Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into ... - CiteSeerX

Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning J. MacHunter, P. Menkhorst and R. Loyn 2009

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192

A Victorian Government initiative

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Series No. 192

Towards a process for integrating vertebrate fauna into fire management planning J. MacHunter, P. Menkhorst and R. Loyn

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084

September 2009

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment Heidelberg, Victoria

Report produced by:

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment PO Box 137 Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 Phone (03) 9450 8600 Website: www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari

© State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009 This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. All requests and enquires should be directed to the Customer Service Centre, 136 186 or email [email protected] Citation: MacHunter, J., Menkhorst, P., Loyn, R. (2009) Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 192. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. ISSN 1835-3835 (print) ISSN 1835-3827 (online) ISBN 978-1-74242-189-6 (print) ISBN 978-1-74242-190-2 (online) Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Front cover photo: Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum (P. Menkhorst); Grass Trees, Xanthoria australis, Victoria Valley, Grampians, 2006 (D. Cheal). Authorised by: Victorian Government, Melbourne Printed by: NMIT Printroom, 77-91 Georges Road, Preston 3072 Printed on 100% recycled paper

ii

Contents List of tables and figures ....................................................................................................................iv Glossary and abbreviations ................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................v Summary .............................................................................................................................................7 1 1.1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................9 Ecological burning: a Victorian perspective.............................................................................9

1.2

Scope and context of this report................................................................................................9

1.3

Knowledge regarding the effects of fire on fauna...................................................................10

1.4

Ecological burning in other areas of Australia........................................................................11

2 2.1

Model development, components and application..................................................................11 Research approach ..................................................................................................................11

2.2

Outcomes of the 2008 workshop ............................................................................................12

2.3

Identification, estimation and use of habitat parameters.........................................................12

2.4

Relative abundance of faunal species according to vegetation growth stage .........................13

2.5

Fauna response categorisation ................................................................................................14

2.6

Identification of key fire response species for fauna ..............................................................16

2.7

Summary of steps used to devise key fire response species ...................................................17

3 3.1

Further considerations and future directions...........................................................................18 Caveats....................................................................................................................................18

3.2

Future research........................................................................................................................21

References .........................................................................................................................................23 Appendices........................................................................................................................................25 Appendix 1. Database of scientific articles regarding the effects of fire on fauna ...........................25 Appendix 2. Ecological Vegetation Divisions considered in the model ...........................................27 Appendix 3. Database of habitat parameters.....................................................................................28 Appendix 4. Database of key fire response species for fauna...........................................................33 Appendix 5. Decision framework: modification of the 17 steps.......................................................43 Appendix 6. Summary of ecological burn planning in other states and territories ...........................45

iii

List of tables and figures List of tables

Table 1. Explanation of key steps involved in the model for integrating fauna into fire management planning ..................................................................................................................................17 Table 2. A sample of the database relating to a bibliography of articles on the effects of fire on fauna........................................................................................................................................25 Table 3. EVDs that were selected for the fauna database and for estimation of the habitat parameters...............................................................................................................................27 Table 4. Estimates of habitat parameters for a selection of Ecological Vegetation Divisions..........28 Table 5. Database of expert estimations depicting predicted fauna responses to fire for a selection of ecological vegetation divisions...........................................................................................33 Table 6. Key for fauna guilds............................................................................................................37 Table 7. List of species’ scientific names for fauna Key Fire Response Species .............................39 Table 8. Fire management planning with regard to fauna in states and territories of Australia........45 List of figures

Figure 1. Hypothetical curves for the response of fauna to fire ........................................................15

Glossary and abbreviations ARIER: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research DSE: Department of Sustainability and Environment EVC: ecological vegetation class EVD: ecological vegetation division FEPO: Fire and Environment Planning Officer FESRG: Fire Ecology Scientific Reference Group FEWG: Fire Ecology Working Group GIS: geographic information system Growth stage: vegetation growth stage following a disturbance event; in this case, fire KFRS: key fire response species

Fauna common names used in this report follow Menkhorst & Knight (2004) for mammals, Christidis & Boles (2008) for birds and Robertson & Coventry (in press) for reptiles.

iv

Acknowledgements The integration of fauna into fire management planning is not an easy task: the complexity of the subject matter has made this particular exercise a challenge for all concerned. Without the contributions of many people, the model presented in this report would not have been devised. Insights from participants in the ‘Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning Workshop’ (ARIER, May 2008) provided direction in an area where empirical knowledge was often lacking or deficient. Published information about fire effects on fauna in south-eastern Australia was collated by Wendy Wright, Sharon Rossi, Narelle Weston and Rachel Barr of Monash University with contributions from Arn Tolsma (ARIER), and the late Leigh Ahern as part of a separate project and we have drawn heavily on that compilation. Conversations with Jill Read and Grant Palmer helped us to consider how state-wide approaches to this issue relate to regional initiatives. Contributions from the project reference group - Gordon Friend, Lawrance Ferns, Shannon Treloar, and Andrew Wilson have helped keep the project focused and enabled realistic and practical outcomes to be achieved. To help determine the status of the integration of fauna in fire management planning outside Victoria’s boarders, Micaela Main collated relevant policy documents and grey literature from other Australian states and territories. A summary of this review is included in Appendix 1 of this report. This project drew heavily on the knowledge and experiences of flora and fauna experts. Botanists Steve Sinclair, Arn Tolsma, Matt White and David Cheal generously provided estimates of how they expected habitat parameters to change post-fire, via their vast knowledge of vegetation communities across the State. Their collective understanding of Victorian vegetation helped to evoke a picture of vegetation succession so that estimates of fauna abundance could be more explicitly linked to the habitat present in each growth stage of each Ecological Vegetation Division. Geoff Brown and Lindy Lumsden provided estimates of fauna abundance for reptiles and bats respectively and their contributions are likewise greatly appreciated. Comments on later drafts of the document by Stephen Platt (Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, DSE), Gordon Friend and Andrew Wilson (Land & Fire, DSE), also greatly helped to clarify the document and focus its scope to assist in ensuring the model presented here is used appropriately. Other valuable input was generated during discussions within the Fire Ecology Scientific Reference Group (FESRG), DSE. David Meagher edited the document for which we are most grateful. This work was undertaken as part of the Fire Ecology Program 2007 - 2008 Project Number 3.2: Understanding Fire Régimes - Faunal Vital Attributes and Response to Fire Régimes, commissioned by the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Division of the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

v

Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning

6



Summary The Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land takes an integrated view of fire management including protection of human life and property and the environment, including Victoria’s indigenous fauna. Considerable progress has been made in recent years on developing a ‘vital attributes’ approach to incorporate flora into fire management planning. However, it is recognised that the approach developed for protection of flora does not necessarily cater for all the needs of fauna. In order to meet the intentions of the Code and support the objectives of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, a process is being developed to enable fire planners to explicitly consider the needs of fauna in fire management planning. This report discusses the model developed as a starting point for better incorporation of the needs of vertebrate fauna into fire ecology assessments that may be used to subsequently inform fire operations plans and determine where and when planned fire will occur. Considerable empirical work is needed before a more comprehensive, robust, defensible and step by step approach can be devised. The information presented here may help to conceptualise the complexities of fire and fauna interactions, and facilitate a more logical and reasoned approach in decision making. The approach adopted here is based on a suite of habitat parameters associated with the growth stages of different vegetation types (ecological vegetation divisions, EVDs) and the selection of key fire response species (KFRS), of fauna, in each EVD. Together these are designed to provide a manageable group of indicators for use in fire management planning. Our focus is on vertebrates because we have more knowledge of their habitat requirements than we do for invertebrates. This report outlines the logic and the steps involved in designing the model to facilitate the use of the KFRS and habitat parameters, and to discuss the possible constraints of this approach. A literature search on fire effects on fauna, two workshops and expert knowledge were the main sources of information used in the development of the model. The main steps used to identify KFRS for fauna are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Identify habitat parameters that are likely to be important to fauna. Link those habitat parameters to EVD growth stages. Estimate the relative abundance of individual fauna species within each EVD growth stage. Assign a fire response curve to each species. Identify criteria for determining KFRS for fauna. Identify KFRS for fauna. Identify habitat parameters that can be used in fire monitoring.

It is intended that this information will be of use in devising ecological burns and other planned fires on public land throughout Victoria and in monitoring the impacts of those fires on fauna and habitat. The intended breadth of application of the model outlined in this report presented two main challenges in its development. Firstly, the diversity of ecosystems and associated fauna made it difficult to design a process that is equally applicable across different parts of the state that may be underpinned by unique biophysical characteristics. Secondly, the complexity of interactions between fauna and fire regimes, and the dearth of related empirical studies, means that there is limited evidence to help predict how fauna is likely to respond to various fire regimes. These factors have resulted in high levels of uncertainty in the proposed model. Hence testing of the model, and the usefulness of faunal KFRS as surrogates for other fauna species and their needs, is required for its validation. Information gathered during a testing phase would enable the model to be refined. Hence, the model described in this report is provided as a starting point, to be improved in light of future knowledge as part of an adaptive management framework. Such an approach is not without risk and highlights the need for a precautionary approach to the application of the model.


7


High priority areas for research include ground truthing of estimations about habitat parameters and species responses in EVDs that are likely to be affected by wildfire or subjected to planned fire. Such research could combine retrospective studies regarding wildfire and planned fire to complement prefire and post-fire monitoring associated with the 2008–2009 and subsequent planned fire seasons.

8



1 Introduction 1.1 Ecological burning: a Victorian perspective In the decade since the inception of the Fire Ecology Working Group (FEWG), there has been an array of initiatives related to the development of ecologically based fire regimes (FEWG 2009). In particular, the guidebook devised for fire planners titled Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy (FEWG 2003) provides a step by step approach to encourage ecological considerations, especially those related to the needs of flora, to be explicitly taken into account in fire management planning. This approach is reinforced in the Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land — Revision No. 1 2006 (DSE 2006a), which requires that fire regimes and fire management activities be appropriate for maintaining and enhancing the vigour and diversity in populations and communities of the state’s indigenous terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna (Code: section 1.10.5, 67). A key element in the Code is a move towards improved integration of ecological values with more traditional fire management objectives related to asset protection. Another significant driver for incorporating fauna into fire management planning and operations is the requirement to achieve ecologically appropriate fire regimes to maintain biodiversity under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The ability of fire planners to meaningfully implement the dual aspirations of protecting life and property and achieving ecological goals is dependent on the availability of science and evidence that informs operational processes, and monitoring that influences future management. This sentiment is echoed in the Victorian Government’s Response to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee’s Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria (Victorian Government 2008), which proposes that the annual area treated by planned fire needs to be determined by science and risk management frameworks. Victoria’s Bushfire Strategy (DSE 2008b) proposes to manage the land with fire by providing the right mix of fire (at appropriate frequencies, seasons, intensities and scales) across both public and private land to sustain resilient ecosystems, communities and industries, and reduce the incidence of large-scale fire events. This objective is considerably hampered at present by the dearth of empirical data that demonstrates how various elements of fire regimes impact on fauna and, to a lesser extent, on flora. Without this detail, fire planners are less able to make predictions about how a fire regime will impact on flora and fauna in the area of interest. In an attempt to draw out unpublished knowledge about fire effects on fauna, workshops were held in 2006 (Melbourne University, Creswick Campus) and 2008 (ARIER, Heidelberg), and discussions in those workshops highlighted a number of ways forward to better integrate the needs of fauna into fire management planning. The main outcomes of the more recent workshop (ARIER 2008 unpublished) were to (i) suggest modifications to the existing planning framework, (ii) identify habitat parameters that could be used to estimate the effects of post-fire vegetation succession on fauna, and (iii) suggest the use of key fire response species (KFRS) for fauna, in a similar manner to the approach used for KFRS for flora (Cheal unpublished).

