Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Plan
Biodiversity and Agricultural
MAY 2024 CRADLE COAST
Acknowledgement
We pay respect to the Traditional Owners of Lutruwita/ Tasmania, the Tasmanian Aboriginal people, and acknowledge their continued survival and connection with their land, sea and sky Country that spans millennia.
We acknowledge the many Nations of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, past and present, as the traditional and ongoing owners of their respective countries within Lutruwita/Tasmania and the islands.
We pay respect to those who have passed and acknowledge today’s Aboriginal people who are the custodians of this land.
We acknowledge that all land, sea, and sky Country holds cultural values that provide strong and continuing significance to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. We acknowledge that Tasmanian Aboriginal people are part of a continuous culture that holds traditional knowledge about the ecosystems we all depend on. The landscapes of Lutruwita/Tasmania have been shaped by Aboriginal management of plants, animals, and water (particularly using fire).
We acknowledge that colonisation and migration has caused injustice for Aboriginal people and impacted the living cultural landscape. This has created a legacy that we seek to improve.
We are working to integrate Aboriginal cultural heritage and knowledge in natural resource management, and to develop better understanding of the cultural, environmental, social and economic dimensions of the region’s natural resources from the perspective of Aboriginal people.
Through our work, we aim to reflect these values by recognising that Tasmanian Aboriginal people determine both the boundaries for the sharing of their cultural heritage and opportunities for participation in NRM activities that embrace and support their aspirations. We pay respect to Tasmanian Aboriginal people’s requirements to own, care and manage Country by aligning our strategic priorities to Tasmanian Aboriginal people’s land, sea and sky Country priorities.
FIGURE 1: Cradle Coast NRM’s approach to emergency management
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 6: Priority agricultural soil
FIGURE 7: Priority agricultural soil
FIGURE
FIGURE
FIGURE 12: Tasmania’s governance structures
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australian License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ Cradle Coast NRM uses reasonable means to verify the validity and accuracy of the data contained herein at the date of this publication, however to the extent allowed by law, it does not warrant or represent that the data will be correct, current, fit/suitable for a particular purpose or not-misleading. Cradle Coast NRM, and all persons acting on their behalf preparing data that has been used in this report, accept no liability for the accuracy of or inferences from material contained in this publication, or for action as a result of any person’s or group’s interpretation, deductions, conclusions or actions in relying on this material.
Tables
TABLE 1: Scope of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital (2024) 16
TABLE 2: Key lead and supporting organisations involved in emergency preparedness, response and recovery in the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania 20
TABLE 3: Susceptibility of priority biodiversity assets of north-west and western Tasmania to emergency scenarios 30
TABLE 4: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the threatened species and threatened ecological communities of north-west and western Tasmania 43
TABLE 5: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the wetlands and important coastal and marine assets of north-west and western Tasmania 45
TABLE 6: Response and recovery to bushfire scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 47
TABLE 7: Response and recovery to flood scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 49
TABLE 8: Response and recovery to coastal inundation and erosion scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 51
TABLE 9: Response and recovery to biosecurity scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 53
TABLE 10: Susceptibility of priority agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania to emergency scenarios 57
TABLE 11: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the soil natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 67
TABLE 12: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the vegetation (agroforestry, environmental plantings, native vegetation, riparian land) natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 69
TABLE 13: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes, dams) natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 71
TABLE 14: Response and recovery to bushfire scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 73
TABLE 15: Response and recovery to flood scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 74
TABLE 16: Response and recovery to coastal inundation and erosion scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 75
TABLE 17: Response and recovery to biosecurity scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania 76
TABLE 22: Key overarching risks associated with implementation of asset preparedness and response actions 91
APPENDIX TABLE 1: Example Risk Rating Calculation Matrix – Threat Rating x Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating 99
APPENDIX TABLE 2: Assignment of Coastal Erosion Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands (DPAC) 101
APPENDIX TABLE 3: Assignment of Coastal Inundation Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Inundation Hazard Bands (DPAC) 101
APPENDIX TABLE 4: Assignment of Agricultural Natural Capital Priority Ratings and Values as derived from Water Erosion Hazard Bands (NRET) and presence/absence of vegetation 104
APPENDIX TABLE 5: IAP2 Spectrum of public participation 120
APPENDIX TABLE 6: Stakeholder organisations invited to participate in Phase 1 consultation 121
APPENDIX TABLE 7: Stakeholder organisations who participated in Phase 2 consultation 123
APPENDIX TABLE 8: Stakeholder organisations invited to participate in Phase 3 consultation 128
Executive summary
The Cradle Coast region is facing increasing challenges from natural disasters and extreme weather events, ranging from bushfires to flash floods, and emergency biosecurity incursions. These events not only threaten human lives, property, and food supply but also have significant impacts on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets. It is crucial that we enhance our preparedness and response to mitigate these risks effectively.
Recognising the role that NRM organisations can have in supporting emergency preparedness and response, the Australian Government invited Cradle Coast NRM to develop a 'Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan'. The objectives of the Plan are to enhance preparedness for, response to, and recovery from emergency events as they relate to biodiversity and natural capital assets.
The Plan aims to provide information to assist integration of these crucial assets into emergency frameworks and to enhance preparedness to mitigate risks, minimise damage, and expedite recovery processes for natural assets in the face of natural disasters. The Plan seeks to identify areas to strengthen the capabilities of Cradle Coast NRM and our partners and stakeholders, and to identify opportunities for collaboration with relevant agencies to enhance preparedness.
Biodiversity assets of priority concern in the Cradle Coast region have been identified with consideration of relevant Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and in alignment with the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-32, resulting in asset classes of Threatened Species and Threatened Ecological
Communities, Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance and World Heritage properties (the parts of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage in our region).
Regional priorities identified in the 2030 NRM Strategy for Cradle Coast Tasmania and State legislation are also key considerations. This results in further asset classes of regionally important threatened species and ecological communities and regionally important places
Agricultural assets were identified as agricultural soil, agricultural vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry) and water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams). Threats to agricultural assets within the region’s agricultural landscape related primarily to soil vulnerability, including flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation. Evaluation provided insights into areas where erosion hazards might be prevalent, particularly in the absence of sufficient ground cover. The presence of natural vegetation, such as forest, woodland, or native vegetation, was recognised as a critical mitigating factor against erosion and other threats.
The susceptibility of priority assets to emergency Fire, Flood, Coastal Erosion, and Coastal Inundation scenarios was assessed using a risk assessment model. The model considered the extent of the natural capital assets and the likelihood/severity of the threat, with results identifying areas at the highest risk for each priority asset. Model outputs informed proactive actions to identify, assess, and reduce risks posed by potential emergency events to biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets.
Recommendations
Enhance Preparedness
• Enhance regional scale land use and landscape planning to identify critical natural and agricultural assets at the local and regional scale and their vulnerability to a range of different emergency impacts.
• Facilitate the inclusion of biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets in existing emergency planning frameworks, fostering a holistic approach to risk management and mitigation, and promoting longterm resilience and sustainability.
• Plan, develop and implement strategic actions tailored to the unique needs of biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets, with a focus on restoring ecosystems and enhancing resilience.
• Re-establish previously successful NRM programs such as property management planning, including a greater emphasis on biodiversity and natural capital asset protection, especially on private lands.
Strengthen Capabilities
• Invest in response and recovery planning with the provision of resident and abiding technical support through NRM organisations.
• Support clear communication that facilitates swift and coordinated responses to emergency events affecting biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets.
• Identify training and resources required to equip Cradle Coast NRM and our stakeholders with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively address crises.
• Bring together and coordinate on-ground efforts with state and federal governments and local stakeholders to expedite the recovery process for natural assets, leveraging available resources and expertise to maximise outcomes.
Collaboration
• Utilise Cradle Coast NRM’s broad and diverse network of community stakeholders to facilitate greater synergy and cross promotion of existing programs.
• Build stronger links between emergency response and recovery providers and their key beneficiaries, the communities vulnerable to such emergencies and the ecosystems on which they depend.
• Embed Cradle Coast NRM employees into state government incident control and emergency responses.
• Establish NRM representation on Regional Emergency Management Committees.
• Reinforce the relevance of Aboriginal cultural burning practices (in particular, cool burning) as a valid mechanism for threat abatement in some ecological systems.
1 Background
1� Background
Context
Landscapes of north-west and western Tasmania are increasingly under pressure from population growth, land use intensification, and industrialisation. Natural capital is being eroded and negative impacts upon a range of ecosystem services are already being seen. In recent years, north-west and western Tasmania has faced increasing challenges posed by natural disasters and extreme weather events, ranging from bushfires to large-scale floods, and emergency biosecurity incursions. These events not only threaten human lives, property, and food supply, but also have significant impacts on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets.
Natural disasters and emergency events have become more frequent and severe, driven in part by the effects of climate change. Tasmania, with its unique ecosystems and temperate weather conditions, is particularly vulnerable to events such as bushfires, floods, and coastal hazards. The 2018-2019 Tasmanian bushfires affecting the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) and the catastrophic floods across north and northwest Tasmania in 2016 have emphasised the urgent need for comprehensive emergency preparedness and response plans tailored to the region's natural assets and specific challenges.
The Bureau of Meteorology's declaration of an El Niño climate event in September 2023 and the subsequent forecast of drier and hotter conditions for Australia has heightened concerns about the risk of extreme weather events, as particularly demonstrated on King Island, with unprecedented drought conditions in the summer of 2024. Changes in air and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, and other climatic variables further compound the challenges faced by the region and the introduction and spread of invasive species and diseases poses a growing threat to Tasmania's ecosystems and productive industries. Recognising the critical role of NRM organisations in supporting emergency preparedness and response, the Australian Government invited Cradle Coast NRM to develop a ‘Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan’. The Plan is informed by lessons learned from past emergencies and guided by relevant strategic frameworks such as the 2030 NRM Strategy for Cradle Coast Tasmania, the State Emergency Management Committee Strategic Directions Framework ; the Tasmanian Disaster Resilience Strategy 2020-2025; and Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA)
By identifying vulnerabilities, prioritising actions, and fostering coordination among stakeholders, the Plan seeks to minimise the impacts of emergencies on biodiversity and agricultural assets.
The Plan contributes, in part, to actions under Target 17 of the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-321 and Outcomes 1, 2 and 3 of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), by addressing vulnerability from extreme weather events relevant to biodiversity2 and agricultural natural capital assets 3 identified in the management unit and improving emergency response and planning within jurisdictions. The Plan also contributes to Outcomes 1 and 3 of the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program by supporting the agriculture sector to build resilience to climate change and conserve natural capital and biodiversity on farm.
The development of the Plan reflects a proactive approach to addressing the growing challenges posed by natural disasters in northwest Tasmania. By leveraging local knowledge, stakeholder engagement, and strategic partnerships, Cradle Coast NRM aims to enhance the region's resilience and safeguard its natural assets for future generations.
Biodiversity assets
The Cradle Coast region is home to a wide diversity of functional ecosystems ranging from alpine fens, peatlands, shrublands, sclerophyll and rainforests, coastal and estuarine systems and remote islands. These ecosystems provide habitat for many species including those endemic to the Cradle Coast region, such as the critically endangered King Island Thornbill and King Island Scrubtit and those endemic to Tasmania, including the Giant Freshwater Crayfish and Ptunarra Brown Butterfly. Many migratory bird species, such as the Orange-bellied Parrot, Eastern Curlew, Australasian Bittern and Swift Parrot, while having their core ranges and stronghold populations outside the Cradle Coast region, also utilise the region for important feeding habitat along their migratory routes.
2 Biodiversity assets refer to assets identified by jurisdictions, environment management agencies or environmental law as important to preserve during emergencies or natural disasters e.g., species, ecological communities, habitat features.
3 Agricultural natural capital assets relate to the on-farm natural resources that we rely on for food and fibre production, including soil, air, water, riparian areas, remnant native vegetation, agroforestry and environmental plantings and animals.
Agricultural natural capital assets
Cradle Coast is also one of the most agriculturally productive regions in Tasmania. Fertile soils associated with the northern coastline of the region benefit from a temperate moist climate to provide ideal conditions for high-value and intensive horticulture, dairy and beef production. Agricultural natural capital assets in north-west and western Tasmania include soil, air, water, riparian areas, remnant native vegetation, agroforestry, and environmental plantings. These assets underpin the success of agricultural enterprises across the region. The agricultural landscapes of the Cradle Coast region are predominantly used for dryland and irrigated grazing and irrigated cropping, concentrated in lower altitudes along the coast and across floodplains and valleys.
Climate change and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme events are likely to have profound impacts on agriculture in these low-lying areas, being particularly susceptible to flooding. This will impact livestock health and welfare, cause erosion that will destroy crops and pasture and strongly influence soil degradation processes, further affecting future productivity and yields, jeopardising ongoing production viability.
Loss and degradation of aquatic and riparian habitat and decline in water quality, particularly in agricultural landscapes, already poses a threat to range of different species such as Giant Freshwater Crayfish, Green and Gold Frog, Dwarf Galaxias, Australian Grayling and Australasian Bittern. However, native vegetation within these production landscapes is increasingly important for supporting the region’s biodiversity assets and provide an opportunity to mitigate threats of extreme events to critical habitat for these and many other threatened species, such as the Eastern Barred Bandicoot, Eastern Quoll and King Island woodland birds.
Maintaining groundcover and protecting and increasing the extent and condition of native vegetation in production landscapes is critical to improve resilience in the face of extreme events. Native shelterbelts, riparian areas and remnant vegetation will support the maintenance and productivity of agricultural soils and improve biodiversity assets.
Cultural practices
Cradle Coast NRM acknowledges the Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples’ strong connections to the coast, land, and waterways as well as plants and animals, which are associated with traditional uses and significance in ceremonies, creation stories, art and identity. Stewardship of these sites and the cultural landscapes of the whole Cradle Coast region are not only integral to Aboriginal identity, health and wellbeing, but also to Aboriginal rights and reconciliation.
Sites of cultural significance are found across the region with concentrations on the coast and along river valleys that provided pathways from alpine to coastal resources for the region’s First Nations Peoples. Sites of significance include living places, burial areas, quarries, petroglyphs and rock art.
These sites are at risk from a number of threats including a changing climate (physical degradation of sites from sea level rise, changes to ecosystem function and native species assemblages), loss of knowledge and fewer opportunities to connect to or access Country, and changes to land use and/or condition (from urbanisation and development, changing fire regimes, pest species and biosecurity threats).
Aboriginal-managed land in the region at Panatana, Preminghana, Kings Run, and in the Western Tasmania Aboriginal Cultural Landscape (takayna Country) are important places for re-establishing Aboriginal governance and reconnecting Tasmania’s Aboriginal communities with Country.
Cradle Coast NRM aims to navigate the complexities of emergency management while honouring the rich cultural heritage of the Palawa. By recognising the leadership and stewardship role of Palawa in fostering the resilience and health of Country, we aim to empower community, facilitate access to funding and resources, foster collaboration, and support increased formal involvement and recognition of First Nations Tasmanians in managing Country.
2 Objectives of this plan
2� Objectives of this plan
Purpose
The Plan serves as a strategic blueprint to enhance preparedness, response, and recovery measures pertaining to emergency events impacting biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets. The plan aims to integrate these crucial assets into emergency frameworks, and to mitigate risks, minimise damage, and expedite recovery processes for natural assets in the face of emergency events.
