Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity
Monitoring Plan
October 2009
Auckland Regional Council
October 2009
ISSN ???? ???X (Print)
ISSN ????-???? (Online)
ISBN 978-1-877416-58-3
1
Contents
1
Executive Summary
4
2
Introduction
7
2.1
Purpose
7
2.2
Context
7
2.3
Scope
7
2.4
Statutory Monitoring Requirements
9
2.4.1
Resource Management Act (1991) and Regional Policy Statements and Plans
9
2.4.2
Local Government Act (2002) and Long-Term Community Council Plan (LTCCP) 10
2.4.3
Biosecurities Act (1993) and the Regional Pest Management Strategies
10
2.4.4
Other Relevant Statutory and Non-Statutory Documents
10
3
Biodiversity Monitoring: An Overview
12
3.1
General overview
12
3.2
Issues and Challenges
14
4
A Monitoring Programme for the Auckland Region
15
4.1
Status Quo
15
4.2
Monitoring requirements
17
4.3
Biodiversity monitoring objectives:
18
4.4
Biodiversity monitoring approach (tiers)
18
5
Selection of Biodiversity Indicators
21
5.1
Linking biodiversity monitoring objectives with indicators
21
5.2
Linking monitoring with biodiversity management and policy
24
6
Field Methodology
26
6.1
Study area
26
6.1.1
Auckland Region
26
6.1.2
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA)
28
6.1.3
Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills
28
2
6.1.4
Key Restoration Initiatives (wetland and duneland sites to be selected)
29
6.2
Forest and shrubland field monitoring programme
34
6.2.1
Site selection
34
6.2.2
Data collection
42
6.3
Freshwater wetland monitoring programme (in development)
47
6.4
Saline wetland monitoring programme (to be developed)
47
6.5
Duneland monitoring programme (to be developed)
47
6.4
Data analyses (incomplete)
47
7
Database Management and Reporting (incomplete)
49
7.1
Database Management
49
7.2
Reporting
49
8
Planning and operations (incomplete)
51
8.1
Project timeline
51
8.2
Roles and responsibilities
52
8.3
Operational team structure
52
8.4
Field-team training
52
8.5
Field logistics
53
8.6
Auditing
53
8.7
Field equipment
54
8.8
Data sheets
54
8.9
Risk assessment
54
8.10
Health and Safety
54
9
References
55
10
Appendices (incomplete)
58
10.1
Appendix 1: Hyperlinked list of weeds to be monitored
58
3
Executive Summary
1
Ecological monitoring is critical to assessing biodiversity status and trends, and the
effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity management and relevant policies. However,
reviews of monitoring programmes have generally been critical, highlighting the absence
of well-articulated objectives, the use of different monitoring standards, and lack of utility
for decision makers. In the Auckland region, existing monitoring programmes may help
address specific management concerns, but they do not provide a clear representation of
the overall state of biodiversity, nor do they contribute well to policy or decision.
Consequently, a number of legislative monitoring requirements are currently not being
met, particularly for State of the Environment reporting on terrestrial biodiversity.
Moreover, the extent to which the Auckland Regional Council is meeting conservation
management objectives and policies as stated in statutory and non-statutory policies,
plans, and strategies is unclear.
To address these issues, there is a clear and pressing need for a robust and
comprehensive regional biodiversity monitoring programme. This report presents a
systematic, strategic approach centred on State of the Environment reporting, which
includes assessing the effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity related policies and
management objectives. The proposed programme aims to obtain a comprehensive
verifiable assessment of the regions biodiversity, key threats, and management actions.
The extent to which monitoring objectives are achieved will be determined through the use
of appropriate indicators and associated measures. These indicators and measures will be
directly linked to terrestrial biodiversity management objectives and intended outcomes for
the Auckland region.
The monitoring objectives of the programme are to:
•
Quantify the state of indigenous terrestrial biodiversity and monitor changes in pattern
and processes through time
•
Identify key threats to indigenous biodiversity
•
Assess and improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity related
management and policy development
•
Contribute to public understanding of issues, status, trends, and management
•
Identify and remedy information gaps
•
Fulfil statutory monitoring and reporting requirements
This programme will focus on terrestrial biodiversity, in indigenous forest and shrublands,
wetlands, and dune ecosystems systems across the Auckland Region. Monitoring includes
both collation and analysis of information from databases and records (i.e., desktop
4
monitoring), and systematic field measurements. This draft addresses desktop monitoring
and phase 1 of the field monitoring programme, which is limited to monitoring indigenous
forests and shrublands. A phase II draft will include field monitoring of freshwater wetlands
and will be presented in January 2010. Field monitoring of saline wetland and duneland
ecosystems is intended for subsequent phases of the monitoring programme.
To the extent possible, the field monitoring programme will align with the Department of
Conservations Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS) and the Land Use and
Carbon Analysis Systems (LUCAS) programme for forest monitoring.
The monitoring programme will be conducted using a tiered approach. This allows for
integration, consistency, and compatibility of data collected at different spatial scales, and
addresses different objectives and reporting requirements.
Table showing tiered approach as partitioned by spatial focus, reporting requirements, type of data collection,
and monitoring cycle
Tier
Focus
Reporting
requirements
Data collection
Monitoring
Cycle
I
Regional: (e.g., across the
entire region, and comparisons
between public versus private
lands)
State of the
Environment reporting
and policy
effectiveness
Database and information
analyses (e.g.,
Indigenous landcover)
and field monitoring
(performance and
biodiversity outcome
monitoring)
5 yearly
II
Waitakere Ranges Heritage
Area and Hunua Ranges and
Foothills (reference site)
State of Environment
Reporting and Policy
effectiveness: Regional
Policy Statement (RPS)
and Waitakere Ranges
Heritage Area Act
(WRHAA)
Database and information
analyses and field
monitoring
5 yearly
III
Key Ecological Restoration
Initiatives, (Little Barrier Island;
Motutapu/Rangitoto Islands, Ark
in the Park, Kokako
Management Area, Tawharanui
Regional Park, and Shakespear
Regional Park) (Wetland and
duneland restoration initiatives
yet to be selected)
Management/Restorati
on plans (Performance
and Biodiversity
outcome monitoring)
Predominately field
monitoring
1 - 5 yearly
IV
Additional programmes:
e.g., specific inventory, survey,
and monitoring programmes
e.g., Kauri Dieback; Hochstetter
frog monitoring in the
Waitakere's and Hunua’s
State of Environment
reporting, policy
effectiveness and
performance and
biodiversity outcome
monitoring
Predominately field
monitoring
variable
At the regional level (Tier 1), monitoring in forest and shrublands will involve the
establishment of approx 160 monitoring sites across the Auckland Region, using a
spatially stratified random approach. Additional monitoring sites will be established in the
Waitakere and Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills (Tier II monitoring). Additional
monitoring sites will also be established in Key Ecological Restoration Initiatives (Tier III
5
monitoring). Finally, monitoring will be conducted to address specific questions and issues
(e.g., kauri dieback) (Tier IV). Existing monitoring programmes will be integrated into this
programme where appropriate.
For Tier I and Tier II monitoring, data will be collected on five-yearly cycles beginning in
2009 (i.e., monitoring will be conducted annually but individual sites will be re-monitored
every five years). Monitoring cycles for Tier III and IV will be variable and programmespecific. All monitoring sites at Tiers I, II, and III will be sampled in November and
December (beginning 2009). Monitoring will include the use of standard 20m x 20m
permanent vegetation plots to monitor indigenous vegetation, weeds, and mammalian pest
impacts. Birds will be monitored using ten-minute bird counts with a detection probability
and distance sampling component. Indices of mammalian pests will be monitored using
wax tags (possums) and tracking tunnels (rodents). Data collection at Tier IV will be
programme-specific, and is not currently funded through this programme.
Data management is an essential component of this programme and data will be stored
and managed using EcoBase, an existing inhouse data management system as well as
external databases where appropriate (e.g., National Vegetation System). The Driving
forces – Pressure – State – Impact – Response (DPSIR) model provides a general
framework for organising information about the state of the environment (see below).
Reporting will follow an information pyramid design whereby data at the base level is
integrated and generalized at higher levels of organization. Information pyramids are
increasingly used as a framework for aggregating and simplifying biodiversity information
to meet the needs of resource managers, policy makers, and politicians. This is intended
to generate simple, clear public messages, with results supported by the large amount of
detailed, complex scientific data and information depicted as the lower levels of the
information pyramid.
The ARC ‘State of the Environment’ website will be the organization’s primary conduit for
communication. The website will draw together all information and resources to create a
single, readily accessible application, designed to meet the needs of end-users. Major
elements of the website will include the capacity to tailor information to end-users needs,
access data, and generate status and trend reports.
6
2
Introduction
2.1
Purpose
The purpose of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan is to provide a strategic,
statutory, and methodological framework for monitoring terrestrial biodiversity in the
Auckland Region. Implementation of this programme will govern the type, quality, and
value of biodiversity-related information available for ‘State of the Auckland Region’
reporting and for assessing the effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity
management and policy.
2.2
Context
This plan will sit under ARC’s integrated environmental monitoring strategy, and
alongside a number of other discipline-specific plans (e.g., land, air, freshwater, and
coastal marine) that will collectively comprise an integrated environmental monitoring
plan (in development).
This terrestrial biodiversity monitoring plan will, to the extent possible, align with:
a) The Ministry for the Environments (MfE’s) existing Land Use and Carbon Monitoring
Systems (LUCAS) programme.
a) The Department of Conservation’s National Biodiversity Monitoring System and
Biodiversity Management prioritisation tool, both of which are being developed.
c) Ministry for Agricultures (MAF’s) project prioritisation tool (in development)
Alignment with these programmes will be achieved through integration of objectives,
indicators, and methodology where feasible, coupled with operational collaborations
and partnerships.
2.3
Scope
7
The current scope is limited to inventorying, monitoring, and reporting on a) indigenous
terrestrial biodiversity, b) threats to indigenous terrestrial biodiversity, and c) the effects
of biodiversity management on indigenous terrestrial biodiversity and key threats.
Monitoring will include database and information analyses (e.g., indigenous landcover
extent, legislation and policy, and community group and private landowner input), as
well as field monitoring of ecological integrity.
The programme will focus on indigenous forest ecosystems (which include coastal,
lava, kauri, and mixed podocarp / broadleaf / kauri forest forest, and shrublands),
wetland ecosystems, and duneland ecosystems. Forests and shrublands are the
dominant indigenous terrestrial ecosystem type in the Auckland Region (Table 2).
Freshwater wetlands are critically threatened in the Auckland Region, with less than
4% of the original extent remaining and only 38% protected (Lindsay et al. 2009).
Dunelands are also threatened in the Auckland region with only 15% remaining, of
which 70% are protected (Lindsay et al. in prep). Wetlands and dunelands are a
nationally priority for the protection of biodiversity on private land (MfE, DoC 2007).
Within each of these ecosystems, data will be collected on vascular plants (indigenous
and weed species), birds (indigenous and exotic species), and introduced mammalian
pests.
Although all broad ecosystem types will be monitored using database and information
analyses (desktop monitoring), budget constraints currently preclude field monitoring of
saline wetlands and dunelands, or targeted monitoring of some threatened or rare
terrestrial ecosystem types in the Auckland region (e.g., mainland lava shrublands and
forests). Moreover, despite the fact that invertebrates comprise 90-95% of terrestrial
biodiversity, and are critical to ecosystem functioning, invertebrates will not be
monitored, predominately due to resource constraints. These are notable gaps in the
programme and it is intended to remedy this if additional resources become available.
This draft addresses desktop monitoring and phase 1 of the field monitoring
programme which is limited to monitoring indigenous forests and shrublands. A phase
II draft will include field monitoring of freshwater wetlands and will be presented in
January 2010. Field monitoring of saline wetland and duneland ecosystems is intended
for subsequent phases of the monitoring programme.
.
8
2.4
Statutory Monitoring Requirements
2.4.1
Resource Management Act (1991) and Regional Policy
Statements and Plans
Section 35(2) of the Resource Management Act (RMA 1991) requires regional councils
to:
a.
monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment of its region or
district,
b.
monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of any policy statements and plans
prepared under the RMA,
c.
monitor the exercise of any delegations, and
d.
monitor the exercise of resource consents / compliance.
The RMA requires all regional councils to produce a Regional Policy Statement (RPS)
for their region and then review it every 10 years to promote the purpose of the Act.
The Regional Policy Statement identifies the regionally significant issues around the
management of the regions natural and physical resources and sets out what the key
issues are, what needs to be achieved (objectives) and the way in which the objectives
will be achieved (policies and methods). The various regional and district plans give
effect to the RPS. Auckland’s operative RPS is at the end of its 10 year life span and is
currently under review. Proposed requirements for monitoring biodiversity in the
Auckland Region include:
a.
Regional biodiversity monitoring
The council will continue to develop and maintain regional biodiversity monitoring
programmes including:
i.
b.
the development (in conjunction with regional partners) of a monitoring
programme to inventory and monitor terrestrial and wetland biodiversity,
including the effects of development, the effectiveness of restoration
initiatives and ongoing and new threats including the effects of climate
change;
Local authority monitoring and information gathering
i.
The council will have systems, processes and resources that enable it to
monitor the effects of activities on indigenous biodiversity and of the state
of the region's biodiversity resources, and to ensure that an appropriate
level of scientific understanding is available and maintained to underpin
policy and management initiatives affecting biodiversity.
ii.
Any decisions affecting indigenous biodiversity, including in relation to
activities, shall be made on the basis of accurate and comprehensive
9
information about the biodiversity values likely to be affected, and any
opportunities to remedy or mitigate adverse effects that might arise
Currently, the region is divided into seven territorial authorities, each of which has
monitoring requirements under the RMA (1991), however, the impending aggregation
into a single unitary authority further emphasises the need for a strong regional
monitoring strategy.
2.4.2
Local Government Act (2002) and Long-Term Community
Council Plans (LTCCP)
The Local Government Act (2002) requires local authorities to produce a Long Term
Council Community Plan (LTCCP) that states how the local authority will monitor and
report on the community’s progress towards achieving the community outcomes.
Councils must report annually on the results of any measurement undertaken during
the year of progress towards the achievement of community outcomes (Schedule 10
S.15(c) and report not less than every three years on the progress made by the local
community in achieving community outcomes (S. 92). A deliverable in Auckland’s draft
LTCCP (2009 – 2019) (LTCCP activity 6: Natural Heritage Conservation) includes the
“implementation of a regional ecological monitoring programme”.
2.4.3
Biosecurities Act (1993) and the Regional Pest Management
Strategies
Section 76 of the Biosecurities Act (1993) requires councils to determine the actual or
potential effects, beneficial or detrimental, that implementation of a Regional Pest
Management Strategy (RPMS) may have on the environment. The purpose of the
Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy (ARPMS, 2007 – 2012) is to provide a
strategic and statutory framework for efficient and effective management of plant and
animal pests in the Auckland Region. This includes “determining the presence of pests,
pest agents and unwanted organisms present (outcome monitoring), and the
effectiveness and efficiencies of the RPMS no later than five years after its adoption”.
2.4.4
Other Relevant Statutory and Non-Statutory Documents

Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) (Article 7)

National Biodiversity Strategy 2000 (Theme 9)

Conservation Act (1987)
10

Wildlife Act (1953)

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (2000)

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act (2007)

Reserves Act (1977)

National priorities for protecting rare and threatened biodiversity on private land
(2007)
11
3
3.1
Biodiversity Monitoring: An
Overview
General overview
Biodiversity is a composite term used to embrace the variety of types, forms, spatial
arrangements, processes, and interactions of biological systems at all scales and levels
of organization (Scholes et al. 2008). It is widely accepted that many components of
biodiversity are being lost rapidly at global scales, with significant impacts on the wellbeing of both natural systems and human societies (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005; Soberon and Peterson 2009). Primary causes of the current biodiversity crisis
are the destruction, fragmentation, and deterioration of ecosystems, invasive species,
pollution, overharvesting, and increasingly, climate change (Groom et al. 2006). The
resulting decline in ecological integrity warrants concern (Tilman et al., 1996;
Stachowicz et al., 1999; Diaz et al. 2006). In addition to its intrinsic value, indigenous
biodiversity is essential to the provision of ecosystem services such as climate
regulation, biofiltration of water, erosion control and sediment retention, pollination,
recreation, and resource use (Costanza et al. 1998; McAlpine and Wotton 2009).
Increasingly, land management agencies are developing regional and national
monitoring programmes to more closely inventory, monitor, and report on biodiversity
(McDonald et al. 2002; Manley et al. 2005). Such programmes are deemed essential
for biodiversity management, which depends on understanding the roles, value and
importance of biodiversity, its condition, the pressures on it, changes resulting from
pressures, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy and management
responses (Pimm 1991, Vos et al. 2000; Milton et al. 2007). Monitoring biodiversity can
be viewed as a critical link in the feedback loop, which allows practitioners to effectively
remove, reduce, or remedy threats through biodiversity management (Strain et al.
2002). For example, monitoring may be used to identify disturbance thresholds for
specific ecosystems, the relative degree of threat from various stressors, minimum
viable population size for threatened species, or the levels of pest control required for
ecosystem recovery (Hanski and Ovaskainen 2002; Folke et al. 2004, Lindenmayer et
al. 2008).
12
Monitoring programmes characterise and measure changes in biodiversity through the
systematic collection of ecological information in a standardised manner over time
(Spellerberg 2005). Broadly speaking, approaches to monitoring biodiversity can be
categorised as either targeted- or surveillance-monitoring (Nichols and Williams 2006).
Targeted monitoring is based on a priori hypotheses and predictive models of system
responses to management. It can be used to determine if biodiversity management
initiatives are successful and to evaluate the predicted or expected consequences of
specific measures or activities. On the other hand, surveillance monitoring is frequently
hypothesis-free and general (Yocoz et al. 2001; Nichols and Williams 2006; Nielson et
al. 2009). Surveillance monitoring is intended to serve two primary functions. Firstly, it
provides status and trend information on biodiversity and key stressors. Secondly, it
can serve as an early warning system to detect changes in the environment that may
require remedial action, and identify possible or likely causes of those changes to
indicate the kind of remedial action needed.
Typically, biodiversity monitoring programmes make use of suitable indicators, which
reflect the effect of environmental change on ecosystems and are indicative of the
diversity of a subset of taxa or of the whole diversity within an area (McGeogh et al.
1998). Biodiversity indicators have three key features: (1) they quantify information so
that its significance is more apparent; (2) they simplify information about complex
phenomena, (3) they are a cost effective-alternative to monitoring many individual
processes or species (Wilcove 1993; Manley et al. 2004). Ideally, the indicators used in
a monitoring programme should operate across the spectrum of the ecological
hierarchy, i.e., indicators at the level of species, populations, communities, habitats,
ecosystems and landscapes (Noss 1990). While indicators are considered necessary,
the assumption that the status of a few species and ecosystem parameters can
indicate ecological integrity has been widely challenged (Niemi et al. 1997;
Lindenmayer et al. 2002; Niemi et al. 2004).
Biodiversity indicators employed in this programme have been selected based on the
degree to which they collectively:

maximise the ability to effectively monitor biodiversity and management
objectives and outcomes

are directly relevant to regional policy and management needs and contribute to
environmental reporting obligations and policy at national levels.
13

are regionally and ideally national in scope and where possible and appropriate,
consistent and comparable with global biodiversity indicators
3.2

reflect a fundamental or highly valued aspect of the environment

provide an early warning of potential problems

serve as a scientifically robust indicator of environmental change

are easy to understand and monitor

are cost-effective
Issues and Challenges
From a global standpoint, reviews of monitoring programmes have been critical,
highlighting their lack of well-articulated objectives (Yoccoz et al. 2001), use of very
different monitoring standards, and lack of utility for decision makers (Delbaere 2002;
Watson and Novelly 2004, Lee et al. 2005; Teder et al. 2007; Lindenmayer and Likens
in press). Existing biodiversity monitoring programmes suffer from three main
constraints: incomplete taxonomic and spatial coverage; lack of compatibility between
datasets owing to different collection methodologies; and insufficient integration at
different scales (CBD 1992; Mace et al. 2005; Mace et al. 2007). These constraints
largely reflect the limited availability of financial resources, inadequate use of technical
expertise, the fact that monitoring programmes are driven by multiple objectives and
stakeholders, and difficulties in determining how and what to monitor (Reyers and
McGeoch 2007). Moreover, attributing biodiversity trends to specific threats or
management activities is difficult, in part, because we do not have systems in place to
measure and analyse changes in biodiversity, but also because ecosystems and
biodiversity are inherently complex and key drivers often operate synergistically to
influence change (Sala 2000; Didham et al. 2007; Arujo et al. 2008).
14
4
4.1
A Monitoring Programme for the
Auckland Region
Status Quo
Much of the biodiversity and environmental monitoring in New Zealand has largely
been detached from policy, and initiated and operated without clear or consistent goals
(Kneebone et al. 2000; Allen et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2005; OECD 2007). This principally
reflects poor resourcing and planning, and the near absence of integrated monitoring
systems (Lee et al. 2005). Norton (1996) describes how nearly half of all the
environmental monitoring programmes undertaken in New Zealand went unreported.
Generally speaking, monitoring programmes in New Zealand have provided some
useful information to help address specific management concerns but have not
provided a clear picture of the overall state of biodiversity, i.e., baseline trend data.
Some exceptions include national mapping databases and programmes on birds (Bird
Atlas), vegetation (National Vegetation Survey, and LUCAS), and landcover types
(LCDB).
Issues with terrestrial biodiversity monitoring at national levels are generally similar at
regional scales. While there are a number of terrestrial biodiversity field monitoring
programmes in the Auckland region, e.g., Hochstetter’s frog monitoring in the
Waitakere and Hunua Ranges (ARC Technical Report, in prep); vegetation monitoring
in the Hunua Ranges (Greene 2001), and possum monitoring in the Waitakere and
Hunua Ranges, most existing are limited to providing information on the status and
trends of specific taxa in defined spatial units, and few are designed to assess status or
changes at a regional level (but see Lee et al. in prep). Consequently, while State of
the Environment reports for the Auckland Region 2004 and 2009 (in prep) present a
general decline of the regions biodiversity, this is largely based on subjective
assessment, or extrapolation from site or taxa specific monitoring programmes.
Moreover, where resources are provided for ecological restoration, efforts to monitor
biodiversity outcomes are often inadequate due to a lack of resources or to poor
programme design.
Terrestrial biodiversity monitoring issues may even be exacerbated in small regions.
National monitoring databases and programmes (e.g. LUCAS, Bird Atlas, and LCDB)
15
are designed to provide the statistical power necessary to measure and track
biodiversity indicators at large spatial scales (i.e. across New Zealand, or for broad
ecosystem types such as beech forest of broadleaf/podocarp forest). Thus the
Auckland Region, which comprises only 2% of New Zealand’s land cover, may not
include enough replicates to provide accurate information for State of the Environment
Reporting in the region. For example, of the nearly 1400 plots established for LUCAS,
only 32 plots occur within the Auckland Region. Similarly, some national databases or
programmes are designed to be effective at large scales and accuracy is significantly
reduced at smaller scales. Indeed, comparisons of Landcover Database (LCBD) I and
II were deemed too inaccurate to reliably determine recent changes in indigenous
landcover and ecosystem types across the Auckland Region (Auckland SOE report
2009, in prep). For similar reasons, assessment of changes in Landcover using LCDB I
and II (e.g., Walker et al. 2006) at even national levels is considered problematic
(Brockerhoff et al. 2008).
In the Auckland Region, our ability to assess the effectiveness and efficiencies of
terrestrial biodiversity management objectives is complicated by the fact that we do not
have a regional biodiversity strategy. This strategy would typically provide overarching
terrestrial biodiversity management objectives and intended outcomes, which would
provide a focus for monitoring. At present, biodiversity management objectives and
policies are presented in a variety of policies, plans and strategies (see Table 3). For
example, objectives and policies in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement are
derived from requirements of the Resource Management Act (1991) and subsequent
amendments. While a monitoring programme needs to address these specific
objectives, overarching objectives are necessary to:
a) collectively encapsulate all biodiversity related objectives, intended outcomes, and
policies in the various relevant statutory and non-statutory policies, strategies and
plans
b) plug existing gaps, and improve resilience to statutory or organisational changes
c) provide clarity through simplification and amalgamation
In recognition of this, a biodiversity strategy is currently being developed and the
resulting objectives and outcomes will be integrated into this programme when
available.
16
In conclusion, despite a number of terrestrial biodiversity programmes in the Auckland
Region and inclusion in several relevant national database or monitoring programmes,
we currently lack the capacity to provide accurate information on regional status and
trends, key stressors, and the effects of ecological restoration on regional biodiversity.
Consequently we are generally failing to meet legislative requirements as they pertain
to biodiversity monitoring, and it is unclear to what extent we are meeting a number of
conservation management objectives and policies, as stated in statutory and nonstatutory policies, plans, strategies and acts.
4.2
Monitoring requirements
There is a clear and pressing need for a formalised, systematic, strategic approach
centred around reporting on the State of the Environment and directly addressing the
effectiveness and efficiencies of policies (Stem et al 2005). This can only be achieved
through the development and implementation of standardized and comparable
methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity status, loss, and management using
a suite of accepted indicators and measures (Noss, 1990; UNEP 2004). Such a
programme must ultimately provide a comprehensive, verifiable picture of the region’s
biodiversity, the environment that sustains it, the threats faced, and associated human
interactions and interdependencies can be presented regionally (Reyers and McGeoch
2007). Monitoring should meet national, regional, and local reporting requirements,
provide essential everyday guidance to managers and project leaders, and be readily
accessible to researchers, other organizations, and the general public. To this end, it is
imperative that significant resource is invested in database management and reporting
(Periera and Cooper 2006).
Centralisation of effort would assist in the development of protocols, secure archiving of
information, and facilitate consistent reporting. In the Auckland Region, ARC has a key
leadership role in this process, in partnership with the Department of Conservation
(DOC) and Ministry for the Environment (MfE) who have a leadership role of reporting
at a national level (Lee et al. 2005). Consequently, it is imperative that a regional
monitoring programme is compatible with and integrated into existing or future national
monitoring systems to the degree possible (e.g., the LCDB, DOC’s, NHMS, and Project
prioritisation tool which are under development and MfE’s LUCAS programme, which is
operational). Although the ARC monitoring programme will be developed top-down, it is
essential to use and integrate existing programmes to progress towards a unified,
appropriately scaled, biodiversity monitoring programme (Nicols and Williams 2006;
17
Henry et al. 2008). Moreover, to enhance biodiversity awareness and contribute local
information it will be necessary to involve community groups and landowners to
conduct some site-specific or species specific monitoring. Involvement of the public
also encourages citizen participation in science and thus fosters environmental
understanding (Bell 2008; Schmeller et al. 2009).
4.3
Biodiversity monitoring objectives:

To quantify the state of indigenous terrestrial biodiversity and monitor
changes in pattern and processes through time

To identify key threats to indigenous biodiversity

To assess and improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity
related management and policy development

To contribute to public understanding of issues, status, trends, and
management
4.4

To identify and remedy information gaps

To fulfil statutory monitoring and reporting requirements
Biodiversity monitoring approach (tiers)
The importance of scale in implementation and evaluation of policy actions is
increasingly recognized in environmental management, accordingly, planning and
decision frameworks that attempt to integrate multiple scales are emerging (Kennedy et
al. 2009). To accommodate differences in reporting requirements and scale of interest,
monitoring will be conducted using a tiered or nested approach that extends from
surveillance monitoring across the region to targeted monitoring at key ecological
restoration initiatives, or of specific taxa (Table 1). This will provide the ability to
achieve monitoring objectives at local scales or on specific issues where deemed
necessary, while ensuring full compatibility, complementarily, and integration among
datasets. A tiered approach will permit direct comparisons between and among smaller
18
spatial units and the region as a whole. For example, biodiversity status and trends in
areas subject to intensive biodiversity management can be compared with other
restoration initiatives or with the surrounding district or region (as points of reference). It
also provides opportunities to examine correlative relationships between biodiversity
indicators (e.g., bird abundance and forest structure) (Manly et al. 2004). Monitoring
data could also be used to test the utility of existing or potential indicator species by
validating relationships between candidate indicators and the species or conditions
they are assumed to represent. A tiered approach also creates efficiencies as sites or
taxa can be added when or as needed, with the potential for the existing setup to
contribute to new programmes (Beever 2006). Despite, benefits, the approach taken, is
not optimal for monitoring all components of biodiversity. For example, targeted
monitoring of seasonally mobile, patchily distributed, rare of cryptic species will often
require specific approaches. Tier IV methodology will be specific to requirements, and
include targeted inventories, surveys, and monitoring.
19
Table 1. Regional monitoring programme as structured by tiers in relation to focus, reporting requirements, data collection, and monitoring cycle
Tier
Focus
Reporting requirements
Data collection
Broad indicators
Monitoring
cycle
I
Regional: (e.g., entire region,
comparisons between public
versus private lands; islands
versus mainland)
State of the Environment
Reporting and policy
effectiveness, e.g., National
Biodiversity Strategy (NBS),
Regional Policy Statement (RPS),
and Auckland Regional Pest
Management Strategy (ARPMS)
Database and information
analyses (e.g., Landcover
Database LCDB) and field
monitoring
Legislation and policy, indigenous
landcover, threatened species,
indigenous plants and birds,
weeds, mammalian pests, climate
change and variability, community
input and awareness
5 yearly
II
Waitakere Ranges Heritage
Area: which includes Hunua
Ranges and Foothills (reference
site)
Policy effectiveness: Regional
Policy Statement (RPS) and
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area
Act (WRHAA)
Database and information
analyses (e.g., Landcover
Database LCDB) and field
monitoring
Legislation and policy, indigenous
landcover, threatened species,
indigenous plants and birds,
weeds, mammalian pests
5 yearly
III
Key Ecological Restoration
Initiatives, e.g. Little Barrier
Island; Kokako Management Area
(Hunua Ranges); Tawharanui
Regional Park) (Wetland and
duneland restoration initiatives to
be selected)
Management/Restoration plans
(Performance / Result monitoring
and Biodiversity outcome
monitoring)
Predominately field monitoring
Indigenous landcover* vascular
plants, weeds, mammalian pests,
indigenous birds, invertebrates*,
reptiles*
1 - 5 yearly
IV
Additional programmes: e.g.,
specific inventory, survey, and
monitoring programmes e.g.,
Kauri Dieback; Hochstetter frog
monitoring in the Waitakere's and
Hunua’s
Policy effectiveness and
performance/result monitoring and
biodiversity outcome
Predominately field monitoring
variable (programme specific)
variable
20
5
Selection of Biodiversity Indicators
The monitoring programme requires the development of biodiversity indicators derived
from database and information analyses (e.g., of indigenous landcover extent,
legislation and policy, and community group and private landowner input) as well as
field monitoring of ecological integrity.
5.1
Linking biodiversity monitoring objectives with indicators
The extent to which regional monitoring objectives are achieved will be determined
through the use of appropriate indicators and associated measures (Table 2),
assessment of all individual measures is currently incomplete, but see Table 3 for an
example of the assessment template.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
21
Table 2. Biodiversity monitoring indicators and measures used to address specific monitoring objectives of this programme for respective tiers.
Biodiversity Monitoring Objective
Indicator
Measure
Tier
To quantify the state of indigenous biodiversity and
monitor spatio-temporal trends
1.1 Indigenous Landcover
1.1.1 Indigenous Landcover (in total and by ecosystem type)
I, II, III
1.1.2 Forest landscape metrics (e.g. fragment size, landscape connectivity, distance from fragment edge)
1.2.1 Plant size class structure
1.2.2 Representation of plant functional types
1.2.3 Indigenous vascular plant and bird richness
1.3.1 Occupancy and relative abundance of selected plant and bird species
1.3.2 Number, status, and changes in threatened species
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I,
2.1.1 Change in extent of indigenous landcover
2.1.2 Change in forest landscape metrics
2.1.3 Relationship between landscape metrics and biodiversity indicators (1.2 & 1.3)
2.1.4 Relationship between distance from edge and biodiversity indicators (1.2 & 1.3)
2.1.5 Relationship between landscape matrix and biodiversity indicators (1.2 & 1.3)
2.1.6 Vegetation clearance / wetland drainage consented versus actual
2.2.1 Occurrence of self-maintaining populations of new potential env weeds and animals
2.3.1 Distribution and abundance of exotic weeds and pests considered a threat
2.4.1 Seedling ratios (ungulates)
2.4.2 Occupancy and spatial distribution of disease
2.5.1 Range shifts (longitudinal and elevation) population dynamics
2.5.2 Southern expansion of subtropical exotics
2.6.1 Disease outbreaks
2.7.1 Relationship between hydrology and biodiversity indicators (1.2&1.3)
2.7.2 Relationship between Water quality (Nutrients, pH, cond, DO) and indicators (1.2&1.3}
2.7.3 Relationship between Climate (temperature and rainfall) and biodiversity indicators (1.2&1.3)
I, II, III
I, II, III
I
I
I
I, II,
3.1.1 Vegetation clearance / wetland drainage consented versus actual
3.1.2 Ecological mitigation requirements as condition of consent
3.1.3 Compliance and enforcement (consents and ARPMS)
3.1.4 Amount of regional funding available for community groups and private landowners
3.2.1 Indig landcover under protection (total and by ecosystem type, including rare/threatened ecosystems)
3.2.2 Trends in land acquisitions for protection of biodiversity
3.2.3 Trends in land covenants for protection of biodiversity
3.2.4 No and total area of scheduled ecologically significant resources formally protected in the region
3.3.1 Amount of native revegetation specifically for the purposes of ecological restoration
3.4.1 Area of Indigenous landcover under pest management (including livestock fencing)
3.4.2 Weed and animal pest indices in managed areas
3.4.3 Indigenous ecosystems released from exotic pests
3.5.1 Trends in species translocations for species and ecosystem recovery
3.6.1 No of threatened species under active management
3.6.2 Demographic response of threatened species under active management
3.7.1 No of community groups (participation in conservation)
3.7.2 Threatened species translocations by community groups
3.7.3 Pest management by community groups
3.7.4 Native revegetation by community groups for ecological restoration
3.7.5 Volunteer hours on parks for biodiversity work
3.7.6 No of Maori groups involved in biodiversity management
3.8.1 illegal vegetation clearance and wetland drainage, or threatened species "take"
3.8.2 No of deliberate pest releases
3.9.1 Changes in Biodiversity indicators (1.1, 1.2. &1.3)
3.10.1 Proportion of policies that change due to updated info derived from monitoring programme
I, II
I, II
I, II
I
I, II
I, II
I, II
I, II
4.1.1 % respondents who state that awareness of biodiversity issues and values has increased
4.1.2 Online State of Environment website hits
I, II
I
1.2 Ecosystem composition
1.3 Occupancy of environmental range
To monitor and assess the impacts of key indigenous
biodiversity threats and drivers
2.1 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
2.2 New weed and pest species
2.3 Exotic weed and pest dominance
2.4 Exotic weed and pest impacts
2.5 Climate change
2.6 Ecosystem disruption
2.7 Key environmental drivers
To assess and facilitate improvements in biodiversity
management and policy
3.1 Legislation and Policy
3.2 Indigen landcover under protection
3.3 Native revegetation for biodiversity
3.4 Pest management
3.5 Species translocations
3.6 Threatened species
3.7 Community involvement
3.8 Illegal activities
To contribute to public understanding of issues, status,
trends, and management
3.9 Biodiversity outcomes
3.10 Changes in Policy and manag
4.1 Biodiversity profile
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I
I, II, III
I
I
I
I, II
I, II, III
I
I
I, II
I, II, III
I
I, II
I, II
I, II, III
I, II
I, II, III
4.1.3 Media monitoring
4.1.4 awareness and events
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
I, II, III
22
To identify and remedy gaps in information
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
5.1 Adaptive Research Programmes
5.1.1 No of adaptive research and monitoring programmes implemented
23
I, II, II
Table 3. An example of an assessment table used to justify individual biodiversity indicators
and measures
Indicator 1.1: Indigenous Landcover
A fundamental data layer, and one that is considered of basic importance internationally as without indigenous
vegetation cover neither soil or above-ground indigenous biodiversity can be maintained. Will record extent to which
land in non-indigenous cover is regenerating, and which environments remain below a desirable minimum.
Measure 1.1.1: Land under indigenous vegetation
Description:
Proportion of land surface under various categories of indigenous cover, stratified according to
environment
Explanation:
Monitoring type:
Status and Trend
Report Frequency: 5-yearly
Data sources:
Department of Conservations Protection Strategy GIS shape file (2009) – based on Land Cover
Data Base (LCDB) and further GIS work to correct inaccuracies
Owner and Resp Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment
Data Elements:
1. Total percent indigenous landcover
2. Percent indigenous landcover by ecosystem type
Justification:
Fundamental measure of biodiversity that is used nationally, with existing databases
Limitations:
Some error rates in interpretation of landcover types
Scope:
Regionwide, Public versus Private Land, Islands versus Mainland, Ecological Districts or Large
Spatial Units,
Relevant Monitoring Objectives:
RMA (1991):S35(a) The state of the whole or any part of the environment of its region or district to the extent that is
appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under this Act
S35(b)The efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules, or other methods in its policy statement or its plan
S35(d) compliance with resource consent conditions.
RPS (Draft)
Method 9.3.1a. Develop and maintain a regional biodiversity monitoring programme including:the development of a monitoring
programme to inventory and monitor terrestrial and wetland biodiversity, including the effects of development, the effect of
restoration initiatives and ongoing and new threats
Method 9.3.1b. Systems, processes and resources that enable it to monitor the effects of activities on indigenous biodiversity and
of the SOR's biodiversity resources, and to ensure that an appropriate level of scientific understanding is available to underpin
policy and management initiatives affecting biodiversity.
Method 9.3.1c. Identification of significant native vegetation and fauna habitat
Relevant Biodiversity Management Objectives:
LTCCP
Regional Community Outcome: Auckland's special places are protected and conserved
Regional Community Outcome: The diversity of native species and habitats is protected and restored
Objective 11.2.1: To preserve, protect and enhance biodiversity reosurces important for the long-term maintenance of the
region's indigenous biodiversity and which contribute to its unique character
Objective 11.2.3: To protect the Waitakere Rang from inapprop subdivision, use, and develop, and to promote the protect, rest
and enhancem of the area's heritage features
Policy 11.5.1 Avoidance of loss or degradation of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna
Policy 11.6.5 Biodiversity priorities - Regulatory and non-regulatory preservation, protection and enhancement
ARP:A, L,W
Objective 2.1.3.1: To sustainably manage the quality and diversity of Auckland's natural values
ARP:Coast
Objective 5.3.2: To protect the integrity, functioning, and resilience of ecosystems within the coastal environment