1.2 Scope and context of this report This report is primarily intended to explain a conceptual model that links the needs of terrestrial vertebrate fauna to vegetation growth stages after fire, via changes in habitat parameters. The conceptual model is presented for further discussion, consideration and testing by fire planners and fire researchers. This report provides the context for using the database of predicted fauna responses that were developed as part of this project. This database includes a list of recommended faunal KFRS. A list of habitat parameters for monitoring is also presented. It is not intended that fire planners will be able to use this document to plan fire in a way that accommodates the needs of fauna in a comprehensive and irrefutable way; however, a consideration of the KFRS and habitat parameters may help to focus the attention of fire planners on a more manageable selection of


9


species and habitat attributes for consideration when addressing the objectives their local Fire Protection Plans and related Fire Operation Plans. We also outline caveats to the application of the proposed process in the short and longer terms. As the model and its outputs have not yet been subject to empirical testing, this report should be used by fire planners as one part of their tool kit that will enable the needs of fauna to be more explicitly considered in fire management planning. Once the assumptions that underpin this conceptual model (e.g. relationships between fire and fauna) are tested it will be possible to provide fire planners with a more robust and comprehensive approach to considering the needs of fauna in fire management planning. We emphasise that this advanced stage is beyond the scope of this report. Further work is also needed to address invertebrate fauna in fire management planning, and therefore the term ‘fauna’ in this report refers only to terrestrial vertebrates. 1.2.1

Objectives

1. Briefly outline the state of knowledge about fire effects on fauna. 2. Summarise the approach used to integrate fauna into fire management planning outside Victoria. 3. Outline the process and rationale used to develop the conceptual model that describes the relationships between fauna, vegetation growth stage and habitat parameters. 4. Suggest modifications to the existing ecological burn plan process to better integrate the needs of fauna. 5. Identify habitat features that are likely to be important to fauna. 6. Devise a quantitative measure for the key habitat attributes that can be estimated for each growth stage of each ecological vegetation division (EVD). 7. Explain the procedure used to estimate the relative abundance of each fauna species across growth stages for each EVD. 8. Identify a suite of vertebrate species that could serve as indicator species for fire planning and monitoring purposes. 9. Identify model limitations and information gaps, and recommend directions for future research.

1.3 Knowledge regarding the effects of fire on fauna The influence of fire on flora and fauna communities is complex and poorly understood (Clarke 2008) and there have been few systematic studies of the impacts of different fire regimes on individual species or faunal communities. A bibliography of 150 scientific papers that relate to fire and fauna in temperate Australia1 revealed that 82 papers reported field-based fauna studies and 41 were reviews (i.e. for every two field research projects there has been a review of existing knowledge). This indicates a severe misalignment between the need for knowledge and the willingness to promote actual research rather than desk studies. Of the 82 field-based studies, 52% focused on mammals, 27% on birds, and 15% on reptiles. Thus, mammals were studied 3.5 times more often than reptiles. No studies dealt with the full range of vertebrate groups, and none looked at questions of scale or patchiness as factors influencing the responses of broad groups of vertebrates. Most studies looked at low-intensity planned fires with the aim of determining the short-term impacts of fuel reduction burns. Studies on the effects of high-intensity fires have been necessarily opportunistic, and consequently have imperfect study designs. One of the theoretical underpinnings of understanding fire effects on fauna stems from research on the response of small mammals to fire (Fox 1982). This research identified the habitat accommodation model whereby species’ reach peak abundance in accordance with changes in 1

See Appendix 1 for a sample of article summaries from the bibliography. This database of article summaries is available from the Community Ecology Section, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.

10



habitat suitability related to changes in vegetation structure following disturbance. Whilst some research supports this concept and links the abundance of species to post-fire growth stages in the vegetation because of changing quality in their habitat (e.g. Brown and Nelson 1993, Kelly et al. 2009), the abundance of other species shows no clear fire response (e.g. Lindenmayer et al. 2008). In May 2008 a one-day workshop titled ‘Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning’ was held at the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (ARIER) to bring together fire scientists and related policy and planning staff to discuss possible avenues for better integrating fauna into fire management planning, and to identify where efforts could be focused to fill key knowledge gaps (ARIER 2008 unpublished). The areas of research that were identified in the 2008 workshop are documented in section 3.2.2.

1.4 Ecological burning in other areas of Australia Policies and procedures of other state and territory environment agencies were reviewed to determine if and how they consider fauna when planning burns (see Appendix 6). Departmental publications and guidelines regarding ecological burning were sourced via library catalogues, from interstate departments and State library websites. Unpublished literature was located with the help of librarians, managers and scientists from interstate environment departments. This investigation revealed that, although some form of ecological burning is conducted in all states and territories, the majority have few references to fauna (apart from truisms) in their policies, with most lacking a formal procedure for incorporating faunal considerations into the planning stage. In most cases ecological burns are planned around the requirements of flora, and faunal requirements are implicitly assumed to be satisfied under that regime. Any further incorporation of faunal issues into ecological burn planning usually takes the form of alterations to the fire plan to suit threatened fauna. Of all the other states and territories, Western Australia appears to be the most advanced in integrating fauna into fire management planning in a manner that goes beyond a consideration of threatened species records or fire regimes based on the needs of flora. That state has developed a system similar to the one outlined in this document, where defined habitat units are used to predict the types of vertebrate fauna likely to inhabit an area.

2 Model development, components and application 2.1 Research approach Three main sources of information were used to devise the model documented in this report: (1) a database of article summaries,2 (2) discussions in related workshops (DSE 2006b, ARIER 2008 unpublished), and (3) expert knowledge by a selection of botanists and zoologists from ARIER. The dearth of empirical data regarding the effects of fire on fauna meant that expert knowledge was relied on heavily in estimating values in the database of habitat parameters (Appendix 3) as well as for the database of estimated fauna responses to habitat changes after fire (Appendix 4). Expert knowledge is increasingly being used in ecology (Oliver et al. 2007, Mac Nally et al. 2008) and has been identified as a cost-effective means of reducing uncertainty about the influence of management options on flora and fauna by using knowledge about the impact of disturbance on a species (Martin et al. 2005). If experts are in agreement, there is a greater certainty about the type and extent of impact of disturbance on a species; correspondingly, less agreement between experts indicates that the relationships being considered are complex or may vary between regions (Martin et al. 2005). The expert knowledge as part of the processes documented in this report came from a group of four botanists and five zoologists. Drawing from a small cohort of experts has obvious

2

Appendix 1 contains an excerpt of the database of scientific articles relating to the effects of fire on fauna.


11


limitations; section 3.1.10 explores this issue in greater detail and identifies options for future work to reduce these limitations.

2.2 Outcomes of the 2008 workshop The main outcomes that were generated as a result of the ‘Integrating Fauna into Fire Planning’ workshop held at ARIER in May 2008 relate to three key concepts. Firstly, changes were recommended to the 17 steps contained in Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy — A Practitioner’s Manual (Fire Ecology Working Group 2003). Secondly, the identification and possible application of habitat parameters, to act as a surrogate for monitoring the effects of fire on fauna, was considered to be a useful avenue for further development. The third focus of the workshop revolved around the use of KFRS for fauna and criteria for their selection. The following sections (2.2.1 to 2.7) summarise these concepts and explain how they have evolved further in the intervening period. 2.2.1

Changes to the 17 steps

The Practitioner’s Manual (Fire Ecology Working Group 2003) provides the ‘how to’ for Fire and Environment Planners (FEPOs) when devising ecological burn plans. The manual contains 17 key steps required to devise and justify an ecological burn plan. These 17 steps require modification to better integrate the needs of fauna in the fire management planning process. The following proposed amendments to the steps3 were generated as a result of discussions in the workshop: •

use of EVD growth stages to assist with identification of age class distribution*

•

identification and use of fauna (not just flora) KFRS*

•

linkage of key habitat elements with each EVD growth stage*

•

documentation of the results of the fire including burn area, intensity and heterogeneity, and monitoring of KFRS and key habitat parameters*

•

use of planning scales that are relevant to fauna

•

more explicit recognition of landscape context

•

consideration of species that are likely to be present but not actually recorded within the burn area

•

identification of measurable outcomes of the ecological burn

•

identification of areas that should remain unburnt within the burn area

•

the seasonal timing of fire to minimise detrimental effects on fauna.

2.3 Identification, estimation and use of habitat parameters The selection of habitat parameters (described in Appendix 3) was based on the scientific literature (e.g. McElhinny et al. 2006), workshop discussions and expert judgement. The 14 habitat parameters adopted are believed to represent the critical habitat components of fauna that are likely to be affected by fire. Some of the habitat parameters that were prioritised in the workshop are comparable to components used in existing approaches to assessing habitat, such as parameters measured in the ‘habitat complexity score’ (Newsome and Catling 1979), the ‘overall fuel hazard guide’ (McCarthy et al. 1999) and the ‘habitat hectare’ protocol (Parkes et al. 2003), and structural attributes for fauna in

3

The amendments indicated by an asterisk are explicitly considered in this report. The remainder are more relevant to decisions made at a site scale. A further explanation of these amendments is provided in Appendix 5.

12



forest and woodland (McElhinny et al. 2006). The habitat parameters presented in this report draw on these approaches to maximise consistency. 2.3.1

Habitat parameters used in characterising EVD growth stages

Habitat parameters were selected to characterise the habitats likely to be present in the EVDs of interest (Appendix 2). Because of the structural variation between EVDs, it is expected that the dimensions of some habitat parameters will vary between EVDs. For instance, canopy height is much greater in EVD 12 (Tall Mist Forest) than in EVD 31 (Saltbush Mallee). A complete list of habitat parameters is provided in Table 4 (Appendix 3). While it is predicted that habitat parameters would show a range of values depending on the growth stage of the vegetation post fire, this pattern is likely to be influenced strongly by post-fire climatic conditions to alter vegetation recovery. 2.3.2

Linkage of habitat parameters to EVD growth stages

Once the habitat parameters had been drafted, four botanists from ARIER, each with broad experience of the Victorian flora, provided individual estimates of how the parameters vary across growth stages for each EVD. This information was compiled into a database so that estimates between botanists could be compared for each habitat parameter – growth stage – EVD combination. Subsequent discussions between experts enabled the selection and definition of habitat parameters to be clarified (e.g. definition of shrubs, patchiness, decorticating bark). The habitat parameters that showed greatest variation with regard to EVD growth stage were cover of low plants and patchiness of shrub layer. When this process was completed for 12 priority EVDs (Table 3, Appendix 2) it was decided that the return for effort of continuing did not warrant the considerable amount of staff time involved in eliciting and compiling the estimations. The process highlighted the high level of uncertainty in expert estimations and reinforced the fact that quantitative data is needed to provide a clearer and more accurate understanding of the relationships between habitat parameters and growth stages. 2.3.3

Field testing of habitat parameters

Options for sampling habitat parameters are being explored by (Treloar 2009 draft), the main difference being the method used for estimating cover abundance of understorey — the use of structure poles at 1 m intervals along three 50 m transects within each 1 ha area in place of visual estimates of cover abundance. Further pilot testing of the method outlined in Treloar (2009 draft) is under way and is expected to continue throughout 2009.

2.4 Relative abundance of faunal species according to vegetation growth stage Fauna species associated with each EVD were determined by a combination of expert knowledge and interrogation of the GIS dataset ‘Fauna 100’, which is derived from the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (DSE 2008a). The ‘Fauna 100’ layer was intersected with the recently devised EVD layer (which is a composite of the EVC layer) so that species that have been recorded in each EVD could be determined. This procedure also enabled a crude measure of species affinity with each EVD to be calculated via species frequency information (i.e. the number of records for each species within each EVD). The resultant information regarding species frequency was moderated by expert knowledge to avoid possible bias associated with data collection. For instance the data is biased towards specific times and locations (such as near roads) and towards more visible species or threatened species (e.g. the number of records for Helmeted Honeyeater was far greater than the actual population size of this species) hence species’ records reflect survey effort rather than actual species distributions. Species with fewer than 10 records from an EVD were excluded from the subsequent steps because they are unlikely to meet the criteria of a key fire response species (see section 2.6.1). The database of habitat parameters according to growth stage and EVD helped fauna experts to visualise the likely changes in habitat parameters after fire. This mental picture was combined with the observations of fauna experts to estimate the relative abundance of each species according to


13


growth stage in each EVD. Discussions between experts provided an opportunity to check for logic and consistency in estimations of fauna abundance.

