| |
|
|
|
Community User guide
Understanding the Maps
Purpose of this summary document
The purpose of this guide is to provide a summary of the results
of the Regional Vegetation Maps for the Lower Hunter and Central
Coast and to assist the reader in using the maps to full potential.
The project would like to notify readers that the information contained
in this guide, should be considered indicative only, and should
not be relied upon for planning purposes.
The maps are accompanied by a full technical report detailing the
field survey design, the construction of the vegetation model, and
containing a profile describing each vegetation community identified
(NPWS 2000).
Snapshot
The objective of the regional vegetation maps is to
- identify the variety of vegetation associations occurring in
the region and then to
- establish the extent and distribution of each community.
This may then inform an assessment of the relative significance of
remaining vegetation. The regional vegetation maps will form the basis
ofÊ the Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy which has been designed to provide greater certainty and
sustainability to future land use planning for the region.
The maps are a result of an intensive survey effort carried out
between March and July 1999.Ê Survey sites were used to model the
predicted vegetation distribution across the study area at a scale
of 1:25,000. 1772 native vascular plant species were recorded from
all plot data in the study area. 55 vegetation communities were
identified in the Lower Hunter Central Coast region.
The region encompasses the seven local government areas of Port
Stephens, Maitland, Cessnock, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Wyong and
Gosford. It is estimated that 35% of the original vegetation cover
has been cleared.
| Regional Landscape |
In the study area, a large coastal plain
extends along the coast from the foothills in Gosford to Port
Stephens. The Hunter Valley marks a transition zone for many
plant and animal species between the sub tropical influences
of the north to the cooler, less fertile conditions of the
south.
The terrain of the area has a large influence on the vegetation
patterns in the study area. The Watagan Range and Escarpment
exerts an orographic influence on rainfall patterns, providing
sufficient moisture to support the major areas of wet sclerophyll
forest and rainforest in the region.Ê The drier plains and
valleys contain dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands. The
plains also support large areas of impeded drainage where
wetland ecosystems are sustained. Coastal aeolian sand features
predominate in the Tomago region and coastal zone supporting
a variety of heaths, swamps and woodland communities.
Geology (soil type), position in the landscape and structural
differences were found to drive the distinction between the
majority of vegetation communities. Proximity of the water
table to the surface had a strong influence in some areas
in the Hunter Valley Floor and Wyong Coastal Plain. |
| What is a model and what is a map? |
It is a simple point but an important distinction
when reading the map. As the study area is nearly 6,000 square
kilometres it was not possible to visit every patch of vegetation.
Instead, a modelling approach was taken region to create the
maps.
343 new sites were surveyed for the project, mainly on privately
owned land. These were added to existing systematic plots
and, in total, 1117 plots were used in the modelling. The
resulting maps are the most comprehensive data set for the
Lower Hunter Central CoastÊ to date.
In interpreting the maps, the reader is actually reading
the predicted occurrence of vegetation. Extensive validation
has been undertaken in the field and on the model. |
| A question of accuracy |
The accuracy of the maps is expressed in
two ways, the first is the accuracy of the model in predicting
the correct occurrence of a vegetation community; the second
is in spatial terms. The aerial photo interpretation, which
determines the extent of existing veg, was largely conducted
at 1:25,000. Therefore the map is estimated to be accurate
to a scale of 1:25,000. This is described as an estimation
because of the variations present in API coverage. In some
areas API was available at a finer scale, however no API was
available for large areas of Yengo NP west of the Wollombi
Valley. Where no API was available, extent was derived from
a satellite image.
It is important to appreciate the maps are in a regional
scale. They flag the presence and relative distribution of
a vegetation community across the region, however for site
specific planning and assessment, further field investigations
are strongly recommended.
The model has achieved a 78% accuracy within a radius of
250m. |
| Making comparisons |
Drawing comparisons between different vegetation
community naming systems can be fraught with difficulty. The
full technical report contains some indicative correlations
between the RBCS and other classification systems. The region
is moving towards a more standardised way to describe its
vegetation.
For the purposes of this guide, correlations have been drawn
where similarities occur in Specht classification, canopy
species, soil landscapes and distribution. Canopy species
from Bell (1998) were investigated Êwhere they were present
at a majority of REMS sites and/ or were a positive diagnostic
species. |
|
|
What do the maps show?
Interpreting the regional distribution of vegetation communities
The Regional vegetation community maps show that the Lower Hunter
Central CoastÊ is fortunate to have an estimated 65% of the original
native vegetation remaining. However, a percentage is not the full
story. Protecting vegetation for biodiversity is not just about
quantity, it is also about protecting the different types of vegetation
and ensuring that quality areas are properly managed.