Objective 5.3.3: To protect from inappropriate subdivision, use, and develop and preserve the ecological and physical values and
processes of coastal protect areas
ARP:Parks
Objective 7.3.1: To protect indigenous terrestrial and aquatic habitats, species and ecosystems on parks and enhance their longterm viability and resilience
Objective 7.3.2: The progressive restoration and enhancement of indigenous habitats and ecosystems to support their continued
viability and resilience
NBS (2000)
Objective 1.1 Protecting indigenous habitats and ecosystems
Objective 1.2: Sympathetic management: integrate and use measures in the sustainable management of production lands and
urban environments that are sympathetic to indigenous biodiversity
Objective 1.4: Terrestrial habitat restoration: restore areas of degraded or scarce habitats and ecological processes that are
priorities for indigenous biodiversity
NP (2007)
Priority I: Land areas with only 20 per cent of their original native vegetation cover left
Priority II: Wetlands and sand dunes
WRHAA
8(a) to protect, restore, and enhance the area and its heritage
8c(iii) endeavour to protect the heritage feature
8(d) to recognise and avoid adverse potential, or adverse cumulative, effects of activities on the area's heritage features
8(h) to manage terrestrial ecosystems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values
RPS (Draft)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
24
5.2
Linking monitoring with biodiversity management and
policy
An important objective of this monitoring plan is to assess and improve the
effectiveness and efficiencies of biodiversity-related management and policy.
Consequently, it is imperative that biodiversity management and monitoring objectives
are directly aligned. As previously stated, overarching biodiversity objectives and
outcomes are currently under development via a Biodiversity Strategy for the Auckland
Region, and these will be integrated into this plan when available. In the interim, the full
suite of biodiversity-related objectives in various relevant statutory and non-statutory
documents have been amalgamated and linked to monitoring indicators (Table 3). This
is to ensure that this programme adequately addresses all relevant biodiversity-related
policy and management objectives to the degree possible.
Another initiative that ARC should be mindful of during the development of the
monitoring programme is the ‘Project Prioritisation Protocol’ for biodiversity
management (Joseph et al. 2009).
This protocol is designed to help biodiversity
managers allocate funds to ‘competing’ biodiversity tasks on the basis of species
weighted values, in addition to the likely benefits, and the chances of success, and
cost. This could provide a ready means of linking monitoring data to management
actions.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
25
Table 4. Conservation Management Objectives linked to Biodiversity indicators
Legislation
Conservation Management Objective
Key Indicators
National Biodiversity Strategy
Objective 1.1 Protecting indigenous habitats and ecosystems
1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.7
Objective 1.2: Sympathetic management: integrate and use measures in the sustainable management of production lands and urban environments that are sympathetic to indig biodiversity
2.1, 3.1, 3.2
Objective 1.4: Terrestrial habitat restoration: restore areas of degraded or scarce habitats and ecological processes that are priorities for indigenous biodiversity
3.4, 3.5, 3.9
Objective 1.5: Threatened terrest spp manag: Enhance pop and distrib ranges of indig spp and subspps threat with ext and prevent add spp and communities from becoming threatened
3.6
Theme 8: Community Participation and awareness
3.7
Theme 9: Information knowledge and Capacity
ALL
Priority I: Land areas with only 20 per cent of their original native vegetation cover left
1.1, 2.1
Priority II: Wetlands and sand dunes
1.1, 2.1
Priority III: Ecosystems that have always been limited in extent, such as in geothermal areas, along coasts and on limestone formations
1.1, 2.1
Priority IV: Protection of the habitats of New Zealand's most threatened species.
1.1, 2.1, 1.3, 3.6
Biosecurities Act (1993)
Section 76: A proposal for a RPMS must specify: k)The actual or potential effects, beneficial or detrimental, that the implement of the strategy might have on i) the env
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8
LTCCP
Regional Community Outcome: Auckland's special places are protected and conserved
2.1, 3.2
Regional Community Outcome: The diversity of native species and habitats is protected and restored
ALL
Objective 11.2.1: To preserve, protect and enhance biodiv reosurces important for the long-term mainten of the region's indig biodiver and which contribute to its unique character
ALL
Objective 11.2.2: Climate change resilience*
2.5
Objective 11.2.3: To protect the Waitakere Rang from inapprop subdivision, use, and develop, and to promote the protect, rest and enhancem of the area's heritage features
ALL
Policy 11.5.1 Avoidance of loss or degradation of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna
1.1, 2.1, 1.3, 3.6
Policy 11.5.3 Managing adverse effects on other biodiversity
ALL
Policy 11.6.1 Promotion of biodiversity on public land
4.1
Policy 11.6.2 Integration of indigenous biodiversity with new development
2.1, 3.1, 3.2
Policy 11.6.3 Response to effects of climate change
2.5
Policy 11.6.4 Ecosystem enhancement
3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
Policy 11.6.5 Biodiversity priorities - Regulatory and non-regulatory preservation, protection and enhancement
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10
Regional Plan: Air, Land, Water
Objective 2.1.3.1: To sustainably manage the quality and diversity of Auckland's natural values
ALL
Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal
Objective 5.3.2: To protect the integrity, functioning, and resilience of ecosystems within the coastal environment
ALL
Objective 5.3.3: To protect from inappropriate subdivision, use, and develop and preserve the ecological and physical values and processes of coastal protect areas
2.1, 3.2
Objective 7.3.1: To protect indigenous terrestrial habitats, species and ecosystems on parks and enhance their long-term viability and resilience
ALL
Objective 7.3.2: The progressive restoration and enhancement of indigenous habitats and ecosystems to support their continued viability and resilience
ALL
Objective 1.4 a) Minimise actual and potential adverse and unintended effects associated with the targeted pests
1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.5, 3.9
Objective 1.4 b) Maximise the effect of individual pest management via a regionally co-ordinated approach
1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.5, 3.9
8(a) to protect, restore, and enhance the area and its heritage
ALL
8(b) to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it:
ALL
8(c) (i) carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with any particular course of action
ALL
8c(ii) take into account the best information available
ALL
8c(iii) endeavour to protect the heritage feature
ALL
8(d) to recognise and avoid adverse potential, or adverse cumulative, effects of activities on the area's heritage features
ALL
8(h) to manage terrestrial ecosystems in the area to protect and enhance indigenous habitat values
ALL
National Priorities
Regional Policy Statement
Regional Parks Management
Plan
Regional Pest Management
Strategy
Waitakere Ranges Heritage
Area Act
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
26
6
Field Methodology
6.1
Study area
6.1.1
Auckland Region
6.1.1.1 Physical description
The Auckland Region is bounded by the Waikato Region in the south and Northland in
the north with a total land area of ca 5,000 km² (Figure 1). The region has a diverse
range of lowland landforms types including extensive estuarine areas, coastal
promontories, isthmuses, consolidated sands, uplifted and dissected hill country, volcanic
hills, lowland hills and islands. The overriding characteristic of the region is its coastal
setting and strong maritime influence.
It encompasses an area of land that is very
narrow with a very short distance between the west and the east coast and with deeply
indented harbours, and over 50 offshore islands. Catchments are therefore small and
there are few large lakes. However a feature of the original Auckland isthmus was an
abundance of swamps and small lakes formed by the blockage of drainage patterns by
lava flows from volcanic activity, most of which have now been drained. Lakes and
swamps were also formed by shifting coastal sands and dune formation processes and
there were extensive areas of tidal mudflats in estuaries (Myers 2005).
6.1.1.2 Ecological characteristics
Pre-human land cover in the region is estimated to have been 93% forest (largely
podocarp-broadleaf forest with localised kauri and coastal broadleaf), and the balance in
open water, wetlands, dunelands, and shrublands. However, natural ecosystems of the
region have been highly modified by human settlement through large scale clearance of
forest and scrub, residential and road development, reclamation of bays, draining of
wetlands, culverting of streams, quarrying of volcanic cones, and the introduction of alien
plants (Lindsay et al. 2009, Table 5).
The most extensive remaining native vegetation consists of modified forest (Tyrell et al
1999). In total, 27% of indigenous landcover remains in the Auckland Region, with some
ecosystems now below 10% of their original extent (Table 5), e.g., kauri forests (9%),
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
27
wetlands (4%), coastal forests (3%), and mainland lava forests (0.5%) (Lindsay et al.
2009). Many of these threatened ecosystems are on private land. Moreover, the region
has 326 plants (43% of the total regional flora) classified as nationally or regionally
threatened, including 35 now considered regionally extinct, and seven that are only found
in the region. The region also harbours 20% (49) of New Zealand’s threatened vertebrate
fauna.
6.1.1.3 Indigenous landcover protection
According to the draft 2009 SOE report, almost 17% of the land in the Auckland region is
secured as public open space. The Department of Conservation administers about
36,400 hectares of public conservation land within the Auckland Conservancy, with twothirds of this land on offshore islands (DOC 1995). The ARC manages approximately
40,000 hectares as Regional Parks (ARC 2008), of which 65% is under indigenous
vegetation. Another 2,795 ha hectares of forest and wetlands are legally protected under
Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenants. Covenants issued by some district councils
also exist (e.g., Franklin and Rodney District covenants). However, compliance and
enforcement may be poor and these covenants are not necessarily safe from
development pressures.
Table 5. Amount and proportion of broad terrestrial ecosystem types remaining and protected in the Auckland
Region
Vegetation Class
Remaining
ha
%
remaining
Protected
ha
%
protected
Forest ecosystems combined
66,191
18
38,216
57
Coastal forest
3,160
3
1,356
42
Kauri forest
6,972
9
5,119
73
Lava forest
29
0.5
5
17
Podocparp/ Broadleaf / Kauri
56,030
20
31,736
56
Shrublands
54,096
N/A
20,201
37
Freshwater wetland and wetland forest
3,731
4
1,427
38
Dune vegetation
2,577
15
1,806
70
Brackish estuarine
14,093
N/A
2,289
16
Unclassified
6,362
N/A
732
11
Total
132,957
24
66,476
49
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
28
6.1.2
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA)
The WRHA (27,000 ha) includes the Waitakere Ranges (much of which is Auckland
Regional Council Parkland ca 15,000 ha), settlements such as Piha, Bethells, and
Karekare and parts of the eastern foothills including Oratia, Henderson Valley and
Swanson. The area ranges in altitude from sea-level to 474m. In pre-European times
the vegetation of the Waitakere Ranges was dense podocarp-broadleaf forest with kauri
forest on the eastern slopes and ridges. Mäori occupation and thus modification of the
vegetation was primarily around coastal sites, with the interior of the district being
virtually untouched until the arrival of Europeans. Since then, timber milling, flaxmilling,
gumdigging, mineral extraction, quarrying and farming has resulted in modification of
these forest systems. Another activity which altered the district was the damming of
catchments for Auckland’s water supply. Initially this meant large scale clearance for
reservoir and dam sites. However, the subsequent closing of water supply catchments
to development has protected large areas of the ranges.
The WRHA contains a high diversity of vegetation and wildlife in one of the two largest
blocks of continuous vegetation in the Auckland region and includes internationally
important wading bird habitats. The Protected Natural Areas Programme (PNAP) report
describes eight broad and 43 subgroups of vegetation classes, including kauri forest,
podocarp broadleaf forest, bluff and coastal edge vegetation and freshwater wetlands.
Most of the natural ecosystems present are in the Waitakere Ranges, which has
extensive contiguous areas of regenerating forest.
6.1.3
Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills
The Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills (32,000 ha) lie approximately 40 km southeast of Auckland and range in altitude from sea level to 688m. (Figure 1). Pre-human
vegetation cover consisted of tawa-podocarp and kauri-hard beech and northern ratarimu-taraire, kauri-broadleaf and coastal forests on lowland and coastal hills. Most of
the vegetation was unmodified prior to European arrival with Maori settlement and
