ISSN 1449 373X

DESIGNING A BIODIVERSITY INDEX TO ASSESS EAST-WEST LANDSCAPE LINKAGE RESEARCH REPORT No. 3 Juliana McCosker and John Rolfe

ESTABLISHING EAST-WEST LANDSCAPE LINKAGE IN THE SOUTHERN DESERT UPLANDS RESEARCH REPORTS
July 2004

Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands Research Reports are published by the Environmental Protection Agency and Central Queensland University, Emerald, 4720. These reports represent the provisional findings of the research project Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands. The project is funded by a partnership of the Commonwealth and State Governments through the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. The partners in the project are the Desert Uplands Buildup and Development Strategy Committee, the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Central Queensland University and CSIRO. The views and interpretations expressed in these reports are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the organizations associated with the project. Because these reports present the results of work in progress, they should not be reproduced in part or whole without the written authorization of the Project Leader, Juliana McCosker. Any comments will be gratefully received and should be directed to Juliana McCosker Principal Biodiversity Planning Officer Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 906 Emerald QLD 4720 Juliana.mccosker@epa.qld.gov.au (07) 49824555 (ph) (07) 49822568 (fax)

Table of Contents
Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Biodiversity Benefits Index Parameters 3. Conservation Significance 3.1 Biodiversity planning assessments 4. Vegetation Condition 4.1 Ecosystem health 4.2 Habitat condition assessment methodologies 4.3 Habitat Hectares from Victoria A brief outline Uplands ii 1 3 5 5 7 7 8 8 9

4.4 Issues in applying the Habitat Hectares method to the Desert 4.5 Recommended Habitat Hectares scoring system for the Desert Uplands 11 5. Potential Vegetation Condition/Management Inputs 6. Landscape Linkage Significance 17 18

7. Recommended Biodiversity Index for Overall Corridor Assessment 19 8. Discussion Acknowledgements References Appendix 1 21 23 24 25

Abstract
The use of competitive (market-like) processes to identify preferred linkage zones across the bioregion is based on the assessment of which bids are most cost-effective. This can be achieved by comparing some summary index of the biodiversity benefits against the proposed costs for different options. A biodiversity index is required to assess landscape linkage options across the southern Desert Uplands taking into account both the biodiversity and landscape linkage values of possible vegetation connections across a bioregion. A Total Biodiversity Index is proposed that is a combination of Biodiversity Benefits Indexes for individual bid areas on properties and an overall Landscape Linkage Index. The version of the Biodiversity Benefits Index that is proposed for the assessment of individual property bid areas, builds on those developed in Victoria and New South Wales. This index covers the conservation significance, vegetation condition and landscape context for each individual property contribution. It is proposed that one site assessment per regional ecosystem (or groups of regional ecosystems) be undertaken per property bid area to ascertain vegetation condition. This site assessment should be indicative of the average condition of that vegetation type in the bid area and should be located with this purpose in mind. The bioregional biodiversity planning assessment will determine the conservation significance of an area. A modified version of the Habitat Hectares approach for vegetation condition assessment as used in the southern states is recommended. The comprehensive approach that has been developed is consistent with many other assessment mechanisms and is suitable for use in a wide range of locations. In much of the Desert Uplands where the focus is on maintaining existing conditions, this level of detail may not be appropriate. In this situation, a simplified Biodiversity Benefits Index may be appropriate to expedite the assessment process.

ii

1. Introduction
This report is the third in a series reporting the design of a market-based instrument that may potentially be used to protect landscape linkages across the southern Desert Uplands bioregion of central-western Queensland. The focus of the research reported here is to establish a clear and transparent process to evaluate submitted bids to protect tracts of vegetation on individual and linked properties. Among other factors, the evaluations need to take into account the biodiversity that may be protected, the linkage functions across a landscape, the condition of the vegetation under consideration, and the potential for maintenance/improvement (perhaps as a consequence of targeted landholder inputs). The key issue to be addressed in this project has been outlined in the first research report (Rolfe and McCosker 2003). The southern part of the Desert Uplands bioregion is largely intact with less than 30% of the area developed, and the vegetation associated with ranges which run north-south on either side are largely undisturbed. However, there has been more clearing of native vegetation to increase stock carrying capacity in the middle more fertile land associated with drainage systems. The aim of this project is to design a process for establishing east-west landscape linkages of vegetation managed primarily for its biodiversity values ensuring flora and fauna survive climatic extremes at a bioregional level. The design of a process where landholders can voluntarily enter into contracts to manage areas (or corridors) of vegetation on their property for both biodiversity protection and beef cattle grazing has been set out in the second research report (Rolfe et al. 2004). This details the design and testing of auction systems where landholders can submit bids for managing parts of their properties for environmental outcomes. Landholders would receive annual payments for their involvement. In the auction process, the most cost-effective combination of landholder bids would be selected to achieve an east-west linkage. An integral part of the bid evaluation process for the different linkage options is to be able to compare the total biodiversity benefits against the total cost. The total costs are very easy to calculate; they are the sum of the bid levels from the different landholders involved. However, the biodiversity benefits are much more difficult to assess and transform into some index format where they can be compared to costs. A biodiversity index is necessary to assess and differentiate between the biodiversity values of the individual property bids, and the landscape linkages of a combination of property bids. The index also needs to incorporate the potential changes in vegetation condition that might be a consequence of protection and/or specific management inputs by landholders. This biodiversity index may also form a basis for monitoring activities and perhaps have a compliance of contract role. An example of the role that a biodiversity index can play comes from the Bush Tender project conducted in Victoria (Stoneham et al. 2003). Bids from landholders to protect areas of remnant vegetation were assessed in terms of: (a) the biodiversity significance; a biodiversity significance score (BSS) was assigned to reflect information about scarcity and its ecological classification,

(b) the improvement in habitat associated with landholder actions; a Habitat Services Score (HSS) was assigned to reflect the likely outcomes from a range of different management inputs, and (c) the bid price (b). This information was combined to form a Biodiversity Benefits Index for each landholder bid using the following formula (Stoneham et al. 2003) Biodiversity Benefits Index = BSS x HSS/Bid The scores for the Biodiversity Benefits Index can be used to directly rank the bids from landholders for protection measures. There are a number of factors to consider in the development of a biodiversity index. The index needs to be an accurate representation of the significance, condition and potential condition of the vegetation under consideration, but also needs to be simple enough to minimize collection costs and comprehension problems. For this project the index needs to be capable of assessing the contribution of different vegetation blocks in a linkage zone, and able to vary according to different designs and block combinations. As well, the index should be transferable to other regional areas and be as consistent as possible with other state and national assessment procedures. The biodiversity index proposed in this research project builds on and is a modification of those currently used in Victoria and New South Wales. The modifications are based on the intact bioregional characteristics of the Desert Uplands, the incorporation of ecological principles that will measure landscape linkage adequately and the limited level of habitat condition attributes that have been collected over the last eight years by various ecological studies carried out in the bioregion. The approach taken here is to develop a comprehensive biodiversity index. However, the index outlined in this document is probably too complex to be suitable to be a practical, cost-effective, landholder-credible and acceptable method given the available data and time and cost constraints involved in many programs. Once a comprehensive index has been developed, a key issue is to identify how it may be condensed or abbreviated to suit particular situations. This report is set out in the following way. In the next section an index format is presented for assessing biodiversity at specific sites. This index is similar to the one used in the Bush Tender trial, but is slightly more detailed. A discussion about how to adapt components of the index to the southern Desert Uplands bioregion is presented in the following three sections. In section 6, an index is developed to assess a linkage zone or landscape connection across a bioregion, and the process to combine the assessments for the sites with the overall linkage index is presented in section 7. In the final section, discussion is presented about how to modify these indexes in some situation so that assessments can be expediated.

2. Biodiversity Benefits Index Parameters

A prototype toolkit for scoring the biodiversity benefits of land use change has been developed by staff and an associated technical advisory group for the New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (Oliver and Parkes 2003). The toolkit has three goals: to score the current biodiversity value of a site, to estimate the magnitude and direction of change in biodiversity value resulting from land use change, and to incorporate these current and potential values into a Biodiversity Benefits Index. Their Biodiversity Benefits Index (BBI) is scored on the basis of three surrogate measures of biodiversity, namely: the conservation significance (current and potential), the vegetation condition (current and potential) and the landscape context. They define these in the following way (Oliver and Parkes 2003:1): Vegetation condition is defined as the degree to which the current vegetation differs from a benchmark representing the average characteristics of the type of mature native vegetation predicted to have occupied the site before agricultural development (Parkes et al. 2003). It describes the degree to which critical habitat components and other resources needed by indigenous plants and animals are present at the site. Conservation significance is important for estimating the biodiversity value of a site in a regional context. Some sites may represent elements of biodiversity that are common in the landscape, others may represent elements that are now rare. Conservation significance recognizes the amount of each element now in the landscape compared with a time before agricultural development, as well as the likelihood of the element persisting. Within the prototype toolkit, vegetation types are used as the operational surrogate measures for the spatial distribution of elements of biodiversity throughout regions. Landscape context recognizes that the biodiversity value of an area of vegetation will vary depending on where the site is located in the wider landscape. Small sites surrounded by a sea of agriculture have poor landscape context compared with sites in close proximity to large semi-natural areas.

