RefugesForStock & Biodiversity

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 6 NO 1 APRIL 2005

5

F E A T U R E

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Travelling stock reserves: refuges for stock and biodiversity?

By Ian Davidson, Allan Scammell, Peter O’Shannassy, Michael Mullins and Shaun Learmonth

Travelling stock reserves

(TSRs) in New South Wales

contain some of the

healthiest examples of

remnant vegetation left in

some rural areas – leading

to an emerging biodiversity

management role for Rural

Lands Protection Boards.

Ian Davidson tells the story,

with the help of four

on-ground managers.

Ian Davidson

is a principle consultant for Regen-

eration Solutions (4 Thomas St, Glenrowan, Victo-

ria 3675, Australia. Tel. (+61)-3 5766 2759. Email:

[email protected]) and has long played a

major role in the biodiversity surveys of the TSRs

and subsequent ‘Linear Reserves’ project referred

to in this article.

Allan Scammell

(Ranger, Hume

RLPB),

Peter O’Shannassy

(Ranger, Murray RLPB),

Michael Mullins

and

Shaun Learmonth

(both

Rangers from the Riverina RLPB) all play key on-

ground roles in implementing strategic grazing to

improve biodiversity in TSRs.

Introduction

The importance of t ravel l ing stock reserves

T

ravelling stock reserves (TSRs) – and theroutes that link them – were developed

in New South Wales some 160 years ago toallow graziers to move stock along certainroadsides, camping them overnight inthese small crown land portions especiallyreserved for that purpose (Box 1, Fig. 1).Since the 1950s and the advent of moderntransport, however, there are now better,faster and, arguably, more efficient means

of transporting stock than droving themalong roads. As a result, grazing pressurein many TSRs has eased from historicallevels (McKnight 1977) and the potentialnow exists to manage these sites for bio-diversity conservation as well as for grazingpurposes.

In many regions of NSW, over 90% of thelandscape has been cleared and substantiallycultivated for agriculture (Benson 1999). Asa result, remaining native vegetation isscarce, fragmented or severely degraded –except, due to their lower frequencyutilization, in TSRs; which now contain

Figure 1. Historically, travelling stock reserves (TSRs) and the routes that link them were designedto move stock between properties and to link properties to markets (explaining why TSRs tend tobe located every ‘6–8 miles’ – the approximate distance stock could travel in one day; McKnight1977). Today, TSRs have an additional role, the conservation of ecological communities. As part oftheir duties, TSR rangers now monitor native sward condition and apply controlled grazing, such asshown here at Bells TSR in December 2004. (Photo, Allan Scammell).

emr_214.fm Page 5 Monday, March 21, 2005 3:33 PM

6


F E A T U R E

Box 1.

What are travelling stock reserves – and who owns and manages them in NSW?

Over

160 years ago, a network of

Crown Land areas in NSW was

set aside to walk stock between

properties and to markets. These

corridors comprise two distinct

components: the usually wider and

at least partially fenced travelling

stock reserves (referred to in this

article as TSRs); and, more linear

travelling stock routes (usually

along roadsides). As such, the

combined TSR system provides

corridors useful to stock as well

as corridors for biodiversity con-

servation (e.g. Breckwoldt 1990;

Dennis 1992).

The management of these areas

is vested in local Rural Lands

Protection Boards (RLPBs). The

TSR network, covering 600 000

hectares (NSW RLPB 2001), is in

effect a chain of reserved land

acting as refugia for many plant

and animal species, wildlife cor

-

ridors, seed orchards for revegeta

-

tion activities, and often contain remnant vegetation from a number of the most threatened ecosystems in NSW.

Permits are required from RLPBs for walking or grazing stock in TSRs, establishing apiary sites, and for use by recreational

and sporting groups. Authorized uses of TSRs include walking, running, horse riding, picnicking, fishing, swimming, and

pedal cycling.

Rural Lands Protection Boards

There are 48 RLPBs in NSW, each of which is a statutory body, fully funded by ratepayer contributions, established to

implement the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 and the Stock Diseases Act 1923. The primary aim of the RLPBs is to protect

rural lands through the management of TSRs, animal health, pest animal and insect control, stock movement, stock

identification, and natural disaster relief. Landholders in each RLPB area nominate and elect the eight directors (local

landholders) to be their representatives for a 4-year period. Directors meet regularly with RLPB staff to review management

policies and discuss operational requirements.

While the management of TSRs and reserves is only part of the Boards’ responsibilities, RLPBs are to develop a TSR

Management plan for all TSRs under their care, control and management. The content of these plans must include: the

management of travelling stock reserves for the benefit of travelling stock; the adoption of appropriate stocking practices;

the conservation of wildlife and their habitats; and, the protection of reserves against the diminution of water quality.

Figure 2. In six Rural Land Protection Boards (Hume, Murray, Riverina, Wagga Wagga,Gundagai and Narrandera) all travelling stock reserves greater than 5 ha were assessed for theirbiodiversity values and condition. Many of the TSRs were found to be of medium-high conservationvalue, leading to a major shift in management practice. These and many of the other TSRs withinNew South Wales (totalling 600 000 ha) contain remnant vegetation including a number of the mostthreatened ecosystems in NSW. (Map courtesy RLPB Orange).