influence being confined to the fringes of the hill country and on the coastal flats.
Considerable areas of the forest were felled or burned before 1930, but since then this
has regenerated into seral forest communities.
The ranges consist of over 20,000ha of native forest, predominately tawa-podocarp,
with kauri-hard beech at lower elevations. Above 600m there is also an area of
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
29
submontane forest which is unique in the district. It is dominated by hutu in the canopy
with tawheowheo, heketara and lancewood. Elsewhere in the area the remaining native
vegetation mostly consists of very small remnants (less than 10ha). However, there are
a few substantial blocks of forest remaining. Few freshwater wetlands remain and saline
wetlands are more extensive than freshwater wetlands. Coastal ecosystems are diverse
but also highly fragmented, there is no intact sequence of vegetation from coastal saline
vegetation through coastal forests to inland forests.
6.1.4
Key Ecological Restoration Initiatives (Forest and shrubland
only)
6.1.4.1 Little Barrier Island
Little Barrier Island is 2,817ha, and lies 22km east from Cape Rodney and 17km west
from Great Barrier Island. Little Barrier is volcanic in origin rising to 722m, the highest
point in the Auckland Region. By 1894 one third of the island's forest had been logged
or destroyed by fire (Hamilton 1961). Nevertheless, the island contains the largest
remaining area of relatively unmodified northern New Zealand forest. Most of the island
has never been logged or browsed, however the presence of kiore (Polynesian rat) for
several hundred years will have altered the abundance of some species (Campbell &
Atkinson, 1999). The island has a diverse range of plant species and forest types,
determined predominately by altitude. Forest types include pohutukawa, kanuka
shrubland, kauri, kauri-hard beech, beech, rata-tawa, tawhero-tawa, and QuintiniaIxerba-southern rata cloud forest, which is found along the summit ridge of the island.
Eradication of kiore was confirmed in 2005, and the island is now free of all mammalian
pests.
6.1.4.2 Rangitoto/Motutapu
Rangitoto Island (2,300 ha) lies 8 km north-east of Auckland, in the Hauraki Gulf (Fig.
1), and rises from sea level to 259m asl. Vegetation types range from coastal
pohutukawa forest through areas of open scoria with vegetation islands dominated by
pohutukawa, to low summit scrub forest, consisting mainly of mapou, rewarewa,
manuka and kanuka. The recent basaltic volcanic cone of the island, formed c. 650
years ago, supports unusual native plant communities with a high level of endemism
(Miller et al. 1994). A full list of the vegetation is given in Segedin (1985). The ecological
significance of Rangitoto is reflected in its status as a separate Ecological District by
DOC (1993).
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
30
Motutapu Island (1,550ha) is an older landform and is joined to Rangitoto by a narrow
isthmus, and rises to 121m. Motutapu was home to and Maori for many generations,
until the Rangitoto eruption. During the 1840s the first European settlers began farming
on Motutapu and converted large areas into pasture. Some small remnants of native
vegetation remain and include species such as Karaka, Taraire, Kohekohe and Flax. An
ongoing revegetation and weed programme, the eradication of both possums and
wallabies in the 1990’s, and the recent eradication attempt of remaining mammalian
pests (completed in August 2009) have contributed to the ecological recovery of the
island.
6.1.4.3 Tawharanui Regional Park
Tawharanui Regional Park (588 ha) is situated at the end of the Tawharanui Peninsula
about 60km North of Auckland City. The 588-hectare park is New Zealand's first
integrated open sanctuary (mainland island) where farming, public recreation and
conservation of native species combine The area was extensively milled for kauri in the
19th century, then cleared for manuka firewood. Tawharanui Regional Park is now
predominantly grazed pasture with patches of mature coastal forest now occurring in the
more isolated gullies of the park. Over time, the wetlands that once covering the entire
Takatu flats have been drained. The pohutukawa forest is one of the best examples on
coastal cliffs in the Rodney Ecological District (Mitchell et al 1992).Two forest patches in
the gullies on the western boundary of the park form part of a larger coastal forest
present on the adjacent property. Wetland restoration is currently being undertaken, with
reinstatement of waterlevels and planting wetland species including flax. In 2004, a
pest-proof fence was constructed and all mammalian pests (with the exception of mice,
rabbits, and hedgehogs) were eradicated. This combined with revegetation and weed
control, and species reintroductions have contributed to the Parks ecological recovery.
6.1.4.4 Shakespear Regional Park
Shakespear Regional Park (~ 375 ha) is situated on end of the Whangaparoa
Peninsula, north of Auckland City, New Zealand. The park is administered by the
Auckland Regional Council. Early maps indicate that, in the 1860s, most of Shakespear
Regional Park was covered in thick manuka (particularly on the eastern tip) and fern
(particularly on the sheltered southern side). Coastal forest probably covered the central
portion of the park (Beever 1981). From 1942 – 1977, the wetland areas behind
Okoromai Bay, Te Haruhi Bay and the campground site were drained. During this period
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
31
of post World War II farm development, shrubland was cleared. Only on the Ministry of
Defence land at the tip of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula was shrubland retained, where
it has, in places, developed into “mature” forest.
A mosaic of vegetation types now exists within the park, including open grasslands,
coastal duneland, raupo (Typha orientalis) wetlands, native regenerating scrub, and
remnant coastal broadleaf forests. The adjacent Ministry of Defence land is covered
mainly with regenerating native scrub, with an area of remnant forest near to the park’s
northern boundary on the eastern coastal perimeter. Farming operations still occur, at
least in part to maintain open space for public recreation and scenic views.
Conservation in the park had already begun in the mid 1980’s, when stream catchments
and valleys were retired from grazing and native re-vegetation operations were
underway. Regular pest control has allowed many native species to persist and recolonise the park. In 2006, the Auckland Regional Council accepted the notion that a
predator-proof fence could be erected to enclose end of the peninsula and create a pest
free environment for native plants and wildlife. The fence would enclose about 550
hectares of land, including the Shakespear Regional Park, the adjacent Naval Defence
Force land, and the sewage treatment plant (land owned by the Rodney District
Council). Construction of the fence and eradication of mammalian pests inside the fence
is scheduled for Winter 2011.
6.1.4.5 Ark in the Park (Waitakere Ranges)
The Ark in the Park (currently 1,100 ha) occurs within the Waitakere Ranges Regional
Park, which is managed by the Auckland Regional council. The area includes original
forest cover and a mosaic of regenerating forest types with a range of ecosystems.
These include modified podocarp/broadleaf forest on dissected hill country and 150 ha
of original mature kauri forest. Podocarp/broadleaf forest dominates the catchment, but
other areas of ponga-broadleaf forest, kanuka forest and young kauri forest exist.
The Ark in the Park project aims to restore functioning native ecosystems through pest
control and reintroduction of animals and plants lost from the Waitakere Ranges.
Volunteers controlled rodents, possums, and mustelids (stoats, weasels and ferrets). In
2004, the area of pest control was expanded from 250 ha to cover 1100 ha of the
Waitakere River catchment, downstream of the Waitakere Reservoir. Predator control
has now rapidly expanded to include a buffer zone of approximately 2,000 ha of
neighbouring properties in the lower Waitakere Valley surrounding the project area, of
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
32
which 50 percent has effective predator control for mustelids and a lesser proportion
with rodent control. There are also a considerable number of predator-control projects
and other restoration work which has been and continues to be carried out in the
Waitakere Ranges area by various stakeholders (predominately the Forest and Bird
Society). The continued pest control and reintroduction of threatened birds has
improved the ecological integrity of the area and immediate surrounds.
6.1.4.6 Kokako Management Area (Hunua Ranges)
The Kokako Management Area (KMA) is an 850 ha area within the Hunua Ranges where
intensive mammalian pest control was initiated in 1994 to protect the relict population of
kokako (Gatland 2006). The forest canopy is dominated by mature tawa but includes
northern rata (Metrosideros robusta), rewarewa (Knightia excelsa), and rimu (Dacrydium
cupressinum), with abundant tawheowheo (Quintinia serrata) at higher altitudes. Some
small areas of regenerating forest exist at the periphery. The KMA varies from 400 – 688
m asl. Pest control is aimed at controlling mammalian predators, particularly rats,
possums, and stoats to extremely low levels. The programme closely follows
management protocols
and operational goals
outlined in the Department of
Conservation’s Kokako Recovery Plan (Innes & Flux 1999). In addition, feral goats
(Capra hircus) and feral pigs (Sus scrofa) have been controlled by shooting (there are no
deer present).
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
33
Figure 1. Map of Auckland Region including metropolitan areas and regional parks. Note that
this map will be replaced with one that depicts location of WRHA, Hunua Ranges and
surrounding foothills, and the 6 KERI’s.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
34
6.2
Forest and shrubland field monitoring programme
(Phase 1)
6.2.1
Site selection
6.2.1.1 Tier 1: Regional monitoring
Approximately 160 indigenous forest and shrubland sites will be selected across the
Auckland Region using a spatially stratified randomised approach (Figure 2, also for an
example of a selected site see Figure 6). To this end, the region (5,000km 2) will be
subdivided into 16km2 grids (4km x 4km), with every second grid selected as a potential
monitoring grid. The grid network will integrate directly with the National LUCAS
programme (MfE), so that all 20 existing LUCAS plots in the region are positioned on or
close to the centroid of relevant grids. Where a grid contains an existing non-LUCAS
20m x 20m vegetation plot, this will become the designated monitoring site for that grid.
If there are more than one established 20m x 20m plot in a grid then the plot that is
closest to the centroid will be selected for monitoring.
For selected monitoring grids that do not have established 20m x 20m vegetation plots
present, monitoring sites will be positioned at the centroid when located within a forest
or shrubland polygon. These polygons will be derived from DOC’s indigenous landcover
shapefile for the Auckland Region (Lindsay et al. 2009)1. Where centroids are positioned
in non-forest / shrubland habitat, sites will be randomly established in the nearest forest
or shrubland polygon (> 1 ha) within that grid. Sites that are more than 500m from the
nearest walking track or road will be randomly repositioned to reduce travel time to sites
and adhere to safety protocol (see Health and Safety section). Exceptions to this rule
include LUCAS plots, and monitoring sites on Little Barrier and Rangitoto/Motutapu
Islands.
For grids that do not include existing 20m x 20m vegetation plots, centroids currently
positioned on other terrestrial habitat types will be re-examined every 5 years, and will
be activated in instances where sites are reverting back to forest. The non-centroid site
within that grid will be discontinued. This best ensures that the programme provides a
representative assessment of forest and shrubland habitats across the Auckland region,
and that biodiversity trends over time do not simply reflect successional changes at
initially selected monitoring sites.
All sites will be truthed using recent aerial photographs to ensure potential monitoring
sites occur within forest / shrubland habitat, and that sites are accessible and satisfy
safety requirements. As a number of monitoring sites will occur on private land, it is
expected that permission to monitor some sites will not be granted (Marshall et al. in
1
This shapefile was developed by indentifying the extent of areas remaining in native vegetation. Land Cover Database 2 was used for
initial identification and then further refined against high resolution aerial photography. Broad vegetation classes were then defined to
provide a consistent Conservancy wide vegetation classification. These classes were then assigned to the areas based on vegetation data
from a number of sources. The data mostly came from PNAP studies but also from reports and council information.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
35
prep). In such cases, sites will be re-randomised to the nearest forest or shrubland
polygon (> 1 ha) within the relevant grid (if available). Moreover, so that we can assess
the relationship between biodiversity indicators and forest metrics, additional monitoring
sites will be added, if replication within any of the metric categories below is deemed
inadequate. In the absence of post-hoc statistical power analyses this will be based on a
subjective assessment. Forest metric categories are derived from relevant literature and
include:

The size of the forest fragment in which a monitoring site occurs (Ewers and
Didham, 2007)


1 - 10 ha,

10 – 100 ha,

100 – 1000 ha,

> 1,000 ha
Percentage indigenous forest and shrubland landcover within a 1km radius
(3.14 km²) (Threatened Environments Classification, Walker et al. 2007 and National
Priorities for protection of biodiversity on private land, DOC and MFE, 2007)



<10% (Category 1, Walker et al. 2007, National Priority 1, MfE and DOC, 2007)

10 – 20% (Category 2, Walker et al. 2007, National Priority 1. MfE and DOC, 2007)

20 – 30% (Category 3, Walker et al. 2007)

> 30% (Category 4, Walker et al. 2007)
Dominant landscape within a 1km radius (3.14 km²)

Agricultural

Exotic forest

Urban/periurban

Indigenous
Distance from edge

<100m (edge effects expected for vegetation (Young and Mitchell 1994; Murcia 1995;
Davis- Colley et al. 2000; Denyer 2000; Norton 2002) and mammalian pests (Norton
2002)

100m - 1000m (edge effects known to occur for vegetation (Murcia 1995), and
arthropods (Ewers 2004)

>1000m (edge effects not expected)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
36
Figure 2. Map depicting grid layout and position of Tier I monitoring sites across the Auckland
region (to be completed). Note that a number of selected grids do not have established
monitoring sites because these do not contain forest or shrubland polygon > 1ha
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
37
6.2.1.2 Tier II: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA) and Hunua Ranges and surrounding
foothills
Approximately 40 additional monitoring sites will be added to the 8 Tier 1 monitoring
sites in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA, ca 270km², Figure 3), which
includes the Waitakere Ranges and surrounding foothills and coastline. Approximately
40 additional monitoring sites will also be added to the 10 Tier I sites established in the
Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills and coastline (ca 320 km², Figure 4).
Monitoring sites will be selected using a similar approach to Tier I except that Tier II
monitoring sites will be selected from 4km² grids, which are nested inside the Tier I grid
network.
6.2.1.3 Tier III: Key Ecological Restoration Initiatives (KERI’s)
The KERI’s include: Ark in the Park (Waitakere Ranges, (Figure 3), Kokako
Management Area (KMA), Hunua Ranges, Figure 4), Rangitoto / Motutapu Islands
(Figure 5), Little Barrier Island (map not yet available), Shakespear Regional Park (Map
not yet available), and Tawharanui Park (map not yet available). In each of these
KERI’s, 20 – 30 monitoring sites will be established, using the same process as site
selection at Tier I and II levels, though grid sizes will relate to the size of the site, or
accessible areas within a site (Little Barrier Island). Grid sizes within the KMA, Ark in the
Park, Shakespear Regional Park, Tawharanui Regional Park, and Little Barrier will be
0.25km² (500m x 500m), whereas grid size at Rangitoto/Motutapu will be 1km² (1km x
1km). No sites will be positioned < 200m apart, which is the minimum recommended
distance for bird monitoring sites (Spurr and Powlesland 2000).
6.2.1.4 Tier IV: Specific programmes
Tier IV includes research and monitoring of specific sites, species or species
assemblages. Tier IV will encompass a number of existing monitoring programmes
across the region (Appendix X, to be developed), and will also include new programmes
where adaptive research and monitoring needs arise. Examples include surveillance
monitoring of Kauri Dieback distribution and dynamics, monitoring the impacts of climate
change. The only Tier IV monitoring and research that is currently funded by this
programme is the targeted monitoring of submontane vegetation on Little Barrier Island
and in the Hunua Ranges. Five monitoring sites will be selected in each of these areas
to improve our ability to examine potential changes in forest/ shrubland biodiversity
across the entire regional elevation gradient.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
38
Figure 3. Map depicting grid layout position of Tier II and III monitoring sites (Ark in the Park)
across the Waitakere Ranges (to be desktop truthed)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
39
Figure 4. Map depicting grid layout position of Tier II and III monitoring sites (Kokako Management
Area) across the Hunua Ranges and surrounding foothills (to be desktop truthed)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
40
Figure 5. Map depicting position of Tier I and III monitoring sites on Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands
(map is incomplete)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
41
Figure 6. Example of a selected forest monitoring site (Site CJ39d)
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
42
6.2.2
Data collection
6.2.2.1 Sampling frequency and timing
For regional monitoring (Tier I), and monitoring of the WRHA and the Hunua Ranges
and surrounding foothills (Tier II), data will be collected on five-yearly cycles beginning
in 2009, to coincide with the State of the Environment reporting cycle. Specifically, sites
will be re-monitored every 5 years, on a rolling basis, for example, a monitoring site
sampled during year 2 (2010) will be sampled again in year 7 (2015). Monitoring of Key
Ecological Restoration Initiatives (Tier III) will also be conducted on five-yearly cycle,
with the exception of Tawharanui and Shakespear Regional Park (see below).
Ideally, monitoring sites should be numbered and sequentially assigned a sampling year
(1 – 5) to minimise any inter-annual bias in data collection. However, the process to
seek permission from private landowners has not yet been initiated due to time
constraints. Hence, we are restricted to sampling only public sites during the first year.
To minimise any potential bias related to land-tenure, only private land will be sampled
next year (2010), and then a proportional mix of public and private land will be sampled
in the last 3 years of the first cycle (2011 – 2013). Further, for remote locations such as
Little Barrier and Great Barrier Island, it is not feasible to sequentially assign monitoring
stations among the eight field teams within a given year. However, different field teams
will be used to sample such sites inter-annually to minimize observer bias.
In each year, monitoring sites will be sampled in November or December with the order
of sampling maintained among 5-yearly cycles to minimise inter-cycle bias. Collection of
field data during these months is considered suitable (though not necessarily optimal)
for monitoring vegetation, birds, and mammalian pests (Spurr and Powlesland 2000).
Unlike other Tier III sites, monitoring of Tawharanui and Shakespear Regional Parks,
will initially be conducted annually (2010), then again in (2012), and then on a five yearly
cycle from 2014 onward. Installation of a mammalian pest-proof fence and the
attempted eradication of mammalian pests will be completed on Shakespear Regional
Park in mid 2011, so it is necessary to conduct annual monitoring to establish “baseline”
(pre-restoration) biodiversity status, and to monitor again two years later to capture initial
and short-term changes. Monitoring will eventually switch to 5-yearly cycles inline with
other programmes. Ecological restoration of Tawharanui has been underway since 2004
but will be monitored using the latter approach because it serves as a reference site for
Shakespear.
Sampling frequency and timing of special programmes monitoring (Tier IV) will be varied
and programme-specific, though it is expected that most programmes will run on a fiveyearly cycle to coincide with State of the Environmental reporting requirements.
6.2.2.2 Field data collection
Indigenous vascular plants and weeds, indigenous and exotic birds, and mammalian
pests will be monitored at selected sites (Figure 7). Vegetation (indigenous vascular
plants and weeds) will be monitored using standard 20m x 20m vegetation plots (Hurst
and Allen 2007a-d). Bird monitoring will be conducted using Ten minute bird counts
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
43
(10MBC’s), with a detection probability and distance sampling component (McCloud
pers comm). Monitoring of ungulate pest impacts on vegetation will be conducted in the
0.75m² (n = 24) seedling plots that are nested within the 20m x 20m vegetation plots,
using seedling ratios (Sweetapple 2004). Monitoring of possum indices will be done
using wax tags (NPCA, 2008), and rodent indices will be determined using tracking
tunnels (Gillies and Williams, 2002) (Figure 7). Monitoring of mammalian pests will not
be conducted on Little Barrier or Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands, which are declared or
likely to be free of mammalian pests. Data collected from each monitoring site will
treated as a single replicate only and will not be used to draw inferences about changes
to each site through time. Methodological details and justification are presented in Table
6 – 8.
Monitoring site centre point and bird monitoring station
20m x 20m Vegetation Plot (vascular plants, weeds, and ungulates)
Tracking tunnels* (5 x 50m apart) (rodents)
Wax tags* (20 x 10m apart) (possums)
Forest fragment
Figure 7. Diagramatic representation of monitoring site setup for Tier I, II, and III monitoring
stations. *Wax tags and tracking tunnels will not be deployed on Little Barrier and
Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands, and wax tags and tracking tunnels will be offset by 5 metres. #
Vegetation plot corner will be 10m from monitoring site centre point/bird monitoring station.
Field data collection methodology will be consistent or compatible with DOC’s proposed
national inventory and monitoring programme to the extent possible. However, we have
yet to see the draft monitoring plan, so our understanding is based on verbal
conversations with contributors, and may be subject to error or may have changed. In
general, methods developed for the DOC monitoring programme, appear
comprehensive and technically sound. However, while a number of methods have been
adopted in this programme others have not due to financial limitations associated with
implementation (Table 6 – 8).
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
44
Table 6. Vegetation monitoring methodology, comparisons with DOC programme and justification for deviations from DOC programme