2.5 Fauna response categorisation Fauna response categorisation is a method that has been used to predict changes in a species’ abundance over time following a disturbance event such as timber harvesting (Kavanagh et al. 2004) or fire. To help conceptualise the expected response of each species (in terms of relative abundance) to post-fire succession, the response functions generated by Kavanagh et al. (2004) were adopted (Figure 1). While we acknowledge that there are likely to be differences in the responses of fauna to fire compared to timber harvesting (due to differences in the biological legacies of each case), we suggest that the range of response curves presented by Kavanagh et al. (2004) (Figure 1) cover those likely to result from a fire. For each species the estimates of relative abundance after fire according to growth stage were examined and matched with the most appropriate response function (Table 5 in Appendix 4) but note that the time lines will be different for different fire intensities. In all cases it is assumed that recolonisation of the burnt area is possible once suitable habitat has re-established. Note that the curves do not take into account normal seasonal variation and longer term fluctuations in populations. In response A, species quickly benefit from fire for varying periods without an initial decline. These are mostly species that move into the burnt area and remain until the resources that attracted them decline below a threshold level; for example, Flame Robin and some raptors. For some species such as Australasian Pipit and Australian Magpie the intercept with the vertical axis can be zero, i.e. the species occurs in forests only immediately after a fire or similar disturbance. In response B, species show an initial decline in abundance following fire and then increase to levels above or below their pre-fire abundance. Examples include New Holland Mouse, Marbled Gecko and Black Wallaby. This is perhaps intuitively the most likely response, and it is expected to apply to a large number of species. It has been shown to apply to many bird and mammal species in relation to logging (Kavanagh et al. 2004). In response C, species show a long-term decline following fire with or without a short-term increase. This pattern was found to occur for several birds and mammals that feed from open ground among trees, after logging (Loyn et al. 1999) and wildfire in East Gippsland (Loyn 1997). Examples are Scarlet Robin, Buff-rumped Thornbill, Spotted Quail-thrush and Red-necked Wallaby. The response arises when fire reduces the shrub layer, making favourable habitat for these species in the short term, but also promotes prolific regeneration of the shrub layer that renders habitat unsuitable for these species after a few years. Eventual recovery is expected as shrubs thin out overtime, but insufficient long-term studies have been conducted to refine our knowledge of when this would happen. In response D, species decline immediately post-fire and do not recover for very long periods. In this study no species showing this response were identified, but repeated burning could produce this kind of response if the fire frequency did not allow the EVD to persist, or the fire intensity was sufficient to remove certain habitat elements that take a long time to be replaced (e.g. hollow-bearing trees). Salvage logging could increase the likelihood and severity of response D in forests where fauna populations were limited by hollow-bearing trees.

14



Figure 1. Hypothetical curves for the response of fauna to fire (adapted from Kavanagh et al. 2004).


15


2.6 Identification of key fire response species for fauna 2.6.1

Criteria for key fire response species

Key fire response species (KFRS) are species most likely to be affected by long or short intervals between fires, and which are amenable to monitoring. The criteria for their selection are similar to those used to identify KFRS for flora (sensu Cheal unpublished) with some additions (*): • species whose habitat requirements can be clearly or logically linked to habitat changes associated with post-fire vegetation succession • species that can be detected using standard fauna survey techniques* within the community at some point in the post-fire succession • species that are readily detected and identified in the field by experienced observers • species that use the area for breeding* • a range of species that represents all major feeding and nesting guilds.* Ideally, an additional criterion relating to species with well known or precisely timed fire responses would have been included, but as that information is lacking for many species this criterion was not included. As knowledge of the fire responses of species improves, it would be useful to add this criterion to the existing set. 2.6.2

Recommend indicators for pre-fire and post-fire monitoring

Based on the criteria above, a list of species and habitat parameters whose fire responses cover the range of expected fauna responses was identified. This approach assumes that a fire regime that provides key habitat configurations and caters for the needs of these KFRS in relevant EVDs will also cater for species with intermediate responses. The intention is that KFRS should be included in programs of monitoring and research about the effects of fire over time. Special note may be given to their observed responses, and this information may be used to modify fire regimes. The state-wide scope of the application of KFRS according to EVDs requires users to moderate their final selection of KFRS at any particular site with the known distributions of particular species to avoid selection of species not actually present on the site. For example, the KFRS Rufous Bristlebird is restricted to the Otway Ranges and west coast and is not present throughout the whole extent of EVD 2 (Heathlands). It is recommended that the KFRS be selected from the KFRS database (Appendix 4) on the basis of surveys undertaken before the burn. Where a site is not a homogeneous representation of one EVD (i.e. includes multiple EVDs), then KFRS should be selected from the composite group of KFRS for the EVDs. For example, in patches of heathland (EVD 2) that have emergent trees, KFRS should be selected for both heathland and the relevant treed EVD.

16



2.7 Summary of steps used to devise key fire response species Table 1. Explanation of key steps involved in the model for integrating fauna into fire management planning Step*

Action

Identify habitat parameters1,2,3

Habitat parameters that are considered to be important to a range of fauna and are strongly influenced by fire regime were identified

Score habitat parameters3

Habitat parameters were scored within each growth stage of each Ecological Vegetation Division (EVD).

Identify fauna species that regularly occur in each EVD4

GIS was used to intersect an EVD spatial layer with a spatial layer containing fauna records contained in the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife DSE (2008) to generate a list of species recorded in each EVD.

Estimate relative abundance of fauna within growth stages post-fire3

Using the information from previous steps, fauna experts estimated the changes in relative abundance of each species through the vegetation growth stages post-fire

Assign response curves to each species

To help conceptualise the expected response of each species (change in relative abundance) to post-fire succession a predicted response function, based on those of Kavanagh et al. (2004), was assigned to each species.

Define criteria for Key Fire Response Species (KFRS)1,2,3 for fauna

Recommend KFRS for pre- and postfire monitoring

Test the model and its assumptions

•

Species whose habitat requirements can be logically linked to habitat changes associated with post-fire vegetation succession

•

are visibly or audibly present within the community at some point in the post-fire succession

•

are readily detected and identified in the field

•

use the area for breeding

•

enable representation of all major feeding and nesting guilds

Produce a list of species and habitat parameters for each EVD whose fire responses cover the range of expected fauna responses. KFRS and habitat parameters should be monitored pre-fire and post-fire so that the accuracy of the predictions can be tested and fire regimes modified accordingly. •

How well do KFRS reflect the changes in non KFRS?

•

What is the relationship between the responses of KFRS post-fire and changes to the key habitat parameters, with consideration of fauna guild classification? Are EVDs an appropriate scale within which to consider the effects of fire on fauna?

•

*Sources:

1 3

Workshop 2006, 2008 (see Appendix 5)

2

Scientific literature (see Appendix 1)

Expert knowledge (see Appendices 3 & 4)

4

Database (see Appendix 4)


17


3 Further considerations and future directions 3.1 Caveats 3.1.1

Species lists for each EVD

This study considered only terrestrial vertebrate fauna because of a lack of information about invertebrate groups. Further work is needed to evaluate whether the model presented will encapsulate the responses of invertebrate fauna. Some of the records in the Fauna 100 layer are in the form of species lists from a five-minute latitude and longitude grid cell (~5 × 7 km) and hence lack geographical precision. In each EVD this resulted in the inclusion of species that were not actually characteristic of the EVD. Hence only species that made ecological sense in an EVD were considered. This issue highlights that it was necessary to use the number of records for each species in each EVD as only a rough guide to the relative abundance of each species. The extent of this error could have been reduced by omitting all records associated with grid data; however, this necessarily would have resulted in the loss of some useful information and so the grid data were maintained, with an awareness of its limitations and the need for careful interpretation. 3.1.2

Consistency of estimates between EVDs

The process for estimating the relative abundance of each species across growth stages was undertaken one EVD at a time. Once estimations for all EVDs had been completed it was prudent that estimations for species that occurred in multiple EVDs were checked for consistency or logic where inconsistencies between EVDs were identified. Because of the size of the dataset, only a subset of ~5% of species were scrutinised in this manner. This consistency check included representatives of each guild that was represented in the particular suite of EVDs. It revealed that 12% of the estimations needed to be revised, highlighting the level of uncertainty in expert estimations. 3.1.3

Recognition of landscape context

One of the recommendations from the 2008 workshop (ARIER 2008 unpublished) was the need to explicitly consider landscape context as part of ecological burn planning. This is one of the special challenges for fauna compared with flora, as individual animals move widely within their home ranges4 on a daily basis. This recommendation was not easy to incorporate into the model because of the enormous variation in range size and mobility between species, and the lack of precise documentation of this for most species. Once equipped with information on the home ranges of species and hence the relevant scale through which to consider their particular landscape contexts, it will be necessary to understand how to aggregate the needs of species operating at different spatial scales with the operational scale of fire management planning. Clarke (2008) highlights the inherent challenge that this presents by contrasting the needs of species with small home ranges (1–2 ha) that require both burnt and unburnt patches within their range, with species that have larger home ranges (4–8 km2) but require long unburnt patches for breeding. Notwithstanding such issues, empirical data on the range size of each species is critical for a more accurate evaluation of alternative fire mosaics. Fortunately, some progress can be made despite the complexity and shortage of precise data. Many small or medium-size mammals and small birds have home ranges up to a few hectares, and that is an appropriate scale at which to consider these species. Smaller or larger scales may be more appropriate for other groups (e.g. invertebrates, reptiles and wide-ranging predators). Many species use mosaics of vegetation at that scale, and patches of unburnt forest may be critical for such species in surviving in the early stages after disturbance such as fire. But most are also capable of colonising new habitat over distances much greater than their usual home range, so they may survive in a landscape even if burnt areas exceed their home range, as long as connectivity permits recolonisation once suitable habitat has developed. Some species need combinations of young and old habitat

4

Home range refers to the area over which individuals of a species range during the normal course of their routine activities while resident in an area.

18



elements within their home range, e.g. hollow-bearing trees among regrowth trees and shrubs, and some species may benefit from fine-scale mosaics of old and young successional stages, as discussed by Clarke (2008). 3.1.4

Perturbations

Perturbations such as predator pressure and stochastic events such as drought need to be taken into account when planning a burn or interpreting the results of monitoring information. For instance, drought may increase the time for cover estimates of various structural layers to be reached. The size of fauna populations will vary in response to such factors, and when they are low, special care should be taken to avoid reducing habitat below acceptable limits, even for short periods. These considerations are magnified with regard to threatened species that are more vulnerable to population declines associated with such perturbations. In fragmented forests, e.g. on private land where there are many barriers to recolonisation processes, the effects of perturbations are also magnified. Mapping risk of fox predation has been undertaken in some areas of Victoria (Robley et al. 2004) and a similar approach could be undertaken within the context of evaluating predator pressure on fauna following fire. 3.1.5

Interactions: climate, fire frequency, season

One of the key assumptions in linking habitat parameters to growth stage is that there is likely to be a predictable and consistent pattern in the development of habitat parameters after fire. However, we acknowledge that post-fire weather conditions will influence the rate at which habitat parameters vary according to growth stage. Over time it may be possible to model the interaction between fire, rainfall and temperature to provide more realistic estimates of likely changes in habitat parameters. This will be particularly important in light of current climate change models, which predict changes to patterns of temperature and rainfall. For estimations of the values of habitat parameters and fauna abundance according to growth stage we assumed that the EVD had reached floristic maturity and was of sufficient age to contain hollowbearing trees before a fire. Therefore, it would be imprudent to expect habitat parameters to develop (i.e. change according to growth stage) in the same manner under more frequent fire regimes, e.g. recovery rates of hollows may be lower where frequent fires have resulted in a tree age-class distribution that is skewed towards the younger end of the continuum. It is acknowledged that bushfires and planned fires occur in less mature vegetation, and that therefore the interaction between fire frequency and the rate at which habitat parameters change post-fire requires further investigation. DSE data on the frequency of fires attributed to lightning strike (i.e. natural fires) indicate that 79% of such fires in Victoria fall within the summer months (December-March), 16% in spring (September-November) (but mostly (12%) in November) and 5% in autumn (March-May) (mostly (4%) in March) (A. Dowdy, Bureau of Meteorology unpublished). As this indicates that natural fires in winter, early spring and late autumn are rare, our estimates of fauna recovery rates only considered post-fire responses following a summer burn. We suggest that recovery rates of species following fires during the period between April and October inclusive could be expected to differ from those following fire in the November to March period. 3.1.6