The score is multiplied by area to generate an overall BBI for the site. The Biodiversity Benefits Index formula is BBI = Biodiversity Significance Score x Land Use Change Score x ha = (CSt0 + LC)VCt0/ 2001 x ((CS tn CS t0)+ (VCtn VCt0))/2 x ha where: CSt0 = Initial Conservation Significance CStn = Potential Conservation Significance LC = Landscape Context
1

Biodiversity is assessed by a set of indicators which add up to 200.

VCt0 = VCtn = Ha =

Current Vegetation Condition Potential Vegetation Condition Area

Establishing the conservation significance of an area is an important estimation of the biodiversity value in a regional context. This biodiversity value is given based on extent of vegetation types prior to development and also its natural rarity. Potential conservation significance scores are important in instances where regrowth is proposed, for example of an endangered regional ecosystem(where less than 10% of its pre-clearing extent remains) which is to be re-established by natural re-generation and therefore has potential conservation significance. The vegetation condition measures the current biodiversity values at a site scale. It is defined as the degree to which the current vegetation differs from a vegetation condition benchmark representing the average characteristics of the mature native vegetation without modification. It describes the degree to which critical habitat components are present at the site. While these are readily measured in small remnants in highly fragmented bioregions of Queensland; some extrapolation of site data is necessary to infer condition across the landscapes of intact bioregions. The landscape context evaluation recognizes that the biodiversity value of an area will vary depending on where the site is site is located in the wider landscape. Small sites surrounded by a sea of agriculture have poor landscape context compared with sites in close proximity to large-semi-natural areas. Given that the Desert Uplands is a relatively intact and connected bioregion these components where modified to reflect this difference and to incorporate the foci of impact. The Landscape Use Change estimates the magnitude and direction of change in biodiversity value proposed in the bid. This is estimated as the difference between and potential vegetation condition. There are some similarities and differences between this index and that used in the Victorian Bush Tender process. A key difference is that the Biodiversity Benefits Index reported by Stoneham et al. (2003) included a bid price component, while the BBI reported above only assess biodiversity condition. In many other respects the approaches are similar. Both approaches calculate a Biodiversity Significance Score, although one approach treats area separately while the other incorporates area in the score. The Land Use Change Impact Score used by Oliver and Parkes (2003) is similar to the Habitat Service Score used by Stoneham et al.(2003) although the former focuses on measuring the outcomes of vegetation change and the later focuses on the management inputs required to make the vegetation condition change. These indexes only assess individual vegetation areas on individual properties. An additional scoring is needed to assess the effectiveness of each corridor option in fulfilling its landscape linkage objectives, and this is discussed further in section 6. A key issue is how the BBI framework outlined by Oliver and Parkes (2003) can be adapted to the Desert Uplands case study. This is taken up in the following three sections.

3. Conservation Significance
The Queensland Government will complete bioregional biodiversity planning assessment for the Desert Uplands late in 2004. This assessment process identifies areas with three levels of significance: State significance, Regional significance and Local significance solely for biodiversity reasons. These reasons include the existence of threatened ecosystems or taxa, large tracts of habitat in good condition and buffers to wetland or other types of habitat important for the maintenance of biodiversity or ecological processes. To ensure consistency in assessment processes, it is recommended that the Conservation Significance of a site calculated as part of a biodiversity index be consistent with that biodiversity planning assessment. Here, the latter methodology is outlined in more detail. 3.1 Biodiversity planning assessments The Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a biodiversity assessment and mapping methodology to assess the biodiversity values at a bioregional scale based on the vegetation mapping data generated by the Queensland Herbarium. A Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA) for each bioregion is generated from this methodology. The methodology was based on a method developed over several years in consultation between the EPA, local government in southeast Queensland, Brisbane Regional Environment Council and Chenoweth Environmental Planning and Landscape Architecture Ltd. The methodology has a spatial application. The assessments are compiled and integrated for mapping using databases and geographic information systems (GIS). This approach incorporates the known biodiversity values of an area to be presented in a clear and transparent manner for use by decision-makers. The methodology focuses on a number of consistent and reliable criteria that are transparent, objective and scientifically defensible (see Table 1). For further details on each of the diagnostic and supplementary criteria listed in Table 1 see Appendix 1. The criteria are in two groups, which are applied one after the other. The first group is based on existing data, which are relatively uniform and reliable across a bioregion. These criteria are diagnostic in that they are used to filter available data and provide a first-cut or initial determination of significance. This initial assessment is then refined using a second group of Supplementary Criteria. The Supplementary Criteria may rely more upon expert opinion than on quantitative data, which in most cases is not available uniformly across the bioregion.

Table 1. Biodiversity significance criteria 1st. Stage: Diagnostic Criteria for analysis of uniformly available data A: Habitat for EVR taxa B: Ecosystem Value: at three scales B1: State B2: Regional B3: Local C: Tract Size D: Relative Size of regional ecosystem within remnant unit: at three scales D1: State D2: Regional D3: Local E: Condition F: Ecosystem Diversity G: Context and Connection (relationship to water, endangered ecosystems and physical connection between contiguous Remnant Units) 2nd Stage: Supplementary Criteria Assessed by expert panel using nonuniform data H: Essential and General Habitat for Priority Taxa I: Special Biodiversity Values J: Corridors

The seven Diagnostic Criteria in Table 1 use reliable and uniformly available information that is accessible in database format, and which can be queried to automatically generate significance classes using consistent rules of combination. A filtering process is used to assess Remnant Units by these criteria A to G (see Table 2). These criteria can also be used as a series of questions applied to a tract of vegetation in the absence of a completed BPA. Table 2. Conservation significance - categories and scores Attributes Conservation Significance as deemed by BPA assessment or query process Very High (8) High (6) State Regional Significance Significance Medium (4) Local (Shire) Significance Low (2) Low significance in current state developed state

The current Desert Uplands BPA has the filtering process of diagnostic criteria completed and therefore every remnant area within the bioregion can be queried through this GIS database to ascertain its biodiversity significance. The database details the area of each tract and its attributes addressing each criteria. The expert panel process will occur in July 2004 with a finished product likely to be on the EPA website by the end of the year. Therefore a mechanism will exist for each vegetation area on each property bid to have a Conservation Significance Score based on the Biodiversity Planning

Assessment for the Desert Uplands bioregion. Areas of re-growth submitted in the bid areas will be assessed using the same process, their current conservation significance is likely to be low but may have a high potential conservation significance.

4. Vegetation Condition
Current vegetation condition forms an input into the Biodiversity Benefits Index in two main ways. First, current vegetation condition is used to scale the importance of the biodiversity significance score, as well as forming an element of the Biodiversity Significance Criteria (see criteria E in Table 1). Second, current vegetation condition forms an important component of the Land Use Change Score. Elements of the current vegetation condition score are discussed in this section, while elements of the potential vegetation condition score are discussed in the next section. 4.1 Ecosystem health Ecosystem health is an overall indicator of the ecosystem functioning (or ecosystem integrity), taking into account both ecological and human processes. An ecosystem is said to be healthy, if it is stable and sustainable, i.e. if it is active, maintains its organization and vigour over time and is resilient to stress. Ecosystem health can be defined as a measure of the overall performance of a complex system that is built up from the behaviour of its parts (Costanza, 1992). In order to measure or assess the health of an ecosystem it is necessary to identify biotic and abiotic indicators and the scale of the assessment. The indicators need to be relevant to the assessment. Most biotic and abiotic indicators, such as indexes describing the soil, flora and fauna have emerged from the ecological literature (Odum, 1971). Furthermore, the measurement of the selected biotic and abiotic indicators needs to be a feasible task, so that it is possible to come up with plausible, valid figures. For example, for the silver-leaved ironbark woodlands of the Desert Uplands it may be appropriate to focus on ground cover as an indicator of ecosystem health. This is because a low ground cover condition and trend measurement implies reduced organic matter (grass leaf litter) which in turn leads to reduced resources for termites which in turn leads to reduced bio-turbation by termites and this leads to reduced nutrient cycling. It is also clear that both ecological and human dimensions are dynamic; they can change in different ways and according to multiple time frames. Consequently, biotic, and abiotic indicators must be sufficiently dynamic to measure such change. Currently in Queensland there are vegetation condition assessment methodologies used to assess ecological health in terms of land condition for the maintenance of sustainable production based on an ABCD framework (Ash and McIvor 1995). This framework classifies land condition into four broad categories incorporating measures of palatable, perennial grasses, ground cover, weed presence, soil condition, tree density and biomass. While there is some overlap of these indicators for biodiversity condition the context is production not biodiversity.

