges and to buffer coastal and riparian ecosystems from incompatible land management practices and predicted sea‐level rise. Strategy: Vegetation Buffers and Linkages on the Upper Spencer Gulf Coastal Plains Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing literature relating to coastal and riparian habitats of the Upper Spencer Gulf coast, predicted

sea‐level rise and incompatible land‐uses (e.g. N&Y Coastal Assessment Report) 2. Identfy and map priority linkage zones where enhanced connectivity can feasibly be achieved between coastal ecosystems and the main southern ranges and where riparian and coastal habitats can be buffered from inconmpatible land management practices and predicted sea‐level rise. 3. Collect baseline site condition data at priority sites to monitor changes and aid prioritisation 4. Engage key landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes re involvement in a coastal linkages and buffers project 5. Identify public reserves and other available lands potentially compatible with revegetation / regeneration 6. Develop best‐practice revegetation guidelines considering appropriate species mix, density, structure, width and shape of buffers and linkages. Develop implementation plan including site prioritisaiton and budgets. 7. Undertake local seed collection, seedbank management and nursery development to support revegetation 8. Ongoing, specialist extension support for landholders in priority areas to develop/implement site‐based plans 9. Provison of appropriate financial incentives (and resources) for private landholders in prioriy areas to undertake revegetation and encourage regeneration. 10. Undertake full‐cost revegetation of buffers and linkages on available public lands in priority areas 11. Coordinate integrated pest plant and animal control program in priority buffer and linkage zones 12. Underake carbon analysis of the landscape to identify opportunities for future investment through Carbon Farming Initiaitve and Clean Energy Futures Program 13. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation. Adjust strategy and undertaken maintenance as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 13 – Strategic Buffers and Linkages in the Southern Flinders Ranges Objective: By 2015, new coastal developments and associated clearance are restricted to environmentally appropriate designs and locations and no further developments in regionally signficant ecological areas Strategy: Sustainable Coastal Development on the Upper Spencer Gulf Coastal Plains Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review relevant legislation, regional development plans and local and state government approvals process

and engage key decision makers (i.e. Local Government, Planning SA, Development Board). Lobby for changes to improve environmental protection for regionally significant ecological areas of the coast. 2. Identify and map regionally significant ecological areas of the coast not suitable for further development (i.e. ‘no go’ areas considering marine values, sea‐level rise risk assessment and coastal assessment report), and identify other areas considered suitable for development (e.g. around current population nodes) 3. Identify appropriate guidelines for coastal development in suitable areas (i.e. locations, set back limits, minimum allotment size, landscaping, managing run‐off and effluent, types of development) 5. Community education and awareness program re ecologically significant areas of the coast and cumulative impact of developments 6. Provide detailed information to planning approval decision makers re proposed no‐go development zones and other areas considered suitable and recommended development guidelines 7. Support Local Government to undertake ecological assessments and informed development decisions. Identifiy mechanisms to address the threat of litigation and incursion of legal costs if a developer challenges an approval decision. 8. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the suitability of coastal developments. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: not applicable


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 7: Coastal Plains Program – Vegetation Buffers and Linkages Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.5. EPHEMERAL RIVERS, CREEKS AND WATERHOLES – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, 7,000 hectares of high priority areas of rivers and creeks achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and are permanently free from stock grazing and weed invasion, and adequately buffered by native vegetation. Strategy: Targeted Protection of High Priority Sections of Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Review existing river reports for the Rocky River, Willochra River and Mambray Coast Creeks to identify high

priority areas of rivers and creeks. 2. Map priority areas using spatial prioritisation tools and existing condition data (e.g. riparian vegetation condition, instream habitat, water quality, landscape context, threatened species, permanent pools). 3. Baseline site condition assessment (BCM, AusRivers methodology) to monitor changes and aid prioritisation. 4. Identify best practice methodologies for riparian restoration including stock grazing (e.g. crash grazing), solar pumps, new water points, riparian fencing, weed control and revegetation 5. Engage key landholders of priority river reaches to understand attitudes re adoption of best‐practice riparian management and willingness to work with adjacent landholders. 6. Provide ongoing, specialist, extension support for private landholders to develop river management plans. Where possible, develop collaborative landholder groups and multi‐property river management plans.

7. Provision of financial incentives (fixed rate, competitive tender, stewardship) to landholders to implement river management plans (e.g. water‐point relocation, fencing, solar pumps, weed control, revegetation) 8. Community educationand awareness re priority river reaches and best‐practice restoration techniques 6. Identify priority areas on public lands for support by volunteer groups and use of commercial contractors 12. Ongoing site monitoing and evaluation. Adjust strategy and maintain priority sites as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 12 – Conservation of Permanent Waterholes and Springs in the Southern Flinders

Objective: By 2020, restore adequate hydrological regimes, within the limits of climatic variation, in priority sub‐catchments of the Rocky River, Willochra River and Mambray Coast Creeks to sustain the long viability of regionally significant, water‐dependent ecosystems. Strategy: Restoration of Hydrological Flows to Priority Sub‐catchments of Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing reports relating to the restoration of hydrological regimes for regionally significant water‐

dependent ecosystems, management of water affecting activities and climate change modelling. 2. Identify regionally significant water‐dependent ecosystems within priority sub‐catchments 3. Identify current hydrological regime (flow stations, groundwater) and desired regimes in priority sub‐catchments and determine the level and timing of returns required to sustain water‐dependent ecosystems 4. Identify current level of water extraction in priority sub‐catchments and the relative contribution of different types of water‐affecting activities (e.g. bores, groundwater pumping, farm dams, river extraction). 5. Assess the effectiveness and feasibility of different options for achieving the desired hydrological regimes (e.g. reservoir release, low flow bypasses, decommisioning of unused dam, fixing leaking bores, instream retention of natural flows, wetland construction, water‐use efficiency programs) 6. Priroitise sub‐catchments where the restoration of hydrological regimes is feasible and the level of environmental significance of water dependent ecosystems is high 7. Community awareness of the importance of water‐dependent ecosystems and hydrological regimes 8. Enage key stakeholders (SA Water, famers) involved in water extraction and harvesting to understand attitudes to proposed management options 9. Engage major reservoirs (SA Water) to investigate the feasibility for water releases to restore hyrdrological flows in priority sub‐catchments 10. Declaration of new prescribed areas for priority sub‐catchments including the development of water allocation plans, cap and trade system and potential buy‐back of water licences 11. Engage Local Government to incorporate hydrological flow consideration into their stormwater and flood mitigation plans and to tighten approval process for new bores and dams 12. Water use efficiency education and financial incentives program to decommission dams, repair leaking bores, implement best‐practice water use guidelines for water affecting activities, and improve infrastructure. 13. Funding for instream conservation works to support longer retention of natural flows in priority sub‐catchments by increasing habitat complexity (rocks, snags) and wetland construction 14. Ongoing monitoring of hydrological regimes (groundwater depth, flow stations) and health of regionally significant water dependent ecosystems in priority sub‐catchments. Adjust strategy as required.


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 8: Ephemeral Rivers, Creeks and Waterholes Program Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.6. GRASSY WOODLANDS AND GRASSLANDS PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, sustainable stock grazing regimes achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved diversity and abundance of woodland birds across 17,000 hectares of grassy woodlands and grasslands, with priority to the restoration of nationally threatened ecosystems (e.g. Grey Box and Peppermint Box woodlands, Iron‐grass grasslands). Strategy: Sustainable Stock Grazing Regimes to Restore High Priority Grassy Ecosystems Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Improve mapping of temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands including the distribution of threatened

ecological communities and species ‐ On Track 2. Identify key properties in the project area subject to stock grazing and land managers to engage 3. Understand land managers attitudes to changing stock grazing regimes (e.g. training required, infrastructure costs, time) and understand current grazing regimes implemented. 4. Determine baseline condition of grassy ecosystems in the project area including diiferent condition classes and benchmark reference sites. Produce vegetation condition mapping for grassy ecosystems.