Use of surrogates

The specific responses of every individual species could not be identified for all Victorian vertebrates because of the variation and inherent complexity in responses. In an attempt to simplify this complexity, KFRS are suggested as indicators of the effects of fire on vertebrate fauna, while recognising the inherent limitations of such an approach (Lambeck 1997, Goldstein 1999, Noss 1999, Andelman and Fagan 2000, Lambeck 2002, Lindenmayer et al. 2002, Lindenmayer and Fischer 2003, Rubino and Hess 2003, Freudenberger and Brooker 2004). These limitations may be summarised as follows: 1. too late in detecting significant change


19


2. not true representatives of biodiversity 3. not widely tested or accepted 4. lack of repetitive sampling 5. temporal and spatial scale is not explicitly considered 6. inconsistent responses across different taxonomic groups 7. might not be applicable to species with unusual life histories 8. does not address population viability. It is anticipated that data collected in association with the fauna and habitat monitoring protocols5 will help to clarify the issues identified in points 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 above. However more intensive research will be required to address all these points, especially points 1, 5 and 8. 3.1.7

Habitat parameters

The number of classes or divisions used to characterise the range of values within each habitat parameter was determined using expert knowledge. With the knowledge we have acquired during this process we are likely to make alterations to the definition of habitat attributes as well as the number of classes within them. Light intensity is a useful example, as this parameter had marginal discriminating power between the habitat suitability of different growth stages in EVD 31 (Lowan Mallee). One drawback of changing the number of classes or changing the values that define each class for each EVD is that a universal model is not achieved. Because there are few examples of old growth stages for some EVDs, the parameter estimates for those older growth stages have greater levels of uncertainty associated with them. Consequently, there is a need to obtain actual data on the ranges of values of habitat attributes across later growth stages. 3.1.8

Complexity of EVDs

The variation of vegetation structure in some EVDs made estimations of habitat parameters less certain, e.g. Riverine Forest contains EVCs that are unlikely to carry a fire, but also EVCs that regularly do so. A key question, then, is whether the assumption that an EVD is coherent in its response to fire is valid, or does the extent of variation within the EVD make generalisations about the sequence of post-fire succession invalid? Further investigation of fire response within EVDs is therefore an important priority. 3.1.9

EVD growth stages: their estimated intervals and descriptions

The current names of EVD growth stages could be interpreted to mean lower-quality habitat, when in many cases the opposite is true (e.g. senescent forest contains high-quality habitat for many hollow-dependent fauna). In some cases EVDs are stated to be at ‘maturity’ at only 40 years of age, which might suggest that the impact of burning will be low, at least with regard to flora. Maturity in a vegetation sense may be considered to be the age when key plant species are capable of reproducing, e.g. setting seed. This is a very different concept of maturity to that used by zoologists to define wildlife habitat, where ‘maturity’ often indicates high habitat complexity. Baseline information is urgently needed to characterise which species occupy each growth stage for each EVD. This information could be used to determine the number and duration of growth stages to better reflect the needs of fauna. Following this process, a document similar to Cheal (unpublished) could be devised to include descriptions of post-fire succession in the fauna community within each EVD. This would then allow a comparison between the responses of flora and fauna to vegetation succession and thus determine whether the whole community of flora and fauna could be integrated into a single set of growth stages.

5

These protocols are being developed and tested as part of the pilot stage of the Fauna Habitat Assessment Project ((Treloar 2009 draft)).

20



3.1.10 Use of expert knowledge

Ideally a greater selection of experts would have been employed to generate estimates of habitat parameters and species abundances. Having more contributions to the process would have enabled a quantitative measure of uncertainty for each of the estimations. Incorporating confidence intervals for each expert estimation would have also assisted in providing a more complete picture of the uncertainty of those values. However, the size of the dataset required (~400 species × 12 EVDs × ~6 growth stages × 2 fire intensities = ~ 57 600 individual judgements to be made) demanded a substantial commitment of time and resources. It was not possible to achieve a higher level of precision within the resources available to this project. It is recommended that future estimations involve other experts and the use of confidence intervals so that levels of uncertainty are explicit, although see Burgman et al (2006) for an examination of the relationship between confidence intervals and actual reliability of estimated values. 3.1.11 Number of dimensions or vectors

There are only a limited number of dimensions that can be visualised at any one time, and trying to deal with all components of a fire regime at one time was too difficult during the expert estimations. We opted for a standardised approach to streamline the process, and expect that other aspects of fire regimes (e.g. frequency, time since last fire, landscape context) will need to be considered to better characterise real-world scenarios.

3.2 Future research 3.2.1

Test suitability of habitat parameters

The selection of habitat parameters was based partly on published studies (e.g. McElhinny et al. 2006) which document the presence and abundance of fauna in relation to particular habitat features. The final selection of parameters used to characterise growth stages was supplemented with expert knowledge. Use of expert knowledge is a practical approach when time and financial constraints restrict more detailed quantitative studies. To verify the choice of attributes a more transparent and objective approach is needed to test the significance of the relationship between the selected list of habitat parameters and the abundance of fauna. To do this a set of retrospective studies could be undertaken whereby measurements of fauna abundance, richness and composition, and habitat parameters are undertaken at sites representing each of the different growth stages within each EVD. It makes sense to focus research in those EVDs targeted for burning. 3.2.2

Specific research questions

1. At a site scale6 • How do selected species or groups respond to fire in the short-term and over many years? • How do these responses vary with fire intensity; notably, whether the fire results in extensive tree mortality and stand replacement? • How do these responses vary with other fire characteristics such as season and scale, or site characteristics such as mature or young forest, north or south facing slopes? 2. At a landscape scale7 • What effects do decisions about burning or not burning have on adjacent habitats? (The effects on habitats directly affected are considered under point 1.) • How do fauna species or groups respond to patchiness or its elements, e.g. edges or patch size?

6

Where the dimensions of a site are appropriate to the scale of the home range of the organisms of interest. Where the dimensions of a landscape are appropriate to the scale of meta-populations of the organisms of interest. 7


21


• What are the ecological barriers or other barriers that prevent species from dispersing / colonising? • How can mosaic burning be used to enable species operating at different spatial scales to persist in a complex landscape? 3. KFRS • Are the criteria for selecting KFRS used here the most appropriate? • What species should be considered as KFRS? • What are the growth stages / EVDs associated with each KFRS? • What are the effects of different fire regimes on habitat features (such as hollows) that are critical to KFRS? • What is the baseline distribution and abundance of each KFRS? • What are the fire response curves for potential KFRS (based on retrospective and longitudinal studies of multiple species)? 4. Mapping • How can the variability of fire intensity be identified in fire mapping to get better estimates of the spatial variation in fire intensity (e.g. stand replacement or not)? • Can remote sensing be used to identify habitat quality? • Can fire patchiness and other types of habitat patchiness be mapped? 5. Monitoring • What are the pre-fire and post-fire distributions and abundances of species subjected to various fire regimes (i.e. different fire season, frequency, intensity, scale, patchiness and interval)? • How do populations of species and groups change with time in areas affected or not affected by fires of known intensity? • Do these changes support or refute deductions made from previous experimental or retrospective studies (1 & 2 above)? 6. Cost–benefit analysis • What are the costs and benefits of ecological fire regimes with regard to the protection of built assets and conservation of biodiversity? • How can risk assessment be incorporated into ecological burn planning? 7. Interactions • How do various fire regimes interact with other factors such as drought, flood, climate change, predation, pest plants and animals, and habitat fragmentation?

22



References Andelman, S.J., and Fagan, W.F. (2000). Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 5954-5959. ARIER. (2008 unpublished). Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning Workshop, 7 May 2008, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DSE. Brown, G.W., and Nelson, J.L. (1993). Influence of successional stage of Eucalyptus regnans (mountain ash) on habitat use by reptiles in the Central Highlands, Victoria. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 405-417. Burgman, M., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Walshe, T., and Wintle, B. (2006). ACERA Project 0611: Eliciting Expert Judgments ACERA, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Cheal, D. (unpublished). Plant Vital Attributes for Ecological Fire Management: Description of Categories and Character States. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DSE, Melbourne. Christidis, L., and Boles, W. (2008). Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne. Clarke, M. (2008). Catering for the needs of fauna in fire management: science or just wishful thinking? Wildlife Research 35: 385-394. DSE. (2006a). Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land, Revision no.1. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne. DSE. (2006b). Fauna Vital Attributes Workshop. in Fauna Vital Attributes Workshop. School of Forest and Ecosystem Science, Creswick, Victoria. DSE. (2008a). Atlas of Victorian Wildlife Database. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne. DSE. (2008b). Victoria's Bushfire Strategy. Victorian Government, Melbourne. Fire Ecology Working Group. (2003). Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy - A Practitioner’s Manual ( Mapinfo Version). A step-by-step guide to producing an Ecological Burning Strategy using the Guidelines and Procedures for Ecological Burning on Public Land in Victoria. Department of Sustainbility and Environment, Melbourne. Fire Ecology Working Group. (2009). Fire Ecology Program Strategic Directions 2009-2011. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Fox, B.J. (1982). Fire and mammalian secondary sucession in an Austrtalian coastal heath. Ecology 63: 1332-1341. Freudenberger, D., and Brooker, L. (2004). Development of the focal species approach for biodiversity conservation in the temperate agricultural zones of Australia. Biodiversity & Conservation 13: 253-274. Goldstein, P.Z. (1999). Functional Ecosystems and Biodiversity Buzzwords. Conservation Biology 15: 247 - 255. Kavanagh, R., Loyn, R., Smith, G., Taylor, R., and Catling, P. (2004). Which species should be monitored to indicate ecological sustainability in Australian forest management? Pages 959987 In Lunney, D. (eds) Conservation of Australia's forest fauna (second edition). . NSW, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales:, Mosman, . Kelly, L., Clarke, M., Callister, K., Nimmo, D., Spence-Bailey, L., Taylor, R., Watson, S., and Bennett, A. (2009). Analyses at multiple spatial scales enhance understanding of faunal responses to fire: the Mallee Ningaui in semi-arid Australia. in The 10th International Congress of Ecology: Ecology in a Changing Climate. Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, Australia. Lambeck, R.J. (1997). Focal species - a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 849-856. Lambeck, R.J. (2002). Focal species and restoration ecology: Response to Lindenmayer et al. Conservation Biology 16: 549-551.


23


Lindenmayer, D.B., and Fischer, J. (2003). Sound science or social hook - a response to Brooker's application of the focal species approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 149-158. Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Smith, P.L., Possingham, H.P., Fischer, J., Oliver, I., and McCarthy, M.A. (2002). The focal-species approach and landscape restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16: 338-345. Lindenmayer, D.B., Wood, J.T., MacGregor, C., Michael, D.R., Cunningham, R.B., Crane, M., Montague-Drake, R., Brown, D., Muntz, R., and Driscoll, D.A. (2008). How predictable are reptile responses to wildfire? Oikos 117: 1086-1097. Loyn, R., Mills, C., Mills, B., Clarke, S., Krasna, S., and Weston, N. (1999). Vertebrate fauna of Maramingo and Reedy Creek Pulpwood Demonstration Areas, East Gippsland, in 1997 (21 years after harvesting). Report for CFTT. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Loyn, R.H. (1997). Effects of an extensive wildfire on birds in far eastern Victoria. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 221-234. Mac Nally, R., Fleishman, E., Thomson, J.R., and Dobkin, D.S. (2008). Use of guilds for modelling avian responses to vegetation in the Intermountain West (USA). Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 758-769. Martin, T.G., Kuhnert, P.M., Mengersen, K., and Possingham, H.P. (2005). The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: Impact of grazing on birds. Ecological Applications 15: 266-280. McCarthy, G., Tolhurst, K., and Chatto, K. (1999). Overall Fuel Hazard Guide, Fire Management Research Report No. 47. DNRE, Melbourne. McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C., and Bauhus, J. (2006). Fauna-habitat relationships: a basis for identifying key stand structural attributes in temperature Australian eucalypt forests and woodlands. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 89-110. Menkhorst, P., and Knight, F. (2004). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Second ed. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Newsome, A., and Catling, P. (1979). Habitat preferences of mammals inhabiting heathlands of warm temperate coastal, montane and alpine regions of southeastern Australia. Pages 301– 316 In Specht, R.L. (eds) Ecosystems of the World. Vol. 9A. Heathlands and Related Shrublands of the World. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co, Amsterdam Noss, R.F. (1999). Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115: 135-146. Oliver, I., Jones, H., and Schmoldt, D.L. (2007). Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecology 32: 453-475. Parkes, D., Newell, G., and Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The Habitat Hectares approach. Ecological Management and restoration 4: 29 - 38. Robertson, P., and Coventry, A. (in press). Reptiles of Victoria. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne. Robley, A., Pelican, M., Kotiah, I., and Choquenot, D. (2004). Mapping the potential biodiversity benefit of fox control across Victoria. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Vic. Rubino, M.J., and Hess, G.R. (2003). Planning open spaces for wildlife 2: Modeling and verifying focal species habitat. Landscape & Urban Planning 64: 89-104. Treloar, S. (2009 draft). Pilot Fauna Habitat Monitoring Protocols for Planned Burning; A user's guide version 0.9 September 2009. Department of Sustainbility and Environment, Melbourne. Victorian Government. (2008). Victorian Government’s response to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee’s Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria. Victorian Government, Melbourne.

