VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN for Bidjigal Reserve - Land

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vegetation Management Plan - Bidjigal ReservePriority Ranking of Sites for Bushland Restoration WorkPriority ranking was determined by adapting a method previously used by UBM for an Assessmentof Bushland Condition Report prepared for Hornsby City Council (UBM 2007); which in turn wasadapted from a pro forma first developed by UBM and Woodlots & Wetlands for the SydneyCatchment Authority (2001).Note some of the ranking criteria used in these earlier studies have been omitted or amended asthese criteria were developed to assess and rank a large number of sites, rather than a single areasuch as Bidjigal Reserve. Only those criteria relevant to the Reserve Management Zones or Unitshave been included in the priority ranking assessment.For each Zone and Management Unit, a series of weighted values for the selected criteria wasassigned – those criteria being relevant to Bidjigal Reserve. The weightings were analysed and usedto rank, in order of priority for future works, Management Zones for large areas with significantmanagement issues, or Management Units for localised or smaller restoration and rehabilitationprojects.The criteria used to develop the priority ranking have been listed in Table 3.2. Location maps foreach Management Zone and associated Units have been provided in Section 5. The outcomes of thepriority ranking process will help the Bidjigal Reserve Trust to more effectively prioritise resourcesfor future bushland regeneration works and for other Reserve management projects.This ranking system used in this VMP is a form of cost/benefit analysis, which identifies the mostappropriate allocation of resources in order to achieve optimal outcomes for monies spent.Table 3.3 indicates the weighting allocated to each criterion, which places an emphasis not only onecological issues; such as the threats posed by noxious weeds or presence of threatened species, butit also considers other aspects of bushland management such as suitability of the task to a range ofstakeholders, location, topography and ease of access, and, for the weed species involved, thelikeness of success in maintaining the site over time (i.e. sustainability).UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd 38
Vegetation Management Plan - Bidjigal ReserveTable 3.2: Criteria for Priority Ranking of Sites for Bushland Regeneration & Associated WorksCRITERION BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY FOR FIELD RANKING LIMITATIONSConservation of Core BushlandSize of Core Bushland(hectares)Level of Management Assessment: ZonePriority should be given to protecting and rehabilitating the largest, intactand therefore most robust stands of bushland. Therefore, the priorityranking gives the highest score to the largest sites.For each site, the area was calculated using a GIS within the siteboundaries shown in Figures 3.2. The areas were allocated a ranking forpriority assessment (see below). The threshold areas for each score weredetermined to form a fairly even spread of the sites over the scores,thereby creating a high level of score differentiation between the sites.1) < 5 ha,2) 5-10 ha3) 10-15 ha4) 15 – 20 ha5) > 20 haThe area was calculated independently of any adjoining bushland.The threshold areas were arbitrary and were based on providing scoredifferentiation rather than ecological principals.Length of Urban-Bushland InterfaceLevel of Management Assessment: ZonePriority should be given to protecting and rehabilitating stands of bushlandwith the shortest urban-bushland interface (thereby preserving a relativelyintact core of bushland).Management Zones with a shortest urban-bushland interface are expectedto have a lower level of edge disturbance, arising from human activities,weed invasion and influx of urban stormwater. These Zones are typicallymore cost-efficient to maintain due to the relatively smaller extent of edgeimpacts. Therefore, a higher value has been given to Zones with a shorterurban-bushland interface.The length of urban-bushland interface for each Management Zone wascalculated in metres (m) using a GIS package.These lengths were allocated a ranking for priority assessment (see Table3.3). The threshold areas for each score were determined to form a fairlyeven spread of the sites over the scores, thereby creating a high level ofscore differentiation between the sites.The length was calculated independently of any adjoining bushlandAssumed that the higher the longer the Urban-bushland interface the moreintense the edge effects. Ignored the type and likely severity of edgeeffect. Field analysis partially overcame this limitation by the addition ofthe interface disturbance criterion.Disturbances onBoundaryLevel of Management Assessment: ZoneThe effort and level of resources required to rehabilitate and maintain aZone with a high level of disturbance is correspondingly high, and thereforeit is far more cost efficient to undertaken work in less disturbed sites.Therefore, the priority ranking gave the highest score to Zones with theleast amount of disturbance.Disturbances on the boundary were taken to be those within 10 metres ofthe edge of the Zones. This threshold was loosely assigned prior to thefield survey through desktop analysis, and investigated for reliabilitythroughout the field component. It was observed during the fieldworkthat most edge impacts such as easements, edge maintenance such asfencing, and elevated light levels are generally within 10 m of reserveedge.Where disturbances such as recent burning or large amounts of mulchingand clearing for bush regeneration works were noted, these were notincorporated into these criteria as they were considered to be ‘beneficial’disturbances.A 10% threshold was assigned to the area impacted upon by a disturbancebecause it was observed that most zones had at least a small amount(
Page 1 and 2: VEGETATIONMANAGEMENT PLANforBidjiga
Page 3 and 4: Vegetation Management Plan - Bidjig
Page 6: Vegetation Management Plan - Bidjig
Page 21 and 22: specific regulations to improve the
Page 102 and 103:
Vegetation Management Plan - Bidjig
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Hibbertia superans (a low spreading
Page 180 and 181:
Grey-headed flying fox - vulnerable
Page 182 and 183:
11. In view of the above points, th
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Parks & Landscape ServicesBushland
Page 230 and 231:
1. IntroductionThese guidelines hav
Page 232 and 233:
2.1 Step 1. Determine the Vegetatio
Page 234 and 235:
2.3 Step 3. Calculate the Weed Clas
Page 236 and 237:
2.5 Step 5. Report the Weed Classif
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix B. Mapping ExampleKMC Bush
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
show all

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN for Bidjigal Reserve - Land

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?