5. Prioritisation of sites / properies to reach target of 17,000 hectares 6. Review existing literature and programs relating to sustainable stock grazing regimes in grassy ecosystems and identify essential components for successful implementation 7. Engage Native Vegetation Council to investigate approval required to change stock grazing regime in grassy ecosystems and streamline process to allow for easy landholder adoption 8. Develop best‐practice stock grazing methodologies specific to different grassy ecosystem types (i.e. EPBC listed communities) and suited to local conditions and condition classes 9. Develop and run practical landholder training courses in sustainable stock grazing in grassy ecosystems highlighting benefits of incorporating productivity with biodiversity. Utilise existing demonstration sites. 10. Provide ongoing, specialist, grazing extension support for landholders and targeted groups in priority areas to adopt sustainable stock grazing regimes. Develop farmer‐to‐farmer extension support (through paid local champions) to support and expand local implementation. 11. Develop and run a ‘Train the trainer’ course for new extension staff to increase number of people able to support landholders in sustainable stock grazing in grassy ecosystems 12. Provide financial incentives (fixed rate or competitive stewardship tender) to landholders for improved infrastructure and other activities required to adopt new grazing regime (fencing, waterpoints) 8. Improve community awareness of the economic and ecological value of sustainable stock grazing regimes in grassy ecosystems 13. Develop and implement a long term grassy ecosystems monitoring system that assess both change in biodiversity condition and grazing productivity value. As part of this system, develop practical monitoing approaches for famers. 14. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation (vegetation condition, grazing producitivity, bird surveys), including uptake and attitudes of farmers. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 15 ‐ Sustainable Grazing and Conservation in the Southern Flinders Ranges


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 9: Grassy Woodlands and Grasslands Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.7. SOUTHERN RANGES PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, restoration of fire regimes in temperate forests and woodlands to encourage the regeneration of fire dependent plants, provide a mosaic of habitat at different successional stages and to minimise the risk of large, high intensity fires destroying threatened species populations Strategy: Implementation of Ecological Fire Regimes in the Southern Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Identify and map flora and fauna populations at risk of inappropriate fire regimes

2. Undertake fire age mapping (extent, timing and intensity) to understand recent fire regimes in past 50 years and understand current policy for future fire events (e.g. 5% per year on park policy, fire management plans) 3. Collate current knowledge re ecological fire management in similar landscapes and determine desired ecological fire regime for the southern ranges to conserve species and habitat diversity 4. Determine gap between current fire management regime and desired ecological fire regime 5. Understand attitudes and barriers of major stakeholders (CFS, DENR, SA Water, Forestry SA, Council, private landholders, Native Vegetation Council) for adopting a new ecological fire regime and gain consensus to work collaboratively towards implementation‐ On Track 6. Lobby fire management authorities to adopt stronger ecological considerations into fire policy development including changes to Native Vegetation Act relating to approval of fire on private lands 7. Develop strategies for fire management on private land and an overall landscape fire strategy 8. Community education program re the role of fire in the landscape (ecological requirements, asset protection) 9. Implement ecological fire management regime on public and private lands 10. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation of burnt and unburnt areas. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 14 – Managing Fire Regimes in Temperate Woodlands of the Southen Flinders Objective: By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of temperate weed infestations, with priority to Weeds of National Significance (Bridal Creeper, Blackberry), and on‐going 10 % annual reduction of core infestations to protect high value habitat. Strategy: Targeted Temperate Weed Control to Conserve Temperate Woodlands in the Southern Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Collate distribution data and map all temperate weed infestations (Bridal Creeper, Blackberry, Olives, Rose,

Ash, African Boxthorn, Broom) and outlying occurrences ‐ On Track 2. Map and prioritise high value temperate forests and woodlands threatened by weeds ‐ On Track

3. Baseline site condition assessments of priority weed control sites ‐ On Track 4. Understand landholder attitudes re environmental weed control

5. Identification of current weed control programs (Authorised Officers, Council, Community Groups, DEWNR) and improve integration and communication across projects and tenures 6. Review literature to understand biology, vectors and best practice control techniques for priority temperate weeds and develop ‘Strategic Southern Ranges Weed Control Strategy’ (inc site prioritisation and budgets) 7. Community education and training workshops re identification, best‐practice control techniques and reporting of priority temperate weeds including a campaign to ensure local nurseries do not sell them 8. Greater legislative enforcement of control of proclaimed weeds on public and private lands 9. Engage and support volunteer community groups and NGOs to undertake weed control on high priority sites as per ‘Strategic Weed Control Strategy’ 10. Engage commercial contractors, Authorised Officers and council staff to undertake weed control on high priority sites 11. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of weed control sites and follow up maintenance as required. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 8 & 9 – Control of WONS and Temperate Weeds in the Southern Flinders Ranges


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 10: Southern Ranges Program – Temperate Weeds and Fire Management Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.7. SOUTHERN RANGES PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS (CONTINUED) Objective: By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares and of temperate forests and woodlands impacted by overabundant rabbits, goats, kangaroos and deer. Strategy: Goat and Deer Control in the Southern Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing literature, strategies and programs relating to best‐practice goat and deer control. Link in

with existing cross‐regional programs ‐ On Track. 2. Identify priority areas for goat and deer control based on understanding of high impact areas, biodiversity values, ability of land to recover and likely landholder willingness ‐ On Track 3. Engage landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes towards goat and deer control (i.e. goats viewed as ecomonic resource). For unwilling landholders, determine what incentives would encourage them to be involved ‐ On Track 4. Support development of collaborative landholder groups to plan goat and deer control across neighbouring properties. 5. Determine baseline condition of priority control areas and appropriate monitoring methodology to determine level of goat / deer browse and overall numbers 6. Document proposed goat and deer control mechanisms, financial incentives, land management agreements and budgeted implementation plan 7. Community education and awareness of the negative impact of goats and deer on productivity and biodiversity. 8. Provide financial incentives and physical support for coordinated, collaborative, onground goat and deer control with neighbouring private landholders in priority areas (including coordinated ground‐based mustering of goats, supply of goat yards, supply of helicopter with aerial shoots and mustering support, establish Judas goat with collar, removal of unused waterpoints, use of sporting shooters) ‐ On Track 10. Lobby for changes to goat policy and legislation including investigating the impact of recognising goats as stock (ie. become the responsibility of landholders) or develop legislative requirement for control of goats 11. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the land condition of goat and deer control areas. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of strategy and adjust as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 6 – Control of Feral Herbivores and Over‐abundant Natives in Southern Flinders


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 11: Southern Ranges Program – Goat and Deer Control Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.8. YELLOW‐FOOTED ROCK‐WALLABY AND FERAL CARNIVORE CONTROL PROGRAM

– OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, achieve desired distribution, population size and age classes of threatened fauna, particularly the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby, impacted by feral carnivores (i.e. foxes and cats). Strategy: Fox and Cat Control to protect Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby populations Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Collect baseline data, both on public and private land, on current distribution, population size and age classes

of Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby (YFRW) populations ‐ On Track 2. Collect baseline data on distribution and density of foxes and cats in the landscape 3. Determine relative impact of fox and cat predation on viability of fauna populations versus other attributes (e.g. seasonal conditions, habitat condition). Also assess relative impact of foxes versus cats on fauna. 4. Determine desired distribution, population size and age classes of the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby

5. Identification of priority areas for feral carnivore control and key land managers to engage ‐ Completed 6. Engage landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes re feral carnivore control and conservation of Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby populations ‐ Completed 7. Identify appropriate methodology and required level of fox / cat control to achieve viable YFRW populations (include budgets, priority sites and techniques) 8. Undertake integrated, large‐scale fox and cat control program (including provision of baits) both on public and private lands with increased effort during critical periods (e.g.presence of young) ‐ On Track 9.. Identify effective cat control techniques including lobbying for legislative change to allow baiting and compulsory cat registration 10. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby populations and adjust control effort as required ‐ On Track

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 7 – Control of Feral Carnivores to Protect the Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 12: Yellow‐footed Rock‐Wallaby and Feral Carnivore Control Program Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.9. ARDEN VALE RANGES PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares of priority mallee and arid ecosystems impacted by abundant goats, rabbits and kangaroos. Strategy 1: Coordinated Goat Control to Conserve High Value Habitat in the Arden Vale Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing literature, strategies and programs relating to best‐practice goat control. Link in with existing

cross‐border goat control projects and understand successful approaches and lessons learnt ‐ On Track. 2. Identify priority areas for goat control based on understanding of high impact areas, biodiversity values, ability of land to recover and landholder willingness ‐ On Track 3. Engage landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes towards goat control (i.e. goats viewed as ecomonic resource). For unwilling landholders, determine what incentives would encourage them to be involved ‐ On Track 4. Support development of collaborative landholder groups to plan goat control across neighbouring properties. 5. Determine baseline condition of priority control areas and appropriate monitoring methodology to determine level of goat browse and overall goat numbers 6. Document proposed goat control mechanisms, incentives, land management agreements and budgeted implementation plan with an aim of greater than 60% annual reduction of goat numbers 7. Community education and awareness of the negative impact of goats on productivity and biodiversity. Support research into the long term financial benefits of increased stocking rates through ongoing goat control. 8. Provide financial and physical support for coordinated, collaborative, onground goat control with neighbouring private landholders in priority areas (including coordinated ground‐based mustering of goats, supply of goat yards, supply of helicopter with aerial shoots and mustering support, establish Judas goat with collar, removal of unused waterpoints, use of sporting shooters) ‐ On Track 9. Land purchase, covenanting or long term stewardship in priority areas where collaborative onground control by private landholders is not achievable. 10. Lobby for changes to goat policy and legislation including investigating the impact of recognising goats as stock (ie. become the responsibility of landholders) or develop legislative requirement for control of goats 11. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the land condition of goat control areas. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of strategy and adjust as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 6 – Control of Feral Herbivores and Over‐abundant Natives in Southern Flinders Objective: By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of opuntioid cactus and African Boxthorn and on‐going 10% annual reduction of core infestations to conserve high value mallee and arid ecosystems. Strategy: Targeted Cactus Control to Conserve High Value Habitat in the Arden Vale Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Collate distribution data and map cactus infestations and outlying occurrences ‐ On Track 2. Identify, map and prioritise high value mallee and arid ecosystems threatened by cactus ‐ On Track

3. Baseline site condition assessments of cactus control sites ‐ On Track 4. Engage key landholders and understand attitudes relating to cactus control ‐ On Track

5. Identification of current cactus control programs (Authorised Officers, Council, Community Groups, DEWNR) and improve integration and communication across projects and tenures ‐ On Track 6. Review literature to understand biology, vectors and best practice control techniques for cactus and develop ‘Strategic Landscape Control Strategy’ (including site prioritisation and budgets) 7. Community education and training workshops re identification, best‐practice control techniques and reporting of cactus infestations 8. Greater legislative enforcement of control of cactus on public and private lands 9. Engage and support volunteer community groups and NGOs to undertake cactus control on high priority sites as per ‘Strategic Weed Control Strategy’ 10. Engage contractors, Authorised Officers and council staff to undertake cactus control on high priority sites 11. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation and follow up maintenance as required. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 5 – Control of Opuntiod Cacti and African Boxthorn in Southern Flinders Ranges


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 13: Arden Vale Program – Goat and Cactus Control Priority Areas


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.10. EASTERN PLAINS AND RANGES PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2015, eradication of outlying occurrences of opuntioid cactus and African Boxthorn and on‐going 10% annual reduction of core infestations to conserve high value mallee and arid ecosystems. Strategy: Targeted Control of Cactus and African Boxthorn on the Eastern Plains and Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Collate distribution data and map cactus and boxthorn infestations and outlying occurrences ‐ On Track 2. Map and prioritise mallee and arid ecosystems threatened by cactus and boxthorn ‐ On Track

3. Baseline site condition assessments of cactus and boxthorn control sites 4. Engage key landholders and understand attitudes relating to weed control ‐ On Track

5. Identification of current cactus and boxhtorn control programs (Authorised Officers, Council, Community Groups, DEWNR) and improve integration and communication across projects and tenures ‐ On Track 6. Review literature to understand biology, vectors and best practice control techniques for cactus and boxthorn and develop ‘Strategic Landscape Control Strategy’ (inc site prioritisation and budgets) 7. Community education and training workshops re identification, best‐practice control techniques and reporting of cactus and boxthorn infestations 8. Greater legislative enforcement of control of cactus and boxthorn on public and private lands 9. Engage and support community groups and NGOs to undertake cactus and boxthorn control on high priority sites as per ‘Strategic Weed Control Strategy’ 10. Engage commercial contractors, Authorised Officers and council staff to undertake cactus and boxthorn control on high priority sites 11. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of cactus and boxthorn control sites and follow up maintenance as required. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 5 – Control of Opuntiod Cacti and African Boxthorn in Southern Flinders Ranges Objective: By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares of priority mallee and arid ecosystems impacted by overabundant goats, rabbits and kangaroos. Strategy: Coordinated Goat Control on the Eastern Plains and Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing literature, strategies and programs relating to best‐practice goat control. Link in with existing

cross‐border goat control projects 2. Identify priority areas for goat control based on understanding of high impact areas, biodiversity values, ability of land to recover and landholder willingness 3. Engage landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes towards goat control (i.e. goats viewed as ecomonic resource). For unwilling landholders, determine what incentives / mechanisms would encourage them to be involved 4. Support development of collaborative landholder groups to plan goat control across neighbouring properties. 5. Determine baseline condition of priority control areas and appropriate monitoring methodology to determine level of goat browse and overall goat numbers 6. Document proposed goat control mechanisms, incentives, land management agreements and budgeted implementation plan with an aim of greater than 60% annual reduction of goat numbers 7. Community education and awareness of the negative impact of goats on productivity and biodiversity. Support research into the long term financial benefits of increased stocking rates through ongoing goat control. 8. Provide financial and physical support for coordinated, collaborative, onground goat control with neighbouring private landholders in priority areas (including coordinated ground‐based mustering of goats, supply of goat yards, supply of helicopter with aerial shoots and mustering support, establish Judas goat with collar, removal of unused waterpoints, use of sporting shooters) 9. Land purchase, covenanting or long term stewardship in priority areas where collaborative onground control by private landholders is not achievable. 10. Lobby for changes to goat policy and legislation including investigating the impact of recognising goats as stock (ie. become the responsibility of landholders) or develop legislative requirement for control of goats 11. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the land condition of goat control areas. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of strategy and adjust as required.