The Plan identifies the role of Cradle Coast NRM and how we can collaborate with agencies responsible for emergency preparedness and response in north-west and western Tasmania. This includes efforts to enhance the resilience of biodiversity and agricultural assets by recognising the risks and threats posed by emergency events and undertaking planning to improve outcomes through actions and management before, during (to the extent possible) and after to support recovery.
Objectives
The objectives of this Plan are to enhance preparedness for, response to, and recovery from emergency events as they relate to biodiversity and natural capital assets, to strengthen the capabilities of Cradle Coast NRM and our partners and stakeholders, and to identify opportunities for collaboration with relevant agencies:
1. Enhance preparedness:
a. To outline proactive actions that identify, assess, and reduce risks posed by potential emergency events to biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets.
b. To foster collaboration and information sharing among relevant stakeholders and ensure a comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities and effective preparedness measures.
2. Strengthen capabilities:
a. To establish clear protocols and communication channels to facilitate swift and coordinated responses to emergency events affecting biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets.
b. To identify training and resources required to equip Cradle Coast NRM and our stakeholders with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively address crises.
c. To develop and implement actions tailored to the unique needs of biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets, with a focus on restoring ecosystems and enhancing resilience.
d. To bring together and coordinate on-ground efforts with state and federal governments and local stakeholders to expedite the recovery process for natural assets, leveraging available resources and expertise to maximise outcomes.
e. To facilitate the inclusion of biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets in existing emergency planning frameworks, fostering a holistic approach to risk management and mitigation, and promoting long-term resilience and sustainability.
3. Collaborate with relevant agencies:
a. To identify and engage with key agencies responsible for emergency preparedness and response in northwest Tasmania, fostering collaboration and coordination to achieve shared objectives.
b. To identify partnerships and cooperative agreements to leverage resources and expertise for more effective management of priority natural assets during and following emergencies.
3 Scope
3� Scope
The Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA) defines an ‘emergency’ as ‘an event, actual or imminent, which endangers or threatens to endanger life, property or the environment, and which requires a significant and coordinated response’. In context of this plan, the definition of ‘emergency’ is consistent with that of TEMA, and we emphasise the need for a comprehensive and coordinated response to reduce the impacts of emergencies on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital. Emergencies are acute in nature, involving sudden or extreme events that endanger or have the potential to endanger life, property, or the environment. These events include floods, bushfires,
or storms, as well as human-induced crises, such as industrial accidents or hazardous material spills. It is important to note that while emergencies are acute events, they may also be exacerbated by the chronic effects of factors like climate change and extended periods of rainfall deficiency.
Establishing the scope of the Plan
Many potential emergency events may impact the natural assets of the Cradle Coast region – these have been categorised as either ‘in’ or ‘out’ of scope (Table 1).
Event In scope
Bushfire
Flooding and coastal inundation
Wildfire, of a scale, intensity, severity, frequency or at a site that could result in a significant impact to biodiversity or agricultural natural assets.
Cultural burns as a management action.
Temporary flood that could result in a significant impact to biodiversity or agricultural natural assets. This would include areas or assets that cannot tolerate flooding.
Storm surge.
Drought
Biosecurity
Marine or terrestrial heatwaves
Other
New or existing pest, weeds and diseases that could result in a significant acute impact to biodiversity or agricultural natural assets.
Management actions to reduce biosecurity risks during of after other emergencies (e.g. flood, bushfire).
Out of scope
Cool burns, cultural burns, fire fuel hazard reduction burns, forestry burns, and ecological burns.
Small, short-term events that do not have a significant impact to values.
Areas that are adapted to flooding.
Tidal flows, sea level rise.
Acute drought, which could result in a significant impact to biodiversity or agricultural natural assets (or productivity in agricultural settings).
Chronic impacts, e.g. longer-term drying and persistent drought-like conditions –longer-term strategies may address trend and prepare for this eventuality.
Pests, weeds and diseases that already exist in the state, unless there is a significant change in their distribution or impact.
Agricultural pests, weeds, and diseases (i.e. affecting livestock or crops).
Sudden and prolonged periods of unusually warm temperatures, impacting ecosystems and production.
Chronic impacts such as climate change.
Future plans, reviews, or updates of this Plan may consider some of the out of scope or new issues noted in Table 1.
TAB l E 1: Scope of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital (2024)
It is worth noting that one type of emergency event can trigger others. For example, a flood may create a biosecurity risk (e.g. invasive fish being swept into pristine streams) or the aftermath of a wildfire creates impacts away from the site (e.g. soil loss, erosion, or landslip) or facilitates the expansion of weeds.
Emergency management covers four phases under the PPRR spectrum including Prevention (Mitigation), Preparedness, Response and Recovery. In this plan Mitigation and Preparedness have largely been combined under the heading of Preparedness as these actions are undertaken before an event. For NRM’s activities could include supporting Municipal councils and contributing to capacity building and enhancing response capability as well as assisting to educate the community and reporting on observations.
Potential NRM contributions in Emergency Management Phases
Actions are addressed in relation to four key areas:
1. PREPAREDNESS (before the event):
Prevention (Mitigation) and preparation activities aimed at building resilience in natural and agricultural assets.
2. RESPONSE (during the event):
Assist with implementation of specific emergency responses tailored to the nature of the emergency and natural resource management priorities.
3. RECOVERY (after the event):
Following the cessation of the initial impact operations: recovery efforts focused on restoring the condition of natural assets and facilitating their return to a state of resilience.
4. GENERA l APPROACH (ongoing):
Adopting a collaborative and holistic approach to emergency management, involving coordination with stakeholders and considering the interconnectedness of ecological and agricultural systems.
» Photo: St John Pound
4 Organisational roles
4� Organisational roles
Key roles and responsibilities
Within the framework of the Emergency Management Act 2006 and the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA), clear roles and responsibilities are provided to govern emergency management in Tasmania. These encompass mitigation, response, relief, and recovery efforts, ensuring a structured and coordinated approach to managing emergencies across the state.
For a comprehensive understanding of these arrangements and the specific responsibilities of agencies involved, stakeholders can refer to the webbased TEMA document, accessible at https://www. ses.tas.gov.au/emergency-management-2/tasmanianemergency-management-arrangements-tema
This document provides a high-level overview of the organisational structures and protocols underpinning Tasmania's emergency management framework.
In alignment with these overarching structures, Table 2 summarises the key roles integral to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts for natural assets. Contact names and details are omitted from the Plan due to their susceptibility to frequent change within dynamic operational environments.
TAB l E 2: Key lead and supporting organisations involved in emergency preparedness, response and recovery in the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania Organisation Role
Aboriginal groups, including: Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC), Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation, Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation
Agricultural extension and industry groups including: TasFarmers Tasmanian Agricultural Productivity Group (TAPG), Tas Farm Innovation Hub, Dairy Tas, Potato link
Ambulance Tasmania
Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), includes Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) and Biosecurity Tasmania (BT)
Represent and advocate for the rights and roles of Tasmanian Aboriginal people and groups, including engaging and advising Government at all levels regarding affairs affecting Aboriginal Tasmanians. Lead Aboriginal community based on-ground natural resource management actions to support healthy sea, land and air country, including cultural burning as a management action.
Agricultural industry associations representing and advocating for the interests of primary producers in Tasmania and engaging and educating farmers and graziers in emergency preparedness, response, and recovery.
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC)
Ambulance Tasmania is responsible for providing emergency medical services, including medical response during disasters and emergencies. They work alongside other agencies to ensure the health and safety of the community.
State agency responsible for supporting primary industry development, the protection of Tasmania's natural environment, effective land and water management and the protection of Tasmania's relative disease and pest free status. NRE is the coordinating agency for Environmental Recovery. The PWS is responsible for managing 49% Tasmania’s land area including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. PWS develops and maintains bushfire management plans for some PWS managed land. BT is responsible for the protection of Tasmania’s industries and environment from the negative impacts of pests, weeds and diseases.
The central agency of the Tasmanian State Government, DPAC is responsible for a broad range of services to Cabinet, other members of Parliament, Government agencies and the community. DPAC is the coordinating agency for social and cross domain recovery.
Organisation
Department of State Growth
Emergency relief and support organisations, including the Australian Red Cross
Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) including Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT), Tasmanian Irrigation, TasWater, Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks
l andcare groups, represented by l andcare Tasmania
local conservation and land management groups, including: Tasmanian l and Conservancy (TlC)
local farming groups, including: Soil First, Sprout Tasmania, Regenerative Agriculture Network of Tasmania (RANT)
local governments, including: Kentish, l atrobe, Devonport, Central Coast, Burnie, WaratahWynyard, Circular Head, West Coast and King Island
Private forestry
Research institutes, including CSIRO and University of Tasmania
Role
State agency responsible for transport, infrastructure, skills, training and workforce growth, international relations and trade, science and technology, resources, energy and emissions reductions, and region and sector development. State Growth provides support to and retains a close working relationship with the statutory authorities Forest Practices Authority and Private Forests Tasmania. Coordinating agency for Economic Recovery and Infrastructure Recovery.
Providing immediate relief, long-term recovery support, emergency preparedness initiatives, information dissemination, health and welfare services, and coordination efforts with other organisations during all stages of disasters.
State owned business enterprises responsible for managing and maintaining natural resource and infrastructure assets including production and non-production forests, irrigation systems, fresh water and sewerage services and energy generation.
Landcare groups are community-based volunteer powered groups that provide on-ground natural resource management services relevant to emergency preparedness and recovery. Landcare Tasmania supports landcare groups and landholders in their local areas through leadership, planning and resources.
Not-for-profit, apolitical, science and community-based organisations that raise funds to deliver conservation actions and protect irreplaceable sites, rare ecosystems, and threatened species and communities in Tasmania.
Farmer-led organisations supporting peer learning and practical information on bestmanagement techniques for soil conservation and productivity benefits in local conditions. These organisations partner with Cradle Coast Authority on sustainable-agriculture projects and activities, including supporting farmers to retain ground cover to protect productive soils from wind and water erosion, including during and after bushfire, flood, and drought.
Responsible for localised services including emergency management such as response and recovery. Have a legislated role to assist with local planning and preparation for emergency events. This involves leading the preparation of Municipal Emergency Management Plans (MEMP) and coordinating MEM Committee meetings involving local emergencymanagement agencies.
Undertaking prevention and mitigation efforts, early detection and reporting of forest fires, mobilising resources for emergency response, collaborating with authorities, and engaging with communities to support preparedness and recovery efforts.
Assess environmental damage, monitor ecosystem recovery, and develop strategies for mitigating future environmental risks associated with emergencies.
Organisation Role
State Fire Management Council (SFMC) Tasmania Fire Service (TFS)
Tasmania Police (Taspol)
Tasmanian State Emergency Service (SES)
State agencies responsible for mitigating the impact of, preparing for and responding to fire emergencies including providing community education on bushfire preparedness and fire safety. State Fire Management Council (SFMC) oversees all Fire Management Area Committees (FMACs) across the state which all have a Bushfire Risk Management Plan. TFS manage the state and regional firefighting operations for bushfire, structural fire, and hazardous material incidents. This includes intelligence, air operations, warnings and public information. They undertake vegetation fire management activities and bushfire mitigation programs, are the fire protection industry regulator and maintain building safety standards. A division of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
State agency responsible for delivering support services during emergencies, including providing information to the community in relation to security and safety. They work in partnership with TFS and SES A division of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
State agency responsible for providing emergency response services for severe storms and floods, road crash rescue, and a range of other general rescue and community support roles through the coordination of volunteers. Includes the Emergency Management Unit (EMU) who provides whole of government advice and executive support to the State Emergency Management Committee and Regional Emergency Management Planning committees. It also takes the lead with much of the State’s emergency management planning and emergency risk management work. The EMU is responsible for maintaining the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements on behalf of the State Emergency Management Committee. A division of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
Wildcare Tasmania, including ‘Friends of’ groups, Threatened Plants Tasmania and other community led volunteer groups
Wildlife rescue and rehabilitation groups, including coordination by Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary
Community organisation representing environmental volunteer groups whose foci include capacity building and undertaking on-ground natural resource management works such as invasive plant control, revegetation, and threatened plant and waterway monitoring at a local scale.
Medical care, rehabilitation, and release services for injured or displaced animals.
Several other organisations play significant roles in regional emergency management; however, their involvement in biodiversity and agricultural naturalcapital preparedness, response, and recovery efforts is comparatively limited. This includes utility agencies (e.g. electricity, water, telecommunications), health services and hospitals, transportation authorities, and educational institutions.
Overview of Cradle Coast NRM’s role in Emergency Preparedness and Response
In the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania, the conservation and management of natural resources are critically important, particularly in the face of emergency events. Cradle Coast Authority hosts Cradle Coast NRM, which is a statutory body responsible for strategic planning for management of natural resources in the region. Cradle Coast NRM have experience and expertise that could be integrated into existing frameworks to strengthen plays a key role in strengthening emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts, and build community resilience. Our role encompasses planning, coordinating, and delivering programs to support healthy and
productive landscapes, communities, and industries. We establish regional networks to address identified needs across diverse ecosystems and tenures, ensuring a holistic and integrated approach to landscape management. We maintain a regional focus on long-term recovery beyond the immediate response phase and actively support landowners to mitigate and prepare for emergency events.
As outlined in Figure 1, Cradle Coast NRM's approach towards emergency management is underpinned by our experience, strategic planning, and collaborative approach.
F IGURE 1: Cradle Coast NRM’s approach to emergency management
Experience
In relation to emergency mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, Cradle Coast NRM provides standing capability and support as an ally to emergency services and government defined roles. Drawing upon two decades of specialised expertise in natural resource management, our focus has developed through our strategic planning role and delivery of a diverse portfolio of projects valued at over $50 million since establishment. From targeted conservation actions to primary industries, sustainability, and biosecurity measures, our efforts reflect dedication to strengthening environmental sustainability and community resilience.
Cradle Coast NRM has demonstrated the value of its expertise and capability, playing a crucial role in supporting recovery efforts after the devastating floods across northern Tasmanian in 2016. The floods caused broad impacts on private and public land and infrastructure over 20 local government areas in north-west and western Tasmania, with farms particularly affected.
As part of the Tasmania Flood Recovery Taskforce led by State government agencies with Commonwealth support, we were able to provide timely and invaluable support to flood affected landowners, stepping outside our normal scope of business to undertake impact assessments and advise on pathways for landholders to access disaster recovery support. In addition, we were able to use our established local networks to coordinate the involvement of volunteer on-ground support that provided a significant contribution during the recovery phase.
In the face of emergent challenges, agility and adaptability are our guiding principles. We embrace adaptive management, addressing evolving priorities and recalibrate strategies as circumstances dictate. Cradle Coast NRM is committed to achieving efficiency, value-for-money, and delivering tangible outcomes. Leveraging existing projects, networks, and partnerships, we optimise resource allocation and amplify the impact of our interventions. Through stringent procurement processes and local knowledge, we maximise the impact of investment to support outcomes.
Our approach is effective because our practices are informed by best practices and cutting-edge research. Through networking, engagement with specialised groups, and ongoing capacity-building, we ensure the latest methodologies are integrated into our strategic actions. We have a partnership-driven approach, which sees us working strategically and collaboratively with
diverse stakeholders, including research institutions, Aboriginal people and groups, and government bodies. This allows us to amplify our collective impact and facilitate a more resilient future.