It is important to distinguish that the following information is
not a statement of regional significance. The significance of a
vegetation community or area is a measure of its overall contribution
to the regional ecosystems. Determination of significance is yet
to be assessed.
Of the fifty five vegetation communities described, not all have
been equally cleared; some have been heavily cleared, whilst others
have been well protected in nature reserves. The table below lists
the communities most heavily cleared in the Lower Hunter Central
Coast.
| MU |
Name |
%
cleared |
| 42 |
Sub-total Map Unit 42 (Riparian Melaleuca
Swamp Woodland) |
59 |
| 43 |
Sub-total Map Unit 43 (Wyong Paperbark Swamp
Forest) |
59 |
| 37 |
Swamp Mahogany ø Paperbark Forest
|
69 |
| 41 |
Swamp Oak Sedge Forest |
72 |
| 19 |
Hunter Lowland Redgum Forest |
73 |
| 38 |
Redgum Rough Barked Apple Swamp Forest |
76 |
| 52 |
Rocky Headland Scrub |
79 |
| 5 |
Alluvial Tall Moist Forest |
82 |
| 14 |
Wollombi Redgum - River Oak Forest |
86 |
| 18 |
Central Hunter Ironbark ø Spotted Gum ø Grey
Box Forest |
90 |
| 11 |
Coastal Sheltered Apple ø Peppermint Forest |
91 |
|
|
Table x: Most Heavily cleared
vegetation communities in the Lower Hunter Central Coast
The second table shows those communities that are restricted to
less than 1000ha remaining in the region. Note that some communities
may be naturally restricted in their extent and distribution.
| Map unit |
Map Unit Name |
Extant Total
(ha) |
| 52 |
Rocky Headland Scrub |
14 |
| 45 |
Lepironia Swamp |
37 |
| 18 |
Central Hunter Ironbark ø Spotted Gum ø Grey
Box Forest |
44 |
| 49 |
Wallum Clay Shrub Heath |
54 |
| 39 |
Apple ø Palm Gully Forest |
56 |
| 11 |
Coastal Sheltered Apple ø Peppermint Forest |
102 |
| 51 |
Coastal Headland Complex |
126 |
| 4 |
Littoral Rainforest |
185 |
| 38 |
Redgum Rough Barked Apple Swamp Forest |
257 |
| 54 |
Sandstone Hanging Swamps |
356 |
| Qa13 |
Closed Heath / Scrub (Ti-tree) (Payne, 1999)
|
381 |
| 48 |
Sub-total Map Unit 48 (Coastal Clay Heath) |
391 |
| 2 |
Sandstone Ranges Warm Temperate Rainforest |
404 |
| 32 |
Sub-total Map Unit 32 (Nerong Smooth-barked Apple
Forest) |
570 |
| 41 |
Swamp Oak Sedge Forest |
596 |
| 14 |
Wollombi Redgum - River Oak Forest |
622 |
| 50 |
Coastal Sand Scrub |
809 |
| 28 |
Sub-total Map Unit 28 (Scribbly Gum ø Dwarf Apple
Woodland) |
896 |
|
|
Table x: Vegetation
communities with less than 1000 ha in the Lower Hunter Central Coast
Rare and Threatened Species
The survey recorded 35 new records of listed Threatened Species
Conservation Act species and 48 new records of Rare or Threatened
Plant (ROTAP) species. The following table shows a sample of the
Threatened or significant species recorded during systematic surveys,
broken down by local government area (LGA). The reader is referred
to the NSW Wildlife Atlas for a complete list of threatened species
present in each LGA.
| Local Government Area
|
THREATENED OR SIGNIFICANT
SPECIES |
| Cessnock |
Eucalyptus glaucina
(Slaty red gum) ROTAP 3Vca, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Eucalyptus parramattensis
ssp decadens (Parramatta red gum) ROTAP 2V, NSW TSCA
1995 VS |
| |
Eucalyptus fergusonii
ssp fergusonii ROTAP 3KC- |
| |
Macrozamia paui-guilielmi
ssp flexuosa ROTAP 2K |
| |
Tetratheca juncea ROTAP
3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| Gosford |
Callistemon shiressii ROTAP 3RC- |
| |
Syzigium paniculatum (Magenta cherry)
ROTAP 3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Eucalyptus camfieldii (Camfields stringybark)
ROTAP 2Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Tetratheca glandulosa NSW TSCA 1995 VS
|
| |
Melaleuca biconvexa NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| Lake Macquarie |
Callistemon shiressii
ROTAP 3RC- |
| |
Syzigium paniculatum
(Magenta cherry) ROTAP 3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Angophora inopina NSW
TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Tetratheca juncea ROTAP
3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| Maitland |
Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi ssp. FlexuosaÊ
ROTAP 2K |
| |
Capparis mitchellii (Wild orange) Pending
ID confirmation, Range Extension |
| Newcastle |
Callistemon shiressii
ROTAP 3RC- |
| |
Eucalyptus fergusonii
ssp fergusonii ROTAP 3KC- |
| |
Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded
gum): New Southern limit |
| |
Tetratheca juncea ROTAP
3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| Wyong |
Callistemon shiressii ROTAP 3RC- |
| |
Syzigium paniculatum (Magenta cherry)
ROTAP 3Vci, NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| |
Melaleuca biconvexa NSW TSCA 1995 VS |
| Port Stephens |
Angophora inopina NSW
TSCA 1995 VSÊ Range Extension |
|
|
| Table x: Threatened
or significant species recorded during systematic surveys
Communities
There are two Endangered Ecological Communities in the area listed
under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).