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 14: Eastern Plains and Ranges Program – Cactus, Goat and Rabbit Control Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.10. EASTERN PLAINS AND RANGES PROGRAM – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS (CONTINUED) Objective: By 2020, achieve ‘good’ vegetation condition and improved viability of palatable threatened plant species across XX,000 hectares of priority mallee and arid ecosystems impacted by overabundant goats, rabbits and kangaroos. Strategy: Coordinated Rabbit Control on the Eastern Plains and Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action steps: 1. Review existing literature, strategies and programs relating to best‐practice rabbit control. Link in with other

rabbit control programs ‐ On Track. 2. Identify priority areas for rabbit control based on understanding of high impact areas, biodiversity values, ability of land to recover and likely landholder willingness ‐ On Track 3. Engage landholders in priority areas to understand their attitudes to rabbit control ‐ On Track 4. Develop collaborative landholder groups to plan rabbit control across neighbouring properties. 5. Determine baseline condition of priority control areas and appropriate monitoring methodology to determine level of rabbit browse and overall numbers 6. Document control mechanisms, incentives, land management agreements and costed implementation plan 7. Community education and awareness of the negative impact of rabbits on productivity and biodiversity. 8. Provide financial incentives and physical support for coordinated, collaborative, onground rabbit control with neighbouring landholders in priority areas (including coordinated rabbit warren ripping and baiting) ‐ On Track 9. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the vegegtation and soil condition of rabbit control areas. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of strategy and adjust as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 6 – Control of Feral Herbivores and Over‐abundant Natives in Southern Flinders Objective: By 2020, sustainable stock grazing regimes achieve optimum vegetation condition (i.e. possible under stock grazing) across 250,000 hectares of arid ecosystems, with priority to higher quality areas that support threatened species habitat and / or key landscape linkages. Strategy: Sustainable Stock Grazing Regimes in Arid Ecosystems on the Eastern Plains and Ranges Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: 1. Identify higher quality arid ecosystems that support stock grazing, threatened species habitat and landscape

linkages ‐ On Track 2. Identify key properties in the project area subject to stock grazing and land managers to engage 3. Understand land managers attitudes to changing stock grazing regimes (e.g. training required, infrastructure costs, time) and understand current grazing regimes implemented. 4. Determine baseline condition of arid ecosystems including diiferent condition states and benchmark reference sites in good condition. Produce GIS vegetation condition mapping for arid ecosystems.

5. Prioritisation of sites and properies to reach target of 250,000 hectares 6. Review existing literature and programs relating to sustainable stock grazing regimes in arid ecosystems and identify essential components for successful implementation 7. Develop best‐practice stock grazing methodologies specific to different arid ecosystem types and suited to local conditions and condition classes 8. Develop and run practical landholder training courses in sustainable stock grazing in arid ecosystems highlighting benefits of incorporating productivity with biodiversity. Establish demonstration sites. 9. Provide ongoing, specialist, grazing extension support for landholders and targeted groups in priority areas to adopt sustainable stock grazing regimes. Develop farmer‐to‐farmer extension support (through paid local champions) to support and expand local implementation. 10. Develop and run a ‘Train the trainer’ course for new extension staff to increase number of people able to support landholders in sustainable stock grazing in arid ecosystems 11. Provide financial incentives (fixed rate or competitive stewardship tender) to landholders for improved infrastructure and other activities required to adopt new grazing regime (fencing, waterpoints) 12. Improve community awareness of the economic / ecological value of sustainable stock grazing 13. Ongoing site monitoring and evaluation (vegetation condition, grazing producitivity, bird surveys), including uptake and attitudes of farmers. Adjust strategy as required.

Scoping Report: CAP Scoping Report 15 ‐ Sustainable Grazing and Conservation in the Southern Flinders Ranges


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions Map 15: Eastern Plains and Ranges Program – Stock Grazing Management in Arid Ecosystems Priority Area


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions 6.11. FORMAL PROTECTION OF UNDER‐REPRESENTED ECOSYSTEMS (30% MINIMUM TARGET) – OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS Objective: By 2020, long term, formal protection (private land agreements, formal reserves) across 9,000 hectares of coastal mangroves / samphire, 7,000 hectares of riparian vegetation, 17,000 hectares of grassy ecosystems, 26,000 hectares of mallee and and 30,000 hectares of arid ecosystems, with priority to higher quality, representative areas that support threatened species habitat and key landscape linkages. Strategy: Targeted Formal Protection of Under‐represented Ecosystems (30% minimum target) Priority: Not Assessed Action Steps: • Assess level of formal protection (%) and remaining hectares required achieve 30% target for each broad

ecosystem type ‐ Completed • Identify high quality areas without formal protection that support threatened species and linkages ‐On‐Track • Develop binding conservation agreements on private lands other than Heritage Agreements • Understand land managers attitudes to entering into long term management agreements • Support NGOs involved in the purchase of conservation lands • Stewardship tenders to support long term management agreements on private lands for under‐represented

ecosystems ‐ On Track • Support State Government purchase and management of new conservation reserves • Direct approaches to land managers of under‐represented conservation assets to enter into land management

contracts • Site monitoring of formal reserve systems to ensure adequately managed and resourced. Scoping Report: not applicable Table 8: Protected Area Analysis for Conservation Assets in the Southern Flinders Ranges

Total hectares NPWS % HA %

Total Protected %

30% Target

Gap

Coastal Mangroves and Samphire 28,928 ha 3,299 ha 11 % 699 ha 2.4 % 3,998 ha 13.8 % 8,678 ha 4,680 ha Sandy Coasts and Dunes 1,985 ha 337 ha 17 % 34 ha 1.7 % 371 ha 18.7 % 596 ha 225 ha Ephemeral Creeks and Waterholes 23,430 ha 603 ha 2.6 % 8 ha 0.0 % 611 ha 2.6 % 7,029 ha 6,418 ha

Temperate Shrublands 45,752 ha 253 ha 0.6 % 4 ha 0.0 % 257 ha 0.6 % 13,726 ha 13,469 ha

Mallee Communities 87,550 ha 577 ha 0.7 % 31 ha 0.0 % 608 ha 0.7 % 26,265 ha 25,657 ha Temperate Grassy Ecosystems 55,253 ha 2,120 ha 4 % 12 ha 0.0 % 2,132 ha 3.9 % 16,576 ha 14,444 ha Temperate Forest and Woodland 38,305 ha 19,092 ha 50 % 670 ha 1.7 % 19,762 ha 51.6 % 11,492 ha ‐8,271 ha

Arid Ecosystems 928,582 ha 4,036 ha 0.4 % 350 ha 0.0 % 4,386 ha 0.5 % 278,575ha 274,189 ha

Unallocated 5,011 ha 80 ha 1.6 % 6 ha 0.1 % 86 ha 1.7 % 0 0

TOTAL 1,214,796 ha 30,397 ha 2.5 % 1,814 ha 0.1 % 32,211 ha 2.7 % 362,936 ha 330,811 ha Note: NPWS – National Parks and Formal Conservation Reserves, HA – Heritage Agreements on private lands


