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