24



Appendices Appendix 1. Database of scientific articles regarding the effects of fire on fauna Table 2. A sample of the database relating to a bibliography of articles on the effects of fire on fauna The full database is available from Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Community Ecology section. Authors

Field based, lit review or theoretical?

Location

Vegetation type

Fire type (wildfire, fuel reduction, ecological etc.)

Bamford MJ (1992) The impact of fire and increasing time after fire upon Heleioporus eyrei, Liminodynastes dorsalis and Myobatrachus gouldii (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in Banksia woodland near Perth, Western Australia. Wildlife Research 19.

Field based

Perth, WA

Banksia woodland

series of wildfires

Boyles JG and Aubrey DP (2006) Managing forests with planned fire: implications for a cavitydwelling bat species. Forest ecology and Management 222, 108-115.

Field based

North America

deciduous forests

Planned burn

Brown GW and Nelson JL (1993) Influence of successional stage of Eucalyptus regnans (mountain ash) on habitat use by reptiles in the Central Highlands, Victoria. Australian Journal of Ecology 18.

Field based

Central highlands, Victoria

E. regnans dominated forest

wildfire, slash burns, unburnt

25

Fire intensity (widespread crown death, crown death patchy, crown scorch, u/storey only) complete removal of litter and understorey layers with considerable canopy scorch

Taxa studied

Type of experimental design (Before/After? Retrospective?)

No. burnt sites and no. unburnt control sites

If ‘after’ data, how long after fire

frogs

After

6 study areas, no control sites

time since fire ranged from 0-1 years to 23 years

initial burn caused overstorey tree mortality, subsequent burns were less intense

bats

After

all 63 roost sites identified and used by bats were in the burnt area, control sites not specified

4 years, surveyed up to 6 years after the initial burn

multiple fire events

not specified

reptiles

After

wildfire - 6; slash burn 3; 2 control sites

?

multiple fire events


Single fire event or multiple fire events / fire regime? multiple fire events

Comments, main ideas and conclusions

Fire and increasing time since fire was found to have no impact upon the annual abundances of Heleioporus eyrei, this species feeds on ants so will benefit from post-fire conditions; capture rates of Limnodynastes dorsalis and Myobatrachus gouldii were sig. higher in long unburnt sites compared to more recently burnt sites. Planned fire has the potential to increase available bat habitat via causing tree death and facilitating decay and disease in live trees; burning also open up the subcanopy which allows for easier flying and location of roost sites; while planned fire seems to favour bats in the short term the long-term effects are unknown. Aim of study was to identify important habitat attributes for reptiles, significant variables include litter depth, grass as substrate, moss cover of logs, no. of logs, log diameter, proportion of bare ground and length of sunny patches - all of which are affected by fire.


Authors

Field based, lit review or theoretical?

Location

Vegetation type

Fire type (wildfire, fuel reduction, ecological etc.)

Burbidge AH, Rolfe J, McNee S, Newbey B and Williams M (2007) Monitoring population change in the cryptic and threatened Western Ground Parrot in relation to fire. Emu 107, 70-88.

Field based

Fitzgerald River Nat. Park, southwestern Australia

low heathland with scattered emergent mallees

wildfire

Christensen PES, WardellJohnson G and Kimber P (1985) Birds and fire in south-western forests. In 'Birds of Eucalypt forests and woodlands: Ecology, Conservation, Management'. (Eds A Keast, HF Recher, H Ford and D Saunders). (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton)

Field based

Manjimup, WA

jarrah forest

study 1: planned burn, study 2: wildfire and planned burn

26

Fire intensity (widespread crown death, crown death patchy, crown scorch, u/storey only) extensive high intensity fires in 1989 and 1997

Taxa studied

Type of experimental design (Before/After? Retrospective?)

No. burnt sites and no. unburnt control sites

If ‘after’ data, how long after fire

Western ground parrot (Pezoporus wallicus flaviventris)

After

4 listening posts; 4 listening posts

40+ years for 4 sites, 9 years for 4 sites

Study 1: generally between 1000 and 5000 kW/m, study 2: wildfire was severe, planned burn was a mild spring fire

Birds

After

Study 1: 2 sites, Study 2: 2 sites; Study 2: 1 unburnt site

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years after the burns


Single fire event or multiple fire events / fire regime? 3 fire events (~1957, 1989 and 1998)

single fire event per site

Comments, main ideas and conclusions

Western ground parrots do not require fire for habitat regeneration (in the scale of 40-45 years), frequency of calling of parrots increased in the long unburnt sites, Western ground parrots can utilise recently burnt vegetation if it is immediately adjacent to an unburnt area; fire is unlikely to be directly responsible for the decline in numbers of this species bird abundances and species increased within a year of a moderate to hot burn; fire intensity is the major factor in determining bird responses to fire; while most species show a rapid response to changes induced by a single fire there is a lack of information regarding their response to a fire regime.


Appendix 2. Ecological Vegetation Divisions considered in the model Table 3. EVDs that were selected for the fauna database and for estimation of the habitat parameters * denotes fauna database only ** denotes fauna database and habitat parameter database EVD #

EVD name

EVD #

EVD name

1

Coastal

18

Rocky Knoll

2*

Heathland (sands)

19

Western Plains Woodland

3**

Grassy/Heathy Dry Forest

20*

Basalt Grassland

4

Damp Scrub

21

Alluvial Plains Grassland

5

Freshwater Wetland (permanent)

22**

Dry Woodland (non-eucalypt)

6

Treed Swampy Wetland

23**

Inland Plains Woodland

7**

Tall Mixed Forest (eastern)

24**

Ironbark / Box

8**

Foothills Forest

25*

Riverine Woodland/Forest

9**

Forby Forest

26

Freshwater Wetland (ephemeral)

10**

Moist Forest

27

Saline Wetland

11

Riparian (higher rainfall)

28

Chenopod Shrubland

12**

Tall Mist Forest

29*

Saltbush Mallee

13

Closed-forest

30**

Hummock-grass Mallee

14

High Altitude Shrubland/Woodland

31**

Lowan Mallee

15

High Altitude Wetland

32*

Broombush Whipstick

16

Alpine Treeless

88

Unassigned to EVD

17

Granitic Hillslopes

99

Not a valid EVD


27


Appendix 3. Database of habitat parameters Table 4. Estimates of habitat parameters for a selection of Ecological Vegetation Divisions This table provides the database of habitat parameters according to growth stage for selected Ecological Vegetation Divisions (EVDs*). The names of each EVD are provided in Table 3 (above). Definitions and metrics of each of the habitat parameters are also provided and will be available electronically via ARGUS (https://fireweb.dse.vic.gov.au/argus). Habitat monitoring protocols are being developed by Land and Fire Division (DSE) and readers intending to undertake monitoring are encouraged to check that document (Treloar, 2009 draft) to ensure they are using the recommended metrics. Habitat parameter

EVD* 3

7

8

9

10

12

22

23

24

30

31

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of all plants less than the height specified for EVD of interest. Ground flora: % cover of plants (live or dead) less than a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of grasses with a tufted lifeform (excludes other herbaceous plants) that are less than the height specified for the EVD of interest. Tussock grasses: % cover of tussock grasses (live or dead) less than a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of non tussock forming grasses and herbaceous plants less than the height specified for EVD of interest, i.e. includes grasses with growth forms other than tussocks. Ground flora (all low plants except for tussock grasses): % cover of all plants (live or dead) other than tussock forming grasses less than a height of

28



Habitat parameter

EVD* 3

7

8

9

10

12

22

23

24

30

31

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 3m

0.5– 3m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

0.5– 1.5 m

1.5– 5m

1.5– 5m

1.5– 5m

0.5– 1.5 m

3–10 m

3–10 m

1.5– 4m

1.5– 5m

1.5– 5m

1.5– 3m

1.5– 2m

–

–

–

–

10– 30 m

10– 30 m

–

–

–

–

–

5m

5m

5m

5m

30 m

30 m

4m

5m

5m

3m

2m

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of Triodia species less than the height specified for EVD of interest. Triodia species (hummock grasses): % cover of hummock grasses (live or dead) less than a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of low plants other than Triodia less than the height specified for EVD of interest Low plants other than Triodia spp.: % cover of non-hummock plants (live or dead) less than a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of any plants within the height range specified for the EVD of interest. Low plants: % cover of plants (live or dead) between a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of any plants within the height range specified for the EVD of interest. Tall plants: % cover of plants (live or dead) between a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of any plants within the height range specified for the EVD of interest. Sub canopy: % cover of plants (live or dead) between a height of

Visual estimate (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of any plants greater than the height specified for the EVD of interest. Canopy: % cover of the eucalypt canopy (live or dead) greater than a height of

29



Habitat parameter

EVD* 3

7

8

9

10

12

22

23

24

30

31

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

–

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10 x 10 m (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of fallen timber with an average diameter greater than specified for the EVD of interest. Diameter of logs to be measured (not estimated). Coarse woody debris: % cover of logs with diameter equal to or greater than

Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10x 10m (across one hectare), of the percentage cover of organic litter with an average diameter less than specified for EVD of interest. Diameter of logs to be measured (not estimated). Does not include standing but dead plant material (e.g. leaves of tussock forming grasses which are still attached to the plant). Organic litter: % cover of organic material with diameter less than:

Visual estimate across 5 subplots, each 10 x 10m (across one hectare) of the percentage cover of sky visible from ground level (bugs’ eye view) – this enables the metric to be estimated in cloudy conditions. Sunniness: % of ground in direct sun on a sunny day at midday in summer

The proportion of eucalypt trees (across one hectare) that have decorticating bark. Note that trees must be individually assessed for the presence of decorticating bark (not just assumed from known species characteristics). Decorticating bark: # of eucalypt trees that are bark decorticating individuals / ha

30



Habitat parameter

EVD* 3

7

8

9

10

12

22

23

24

30

31

–

–

–

–

0.5– 1m

0.5– 1m

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.5– 1m

0.5– 1m

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1m

1m

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

1m

1m

–

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.1 m

0.1 m

Number of live eucalypt trees (across one hectare) with a d.b.h. between the range specified for the EVD of interest. Small live eucalypts: # of live eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. between

Number of dead eucalypt trees (across one hectare) with a d.b.h. between the range specified for the EVD of interest. Small dead eucalypts: # of dead eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. between

Number of live eucalypt trees (across one hectare) with a d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD of interest. Large live eucalypts: number of live eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. greater than

Number of dead standing eucalypt trees with d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD of interest. Stags: # of dead eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. greater than

Number of live or dead eucalypt trees (across one hectare) with a d.b.h. less than that specified for the EVD of interest. Small live or dead eucalypts: # of eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. less than

Number of live or dead eucalypt trees (across one hectare) with d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD of interest. Large live or dead eucalypts: # of eucalypt trees with a d.b.h. greater than

31



Habitat parameter

EVD* 3

7

8

9

10

12

22

23

24

30

31

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

0.3 m

–

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

–

–

0.3 m

0.3 m

–

–

–

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

yes

yes

yes

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

0.5 m

Number of live or dead trees (across one hectare) with d.b.h. less than that specified for the EVD of interest. Small trees: # of live or dead trees with d.b.h. less than

Number of live or dead trees (across one hectare) with d.b.h. greater than that specified for the EVD of interest. Large trees: # of live or dead trees with a d.b.h. greater than

Estimate the cover of shrubs of the specified height across 10 subplots (each 10 x 10m) within one hectare. Using the estimates of percentage cover, calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) to allocate a patchiness category: ‘even’ = 0–0.3 CV; ‘patchy’= 0.3–0.7 CV; ‘clumped’ 0.7–1 CV. Note that further testing (e.g. power test) is required to determine if more subplots and / different sized subplots are required to sample the variation with the one hectare assessment zone. Patchiness of shrub layer: Spatial distribution of plants of a height greater than

Number of woody plant species (across one hectare) that are of a height greater than what is specified for the EVD of interest. Shrub composition: # of species that are of a height greater than

32



Appendix 4. Database of key fire response species for fauna Table 5. Database of expert estimations depicting predicted fauna responses to fire for a selection of ecological vegetation divisions The names of each ecological vegetation division (EVD) are provided in Table 3. Key for fauna guilds is presented in Table 6. *Criteria for selecting key fire response species 1. Species whose habitat requirements can be clearly / logically linked to habitat changes associated with post-fire vegetation succession 2. Species that are visibly or audibly present within the community at some point in the post-fire succession 3 Species that are easily detected and identified in the field by experienced observers 4. Species that use the area for breeding 5. Species choice enables representation of all major feeding and nesting guilds Fauna common follow Menkhorst & Knight (2004) for mammals, Christidis & Boles (2008) for birds and Robertson & Coventry (in press) for reptiles.