6 Conservation Strategies and Actions

Map 16: Targeted Formal Protection of Lands Program Area

Temperate Grassy Ecosystems Priority

Protection Areas

Coastal Mangroves & Samphire Priority

Protection Areas

Arid Ecosystems and Mallee Priority Protection Areas

Mallee Priority Protection Areas


7 Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management 7.1. Methodology for Developing a Monitoring Program The final step in the conservation action planning process is an ongoing one which involves the development and implementation of a rigorous monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management program. This serves a number of important functions including: ● determining whether the strategies and actions are achieving the conservation objectives; ● showing trends in the condition of conservation assets and the levels of threat; ● demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of investment into the conservation program; ● linking local conservation outcomes with other programs to describe the local‐global biodiversity outlook In particular two types of monitoring and evaluation are identified in the conservation action planning process: 1) strategy effectiveness monitoring, and 2) resource condition monitoring (i.e. asset condition and / or level of threat). Appropriate Level of Resourcing for Monitoring and Evaluation Many researchers and conservation practitioners agree that a monitoring effort of 10‐20% of the total program budget is an appropriate level of resourcing. However the level of resources allocated to monitoring should vary in proportion to the level of certainty surrounding an assumption that action A will lead to outcome B. Higher levels of uncertainty may necessitate greater monitoring effort (i.e. replicated experiments and trials) to test a particular conservation theory. Use of Results chains Results chains are a relatively recent tool to assist conservation planners test assumptions that an action will achieve a desired objective. Results chains are broadly based on principles of logical framework analysis (developed in the 1960’s) and are supported by Miradi software (www.miradi.org ). By identifying interim results or milestones along a trajectory towards the delivery of an outcome, results chains make implicit assumptions about the expected results of activities explicit. This process typically results in more rigorous strategy development by the project team. Once a sequence of outputs and outcomes are represented as a results chain diagram, it is relatively easy to visualise and identify monitoring indicators and milestones along the way to a conservation goal. 7.2. Monitoring Indicators for the Southern Flinders Ranges An effective monitoring program for the Southern Flinders Ranges should achieve two major outcomes: 1) RESOURCE CONDITION MONITORING ● provide quantative data to confirm or revise the current status of the key ecological attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets & / or the current status of the key threats; ● establish baseline data to monitor future changes in the status of the key ecological attributes and overall viability of the conservation assets &/ or status of the key threats; 2) STRATEGY EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING ● provide quantative data to assess the effectiveness of the conservation strategies and action steps and identify areas for refinement. Monitoring indicators should be closely associated to the status of the key ecological attributes and address landscape context, condition and size attributes of the conservation assets (refer Table 8). A monitoring program should also make use of any existing monitoring data (refer Table 9) to ensure resources are used efficiently. This may involve creating links with other organisations that have complimentary aims or legislative requirements to undertake environmental monitoring. For additional detail regarding historical monitoring programs in the region refer to Overview of Biodiversity Monitoring in the Northern & Yorke NRM Region (Milne & McGregor 2011).


7 Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management Table 8: Recommended Monitoring Indicators for Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) of Conservation Assets

LANDSCAPE CONTEXTKEA

CONDITION KEA

SIZEKEA

Conservation Asset

Fire Regime

Connectivity to adjacent communities

Dune formation processes

Hydrological Regime

Water Quality

Flora Species Diversity

Fauna Species Diversity

Soil Conditio

n

Total area and patch

size

Mangrove & Samphire Communities

-

Percentage of coastal zone buffered by terrestrial vegetation communities

-

Extent of tidal inundation, Number of barriers to tidal flows

Level of turbidity, pollutants and water temperature in mangrove estuaries

Flora Species composition (BCM) sites), Presence of weeds

Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (shorebirds)

-

Percentage of pre-European cover and total size & number of separate patches

Sandy Coasts and Dunes

-

Percentage of coastal zone buffered by terrestrial vegetation communities

Presence of primary and secondary dunes, Presence of barriers to natural processes

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (shorebirds)

-


Rivers and Waterholes

-

Percentage of riparian zone and waterholes buffered by terrestrial vegetation communities

-

Timing, frequency, duration and extent of river flows Groundwater depth

Level of turbidity, pollutants & quality of rivers, waterholes and ground-water

Riparian Tree crown health, Flora Species composition (BCM) sites), Presence of weeds

Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (Tiger Snake, Carpet Python, native fish)

River bank stability and structure

-

Temperate Shrublands

Timing, frequency intensity & extent of fire events (fire age mapping)

Degree of habitat fragmentation and connectivity with other large patches

-

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers

-

% pre-European cover and total size & number of separate patches

Northern Mallee



-

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers, Presence of feral carnivores

-


Temperate Grassy Ecosystems



-

-

-

Flora Species composition (BCM) sites), Presence of weeds and feral herbivores

Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (declining woodland birds)

Presence or absence of cryptograms, lichens and inter-tussock spaces


Temperate Forests & Woodlands



-

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (declining woodland birds)

-


Arid Ecosystems

-


-

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers, Presence of feral carnivores

Presence / absence of lichens, cryptograms, leaf litter and timber


Escarpments (Gorges, Rocky Outcrops, Scree Slopes)

-


-

-

-


Habitat-sensitive fauna species numbers (Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby)

-

-


7 Monitoring, Evaluation and Adaptive Management Table 9: Monitoring Data Available to Support Viabilty Assessment of Conservation Assets (as at June 2012)

KEY ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTE SOURCE OF MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS OF DATA

Coastal Mangroves & Samphire Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 29,928 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna shorebird monitoring XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX% backed by adjacent vegetationLandscape – natural tidal flows No data identified No data identified Sandy Coasts and Dune Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 1,985 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna shorebird monitoring XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX% backed by adjacent vegetationLandscape – dune processes No data identified No data identified Rivers, Creeks & Waterholes Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna fish and aquatic invertebrate surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesCondition – bank stability No data identified No data identified Condition – water quality Aus River Assessments, Waterwatch XX% of sites with ‘good’ water qualityLandscape – hydrological regime Flow and groundwater stations Landscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX% buffered by adjacent vegetationTemperate Shrublands Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 45,752 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna bird surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – fire regimes fire age / intensity mapping XX% of landscape burnt over XX yearsLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX av patch size, XX distance apartMallee Communities Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 87,550 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna bird surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX av patch size, XX distance apartGrassy Ecosystems Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping by DEWNR & GA 55,253 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation / soil XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna Woodland bird surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – fire regimes fire age / intensity mappingLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX av patch size, XX distance apartShrubby Woodlands Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 38,305 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna Woodland bird surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX av patch size, XX distance apartArid Communities Size – total area remaining vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) 928,582 ha remain (XX% pre‐European) Condition – vegetation / soil XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna bird surveys XX trend in habitat sensitive speciesLandscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) no analysis undertaken Rocky Escarpments – Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby Habitat

Condition – vegetation XX busland monitoring sites XX% in good condition Condition – fauna Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby surveys Increase in population from 2005Landscape – connectivity vegetation mapping (DEWNR & GA) XX% buffered by adjacent vegetation


8. Appendix Appendix 1: Plant Species of Conservation Significance in the Living Flinders Region (DENR spatial database 07)