7

F E A T U R E

some of the most important remnants ofnative vegetation communities in theirregions (Webster 1997; 1999a; 1999b;2000a; 2000b).

The importance of TSRs as refugia forremnant vegetation and biodiversity con-servation was identified first in the 1970s(McKnight 1977; Hibberd & Soutberg 1991),with a recent study undertaken on the envi-ronmental values of Central Western TSRs inthe mid-1990s (Nowland 1997). In particu-lar, TSRs often represent the best examplesof high quality grasslands and woodlands inNSW; ranging from the grassy open forestsof the coastal plains to primary grasslandsand woodlands of the ands, slopes and fur-ther west. The temperate grasslands of theMonaro that occur within TSRs, for example,are among the most species rich of thiscommunity type (Eddy 2000) and TSRs

also form an important stronghold forconservation of the once widespread butnow endangered Box-Gum Woodland eco-logical community (i.e.

Eucalyptus mellio-dora

,

E. albens

,

E. blakelyi

associations)and their component (often threatened)fauna species.

In southern NSW, the geographical lay-out of the combined reserve/route systemis such that reserves on the eastern ‘highcountry’ are linked to reserves on the westernslopes and plains by wide roadside areas,often following the valley floor alongcreeks and rivers (NSW RLPB 2001). Someof the highland TSRs contain significantsubalpine grasslands (Eddy 2000), whilstothers contain significant riparian wood-land or foothill forest communities. On thelower slopes, the dominant vegetation inmost TSRs is grassy woodland, except TSRs

located along riparian areas such as theMurray River or Billabong Creek, whichsupport River Red Gum forest (Webster1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2000a; 2000b).

The current dilemma for Rural LandProtection Board (RLPB) managers is thatTSRs were originally intended for grazingpurposes, however, they often containremnant vegetation which is often in farbetter condition than anything else in thesurrounding landscape, particularly in termsof the intact ground flora. The tensionbetween the two needs, therefore, createsnew challenges – as well as opportunities –for management.

Biodiversity assessment of travelling stock reserves in southern NSW

In recognition of the observed biodiversityvalues of TSRs, a major project was carriedout in southern NSW between 1997 and2000, surveying the biodiversity valuesand threats in TSRs (greater than 5 ha) in sixRLPBs in southern NSW: Hume, Murray,Riverina, Wagga Wagga, Gundagai andNarrandera (Fig. 2; Webster 1997; 1999a;1999b; 2000a; 2000b; 2001a; 2001b). Theassessments ranked the TSRs on the basis offive categories: high, medium-high, medium,medium-low, and low (Box 2). Ranking wasbased on a set of environmental attributesincluding: the condition of the ground flora(e.g. richness and cover of native speciesas well as the weed status), the structuraldiversity of the vegetation, the age structureof the tree cover, the abundance of fallentimber, and the identification of any specialfeatures (e.g. rocky outcrop, wetland etc.).

Conservat ion rankings

Results from these initial biodiversityassessments showed that many of thereserves contain substantial remnant nativevegetation. The survey ranked a substantialproportion of the reserves in each of thesix RLPB areas as being medium to high;with the percentage of reserves achievingthis ranking ranging between 41% (inHume and Gundagai RLPB) and 79%(Narranderra RLPB; Table 1).

The survey also found that the reservescontained a diversity of important floraspecies – and that some of the reserves were

Box 2. Conservation ratings used in the travelling stockreserves surveys

High The most intact category, with all structural layers represented

(including at least some shrubs).

Medium-high Generally intact structure and floristics but a major element

missing (e.g. usually shrubs).

Medium Relatively intact but with some dense exotic patches in the

ground layer in some places (e.g. exotic annuals under trees).

Low-medium A proportion of the reserve in good condition (e.g. a rocky knoll

or creekline) but the remainder dominated by exotics.

Low Generally dominated by exotics, similar to the surrounding land.

Table 1 Conservation status of travelling stock reserves in six Rural Land Protection Boards insouthern NSW (Webster 1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2000a; 2000b; 2001a; 2001b)

RLPB Total No. TSRs

TSRs rated med-high conservation value

No. %

Hume* 130 53 41Murray 134 79 59Riverina 98 75 77Wagga Wagga 115 65 57Narrandera 87 68 79Gundagai 96 39 41

*Hume Board comprised smaller RLPB areas of Albury and Holbrook when initial surveys were conducted in 1997.


8


F E A T U R E

considerably more floristically diversecompared to adjacent farmland, especiallyin terms of the native grasses and forbs.There are three explanations for this. First,TSRs have historically experienced peri-odic grazing with rest periods in betweenthe sometimes intense grazing events(rather than the ‘set stocking’ usually prac-ticed on private land which allows no restperiod and can deplete palateable species;Box 3). Second, to the best of our knowledge,there has been no fertilizer use on TSRs.And third, they have never been ploughedfor crops.