4.2 Habitat condition assessment methodologies Vegetation condition needs to be set in a single, clearly defined, purpose-driven framework. Oliver et al. (2002) suggest that several approaches to condition assessment have tended to be taxon driven rather than all species driven and have often used structural complexity of vegetation as a key predictor of condition. Consequently, structurally complex vegetation has become synonymous with good condition vegetation. However, although structurally complex vegetation has been shown to correlate with bird and mammal abundance and species richness, few data exist to show that structural complexity correlates with non-avian or non-mammalian biodiversity. In a wide range of structurally simple vegetation types, this approach may mislead by ascribing poor condition to what may, in fact, be the normal or best possible condition. Oliver and Parkes (2003) also recommend that given todays highly modified landscape values for biodiversity conservation need to be assessed in terms of what is currently there rather than what existed previously. This can be applied to vegetation cleared of trees where there is still have a relatively undisturbed understorey and there is likely to be a high level of natural regeneration of tree saplings occurring which could provide potential habitat. 4.3 Habitat Hectares from Victoria A brief outline A broad-brush approach termed Habitat Hectares assessment was developed by Parkes et al. (2003) to assess habitat condition for biodiversity. This approach was devised to communicate key information about the role native vegetation plays in biodiversity conservation. The Victorian Department required an approach that could tell them about the quality of the vegetation but also have the following eight criteria: 1. Be objective of quality but also reliable and repeatable, 2. Measure the degree of naturalness, 3. Indicate the direction and amount of potential improvement for lower quality sites, 4. Allow comparison between other vegetation types, 5. Combine quality and quantity assessments, 6. Enable calculation of net outcomes; either for trade-off/offset scenarios or for measuring overall performance of policies or programs, 7. Be undertaken rapidly by natural resource managers not just ecologists, and 8. Present a simple and robust message to land managers about the important components of native vegetation and its management Habitat hectare assessments rely on a comparison of remnant native vegetation to a benchmark for the same vegetation type in a mature and long-undisturbed state. The methodology is constrained to one stand of one vegetation type and in one condition state. The method involves scoring seven site condition components to be done from field assessment and three landscape components assessable from GIS map layers.

Table 3. Components and weightings of the habitat score as per Habitat Hectares Site Condition Component Large trees Tree (canopy) cover Understorey (non-tree) strata Lack of weeds Recruitment Organic litter Logs Patch size Neighbourhood Distance to core area Total Maximum Value (%) 10 5 25 15 10 5 5 10 10 5 100

Landscape context

The final score for a stand is determined by recording and tallying the score of its site condition and landscape context (Table 3). This score can then be standardized if required for the benchmark. Multiplying the habitat score by the hectare area of stand gives a quality-quantity measure that is termed a habitat hectare. Several ecologists evaluated this habitat hectares methodology and suggested some improvements in terms of the measurement of the above habitat components, the usage of individual long undisturbed areas as benchmarks, the combination of attribute scores and the management context of valuing one vegetation type condition over another (McCarthy et al. 2004). Given that the habitat hectare methodology is an attempt to quantify and communicate to land holders/ managers attributes of a remnant area that are of value for biodiversity conservation and to strike a balance between science and practicality it appears to be a satisfactory method to assess vegetation condition at a site level. The use of a long undisturbed area as a benchmark requires some knowledge of the site management history and this is clearly difficult to acquire. A more practical benchmark is an above average condition site based on the knowledge of several sites for a particular ecosystem. The habitat condition (criteria E in Table 1) used in the Biodiversity Planning Assessments for bioregions in Queensland have used the remnant vegetation mapping by the Queensland Herbarium to represent areas of vegetation in their natural state in the absence of a consistent assessment of vegetation condition across a bioregion. This is being used until such time as a standard state-wide condition assessment process is developed. This is underway at the time of writing (July 2004), and is being developed and tested in the Southern Brigalow Belt bioregion. This proposed statewide vegetation condition assessment for biodiversity will also be based on the Habitat Hectares method. 4.4 Issues in Applying the Habitat Hectares method to the Desert Uplands The Habitat Hectares method has been developed in a southern Australian context. To make it applicable to the Desert Uplands, there are rangeland specific issues with habitat condition assessment that need to be dealt with before determining a methodology that is suitable for a largely intact rangeland bioregion in a semi-arid environment. 9

4.4.1 Dieback and thickening The Desert Uplands bioregion has various areas of eucalypt woodlands that have suffered from either dieback associated with dry seasons or vegetation thickening of either an even-aged stands of eucalypt saplings or mid-storey scrubs. While these areas are vast, the reasons for their occurrence are uncertain and their long-term effects on biodiversity are unknown. There is scientific speculation that they have natural origins that may be accentuated by anthropogenic disturbance (Burrows, Fensham pers. comm.). It is recommended that bid areas submitted which have dieback or thickened areas be given an average score in the mature tree layer habitat component. 4.4.2 Fire disturbance There are areas that have been subjected to wildfires either via lightening strikes or human cause that leave areas with low ground cover for long periods of time especially if fires are followed by dry periods. It is presumed that these have occurred intermittently over several centuries. It is recommended that the areas that have had fire be assessed as having average condition in spite of their low ground cover on the proviso that they are not re-stocked until a minimum ground cover is re-established. 4.4.3 Termite activity There is a high density of termite mounds that lead to a high turnover of mature eucalypt trees. Therefore the measurement of mature live trees is probably as reliable an indicator of habitat health as the evidence of mature trees with hollows. 4.4.4 Ground habitat condition It is recommended that pasture be the primary focus for the assessment of habitat condition. The management options and impacts on biodiversity in the Desert Uplands are derived from the management of the stock grazing intensity (and to some extent and in some areas - macropod grazing intensity). This means that improvements or examples of good management will be reflected in pasture condition. The assessment of the pasture should be composed of the following four factors: percentage of native perennial and palatable pasture species, the percentage of exotic perennial pasture species, the amount of pasture biomass and ground cover. The interrelationship between these four indicators will give a good indication of the ecosystem health and the underlying health of the soil as well. Ground cover is recommended as a good surrogate of soil condition. 4.4.4(a) Native perennial palatable grasses Grazing can result in changes to plant composition and evidence of this can be expressed in changes from an abundance of perennial palatable native grasses and herbage to non-palatable perennials, herbage and/or annual grasses (Ash and McIvor 1995). It is recommended that the percentage of native perennial species be included in the habitat condition assessment in the understorey component and that this be carried out after the wet season (usually from February to May) to facilitate species identification.

10

4.4.4(b) Non-native perennial palatable grasses. The percentage of exotic pasture species in a tract should be assessed in the initial inspection for the condition scoring. While exotic pastures may indeed improve production, soil health and in some sense ecological functional health in some degraded systems, it is likely that a predominance of exotic pastures will lead to decreased fauna and flora biodiversity as exotic pastures displace the ecological niche of some ground flora. It is likely that if the pasture biomass does not fall below a prescribed minimum biomass at the end of the dry season, the percentage of exotic pasture should not increase significantly over time. It is recommended that the percentage of exotic perennial pastures be part of the pasture condition assessment and be scored in the lack of weeds habitat component. 4.4.4(c) Biomass. Pasture biomass requirements are linked to both the regenerational capacity of the pasture and the habitat requirements of ground flora and fauna. It is recommended that the overall pasture biomass be assessed and that the biomass of the major pasture genera be quantified as well. For example; if there is a Spinifex, Forest Mitchell, Wire grasses mixture, then an estimation of each groups contribution to the total biomass should be made. Usage of Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) generated photo standards for groupings of regional ecosystem types can be used to calibrate individual readings. 4.4.4(d) Ground cover. Ground cover minimum requirements are linked to ecosystem functional health and groundcover has a component of litter, debris, cryptogram and logs, dead leaves and branches which provide habitat and nutrients for invertebrates and reptiles. It is recommended that the average ground cover recorded for 10 quadrats over a 100m transect be a measurement of the average ground cover of the area assessed. The Desert Uplands bioregion is largely intact and in an effort to determine which areas of a regional ecosystem are in better condition than other areas, a ground cover GIS assessment of ecosystems with a basal tree cover less than 7m2/hectare is being undertaken to investigate the inference of habitat condition with field data collected at known sites in the open eucalypt woodlands. The quality of a remnant unit is judged by the extent to which each resembles its natural condition, or rather the degree of anthropogenic disturbance. 4.5 Recommended Habitat Hectares scoring system for the Desert Uplands A recommended version of the Habitat Hectares vegetation condition assessment method for the Desert Uplands regional ecosystems is outlined below. It is recommended that one field site assessment per vegetation type per property in the area nominated in the individual property bid(s) and that the assessment site be located over 1km from known location of artificial waters. This site assessment should adequately represent the average condition of that vegetation type in the bid area(s). The following seven components and their parts are measurements that allow current vegetation condition to be assessed for vegetation areas offered by the landholders in any corridor bidding process. The vegetation condition assessment using the below components is not currently (July 2004) possible because the standard vegetation condition components have not been established for the sixty-two regional ecosystems that exist in the southern part of the Desert Uplands bioregion. However, the Queensland Government has a project