Norah Head Low Heath Woodland has been mapped and recognised as
Map Unit 48a. Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest has been mapped as
two units, Map Unit 14 extends along the alluvial valley floors,
and Map Unit 40 adjacent into the broad plains.
Species occurring in Map Units
The following Map Units are likely to have threatened species present;
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 48.
The Technical report lists significant plant species recorded during
survey in table xx. It notes the following threatened species are
inadequately conserved in formal reserves; Callistemon linearifolius,
Eucalyptus camfieldii, Persoonia hirsuts subsp hirsuta, Syzygium
paniculatum, Tetratheca juncea
Existing Conservation Priorities
It is helpful to translate the existing priorities for conservation,
as identified by other studies, into the vegetation classification
from this study. Correlations should be considered indicative only,
they have been drawn by broad similarities of canopy species and
positive identifying species where possible.
The Regional Forest Agreement for the Lower North East identified
a list of vegetation communities considered to be a priority for
conservation on private land, which was outside the bounds of the
RFA. Of these priority communities, there is a limited number that
may be correlated to the RBCS classification (NPWS 2000). The study
area for the LNE RFA includes the Lower Hunter Central CoastÊ and
extends to Dorrigo (RACAC 2000).
| Map Unit |
Map Unit Name |
LNE RFA unit |
| MU9 |
Coastal Ranges Open Forest |
(32. Dry Foothills Blackbutt- Terpentine)Ê
|
| MU19 |
Hunter Lowlands Redgum Forest |
(47. Escarpment Redgum) |
| MU40 |
Swamp Oak ø Rushland Forest |
(18. Casuarina Woodland) |
| MU 47 |
Mangrove Estuarine Complex |
(77. Mangrove) |
|
|
| Table x Priority vegetation
communities for conservation on private land, identified by the Lower
North East Regional Forest Agreement.
A study of new nature reserve land in Lake Macquarie undertaken
by Bell (1998) for NPWS identified the relative conservation level
at a local, regional and national scale, of each community present.
Table x shows the vegetation communities identified as being poorly
reserved at a regional scale.
| REMS |
Bell (1998) |
| M15 Coastal Foothills Spotted Gum
øIronbark Forest. Some overlap also with M6 Coastal Narrabeen
Moist Forest |
F1 Narrabeen Macquarie Ironbark Forest
|
| M30 Coastal Plains Smooth Barked
Apple |
F2 Narrabeen Crangan Bay Coastal
Forest |
| M11 Coastal Sheltered Apple ø Peppermint
Forest. Some overlap with M15 Coastal Foothills Spotted Gum
ø Ironbark Forest |
F5 Permian Macquarie Grassy Forest
|
| M11 Coastal Sheltered Apple ø Peppermint
Forest. Some overlap with M46 Freshwater Wetland Complex (variable)
|
F6 Permian Macquarie Paperbark Gully
Forest |
| M33 Coastal Sand Apple ø Blackbutt
Forest |
F7 Coastal Sandplain Scribbly Gum
Forest |
| M38 Redgum Rough Barked Apple Swamp
Forest |
SF5 Freshwater Melaleuca Swamp Forest
|
|
|
Table x: Vegetation
communities Very Poorly reserved at a regional scale after Bell
(1998)
In 1997, the project hosted a regional workshop, attended by a
group of stakeholders and experts to identify species or habitat
(flora and fauna) with potential regional significance. The workshop
resulted in a list of species which formed a working guide for conservation
efforts, in the interim until the regional flora and fauna mapping
are complete. This list does not easily translate into the results
of the vegetation mapping, however, the presence of a species listed
by this workshop in a map unit should flag the need for further
investigation into the reservation status of that particular community.