General condi t ion

Although TSRs are important from aconservation perspective, they are not‘pristine’. Many are relatively small (usually20–200 ha) and are scattered throughoutthe agricultural mosaic as isolated patches,except where linked by TSR roadsides.They are thereby, heavily influencedby external degrading processes such asinvasions by exotic weeds, primarily annualpasture grasses. While condition of individualreserves is often quite variable, overallquality can often be attributed to their pro-ximity to nearby streams or geographicalposition in the valley floor. The most weed-infested reserves in the Murray Valley, forexample, are those on the more heavilystocked higher floodplain terraces runningparallel to the Murray river, with the lower

floodplain sites more protected fromgrazing by lengthy floods.

Changes to travelling stock reserves management

Since considering the results and recom-mendations of the biodiversity assessmentphase, the boards and RLPB rangersresponsible for the management of thereserves have agreed to develop moreactive conservation grazing regimes in asubset of the reserves; with the goal ofimproving the health of the native per-ennial grassy sward. As improvements inthe perennial sward benefit both grazingand biodiversity outcomes, this goal haswon widespread support.

Originally, land managers and otherexperts advocated for more active conser-vation management of the better quality‘high’ and ‘medium-high’ conservationvalue reserves’ but RLPB rangers arguedthat, at best, this would just be maintainingthe status quo. It would be far better, theyargued, if opportunities were taken up toalter and improve grazing strategies onthe ‘medium’ and even some of the‘low-medium’ reserves as well, as even ‘low-medium’ conservation status reserves (or atleast patches within them) are able torecover to some degree.

As a result, the boards are therefore nowcommitted to improving management

practices and overall conservation status in

all

reserves. To this end, RLPB rangers haveadded controlled grazing (to enhancethe perennial component of the groundstratum) to their regular duties includinganimal protection, weed control and otherland management issues.

The potential to improve the conditionof TSRs depends upon the ability of RLPBrangers to use selective grazing as a conser-vation tool. This is technically possible inthese temperate areas because the growthphase of exotic annual grasses precedesthe growth phase of most of the native forbsand perennial grasses. So if grazing is restric-ted to when annual grasses have developedbut before they have flowered or set seed,improvements in the cover of native peren-nial forbs and grasses may result (Box 4).

Each RLPB ranger is responsible forover 100 reserves and, therefore, hasmany opportunities to strategicallymove stock between reserves. Rangers canensure stock are moved on if reserves can-not withstand a long period of intensivegrazing, and can also ensure that particu-lar reserves are spelled for a long periodafter grazing if appropriate, as determinedon a site by site basis. However, the flexibil-ity available to the RLPB rangers to grazeor rest particular sites depends on thelocation of individual reserves. For exam-ple, rangers often have great difficultymanaging TSRs located along major stock

Box 3. Some grazing terminology

Set stocking Stock are grazed on the site year round, without significant regular spell periods. This allows stock

to graze preferentially, generally leading to the decline of palateable species.

Pulse grazing Stock are grazed on a range of smaller, subdivided paddocks, and moved frequently to new paddocks,

allowing significant regular spell periods. This avoids preferential grazing and the spell period allows

recovery of all species.

Crash grazing The use of large herds or mobs of stock, for a relatively short period of time, to remove or trample a

‘build up’ of biomass in the grass sward.

Targetted, controlled or

strategic grazing

Using stock to achieve a vegetation management outcome, for example, using pulse grazing to

sustain native pasture or crash grazing to reduce the amount of exotic annual grass seed fall.

Stock camping Where stock rest at night, these sites are often regularly used and are very disturbed with highly

enriched soil and a very weedy groundlayer.



9

F E A T U R E

Box 4.

Travelling stock reserves’ Rangers tell their own story about improving the condition of grassy understoreys

Valuing the native species:

Allan Scammell

, ranger with the Hume Board based in Albury, is responsible for about 4000 hectares of TSR land, and is

highly motivated to manage these areas and to regenerate native vegetation:

I could see that land in the TSRs had unique and different ecosystems to the surrounding farmland, even though it took

me a little while to recognize the value of it. Going back 20 years or so I initially thought that these lands were degraded,

but I was thinking in terms of their capacity to grow clover and these “nice grasses” like they grow next door. And then

over time I have come to appreciate that native grasses have their own value.

Allan points to differences in the native grass species growing in different reserves.

We’ve got Redleg Grass and a lot of Plains Grass, a Stipa, and wallaby grasses. But then on the ones more to the east

we’ve got Microlaena, which can provide really excellent grazing opportunities if it gets going through the summer. It

actually likes to be grazed; while Kangaroo Grass, which is on some of the reserves, doesn’t stand the grazing quite so

well. Then there’s the Flax lilies and Glycine is a legume we commonly find.