Key fire response species for fauna

Emu Malleefowl Stubble Quail Brown Quail Little Button-quail Red-chested Button-quail Common Bronzewing Brush Bronzewing Crested Pigeon Banded Lapwing Brolga Brown Falcon Southern Boobook Powerful Owl Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Gang-gang Cockatoo Regent Parrot Australian King-Parrot Crimson Rosella Eastern Rosella Mallee Ringneck Red-rumped Parrot Mulga Parrot Blue Bonnet Blue-winged Parrot Ground Parrot Australian Owlet-nightjar Laughing Kookaburra Sacred Kingfisher Superb Lyrebird Welcome Swallow Tree Martin

33

Criteria* for selecting KFRS (1-5)

Ecological vegetation division

1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5

30 2 20,22 20 22 20 2,3,7,8,9,10,12,24,29,30,31,32 12,32 22,29 20 20 20 10,24 7,10,12 7 8,9,10,12 29 10,12 3,24 3,8,9,23,24,25 29,30 22,29 29,30 22 23 2 7,10,12,24,29,30,31 10,12,23,24 3,7,8,9,23,24,25 8,10 8 25

Response curve estimated using expert knowledge

EVD 2

EVD 3

EVD 7

EVD 8

EVD 9

EVD 10

EVD 12

Guild

EVD 20

EVD 22

EVD 23

EVD 24

EVD 25

EVD 29

EVD 30 C1

EVD 31

B3

B3

EVD 32

A1 B3 B3

B1 A4

B3 A2

A2

B2

B2

B2

C1

A1 C1

B2

B3

A2

A2

B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3

B3

C1 B5

B5

B3

B5

B3

B3

B3

B3 B3 B3

B3

B3

B3

C1 C1

B3

B1

B3 B2 B3

B3 B3

B3

B3

B1 A1 A2 B3 B3

B3

B5 C1 B3 B3 A2

B3

B3 C1

B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3

B3 B3


B3

B3 B2

Nesting G M G G G G T T T G AV T LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH LH SH SH SH G SH LH LH V C SH, TC

Broad habitat O F O O O O F F O,F O O O F F F F F F F O F O F O F S F F F F O F

Main food type

Feeding SG OG, SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG OG G V V V ST ST SG, ST F ST ST SG, ST SG SG SG SG SG A V V DG A A

Towards a Process for Integrating Vertebrate Fauna into Fire Management Planning Key fire response species for fauna



Rufous Fantail Willie Wagtail Jacky Winter Scarlet Robin Red-capped Robin Flame Robin Rose Robin Hooded Robin Eastern Yellow Robin Golden Whistler Rufous Whistler Olive Whistler

1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4

10 8 3,9,22,23,24,25,29,30,31,32 8,24 22,29,30,31,32 10 10,12 2,22 3,7,8,9,10,12,24,25 3,7,8,9,12,24,25,29,30,31,32 3,7,8,9,10,23,24,25,32 10

Grey Shrike-thrush Crested Shrike-tit Crested Bellbird Eastern Whipbird Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike White-winged Triller Spotted Quail-thrush Chestnut Quail-thrush Southern Scrub-robin Chestnut-crowned Babbler Weebill Southern Whiteface Yellow Thornbill Brown Thornbill Inland Thornbill Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Buff-rumped Thornbill Yellow-rumped Thornbill White-browed Scrubwren Large-billed Scrubwren Shy Heathwren Speckled Warbler Brown Songlark Rufous Songlark Rufous Bristlebird Southern Emu-wren Mallee Emu-wren Superb Fairy-wren White-winged Fairy-wren Variegated Fairy-wren Dusky Woodswallow Varied Sittella Brown Treecreeper White-throated Treecreeper Red-browed Treecreeper White-browed Treecreeper

1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4

3,7,8,9,10,23,24,25,29,30,31,32

34


EVD 2

12 24,29 10,12 7,8,10,12 22 3,7,8 29,30,31,32 2,31,32 22 3,9,22,23,24,25,29,30,31,32 22,24,29,30,32 3,22,24,25 2,32 2,22,29,30,31,32 22 3,8,9,23,24,25,31 3,9,20,22,23,24,25,31,32 2,3,7,8,9,10,12,24 10,12 2,30,31 24 20 20,23,25 2 2 30 7,9,10,12 22 2,29 3,8,9,23,24,30,31 7 23,24,25 3,7,8,9,10,12,23,24,25 12 22

EVD 3

EVD 7

EVD 8

EVD 9

EVD 10 B3

EVD 12

Guild

EVD 20

EVD 22

EVD 23

EVD 24

EVD 25

EVD 29

EVD 30

EVD 31

EVD 32

B3 B3

B3

B1

B3

B3

B3 B3

B3

B1 A1 B5

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B1

B

B1 B2 B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3 B3 B3

B3 B2

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B2 B3

B2 B3

B3 B1

B3 B3

B3

B3 B1

B3

B3

B3

B2 B3

B3 B3

B1

B3 B3 B3

B3

B3 B3

C1

C1

C1

B3

B1 B3 B1

B3 B1 B2

B1 B1 B1 B1

B3

B2 B2 B3

B3

B3

B1 B3 B2

B2 B2

B1 B1 C1 B3 B2

C1 B2

B2

C1 B2 B2

B3 B2 B3

B3

B3 B3

B3 B3

B3 B3 B3

B3 B3

B1

B3

B3

B3 B3 B3

A4

B3

B1 B B3 B3

B3

B3

B2 B1

B1

B3 B2

B3

B3

B3

B3

B2

B3

B3 B3

B3 B3

B3

B3 B3

B3

B3

B1 B1

B3 B3

B4


B3

V V V T V T V V V V V V

Broad habitat F O F F F F F F F F F F

V V V V T T G G V V V SH V V V SH V V V V V G G G V V V V V V TC T SH SH SH SH

F F F F F F F F F F F O F F F F F O F F S, F F O F F F F F O F F F F F F F

Nesting

Main food type

Feeding TS OG A OG OG OG TS OG DG TS C DG Gen B OG DG C GEN OG OG OG OG C OG TS TS TS OG OG OG DG, LS BV LS OG OG OG DG LS LS OG LS LS A B B, OG B B B


Mistletoebird Spotted Pardalote Yellow-rumped Pardalote Striated Pardalote Silvereye Brown-headed Honeyeater Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Lewin's Honeyeater Singing Honeyeater Fuscous Honeyeater White-eared Honeyeater Yellow-tufted Honeyeater Purple-gaped Honeyeater Yellow-plumed Honeyeater White-plumed Honeyeater Crescent Honeyeater New Holland Honeyeater Bell Miner Noisy Miner Little Wattlebird Red Wattlebird Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Australasian Pipit Beautiful Firetail Diamond Firetail Red-browed Finch Olive-backed Oriole White-winged Chough Pied Currawong Grey Currawong Pied Butcherbird Grey Butcherbird Australian Magpie Bassian Thrush Little Raven Brush-tailed Phascogale Yellow-footed Antechinus Agile Antechinus Dusky Antechinus Swamp Antechinus Mallee Ningaui Common Dunnart Fat-tailed Dunnart Southern Brown Bandicoot Long-nosed Bandicoot Common Brushtail Possum Mountain Brushtail Possum Common Ringtail Possum

35



1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4

10 12 29,31,32 7,9,24,25 7 3,7,8,9,12,23,24,25,29,30,31 2,31 7,8,10,12 2,22,29 3,24 29,30,31,32 10,24 32 29,30,32 23,25 10 2,32 8 3,7,25 2 3,12 2,22,29,30,31,32 2,20,22 2 22,23 3,7,8,9,10,20,24 3,7,8,9,24,25 3,7,8,9,23,24,25 8,12 2,3,7,8,9,10,25,29,30,31,32 22 3,8,9,23,24,30,31 10,12,23,24,29,31 7 8 3,8,9,24,25 8,24,25 2,3,7,8,9,10,12 2,7,8,10,12 2 30 29 20,22,32 2 7,9,10,12 23,24,25 10,12 3,7,8,9,10,12,24,25


EVD 2

EVD 3

EVD 7

EVD 8

EVD 9

EVD 10 B4

EVD 12

Guild

EVD 20

EVD 22

EVD 23

EVD 24

EVD 25

EVD 29

EVD 30

EVD 31

EVD 32

B1 B3

B2

B2 B2 B3

B3 B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3 B2

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B2 B4

B3

B3

B1

B3

B3

B3

B3 B5

B3

B3

B3

A2 B3

B3

B3 B3

B2 A2 C1

B2

B3

B B3

B1

B3 A1 B

B3

B1 A1 B1

B3

A2 B3 B2

A1 B3 A1

B3

B3

A1 B3 A2 A2 B3

B3 B3 B2

A1

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3 B1

C1

A2 B3

B3 B3 B2/3

B3 B2/3

A2 B3 B1

B3

B3

B3 A1

B3 A2

A1

B3 C1

B3

B2 B3 B1 B1 B1

B3

B3 B3

A2 B3 B3 B3 B3

B3 B2

B3 B3 B3 B3

B3 B3

B3 B3 A2 B3 B3

B1

B3

B1 B3

B3

B3

B3 B3

B2

B1

B1

B1

B3 B1

B3 B1

B3

B3

B1

B3


Nesting V B B SH, B V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V G V V V V T T T V V T V T SH SH SH, V B B B B B G G LH LH, LOG LH, V

Broad habitat F F F F F F F F S F F F F F F F F F O F, S F S O F F F F F F F F O O F O F F F F F F,S F O F,S F F F F

Main food type

I, N I I I I I I F, I MF, LF, F MF

Feeding F C C C F N, B N N, F N N N, B N N N N N N N N N N N OG SG SG SG F OG V V V V OG DG V B, V OG, B, IF DG, B, IF DG DG V, OG OG OG FG, DG FG, DG MF, FG LF, MF MF


Greater Glider Yellow-bellied Glider Squirrel Glider Sugar Glider Leadbeater's Possum Eastern Pygmy-possum Western Pygmy-possum Little Pygmy-possum Koala Long-nosed Potoroo Long-footed Potoroo Black Wallaby Red-necked Wallaby Western Grey Kangaroo Eastern Grey Kangaroo Red Kangaroo Bush Rat Swamp Rat New Holland Mouse Silky Mouse Heath Mouse Mitchell's Hopping-mouse Marbled Gecko Olive Legless Lizard Lace Goanna Garden Skink Coventry's Skink Spencer's Skink Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard Common Blue-tongued Lizard

Stumpy-tailed Lizard Red-bellied Black Snake Little Whip Snake Southern Water Skink Lowland Copperhead

36



1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4,5 1,2,4 1,2,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,5

7,10,12 7,8,9,10,12 23,24,25 3,8,9,23,24,25 12 3 2,30,31,32 31,32 8,9,24,25 2,7 7 3,7,8,9,10,12,24 3,7 2,22,23,25,29,30,31,32 7,8,9,23,25 22,29 3,8,9,10 20 2 2,31,32 2 30 23 23 23 23 12 12 23 23 23 23 23 12 23