Species Name Common Name Conservation Ratings* AUS SA No. Records Acacia araneosa Spidery Wattle VU E 4 Acacia confluens Arkaroola Wattle V 1 Acacia gracilifolia Graceful Wattle R 77 Acacia iteaphylla Flinders Ranges Wattle R 36 Acacia menzelii Menzel's Wattle VU V 1 Acacia montana Mallee Wattle R 7 Acacia quornensis Quorn Wattle R 30 Acanthocladium dockeri Spiny Everlasting CR E 3 Amphibromus archeri Pointed Swamp Wallaby‐grass R 1 Anogramma leptophylla Annual Fern R 10 Anthocercis angustifolia Narrow‐leaf Ray‐flower R 10 Aristida australis R 1 Asperula syrticola Southern Flinders Woodruff R 17 Atriplex eichleri Eichler's Saltbush R 3 Austrodanthonia laevis Smooth Wallaby‐grass R 3 Austrodanthonia tenuior Short‐awn Wallaby‐grass R 3 Austrostipa breviglumis Cane Spear‐grass R 17 Austrostipa gibbosa Swollen Spear‐grass R 9 Austrostipa petraea Flinders Range Spear‐grass R 5 Austrostipa pilata Prickly Spear‐grass V 8 Austrostipa tenuifolia R 3 Bothriochloa macra Red‐leg Grass R 4 Brachycome parvula var. lissocarpa (NC) Coast Daisy R 1 Brachyscome ciliaris var. subintegrifolia R 8 Caladenia flaccida Drooping Spider‐orchid V 2 Caladenia gladiolata Bayonet Spider‐orchid EN E 91 Caladenia macroclavia Large‐club Spider‐orchid EN E 2 Caladenia saxatilis Star Spider‐orchid R 5 Caladenia stellata (NC) Star Spider‐orchid R 2 Caladenia tensa Inland Green‐comb Spider‐orchid EN 1 Caladenia woolcockiorum Woolcock's Spider‐orchid VU E 157 Caladenia xantholeuca Flinders Ranges White Caladenia EN E 13 Callitriche umbonata Water Starwort V 1 Calotis lappulacea Yellow Burr‐daisy R 6 Choretrum glomeratum var. chrysanthum Yellow‐flower Sour‐bush R 13 Christella dentata Soft Shield‐fern R 2 Citrus glauca Desert Lime V 4 Cladium procerum Leafy Twig‐rush R 4 Codonocarpus pyramidalis Slender Bell‐fruit VU E 9 Crassula peduncularis Purple Crassula R 2 Crassula sieberiana Sieber's Crassula E 3 Cryptandra sp. Long hypanthium (C.R. Alcock 10626) Long‐flower Cryptandra R 6 Cullen parvum Small Scurf‐pea V 11


8. Appendix

Cyperus sanguinolentus Dark Flat‐sedge R 1 Daviesia pectinata Zig‐zag Bitter‐pea R 1 Daviesia stricta Flinders Ranges Bitter‐pea R 1 Derwentia decorosa Showy Speedwell R 41 Deyeuxia densa Heath Bent‐grass R 2 Dianella longifolia var. grandis Pale Flax‐lily R 6 Diuris behrii Behr's Cowslip Orchid V 1 Echinopogon ovatus Rough‐beard Grass R 8 Elachanthus glaber Shiny Elachanth R 2 Elatine gratioloides Waterwort R 5 Eragrostis infecunda Barren Cane‐grass R 1 Eragrostis lacunaria Purple Love‐grass R 1 Eremophila subfloccosa ssp. Glandulosa (R.Bates 32961) Green‐flower Emubush R 1 Eryngium ovinum Blue Devil V 1 Eucalyptus albens White Box R 33 Eucalyptus behriana Broad‐leaf Box R 1 Eucalyptus percostata Ribbed White Mallee R 40 Eucalyptus viridis ssp. viridis Green Mallee R 8 Festuca benthamiana Bentham's Fescue R 6 Frankenia cupularis R 2 Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine VU V 2 Glycine tabacina Variable Glycine V 3 Gratwickia monochaeta R 2 Haeckeria cassiniiformis Dogwood Haeckeria R 1 Hovea purpurea Tall Hovea R 59 Juncus australis Austral Rush R 3 Juncus homalocaulis Wiry Rush V 2 Juncus radula Hoary Rush V 3 Lepidium pseudotasmanicum Shade Peppercress V 1 Leptorhynchos elongatus Lanky Buttons R 2 Leptorhynchos scabrus (NC) Annual Buttons R 1 Logania saxatilis Rock Logania R 42 Maireana excavata Bottle Fissure‐plant V 24 Maireana rohrlachii Rohrlach's Bluebush R 14 Malacocera gracilis Slender Soft‐horns V 10 Mentha satureioides Native Pennyroyal R 4 Olearia pannosa ssp. cardiophylla Velvet Daisy‐bush R 26 Olearia pannosa ssp. pannosa Silver Daisy‐bush VU V 8 Olearia picridifolia Rasp Daisy‐bush R 6 Orobanche cernua var. australiana Australian Broomrape R 2 Osteocarpum acropterum var. deminutum Wingless Bonefruit R 2 Osteocarpum pentapterum Five‐wing Bonefruit E 1 Ottelia ovalifolia ssp. ovalifolia Swamp Lily R 1 Ozothamnus scaber Rough Bush‐everlasting V 20 Phyllangium sulcatum V 2 Poa fax Scaly Poa R 1 Podolepis jaceoides Showy Copper‐wire Daisy R 2 Podolepis muelleri Button Podolepis V 20


8. Appendix

Prasophyllum pallidum Pale Leek‐orchid VU R 21 Prasophyllum validum Mount Remarkable Leek‐orchid VU V 93 Pterostylis curta Blunt Greenhood R 1 Ptilotus exaltatus var. semilanatus Lamb's Tails E 1 Pycnosorus globosus Drumsticks V 7 Ranunculus pumilio var. politus Smooth‐fruit Ferny Buttercup V 2 Rumex dumosus var. (NC) Wiry Dock R 3 Santalum spicatum Sandalwood V 18 Sarcozona bicarinata Ridged Noon‐flower V 1 Sclerolaena muricata var. villosa Five‐spine Bindyi R 1 Scutellaria humilis Dwarf Skullcap R 3 Senecio megaglossus Large‐flower Groundsel VU E 20 Solanum eremophilum Rare Nightshade R 4 Spyridium bifidum var. integrifolium R 1 Swainsona behriana Behr's Swainson‐pea V 1 Swainsona murrayana Murray Swainson‐pea VU V 1 Swainsona procumbens Broughton Pea V 3 Tecticornia flabelliformis Bead Samphire VU V 3 Tecticornia lepidosperma R 1 Thelymitra grandiflora Great Sun‐orchid R 11 Thysanotus tenellus Grassy Fringe‐lily R 20 Trachymene thysanocarpa Native Parsnip R 1 Triglochin minutissima Tiny Arrowgrass R 1 Utricularia australis Yellow Bladderwort R 1 Veronica parnkalliana Port Lincoln Speedwell E 6 Viminaria juncea Native Broom R 1 Wurmbea latifolia ssp. latifolia Broad‐leaf Nancy V 4 16 118 1252 Conservation Ratings *AUS = National Rating under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999; SA = State Conservation Rating under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia); FR = Regional Conservation Rating for the Flinders Ranges Botanical Region. E = Endangered; T = Threatened; V = Vulnerable; R = Rare; U = Uncommon (Taplin 2008)