Peter O’Shannassy

, ranger for the Murray Board, considers his most important species are Redleg Grass, Curly Windmill

Grass and Wallaby Grass:

Redleg has quite a tough butt and it’s a good grazing grass at certain times, but you can only take it so far and the stock

won’t eat it because that butt becomes quite unpalateable later in the season after frost.

Michael Mullins

has spent his entire life in the Deniliquin area and has worked for the last 20 years as a Ranger for the

Riverina Board. He is aware that one of the main concerns in TSRs is that much of the native understorey has been depleted:

There’s still some there, and the TSRs certainly have a lot more understorey than private land, but not as good as you

would like. The regeneration that takes place naturally is more the dominant species such as Black Box and Grey Box

and there are some shrubby areas. Quite a lot of areas have perennial natives grasses such as White Top and Windmill

Grass, but many areas, such as around watering points, are dominated by annuals such as Wild Oats, Barley Grass and

Annual Rye Grass.

Shaun Learmonth

, born and bred on the Mallee and now also working for the Riverina Board, is aware of the importance of

the natives in the pasture.

A lot of your copperburrs, different Stipas, a small amount of Whitetop, Curly Windmill Grass, stuff we call Cannonball

which is another type of Copperburr – work with your saltbushes that come on each year. I’ve heard stories that the country

going from Conargo and Wanganella to the north had a lot of Bluebush and Old Man Saltbush and Ruby Saltbush that has

been virtually wiped out for some reason. I’m not sure what caused the change.

Improving the perennial sward

The penny dropped for

Allan Scammell

when he started to notice that some reserves weren’t very productive through the

winter period but after a couple of wet summers about 10 or 12 years ago they were green all summer.

That allowed us to run a lot of stock on the native grass those summers. So I thought that stuff’s got real value. And we

started to realize that it was all about timing the grazing to reduce exotic annual grasses that are winter growing, and protect

the native perennials which are summer growing.

When you’re in the old cycle of “graze versus bare”, the ground is bared in summer and the first thing that gets a go on

with the first rain in Autumn is all your weed species, and they’ll end up being dominant. The exotic annuals basically all

strike from seed in the autumn and then they dominate through the winter, get a growth spurt in spring time and set seed,


10


F E A T U R E

and then their cycle ends. So the trick is to time your grazing, graze them

heavily in early spring so they don’t become too dominant through the mid to

late spring. And we try and stop as much seed set as we can. By that time it’s

warm enough for the native perennials to start firing up and then they’ll take

over. Then if you can maintain a good sward of your native perennial tussocks

during summer, you tend not to get nearly so many weed problems the next

year. Even if there’s no summer rain there’s usually enough carry-over soil

moisture from the rain in winter–spring to trigger the perennial natives and

they’ll seed very quickly. So the idea is that if you’ve got a really lean season

like that, you don’t overgraze them so you get some good seed set. Don’t bare

it out in summer – just in spring, to stop the exotic annuals seeding and

dominating. Then over the years you’ll get a shift toward natives.

Alan continues:

For the very best sites, basically what we’ve tried to do is just have them

closed up. A couple of them have been on really fertile flood plain and we’ve

had to give them a crash graze. But most of them – especially on the western

side – are more of a drier climate and we’ve left them closed up pretty much.

And we’re just watching what happens there. We’re finding that if you’ve got

a fair base of native grass like your wallaby and spear grasses, the natives will

eventually crowd the weeds out. I suppose the only thing you’ve got to be a

bit cautious of is that the spear grasses, or even Kangaroo Grass, don’t

become totally dominant, preventing some of the lilies and other things that

might be there to come through. So once it’s more established – I’d say after

4, 5 years, it’s probably time to start giving it a seasonal graze, open it up.

Peter O’Shannassy

explains further the theory and practice of high impact

grazing early in the spring.

In spring, animals will target that sweet green grass but the impact on the

natives won’t be too bad because most of them tend to grow later in the

season than the annual grasses. This gives you a window of opportunity to

have an impact on the annuals that you don’t really have anywhere else in the

season.

Another refinement is to first halt the grazing earlier to wait for the shorter

term natives to get established a little bit. This protects any native annuals or

short-term grasses like some of the wallaby grasses whose flowering and

seeding occurs at a similar time to those annual weed grasses. Then you can

reintroduce the grazing just prior to the seed set of the Barley Grass and the

ryes. In that window of opportunity when you take the cattle off the first time,

most of your forbs will flower and you’ll get your little saltbushes and your little

yellow burr daisies flowering. You start to get better biodiversity by doing that.

The thing is, if you really push stock, they’ll eat everything, and sheep are the

worst. They’ll eat right to the ground and will even pull roots out. But if you

can halt it when you’ve either got natives developing or during summer when

the perennials have still got that good butt left, that adds greatly to your next

Figure 3. Billabong Creek runs throughtwo Rural Land Protection Board (RLPB)areas; the Hume and Murray boards. Thesection of unfenced creekbank shown in photo(a) indicates the condition of sections of thecreek within travelling stock reserves (TSRs)prior to a cooperative program between RLPBBoards, Greening Australia and Landcare tofence the creek from stock. (Note the sheep atthe top of the bank.) Photo (b) shows the dramaticrecovery of the ground layer after fencingabout 30 km of the creek within TSRs. The TSRswere then used as demonstration sites forprivate landowners. (Photos, Ian Davidson).