EVD 2

EVD 3

EVD 7 B3 B3

B3

EVD 8

EVD 9

B3

B3

B3

B3

EVD 10 B3 B3

EVD 12 B3 B3

Guild

EVD 20

EVD 22

EVD 23

B3 B3

EVD 24

B3 B3

EVD 25

EVD 29

EVD 30

EVD 31

EVD 32

B3 B3

B3 B2 B1

B1 B3 C1

B3 B3 B3 B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3

B3 B1

A2

A2

B3

B3

B3 B2

B1 B2

B2 B3

B3 B3

B3

B3

B2

A2

A2

B3

B1

A2 A1

B3

B3 B3

B3 B3

B3 B3

B1 B1 B1 B1 B3 B3 B3 B3

Nesting LH LH SH SH SH, LH SH, V SH, V SH T G G G G G G G B B B B B B B B

A2 A2 B3 B3 B3 A3 A3 A2 A3


B B B

Broad habitat F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F, O S S F, S F, S F F, O F, O F F F F F F F, W F F F, O

Main food type

Feeding

CF I, X, N I, X, N I, X, N I, X

CF B,N N, B, IF N, B, IF IF, B MF, N IF, N IF, N CF FG, DG FG, DG LF LF LF LF LF DG, FG LF, SG SG, OG SG, OG SG, OG SG, OG

N, I N, I CF F, I F, I LF LF LF LF S, I LF S, I S, I S, I I I V I I I VE, I VE, I VE, I V V I, VE, V V


Table 6. Key for fauna guilds Nesting guilds AV among aquatic vegetation (may be colonial) B burrow in ground (may be colonial) C cliff or cave (may be colonial) G on ground LH large or medium-sized hollow in tree or termite mound LOG hollow log or stump on the ground M mound nest on ground SH small hollow in tree T in branches of tree or tall shrub TC colonially in trees V in vegetation generally (often among low or tall shrubs, but may sometimes be in trees) Broad habitat guilds: symbol shows the main habitat for each species, where the species reaches its maximum density in the breeding season forests, woodlands or other areas of native woody vegetation (e.g. tall shrublands). Some of these species winter in open country including pasture (Flame Robin) F and saltmarsh (Neophema parrots). Some raptors and corvids range widely over open country as well as forests, and some (e.g. Australian Hobby and various corvids) have become common in towns. open country including farmland. Many of these species depend on trees or remnant native vegetation, but also benefit from the open landscape and hence may be O more common than in uncleared forest or woodland. S low native vegetation, including arid shrublands, heaths, saltmarsh and tall native grassland (but usually not cleared pasture) Main food type CF canopy foliage F fungi I invertebrates LF low foliage MF midstorey foliage N nectar S seeds V vertebrates VE vegetable matter X exudates: nectar, sap, honeydew from trees

37



Feeding guilds: invertebrates such as insects and other arthropods form a large part of the diet of many species A aerial feeder, taking insects in open air, usually far from foliage B bark forager, taking invertebrates from bark on trunks and branches of eucalypts and other trees BV as above, but mainly from smaller branches and vines C canopy forager, taking invertebrates from foliage of eucalypts and other large trees CF canopy foliage (eucalypt leaves) DG takes invertebrates from damp ground below shrubs, among dense understorey or among damp litter in wet forests or rainforest F frugivore, taking soft fruit along with other food such as nectar, invertebrates or seeds (parrots) FG fungi close to the ground, e.g. hypogeal fungi obtained by digging G grazer, taking aquatic plants and other vegetation such as grass or plant tubers Gen generalist, taking invertebrates from ground and a range of substrates among shrubs and trees IF gleans invertebrates from foliage (as distinct from bark) LF low foliage (grass, roots or low branches and foliage of shrubs) LS takes invertebrates from low shrubs, tall grass or other low vegetation MF midstorey foliage N nectarivore, taking nectar along with other food such as seeds (parrots) and fruit or invertebrates takes invertebrates from open ground (which may be among trees or shrubs in some cases, or far from them in other cases), but not from damp ground below OG dense cover SG takes seeds from ground or low plants such as grasses, herbs and saltmarsh ST takes seeds from trees and shrubs or wide range of strata, or other food such as gall insects or insect larvae extracted from wood TS takes invertebrates from foliage of tall shrubs, which may form middle storey of eucalypt forests or stand alone, e.g. mangroves V carnivore, taking vertebrates as an important part of diet, often along with large invertebrates and other food such as fruit (passerines)

38



Table 7. List of species’ scientific names for fauna Key Fire Response Species Species are listed according to their taxonomic order listed in DSE’s Fauna 100 database. Species listed under the FFG (Flora and Fauna Guarantee act (1998)) are denoted with ‘L’. Species listed under the EPBC (Environment Protection and Biodiversity act 1999) are denoted as vulnerable (VU) or endangered (EN). Common name

Scientific name

Emu Malleefowl Stubble Quail Brown Quail Little Button-quail Red-chested Button-quail Common Bronzewing Brush Bronzewing Crested Pigeon Banded Lapwing Brolga Brown Falcon Southern Boobook Powerful Owl Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Gang-gang Cockatoo Regent Parrot Australian King-Parrot Crimson Rosella Eastern Rosella Mallee Ringneck Red-rumped Parrot Mulga Parrot Blue Bonnet Blue-winged Parrot Ground Parrot Australian Owlet-nightjar Laughing Kookaburra Sacred Kingfisher Superb Lyrebird Welcome Swallow Tree Martin Rufous Fantail Willie Wagtail Jacky Winter Scarlet Robin Red-capped Robin Flame Robin Rose Robin Hooded Robin Eastern Yellow Robin Golden Whistler Rufous Whistler Olive Whistler Grey Shrike-thrush

Dromaius novaehollandiae Leipoa ocellata Coturnix pectoralis Coturnix ypsilophora Turnix velox Turnix pyrrhothorax Phaps chalcoptera Phaps elegans Ocyphaps lophotes Vanellus tricolor Grus rubicunda Falco berigora Ninox novaeseelandiae Ninox strenua Calyptorhynchus funereus Callocephalon fimbriatum Polytelis anthopeplus Alisterus scapularis Platycercus elegans Platycercus eximius Barnardius zonarius barnardi Psephotus haematonotus Psephotus varius Northiella haematogaster Neophema chrysostoma Pezoporus wallicus Aegotheles cristatus Dacelo novaeguineae Todiramphus sanctus Menura novaehollandiae Hirundo neoxena Hirundo nigricans Rhipidura rufifrons Rhipidura leucophrys Microeca fascinans Petroica boodang Petroica goodenovii Petroica phoenicea Petroica rosea Melanodryas cucullata Eopsaltria australis Pachycephala pectoralis Pachycephala rufiventris Pachycephala olivacea Colluricincla harmonica

FFG

EPBC

L

VU

L

L

L

L

VU

L

L


39


Common name

Scientific name

Crested Shrike-tit Crested Bellbird Eastern Whipbird Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike White-winged Triller Spotted Quail-thrush Chestnut Quail-thrush Southern Scrub-robin Chestnut-crowned Babbler Weebill Southern Whiteface Yellow Thornbill Brown Thornbill Inland Thornbill Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Buff-rumped Thornbill Yellow-rumped Thornbill White-browed Scrubwren Large-billed Scrubwren Shy Heathwren Speckled Warbler Brown Songlark Rufous Songlark Rufous Bristlebird Southern Emu-wren Mallee Emu-wren Superb Fairy-wren White-winged Fairy-wren Variegated Fairy-wren Dusky Woodswallow Varied Sittella Brown Treecreeper White-throated Treecreeper Red-browed Treecreeper White-browed Treecreeper Mistletoebird Spotted Pardalote Yellow-rumped Pardalote Striated Pardalote Silvereye Brown-headed Honeyeater Tawny-crowned Honeyeater Lewin's Honeyeater Singing Honeyeater Fuscous Honeyeater White-eared Honeyeater Yellow-tufted Honeyeater Purple-gaped Honeyeater Yellow-plumed Honeyeater White-plumed Honeyeater

Falcunculus frontatus Oreoica gutturalis Psophodes olivaceus Coracina novaehollandiae Lalage sueurii Cinclosoma punctatum Cinclosoma castanotus Drymodes brunneopygia Pomatostomus ruficeps Smicrornis brevirostris Aphelocephala leucopsis Acanthiza nana Acanthiza pusilla Acanthiza apicalis Acanthiza uropygialis Acanthiza reguloides Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Sericornis frontalis Sericornis magnirostris Calamanthus cautus Pyrrholaemus sagittatus Cincloramphus cruralis Cincloramphus mathewsi Dasyornis broadbenti Stipiturus malachurus Stipiturus mallee Malurus cyaneus Malurus leucopterus Malurus lamberti Artamus cyanopterus Daphoenositta chrysoptera Climacteris picumnus victoriae Cormobates leucophaeus Climacteris erythrops Climacteris affinis Dicaeum hirundinaceum Pardalotus punctatus Pardalotus xanthopygus punctatus Pardalotus striatus Zosterops lateralis Melithreptus brevirostris Phylidonyris melanops Meliphaga lewinii Lichenostomus virescens Lichenostomus fuscus Lichenostomus leucotis Lichenostomus melanops Lichenostomus cratitius Lichenostomus ornatus Lichenostomus penicillatus

40

FFG

EPBC

L

L

L L

L


VU


Common name

Scientific name

Crescent Honeyeater New Holland Honeyeater Bell Miner Noisy Miner Little Wattlebird Red Wattlebird Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Australasian Pipit Beautiful Firetail Diamond Firetail Red-browed Finch Olive-backed Oriole White-winged Chough Pied Currawong Grey Currawong Pied Butcherbird Grey Butcherbird Australian Magpie Bassian Thrush Little Raven Brush-tailed Phascogale Yellow-footed Antechinus Agile Antechinus Dusky Antechinus Swamp Antechinus Mallee Ningaui Common Dunnart Fat-tailed Dunnart Southern Brown Bandicoot Long-nosed Bandicoot Common Brushtail Possum Mountain Brushtail Possum Common Ringtail Possum Greater Glider Yellow-bellied Glider Squirrel Glider Sugar Glider Leadbeater's Possum Eastern Pygmy-possum Western Pygmy-possum Little Pygmy-possum Koala Long-nosed Potoroo Long-footed Potoroo Black Wallaby Red-necked Wallaby Western Grey Kangaroo Eastern Grey Kangaroo Red Kangaroo Bush Rat

Phylidonyris pyrrhoptera Phylidonyris novaehollandiae Manorina melanophrys Manorina melanocephala Anthochaera chrysoptera Anthochaera carunculata Acanthagenys rufogularis Anthus novaeseelandiae Stagonopleura bella Stagonopleura guttata Neochmia temporalis Oriolus sagittatus Corcorax melanorhamphos Strepera graculina Strepera versicolor Cracticus nigrogularis Cracticus torquatus Gymnorhina tibicen Zoothera lunulata Corvus mellori Phascogale tapoatafa Antechinus flavipes Antechinus agilis Antechinus swainsonii Antechinus minimus Ningaui yvonneae Sminthopsis murina Sminthopsis crassicaudata Isoodon obesulus obesulus Perameles nasuta Trichosurus vulpecula Trichosurus cunninghami Pseudocheirus peregrinus Petauroides volans Petaurus australis Petaurus norfolcensis Petaurus breviceps Gymnobelideus leadbeateri Cercartetus nanus Cercartetus concinnus Cercartetus lepidus Phascolarctos cinereus Potorous tridactylus Potorous longipes Wallabia bicolor Macropus rufogriseus Macropus fuliginosus Macropus giganteus Macropus rufus Rattus fuscipes

FFG

EPBC

L

L

L

EN

L L

EN

L L

VU EN


41


Common name

Scientific name

Swamp Rat New Holland Mouse Silky Mouse Heath Mouse Mitchell's Hopping-mouse Marbled Gecko Olive Legless Lizard Lace Goanna Garden Skink Coventry's Skink Spencer's Skink Blotched Blue-tongued Lizard Common Blue-tongued Lizard Stumpy-tailed Lizard Red-bellied Black Snake Little Whip Snake Southern Water Skink Lowland Copperhead

Rattus lutreolus Pseudomys novaehollandiae Pseudomys apodemoides Pseudomys shortridgei Notomys mitchelli Christinus marmoratus Delma inornata Varanus varius Lampropholis guichenoti Niveoscincus coventryi Pseudemoia spenceri Tiliqua nigrolutea Tiliqua scincoides Tiliqua rugosa Pseudechis porphyriacus Suta flagellum Eulamprus tympanum tympanum Austrelaps superbus

42

FFG

EPBC

L L


VU


Appendix 5. Decision framework: modification of the 17 steps The 17 steps in Developing An Ecological Burning Strategy - A Practitioner’s Manual (Fire Ecology Working Group 2003) have been modified based on suggestions arising from group discussions in the Workshop on Integrating Fauna in Fire Planning (7 May 2008). Modifications to the steps below can be identified as those underlined. 1

Refer to the Park/Forest Management Plan to identify the broad ecological management objectives for the area (Park, Forest block, etc.) and neigbouring areas to address landscape context.