Specifics
Method
Compatability
with DOC
Comparison between ARC and DOC approach
Justification for methodological differences between DOC
and ARC programme
Indigenous
vascular
plants
20m x 20m Vegetation plots (Hurst and Allen 2007,a-d).
Yes, but ARC is
considering
streamlining
data collection.
We will aim to
collect all data,
but need the
option of
dropping lower
priority
measures if the
plot is taking too
long (please see
Section 8.5, field
monitoring
logistics). We
simply don’t
have the option
of coming back
on a 3rd day to
finish off. To this
end. I have
proposed some
options in the
adjacent column.
Vegetation structure and composition as
described in height tiers using cover-classes will
not be measured?
This information is time consuming, complex, and it is difficult
to accurately measure height tiers and percentage cover in
each height tier. For the purposes of assessing gaps in tier
structure, it is also partially redundant with species specific dbh
frequency distribution measures
Trees will not be individually tagged for
identification?
Measuring individual tree growth is a relatively low priority and
it is time consuming. While it is useful for auditing purposes
and assessing the proportion of plant ID, and DBH errors, we
will largely compensate for this by using an independent
professional botanist that will audit 10% of sites immediately
after they are sampled. Further, vegetation will be chalked to
avoid missed measurements or double measurements.
Woody species < 15cm tall will not be identified?
Very small seedlings can be very difficult to identify and add
considerable time and expenditure to the project, particularly
when general ecologists rather than botanists are conducting
fieldwork.
Non-vascular indigenous plants, epiphytes, or
lianes that are not grounded in the plot will not be
measured?
Only epiphyte and liane species that are grounded in the plot
will be recorded to reduce difficulty (and consequently degree
of error) identifying species in the canopy
?
?
Monitoring of forest weeds is of particular importance so
recording the presence of weeds that occur outside vegetation
plot is warranted.
Weeds
Survellience of select species (Appendix 1) to and from site, and
composition and abundance of weeds in 20m x 20m vegetation
plots (Hurst and Allen 2007a-d). For non-woody species presence
within each 5m x 5m subplot (n = 16) will serve as a surrogate for
relative abundance. Monitored weeds are selected based on
degree of ecological threat, abundance (ability to detect change),
and habitat type
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
45
Table 7. Bird Monitoring methodology, comparisons with DOC programme, and justification for deviations from DOC programme
Specifics
Method
Compatibility
with DOC
Comparison between ARC and DOC approach
Justification
Indigenous
and exotic
birds
For indigenous and introduced birds, species richness, and
occupancy and relative abundance will be estimated using a 10minute bird count (10MBC) (Catriona MacLeod, pers. comm). This
method is a modified version of the 5-minute bird count (Dawson
and Bull, 1975), but will incorporate a repeated sampling design
and distance sampling procedure to allow for more accurate
estimates of species richness, occupancy and abundance. A
10MBCs will be established at the centre of the monitoring station,
and will be conducted at 10am and again at 12pm. Each count
station will be sampled by the same observer. During the first fiveminutes of the 10MBC, the observer will record within each 1minute period: species identity, the number of individuals, the cue
(auditory/visual) observed, bird behaviour, and distance from the
count station to each bird (recorded in fixed distance intervals).
This detailed information will be used to calculate estimates of
species abundance. For the second five-minutes, the observer will
record any additional bird species observed (seen or heard) within
each minute. Estimates of species richness and occupancy derive
from repeated sampling.
Partial, ARC will
monitor at a
single monitoring
station twice
(10am and
12pm)
ARC will monitor birds in Nov/Dec at the same
time as vegetation monitoring, rather than in
Sep/Oct
Monitoring in Sep/Oct will significantly increase costs and is
not compatible with existing regional and national bird
monitoring programmes, which are predominately done in
Nov/Dec (Lovegrove in prep, OSNZ),
ARC will monitor at a single station, rather than
at multiple stations (within site-replication)
Within-site replication will add to time and cost, and is not
considered essential given among-site replication (to be
determined using post-hoc power analyses).
ARC will monitor at 10am and again at 12pm,
rather than between dawn and 1pm
Monitoring at dawn requires overnight stays on-site and will
reduce the proportion of private landowners willing to allow site
access to field teams, and significantly increase logistical
issues and cost.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
46
Table 8. Pest monitoring methodology, comparisons with DOC programme, and justification for deviations from DOC programme.
Specifics
Method
Compatibility
with DOC
Comparison between ARC and DOC approach
Justification
Ungulate
impacts
(excluding
pigs)
To monitor the impacts of ungulates, specifically deer (Cervus
spp), goats (Capra aegagrus), or domestic livestock on forest
understory condition, we will use the seedling ratio index
(Sweetapple and Nugent, 2004) based on data collected from 20m
x 20m vegetation seedling plots (n = 24). This index compares
species richness of tall seedlings (30–200 cm) with that of short
seedlings (<30 cm) for groups of species in different ruminantfeeding-preference classes (high, moderate, low), as a way of
indexing the extent to which growth of seedlings is being retarded
by mammalian browsers
presence/absence of pig rooting or faeces within each 5m x 5m (n
= 16) subplot will be used as an indices measure of pig
impact/abundance.
?
?
Is a simple and tested method with which to monitor forest
understory condition and the impacts of ungulates (goats, deer,
cattle, and sheep). These seedling ratio's are adapted from the
"susceptibilty rating" method of Wardle et al. (1971), and have
been shown to provide a provide a useful and cost-effective
index of introduced goat impacts on indigenous forest
understories in New Zealand (Sweetapple and Burns 2002)
?
?
An indices measure of pig rooting or faeces are considered the
simplest method with which to monitor the impacts of pigs
(Hone 2002, 2006).
Rodent
Indices
To obtain an indices measure (0 – 5) of rodent composition and
abundance at each site, we will establish a 200m line of 5 tracking
tunnels spaced 50m apart on a random bearing from the centre
point of the monitoring site.
?
?
Possum
Indices
To obtain an indices measure (0 – 20) of possum abundance, A
standard line of 20 wax tags spaced 10m apart will be placed
along the same line but offset by 5m (i.e., the first Wax tag will be
placed at 5m and the last at 205m).
No
DOC will monitor possum abundance using
standard Residual Trap Catch Indices (leghold
traps) (ref)
Pig
Impacts
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
47
Will add significantly to the time and cost of monitoring each
site. Possum monitoring using wax tags is a standard
technique (NPCA, 2008) is more effective at monitoring
possums at lower densities, is safer for non-target species, and
has been calibrated against RTCI’s (Thomas et al. 2004).Only
qualified contractors can undertake this method.
6.3
Freshwater wetland monitoring programme (in development)
Scheduled to be completed by December 2009 and implemented from February 2010
6.4
Saline wetland monitoring programme (to be developed)
6.5
Duneland monitoring programme (to be developed)
6.6
Data analyses (incomplete)
6.6.1
Statistical power
Statistical power is the probability of detecting a change given that a change has truly occurred.
Prospective power analyses have become standard practice when determining how to allocate
monitoring effort, yet most published reports describe how to optimize effort for single species
(Taylor and Gerrodette 1993) or a single taxon (Manley et al. 2004, 2005); Roy et al. 2007).
However, monitoring effort cannot be optimized for all species simultaneously. Consequently,
the first year of the monitoring programme can be viewed as a pilot study from which post-hoc
statistical power analyses will be conducted for all measures to determine the level of
replication necessary to achieve statistical power of 0.8 At α=0.05 with alpha of 0.1, and a
desired power of 0.9. For trend data the ability to detected 20% change of a 5-year period.
6.6.2
Landscape metrics
6.6.3
Spatio-temporal trends in biodiversity and stressors
6.6.4
Correlations and relationships between biodiversity, biodiversity
stressors, and environmental management
Results from correlative analyses must be carefully interpreted (Grosbois et al. 2008).
Significant correlation of two parameters indicates a relationship between them, but it does not
signify a cause-effect linkage
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
48
6.6.5
Comparisons between public and private land, SES sites and nonSES sites, mainland and islands, Large Forested Areas, and KERI’s
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
49
7
7.1
Database Management and Reporting
(incomplete)
Database Management
Data management is an essential component of any inventory and monitoring programme.
7.2
Reporting
For science to inform management of terrestrial biodiversity requires that data and knowledge
is effectively communicated to decision makers.
7.2.1
DPSIR model
The Driving forces – Pressure – State – Impact – Response (DPSIR) model provides a general
framework for organising information about state of the environment (see below). The DPSIR
model has been adopted by a variety of organisations, (e.g., OECD, European EPA, Australian
EPA), including the Auckland Regional Council. Using this framework, indicators are linked in a
logical way and information structured by drawing linkages between causes of environmental
problems, their effects on environmental condition, and policy or management responses. Note
that not all issues or themes of a state-of-the-environment report need a full DPSIR
presentation in many cases, some aggregation of DPSIR elements will only make them easier
to work with and understand.