Readers are referred to the workshop outcomes for full species listings.
In addition to the studies discussed, the Upper Hunter Remnant
Vegetation Study has reported a list of vegetation associations
with preliminary regional importance to the Upper Hunter (Peake
2000 in draft). This is of interest not only for the adjacent areas
of the two studies, but also for the wider regional status of the
LHCC communities. It is not yet possible to identify specific correlations
with the Lower Hunter Central CoastÊ work, as the UHRV Study classifications
are not finalised, however the table below is provided as an indication
of the associations that are thought to be inadequately reserved
or vulnerable in the Upper Hunter.
| Association Name |
Characteristics |
Preliminary Code |
Notes |
| Cassine australis ø Daphnandra species
A |
Dry Rainforests of sandstone |
R (restricted distribution) |
Some may be threatened by fire |
| Eucalyptus tereticornis floodplain
association |
Tall woodland mainly on grassy floodplains
|
R, V (future viability is vulnerable
due to lack of integrity, dieback and/or lack of regrowth) |
Poor regeneration and heavily grazed
|
| Corymbia maculata and various co-dominants
|
Forests of clayey soils often with
E.crebra |
I (inadequately reserved in conservation
areas) |
Very poorly reserved |
| E. camaldulensis |
Regularly flooded areas on major
rivers |
R, E (endangered; local extinction
of this association is imminent if causal factors are not removed
|
Highly degraded; probably <5%
left. |
|
|
Table x: Vegetation Associations
of Preliminary Importance to the Upper Hunter Region.
| Things the data wonÕt tell you
|
The regional maps do not show
the relative condition of vegetation areas. The project recommends
investigating vegetation condition before analysing the relative
conservation importance of a given area.
The regional maps will not show you what vegetation is in
an urban backyard. They do not map the distribution of non-native
species or weeds.
The maps are at a regional scale and so will not be accurate
on a site planning scale. If the backyard is big enough, the
maps flag which community might be present, however the project
strongly recommends further investigation at a more detailed
scale for site assessment and planning. |
| Looking ahead |
The regional vegetation community
maps form one part of the projectÕs investigation into the
state of vegetation in the Lower Hunter and Central Coast.
The project will also publish ÒPre-1750 Vegetation modellingÓ.
Pre-1750 is a term used to describe the state of vegetation
before European Settlement and its subsequent association
pressures such as clearing.
The project will also be working closely with stakeholders
to analyse the extant vegetation maps. In the first instance,
the project will establish a process for determining regional
significance and assessing fragmentation. |
|
|
Acknowledgments
The Regional Biodiversity Conservation Strategy is a project of
the Lower Hunter Central CoastÊ Regional Environment Management
Strategy. For more information on LHCCREMS and its projects, visit
the website at www.lhccrems.nsw.gov.au.
The project is funded by Bushcare under the Federal GovernmentÕs
Bushcare fund and LHCCREMS stakeholders and project partners. Valuable
contributions are made in kind through working relationships with
key state agencies including NPWS, DUAP, and DLWC.
This guide has been compiled by the RBCS project coordinator.
The maps have been produced by the Sydney Zone CRA Unit of the
National Parks and Wildlife Service, CRA Unit, Sydney Zone on commission
for the project.
References:
Bell, S. J. (1998). Lake Macquarie SRA, Pulbah Island NR, and Tingira
Heights NR, Vegetation Survey. For National Parks and Wildlife Service.
NPWS (2000). Vegetation Survey, Classification and Mapping, Lower
Hunter Central Coast Region. Version 1.1. National Parks and Wildlife
Service NSW.
Payne, R.J. (1998).Ê Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional
Biodiversity Strategy: Stage 1.Ê Ecological Surveys and ManagementÊ
-Ê Unpublished Report to Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.Ê
March 1998.
Peake, T. (2000) ÊThe Vegetation of the Mid-Hunter Valley: What
State is it in Currently? Draft version. Unpublished Report to the
Hunter Catchment Management Trust.
RACAC (2000). Regional Forest Agreement for North East New South
Wales (Upper and Lower North East Regions) between the Commonwealth
Government of Australia and the State of New South Wales. Resource,
Assessment and Conservation Advisory Council.
Top |
|
Regional Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy
- User Guide
- Local Government
area Plant Species Lists
- Module 1 Fauna Surveys
- Comprehensive
technical report
*
Acknowledgements
*
Method
*
Results
*
Discussion
*
References
*
Appendix A
~ Survey Form
*
Appendix B
*
Appendix C
*
Appendix D
~ Map Unit Profiles
*
Appendix E
Copyright 2003, Hunter Councils Inc
as legal agent for the
Lower Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental Management
Strategy |
|
|