Strategic planning
Our 2030 NRM Strategy for Cradle Coast Tasmania (Strategy) provides a framework that supports effectiveness – it provides clarity and delineates clear priorities, threats, and actionable strategies that aim to improve the management of natural resources in northwest Tasmania. This Plan addresses a gap in the Strategy, which is to identify relevant actions relating to emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
As a part of our statutory role under the Natural Resource Management Act 2002 (Tas), and other contractual arrangements, Cradle Coast NRM has a mandate through our strategic planning processes to coordinate regional efforts aimed at safeguarding natural assets. By leading the development and implementation of comprehensive regional NRM strategies, we prioritise and facilitate action to address emerging threats and leverage opportunities. Our strategic approach creates synergies across sectors and tenure to foster a coordinated approach to landscape management.
Collaborative approach
Central to our approach is our support for collaborative leadership and multi-stakeholder planning to identify and address shared priorities. Our commitment to stakeholder engagement is key to foster inclusive and informed decision-making processes. By working with an extensive network of partners and collaborators, we have strengthened our capacity to translate plans into tangible outcomes.
We bring together diverse sectors to address issues such as water quality improvement, erosion, weed control, coastal health, climate change planning and biosecurity issues. Through a 'best-placed' approach to service delivery, we leverage the skills and knowledge of both internal and external partners, optimising outcomes across a diverse portfolio of projects. Our partnership delivery model enables us to deliver action with industry partners, community groups, Aboriginal people and groups, other Non-Government-Organisations, Government-BusinessEnterprises (GBE’s) and government departments, land managers and farmers. We can share resources and expertise to achieve shared objectives.
5 Priority biodiversity assets
5� Priority biodiversity assets
Identification of priority Biodiversity Assets and susceptibility
Biodiversity assets of priority concern in north - west and western Tasmania have been identified with consideration of relevant Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and in alignment with the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-32 including:
• Listed threatened species and Threatened Ecological Communities (concentrating on the Priority species in the 2022-2032 Threatened Species Action Plan present in our region), and priority sites
• Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance
• World Heritage properties (the parts of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage in our region)
The 2030 NRM Strategy for Cradle Coast Tasmania is also a key consideration, outlining actions for regional priorities and incorporates assets listed under State legislation.
Only those assets deemed particularly vulnerable to impacts of extreme events (rated high or moderate) have been prioritised in this plan and can be summarised as follows:
Threatened Ecological Communities
• Numerous vegetation communities are identified across the region, including some listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), including Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh, Tasmanian Forests & Woodlands dominated by Black Gum or Brookers Gum Eucalyptus ovata/brookeriana, Tasmanian White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Wet Forest, Alpine Sphagnum Bogs & associated Fens, as well as some listed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, including Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Forests. Concerted efforts are required to manage and protect these ecosystems, with the increasing onset of natural disasters threatening the extent, condition, and connectivity of critical habitats.
Threatened Species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and/or EPBC Act 1999
There are 157 species of native flora and fauna in the region listed as rare, vulnerable or endangered under State or Commonwealth legislation. Of these, 49 are endemic to the Cradle Coast region. A further 58 of these species are endemic to Tasmania.
The far north-west section of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA):
• The TWWHA includes significant and extensive areas of intact vegetation and provides landscapescale environments that enable interaction between native species without human intervention. A high proportion of flora and fauna are endemic to the TWWHA. Temperate rainforest, eucalypt forest, buttongrass moorland and alpine communities create a unique mosaic and provide refuge for a wide range of rare and threatened species including carnivorous marsupials.
One Ramsar site:
• Lavinia State Reserve is situated on the northeast coast of King Island and is contained wholly within a State Reserve under the management of Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). The reserve contains a highly significant and diverse set of ecosystems, including a significant lagoon and wetland system, coastal and bush landscapes, and a rich Aboriginal cultural heritage. Major wetlands include a large estuary with saltmarsh, coastal lagoons, perched lakes, swamp forests, and numerous smaller, seasonally inundated, wetland areas. The site is one of the few unaltered areas of King Island and contains much of the remaining native vegetation on the island.
Other regionally important places identified through the Regional Strategies:
• Macquarie Harbour, situated on the West Coast of Tasmania, is approximately 315 km2 in size and is fed by freshwater, largely from the Gordon and King Rivers. Having a relatively narrow entrance to the ocean, Macquarie Harbour is one of the largest saltwedge estuaries in the world.
• Robbins Passage – Boullanger Bay is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia and is one of the most significant natural assets in Tasmania, containing intertidal flats, reef assemblages, seagrass beds, Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Forests and EPBClisted, Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Threatened Ecological Community.
Appendix 2 includes the modelled mapped ranges for all priority Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets in the Cradle Coast region.
Spatial analysis
The sources of data are provided in section 10 and the detailed methods used for the spatial analysis are provided in Appendix 1.
The general approach used for the spatial analysis was that a risk assessment model was developed for each threat identified for this plan Fire, Flood, Coastal Erosion, Coastal Inundation (as indicators of episodic events from storm surges) for biodiversity assets, where relevant.
The three major components of each risk assessment model were:
1 Threat Rating (input): describes the extent and likelihood/severity of the threat.
2� Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating (input): describes the extent of the natural capital assets, which are then rated against all other assets in terms of priority for conservation value and/or the asset’s vulnerability to the threat.
3� Risk Assessment Rating (output): describes the combination of the two above rating models which can be used to identify areas at highest risk to the threat.
Key findings – biodiversity assets
Section 10 outlines data collected, used, and made accessible as part of this Plan, including how to access the mapping and modelling outcomes. Appendix 1 outlines the mapping methodology and data sources and assumptions. Table 3 identifies the priority Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets and outlines their susceptibility to the key emergency scenarios, with maps then shown for risk assessment against emergency scenarios in scope for the Plan.
TAB l E 3: Susceptibility of priority biodiversity assets of north-west and western Tasmania to emergency scenarios
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Threatened species and threatened ecological communities
King Island threatened birds, e.g.
KI Brown
Thornbill, KI
Scrubtit
See asset maps
KI Black
Currawong, KI Green Rosella
See asset maps
Giant Freshwater Crayfish
See asset map
Central North Burrowing Crayfish and Burnie
Burrowing Crayfish
See asset maps
Bushfire Habitat modification/ degradation resulting from increased frequency, severity or intensity of fires. Any intensity fire likely to impact upon critical habitat elements e.g. foraging and nesting sites.
Flood Increased frequency and severity of floods resulting in significant modification to habitat, including flood debris and sediment slugs, altered light levels, turbidity and water quality issues.
High Very restricted ranges and small populations on an island highly modified by agricultural practices. There are small, fragmented pockets of habitat left for birds. Small patches of remnant Eucalypt forest/ woodland, mature swamp paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia forest and wet Eucalypt Forest supporting mature M. ericifolia are very vulnerable to fire. Increased grazing pressure from macropods & deer leading to understorey simplification. Increased predation post-fire from feral cats, black rats and threats from tick infestations.
Green rosellas are mainly arboreal, hollow dependent, with nest competition likely from Brushtailed Possums, exotic birds and honeybees.
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season. Loss of vegetation cover, soil loss, exotic weed invasion.
Moderate
Altered channel morphology, flood debris deposits and siltation.
Damage to riparian vegetation affecting year-round waterway shading. Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
Majority of upper catchments have ongoing disturbance in them which will increase likelihood of the sedimentation and turbidity issues exacerbated with each flooding event. Increased degradation of riverine habitat by stock trampling exacerbated if stock fences are damaged.
High Burrowing crayfish are restricted to geographically isolated areas with limited connectivity, in close proximity to swamps and springs, largely on floodplains, soils high in organic matter. Reliant upon connective colony tunnels and susceptible to water table alterations. Susceptible to contaminants and water quality and availability issues. Also impacted by introduced Freshwater Yabbies (predation/competition, disease and parasites). Increased degradation of riverine habitat by stock trampling may be exacerbated if stock fences are damaged. Many of the isolated populations are being impacted by urbanisation, agriculture, forestry and mining operations upstream.
Higher levels of predation and water table impacts caused by altered hydrology are likely in immediate post-fire environment.
Coastal inundation Long-term or frequent saltwater incursions likely to impact adversely upon vegetation assemblages and habitat values as well as forcing crayfish to migrate upstream for freshwater habitats.
Moderate
Currently only located in relatively undisturbed stretches of streams, species reliant upon complex and extensive tunnel systems and access to water table.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat
Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Threatened species and threatened ecological communities (continued)
Australasian
Bittern
See asset map
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season. Frequent or intense burning of wetland areas may reduce dense vegetation.
Coastal inundation
Swift Parrot
See asset map
Long term or frequent saltwater incursions likely to impact aversely upon vegetation assemblages.
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season. Loss of vegetation cover, soil loss, exotic weed invasion.
Moderate Favours wetlands with tall dense vegetation. Loss of this core habitat may result in reduced nesting success.
Feral cat predation may increase with reduced vegetation cover.
Moderate Significant changes to density and composition of vegetation are likely to have adverse outcomes.
Moderate Single low population numbers, migrates to mainland during winter. Nectarivorous; mainly Eucalypt nectar. Fires may adversely impact upon flowering events and maturation of nectar rich plant species. Breeding range closely mirrors grassy Blue Gum Forest E.globulus and grassy Black Gum Forest E.ovata in Tasmania, 6 known sites in NW. Hollow dependent species, both live and dead Eucalypts, frequent fire may alter natural tree recruitment and impact on future hollow availability.
Green & Gold
Frog
See asset map
Hooded Plover
See asset map
Other resident shorebirds
See asset map
Flood Increased frequency and severity of floods resulting in significant modification to habitat, including flood debris and sediment slugs, altered light levels, turbidity and modification of wetland vegetation.
Coastal inundation Long term or more frequent saltwater incursions likely to impact adversely upon vegetation assemblages and physico-chemical characteristics.
Flood Impacts of river mouth modification, flood debris deposits and beach morphology changes.
Moderate Single subpopulation in Cradle Coast NRM Region on private agricultural land. Dependent upon permanent freshwater lagoons in lowland areas with complex vegetation structure for breeding. Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts which is a serious threat to habitat integrity.
Moderate Freshwater dependent species with preference for shallow parts of lagoons (< 1.5 m) with complex vegetation structure dominated by a combination of emergent and submerged plants.
Moderate Monogamous with territory size (1.3 km in Tas) dependent upon beach width and length. Preferred habitats wide ocean beaches, backed by dunes with large amounts of seaweed, creek mouths and inlet entrances. Largely sedentary, nests in shallow depressions above high tide mark. Foraging at all levels of the beach, beach grain size may influence invertebrate abundance and may be a factor for breeding habitat selection.
Coastal erosion
Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting beaches, creek mouths and dune systems.
High Habitat fragmentation, increased spread of invasive weeds such as sea spurge and marram grass. Storm surges eroding suitable habitat and flooding nests, especially during breeding season.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Threatened species and threatened ecological communities (continued)
Migratory shorebirds –e.g. Eastern
Curlew
See asset map
Curlew
Sandpiper
See asset map
Red Knot and Great Knot
See asset map
Coastal erosion Habitat displacement and broad scale modification of foraging habitat.
Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting areas where birds feed and roost.
Coastal inundation Long term or more frequent saltwater incursions may adversely impact vegetation assemblages and impact coastal geomorphology.
little Penguins
See asset map
Short-tailed Shearwaters
See asset map
Marrawah Skipper
See asset map
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting shorelines and foredune systems where birds breed and construct burrows.
High Migratory shorebirds, breed in Northern hemisphere summer. Carnivorous, forages on sandflats and saltmarsh consuming crustaceans, small molluscs, worms and insects, roost together in large flocks. For curlews, immature birds spend up to 3 austral (southern) winters in Australia before undertaking first northward migration to breeding grounds. Alterations to feeding habitat and water regime along with concentration of pollutants and activation of acid sulfate soils may reduce food availability. Invasive plants particularly ecosystem transformers like Rice Grass may readily colonise disturbed areas.
Moderate
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting.
High
Reduction in area of land available for roosting and feeding.
Coastal inundation
Long term or more frequent saltwater incursions may adversely impact vegetation assemblages.
Reduction in area of land available for nesting. Reduced vegetation cover may increase predation by feral cats and rats. Penguins spend approximately 80% of their time at sea feeding. While on land they are particularly vulnerable whilst incubating eggs and raising chicks and during the annual moult (2 weeks). Shearwaters are a migratory seabird, most colonies located on headlands and islands covered with tussocks but may also nest in foredunes. Feed at sea on krill, squid and fish. Invasive weed species may increase if able to colonise recently disturbed areas. Soil erosion in colonies may be exacerbated after bushfires and adversely impact upon burrows.
Moderate Annual lifecycle, restricted range coastal (< 50m ASL) and near coastal areas with fragmented subpopulations in small colonies. Exclusively associated with Tussock Sedge (Carex appressa ), the larval host and food plant. Sedgelands along drains and forest margins, swamp forest and pasture. Heavy cattle grazing of C. appresa and trampling a key threatening process, damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
Moderate
Reduction in area of land available for roosting and feeding.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Threatened species and threatened ecological communities (continued)
Dwarf Galaxias
See asset map
Preminghana Billybuttons
See asset map
Bushfire
Increased fire frequency and severity.
Adverse impacts upon aquatic habitat, increasing water temperature, altered water chemistry (toxic algal blooms cause fish and egg deaths), sediment/ash slugs can persist for a significant period and may impact many kilometres downstream from burnt areas.
Flood Increased severity and frequency of flooding events.
Moderate Restricted geographical distribution, non-migratory annual species with narrow breeding window. Rely on permanent waterbodies, seasonal flooding and connectivity.
Habitat degradation and changes to hydrology impacting upon extent, frequency and timing of natural flooding.
Stock grazing and trampling reduce freshwater habitat and water quality. Trampling also damages crayfish burrows which form important refugia in dry periods. Riparian vegetation loss can have drastic effect on water temperature, oxygen levels and induce algal blooms.
Water extraction for stock can further reduce habitat availability and quality. Invasive fish species can result in predation and or competition.
Moderate Changes to riparian vegetation and in-stream morphology may result in significant habitat modifications including vegetation assemblages, water availability (wetland drying) and water and air temperatures.
Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
TWWHA
See asset map
Bushfire
Inappropriate fire regimes, fire ecology poorly understood.
Coastal erosion
Slope stability adversely impacted by dune and scree slope/cliff face recession caused by increased basal wave action.
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season. Loss of vegetation cover, soil loss, damage to underlying peat layers, exotic weed invasion
High
Single subpopulation (estimate < 250 mature plants) with linear range of 400 m on steep southern flank Preminghana (Mt Cameron West). Grows on basalt outcrops 40-90 m above sea level. Steep unstable slopes may serve as protection from native animal grazing pressure.
High Increased mass movement events may result in a loss of critical habitat for this plant.
Moderate Some fire sensitive species may be significantly impacted by any fire (eg fire sensitive Alpine Conifer Forests). Other species may survive a single fire but are unlikely to persist after subsequent fires. Ecological management zones have been identified in TWWHA Fire management Plan to protect specific biodiversity assets eg threatened species habitats, threatened ecological communities, unburnt and recovering ecosystems and peat mounds.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Threatened species and threatened ecological communities (continued)
Alpine Sphagnum
Bogs and associated Fens
See asset map
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season. Loss of vegetation cover, soil loss, damage to underlying peat layers, exotic weed invasion.