11

F E A T U R E

season’s production. If we can leave a bit of that dry matter on the grasses at the end of summer, it can shelter any new

seedlings for next spring and it also retains moisture. So that’s what you’ve got to try and retain at the end of your summer

grazing, at least enough ground cover to shelter that soil.

Michael Mullins

. While a long-term ranger, Michael has only been managing the perennial sward for the last 3–4 years, the

drought years, and so is yet to see progress from his grazing manipulations. But he likes to look at it in terms of the question

of whether you apply set stocking or a more controlled grazing system.

The difficult thing about set stocking is that the animals will eat all the things that they like, shifting the composition of the

pasture to the less palateable species over time. But if they’re going through on a front and there’s a bit mob of them, they

eat everything – and then there’s a rest period and the plants have a chance to seed. Now we are trying to apply that process

even more intentionally by even closer timing of our grazings if we can. We don’t really want the reserves to be subject to

annual leases, having stock in their all year. You’ve got to be careful about grazing your natives when they’re actively growing

and are about to seed. You would try not to graze them then. Most of our natives are summer growing. We can get good

summer storms here. We haven’t had it yet, but what I’m looking out for is having an area of native grass that is about to

seed so we can try and protect it, even if we use only half the reserve, or only one side of the road one year.

Shaun Learmonth

, similarly restricted by drought conditions, is also looking forward to testing his view that:

It comes down to managing the competition for resources between the annuals and perennials; knowing what pieces of your

stock route are more annual and what are more perennial and when stock are moving through. If you’ve got an annual piece

(especially on your sandhills,

annuals like your Crowsfoot if

you’ve had a good year) you’d

let ‘em crash graze that during

winter and spring and hopefully

you’ll get them moving over the

top of your perennial dry stuff

that hasn’t sprouted yet.

Getting stock when you need

them

Peter O’Shannassy

points out, how

-

ever, that the most difficult part of

the process is having the stock

there when you need them.

Because these are travelling

stock, we don’t just snap our

fingers and they turn up. We

actually have to go out and find

them sometimes. If it’s a good

season, you’ll have annual

grasses coming out your ears

and you’ve got no way of con

-

trolling them because the land

-

owners have all got their own

grass. So you end up having to

Figure 4. (From left) Phil Maher, Steve Seymour and Rural Land Protection Board (RLPB) RangerMick Mullins at Wanganella travelling stock reserve in the Riverina Board area. This reservecontains both wetland and sandhill ecosystems and provides important habitat for the threatenedPlains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus), protection of which are major goals in the site’smanagement plan. (Photo, Riverina RLPB.)


12


F E A T U R E

go out and beg, borrow and steal some cows from somewhere to get them on the reserve. Especially if you are in the

middle of a 3 or 4-year plan to do this targeted grazing on a specific reserve and you’ve already invested a lot of time and

effort.

It’s the last couple of years that have been the most difficult, since stock numbers have crashed across the State, in fact

right across Australia, and also since the general switch to cropping. I find it far more difficult to find a mob of cattle when

I need them to do a job. We’re alright, but it’s going to be a short season and people will be very cautious about restocking.

With the price people are paying for their stock, they are also not too keen on having them wander around the road.

But at those times when its dry everywhere and you have too much stock, you won’t do too much damage if you keep the

stock moving, it’s as simple as that. Native grasses and forbs will handle a graze as long as they are not decimated. You’ll

have areas that you have to sacrifice, where they camp and around water points. But it’s amazing, some of those areas

become your best forblands. When they really get hammered like that, you can turn a grassland into a forbland quite easily,

just by continually overgrazing. Lots of daisies. Another thing that will come up quite thick if it is in the area is Swainsona.

If you’ve overgrazed a perennial pasture and there was some Swansonia there before, you’ll find that even though you’ve

wrecked most of the perennial grasses and they’ve gone, Swansonia and other forbs will come up really thick, expecially

on that heavier clay country. And another one is the small native Glycine that will come up.

Michael Mullins

points out that in a drought, the farmers either get rid of their stock or put them on the road,

Actually, very few put them on the road. And in this last drought, they drastically cut their stock numbers, some by possibly

two-thirds. So then when you get a good season, no-one’s got stock to put out on the road because stock numbers are

right down. Because of the winter rain, the Barley Grass this year is particularly bad. We’ve brought the numbers of stock

up now but it’s already too late. It’s already seeded. So you don’t want to encourage too many people coming in or it’ll get

eaten out. We’ve had to actually close the stock route, which has never been done before.

