Project Description

The second in a series of lunchtime webinars co-hosted by AABR vic and ECA Vic.

Tein McDonald (a principal author of the National Restoration Standard) will first highlight ways the Standards’ principals and tools can be applied locally. Lincoln Kern (Consultant / restoration designer) will then highlight how the standards informed the La Trobe University Eco-Corridor Design Guide developed in 2017 and Yarra Riverkeeper’s Middle Yarra Rewilding Design Guide written in 2021 to improve the reliability and quality of project design and implementation for local projects at any scale across Victoria.

This lunchtime webinar will conclude with an extended Q&A and will be highly relevant to a range of attendees including environmental consultants, state utilities, public land managers, policy makers and bushland contractors implementing restoration projects in different contexts.

The Program

00:00:00 Introductions – Rob Scott Chair AABR Vic

00:05:00 Tein McDonald

00:30:30 Lincoln Kern

00:51:15 Q & A – Yasmin Kelsall ECA Vic

01:03:15 Thanks

More Q & A from the webinar

From AABR Vic Rob S.

The successional stages of the reference ecosystem would be important to consider in terms of what one is aiming for.

Tein reply: Yes – this absolutely must be taken into account. There were some good examples of this in mine site restoration even where there is not seral patterning  (i.e. make sure all species are reintroduced at once) but also it is taken into account in highly seral ecosystems like rainforest.  Rainforest restoration can adopt a primary or secondary succession model however.  Both work and the decision largely depends on resources.

From Diana D.

Are tree guards being overused where there are no major threats to the plants? eg wallabies

Lincoln reply: I reckon that tree guards have become too much of a standard approach to planting trees when the plantings could easily be successful without them.  Tree guards seem to be installed in many plantings in urban areas where rabbits are not likely to be a problem. It could be suggested that strategic tree guards on the edge of plantings could serve to dissuade people from entering planting sites, but they should still be limited. In addition, once a planting gets big enough it could be much more cost effective to do rabbit proof fencing around the whole planting; this should always be a consideration when doing a planting dominated restoration design.

From Jane K.

In the context of the Yarra River, how do we account for the constant disturbance caused by floods when attempting to restore the riparian corridor?

Lincoln reply: This is always a hard one as it is such large-scale problem. Along smaller streams it may be possible to start working on weeds along the riparian corridor in the upper reaches and move downstream to prevent new infestations. Along a river like the Yarra it may only be possible to have limited goals for restoration, i.e. maybe just getting trees and shrubs going by doing weed control for planting but then accepting that ground storey will be exotic over time.

From Chloë M.

Good project for local government bushcare officers, managing remnant bushland or degraded sites. Could help their capacity to communicate with volunteers about objectives and potential for capacity for regeneration.

Tein reply: I guess Chloe is referring to training Bushcare officers in the use of the recovery wheel?  That would be good – but even more useful would be training bushland management officers/planners.  I’ve done some training with two municipalities in NSW and one in Qld.  Seemed to work well.

From Geoff L.

Typically, community rehabilitation projects are funded by government agencies, any funding for monitoring can be difficult to obtain, and reporting is based on metrics such as volunteers engaged, funds expended or trees planted; no assessment of ecological improvement. This drives the approach of volunteer groups in their activities. How do you change the current approach of the funding providers?

Tein reply:  Yes – too often reporting is based on outputs not outcomes. There is a need for identifying outcomes and progress towards those – or at least strongly identifying the probability that the outputs will lead to particular desired outcomes.  This is being done more often now.  Probably the 5-star tool would help, but funding cycles may be too short for most funded programs to see much change in the outcomes (which are not just establishment of plants but things like evidence of plant-animal interaction, habitat functionality and recruitment.

Lincoln reply: If we could get government agencies to adopt the standard as the guiding document for restoration design then monitoring would be a “required” part of any project. There is also an ongoing critique of the lack of monitoring that is gaining momentum. The critique of plants in the ground as a metric of success was first substantially criticised in the review of the Natural Heritage Trust funded by the sale of Telstra and it is slow going but there is now wider criticism with the Victorian Auditor General criticising DELWP’s land management practices as inadequate because of the lack of monitoring. In brief, following the standards and the community demanding monitoring for success or failure might be the solution.

More information

National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia

Yarra River Regeneration Guide