11

underway to develop these habitat condition components for benchmarks for each ecosystem, and these should be in place by the end of 2005. 4.5.1 Large trees (Score out of 10) Relative to the regional ecosystem benchmark determine the height and number of large trees/ha;dead and alive. Large trees are particularly difficult to replace once they are lost. They are also of critical value as habitat for some species in terms of nesting and feeding and therefore have a relatively high proportional weighting. Large trees are defined by their diameter at breast height as specified for each regional ecosystem benchmark. They should be assessed via a 100m by 5m belt transect and extrapolated to a density per hectare. Table 4. Large tree density - categories and scores for the number and health of large trees Large tree density (% of the benchmark number of large tree per ha) None present 0-20 20-40 40-70 70-100
% Canopy Health*

<30% 0 3 5 7 10

30-70% 0 2 4 6 9

>70% 0 1 3 5 8

**Estimated proportion of an expected healthy canopy cover (i.e. not missing due to tree death or decline, or mistletoe infestation)

4.5.2 All strata canopy health (Score out of 5) Estimate the proportion of each strata of an expected healthy strata that is present relative to the bioregional benchmark and average the scores over each stratum. Scores are discounted if the canopy is in poor health, as shown in Table 5. Table 5. Criteria and scores for the cover and health of strata canopy cover Category &Description < 10% of benchmark cover < 50% of benchmark cover > 50% of benchmark cover > 70% 0 3 5 % Canopy Health 30-70% 0 2 4 < 30% 0 1 3

4.5.3 Recruitment (Score out of 10) Recruitment refers to young trees and seedlings that exist in an area, determine the number of stem counts by stratum present for the dominant tree and shrub types in the 20m by 20m assessment area relative to the regional ecosystem benchmark. Ideally, this assessment should occur across all plant species but for consistency of application across seasons - only trees and shrubs will be assessed. The first question that needs to be established is whether a recruitment event has occurred. If so, the second and third questions address whether these the recruitment is linked to disturbance events (e.g. flooding or fire) and whether these events have lead to recruitment.

12

Table 6. Criteria and scores for the adequacy of recruitment of dominant woody species present
First decision Second decision Third decision Proportion of benchmark number of woody species < 50% 50% 0 0

No evidence of a recruitment cohort

If recruitment is being assessed within a vegetation type that is not driven by episodic events If recruitment is being assessed within a vegetation type that is driven by episodic events -

There is clear evidence of an appropriate episodic event There is not clear evidence of an appropriate episodic event <30%

Clear evidence of at least one recruitment cohort in at least one woody lifeform -

Proportion of native woody species present that have adequate recruitment -

30-70% >70%

6 10

3 5

4.5.4 Understorey (Score out of 25) Understorey assessment needs to be done after the wet season (February May) and must be linked to local rainfall events. A combination of species diversity, biomass and ground cover will give a good indication of the ecosystem health. Key steps involved are as follows: 1. Relate to vegetation type bioregional benchmark for understorey life forms. 2. Identify the number of species within the observed understorey life forms and the biomass/cover occupied by each of these life forms. 3. Compare the number of life forms that are present to the vegetation type benchmark and categorize appropriately. 4. Estimate the biomass of the major pasture group components. 5. Estimate ground cover from satellite imagery interpretation relative to known sites with known ground cover per vegetation type for those with a projective foliage cover of less than 20%. 6. Estimate the ground cover of the site - average by 10 quadrats estimates along a 100m transect.

13

Table

7. Criteria and scores for presence, biomass and ground cover of the understorey
Plant diversity - categories Above 60 species especially of palatable perennial pastures Between 60 and 40 species especially of palatable perennial pastures Below 40 species especially of palatable perennial pastures Biomass (B) and Ground cover (G) Above average Average Below average 25 20 10 20 15 5 15 10 0

Above average = >70% ground cover and greater than 2000kg/ha at the end of the dry season Average = <70% to 40% ground cover and less than 2000kg/ha to 1000kg/ha at the end of the dry season Below Average = > 40% ground cover and less than 1000kg/ha at the end of the dry season 4.5.5 Lack of weeds (only exotic species) (score out of 15) Key steps to assess this criteria are as follows: 1. Determine the weeds present and estimate the total cover of weeds in the area under assessment and place in the appropriate weed cover class. 2. Assess the threat posed by the identified weeds using the vegetation type bioregional benchmark as a guide. 3. Estimate the proportion of the total weed cover due to high threat weed species and place in the appropriate threat class. Buffel grass is an environmental weed but it is also of high primary production value in the Desert Uplands. Under the proposed contractual agreements a proponent must agree to not pro-actively introduce buffel within the bid area and likewise the proponent is not required to actively remove buffel from the bid area. As such buffel cover will be measured and scored as per column one (None) in Table 8. Table 8. Criteria and scores for the cover and threat of exotic plant species present Proportion of weed cover represented by high-threat weed species None <50% >50% 3 1 0 7 5 3 11 9 7 15 13 11

Weed cover (%) > 50 25-50 5-25 <5

14

4.5.6 Organic litter and log cover (Score out of 10) Key steps to assess this criteria are as follows: 1. Refer to the regional ecosystem benchmark organic litter/log cover. 2. Estimate the percentage cover of litter/log in the assessment area in comparison to the benchmark cover and place in the appropriate organic litter/log class. Table 9. Criteria and scores for the cover of litter and logs Category Description < 20 % of benchmark cover <20 or > 40% of benchmark cover <40 or > 60% of benchmark cover <60 or > 80% of benchmark <80% of benchmark Score 0 3 5 7 10

4.5.7 Local landscape context (Score out of 25) Landscape context refers to the potential linkages between a vegetation block and other components of the local or regional landscape. The score for this component forms part of the Habitat Hectares model used to assess Current Vegetation Condition, but the scores are also used as direct input into the Biodiversity Benefits Index. Through neutral landscape models the geometry of landscapes has been examined and used to explore the degree to which vegetation is connected across the landscape with varying degrees of clearing. Some very important principles have emerged from the studies of these theoretical landscapes, for example, if a landscape is 70% intact (in any arrangement), as is the Southern Desert Uplands, that landscape has very high connectivity for organisms in that habitat. This level of habitat connectivity allows for organisms to move seasonally, interbreed, and escape events such as fires and maintain ecological functions (McIntrye 1999). While this connection is maintained in the present landscape there are still impacts on the biodiversity and therefore the habitat quality of the vegetation in relation to the concentration of stock and the location of stock waters within paddocks. There are three components in the assessment of Landscape Context, as outlined below. 4.5.7(a) Remnant unit area (Score out of 10) Note *Vegetation corridors such as stock routes connected to and linking large areas of native vegetation must be at least 200m wide to be considered as part of the same patch. In landscapes with more than 70% cover of native vegetation; extreme decreaser species are those that only occur in areas where grazing impacts are very low e.g. greater than 5km from water. These species require areas of habitat sufficiently large to maintain viable populations in these ungrazed areas. Landscapes with these characteristics tend to have climates with low (less than 500mm) annual rainfall and highly variable populations. Harsh environmental conditions reduce populations to low levels so the size of the patch to maintain a viable population is likely to be large. 15

James et al. 2001 recommended patch sizes of 10-20km2 (1000-2000ha) for offreserve planning for biodiversity in these landscape types. Table 10. Criteria and scores for the nominated bid area Category and Description < 50ha Between 50 and 200ha Between 200 and 500ha Between 500 and 1000ha > 1000ha but some disturbance >1000ha but not significantly disturbed Value 1 2 4 6 8 10

4.5.7(b) Neighbourhood (Score out of 5) The neighbourhood score represents the amount and configuration of native vegetation within proximity of the assessment area. Estimate the amount of remnant vegetation present within three neighbourhood radii (i.e. 1km, 5km, 10km) that are nested within each other around the assessment area. The centre of the scoring circles is located at the centroid (centre point) of the assessment area. Table 11. Calculation of the neighbourhood component for nominated area Radius from site % native vegetation Weighting Score (= % native vegetation x weighting)