Tasmanian Forests and Woodlands dominated by black gum or Brookers
Gum (E.ovata/ E.brookeriana)
See asset map
Tasmanian White Gum (E.viminalis)
Wet Forest
See asset map
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season.
High Trampling and browsing by deer and browsing by rabbits.
Rate of weed invasion exacerbated following intense bushfires. Control of exotic weeds may be challenging due to sensitivity of wetlands to some chemicals.
Vulnerable to pathogens such as Phytophthora, Myrtle rust and Didymo. Trampling of vegetation and pathogen spread resulting from recreational activities.
High Faunal populations in small, isolated patches vulnerable to local extinction following intense fires. Loss of roost sites and tree hollows. Grazing damage by deer, rabbits, livestock. Critically Endangered Swift Parrots feed on Black Gum blossoms, an important secondary nectar source. Rate of invasive species spread e.g. Blackberry, Gorse can be exacerbated after fire.
Bushfire Wet forests are adapted to infrequent high intensity fires. More frequent fires may result in simplification if understorey and establishment of weeds.
High Disturbed and fragmented forests increasingly vulnerable to weed species. Loss of structural diversity reduces multi-storied habitat for wide range of fauna, including hollow dependent fauna and threatened species. Wet forests not suitable for fuel reduction burning with potential for development of bracken understorey with repeated fires.
Asset class: Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets
Melaleuca ericifolia
Swamp Forest
See asset map
Bushfire Occurs as narrow strip at fringe of saltmarsh, lagoons and rivers, in sites that are poorly drained or intermittently waterlogged. Altered fire frequency, intensity and season. Loss of vegetation cover, soil loss, exotic weed invasion.
Flood Flood damage, flood debris and sedimentation. Prolonged higher levels of inundation may increase soil waterlogging beyond acceptable limits for vegetation.
Coastal inundation
Long term or frequent saltwater incursions likely to impact adversely upon vegetation assemblages.
High Organic high carbon soils can burn deeply when soil moisture levels are low. Loss of soil and riverbank integrity impacts upon adjacent riverine and estuarine areas.
Disturbed and fragmented forests increasingly vulnerable to weed species post fire.
Moderate
Moderate
Significant changes to density and composition of vegetation are likely to have adverse outcomes and allow colonisation of disturbed areas by alien species.
Significant changes to density and composition of vegetation are likely to have adverse outcomes.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat
Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets (continued)
Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh
See asset map
Flood
Increased frequency and severity of floods resulting in significant modification to habitat, including flood debris and sediment slugs, altered light levels, turbidity, altered salinity and nutrient regimes and modification of wetland vegetation.
Coastal inundation Long term or more frequent saltwater incursions may adversely impact vegetation assemblages and soil health.
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting saltmarsh communities.
Moderate Highly productive as a food source for resident and migratory birds and important nursery habitat for fish.
Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
High Groundwater hydrology alterations, fragmentation, Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
High Intensity, and frequency of mechanical disturbance due to coastal processes (tidal connections and wave action). Disturbance of acid sulfate soils and runoff impacts.
Reduced ability to absorb wave energy particularly during storm events.
Increased potential for colonization of disturbed areas by invasive species such as Rice grass.
Damage to stock fences may exacerbate stock trampling impacts.
Giant Kelp Marine Forests
See asset map
Flood Impacts upon water quality from land-based activities.
Coastal erosion Potential loss of kelp forests from catastrophic storm events.
Moderate Generally 8m below sea level on rocky substrate. Habitat structure inhabited by diverse assemblage of animals and smaller seaweeds, primary production of kelp forests utilised by a broad community of organisms, including settlement habitat for juvenile life stages of commercially important fisheries. Key threats include increasing sea surface temperatures, changes in nutrient availability in warmer waters. Changes in weather patterns and large-scale oceanographic conditions leading to increased impacts upon kelp forests. Potential range expansion of invasive species impacting upon kelp.
Moderate Changes in weather patterns and large-scale oceanographic conditions leading to increased impacts upon kelp forests. Potential range expansion of invasive species impacting upon kelp.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets (continued)
Robbins Passage –Boullanger Bay coastal wetlands
See asset map
Macquarie Harbour
See asset map
Flood Sedimentation impacting upon intertidal flats, reef assemblages and sea grass beds associated with high magnitude events. Cumulative impact of contaminants in runoff from surrounding agricultural land or chemical spills upon range of habitats.
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting upon intertidal flats, reef assemblages, sea grass beds and surrounding saltmarsh and Melaleuca swamp forests.
Coastal inundation Saltwater incursions and storm surges impacting upon intertidal flats, saltmarsh and Melaleuca swamp forests.
Flood Mobilisation of sediments containing heavy metals associated with mining operations in King River catchments.
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events upon harbour mouth dynamics.
Coastal inundation Saltwater incursions and storm surges impacting.
High Many estuarine and marine species depend upon integrity of seagrass beds and saltmarsh vegetation for their survival. The area provides for the largest aggregation of migratory birds in Tasmania including more than 20 species of trans-continental migratory waders and is a critical feeding habitat for migratory shorebirds at the southern reach of the East Asian-Australasian flyway.
High Low lying topography with land adjoining landscapes highly modified by agricultural land uses, resulting in very limited refugia for flora or fauna.
Increased disturbance enabling colonization by range of alien species including Rice Grass.
High Low lying topography with land adjoining landscapes highly modified by agricultural land uses, resulting in very limited refugia for flora or fauna. Increased disturbance enabling colonization by range of alien species including Rice Grass.
High Deterioration of water quality including dissolved oxygen levels in harbour, implications for all fauna that are harbour dependent e.g. Maugean Skates.
High Alterations to harbour morphology impacting upon water quality and unique physico-chemical characteristics (e.g. halocline and water temperatures).
High
Deterioration of water quality including dissolved oxygen levels in harbour, implications for all fauna that are harbour dependent e.g. Maugean Skates.
Asset Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat Susceptibility Why
Asset class: Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets (continued)
l avinia Ramsar Site see asset map
Flood Impacts of river mouth modification, flood debris deposits and beach morphology changes.
Bushfire Altered fire frequency, intensity, severity and season.
Moderate One of the few largely unaltered areas of King Island and contains much of the remaining native vegetation on the island.
Weed invasion and colonisation of flood impacted areas by existing species such as Ragwort and Asparagus Fern.
High Faunal populations in small, isolated patches vulnerable to local extinction following intense fires, particularly King Island Scrubtit and loss of swamp forest habitat. Rate of invasive species spread e.g. Psoralea can be exacerbated after fire. Bushfires have severely damaged more than two thirds of organic soils (peat) on the Lavinia Plain. Further bushfires will impact significantly on structure of vegetation communities and biodiversity values.
Coastal erosion Erosion and deposition associated with widespread high magnitude events impacting dune systems, perched lakes, swamps wetlands and saltmarsh communities.
Moderate Sea Elephant estuary saltmarsh areas provide foraging habitat for migrating Orange-bellied Parrots and Eastern Curlew. Freshwater lagoons with permanent water are breeding habitat for Green & Gold Frogs and Nook Swamps and the surrounding wetlands support M. ericifolia swamp forests. The timing, severity and extent of bushfires will likely play a major role in determining the level of resilience of vegetation communities to coastal erosion.
Potential activation of acid sulfate soils. Impacts upon groundwater dynamics.
F IGURE 3: Priority biodiversity assets – flood risk assessment
Preparedness actions for protecting biodiversity assets (prior to an event)
Preparedness is crucial to ensuring that biodiversity assets are protected in the longer-term. Protecting these assets will rely on minimising impacts during each emergency phase. For example, some species may be sensitive to management measures during an emergency, such as from:
• Earthworks, machinery, or soil disturbance, causing crushing or disturbance, or indirect impacts from increased soil mobilisation causing sedimentation in nearby waterways, etc.
• High or insufficient fire frequency or intensity, such as during planned burning
• Inappropriate timing of planned burns e.g. season.
• Loss of structure or vegetation cover.
A risk-based approach to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from emergency management actions should be used.
The other consideration is trying to build resilience in biodiversity assets, by for example reducing other threatening processes or enhancing habitat protection.
The following tables address potential actions in relation to specific assets, the following general tasks should be undertaken for all biodiversity assets:
• Identify and secure funding This is particularly the case for NRMs given their funding model.
• Identify of roles and responsibilities This includes all key stakeholders such as: the NRMs, all tiers of government, community groups etc.
• Develop a Communication Plan�
• Conduct a Gap analysis� This would identify:
– Critical gaps in information, particularly susceptible assets and their distribution. It may necessitate additional monitoring or research to confirm the persistence and characteristics of threatened species populations at previously recorded locations, (particularly where records are old); identify new locations requiring protection; surveys to improve mapping, known locations and understanding of the condition of threatened ecological communities.
– Ensure species location data and ecological information is available and considered in fire-management activities, including regularly updating information in web-based information
and mapping platforms used for emergency management.
– Whether the priority assets are still appropriate.
– Determine if recovery actions are adequate or require revision (actions such as those documented in listing statements, conservation advice or Recovery Plans).
– The needs across different land tenure. For example, the role of NRMs may differ for state government bodies such as PWS, compared to that required for private landowners.
• Conduct due diligence� This would assess previous emergencies and the effectiveness of actions in protecting biodiversity assets. What worked, what didn’t, where could improvements be made?
• Develop a management plan for before, during and after an event� Informed by the above. It should address how best to integrate the most effective biodiversity actions into emergency response plans or organisations. This is likely to include a suite of existing actions already conducted by State Government Agencies:
– Bushfire Risk Assessment Model (BRAM) inputs
– Bushfire Risk Management Plans (Central-North, West Coast, King Island) and TWWHA Fire Management Plan 2022
– State Flood Risk Assessment (SES Policy Unit) Plans should be reviewed on a regular basis and after an emergency event.
Specific actions might include:
– Bushfire: Fire suppression, fuel load management (cool burns, cultural burns, fire breaks, slashing), specific vegetation removal or planting
– Flood prevention and erosion control
– Revegetation and habitat restoration to improve ecosystem resilience
– Captive breeding to increase population
– Seed collection
– Pest control e.g. feral cats, sugar gliders
– Weed control
– Diseases control, e.g. Phytophthora, chytrid
TAB l E 4: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the threatened species and threatened ecological communities of north-west and western Tasmania
Actions Where Current roles Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Emergency scenario: Bushfire
Planned burns Location to be determined by land managers and FMACs.
All FMACs across the state have a Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Treatable areas are identified and prioritised and actions are coordinated and a schedule of planned burns is developed with all stakeholders including TFS, PWS, STT and Private Forestry.
Awareness raising programs for landholders in fire management planning and links to existing resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration, e.g. SFMC’s Red Hot Tips Program which provide private land managers planning support for property-scale burns.
Contribute information collected from landholders on Threatened Species and TEC’s for integration into Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plans.
Cultural burns Location to be determined by Aboriginal community and groups.
Fire breaks Location to be determined by land managers and FMACs.
Aboriginal community and groups (including Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Firesticks Alliance) undertake cultural burns, identify priorities, facilitate learning, and connection to Country.
Land managers, TFS, private forestry companies, GBEs, and other agencies (including state and local government) coordinate and/or lead fire break planning and implementation.
Tools and resources are available (e.g. TFS Fuel Break Guidelines & Tasmanian Fire Service Fuel Break Design Tool).
∙ Support community to secure resources, funds and/or access to Country to undertake cultural burn programs as a proactive measure for landscape resilience.
Awareness raising for landholders in fire management planning and links to available resources and government agency advice, support and potential collaboration.
Actions Where Current roles
Vegetation assessments and management
All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
All land managers, State and local government play a role.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Capacity building programs for farmers in fire and vegetation and threatened species/TEC management planning
Property management planning with landholders including biodiversity and fire risk assessments.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk (eg herbarium seed banks, ex-situ populations and translocation to new sites) and protect native vegetation, including fire mitigation works, weed control and planting of less fire-prone native vegetation. Provide on-ground advice and support.
Emergency scenario: Flood
Riparian zone management and improvement, including fencing of waterways and revegetation.
Control weeds on agricultural land to prevent weed spread by flood waters.
All landholders with riparian zones.
All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for riparian restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
All landholders on waterways and floodplains.
All land managers, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania and the NRM projects, such as Tasmanian Weeds Action Fund), and other agencies (including state and local government).
Emergency scenario: Coastal inundation and erosion
Coastal zone management and improvement, including coastal buffering through revegetation.
Coastal landholders. All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for coastal restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
Emergency scenario: Biosecurity
Maintain and promote appropriate biosecurity provisions and threat communication alerts
Regionwide. All land managers, State and local government, NRMs and farming/ Landcare groups.
Property management planning with landholder including flood risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in flood and vegetation management planning.
Encourage the protection and expansion of riparian vegetation on farms through provision of on-ground advice and support.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to agricultural vegetation and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats to farm businesses.
Property management planning with coastal landholders.
Capacity building programs for farmers at risk of inundation and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of salinisation and vegetation decline. Improve buffering, including strategic native plantings. Provide on-ground advice and support.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to agricultural vegetation and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats to farm businesses.
TAB l E 5: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the wetlands and important coastal and marine assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Actions Where Current roles Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Emergency scenario: Bushfire
Planned burns
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets are generally outside the treatable areas identified in Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plans. Location of adjacent strategic burns to be determined by land managers and FMACs.
Cultural burns Location to be determined by Aboriginal community and groups.
Fire breaks Location to be determined by land managers and FMACs.
All FMACs across the state have a Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Treatable areas are identified and prioritised and actions are coordinated and a schedule of planned burns is developed with all stakeholders including TFS, PWS, STT and Private Forestry.
Contribute information collected from landholders on Threatened Species and TEC’s for integration into Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plans as appropriate.
Erosion control Location to be determined water authorities and State government agencies and land managers/ landholders.
Aboriginal community and groups (including Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Firesticks Alliance) undertake cultural burns, identify priorities, facilitate learning, and connection to Country.
Land managers, TFS, private forestry companies, GBEs, and other agencies (including state and local government) coordinate and/or lead fire break planning and implementation. Tools and resources are available (e.g. TFS Fuel Break Guidelines & Tasmanian Fire Service Fuel Break Design Tool).
Water authorities, state and local government, land managers and landholders.
Support community to secure resources, funds and/or access to Country to undertake cultural burn programs as a proactive measure for landscape resilience.
Awareness raising for landholders in fire management planning and links to available resources and government agency advice, support and potential collaboration.
Facilitate construction of contour banks/diversion banks in high-risk areas to minimise erosion and soil and contaminant transport to streams after fires.
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Flood
In-paddock groundcover and erosion management
Priority catchments (Mersey, Rubicon, Forth-Wilmot, Blythe, Leven, Detention and far NW), floodplains and riparian areas.
Land managers, State and local government, landholders, Tas Farmers, Tas Farm Innovation Hub, NRM and Landcare capacity building and incentive programs, Agri-service providers.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Property management planning with landholder including flood risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in water quality improvement planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of soil loss and improve groundcover including cover crops, agroforestry, contour ripping and/or tillage, no till farming etc.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
long-term waterway health monitoring
Waterways in all agricultural landscapes.