8. Appendix Appendix 2: Fauna Species of Conservation Significance in the Living Flinders Region (DENR spatial database 2007) Species Name Common Name Conservation Ratings* AUS SA Gilliam & Urban 11 Acanthiza iredalei iredalei Slender‐billed Thornbill R Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper R Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill VU Amytornis merrotsyi Short‐tailed Grasswren VU Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler R Aprasia pseudopulchella Flinders Worm‐lizard VU Ardea ibis Cattle Egret R Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret R Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard V EN Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone R Biziura lobata Musk Duck R Burhinus grallarius Bush Stone‐curlew R CR Cacatua leadbeateri Major Mitchell's Cockatoo R Calamanthus pyrrhopygius Chestnut‐rumped Heathwren ssp VU Calamanthus campestris Rufous Fieldwren VU Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot R Cercartetus concinnus Western Pygmy Possum EN Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover R Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover R Chrysococcyx lusidus Shining Bronze‐cuckoo VU Cinclosoma castanotus Chestnut Quail‐thrush ssp Cladorhynchus leucocephalus Banded Stilt V Climacteris affinis White‐browed Treecreeper R Corcorax melanorhamphos White‐winged Chough R Coturnix chinensis King Quail E Coturnix ypsilophora Brown Quail V RA Craterocephalus eyresii Lake Eyre Hardyhead EN Dasyurus viverrinus Eastern Quoll E Drymodes brunneopygia Southern Scrub Robin VU Egretta garzetta Little Egret R Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret R Elanus scriptus Letter‐winged Kite R Emblema pictum Painted Finch R Eurostopodus argus Spotted Nightjar VU Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon R CR Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon R Falcunculus frontatus Crested Shrike‐tit R VU Gerygone olivacea White‐throated Gerygone R Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet E CR Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Oystercatcher R Haematopus longirostris Pied Oystercatcher R Haliaeetus leucogaster White‐bellied Sea‐Eagle E Halliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite VU Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle VU Heteroscelus brevipes Grey‐tailed Tattler R Hydromys chrysogaster Water‐rat EN Ixobrychus minutes Little Bittern E Larus dominicanus Kelp Gull R Lichenostomus cratitius Purple‐gaped Honeyeater VU


8. Appendix Lichenostomus leucotus White‐eared Honeyeater VULichenostomus ornatus Yellow‐plumed Honeyeater VULimosa lapponica Bar‐tailed Godwit R Limosa limosa Black‐tailed Godwit R Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant‐Petrel V Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin ssp VUMalurus splendens Splendid Fairy‐wren VUMelithreptus gularis Black‐chinned Honeyeater ssp CRMicroeca fascinans Jacky Winter ssp Morelia spilota Carpet Python R RAMyiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher R ENNeophema chrysostoma Blue‐winged Parrot V Neophema elegans Elegant Parrot R Neophema petrophila Rock Parrot R Neophema splendida Scarlet‐chested Parrot R Ninox connivens Barking Owl R Northiella haematogaster Blue Bonnet ssp Notechis ater ater (NC) Krefft's Tiger Snake VU VUNumenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew V Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel R Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird VUOxyura australis Blue‐billed Duck R Pachycephala inornata Gilbert's Whistler R VUPandion haliaetus Osprey 1 Pedionomus torquatus Plains‐wanderer VU E CRPetrogale xanthopus Yellow‐footed Rock‐wallaby ssp V VUPetroica multicolour Scarlet Robin ssp VUPhaps elegans Brush Bronzewing ENPhilomachus pugnax Ruff R Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover R Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe R Porzana tabuensis Spotless Crake R VUPseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet R RAStagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail V VUSterna hirundo Common Tern R Sterna nereis Fairy Tern E Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck V Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong ssp VUTrichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet VUTrichosurus vulpecular Common Brushtail Possum R VUTringa glareola Wood Sandpiper R Turnix varia Painted Button‐quail R VUVaranus varius Lace Monitor R VUVermicella annulata Common Bandy Bandy R Zoothera lunulate Bassian Thrush R EN 4 75 17**

Conservation Ratings *AUS = National Rating under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999; SA = State Conservation Rating under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia); E = Endangered; T = Threatened; VU and V = Vulnerable; R = Rare Gilliam * Urban 2008 refers to the Species Risk Assessment for the Northern & Yorke undertaken in 2008. Ratings refer to expert opinion of the status within the Southern Flinders only – CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable ** tally for species in addition to formally rated species only.


8. Appendix Appendix 3: Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Goals COASTAL, ESTUARINE AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS By 2030, there is no reduction in the extent, and a steady improvement in the condition, of coastal, estuarine and marine ecosystems, compared to 2008. By 2015, there is no decline in the extent or condition of mangrove forestsBy 2030, water quality is maintained to meet levels set for aquatic ecosystems in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy. By 2030, a 10% reduction in the pollutant load of discharges from licensed point source pollution sites. By 2015, a 50% reduction in the pollutant load of sewage and stormwater discharged into the marine environmentBy 2015, Stormwater and Flood Mitigation Plans are implemented for regional cities and major towns. By 2015, local Development Plans incorporate principles to protect water quality, as presented in the Regulations and Policies of the NRM Plan. By 2030, the extent and diversity of coastal landscapes is maintained and their condition improved compared to 2008. By 2030, there is no decline in the conservation value of the 35 coastal areas of highest conservation priority.By 2030, an improvement in the conservation value of an additional 14 areas, currently classed as “priority coastal cells”. By 2015, the condition of at least 4, out of 14, “priority coastal cells” is improved to high conservation totals.By 2015, there is no further decline in the conservation value of the remaining coastal areas. By 2015, there is an overall reduction in the threats to coastal ecosystems and landscapes from vegetation clearance, weeds and uncontrolled access by stock, vehicles and pedestrians By 2015, coastal management guidelines are adopted for vegetation management and public access By 2015, local Development Plans incorporate principles to protect coast, as presented in the Regs & Polices of the NRM Plan. WATER AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS By 2030, the amount of surface and groundwater available is maintained within the bounds of historical variations and does not deviate significantly from seasonal climatic drivers. By 2030, fluctuations in groundwater levels, pressures and seasonal spring and baseflows will be maintained within the limits previously observed in the region, for comparable climatic conditions. By 2030, flow regimes in priority river catchments do not deviate significantly from previously observed seasonal and inter‐annual variations for comparable climatic conditions. By 2015, a revised Water Allocation Plan, compliant with National Water Initiative guidelines, is in place for the Clare region. By 2015, the Baroota area has an approved Water Allocation Plan in place.By 2015, the management of water resources is regulated by a series of defined Water Affecting Activities. By 2030, water quality is maintained, within climatic limitations and natural conditions, within levels set for aquatic ecosystems in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy. By 2030, mean nutrient levels in watercourses are maintained below Environment Protection Policy (Water Quality) guidelines for aquatic ecosystems. By 2030, fluctuations in salinity levels in surface water and groundwaters exhibit trends that reflect climatic and seasonal influence and do not exceed levels recorded prior to 2008. By 2015, Stormwater and Flood Mitigation Plans are implemented for regional cities and major towns. By 2015, local Development Plans incorporate principles to protect water quality, as presented in the Regulations and Policies of the NRM Plan. By 2015, salinity management plans are implemented in high priority catchments.By 2030, core refuge areas are protected by a 20% reduction in the extent of priority degrading watercourse management issues. By 2015, the length of watercourses unaffected by priority degrading management issues is increased by 5%, with a focus on protecting core refuge areas. By 2015, River Management Plans are reviewed for the Light, Wakefield and Broughton Rivers