1km 5km 10km

0.3 0.4 0.3

4.5.7(c) Distance from water (Score out of 10) Artificial watering points can cause environmental impacts, particularly relating to the concentration of grazing animals. Grazing can cause a decline in the abundance of species that are the preferred species and can also cause an increase in the abundance of unpalatable species that thrive on the disturbance caused by large herbivores. There are also effects on biodiversity that are not related directly to grazing: in rangelands there are environmental effects resulting from the provision of dense networks of water points in a landscape that was relatively sparsely dotted with free water (James et al. 2001). The combined effect of grazing animals and watering points in the rangelands is that some species of every type that have survived tend to be lower in abundance in areas where grazing occurs and higher in abundance in un-grazed (water-remote) areas. These patterns of change in biodiversity suggest that remnants over 3km from water points or under low grazing management are more likely to have healthy populations of sensitive species. Species that are not affected or advantaged by grazing do not need to be considered because their status appears to be secure. The component is assessed by determining the shortest distance from the nearest artificial water point within the same fenced paddock to at least 50% of the

16

vegetation block. The score is calculated with reference to the appropriate distance from water class in Table 12. Table 12. Distances and scoring relating to the area in distance categories from artificial water Over 50% of assessment area within the distances from artificial water classes 0 to 500m 500 to 1000m 1000m to 3000m 3000 to 5000m Over 5000m Score 1 4 6 8 10

5. Potential Vegetation Condition / Management Inputs

Potential Vegetation Condition is included as an input into the Biodiversity Benefits Index, largely to account for potential improvements in condition that might result from direct landholder inputs. These parameters are difficult to predict and their assessment should be undertaken by a person with extensive knowledge of the ecosystems responses to climatic fluctuations and different management regimes. The proposed vegetation condition in a bid area is either nominated by the proponent to be maintained or to be improved. The proponent could agree to one of four management options: 1. Maintain current production outputs by forsaking increased production outputs i.e. not putting in additional waters or reducing paddock sizes. 2. Modify current production outputs to have a better biodiversity vegetation condition outcome i.e. de-stock area over wet season. 3. Decrease production outputs. 4. Eliminate production outputs i.e. totally de-stock. However, in spite of a land managers commitment to achieving these outcomes, the vegetation condition changes proposed may not eventuate due to unforeseeable climatic events. The prediction of the potential condition from a proposed production output is possible at the end of wet season in order to achieve a required pasture biomass at the end of dry season. There is a standard DPI STOCKTAKE process for measuring the biomass consumption per adult equivalent beast based on their average daily feed requirement. This allows flexibility in stock numbers and time periods over the nominated area so that minimum biomass conditions can be met at the end of the dry season. The timeframe of the agreement is likely to be a major factor in determining the potential vegetation condition change. A short timeframe of five to ten years will probably only result in measurable change in the understorey habitat component species composition, frequency and cover (and biomass).

17

While the potential condition is an important aspect of a bid especially if an area of regrowth is offered; it is highly intertwined with management inputs a landholder is ready to make. Scoring of potential condition is difficult to measure when these management factors, the length of commitment and the seasonal conditions make the potential condition so variable.

6. Landscape Linkage Significance Index

The Biodiversity Benefits Index has been developed in the previous sections in use as an assessment tool for vegetation blocks on individual properties. These indexes will contribute to the overall assessment of landscape linkage options (as outlined in section 7). However, the sum of the Biodiversity Benefits Indexes for different vegetation blocks within a landscape linkage does not adequately capture all the key factors that might constitute a successful linkage option. A different index is needed to assess the viability of a linkage option, given that the biodiversity and vegetation condition contained within a linkage zone can be assessed through the application of the Biodiversity Benefits Index. In this section, the development of a separate index to assess the significance of a landscape linkage zone is reported. To generate environmental benefits, a landscape linkage proposal needs to fulfill some roles of continuity, diversity, scale and linkage between blocks. In order to rate the value of each corridor option against other corridor options, a Landscape Linkage Significance index (LLS) is proposed that incorporates five key measures. These are specified as follows; 1. Percentage of the whole of distance East West that the landscape linkage covers via undeveloped vegetation. The whole distance is the length across the bioregion necessary to completely link either side. 2. Percentage of linkage area in core areas. Because there are pathways for movement through native vegetation, the spacing of largerefuge patches can be greater than it can in landscapes where the intervening vegetation is cleared. Therefore, patches set aside for species that are sensitive to grazing and other disturbances should form an even network with 5-10km spacings where possible with narrower linkage or corridor strips. Patches set aside for light grazing management need to be large enough to potentially support viable populations of grazing sensitive plants and animals. For persistence over 100s of years, patches need to be 100s to 1000s of meters wide. 3. Percentage of core areas with an area to perimeter ratio greater than 20:1. It is likely that a number core areas (nominally greater than 1000ha will be offered and these will constitute the nodes of higher conservation integrity and resilience compared to the inter-linking areas or corridor strips). This component of the index is a measure of the resilience and integrity of a core area. This criterion recognizes that there may be potential reduction of habitat values due to edge-effects. 4. Percentage of interlinking strips in the landscape link with a length to width ratio of at least 5:1 between core areas. This measures the viability of the inter-connections between core areas. Short linear strips may still be useful for connecting patches if the long axis is less than five times the length of the short axis, but it is generally preferred that a 5:1 ratio be maintained. The

18

Vegetation Management Act guidelines recommend 200m wide connective strips. 5. Percentage of the number of regional ecosystem that the landscape linkage covers. This gives a readily measured value of the diversity protected by the landscape linkage, where the most diverse connection is scored the highest. It is proposed that the average percentage of the above five measures give the landscape linkage value = LLS

7. Recommended Total Biodiversity Index for Overall Corridor Assessment

To assess a corridor option, the indexes for individual vegetation blocks on properties and the overall Landscape Linkage index need to be combined. There are two main options for combining the indexes. The first is to combine them additively (BBI + LLS), while the second is to scale (multiply) them against each other (BBI x LLS). The key advantage of the additive approach is that an area that has a high BBI but a low LLS does not have its overall score diminished because it does not connect well into a linkage option. In areas where it is unclear if there is more value in conserving a corridor/linkage zone rather than separate blocks of vegetation, an additive function may provide more useful information. By comparison, the multiplicative approach is only useful in comparing linkage options (because it would automatically give a low score for a non-corridor proposal). The key advantage of the multiplicative approach is that it provides a more straightforward option for comparing linkage options because the BBIs are simply scaled according to a LLS. Under an additive approach, it would be a more complex task to ensure that the LLS scores were comparable between options. A further issue to consider in the development of an overall index is the relative weightings to be made between biodiversity benefits and the linkage benefits. If the bulk of environmental benefits lie in biodiversity site protection rather than the corridor establishment, the relative weighting of the BBI should be higher under both the additive and multiplicative options. If biodiversity site benefits are relatively unimportant, then the reverse is true. A simple way of adjusting the relative weightings in the multiplicative model is to adjust the scale of the LLS scale. For example, if linkage benefits are relatively low, then the LLS score may be set to only vary in the range between 0.75 and 1. If the linkage benefits are relatively high, then the LLS score may be set to vary between 0 and 1. The apportionment of benefits between site biodiversity and linkages may also be important for contract design. Where corridor benefits are more important, then contracts may need to be focused on providing landholders with incentives to participate in linkage options and recognize interdependence issues. Where environmental site benefits are more important, then contracts can be focused more at individual landholder options. For this project, the key focus is to use a market-like mechanism to select between different linkage options. Because the focus is on corridor options, a multiplicative

19

approach has been chosen. As there is no available ecological information to assess the importance of corridors versus site biodiversity, neither the BBI nor the LLS are scaled against each other. The recommended 3 stage process for this is as follows: Stage 1. Assess Biodiversity Benefits Index for each property nominated bid area. Step 1. Establish the Conservation Significance of each individual property tract (area of each broad vegetation type on a property) via the Biodiversity Planning Assessment = CS Step 2 Establish the Vegetation Condition of the average condition of each vegetation type per property via field assessment and for the landscape components by GIS mapping tools using the above seven habitat condition components (as per modified Habitat Hectares [Table 13]) = VC. a) These should be scored relative to the above average regional ecosystem benchmark components as described by the Queensland Herbarium. In the event that these regional ecosystems benchmarks are not in place by the time the bid process is implemented, it is recommended that the vegetation condition components be collected at sites that depicts the average condition of that vegetation in that property in their bid areas. Given that vegetation condition assessments will be undertaken on sites on several properties a range of values will be identified and these can in turn can be ranked for each habitat component. b) For regional ecosystems where the projective foliage cover is less than 20% satellite ground cover condition trends have been assessed over the last 12 years with trends generally following seasonal events. This information can be useful to understand the floristic diversity of a site and may help inform an assessor about the possible potential vegetation condition. Table 13. Components and weightings of the habitat score as per modified Habitat Hectares Site Condition Component Large trees All strata canopy health Recruitment Understorey Lack of weeds Litter and logs Remnant unit area Neighbourhood Distance to water Total Maximum Value (%) 10 5 10 25 15 10 10 5 10 100

Landscape context

A simple version of this method could just focus on the understorey condition and the landscape context for each bid area.