State government agencies and GBEs with support from NRM, Landcare and land managers.
Emergency scenario: Coastal inundation and erosion
Coastal zone management and improvement, including coastal buffering through revegetation
Coastal landholders. All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for coastal restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
Emergency scenario: Biosecurity
Maintain and promote appropriate biosecurity provisions and threat communication alerts
Regionwide. All land managers, State and local government, NRMs and farming/ Landcare groups.
Encourage preparedness action and improve long-term river health outcomes in priority rivers in all agricultural landscapes through catchment management planning and river health monitoring and flow studies.
Property management planning with coastal landholders.
Capacity building programs for farmers to mitigate risk of salinisation and soil and vegetation decline. Improve buffering, including strategic native plantings.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to water resources and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats.
Response and recovery actions for protecting Biodiversity Assets (during and after an event)
This section describes the response and recovery actions that could be undertaken for biodiversity assets in response to emergency scenarios of bushfire,
flood, coastal inundation and erosion and biosecurity incursions.
Emergency scenario – Bushfire response and recovery
TAB l E 6: Response and recovery to bushfire scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions
While event is occurring
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
Fire suppression and containment lines.
Identifying and protecting most sensitive areas.
Where Who (best placed)
At identified fireground.
Sensitive areas within a close vicinity to the fire.
Fire management agencies with logistical support from landowners.
Incident management team (IMT). Fire management agencies.
Appropriate state agencies and emergency services to manage targeted protection for threatened species and threatened ecological communities and mitigate risk of fire management activity impacts where possible.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide advice about relevant natural assets of concern.
Monitor/assess impacts.
After event has occurred
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
At identified impact sites and potential impact sites.
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified priority impact sites.
Recovery planning: local area and species recovery plans, prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions: financial support and coordination of restoration activities, such as captive breeding, translocations, exclosures and refugia, artificial habitat (e.g. nest boxes), plant propagation, revegetation and control of erosion, weeds and pests.
Monitor recovery and effectiveness of on-ground restoration works.
At identified priority impact sites.
At identified priority impact sites.
IMT and fire management agencies, only fire trained personnel are permitted on fire ground.
∙ State government agencies, emergency and local fire services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies, with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
At identified priority impact sites.
State agencies with support from funding partners such as Cradle Coast NRM.
Asset Actions
While event is occurring
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets.
Where Who (best placed)
Fire suppression and containment lines. At identified fireground.
Identifying and protecting most sensitive areas.
Sensitive areas within a close vicinity to the fire.
Monitor/assess impacts. At identified impact sites and potential impact sites.
After event has occurred
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified priority impact sites.
Fire management agencies.
Incident management team (IMT). Appropriate state agencies and emergency services to, manage targeted protection of priority wetland and coastal areas and mitigate risk of fire management activity impacts where possible.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide advice about relevant natural assets of concern.
IMT and fire management agencies, only fire trained personnel are permitted on fire ground.
State government agencies, emergency and local fire services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to contribute to Rehabilitation Plans or After Action Reviews, provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Recovery planning: prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions; financial support and coordination of restoration activities, including erosion control, such as restoring buffering groundcover (pasture or native vegetation) and riparian fencing and revegetation and consider installing silt fencing, booms, seed free hay bales, jute matting/geotextiles in high-risk run-off areas.
Monitor recovery and effectiveness of on-ground restoration works.
At identified priority impact sites.
At identified priority impact sites.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies, with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
At identified priority impact sites.
State agencies with support from funding partners such as Cradle Coast NRM.
Emergency scenario – Flood response and recovery
TAB l E 7: Response and recovery to flood scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions
While event is occurring
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
Monitor/assess impacts.
After event has occurred
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
Where Who (best placed)
At identified impact sites and other floodprone areas.
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified impact site(s).
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks and/or assist in surveys and coordinate rescue of trapped or injured wildlife.
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to contribute to Rehabilitation Plans or After Action Reviews, provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Immediate clean-up to remove debris.
At identified impact site(s).
State government support services and land managers and private landholders.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground labour or access to potential labour sources through their networks.
Recovery planning: local area and species recovery plans, prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions: financial support and coordination of restoration activities, such as riparian fencing and revegetation, bank stabilisation, groundcover management and control of weeds and pests.
At identified priority impact sites.
At identified priority impact sites.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies, with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
Asset Actions
While event is occurring
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets.
Where Who (best placed)
Monitor/assess impacts. At identified impact sites and other floodprone areas.
After event has occurred
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified impact site(s).
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks and/or assist in surveys and coordinate rescue of trapped or injured wildlife.
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Immediate clean-up to remove debris.
At identified impact site(s).
State government support services and land managers and private landholders.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground labour or access to potential labour sources through their networks.
Recovery planning: prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions: financial support and coordination of restoration activities, including reestablishing buffering and erosion control, such as riparian fencing and revegetation, bank stabilisation, groundcover management.
At identified priority impact sites.
At identified priority impact sites.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies, with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
Emergency scenario – Coastal inundation and erosion response and recovery
TAB l E 8: Response and recovery to coastal inundation and erosion scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
Monitor/assess impacts and undertake preventative measures where feasible, such as dune stabilisation.
After event has occurred
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities.
Impact Assessment.
At identified impact sites and other floodprone areas.
State and local government.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
At identified impact sites.
State and local government supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to contribute to Rehabilitation Plans of After Action Reviews, provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Recovery planning: local area and species recovery plans, prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions: stabilise sites where vegetation and groundcover has been lost, undertake revegetation and consider other soft engineering approaches to protect and restore habitat.
Where restoration and/or retreat is not possible, consider captive breeding, translocations and artificial habitat (e.g. nest boxes) for priority assets.
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites.
State and local government, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and local government, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
Asset Actions
While event is occurring
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets.
Monitor/assess impacts and undertake preventative measures where feasible, such as dune stabilisation.
After event has occurred
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets
Impact Assessment.
Where Who (best placed)
At identified impact sites and other floodprone areas.
At identified impact sites.
State and local government.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
State and local government supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to contribute to Rehabilitation Plans or After Action Reviews, provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Recovery planning: local area and species recovery plans, prioritising areas and high value assets for management.
Restoration actions: stabilise sites where vegetation and groundcover has been lost, undertake revegetation and consider other soft engineering approaches to protect and restore assets.
Where restoration is not possible, consider retreat options.
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites.
State and local government, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and local government, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
Emergency scenario – Biosecurity incursion response and recovery
TAB l E 9: Response and recovery to biosecurity scenarios impacting the biodiversity natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities and
Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets.
Rapid assessment of impact and monitor impacts.
Implement biosecurity plans, including containment, hygiene regimes and eradication, as appropriate.
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites.
Monitor/assess impacts. At identified impact sites.
After event has occurred
Threatened species and threatened ecological communities and Wetlands and important coastal and marine assets.
Assess effectiveness of interventions.
Update biosecurity plans, as required.
Monitor for re-incursion.
Implement ongoing biosecurity hygiene practices.
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites and potential sites.
At identified impact sites and potential sites.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
∙ Biosecurity Tasmania and other state agencies, with support from land managers and private landholders, local government. Cradle Coast NRM can support IMT messaging with targeted communication activities through its networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
∙ Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania and other state agencies, with support from land managers and private landholders, local government. Cradle Coast NRM can support targeted communication activities through its networks.
6 Priority agricultural natural capital assets
6� Priority agricultural natural capital assets
Identification of priority Agricultural Natural Capital Assets and susceptibility
In alignment with the approach delineated in the Biodiversity Assets section, this section of the Plan aims to comprehensively identify and summarise these vital assets in relation to agricultural landscapes, while also considering agricultural natural capital assets and evaluating their susceptibility to various emergency scenarios.
Across Tasmania, dryland and irrigated grazing, and intensive cropping and horticulture constitute the primary agricultural land uses, collectively occupying 56% of the agricultural land area. The presence of 18 irrigation schemes underscores the importance of water management in sustaining agricultural productivity. Conservation areas on farms cover 111,000 ha, contributing to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience. The state also boasts vast expanses of production forests on both public and private lands, totalling 812,000 ha on public land, 434,000 ha on private timber reserves, and plantation forests spanning 283,000 ha across various tenures contribute to timber production and ecosystem services.
The natural assets under consideration encompass a diverse range of elements integral to the region's agricultural landscape. These assets, as outlined in the Tasmanian Land Use (2021) dataset, primarily include areas dedicated to production within relatively natural environments, dryland agriculture, and irrigated agriculture. However, certain classifications such as production native forests and specific plantation forestry areas were excluded from this analysis.
In understanding the vulnerability of these assets to emergency scenarios, it is important to acknowledge the complex nature of potential threats. Direct impacts may include the destruction or decline of vegetation and habitats, wildlife mortality, loss of habitat, impacts to breeding success or recruitment and degradation of local water, soil, or air quality. Additionally, indirect consequences may arise from reduced food or nesting resources, diminished breeding success, or the loss of critical food sources.
To systematically evaluate the susceptibility of agricultural natural capital assets, various factors were considered, with a primary focus on soil vulnerability. The assessment of vulnerability to identified threats, including flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation, was conducted through an analysis of water erosion hazards, as
established by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE, 2018). This evaluation accounted for factors such as soil properties, slope, and land cover, providing insights into areas where erosion hazards might be prevalent, particularly in the absence of sufficient ground cover.
The presence of natural vegetation, such as forest, woodland, or native vegetation, was recognised as a critical mitigating factor against erosion and other threats. Incorporating data from the National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Database (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release, DCCEEW) and TASVEG 4.0 (NRE), areas with significant vegetation cover were accorded lower priority ratings for threats like flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation, reflecting their inherent resilience.
By adopting a comprehensive approach that considers both direct and indirect threats, alongside the inherent characteristics of agricultural natural capital assets, this assessment lays the groundwork for informed decisionmaking and targeted intervention strategies to mitigate potential emergencies effectively.
Spatial analysis
The sources of data are provided in section 10 and the detailed methods used for the spatial analysis are provided in Appendix 1.
The general approach used for the spatial analysis was that a risk assessment model was developed for each threat identified for this plan (Flood, Coastal Erosion, Coastal Inundation (as indicators of episodic events from storm surges)) for agricultural assets, where relevant. It should be noted that bushfire was not modelled for soilbased agricultural assets, with the main risk being the subsequent erosion risk, where no natural vegetation is present, as described in Appendix 1.
The three major components of each risk assessment model were:
1. Threat Rating (input): describes the extent and likelihood/severity of the threat.
2. Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating (input): describes the extent of the natural capital assets, which are then rated against all other assets in terms of priority for the asset’s vulnerability to the threat.
3. Risk Assessment Rating (output): describes the combination of the two above rating models which can be used to identify areas at highest risk to the threat.
Key findings – agricultural assets
Section 10 outlines data collected, used, and made accessible as part of this Plan, including how to access the mapping and modelling outcomes. Appendix 1 outlines the mapping methodology, data sources and assumptions.
Table 10 identifies the priority Agricultural Natural Capital Assets and outlines their susceptibility to the key emergency scenarios of bushfire, flood, coastal erosion and inundation, and biosecurity, with maps then shown for risk assessment against emergency scenarios in scope for the Plan.
Maps describing the extent of the agricultural natural capital priority assets in terms of the asset’s vulnerability to the threat (emergency scenario) are provided in Appendix 2, with links for each asset found in Table 10, where applicable.
TAB l E 10: Susceptibility of priority agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania to emergency scenarios
Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat
Asset: Agricultural soil
Bushfire
Flood
Priority asset map
Groundcover and crop residues removed, leaving soil vulnerable to wind and water erosion.
High intensity and severe fire events causing changes in soil structure, organic composition and nutrient flows leading to soil degradation and fertility loss.
Extensive soil erosion potential in low-lying areas, riverine, lake or estuarine flooding events and deposition of debris, weeds and hazardous material.
Hillslope erosion on steeper ground during intense rainfall events.
Susceptibility Why
Low
Loss of groundcover exposes soil, leading to erosion from wind and rainfall and the removal of the soil asset from the production zone, particularly in the productive hillslopes of the central Cradle Coast region, where fire is difficult to control and can burn large areas.
Loss of shelterbelts exposes soil to wind erosion, particularly in the far NW of the Cradle Coast region and areas exposed to prevailing westerly winds.
Soil degradation especially where deep combustion has occurred, affecting soil structure, organic composition and moisture holding ability.
Coastal inundation and erosion
Priority asset map
Salinisation of near-coastal soils leading to loss of groundcover and reduced soil stability.
High
Moderate
Extensive soil erosion and stream bank erosion in productive floodplains in upper Leven, Duck, lower Forth and upper Mersey.
Severe erosion and landslip in hillslope production zones under intense rainfall, particularly in clay cropping soils in the east to central Cradle Coast region, and where ground is bare in rotation.
Crop loss and pasture loss due to flood waters and debris, weed and hazardous material deposition.
Increased susceptibility to soil and crop diseases.
Salinisation of soil leading to gradual loss of groundcover and soil instability, particularly in low-lying coastal areas in the far NW of the Cradle Coast region.
Emergency scenario
Biosecurity Quarantining or restricted use of soils.
Susceptibility Why
Moderate Tasmania’s temperate climate reduces the risk of soil borne disease incursion.
Bushfire Vegetation damage/loss reducing ecosystem services and potential loss of on-farm biodiversity. The impacts realised on individual farms will vary based upon a range of factors (eg severity of fire weather, seasonality, intensity, patchiness, fire type).
Flood
Priority asset map
Coastal inundation and erosion
Priority asset map
Vegetation damage/ loss reducing ecosystem services and potential loss of on-farm biodiversity. The impacts realised on individual farms will vary based upon a range of factors (e.g. flood severity and magnitude, level of upstream disturbance, vegetation intactness).
Vegetation damage/ loss reducing ecosystem services and potential loss of on-farm biodiversity. The impacts realised on individual farms will vary based upon a range of factors (e.g. severity and magnitude, periodicity and length of inundation potentially leading to longterm soil salinisation).
Moderate Loss of shelterbelts, exposing soil to wind erosion and reducing soil moisture content.
Significant habitat modification including the displacement or loss of pollinators and beneficial insects.
High Extensive soil erosion and stream bank erosion in productive floodplains in upper Leven, Duck, lower Forth and upper Mersey.
Crop, pasture and infrastructure loss due to flood waters scouring, debris and sediment deposition.
Dispersal of invasive weed species.
Increased susceptibility to soil and crop diseases.
Moderate Salinisation leading to reduced plant growth and extensive plant death, particularly in low-lying coastal areas in the far NW of the Cradle Coast region.
Significant habitat modification including the displacement or loss of pollinators and beneficial insects.
Emergency scenario Why it poses a threat
Biosecurity Disease and pest incursions may significantly impact on-farm vegetation, affecting crops and livestock, beneficial flora and fauna species and farm productivity.
Susceptibility Why
Moderate Plant pests and disease may impact individual plants, patches or vegetation communities, reducing their extent and on-farm productive benefits.
Asset: Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Bushfire Vegetation and leaf litter loss leaving soil vulnerable to wind and water erosion. Soil loss leading to sedimentation, runoff of ash, debris and fire suppressants may also detrimentally impact waterways.