Driving forces are a fundamental disturbance to a system that might result in changed
ecological condition. (e.g. urbanisation, rural intensification, climate change).

Pressures are changes in (usually) physical and chemical conditions that arise from the
disturbance (e.g., trends in the loss and fragmentation of indigenous ecosystems).

State can be measures of environmental condition such abundance, diversity, or
resilience (e.g. the amount of indigenous habitat remaining).

Impacts are changes to environmental condition or quality of life as a consequence of
natural events and/or human activities (e.g., the number of threatened ecosystems and
species).

Response refers to the responses by society to the environmental situation (e.g. land
acquisition and covenants for protection of indigenous habitat types).
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
50
7.2.2
Use of biodiversity indices
Indices of ecological integrity are desired by policy makers as a mechanism to monitor change
in ecological condition. These indices are performance monitoring tools that help the public and
mangers establish clear and consistent ecological objectives, and measure the progress
towards achieving these objectives. Developing appropriate indices has proven difficult in
practice (Purvis and Hector 2000; Nielson et al. 2007). Reference conditions estimated from
empirical relationships with human footprint provide a more scientifically defendable solution
and thus avoid some of the biases inherent in other methods for reference determination
(REF). Estimation of empirical relationships between species, habitat, or landscape
occurrence/abundance and human footprint enable estimation of reference conditions in a
relative pristine situation. These statistically derived conditions are then compared to current
species occurrence and abundance to index intactness. Deviation from reference (decreasing
sensitive species or increasing non-native species) results in a loss of intactness. With species
as the basic unit of measure, numerous levels of organization can be reported (i.e., guilds,
taxonomic group, or overall biodiversity).
Overton et al. (2002) suggest that biodiversity management and reporting be designed as an
information pyramid whereby data at the base level is integrated and generalized at higher
levels of organization, thereby providing a unified and transparent approach. It is proposed that
information pyramids be used as a framework for aggregating and simplifying biodiversity
information to meet the needs of resource managers, policy makers, politicians, and the public.
Information pyramids are designed to integrate diverse and complex forms of biotic and abiotic
data into synthesized, transparent, and easily understood messages. Upper levels are
designed to communicate the state of biodiversity to politicians, policy makers, and the public.
The lower levels will mostly be used by scientists and others interested in conducting original
analysis.
The ARC website will be the organizations primary conduit for communication. The website will
draw together all information and resources to create a single, readily accessible application,
designed to meet the needs of end-users. The website will include the capacity to tailor
information to end-users’ needs, access raw and summarized data, and generate status and
trend reports. It is intended that this framework will:
 Ensure the effective delivery of relevant, timely, and scientifically rigorous biodiversity
information
 Improve biodiversity management by contributing critical knowledge to decision-making
cycles
 Support end-users in meeting their monitoring and reporting obligations
 Eliminate duplication and redundancy in biodiversity monitoring within and across the
Auckland Region
 Facilitate the seamless transfer of information to end-users
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
51
8
Planning and operations (incomplete)
8.1
Project timeline
Aug-09
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Forest and Shrubland
Monitoring plan development
Monitoring programme stakeholder consultation/feedback
Forest and shrubland site selection and permission
process
Forest and shrubland field training and planning
Forest and shrubland field implementation
Forest and shrubland landscape analysis
Data analyses
Annual report writing
Wetland
Monitoring plan development
Monitoring programme stakeholder consultation/feedback
Wetland site selection and permission process
Wetland field training and planning
Wetland field implementation
Wetland landscape analysis
data analyses
Annual report writing
Duneland (Dependent on additional funding)
Monitoring plan development
Monitoring programme stakeholder consultation/feedback
Forest and shrubland site selection and permission
process
Forest and shrubland field training and planning
Forest and shrubland field implementation
Forest and shrubland landscape analysis
Data analyses
Annual report writing
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
52
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10
8.2
Roles and responsibilities
Stakeholders include National government agencies such as Department of
Conservation, Ministry for the Environment, and MAF. These organizations will directly
benefit from an integrated regional monitoring programme because such a programme
contributes and complements statutory requirements around State of the Environment
reporting and biodiversity management.
District and local councils will be combined into a supercity in the near future and it is
not anticipated that results from this programme will contribute to biodiversity
management in the respective jurisdictions prior to the amalgamation.
Non-Profit organisations such as QEII trust and Forest and Bird, community groups
(e.g., TOSSI, SOSSI, and the Little Barrier Island Trust) and private landowners can
also benefit and contribute as this programme will provide context and reference
conditions to compare the effectiveness of their management operations on
biodiversity.
For collecting biodiversity data on a regional scale, covering different types of
biodiversity and species groups, with sufficient precision to detect changes over time
and space, will require a commitment of human resources including both professional
and community groups. Most large scale monitoring schemes are maintained by a
small group of professionals coordinating large groups of volunteer naturals, giving a
unique opportunity to citizens to be actively involved in biodiversity monitoring,
environmental science, and conservation (Schmeller 2008)
8.3
Operational team structure
Field monitoring will be conducted by 8 independent field teams of 4 people. Field
teams will be managed and lead by an experienced team leader (contractor or
consultant). Teams will also include an experienced field assistant and two relatively
inexperienced field assistants. The relatively inexperienced field assistants will focus on
data recording and assisting the establishment of 20m x 20m vegetation plots. Each
field team will be assigned from 5 – 9 monitoring sites.
8.4
Field-team training
Field team leaders will undertake a week of training, which will include 2 days training
on 20m x 20m vegetation plot methodology by an experienced practitioner, 2 days
training on bird count methodology and one day training on mammalian pest
monitoring, as well as preparation and planning with full field teams.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
53
8.5
Field logistics
Monitoring site logistics
Field monitoring will be conducted between Each monitoring site will take 2 full days to
complete, though time taken will vary due to differences in travel time, and habitat
complexity. It is estimated that travel time will average around 4 hours per day, but will
vary from 1 – 6 hours. On the first day, vegetation monitoring plots will be measured,
bird counts will be conducted, and wax tags and tracking tunnels will be deployed.
Monitoring sites will be revisited three days later, at which time vegetation monitoring
plots will be completed, and wax tags and tracking tunnels will be collected. Typically,
two monitoring sites will be sampled each week, the first will be sampled Monday and
Thursday and the second, Tuesday and Friday. Wednesday will be set aside for office
work, which will include field preparation, data entry, and preparation of unidentified
plant specimens. Data will be collected using fieldsheets during the first year of
monitoring. However, PDA’s will be used subsequently to avoid transcribing errors.
Mammalian pest monitoring will not be conducted on Little Barrier and
Motutapu/Rangitoto Islands so it is expected that data collection can be done in a
single day, though this is largely dependent on travel time and logistics.
8.6
Auditing
Field training week will be used as an opportunity to assess and validate competencies
of field team leaders.
10% of sites (or at least 1 site per field team) will be audited by a professional botanist
to determine species identification and count error rates
All field and datasheets and will be independently checked for irregularities and
inconsistencies
We intend to become certified through ISO (the International Organisation for
Standardisation). The ISO (9000) is a family of standards for quality management
systems and is administered by accreditation and certification bodies. Some of the
requirements in ISO 9001:2008 (which is one of the standards in the ISO 9000 family)
include
•
a set of procedures that cover all key processes in the business;
•
monitoring processes to ensure they are effective;
•
keeping adequate records;
•
checking output for defects, with appropriate and corrective action where
necessary;
•
regularly reviewing individual processes and the quality system itself for
effectiveness; and
•
facilitating continual improvement
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
54
8.7
Field equipment
8.8
Data sheets
8.9
Risk assessment
8.10
Health and Safety
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
55
9
References
Alberta
Biodiversity
Monitoring
Institute
http://www.abmi.ca/abmi/reports/reports.jsp
(2009)
Programme
Overview,
Allen, R.B., Bellingham, P.J., and Wiser S.K. 2003. Developing a forest biodiversity
monitoring approach for New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27(2): 207–
220.
Beever, E.A. 2006. Monitoring biological diversity strategies, tools, limitations, and
challenges. Northwestern naturalist 87:66 – 79
Bell, S. et al. 2008. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording
and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodiversity Conservation 17:3443–3454.
Brockerhoff, E.G., Shaw, W.B., Hock, B., Kimberley, M., Paul, T., Quinn, J., Pawson, S.
2008. Re-examination of recent loss of indigenous cover in New Zealand and the
relative contributions of different land uses. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 32(1):115
– 126.
Brown, K.P., Moller, H., Ines, J., Alterio, N. 1996. Calibration of tunnel tracking rates to
estimate relative abundance of ship rats (Rattus rattus) and mice (Mus musculus) in a
New Zealand forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20(2); 271 – 275
Davies-Colley, R.J.; Payne, G.W.; van Elswijk, M. 2000: Microclimate gradients across
a forest edge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24: 111 – 121.
Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, 2000. New Zealand’s
biodiversity strategy: our chance to turn the tide. Department of Conservation and
Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, N.Z.
Denyer, K. 2000: Maintaining biodiversity in a production matrix: the effects of adjacent
land use on indigenous forest fragments in the Waikato region. Page 233. School of
Environmental and Marine Science. University of Auckland, Auckland.
Ewers, R.M., Thorpe, S., and Didham, R.K. 2007. Syergistic interactions between edge
and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88(1); 96 – 106
Gillies, C.A., and Williams, D. 2002 (unpublished). Using tracking tunnels to monitor
rodents and mustelids. HAMRO-66179. Department of Conservation, Hamilton, N.Z. 14
pp
Hone, J. 2002. Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and
management. Biological Conservation 105(2) 231 – 242.
Hone, J. 2006. Feral pig rooting in a mountain forest and woodland: Distribution,
abundance and relationships with environmental variables. Austral Ecology 13(4): 393
– 400
Hurst, J.M.; Allen, R.B. 2007a: A permanent plot method for monitoring indigenous
forests – field protocols. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Lincoln
Hurst, J.M.; Allen, R.B. 2007b: A permanent plot method for monitoring indigenous
forests- expanded manual, version 4. Landcare Research Contract report LC0708/028
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
56
Hurst, J.M.; Allen, R.B. 2007c: The Recce method for describing New Zealand
vegetation- expanded manual, version 4. Landcare Research Contract report
LC0708/029
Hurst, J.M.; Allen, R.B. 2007d: The Recce method for describing New Zealand
vegetation – field protocols. Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, Lincoln.
Kennedy, E.T., Balasubramanian, H., Crosse, W.E.M. 2009. Issues of scale and
monitoring status and trends in biodiversity. In M. Birnbaum and P. Mickwitz (Eds).
Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges.
New Directions for Evaluation, 122: 41 – 51.
Kneebone, J., Roper-Lindsay, J., Prime, K., Christensen, M. 2000. Bio-what?
Addressing the effects of private land management on indigenous biodiversity.
Preliminary report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee. Ministry for the Environment,
Wellington, N.Z.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Likens, G.E. In Press. Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for
long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Manley P.N., Zielinski, W.J., Schlesinger, M.D., Mori S. 2004. Evaluation of a multispecies approach
to monitoring species at the ecoregional scale. Ecological
Applications 14(1)296–310
Manley, P.N., Schlesinger, M.D., Roth, J.K., Van Horne, B. 2005. A field-based
evaluation of a presence-absence protocol for monitoring ecoregional-scale
biodiversity. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 950 – 966.
Marshall, L. 2009. Ecological assessment of High Conservation Value (HCV) sites in
the Auckland Region. Unpublished Draft Technical Report prepared for Heritage
Programes, Auckland Regional Council
McAlpine, K. G. and Wotton, D.M. 2009. Conservation and the delivery of ecosystem
services: a literature review. Science for Conservation 295. Department of
Conservation, Wellington. 81p
Milton, S.J. Dean, W.R.J., O’Connor, T.G., and Mills, A.J. 2007. Scaling up from sitebased research to a national research and monitoring network: lessons from Tierberg
Karoo Research Centre and other design considerations. South African Journal of
Science 103: 311 – 317.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human well-being:
Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
Murcia, C. 1995: Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 58.62.
National Possum Control Agency. 2008. Protocol: For possum monitoring using the
wax-tag method. National Possum Control Agency, PO Box 11-461, Wellington
Nichols, J.D., and Williams, B.K. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology
and Evolution 21: 668–673.
Nielson, S.E., Bayne, E.M., Schieck, J. Herbers, J., Boutin, S. 2007. A new method to
estimate species and biodiversity intactness using empirically derived reference
conditions. Biological Conservation 137: 493–414
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
57
Norton, D.A. 1996. Monitoring biodiversity in New Zealand’s terrestrial ecosystems. In
Papers from a Seminar Series on Biodiversity (McFadgen, B et al., eds), pp 19–41,
Wellington, New Zealand, Department of Conservation.
Norton, D.A. 2002. Edge effects in a lowland temperate New Zealand rainforest.
Department of Conservation Science Internal Series No 27. Department of
Conservation Wellington
Reyers, B., McGeoch M.A. 2007. A biodiversity monitoring framework for South Africa:
progress and directions. South African Journal of Science 103: 295 – 300.
Roy, D.B., Rothery, P., Brereton T. 2007. Reduced-effort schemes for monitroong
butterfly populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 44(5):993–1000
Schmeller, D.S. 2008. European species and habitat monitoring: where are we now?
Biodiversity Conservation 17:3321-3326.
Schmeller et al. 2009. Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in
Europe. Conservation Biology 23:307 – 316.
Spurr, E.B.; Powlesland, R.G. 2000. Monitoring the impacts of vertebrate pest control
operations on non-target wildlife species. Department of Conservation Technical series
24. Wellington, New Zealand.
Sweetapple, P.J.; Nugent, G. 2004: Seedling ratios: a simple method for assessing
ungulate impacts on forest understories. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 137–146.
Teder, T. et al. 2007. Monitoring of biological diversity: a common ground approach.
Conservation Biology 21(2): 313 – 317.
Thomas, M., Brown, J. Maddigan, F. 2004. Possum Monitoring in the Presence of
Ground Birds (Objective 1) Calibrating TSI with RTCI. Pest Control Research Contract
Report: 2004/6 for Animal Health Board
Vos, P., Meelis, E., Ter Keurs, W.J. 2000. A framework for the design of ecological
monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management.
Environmental monitoring and assessment 61: 317 – 344.
Walker, S., Cieraad E, Grove P, Lloyd K, Myers S, Park T, Porteous T. 2007. Guide for
users of the threatened environment classification. Landcare Research, New Zealand.
Yoccoz, N.G., Nichols, J.D., and Boulinier, T. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in
space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(8): 446 – 453.
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
58
10
Appendices
10.1 Appendix 1: Hyperlinked list of weeds to be monitored
1.
acacia species Acacia spp.
2.
3.
agapanthus (large leaved cultivars) Agapanthus praecox
alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides
4.
5.
arum lily Zantedeschia aethiopica
banana passionfruit Passiflora tripartita (all subspecies) and P. tarminiana
6.
7.
boneseed Chrysanthemoides monilifera
brush wattle Paraserianthes lophantha
8.
9.
Chilean rhubarb Gunnera tinctoria
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
10. climbing asparagus Asparagus scandens
11. coast banksia Banksia integrifolia
12. cotoneaster Cotoneaster glaucophyllus, C. franchetii
13. crack willow Salix fragilis
14. English ivy
15. Formosa lily Lilium formosanum
16. giant reed Arundo donax
17. grey willow Salix cinerea
18. Himalayan honeysuckle Leycesteria formosa
19. jasmine Jasminum polyanthum
20. Japanese spindletreeEuonymus japonicus
21. lantana Lantana camara
22. madeira vine Anredera cordifolia
23. marram grass Ammophila arenaria
24. Monkey apple
25. moth plant Araujia hortorum
26. pampas grass (common & purple) Cortaderia selloana, C. jubata
27. Phoenix palm Phoenix canariensis
28. rhamnus (evergreen buckthorn) Rhamnus alaternus
29. royal fern Osmunda regalis
30. smilax Asparagus asparagoides
31. Taiwan cherry Prunus campanulata
32. tradescantiaTradescantia fluminensis
33. tree privet Ligustrum lucidum
34. velvet groundsel Roldana petasitis
35. wild ginger Hedychium gardnerianum
36. woolly nightshade Solanum
37. yellow ginger Hedychium flavescens
Draft Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
59