2

Identify a landscape management unit at a scale which incorporates landscape connectivity for fauna8.

3

Collate existing flora and fauna distribution maps and species lists (with consideration of the time elapsed since the species was last recorded and species which are expected to be present9 but not actually recorded) for the management unit.

4

On the basis of the known biodiversity assets and perceived threats, set the more specific ecological management objectives and measurable outcomes for the management unit.

4a

Check specific prescriptions for species recorded in the area.

5

Collate the fire history records including burn area, frequency and intensity (wildfire and planned fire separately). – identify where fire history is inadequate or unknown. – add other disturbance history associated with logging and grazing, etc.

6

To the extent possible, tabulate and graph the age class distribution of each vegetation type (EVC or BVT10).

6a

Seral stage growth analysis

7

Collate the life history or Vital Attribute information of the constituent flora and fauna species and identify the Key Fire Response Species in each vegetation type.

8

To the extent that available data permits, determine the upper and lower limits of the Tolerable Fire Intervals for each vegetation type based on the vital attributes of the key fire response species (for flora and fauna).

8a

Identify fauna species likely to be outside the min and max specified flora species responses and consider adjusting the tolerable fire intervals, e.g. in the case of threatened species.

8b

Identify longer unburnt areas e.g. > 80 years.

9

Identify areas of vegetation, habitat, seral stages, fauna response curves that are overrepresented in their age-class as compared with an idealised age-class distribution.

8

Consider what barriers might prevent species from avoiding direct impacts of fire, or present barriers to recolonisation after fire. 9 This may require consultation with fauna experts. 10 Replace BVT with EVD.


43


10

To the extent possible, calculate the areas of each vegetation type likely to be burnt by wildfire within the maximum tolerable time since fire for that vegetation type.

11

Estimate the area of each vegetation type needing to be burnt by planned fire in addition to the area likely to be burnt by wildfire.

11a

Examine habitat elements. need to link key fauna species to each of the seral stages for each EVD.

12

Identify areas on the ground which are candidates for planned fire based on the ecological criteria.

13

Define specific objectives of the burn (cf. the ecological management objectives), including the need to leave appropriate areas unburnt within the burn area.

14

Design a planned fire which will achieve defined ecological objectives, e.g. regenerate all species, particularly the Key Fire Response Species.

14a

Decide on the most appropriate season to burn

14b Devise a communications strategy for the burn officer in charge (OIC) and fire management officer (FMO) to determine how the ecological objectives of the burn will be achieved on the day of the burn. 14c

Conduct baseline monitoring of sufficient duration and intensity for the presence of KFRS and for condition of habitat parameters. need monitoring at the landscape scale as well as in the burn unit.

15

Conduct the burn and record the conditions and results (including burn area, intensity and heterogeneity).

16

Monitor with sufficient duration and intensity the response of the key fire response species or habitat surrogates.

17

Return to Step 3 and if necessary update and repeat.

44



Appendix 6. Summary of ecological burn planning in other states and territories Table 8. Fire management planning with regard to fauna in states and territories of Australia. Queensland: Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Government Policy statement: ‘QPWS will undertake fire management, including planned fire operations to: ⇒ Maintain biodiversity across ecosystems and landscapes by providing variations in fire regimes (based on frequency, intensity and season of fire).

1. Peter Leeson, Team Leader, Fire Management, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (pers. comm.)

⇒ Maintain the role of fire as a critical ecological process in fireadapted vegetation communities and fauna habitats.

2. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (2007)

⇒ Enhance or maintain conditions suitable for particular flora and fauna species (e.g. threatened species) or communities. ⇒ Stimulate the restoration or regeneration of disturbed ecosystems. ⇒ Assist in pest eradication and control.’ 2. The Fire Management System applies to all fire management on lands for which QPW is the responsible agency. Wildfire suppression activities, hazard reduction burning, ecological burning and burning for weed control or other purposes are subject to the requirements of this system if the operation is conducted under the control of a QPW staff member (regardless of land tenure). 3. Under the Fire Management System a Fire Strategy must be developed for each reserve. The Fire Strategy details the values of the reserve, the long-term fire management aims and how these relate to on-ground fire management. 3. Fire Strategies must address the following (selected) issues using the best available knowledge:

Operational Policy – Fire Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland 3. Queensland Parks and Wildlife (2008) Fire

Management System. Volume 1: Planning and Reporting Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland 4. Tran, C. and Peacock, C (2002) Best Practice Fire

Management ManualOperational Level Guidelines and Procedures South East Queensland Fire and Biodiversity Consortium

⇒ ‘Long-term fire management aims for the reserve (e.g. “encourage expansion of rainforest communities”; “maintain wet sclerophyll forest and associated timber resources”; “maximise habitat condition for golden-shouldered parrot”.’ ⇒ ‘Best available details of vegetation communities and/or habitat types.’ ⇒ ‘Significant (including threatened) flora and fauna and/or indicator species or communities.’ ⇒ ‘Fire management objectives and requirements for the flora, fauna, cultural resources, production resources, reserve infrastructure and resources on adjoining lands.’ 3. ‘Ecological Regeneration Burning – burning may be planned for ecological reasons such as weed control, stimulation of regeneration, influence of vegetation and community structure and composition.’ 4. Ecological burns are usually based on vegetation community considerations but fauna issues are incorporated into the planning where relevant knowledge (typically of threatened species) is indicated. 1.


45


Tasmania: Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts Ecological burn definition: ‘Treatment with fire of vegetation in nominated areas to achieve specified ecological objectives. Including but not limited to: weed management, threatened species management and/or scientific research.’ 1. Planned fire definition: ‘The controlled application of fire under specified environmental conditions to a predetermined area and at the time, intensity, and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives. Is also known as “prescribed burning” or “planned fire”.’ 1. Policy statement: ‘Planned burning will aim to maximise integrated outcomes in relation to the management of protection objectives, biodiversity, wildlife, pests, soils and water as appropriate.’ 1. All broad ecological factors (e.g. air pollution, soil etc) including faunal issues are considered and incorporated into operational burn plans from recommendations made by Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs). 4. There is currently no direct process for integrating fauna requirements and values into ecological burning plans 3.

1.

Parks and Wildlife Service (2008) Planned Burning Policy, Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, Tasmania

2.

Parks and Wildlife Service (2008) Reserve Activity Assessment Manual, version 51 Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, Tasmania

3.

Adrian Pyrke, Manager, Fire Operations Parks and Wildlife Service (pers. comm.)

4.

Sandra Whight, Fire Management Officer, Policy and Assurance Parks and Wildlife Service (pers. comm.)

Western Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation Planned fire definition: The controlled application of fire under specified environmental conditions to a predetermined area and at the time, intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives. It is undertaken in specified environmental conditions. 1.

1.

Department of Environment and Conservation (2008) Code of practice for Fire Management. Department of Environment and Conservation, WA

Fauna is being incorporated into ecological burn planning through the use of a fauna information system that details the distribution of species, as well as a system similar to that being developed by Victoria using habitat units to predict the types of vertebrate fauna likely to inhabit an area. Each habitat unit has specified fire requirements associated with it.

2.

Rodger Armstrong, Senior Planner, Fire Management Services, Department of Environment & Conservation, WA

Northern Territory: Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport Bushfires Council NT apparently do not have any written guidelines for ecological burning although ecological burning is done.

46

1. Grazina Mainelis, Library Manager, NRETA and DPI Library Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport (pers. comm.)



Australian Capital Territory: Department of Territory and Municipal Services All fire management is governed by the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan for the ACT and applies to both public and private landholders. It is managed by the ACT Rural Fire Service. 1. Most burns in the ACT are hazard reduction burns where flora and fauna considerations (mostly endangered or threatened species) are taken into account on a case by case situation. 1. Excerpt from ‘Strategic Bushfire Management Plan for the ACT Version 1’ ⇒ ‘Fuel management planning must also consider the conservation requirements of threatened fauna species and impacts on fragmented communities in the ACT.’2.

1. Dylan Kendall, Senior Fire Management Officer, Parks, Conservation and Lands Department of Territory and Municipal Services (pers. comm.) 2. Australian Capital Territory Emergency Services Authority (2005) Strategic Bushfire

Management Plan for the ACT Version 1 Australian Capital Territory Emergency Services Authority, Canberra

⇒ Land Management Considerations include ‘Minimum fire thresholds for dominant vegetation communities, describing the minimum acceptable frequency for fire to occur within the dominant vegetation type of ecological communities described in the ACT’

New South Wales: Department of Environment and Climate Change Planned fire definition: the controlled application of fire under specified environmental and weather conditions to a predetermined area and at the time, intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource burning. 1. Policy statement: ‘Planned fire may be used to achieve fire management and biodiversity conservation objectives.’ 1. The DECC conducts planned burns for several (selected) reasons:

1. Department of Environment and Climate Change (2007) Fire

Management Manual – Policy and Procedures for Fire Management Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW

⇒ Managing biodiversity to maintain the reproductive viability of a species or a community of species; ⇒ Managing introduced species, their spread and impact on native fauna and flora. South Australia: Department of Environment and Heritage Ecological burn definition: ‘Treatment of vegetation in nominated areas by use of fire, primarily to achieve specific ecological objectives.’ 1. Landscape protection burn definition: ‘Are planned burns which primarily aim to reduce fuel hazard across a range of areas in a landscape in order to reduce the likelihood of a whole Park/Reserve or large contiguous block of vegetation burning in a single large fire event. The short term goal of this form of burn is fuel reduction’. 1. Ecological fire management guidelines are currently being developed. The approach used by DEH to define the Ecological Fire Management Guidelines involves the identification of fire regime thresholds using flora Key Fire Species (the species most likely to decline due to each element of fire regimes) within each major vegetation subgroup. These thresholds are then assessed for the potential impacts on known faunal requirements, particularly the requirements of species of conservation significance. 2. & 4.

1. Department of Environment and Heritage (2008) Ecological fire

management guidelines for South Australian Reserves. Department of Environment and Heritage, SA (in prep.) 2. Department of Environment and Heritage (2008) Ecological fire

management guidelines for native vegetation in South Australia – Fact Sheet Department of Environment and Heritage, SA 3. Prescribed Burning Working Party (2004) South Australia Prescribed

Burning Code of Practice Department of Environment and Heritage & SA Country Fire Service


47


The three steps are taken in the development of the Ecological Fire Management Guidelines are: ⇒ Vital attributes data of flora and fauna, and ecological communities are gathered and assessed. ⇒ This knowledge is used to identify the Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPC) of fire regime (fire interval, intensity season and type) where species significantly decrease or decline.

4. Mike Wouters, Senior Fire Ecologist, Fire Management, Regional Conservation Delivery Directorate, Department of Environment & Heritage (pers. comm.)

⇒ Ecological Fire Management Guidelines are formed from these thresholds and are then used to guide the fire management practices to ensure that adequate habitat is available to maintain biodiversity (i.e. species, populations and communities) 2. Principles from the South Australia Prescribed Burning Code of Practice: ⇒ ‘Ecologically based fire regimes for an area should be developed from knowledge of the life histories or vital attributes of the constituent flora and fauna species.’ 3. ⇒ ‘Vital attributes should be used to define the key fire response species for a community or vegetation type, which in turn provide a guide to the upper and lower thresholds of tolerable fire frequencies for the area. This enables a fire cycle to be defined from which an idealised model of the distribution of age classes within each plant community may be developed’ 3.

48


ISSN 1835-3835 (print) ISSN 1835-3827 (online) ISBN 978-1-74242-189-6 (print) ISBN 978-1-74242-190-2 (online) Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. XXX

www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari

1