8. Appendix TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS By 2030, maintain the condition of the region’s 1,200,000 ha of remnant native vegetation, and improve the condition of 15% from 2008 levels. By 2015, increase in the area of remnant vegetation protected under legal and voluntary conservation agreements from 75,000 ha to 85,000 ha, with priority given to high conservation value remnants By 2015, undertake active management on 100,000 ha of the region’s remnant vegetation to improve condition compared with 2008. By 2015, sustainable grazing guidelines have been developed with industry for native pastures to ensure grassy ecosystems are not degraded and to facilitate their recovery By 2030, there has been no loss of ecologically significant species or communities, and the viability and conservation status of these species has been improved from 2008 levels. By 2015, the status of Nationally, State and regionally listed species and ecological communities is maintained or improved from 2008 levels. By 2015, threatened species protection plans will be developed and implemented for threatened species of local priority. By 2030, there is an increase in ecological connectivity within and between landscapes from 2008. By 2015, the ecological connectivity of at least three priority landscapes (Flinders‐Olary, Tothill Ranges, Southern Yorke Peninsula) is increased, compared to 2008. By 2015, increase the area of native vegetation by 5,000 ha, with a focus on increasing the functionality of remnant vegetation and the protection of erosion prone areas such as coastal dunes. By 2015, management plans are implemented for areas of Category A and B roadside vegetation significanceBy 2030, inland and estuarine water‐dependent ecosystems are maintained or improved in condition from 2008 levels. By 2015, the condition of at least 600 ha of water dependent ecosystems is improved compared to 2008. By 2015, the extent of watercourse, wetland and other water dependent ecosystems does not decline from 2008 levels. By 2015, at least 25% of areas classified as “important riverine habitat” are protected and actively managed.By 2015, at least 25% of areas classified as “good native watercourse vegetation” are protected and actively managed. By 2015, Water Allocation Plans provide water to meet the needs of the environment. PEST PLANTS AND ANIMALS By 2030, there is a net reduction in the impact caused by pest plants and animals on the environment, primary production and the community. By 2030, the distribution and abundance of introduced pest plants has not increased compared with 2008. By 2030, the distribution and abundance of pest animals has not increased compared with 2008. By 2015, pest risk assessment and management plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals By 2015, 50% of priority areas are managed to control feral animals.By 2015, 90% of roadsides are managed with effective weed control programsBy 2030, no new significant introduced pest species have become established. By 2015, biosecurity and incursion response plans are operational for priority pest plants and animals.


8. Appendix Appendix 4: Current and Previous Members of the Living Flinders Conservation Planning Team Member Organisation

Andy Sharp Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Ian Falkenberg Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Stuart Bienke Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Danny Doyle Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Jean Turner Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Dan Rogers Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Lucy Dodd Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Louise Gavin Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Ben Dennison Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Dene Cuthbertson Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Rebecca Redden Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Ruth Coates Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Brooke Kerin Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Kevin Teague Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Jennifer Munro Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Wendy Fowler Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Lynne Waldon Dept. for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Matt Turner The Wilderness SocietyAnne Brown Greening Australia Mick Durant Greening Australia Todd Berkinshaw Greening Australia Saideh Kent Rural Solutions of South AustraliaZita Stokes Rural Solutions of South AustraliaMary‐Anne Young Rural Solutions of South AustraliaTrudie Stanley Rural Solutions of South AustraliaTim Milne Nature Conservation Society of SAKeith Bellchambers Australian Wildlife ConservancyChris Rains Aboriginal Lands TrustJane Luckcraft Local landholderMillie Nicholls Local landholderMichael Richards Ag. Excellence Alliance


9. References

Conservation Measures Partnership (2007). Open standards for the practice of conservation. Available online at: www.conserveonline.org .

Davies M., Twidale C.R. and Tyler M.J. 1996, Natural History of the Flinders Ranges, Royal Society of South Australia

Dobson, A.P. (1996). Conservation and Biodiversity. New York: Scientific American Library.

Foundations of Success. (2007). Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS How‐To Guide. http://fosonline.org/Site_Documents/Grouped/FOS_Results_Chain_Guide_2007‐05.pdf Graham A., Oppermann A. and Inns R.W. (2001) Biodiversity Plan for the Northern Agricultural Districts, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia Groves, C.R. (2003). Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioners Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy. Island Press, Washington. Hanski, I. (1991). Single species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models and observations. In M.E. Gilpin and I. Hanski, eds., Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations, pp 17‐38 New York, NY: Academic Press. Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R., Biggs, E. and Aronson, J. (2006). Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14(2): 170‐176. Landres, P.B., Morgan, P. and Swanson, F.J. (1999). Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179‐1188. Low, (2003). Landscape‐scale Conservation: A Practitioners Guide. The Nature Conservancy, 4th Edition Mackey, B.G., Soulé, M.E., Nix, H.A., Recher, H.F., Lesslie, R.G., Williams, J.E., J Woinarski, C. Z.R., Hobbs, J. and Possingham, H.P. (2007) Applying landscape‐ecological principles to regional conservation: the WildCountry Project in Australia In: Key Topics and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology. Cambridge University Press. Edited by Jianguo Wu and Richard J. Hobbs. MacNally, R., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S., Lillywhite, P. and Ward, D. (2002). How well to ecosystem‐based planning units represent different components of biodiversity? Ecological Applications 12: 900‐912. Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243‐253. MERI (2008). Australian Government Natural Resource Management Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Framework. Milne T. and McGregor J. 2011. Overview of Biodiversity Monitoring in the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Region. Report by Greening Australia for Northern and Yorke NRM Board. Moilanen, A., Franco, A. M. A., Early, R., Fox, R., Wintle, B., and C. D. Thomas. 2005. Prioritising multiple‐use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi‐species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 272: 1885‐1891. Nachlinger, J., Sochi, K., Comer, P., Kittel, G.and Dorfman, D. (2001). Great Basin: An ecoregional based conservation blueprint. Arlington VA: The Nature Conservancy. Northern and Yorke Natural Resource Management Board (2009), Northern and Yorke Regional NRM Plan.


Noss, R. F.E., Dinerstein, B., Gilbert, M., Gilpin, B.J., Miller, B.J., Terbough, J. and Trmbulak, S. (1999). Core areas: where nature begins. In J. Terbough and M. Soule, eds., Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks, pp 99‐128. Washington DC: Island Press. Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Restoration and Management. 4: 29‐38. Poiani, K.A., Baumgartner, J.V., Buttrick, S.L., Green, S.C., Hopkins, E., Ivey, G.D., Sutton, K.P., and Sutter, R.D. (2000). Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes and networks. Bioscience 50: 133‐146. Possingham, H., Ball, I. and Andelman, S. (2000). Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: S. Ferson and M.A. Burgman, eds. Quantitative Methods in Conservation Biology, pp 291‐306. New York, NY: Springer‐Verlag. Pressey, R.L. and Nichols, A.O. (1989). Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in semi‐arid New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50: 263‐278. Soulé, M.E., Mackey, B.G., Recher, H.F., Williams, J.E., Woinarski, J.C.Z., Driscoll, D. Dennison, W.C. and Jones, M.E. (2004). The role of connectivity in Australian conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 10: 266‐79, Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney. Stokes, Z. (2008) Landholders, Landholdings and Landuse in the CAP sub‐regions of the Northern & Yorke NRM Board region. Rural Solutions SA Thomson, J. R. , Moilanen, A. J. , Vesk, P. A. , Bennett, A. F. , Mac Nally, R. (2009). Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. Ecological Applications: Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 817‐828. Wiens, J.A. (1996). Wildlife in patchy environments: metapopulations, mosaics and management. In: D.R. McCullough, ed., pp. 53‐84. Washington DC: Island Press. Wintle, B.A. (2008) A Review of Biodiversity Investment Prioritization Tools. A report to the Biodiversity Expert Working Group toward the development of the Investment Framework for Evironmental Resources, School of Botany, University of Melbourne WWF. 2005. Basic Guidance for Cross‐Cutting Tools: Conceptual Models. www.panda.org/standards or http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_conceptual_model_11_08_05.pdf