Flood
Priority asset map
Moderate
Immediate decline in water quality from ash, debris and fire suppressants harmful to plants and animals.
Post event, soil runoff from heavy rainfall will enter waterways and reduce water quality.
Coastal inundation and erosion
Priority asset map
Extensive soil erosion in low-lying areas in riverine, lake or estuarine flooding events causes sedimentation and deposition and mobilisation of nutrients into waterways.
Hillslope erosion on steeper ground during intense rainfall events leads to sedimentation and deposition of nutrient into waterways. Deposition of debris, weeds and pollutants can enter waterways and groundwater systems.
Increased salinisation of water resources impacting soil and plant productivity.
Biosecurity Disease and pest incursions may significantly impact onfarm water supply quality, affecting crops and livestock and farm productivity.
High
Extensive soil erosion and stream bank erosion in productive floodplains in upper Leven, Duck, lower Forth and upper Mersey and severe erosion and landslip in hillslope production zones under intense rainfall, particularly in clay cropping soils in the east to central Cradle Coast both leading to sedimentation and water quality issues from farm dam to catchment scale.
∙ Increased pollutant concentrations (contaminants, nutrients and pathogens) impacting waterways and dams (including increasing the incidence of algal blooms) and contamination of groundwater systems.
Moderate Salinisation leading to reduced soil productivity and stability and gradual loss of groundcover, particularly in low-lying coastal areas in the far NW of the Cradle Coast region.
Moderate Water borne pests and disease may impact plant growth and livestock health.
F IGURE 6: Priority agricultural soil – flood risk assessment
Preparedness actions for protecting Agricultural Natural Capital assets (prior to an event)
In the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania, agricultural land holds natural capital assets that are essential for sustaining food and fibre production. These assets, ranging from soil to native vegetation, play a pivotal role in supporting agricultural production while fostering biodiversity and ecological resilience. This section of the Plan describes the key assets, their susceptibility to emergencies, and the preparedness actions required to safeguard them.
Agricultural natural-capital assets encompass a spectrum of resources managed by producers to support their businesses, families, and future generations. These assets include soil, air, water, riparian areas, remnant native vegetation, agroforestry, and environmental plantings. Soil forms a crucial natural-capital asset, underpinning the region's agricultural productivity. Native vegetation in various forms—remnant patches, riparian zones, and agroforestry—contributes significantly to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health. Healthy high-quality water resources, obtained from irrigation schemes, dams, off-stream watering systems and groundwater, are essential for supporting agricultural operations.
These natural-capital assets are susceptible to various emergencies, including, bushfires, floods, and contamination events. Bushfires pose a significant threat to native vegetation, soil integrity, and water quality, exacerbating erosion and runoff issues. Flood events can inundate agricultural land, causing soil erosion, loss of riparian vegetation, reduced water quality, infrastructure damage, and loss of vegetation. Slow onset or chronic events like droughts deplete soil moisture and reduce water availability, compromising crop yields and livestock health.
Tables 11-13 outline the preparedness actions that could be undertaken for each and/or across the key agricultural natural asset(s) prior to an emergency scenario, including the location, roles best placed for each scenario, and current actions underway.
TAB l E 11: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the soil natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Bushfire
Planned burns Location to be determined by land managers and FMACs.
Focus on highland production zones in central Cradle Coast.
Fire breaks Location to be determined by land managers, land holders and FMACs.
All FMACs across the state have a Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Treatable areas are identified and prioritised and actions are coordinated and a schedule of planned burns is developed with all stakeholders including TFS, PWS, STT and Private Forestry.
Land managers may also plan propertyscale burns.
Land managers, TFS, private forestry companies, GBEs, and other agencies (including state and local government) coordinate and/or lead fire break planning and implementation.
Tools and resources are available (e.g. TFS Fuel Break Guidelines & Tasmanian Fire Service Fuel Break Design Tool)
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Property management planning with landholders, including fire mitigation and preparedness.
Awareness raising programs for farmers in fire management planning and links to existing resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration, such as SFMC’s Red Hot Tips Program, that provides private land managers with planning and support for property-scale burns.
Property management planning with landholders, including fire mitigation and preparedness.
Capacity building programs for farmers in fire management planning and links to available resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration.
Groundcover and erosion management
All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
Land managers, landholders, NRM capacity building and incentive programs, Agriservice providers.
Capacity building programs for farmers in erosion and vegetation management planning.
Construct contour banks/diversion banks in high-risk areas to minimise erosion and soil and contaminant transport to streams after fires.
Vegetation management
All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
All land managers, State and local government play a role.
Property management planning with landholder including fire risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in fire and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk and protect native vegetation, including vegetation maintenance and planting of less fireprone native vegetation.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Flood
In-paddock groundcover and erosion management
All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
Land managers, landholders, NRM capacity building and incentive programs, Agriservice providers.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Property management planning with landholder including flood risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in flood and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of soil loss and improve groundcover including cover crops, agroforestry, contour ripping and/or tillage, no till farming etc.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Vegetation management All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
Land managers, landholders, NRM and Landcare capacity building and incentive programs, conservation NGOs. State and local government play a role.
Emergency scenario: Coastal inundation and erosion
Coastal/riparian buffer plantings
All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
Land managers, landholders, NRM and Landcare capacity building and incentive programs, conservation NGOs. State and local government play a role.
Property management planning with landholder including flood risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in flood and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk and protect soil assets, including strategic native plantings. Provide on-ground advice and support.
Property management planning with landholder including coastal inundation risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in inundation and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of soil salinisation and improve buffering, including native plantings as part of retreat strategies. Provide on-ground advice and support.
Emergency scenario: Biosecurity
Maintain and promote appropriate biosecurity provisions and threat communication alerts Regionwide. All land managers, State and local government, NRMs and farming/Landcare groups.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to soil and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats to farm businesses.
Securing funding for strategic initiatives. Securing funding for strategic initiatives (e.g. Tasmanian Weeds Action Fund, managed collaboratively by the three NRM organisations on behalf of State government.
TAB l E 12: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the vegetation (agroforestry, environmental plantings, native vegetation, riparian land) natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Bushfire
Planned burns Location to be determined by land managers, land owners and FMACs.
Cultural burns Location to be determined by Aboriginal community and groups.
Fire breaks Locations determined by FMACs in consultation with land managers and TFS.
Vegetation management All landholders, with a focus on high-risk areas.
All FMACs across the state have a Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Treatable areas are identified and prioritised and actions are coordinated and a schedule of planned burns is developed with all stakeholders including TFS, PWS, STT and Private Forestry.
Land owners may also plan property-scale burns.
Aboriginal community and groups (including Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Firesticks Alliance) undertake cultural burns, identify priorities, facilitate learning, and connection to Country.
Land managers, TFS, private forestry companies, GBEs, and other agencies (including state and local government) coordinate and/or lead fire break planning and implementation.
Tools and resources are available (e.g. TFS Fuel Break Guidelines & Tasmanian Fire Service Fuel Break Design Tool).
All land managers, State and local government play a role in mechanical fuel reduction works.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Awareness raising programs for farmers in fire management planning and links to existing resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration, such as SFMC’s Red Hot Tips Program, that provides private land managers planning and support for property-scale burns.
∙ Support community to secure resources, funds and/or access to Country to undertake cultural burn programs as a proactive measure for landscape resilience.
Awareness raising for farmers in fire management planning and links to available resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration.
Property management planning with landholder including bushfire risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in fire and vegetation management planning Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk and protect native vegetation, including fuel hazard reduction maintenance, weed control and planting of less fire-prone native vegetation. Provide on-ground advice and support.
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Flood
Riparian zone management and improvement, including fencing of waterways and revegetation.
Control weeds on agricultural land to prevent weed spread by flood waters.
All landholders with riparian zones.
All landholders on waterways and floodplains.
All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for riparian restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Property management planning with landholder including flood risk assessments.
Capacity building programs for farmers in flood and vegetation management planning.
Encourage the protection and expansion of riparian vegetation on farms through provision of on-ground advice and support.
All land managers, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania and the NRM projects, such as Tasmanian Weeds Action Fund), and other agencies (including state and local government).
Emergency scenario: Coastal inundation and erosion
Coastal zone management and improvement, including coastal buffering through revegetation.
Coastal landholders.
All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for coastal restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to agricultural vegetation and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats to farm businesses.
Property management planning with coastal landholders.
Capacity building programs for farmers at risk of inundation and vegetation management planning.
Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of salinisation and vegetation decline. Improve buffering, including strategic native plantings.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Emergency scenario: Biosecurity
Maintain and promote appropriate biosecurity provisions and threat communication alerts Regionwide. All land managers, State and local government, NRMs and farming/Landcare groups.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to agricultural vegetation and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats to farm businesses.
TAB l E 13: Preparedness actions for emergency scenarios impacting the water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes, dams) natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Bushfire
Planned burns Location to be determined by land managers, land owners and FMACs.
Cultural burns Location to be determined by Aboriginal community and groups.
Fire breaks Locations determined by FMACs in consultation with land managers and TFS.
Erosion control Location to be determined by water Fire authorities and State government agencies and land managers/ landholders.
All FMACs across the state have a Fire Management Area Bushfire Risk Management Plan. Treatable areas are identified and prioritised and actions are coordinated and a schedule of planned burns is developed with all stakeholders including TFS, PWS, STT and Private Forestry.
Land owners may also plan property-scale burns.
Aboriginal community and groups (including Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Firesticks Alliance) undertake cultural burns, identify priorities, facilitate learning, and connection to Country.
Land managers, TFS, private forestry companies, GBEs, and other agencies (including state and local government) coordinate and/or lead fire break planning and implementation.
Tools and resources are available (e.g. TFS Fuel Break Guidelines & Tasmanian Fire Service Fuel Break Design Tool).
Water authorities, state and local government, land managers and landholders.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Awareness raising programs for farmers in fire management planning and links to available resources and government agency advice, support and collaboration, such as SFMC’s Red Hot Tips Program, that provides private land managers with planning and support for property-scale burns.
Support community to secure resources, funds and/or access to Country to undertake cultural burn programs as a proactive measure for landscape resilience.
Facilitate collaborative approaches to fire break establishment as a proactive measure to improve resilience of natural capital assets.
Soil and erosion control such as silt fencing, booms, seed- free hay bales, coir logs, jute matting/geotextiles in high-risk areas.
Actions Where Current roles
Emergency scenario: Flood
In-paddock groundcover and erosion management Priority catchments (Mersey, Rubicon, Forth-Wilmot, Blythe, Leven, Detention and far NW), floodplains and riparian areas.
Land managers, State and local government, landholders, Tas Farmers, Tas Farm Innovation Hub, NRM and Landcare capacity building and incentive programs, Agri-service providers.
Potential role of Cradle Coast NRM
Property management planning with landholder including flood mitigation and preparedness and links to a new State Flood Risk Assessment.
Capacity building programs for farmers in water quality improvement planning. Increase awareness, provide resources to mitigate risk of soil loss and improve groundcover including cover crops, agroforestry, contour ripping and/or tillage, no till farming etc.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Long-term waterway health monitoring Waterways in all agricultural landscapes.
State government agencies and GBEs with support from NRM, Landcare and land managers.
Emergency scenario: Coastal inundation and erosion
Coastal zone management and improvement, including coastal buffering through revegetation. Coastal landholders.
Emergency scenario: Biosecurity
All land managers, private companies and landholders, non-for-profit organisations (including Landcare Tasmania for coastal restoration and revegetation) and other agencies, including state and local government.
Encourage preparedness action and improve long-term river health outcomes in priority rivers in all agricultural landscapes through catchment management planning and river health monitoring and flow studies.
Property management planning with coastal landholders.
Capacity building programs for farmers to mitigate risk of salinisation and soil and vegetation decline. Improve buffering, including strategic native plantings.
Provide on-ground advice and support.
Maintain and promote appropriate biosecurity provisions and threat communication alerts Regionwide. All land managers, State and local government, NRMs and farming/Landcare groups.
Capacity building and extension programs for farmers.
Increase awareness of weed, pest and disease threats to water resources and build the capacity of farmers to prevent, detect and manage threats.
Response and recovery actions for protecting Agricultural Natural Capital assets (during and after an event)
In the face of emergencies, swift and strategic response actions are critical to safeguarding agricultural natural capital assets, which are crucial for sustaining food and fibre production in the Cradle Coast region. Building upon the groundwork laid in the “Asset Preparedness” section, this section identifies response strategies tailored to tackle a variety of potential emergencies. From the immediate threat of bushfires to the devastating impacts of flooding, drought, and
biosecurity incursions, each scenario requires clear actionable response actions. Coordination, resources, and interventions are necessary to reduce risk of adverse effects of emergencies on agricultural land, biodiversity, and ecological resilience. Tables 14-17 outline the response actions that could be undertaken for key agricultural assets in response to emergency scenarios, including bushfires, flooding, drought, and biosecurity incursions.
TAB l E 14: Response and recovery to bushfire scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
After event has occurred
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Fire suppression. At identified fireground.
Identifying and protecting most sensitive areas.
Monitor/assess impacts.
Sensitive areas within a close vicinity to the fire.
At identified impact sites and potential impact sites.
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified priority impact sites.
Fire management agencies with logistical support from landowners.
Incident management team (IMT). Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide advice about relevant natural assets of concern.
IMT and fire management agencies, only fire trained personnel are permitted on fire ground.
Recovery planning. At identified priority impact sites.
Recovery actions – financial support and coordination of restoration activities such as plant reestablishment.
At identified priority impact sites.
State government agencies, emergency services. Roles and responsibilities for long term recovery coordination depend upon event specific needs and what level emergency is declared.
Level 1 is locally coordinated, Level 2 State supported, Level 3 State coordinated and Level 4 catastrophic disaster recovery arrangements determined by Premier with Community Recovery Committees established.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide onground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies in consultation with DPAC may provide funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
TAB l E 15: Response and recovery to flood scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Monitor/assess impacts. At identified impact sites and other floodprone areas.
After event has occurred
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Disaster Impact Assessment. At identified impact site(s).
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources, through their networks of volunteers.
Immediate clean-up. At identified impact site(s).
State government agencies supported by emergency services.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks of volunteers.
State government support services and land managers and private landholders.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground labour or access to potential labour sources through their networks.
Recovery planning.
At identified priority impact sites.
Short-term recovery actionsfinancial support and coordination of activities such as debris removal, fencing and soil recovery and replenishment and groundcover reestablishment.
Long-term restoration actionsfinancial support and coordination of activities such as riverbank stabilisation and erosion control structures, including riparian planting.
At priority impact sites.
State and/or Australian government agencies, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
State and/or Australian government agencies and private landholders with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
At priority impact sites.
State and/or Australian government agencies, with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to contract and coordinate on-ground activity.
TAB l E 16: Response and recovery to coastal inundation and erosion scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Protect coastal groundcover, such as by stock exclusion from inundated paddocks.
At identified impact sites. Land managers and private landholders.
Monitor/assess impacts. At identified impact sites.
After event has occurred
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Recovery planning, including potential for retreat and reassignment of affected areas, such as establishing salt tolerant, native buffer plantings.
Recovery actions - financial support and coordination of activities such as soil remediation, salt tolerant, native buffer establishment.
At identified impact sites.
State government agencies supported by emergency services. Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks of volunteers.
State and/or local government, land managers and private landholders, with support and advice from Cradle Coast NRM and community stakeholders, as appropriate.