20

Step 3. Establish the Potential Vegetation Condition/ Management Inputs (Land Use Change Score) for each property bid area. Step 4. Establish the Biodiversity Benefits Index for each property nominated bid area using the following formula BBI = (Biodiversity Significance Score x Land Use Change Score x ha) = ( (CSt0 + LC)VCt0/ 200 x ((CS tn CS t0)+ (VCtn VCt0))/2 x ha) where: CSt0 CStn LC VCt0 VCtn Ha = Initial Conservation Significance = Potential Conservation Significance = Landscape Context = Current Vegetation Condition = Potential Vegetation Condition = Area

Stage 2: Assess a Total Biodiversity Index for each potential corridor option Step 5. Identify the overall Biodiversity Benefits Index for a corridor option by summing the BBIs for each individual property bid area that is contained by the corridor = BBI Step 6. Establish the Landscape Linkage Significance of each corridor by averaging the five percentage scores detailed above = LLS Step 7. Establish the Total Biodiversity Index (TBI) for a Corridor option using = BBI for each nominated property bid area in a corridor option x LLS Stage 3. Assess the cost effectiveness of each potential corridor option Once the TBI for a corridor option has been established, the cost effectiveness of each corridor option can easily be assessed. The steps to do this area as follows: Step 9. Identify the total cost of each corridor option by summing the nominated bids for all the property areas that are included in a corridor option: Total Bids = Bids Step 10. Identify the cost-effectiveness of each corridor option by dividing the Total Biodiversity Index by Total Bids = TBI/Total bids

8. Discussion
The recommended Biodiversity Benefits index builds on and modifies indexes used in Victoria and New South Wales. Adaptations of these indexes have been made to incorporate bioregional assessment processes currently underway in Queensland and more relevant values of measuring biodiversity habitat condition taking into account the intact and connected nature of the bioregion and associated grazing impacts that may have altered the biodiversity values. The vegetation condition assessment process is designed to use one site to infer the average condition of that regional ecosystem area within an individual bid(s) area. This is a practical adaptation as the areas of bids

21

are likely to be much larger than those offered in the Bush Tender process. The recommended index also evaluates the values of the landscape linkages provided. It is likely that even if benchmark details existed for each regional ecosystem in the Desert Uplands then the BBI assessment process would take two people approximately one day to complete each property. If it is assumed that twelve properties may need to be assessed, then 24 working days are required to complete a corridor option. The Landscape Linkage Signficance Index can be calculated via a desktop exercise with one person, and is expected to take only one day per corridor option. This means that there would be approximately 25 working days required to assess the Total Biodiversity Index for a corridor option. A simplified version of the vegetation condition assessment process is warranted in the Desert Uplands for various reasons. These reasons range from costs and practicality of implementation, transparency of methodology to landholders, the time frames within an auction process (given the extensive areas in this case study) and the predicted changes of vegetation condition within the time frames of agreements. In some situations a simplified version of the BBI can be used on each property to speed up the assessment process. A simplified version is appropriate in most of the Desert Uplands where protection options will just maintain (rather than improve) biodiversity, and landholders will not have to actively manage vegetation to generate biodiversity improvements. In the Desert uplands, the focus is to maintain the biodiversity values that exist the payment is for the cost of not implementing further intensification of production. The process can be simplified in three key ways by: (a) Assuming that there is no difference between Initial Conservation Significance and Potential Conservation Significance, (b) Assuming that there is no difference between Current Vegetation Condition and Potential Vegetation Condition, and (c) Focusing on Understorey Condition as the single measurement of site vegetation condition in the Habitat Hectares measurement. The effect of the first two assumptions is that there is no expectation that a major Land Use Change will occur. As a result, only a Biodiversity Significance Score is calculated for the area involved. The effect of the third assumption is that field data collection process for the assessment of the Habitat Hectares score will be greatly simplified. This would effectively reduce the time and cost of the field assessment process by about half. For this case study, the timeframe of the contractual agreements is likely to range from 5 years to perpetuity. For monitoring and evaluation purposes, it is preferable to focus on the condition of the understorey, as this is where any measured changes of vegetation condition are likely to be most apparent. It would seem pertinent to focus on the assessment of this habitat component in the field assessment. Current practices in Queensland for the implementation of nature refuge agreements require a detailed floristic and structural assessment of the proposed area at the time of proposal. After this, monitoring of the understorey is carried out every three years

22

via photo sites, transects to record species, frequency and cover changes and biomass estimations. It is possible that the index reported above could be simplified further. There does appear to be some overlap or duplication of scoring in the landscape components of the vegetation condition and the landscape linkage significance. However, to maintain consistency with other index assessment measures, it has been judged more useful and appropriate to adopt a currently recognized index for the BBI. This is likely to maximize the adoption and transferability of the overall index reported above. Where practical, there are real advantages in simplifying an index to streamline the application process. Developing an appropriate index will always be a key challenge in the assessment of biodiversity protection options, including those involving landscape linkages. Applications of private and public funding to biodiversity conservation always involves some assessment of the biodiversity benefits. Although indexes may be complex and involve some assessment cost, their benefits in terms of transparency and consistency mean they play a very important role in generating trust and confidence in the application of market-based instruments.

Acknowledgements
The design of this project and identification of the relevant issues has involved contributions from members of the Desert Uplands Buildup and Development Committee.

23

References
Ash, A.J. and McIvor, J.G. (1995). Land condition in the tropical tallgrass pasture lands 2 Effects on herbage quality and nutrient uptale. Rangeland Journal 17 (1) pp 86-98. Biodiversity Planning Unit, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Biodiversity Planning Assessment and Mapping Methodology. Version 2.1. Queensland Government. http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/biodiversity/planning_assessments/ Costanza, R., Norton, B. and Haskell, B. (eds) (1992). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management, Island Press, Washington, US. James, C.D. and Saunders, D.A. (2001). A Framework for Terrestrial Biodiversity Targets in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and MurrayDarling Basin Commission, Canberra. McCarthy, M.A., Parris, K.M., Van der Ree, R., McDonnell, M.J., Burgman, M.A., Williams, N.S.G., McLean, N., Harper, M.J., Meyer, R., Habs, A. and Coates, T. (2004). The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: An evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Ecological Management and Restoration 5 (1) pp 2427. McIntyre, S. (1999). Ecological limits of pasture intensification in Balancing Conservation and Production in Grassy Landscapes Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference. Odum, E.P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed., Saunders, Philadelphia. Oliver, I. and Parkes, D. (2003). A prototype for scoring the biodiversity benefits of land use change. Version 5.1. Department of Intrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. NSW Government. Parkes, D., Newell, G., & Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The habitat hectares approach. Ecological Management and Restoration Vol. 4. pp. 29-38. Rolfe, J.C. and McCosker, J.C., (2003). Overview of the issues in planning a corridor tender process, Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands Research Report No.1., Central Queensland University Rolfe, J.C., McCosker, J.C., Windle, J., and Whitten, S. (2004). Designing Experiments to Test Auction Procedures, Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands Research Report No.2 Central Queensland University Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A. and Strappazzon, L. (2003). Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victorias Bush Tender Trial, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47 (4): pp 477-500.