It’s the seasons that rule. The management might have a fair part to do with it but the seasons is the thing that you have no

control over – and that has the most dramatic effect than anything. Last year there was a lot of Patterson’s Curse and Rye

Grass and not a lot of Wallaby Grass, so the Wallaby Grass didn’t really get a chance to seed down as well as it has in other

years. This year there’s not much Pattersons Curse but lots of Barley Grass. It’s just a matter of when the rain event is and when

the species germinates. The seed will still be waiting there for the right season. That’s why some years you get a lot of wildflowers

but other years you won’t. The seed’ll still be there. You can’t manage the seasons. If you get wet summer but dry other

times, it’ll favour your natives. But this year it was the other way round and favoured the weeds. It is interesting but it makes

you pull your hair out too in these areas to the west where rainfall is more unpredictable. You’ve got to take it as it comes really.

routes, or situated near stock sale-yards.However, there are still opportunities tofence off sensitive sites in such reserves(Fig. 3), and ensure stock are camped instock yards or more weedy, low conserva-tion value areas.

‘Linear reserve’ pilot project

Whilst the biodiversity assessment phaseidentified the main species and conditionof each TSR, it soon became clear thatspecific strategies needed to be developed,in consultation with the boards and

rangers, for each site. A recent 12-monthpilot project has, therefore, beendeveloped – focusing on 20 of the higherconservation value sites in three MurrayCatchment RLPBs (Hume, Murray andRiverina) – to test procedures for developingspecific grazing management strategies foreach TSR. It is anticipated that this pilotproject will be further expanded over thenext 3 years through a project involving theMurray, Riverina and Hume boards.

One of the first steps in the pilot was toform an advisory committee made up ofrepresentatives of the RLPBs, rangers and

(NSW) National Parks and Wildlife Service.This group came up with priorities for sitesand the scope of the strategies, each ofwhich involves specifications for formalmonitoring for each TSR. As a result, eachSite Management Plan has been designedto have at least one (and perhaps several)specific

primary management activities

which are then broken down into action-based objectives (including habitat man-agement objectives) specific to the reserveor a particular zone within the reserve(Fig. 4). The reserve’s management recom-mendations specifically address each objec-



13

F E A T U R E

Box 5. Changes to the travelling stock reserves since management improvements

Most of the rangers who have carried out selective grazing for a decade or so in many reserves are

reporting that treatments are improving in condition.

Peter O’Shannassy

reports that, although formal monitoring has only to date been carried out on the higher quality reserves,

all the reserves treated in the Murray Board area have shown an improvement, especially in terms of native species richness

and cover. Peter suggests that some of his ‘medium’ reserves have now shifted to ‘high’ due to his strategy of targeting five

reserves out of the 40 or so rated as medium and working on those for a few years, keeping the already higher condition

ones in good condition by allowing grazing for only very short periods of time or excluding it entirely for the vulnerable times

of year.

tive in terms of grazing location and timing,revegetation activities (if required), fencing(if required), weed control, timberremoval, erosion, and pest animal control.

Cost-sharing with government

One important element of the Linear Reservepilot was the trialling of cost-sharingbetween rural landholders (who currentlyentirely fund the management of TSRs,routes and the boards) and government.In recognition of this need, the MurrayCatchment Management Authority (CMA)has allocated $20 per ha for each reservewith a grazing management strategyspecifically written for it. This funding,devolved from the federal government’sNatural Heritage Trust, will enable individualRLPBs to offset the costs involved inconservation management activities andhelp them offset lost grazing revenue fromreduced numbers of travelling stock on theroad. Expansion and long-term securityof this funding will be needed, however,to avoid some RLPBs taking on permanentagistment, an option that would result inset-stocking and subsequent decline inconservation values.

A shift towards a degree of publicsupport for management of ‘high’ conserva-tion status sites within the RLPB systemmakes considerably more economicsense to governments than excising thehigher quality areas for complete con-servation. This is not only because muchof the infrastructure and managementcosts ‘piggy back’ on existing manage-ment, but also because the most feasibletool for controlling annual grasses inlarge acreages is the continued use of graz-ing itself. Furthermore, ‘high’ conservation

value reserves provide important educa-tion opportunities for rangers, and theirretention reinforces the rationale andmotivation to manage the rest of the exten-sive RLPB estate.

Monitor ing component

With access to additional funding secured,the committee agreed that monitoringspecifications should be contained withineach site management plan to ensurethat outcomes of the actions (specificallychanges in relation to the perenniality andstatus of the sward) can be measured overtime. Permanent monitoring sites are to beestablished for each TSR in the project.While data collection techniques willvary depending on target parametersdetermined by RLPB rangers, the projectconducted two monitoring techniquesworkshops in conjunction with otherexperts in the field. The workshops cameup with a standard approach which involvessetting up 100 or 200 m transects alongwhich sampling is undertaken at the sametime of year during two or three organizedmonitoring phases. Options for datacollection include step-to-point monitoring,which is a simple method used byAgricultural departments for measuringpasture sward. In this method, a pin in thetoe of one’s boot is used to record thecategory of ground cover (e.g. plant type,bare ground etc.) occurring at the pin foreach step or second step (to achieve at least100 of these points along the transects).Depending on the level of knowledge ofpersonnel, the plants may be categorized as‘a perennial native grass’ or ‘an introducedannual’, which is sufficient to provide ameasure of changes in relative abundance

of perennial versus annual or introducedversus natives over time. In other cases,rangers may use quadrats or a number ofother monitoring techniques (such as stemcounts, tree health rankings, and permanentphoto points).