At priority impact sites.
State and local government, and private landholders with funding support for Cradle Coast NRM to facilitate community access to recovery programs and coordinate on-ground activity.
TAB l E 17: Response and recovery to biosecurity scenarios impacting the agricultural natural capital assets of north-west and western Tasmania
Asset Actions Where Who (best placed)
While event is occurring
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Rapid assessment of impact and monitor impacts.
Implement biosecurity plans, including containment, hygiene regimes and eradication, as appropriate.
Monitor/assess impacts.
After event has occurred
Agricultural, natural assets:
Soil
Vegetation (remnant native vegetation, riparian zones, environmental plantings and agroforestry)
Water (rivers, creeks, wetlands, estuaries, lakes and dams)
Assess effectiveness of interventions.
Update biosecurity plans, as required.
Monitor for re-incursion.
At identified impact site(s).
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
Implement ongoing biosecurity hygiene practices.
At identified impact sites.
At identified impact sites and potential sites.
Biosecurity Tasmania and other state agencies, with support from land managers and private landholders, local government. Cradle Coast NRM can support targeted communication activities through its networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania.
At identified impact sites and potential sites.
Biosecurity Tasmania. Cradle Coast NRM may be able to contribute to Rehabilitation Plans or After Action Reviews, provide onground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks.
Biosecurity Tasmania and other state agencies, with support from land managers and private landholders, local government. Cradle Coast NRM can support targeted communication activities through its networks.
7 Community/ stakeholder engagement
7� Community/stakeholder engagement
Cradle Coast NRM in collaboration with NRM South and NRM North engaged with key stakeholders Statewide to:
• Seek feedback on priority natural assets and their threats.
• Understand potential impacts of emergencies and emergency management on these natural assets.
• Identify the types of actions that could be implemented to mitigate these impacts before, during and after emergencies.
• Understand current approaches to emergency management including roles and responsibilities as well as gaps and opportunities for NRMs and other stakeholders to work more closely together to enhance disaster management.
This consultation was undertaken in two phases and involved one-on-one semi-structured interviews, Statewide workshops and email feedback on a discussion paper. The process and outcomes are described in Appendix 3. Engagement focused on State and Local government representatives, industry representatives from agricultural and forestry sectors, representatives from government owned enterprises and people involved in Statewide Emergency Management activities.
A third phase of community and stakeholder engagement, also outlines in Appendix 3, involves seeking feedback on a Draft Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Plan. This Draft Plan is being distributed to stakeholders who were engaged in previous consultation as well as to a broader group of stakeholders and community members for comment before it is finalised. This third phase of engagement is being undertaken through email and feedback received through an online form as well as limited face-to-face discussion sessions and workshops where requested.
This section proposes next steps in communicating where gaps have been identified in the preparedness for different emergencies to protect natural assets. A role for Cradle Coast NRM in assisting to fill some of these gaps has been identified. These potential activities would be subject to funding and the support and willingness of other agencies to collaborate with Cradle Coast NRM within existing emergency management frameworks and arrangements.
Key gaps
Community and stakeholder consultation identified the following gaps in emergency preparedness as it relates to natural assets:
• A lack of knowledge on the part of some Council staff, private landholders and emergency responders as to the location, risks to and requirements of natural assets in all of the PPRR phases.
• A lack of resources including funding and access to subject matter experts to provide support to private landholders to develop mitigation, preparation, response and recovery plans for their properties that include protection of natural assets while also protecting people and infrastructure.
• A lack of information and support for Council staff and landholders during response and recovery operations during and after an emergency event to ensure natural assets are protected and restored. Significant damage to natural assets can and does occur as a result of response and recovery operations where risks to natural assets are not adequately planned for or understood. Some stakeholders indicated that there was ‘no one on the other end of the phone’ available to provide this type of support and advice following emergencies and as a result many recovery activities occur that cause significant unintended harm to natural assets.
Potential roles for Cradle Coast NRM in filling some of these gaps are outlined below.
Engagement, collaboration and coordination activities
Council staff spoke of the challenges faced in incorporating protection of natural assets, particularly those on private property and Council owned and managed land. Many Councils lack staff who are skilled and knowledgeable in this ecology or natural resource and environmental management. Cradle Coast NRM could play an important role supporting Local government and Municipal Emergency Management Committees in considering natural assets in developing supporting documents for Municipal Emergency Management Plans as well as in other plans and policy documents such as Reserve Management Plans and Urban Waterway Management Plans that as they are developed and updated by Councils.
Cradle Coast NRM could also play a role in assisting landholders develop emergency plans (including mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery actions) for their properties which identify and protect natural assets on their property or neighbouring properties.
During mitigation, preparedness and recovery phases
Cradle Coast NRM could play a role in supporting landholders and Councils planning activities, providing information and advice on the risks of various activities to natural assets as well as the actions that can protect natural assets and promote their resilience. Cradle Coast NRM has filled this role in the past, supporting the State Government for large-scale emergencies (e.g. Flood recovery program after the 2016 floods). A gap exists for smaller scale emergencies where impacts on people and infrastructure are not of a scale to trigger recovery funding programs but where impacts on natural assets of both the emergency and emergency management activities can be significant.
Raising public awareness
Cradle Coast NRM has strong links with the community including landholders, Councils, government owned enterprises, State Government agencies and the general community. We have established communication channels with a wide variety of organisations, including those in the private sector. Cradle Coast NRM could leverage these links and communication channels to help raise community awareness of:
• The potential impacts of emergencies and emergency responses on our natural assets.
• The actions people can take to prepare for emergencies that build the resilience of natural assets.
• Response and recovery activities that protect and restore natural assets.
• Avenues for further information, support and funding available to the community to protect and restore natural assets during and after emergencies.
Education and training
Cradle Coast NRM have a long history of extension activities, providing education and training to a broad range of people, including landholders, Council staff, trades people and general community members. A major gap in emergency preparedness for natural asset protection identified through community and stakeholder engagement in the development of this plan was a lack of knowledge and information on considering natural assets in emergency management amongst many Council staff, landholders and some emergency responders. Cradle Coast NRM is well placed to assist in the design of mitigation, Preparedness, response and recovery checklists that relate specifically to natural capital assets and complement existing resources that have been developed by other organisations. We have the requisite skills to deliver targetted education and training to a range of stakeholders, including those involved in emergency management.
8 Legal framework
8� Legal framework
The Tasmanian State Emergency Management Framework (SEMF) outlines the governance and decision-making arrangements, structure, roles, and responsibilities for managing emergencies in Tasmania. It emphasises a coordinated and collaborative approach to emergency management, with clear roles and responsibilities assigned to various stakeholders at each phase of the emergency management cycle.
Emergency management planning within Tasmania occurs at multiple levels from State to Municipal levels – the Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA) operates under Tasmania's Emergency Management Act 2006 . This framework influences Cradle Coast NRM’s approach to Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital preparedness and emergency response (as outlined in this Plan).
The Tasmanian government has primary responsibility for emergency management legislation, policies, and frameworks within Tasmania. Tasmania’s governance structures for emergency management aims to enable effective coordination across key players (Figure 12).
Partnerships across all levels of government and sectors underpin these arrangements.
Ministerial Committee for Emergency Management (MCEM)
Ministerial-level strategic policy oversight of prevention, preparation, response and recovery measures. MCEM is chaired by the Premier and defines functions of SEMC, coordinator and advisory roles.
SEMC coordinates emergency management at a state level and is responsible for TEMA and the State Emergency Plan. SEMC Strategic Directions Framework 2020–2025 enables a coordinated approach. SEM sub committees provide links with hazard-specific governance arrangements, eg State Fire Management Council.
The REMC link with hazard-specific (regional) governance and Regional Social Recovery.
MEMC sub-committees provide a structure for local decision-making, and may establish an Affected Area Recovery Committee.
F IGURE 12: Tasmania’s governance structures for emergency management
Emergency Management Act 2006
The Emergency Management Act 2006 Act provides the legal framework for emergency management in Tasmania, setting out state, regional, and municipal responsibilities, which is essential for Cradle Coast NRM when coordinating biodiversity and agricultural response activities.
The Act outlines:
• Specific roles, such as the State Controller, Regional Controller and Municipal Coordinators, whose directives Cradle Coast NRM must follow during emergency responses, if required.
• The coordination of resources and efforts across various agencies and levels of government, which is crucial for Cradle Coast NRM in leveraging State and regional resources for emergency responses.
• The emergency powers that can be enacted during significant incidents, which Cradle Coast NRM might need to operate under during biodiversity or agricultural emergencies.
The Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA) are issued under the authority of the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management by the requirements of Section 32 of the Emergency Management Act 2006 . The TEMA provides essential information for people who have direct involvement in emergency management, either full time, as an occasional part of their regular duties, or as an emergency service volunteer.
The TEMA:
• Outlines the roles, authorities, and responsibilities for emergency management, including governance, administrative and legal frameworks; and
• Defines the planning and management arrangements that bring all the different elements together.
The TEMA outlines the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘when’ of emergency management arrangements and describes roles, responsibilities and agreed arrangements for the four phases of emergency management.
TEMA establishes a structured and integrated approach to emergency management, promoting a collaborative environment where Cradle Coast NRM could participate.
Regional Emergency Management Committees (REMC) are established throughout Tasmania. The respective District Police Commander chairs them and uses the title Regional Commander during emergencies. Cradle Coast NRM can be an active stakeholder, ensuring that their response efforts are aligned with broader state strategies during emergencies.
Tasmania has integrated human-derived (‘manmade’) hazards into the emergency management arrangements, which apply to emergency events in this State regardless of cause. TEMA recognises that response and recovery agencies work with individuals and communities to ensure Tasmanians' safety during and after emergencies.
Emergency and Recovery Management Plans
The Tasmanian Emergency Management Arrangements (TEMA) outlines the state-wide, multi-agency coordination arrangements, including managing risks and consequences of an emergency (such as bushfire or flood), and managing additional functions necessitated by emergencies (such as recovery).
The State Recovery Plan provides the overarching framework for recovery management in Tasmania. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and organisations, including Cradle Coast NRM, in the event of an emergency. It sets the strategic direction and provides guidelines for recovery efforts, ensuring all parties work towards the same goals and objectives.
State-wide emergency management plans exist for:
• Bushfire – the State Fire Protection Plan for which Tasmanian Fire Service (TFS) is the responsible agency.
• Flood and storms – State Flood Emergency Management Plan for which the State Emergency Service (SES) is the responsible agency.
• Animal and plant biosecurity – Biosecurity Emergencies for which the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE) is the responsible agency.
• Tsunami – State Tsunami Emergency response plan for which SES is the responsible agency.
• State Recovery Plan which applies to recovery from all natural hazards outlined in TEMA for which DPAC is the responsible agency.
There is no Statewide emergency response plan for coastal inundation outside tsunamis. This is likely to reflect the smaller scale of impact of other forms of coastal inundation and storm surge.
Recovery efforts are focused on building resilience. Management of recovery efforts depends on the scale of the emergency:
• Level 1 – Emergency of Local significance. Locallycoordinate recovery managed and coordinated through the Municipal Committee or as per arrangements set out in the Municipal Emergency Management Plans. Applies to emergencies which involve: response coordination occurs at the municipal level, possibly with some regional support; a discrete affected area (one LGA or industry sector); and, minimal ongoing recovery assistance required from Tasmanian Government agencies.
• Level 2 – Emergency of Regional significance. Statesupported recovery with response coordinated at a regional level. Applies to emergencies which involve response coordination at regional level; multiple or dispersed affected areas; impacts across multiple domains requiring assistance from multiple government agencies; and activation of financial assistance measures.
• Level 3 – Emergency of State significance. State coordinated recovery. This applies to emergencies which: require response coordination at regional or state levels, multiple local government or regions: involve a small to moderate number of casualties; have significant and complex impacts across multiple recovery domains; and require activation of financial assistance measures.
• Level 4 – Emergency of national significance. This applied to catastrophic disasters that exceed the State’s capability, capacity and systems or may require a nationally supported or coordinated approach.
There are five domains of recovery in Tasmania:
• Social recovery
• Economic recovery
• Infrastructure recovery
• Environmental recovery
• Cross-domain recovery
For environmental recovery, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE) is the Coordinating Agency. Recovery functions in this domain are:
• Environmental health and pollution
• Crown land, National Park and landscape rehabilitation
• Aboriginal, natural and cultural heritage
• Animal welfare, feed and fodder
• Assistance measures for primary producers
• Waste management and carcass removal
• Biosecurity and invasive species
Workplace Health and Safety
Cradle Coast NRM is committed to continuously improving the management and standards of Workplace Health and Safety (WHS). The Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas) (WHS Act) requires that Cradle Coast NRM ensure as far as reasonably practicable, that all persons, while at work, are safe from injury and risks to health, safety and welfare, by providing them with a safe working environment and safe systems of work.
In line with Section 17 of the WHS Act (Management of Risks), Cradle Coast NRM has a duty to eliminate risks to health and safety as far as is reasonably practicable or, if not possible, to minimise those risks. This includes conducting operations in a way that safeguards health and includes risk assessments, emergency response training, and handling hazardous materials.
In line with Section 19 of the WHS Act (Primary Duty of Care), Cradle Coast NRM has a duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged by the person and that other persons are not put at risk from work carried out as part of the business or undertaking. It covers the provision and maintenance of a safe work environment, systems of work, handling and storage of substances, and emergency response procedures.
At Cradle Coast NRM, we will achieve this by developing and implementing emergency response procedures that comply with WHS requirements, particularly for handling emergency incidents affecting biodiversity and agricultural resources. We will:
1) Comply with all WHS legislative obligations and upholding our primary duty of care to ensure our people are safe and supported at work and in our workplaces.
2) Equip our people with information, training, resources, and tools to enable them to perform their work safely and proactively contribute to a culture of safety and wellbeing.
3) Ensure everyone understands their WHS responsibilities and accountabilities.
4) Report all incidents, injuries and hazards and acting promptly to provide support, prevent recurrences, and share learnings.
5) Eliminate or minimise risks by routinely identifying hazards, assessing potential impacts, developing mitigation measures, and implementing appropriate controls.
6) Focus on individual and team wellbeing and recognising and managing work-related stress and other psychosocial risks.
7) Enable an environment where our people and others feel supported and empowered to speak up and stop unsafe work and contribute to developing solutions.
8) Support the mental and physical wellbeing and recovery of staff by providing access to appropriate counselling, rehabilitation services, flexible work arrangements and staff wellbeing initiatives.
9) Integrate health, safety, and wellbeing into Cradle Coast NRM’s planning and decision making.