24

Appendix 1. Diagnostic Criteria for Biodiversity Planning Assessments

The Remnant Unit is the basic planning unit for assessing Biodiversity Significance. It is equivalent to a single polygon on a map approved by the Queensland Herbarium. Remnant Units may contain several Regional ecosystems. Criteria A: Habitat for EVR Taxa This criterion classifies areas according to their significance based on the presence of Endangered, Vulnerable and/or Rare (EVR) taxa. EVR taxa are those scheduled under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and/or the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The criterion uses records based upon georeferencing precision of +/- 2000m and which are less than 50 years old. A precision threshold of 500m is used to assign levels of higher significance because it usually represents records which have been generated through the use of a Global Positioning System or with reference to a 1:100,000 topographic map. This criterion excludes highly mobile fauna taxa which are instead considered under Criterion H, because such taxa usually have large home ranges. The exception to this rule is where the record is of high precision (less than or equal to 500m) and pertains to a breeding site ( for example a nest tree or maternity cave) or significant roosting site. Table A1 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion A: Habitat for EVR taxa
Rating : Indicator: Low The Remnant Unit has no confirmed records or otherwise defined areas of Habitat for EVR taxa Medium The buffer area within the Remnant Unit has relatively imprecise records (precision 500 to 2000m) for one or more EVR taxa OR The area within the Remnant Unit falls outside the buffer area for precise record/s for EVR taxa OR The area within the Remnant Unit represents Essential or General Habitat for an EVR taxon that is not sufficiently accurate to be considered Core Habitat High The area within the Remnant Unit has precise record/s or core habitat for one Vulnerable or one Rare Taxon Very High The area within the Remnant Unit has precise record/s (precision< 500m) or core habitat for one or more Endangered taxa or two or more Vulnerable or Rare Taxa

25

Criterion B: Ecosystem Value This criterion primarily addresses Remnant Units according to the Biodiversity Status of Regional ecosystems, and their extent in Protected Areas (whether they are poorly conserved). Ecosystem Values also takes into account the significance of other ecological communities, such as wetlands. Ecosystem Value is applied to Res at a hierarchy of scales designated as State, Regional or Local. In each case, the RE Biodiversity Status is defined using similar threshold criteria. For example, State Ecosystem Value is based on the extent and condition of remnant Res within bioregion, Regional Ecosystem Value is based the extent of the remnant Res within subregions, and Local Ecosystem Value is based on the extent of remnant Res within Local Government Areas (shires). In the case of heterogenous remnant areas containing a threatened ecosystem, the higher Biodiversity Status is used to describe the status of the entire Remnant Unit, providing the RE with the higher status represents more than 30% of the Remnant Units, or Remnant Units in which all Res are less than 30%, are assigned a Medium value and cartographically identified as containing areas of Endangered or Of Concern Res. When assigning poorly conserved to remnant units, only those Res that make up at least 30% of the Remnant Unit are considered. Table A2 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion B1: State Ecosystem Value
Rating : Indicator Low No Concern at Present RE with > 50% of the original extent remaining in the bioregion Medium No Concern at Present RE with 3050% of the original extent remaining OR Poorly Conserved RE within the bioregion OR Contains subdominant (<30%) Endangered or Of Concern REs High Of Concern RE OR A wetland designated as being of Regional Significance Very High Endangered RE OR Nationally Important Wetland OR Ramsar-listed wetland

Criteria B2: Regional Ecosystem Value Biodiversity Status of mapped Res as determined for the particular subregion, or the presence of regionally important wetlands, or the presence of Res that are poorly conserved in Protected Areas within the subregion, or where pre-clearing extents are critically low (less than 300ha or less than 10%) within the subregion.

26

Table A3 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion B2: Regional Ecosystem Value
Rating: Indicator: Low Limited Conservation Value RE (>50% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the subregion) Medium Moderate Conservation Value RE (30-50% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the subregion) OR Poorly Conserved RE within the subregion OR Contains subdominant (<30% ) High Conservation Value or Very High Conservation Value RE High High Conservation Value RE (1030% of the preclearing extent remains in the subregion) Very High Very High Conservation Value RE (with a pre-clearing extent <300ha or <10% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the subregion)

Criteria B3: Local Ecosystem Value Biodiversity Status of mapped Res as determined for the particular Local Government Area, or the presence of minor wetlands, or the presence of Res that are poorly conserved within the Local Government Area, or where pre-clearing extents are critically (less than 300ha or less than 10%) within the Local Government Area. Table A4 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion B3: Local Ecosystem Value Rating: Indicator: Low Limited Conservation Value RE (>50% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the LGA) Medium Moderate Conservation Value RE (30-50% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the LGA) OR RE Poorly Conserved in the LGA High High Conservation Value RE (10-30% of the pre-clearing extent remains in the LGA) Very High Very High Conservation Value RE (with a preclearing extent < 300ha, or <10% of preclearing extent remains in the LGA)

27

Criteria C: Tract Size This criterion is a measure of the relative size of a Tract. The size of any tract is a major indicator or ecological significance, and is also strongly correlated with the long-term viability of biodiversity values. Larger Tracts are less susceptible to ecological edge effects and are more likely to sustain viable populations of native fauna and flora than smaller tracts. While fragmentation is relevant in cleared or heavily degraded areas, it has less relevance in relatively intact and pristine areas such as the Desert uplands bioregion. To ensure that Tract Size does not unduly influence the assessment of Biodiversity Significance, a Very High Tract Size is only attainable where there is less than 60% of the native vegetation remaining. Whole tracts are assigned to the higher fragmentation class if at least 30% of its extent occurs within one or more subregions of this type. The Desert uplands subregions have a variegated landscape pattern i.e. between 6090% of the vegetation remains and the criterion is really not applicable. Criteria D: Relative Size of Regional Ecosystem The relative size of the RE occurring within the Remnant Unit compared with all other occurrences of the same RE within other Remnant Units. Large examples of an RE are more significant than smaller examples of the same RE because they are: a) more representative of the biodiversity values particular to the RE; and b) more resilient to the effects of disturbance; and c) constitute a significant proportion of the total area of the RE.. Size thresholds vary according to scale of application (State, Regional and Local). Absolute size thresholds are specific to each RE. Remnant Units that overlap subregional boundaries are assigned to the subregion in which its extent is greatest. In the case of heterogeneous Remnant Units, the higher Relative size is used to describe the status of the entire Remnant Unit, providing the RE with the higher Relative Size represents more than 30% of the Remnant Unit. Remnant Units in which the RE with the higher Relative size represents less than 30%, or Remnant Units in which all Res are less than 30%, are assigned a Medium Value and cartographically identified as potentially important indicators of Relative Ecosystem Size

28

Criteria D1: State Relative Ecosystem Size Table A5 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion D1: State Relative Ecosystem Size
Rating Indicator: Low (ha) The RE within the Remnant Unit is < 25% the size of the largest example of that RE in the bioregion. Medium (ha) The RE within the Remnant Unit is 25% to 50% the size of the largest example of that RE in the bioregion OR The Remnant Unit contains a subdominant (<30%) RE that is >50% the size of the largest example of that RE in the bioregion OR The Remnant Unit is heterogeneous in which no RE is >30% High (ha) The RE within the Remnant Unit is 50% to 75% the size of the largest example of that RE in the bioregion. Very High (ha) The RE within the Remnant Unit is >75% the size of the largest example of that RE in the bioregion.

The largest example is calculated as the average of the largest three occurrences of that RE within the bioregion.

29

Criteria D2: Regional Relative Ecosystem Size Table A6 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion D2: Regional Relative Ecosystem Size Rating:
Indicator:

Low
The RE within the Remnant Unit is < 25% of the largest example of the RE in the subregion.

Medium
The RE within the Remnant Unit is 25% to 50% the size of the largest example of that RE in the subregion OR The Remnant Unit contains a subdominant (<30%) RE that is >50% the size of the largest example of that RE in the subregion OR The Remnant Unit is heterogenous in which no RE is >30%

High
The RE within the Remnant Unit is 50% to 75% the size of the largest example of that RE in the subregion.

Very High
The RE within the Remnant Unit is >75% of the largest example of that RE in the subregion.

The largest example is calculated as the average of the largest three occurrences of that RE within the subregion. Criteria D3: Local Relative Ecosystem Size Table A7 Indicators and Ratings for Criteria D3: Local Relative Ecosystem Size Rating: Indicator: Low The RE within the Remnant Unit is > 25% the size of the largest example of that RE in the LGA Medium The RE within the Remnant Unit is 25% to 50% the size of the largest example of that RE in the LGA High The RE within the Remnant Unit is 50% to 75% the size of the largest example of that RE in the LGA Very High The RE within the Remnant Unit is >75% the size of the largest example of that RE in the LGA

The largest example is calculated as the average of the largest three occurrences of that RE within the LGA.