Ideally, the project will monitor reserveson a 3–5 year cyclical basis, where a certainpercentage of the reserves are randomlyselected and the data analysed to see ifthere should be some adaptations made tomanagement.

Key role of rangers

Neither the assessments nor strategiesprescribe micromanagement grazingtechniques for each reserve. This aspect isleft to RLPB rangers on the basis that theyare the ones ‘closest to the ground’ andcan develop the most knowledge of thedynamics of the individual sites. The strategicplanning process does, however, involvetalking in detail about the sites with therangers so that their ideas about how thetreatments are likely to affect the preferredspecies can be teased out and integratedinto the strategy. The rangers are, therefore,key actors in the rehabilitation of the sites.

Although it is too early to observe anyresults from the expanded Linear ReservesProject, noticeable improvements in thequality of native vegetation communitieshave already occurred in the last decade orso in many reserves. This is a result of activeand enthusiastic management activitiesundertaken by rangers responding to theinitial assessment phase, in conjunction witha fortunate downturn in use of the TSR androutes (Box 5). Where a reserve once mayhave contained a few large and scatteredwoodland trees, woody regeneration is


14


F E A T U R E

All reserves showed improvement in richness, cover and tree health in

5 years, quite marked improvement on some of them. The only one that didn’t

improve at all in tree health is believed by the ranger never to have had trees

on it and was a natural grassland originally.

I copped a lot of complaints for the first few years that I was here. People were

convinced, because the reserve was bare, that I’d overgrazed it. What they

didn’t realize was that it was bare because I’d taken all the annuals out and

the natives just hadn’t recovered yet. But those same reserves that would

have been classed as low conservation areas 10 years ago, most of them are

high now. I’ve made mistakes on reserves. I’ve overgrazed them at the wrong

time and it’s taken a long time for them to recover, but after 10 years of

targetted grazing things have improved. We’ve fluked a few good years in

there where it has worked out perfectly and all of a sudden you’ve got a 50%

reduction in your annual weed and a better then 50% increase in your natives.

Droughts, in some cases have worked in our favour where the stock numbers

have been available, but it can be as simple as that, as simple as getting it right

in one season.

This is why it is important to take new rangers into the field and explain why

you’ve made the decision you’ve made. Quite often it will appear ridiculous

to them that you’ll say “No, leave them here and flog it right out”. They’ll look

at you like you’ve lost the plot because it doesn’t seem like the right thing to

do and you might get a lot of complaints for doing that. But you will achieve

what you want to achieve. And if they don’t see those decisions made, then

it’s very difficult for them to be game enough to go out and do it themselves.

There’s no way you can write down exactly when to do something, considering

the high amount of variation.

Allan Scammell

is continually surprised by the recovery occurring on some of the Hume board reserves,

even those that have really been grazed hard over a number of years. Now we’re starting to change the management, it’s

quite amazing what is starting to come back very, very quickly. A lot of the lilies, they come back pretty quickly; Chocolate

Lily, Vanilla Lily and Onion Orchid are probably the main ones that I see (Fig. 5). Today I saw an area of fern I hadn’t seen

before – then there are the everlasting daisies and the burr daisies. On sites where we’re getting some of the White Box

regeneration, we are finding little saltbushes, orchids and things that you would not imagine could have survived

considering the use the sites have had over the time. I think lack of cultivation is the secret. If the land has never been

cultivated, I think there’s a good chance of getting it back, but once it’s cultivated, its chances are much reduced.

Michael Mullins

from the Riverina board cites the annual forbs as being the plant group that is probably the most resilient,

without intervention, along with the wallaby grasses and some of the stipas.

But we have not had any good seasons, due to drought, since I began this approach here. Also, I know that some species

such as the saltbushes are hard to get back in, probably because there’s no seed source there to bring them back. So seed

sources can be a probem. To counter this, we’re looking at trialling how to improve some of our isolated patches of

Kangaroo Grass, north of Moama. We’re considering scalping weedy areas and placing seed bearing Kangaroo Grass hay

on them.

Figure 5. [Orchid in grassland – to beinserted in Box 5 ] Leek Orchid (Prasophyllumsp.) at Bundure travelling stock reserve (TSR),an extensive grassland near Jerilderie. Rangersreport a distinct increase in Lilies and daisiesin TSRs subjected to strategic grazing, even inplant communities where low levels of protectivecover are a natural feature. (Photo, Ian Davidson.)



15

F E A T U R E

now visibly occurring, and palatable under-storey species are regenerating, improvingthe habitat values for associated native fauna.

Interpreting the strategies, undertakingthe management activities and carrying outor supervising the monitoring will have theeffect of progressively increasing the skillsof the rangers and will provide a focusaround which the general principles andskills are passed on to future successors.The rangers and boards are particularlyconscious of the need for ongoing trainingand the induction of successors of the cur-rent cohort of rangers. It can be observedthat new recruits to the job of ranger aremore likely to have training in nature con-servation as conservation managementbecomes more and more important in theeveryday duties of RLPB rangers. But therangers also point to the importance of abackground of working in the rural sector.Sean Learmonth, for example, learned fromhis predecessor, Laurie Perris.

He was very passionate about looking

after native pastures and is well respected

in the district. I spent my first 12 months

with him, trying to learn as much as

I could. It comes down to a common sense

approach. The practical side of land

management I learned from growing up in

farming has been a huge help to this job.

I hope more young people get out into the

rural sector first, before they look at a job

like this because if you try and meet with

landholders and recite something that

you’ve read in a book or heard in a lecture

it doesn’t seem to go over too well. But if

you take a common sense approach that

both you and the landholder can

understand, it works a hell of a lot better.

Then, along with common sense, you

need the research to back up whatever

you’re trying to achieve on the ground.

Summary and directions for the future

Since the creation of the TSR reservenetwork in the 1800s, the values, use andimportance of TSRs to the communityhas certainly changed, particularly overrecent years. Though their role in helpingto conserve endangered ecologicalcommunities was unintended, TSRs arerecognized both here and overseas as alegacy of good conservation planning inagricultural landscapes (Forman

et al

.2003). While this result may be partly dueto the pulse grazing pattern of travel-ling stock and a downturn in travellingstock, the deliberate consolidation ofthese gains within a planning and man-agement context is largely due to theinnovative journey the boards and rangershave made in the past decade. This isdemonstrating that the boards are deli-vering a ‘public good’ environmentalservice in a cost-effective way, far more sothan many other publicly funded reve-getation programs. Recognition of thisservice should enable the boards to accessfunding on the basis of the results theyare now delivering, to enable them tocontinue to successfully manage theseprecious reserves.

Acknowledgements

This article would not have been possiblewithout the efforts and contributionsof all past and present RLPB rangers.Acknowledgement is also given to the Hume,Murray, Riverina, Wagga Wagga, Gundagaiand Narrandera Rural Lands ProtectionBoards; the earlier work done by Rick Websterand the generous support of NormanWettenhall and his Trust, who were majorsponsors of the original surveys. Thanksare also extended to Mark Sheahan andPeter Spooner for reviewing an earlierdraft, with Peter also providing valuededitorial assistance.

References

Benson J. (1999)

Setting the Scene: the NativeVegetation of New South Wales

. NativeVegetation Advisory Council NSW, Sydney.

Breckwoldt R. (1990)

Living Corridors: Conserva-tion and Management of Roadside Vegetation.

Greening Australia, Canberra.Dennis A. (1992) Conservation of rare and threat-

ened species in linear reserves.

VictorianNaturalist

109

, 121–125.Eddy D. A. (2000) Conservation management of

native grassland in travelling stock reservesand cemeteries of the Monaro.

EcologicalManagement and Restoration

1

, 64–65.Forman R. T. T., Sperling D., Bissonette J. A.,

et al.

(2003)

Road Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Island Press, Washington DC.Hibberd J. K. and Soutberg T. L. (1991) Roadside

reserve condition 1977–89 in the SouthernTablelands of New South Wales. In:

NatureConservation 2: the Role of Corridors

(edsD. A. Saunders and R. J. Hobbs), pp. 177–186. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

McKnight T. L. (1977)

The Long Paddock.Australia’s Travelling Stock Routes

. Universityof New England, Armidale.

New South Wales Rural Lands Protection Boards(2001)

The Long Paddock: a Directory ofTravelling Stock Routes and Reserves in NewSouth Wales

. Rural Lands Protection Boards inassociation with NSW Agriculture ResourceInformation Unit, Sydney.

Nowland A. (1997)

Sustainable Management Strat-egy for Travelling Stock Routes and Reservesin Central-western New South Wales.

RuralLands Protection Board, Orange.

Webster R. (1997)

Flora and Fauna Habitat Assess-ment of Travelling Stock Reserves within theAlbury Rural Lands Protection Board

. Ecosur-veys Pty Ltd, Deniliquin.

Webster R. (1999a)

Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Holbrook Rural Lands ProtectionBoard

. Ecosurveys Pty Ltd, Deniliquin.Webster R. (1999b)

Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Murray Rural Lands ProtectionBoard

. Ecosurveys Pty Ltd, Deniliquin.Webster R. (2000a)

Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Riverina Rural Lands ProtectionBoard


Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Wagga Rural Lands ProtectionBoard

. Ecosurveys Pty Ltd, Deniliquin.Webster R. (2001a)

Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Narranderra Rural Lands ProtectionBoard


Flora and Fauna HabitatAssessment of Travelling Stock Reserveswithin the Gundagai Rural Lands ProtectionBoard

. Ecosurveys Pty Ltd, Deniliquin.


Documents

RefugesForStock & Biodiversity