30

Criteria E : Condition The quality of Remnant Unit is judged by the extent to which each resemble its natural condition, an indicated by the degree of anthropogenic disturbance. In the absence of a consistent assessment of vegetation condition across a bioregion, the remnant vegetation mapping by the Queensland Herbarium is taken to represent areas of vegetation in their natural state. Vegetation is mapped as remnant where the predominant canopy represents more than 50% of the undisturbed cover, averaging more than 70% of the undisturbed height and composed of species characteristic of the vegetations undisturbed predominant canopy. Criterion F: Ecosystem Diversity The number and size of ecosystems and wetlands present in an areas is an indication of habitat complexity. Ecosystem Diversity reflects the degree to which Regional Ecosystems are packed within an area, that is, an area with high Ecosystem Diversity will have relatively many Regional Ecosystems and ecotones. Ecosystem Diversity is commonly classified using concepts of richness and evenness. Richness refers to the number of different ecosystems, while evenness refers to their relative abundance. Simpsons Diversity Index is a commonly used measure that incorporates both richness and evenness. The Index calculates a probability between 0 and 1, with high scores representing areas of high densities of Regional Ecosystems and ecotones. To classify Ecosystem Diversity a buffer is placed around the focus Remnant Unit reflecting its shape. The width of the buffer is derived using a modal (most frequently occurring) area of all Remnant Units within the bioregion (rounded to the nearest 50m). An Ecosystem Diversity for the focus Remnant Unit is calculated within the total buffered area. TableA8 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion F :Ecosystem Diversity Rating Indicator: Low The Remnant Unit has a Simpsons Diversity Index that is < 25% of the minimum value for the bioregion Medium The Remnant Unit has a Simpsons Diversity Index that is 25% to 50% of the maximum value for the bioregion High The Remnant Unit has a Simpsons Diversity Index that is 50% to 75% of the maximum value for the bioregion Very High The Remnant Unit has a Simpsons Diversity Index that is >75% of the maximum value for the bioregion

Criteria G: Context and Connection The extent to which the Remnant Unit incorporates borders or buffers the areas Water : The presence or inclusion of a wetland or waterway within or adjacent to remnant vegetation increases the vegetations significance for contributing to ecological processes and protecting aquatic biodiversity. This criterion applies where waterways and wetlands have been mapped at an appropriate scale and integrated with the RE coverage. Buffers for waterways and wetlands follow State policies for vegetation management on freehold and state lands. Where a Remnant Unit buffers a 31

waterway or important wetland, the area of the Remnant Unit outside the buffer is flagged in the database by assigning a Medium value and cartographically identified as a potential important buffer area. Endangered Ecosystems: Remnant Units bordering Endangered Res have additional importance as buffers. Buffers are only applied to heterogeneous remnant units where the endangered RE represents more than 30% of the Remnant Unit. Where a Remnant Unit buffers an Endangered RE, the area of the Remnant Unit outside the 200m buffer is flagged in the database by assigning a Medium Value and cartographically identified as a potentially important buffer area. Physical Connection: The degree to which a Remnant Unit is connected to other vegetation. Connected Remnant Units are more representative of biodiversity, contribute more to a habitat network and have greater resilience to the effects of disturbance than small isolated Remnant Units. Table A9 Indicators and Ratings for Criterion G: Context & Connection
Rating: Indicator: Low The Remnant Unit: Is not physically connected to another Remnant Unit Medium The Remnant Unit adjoins another Remnant Unit along 50% of its perimeter OR Is adjacent to an Endangered RE (only the part of the remnant unit outside the 200m buffer is attributed as Medium) OR Is adjacent to a waterway or important Wetland High The Remnant Unit : Adjoins another Remnant Unit along 50% to 75% of its perimeter. Very High The Remnant Unit : Adjoins another Remnant Uit along 75% of its perimeter Or Borders/includes another Remnant Unit with an Endangered RE (a buffer is extended 200m into the Remnant Unit and attributed as Very High) OR Borders/includes another Remnant Unit with a waterway or important wetland is extended into the Remnant Unit and attributed as Very High

32

Other Essential Criteria An expert panel must convene to review and refine the first-cut results of data queries based on the Diagnostic Criteria. The expert panel can include non-mapped areas in their review. The expert panel considers whether the first-cut of conservation significance should be upgraded, taking into account the potential for enhancement and maintenance through appropriate planning and management. Criteria H: Core Habitat for Priority Taxa This criterion can be used to identify Essential and General Habitat for EVR and other Priority Taxa additional to that derived under Diagnostic Criterion A. Information sources include regional expert knowledge both landholders and researchers, technical reports and papers, and modelled maps of Essential and General Habitat. The criterion also addresses the significance of vegetated areas for other Priority Taxa deemed to be of importance by the expert panels. Priority Taxa, other than EVRs, are identified for each bioregion on the basis of one or more special values and the written opinion of experts. These values may include taxa at risk or of management concern, taxa of significant populations, highly specialised taxa whose habitat requirements are complex and distributions are not well correlated with any particular Regional Ecosystem, taxa important for maintaining genetic diversity (such as complex spatial patterns of genetic variation, geographic range limits, high disjunct populations), taxa critical for management or monitoring of biodiversity (functionally important or ecological indicators), or economic and culturally important taxa. Criteria I: Special Biodiversity Values Areas with Special Biodiversity Values are important because they contain multiple taxa in a unique ecological and often highly biodiverse environment. Expert panels can be provided with GIS-derived data sets for individual values such as endemic taxa, disjunct taxa and species richness, as well as the location of data gaps. Areas with Special Biodiversity Values can include the following: a) Centres of endemism areas where concentrations of taxa are endemic to a bioregion or subregion are found. b) Wildlife refugia (Morton et al 1995), for example, islands, mound springs, caves, wetlands, gorges, mountain ranges and topographic isolates, ecological refuges, refuges from exotic animals, and refuges from clearing. The latter may include large areas that are not suitable for clearing because of land suitability/capability. c) Areas with concentrations of disjunct populations. d) Areas with concentrations of taxa at the limits of their geographic ranges. e) Areas with high species of richness. f) Areas with concentrations of relictual populations (ancient and primitive taxa). g)Areas containing Res with disjunct variation in species composition associated with geomorphology and other environmental variables.

33

h) An artificial waterbody or managed/manipulated wetland considered by the panels to be of ecological significance. j) Breeding or roosting sites used by a significant number of individuals.

Criteria J: Corridors The expert panel should consider corridor links because an automated process alone is unable to identify such areas. Areas identified under this criterion quality either because they are existing vegetated corridors important for contiguity including regrowth, or cleared areas that could serve this purpose if revegetated. Some examples of corridors include riparian habitats, transport corridors and stepping stones. Criteria K: Threatening Process (Condition) The condition of remnant vegetation is affected by threatening processes such as weeds, ferals, grazing and burning regimes, selective timber harvesting/removal, salinity, soil erosion, and climate change.

34

Query No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

A: Essential Habitat for EVR spp. A:very high n/r n/r n/r n/r A: high n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r A: medium N/r or or or

B: Ecosystem Value B1: very high B1:high B1:high n/r n/r B1: high B2: very high B2: high n/r n/r B2: high n/r B2: high B3: very high B3: high n/r n/r B3: high N/r or & & & &

C: Tract Size n/r n/r C:high C:very high n/r n/r n/r C: very high C: very high C: very high C: high n/r n/r n/r C: very high C: very high C: very high C: high N/r or & & & & or & & & &

D: Relative size of Ecosystem n/r D1:very high D1: high D1: very high D1: very high n/r n/r D2: very high D2: very high n/r D2: high2 D2: very high n/r n/r D3: very high D3: very high n/r D3: high2 D3: very high & & or & & & or & & & &

Biodiversity Significance of Remnant Units S: State or or or or R: Regional or or or or or or L: Local or or or or or or

E: Condition

F: Ecosystem Diversity n/r n/r or F: very high1 n/r or F:very high1 n/r n/r n/r n/r & or or F: very high F: vh or high2 F: vh or high n/r n/r n/r n/r or or or F: vh or high2 F: vh or high2 F: vh or high
2 2

G: Context & Connection n/r n/r or G: very high1 n/r or G: very high1 n/r n/r n/r n/r or or or G: very high G: vh or high2 G: vh or high2 n/r n/r n/r n/r or or or G: vh or high2 G: vh or high2 G: vh or high2

n/r n/r E: very high1 E: very high E: very high1 n/r n/r n/r E: very high E: very high E: vh or high2 E: vh or high n/r n/r n/r E: very high E: vh or high2 E: vh or high2 E: vh or high
2 2

Notes: The assessment is progressive i.e. a query is triggered only if the preceding set has not been satisfied. Criteria B & D vary according to the scale (State, Regional, Local) - all other criteria are independent of scale. N/R = Not Relevant VERY HIGH1 : A single Very High score is not sufficient - at least two of the criteria marked as VERY HIGH1must be rated as VERY HIGH to qualify as significant HIGH2: A single High score is not sufficient at least two of the criteria marked as HIGH2 must be rated as High to qualify as significant OR = Options which apply only to the query immediately preceding the OR (i.e. A&B OR C OR D means A+B or A+C or A+D; A OR B & C means A+ C or B+C; A OR B & C OR D means A+C or A+ D or B+C or B+ D)

35

Other research reports ion this series

Rolfe, J.C. and McCosker, J.C., (2003). Overview of the issues in planning a corridor tender process, Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands Research Report No.1., Central Queensland University Rolfe, J.C., McCosker, J.C., Windle, J., and Whitten, S. (2004). Designing Experiments to Test Auction Procedures, Establishing East-West Corridors in the Southern Desert Uplands Research Report No.2 Central Queensland University

36