Key legislation
Emergency Management Act 2006 (Tas)
Other potentially relevant legislation
The following Acts may be triggered when implementing this Plan:
• Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
• Tasmanian:
– Fire Service Act 1979
– Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
– Nature Conservation Act 2002 (e.g. in the respect of invasive terrestrial animals)
– Crown Lands Act 1976
– National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002
– Biosecurity Act 2019 (pests and diseases)
– Cat Management Act 2009 (control of cats)
– Inland Fisheries Act 1995 (pests and diseases of managed and wild freshwater fish; pests and diseases of managed and wild freshwater plants)
– Natural Resource Management Act 2002
– Water Management Act 1999
– Forest Practices Act 1985
– Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 (e.g. diseases of managed and wild marine fish; invasive marine pests, plants and animals)
– Primary Produce Safety Act 2011 (breeches in primary production food standards and product integrity)
– Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Tasmania) Act 1994 (response in relation to misuse and subsequent impacts in relation to agricultural and veterinary chemicals)
– Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (in the respect of bushfire hazard management plans)
– Local Government Act 1993
How Cradle Coast NRM’s Plan fits with the statewide emergency management framework
Cradle Coast NRM operates within the broader emergency management framework for north-west and western Tasmania. This first version of the plan has been developed in consultation with a broad range stakeholders. Owing to the very short timeframe of this project we will require additional time to obtain validation from state and local government agencies. Our experience and knowledge of natural resource management issues and existing partnerships with stakeholder, particularly those on private and council managed lands is a key strength of our organisation and should assist with this process.
The TEMA is an integral part of the broader emergency management framework in Tasmania. The Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan for Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital (this Plan) is designed to work with the TEMA to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to emergency management, particularly in relation to natural disasters and environmental emergencies. It is important to note that the relationship between the two plans is not one of direct governance but of coordination, collaboration, and mutual support.
At present, Cradle Coast NRM contributes to implementing TEMA by addressing specific risks and vulnerabilities related to natural resources. The NRM Plan emphasises a collaborative approach and should help to ensure a more comprehensive approach to the management of biodiversity and natural capital assets in the emergency management context in Tasmania.
Cradle Coast NRM must ensure alignment with these legal and procedural guidelines to effectively manage and respond to emergencies while complying with Tasmania's legislative requirements. This includes adapting to the structured emergency management roles, responsibilities, and actions detailed in the TEMA, the Emergency Management Act 2006, the TEMA, and the Work Health and Safety Act 2012
This Plan complements the statewide emergency management framework through:
• Shared objectives:
Both frameworks share the common goal of reducing the impact of emergencies and enhancing the resilience of communities and the environment. They aim to achieve this through a combination of prevention (mitigation), preparedness, response, and recovery strategies.
• Complementary roles:
The TEMA provides the overarching framework for emergency management in Tasmania. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and organisations, and there may be a more defined role for Cradle Coast NRM initially with representation in the North West Regional Emergency Management Committee.
• Collaboration and coordination:
The frameworks advocate for strong inter-agency and governmental collaboration, which is essential for Cradle Coast NRM to successfully integrate and execute its plans. Both frameworks emphasise the importance of cooperation and coordination among various stakeholders. The TEMA outlines the mechanisms for coordination among different agencies and organisations. At the same time, the Cradle Coast NRM’s Plan describes how it interacts with other stakeholders within the broader emergency management framework.
• Consistent approach:
Both frameworks adopt a consistent approach to emergency management based on risk management principles and continuous improvement. They recognise the need to adapt to changing circumstances and to learn from past experiences.
• Integration of strategies:
The Cradle Coast NRM’s Plan contributes to implementing the TEMA by addressing specific risks and vulnerabilities related to natural resources. For example, it includes strategies for managing the impact of emergencies on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets. Both frameworks encourage risk-based planning, guiding Cradle Coast NRM to focus on high-risk areas concerning biodiversity and agriculture.
• Mutual support:
The two plans support each other in achieving their respective objectives. The TEMA provides the policy and strategic context for Cradle Coast NRM’s Plan, the Cradle Coast NRM Plan provides a range of practical actions and initiatives that support the broader objectives of the TEMA.
NRM organisations work with the relevant organisations responsible for fire, flood and biosecurity, in particularly their systems and approaches, focussing on natural and cultural asset protection within their models. In line with the State Emergency Management Framework (SEMF), Cradle Coast NRM’s role encompasses four key phases: mitigation (Table 18), preparedness (Table 19), response (Table 20), and recovery (Table 21).
TAB l E 18: Tasmania’s Emergency Management Framework: Phase 1 – Mitigation
Mitigation phase Role description
State Government and Emergency Management Agencies
Identify and assess hazards, develop emergency risk and mitigation strategies, and implement measures to reduce risks. Coordinate with relevant stakeholders to implement mitigation measures, including infrastructure upgrades, environmental management, and public awareness campaigns.
local Government Implement local-level mitigation initiatives, such as land-use planning, building codes, and community education programs.
NRM organisations Identify environmental hazards and vulnerabilities. Conduct risk assessments for natural asset priorities. Develop and implement strategies to mitigate environmental risks, such as land degradation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution. Communication and conduit between government bodies, broader networks and the community.
TAB l E 19: Tasmania’s Emergency Management Framework: Phase 2 – Preparedness
Preparedness phase Role description
State Government and Emergency Management Agencies
Community/ Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)
Lead preparedness efforts, including training and exercises, community engagement, and development of emergency plans and procedures. Coordinate action to ensure readiness for potential emergencies (e.g. response plans, risk assessments, training and drills).
Education and awareness, develop neighbourhood emergency plans, and participate in training and awareness programs.
NRM organisations Collaborate with stakeholders to integrate natural resource management considerations into emergency planning and preparedness activities, provide expertise on ecosystem resilience and adaptation strategies, engage in public education and awareness campaigns on environmental hazards and best practice conservation works.
Build organisational capacity to ensure readiness to respond promptly to emergencies by preparing systems and capacities, surge capability, and network-building, laying the groundwork for swift and informed action.
Support First Nations-led initiatives, fostering inclusivity and cultural sensitivity in emergency management strategies.
Advocate for strengthened funding systems that support planning, collaboration, and coordination activities post-fire, ensuring resources are allocated efficiently to address priority actions and build networked capacity.
TAB l E 20: Tasmania’s Emergency Management Framework: Phase 3 – Response
Response Phase Role description
State Government and Emergency Management Agencies
Community/ Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)
Designated agencies lead the response to specific types of emergencies, such as the Tasmania Fire Service for bushfires and the SES for storms and floods. Provide specialised support during response operations, including medical services, logistical support, and community warnings and public information dissemination. Establish Emergency Coordination Centres at both state and regional levels to coordinate response efforts, allocate resources, and communicate with stakeholders.
Assist emergency services in various capacities, including search and rescue, emergency communications, and community support.
NRM organisations Provide technical expertise and support to emergency response agencies during environmental emergencies, such as wildfire suppression, flood management, and ecosystem restoration, mobilise resources and personnel for habitat restoration and natural resource recovery efforts, collaborate with stakeholders to assess environmental impacts and assist IMT in developing Rehabilitation Plans. Utilise our agility to adapt to emerging priorities and re-prioritise efforts based on real-time information and utilise our surge capacity (including staff redeployment, recruitment, consultants, contractors and relevant stakeholders) to enable rapid and effective response efforts for the management of priority natural assets.
TAB l E 21: Tasmania’s Emergency Management Framework: Phase
Recovery Phase Role description
Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC)
4 – Recovery
Lead the recovery phase, which focuses on restoring affected communities, infrastructure, and services.
local Government Coordinate local recovery efforts, including debris removal, infrastructure repair, and support for affected residents.
Community/ Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)
State and Federal Government
Provide assistance and support to affected individuals and communities, including counselling services, financial aid, and advocacy.
Provide financial assistance, technical support, and policy guidance to facilitate long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts.
NRM organisations Support long-term environmental recovery and restoration efforts following emergencies, such as habitat rehabilitation, soil erosion control, and waterway restoration. Collaborate with government agencies, community organisations, and other stakeholders to prioritise and implement post- emergency environmental recovery projects, monitor and assess ecosystem health and resilience over time, share lessons learned and best practices to enhance future mitigation and preparednessand strengthen ecosystem resilience
Focus on resource recovery actions for the medium to long-term, consolidating immediate post-emergency investments and ensuring a seamless transition towards long-term recovery and resilience-building.
Advocate for investment that builds resilience of populations, ecosystems, and natural resources for future catastrophic events, leveraging knowledge gained from past emergencies to strengthen preparedness and response mechanisms.
9
Risk management including mitigation strategies
9� Risk management including mitigation strategies
This section outlines the key overarching risks associated with Cradle Coast NRM’s implementation of this Plan’s actions and how they can be mitigated. This does not provide an assessment of disaster risks in Tasmania – this can be found in the Tasmanian Disaster Risk Assessment (TASDRA, 2022)
Table 22 outlines the key overarching risks associated with implementation of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery actions for biodiversity and agricultural natural-capital assets, and risk mitigation actions.
Ratings for the likelihood, consequence and overall risk were assigned using Cradle Coast NRM’s Risk Management Framework.
In developing the risk matrix for this Plan, the following assumptions have been made regarding the assessment of risks:
1. Funding availability:
The assessment of likelihood for identified risks assumes the availability of adequate funding for implementing mitigation measures and response actions. It is acknowledged that implementation of the Plan itself is currently unfunded and assessments attached to most risks are contingent upon the availability of funding.
2. External factors:
Numerous risks identified are beyond the direct control and mitigation capabilities of Cradle Coast NRM. Our capacity to influence or control these actions is limited, leading to uncertainties in risk mitigation.
It is essential to recognise these assumptions while interpreting the Plan and utilising the risk matrix, as they significantly affect the likelihood and severity assessments of identified risks. Adjustments may be required as circumstances evolve, particularly regarding funding availability and the actions of external stakeholders involved in emergency response scenarios.
TAB l E 22: Key overarching risks associated with implementation of asset preparedness and response actions
Risk likelihood Consequence
Assets not adequately identified due to gaps in knowledge, paucity of data or inadequate time or resources
Lack of funding/ resources for spatial mapping updates, preparation planning, or Plan implementation.
Absence of a detailed preparedness plan leading to uncoordinated and ineffective actions during an emergency.
Lack of training and education resulting in misunderstanding or non-compliance with the preparedness plan.
WHS concerns affecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of responders.
Unintended environmental impacts, including ecosystem destruction from emergency response actions
Likely Moderate
Significant Identify resource needs and secure funding for asset identification, data collection, and resource allocation. Conduct regular reviews of risk assessment to identify potential threats to biodiversity and agricultural assets.
Likely Major High Ensure budgets are estimated and funding identified for personnel, equipment, and other necessary resources.
Moderate Moderate
Significant Develop a detailed preparedness plan ahead of emergencies, ensuring it is comprehensive and adaptable to various disaster scenarios.
Moderate Minor Moderate Provide training and education to relevant stakeholders on the preparedness plan. Identify gaps in knowledge prior to designing training sessions.
Likely Major High Prioritise WHS, implement WHS training and planning to ensure responders are adequately prepared for their roles.
Likely Major High Design the preparedness plan to align with emergency services systems and provide it to relevant agencies for use by IMT’s in incident control centres. Socialise the plan through regular planning, training and exercises.
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Significant
Significant
Risk
Inadequate preparedness actions causing significant damage to biodiversity and agricultural assets
Inadequate coordination leading to disarray and inefficiencies during large scale disasters that stretch EM ability to respond, lack of Plan knowledge or implementation by emergency services organisations
Delayed response actions due to inability to quickly mobilise resources due to logistical constraints
Ineffective communication leading to misinformation and panic
Insufficient recovery actions hindering the restoration of assets post-emergency.
Moderate
Failure to conduct a thorough post-emergency assessment resulting in inadequate recovery actions Moderate
Develop a detailed emergency response plan that outlines actions to be taken during an event, focusing on minimising damage to biodiversity and agricultural assets. Moderate
One role of the Regional Emergency Management Committee (REMC) is to establish coordination of effort and WebEOC is a cross agency information tool/platform used in emergencies and for the storage of plans. NRM involvement in REMC would improve level of knowledge of natural values. Moderate
Ensure resources can be quickly mobilised during an event by identifying capabilities, training needs, and maintaining readiness. Low
Community warnings and updates are coordinated by the agencies responsible for incident management and the Emergency coordination Centres (EOC’s).
Conduct a post-disaster assessment to evaluate damage to biodiversity and agricultural assets and identify necessary recovery actions. Significant
Implement restoration activities to recover biodiversity and agricultural assets following emergencies.
Lack of insight from historical lessons leading to recurring errors
Likely Moderate Significant Regularly review risk assessments and update plans to address delays and new or emerging threats to biodiversity and agricultural assets.
Moderate Minor
Lack of monitoring to measure effectiveness and detect impacts
Chronic impacts leading to actions not achieving desired outcomes
Moderate Minor
Moderate Review the effectiveness of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery actions and incorporate lessons learned into future planning. Update and communicate plan changes accordingly.
Moderate Develop a monitoring system to measure the effectiveness of risk management actions and detect impacts on biodiversity and agricultural assets.
Likely Major High Develop strategies to mitigate chronic impacts on biodiversity and agricultural assets, considering long-term sustainability and resilience measures.
Moderate
Low
Low
Significant
10 Monitoring and data
10� Monitoring and data
Available data was sourced for natural capital assets and included collating statewide data from various sources, including but not limited to:
1. The Tasmanian Government Land Information System (the LIST),
2. Australian Government open data portal,
3. Geoscience Australia and any other relevant portals.
This data was filtered based on the priorities agreed in collaboration with the other Tasmanian NRM’s. A series of data layers has been created for each of the natural capital asset groups. For example:
1. Threatened and important species,
2. Threatened and important ecological communities,
3. Important biodiversity areas, soils, and vegetation.
Risk assessment models have been developed for each threat identified in this scope (Fire, Flood, Coastal Erosion, Coastal Inundation), both for biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets where relevant.
The three major components of each risk assessment model are:
1. Threat Rating (input): describes the extent and likelihood/severity of the threat.
2. Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating (input): describes the extent of the natural capital assets, which are then rated against all other assets in terms of priority for conservation value and/or the asset’s vulnerability to the threat.
3. Risk Assessment Rating (output): describes the combination of the two above rating models which can be used to identify areas at highest risk to the threat.
A detailed description of the risk assessment modelling process is provided as a separate report available on our website. See: Emergency Preparedness –Statewide Spatial Analysis and Mapping Report ( https:// cradlecoast.com/resources/statewide-spatial-analysisand-mapping-report-epp/ ).
The underlying process to update and combine all the input layers was designed and built around a well-structured and semi-automated GIS model using standard ESRI software. The benefit of this approach is that all, or individual inputs to the models can be easily adjusted and the whole model re-run either annually or on-demand to inform ongoing emergency plan revisions. This means that plans can be kept current and therefore effective, as threat conditions change.
Together these provide an ongoing resource that Cradle Coast NRM and other agencies responsible for Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery can use in decision-making prior to, during, and after future emergency events. The key outputs as part of this project include:
1. Data package including all base layers used provided for use in Desktop and web feature services,
2. Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Risk Assessment Models, one for each threat,
3. A series of heat mapping PDF Maps generated from Risk Assessment Models for each threat.
PDF Maps and outputs from the Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Risk Assessment Models will be published on the CCNRM website to accompany this plan. The full data package and associated Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Risk Assessment Models will be made available to the Australian Government via SIGBOX. SIGBOX is the department's preferred method of securely uploading, downloading, and sharing large files. SIGBOX is a web application that can be accessed from any location, allowing data files to be shared securely between departmental staff and external stakeholders. For internal use CCNRM will maintain the data in the CCNRM GIS Directory which may be made accessible to other stakeholders on request.
Appendices
Appendix 1� Spatial analysis methodology
Overview
The underlying process to update and combine all the input layers was designed and built around a well-structured and semi-automated GIS model using standard ESRI software. The benefit of this approach is that all, or individual inputs to the models can be easily adjusted and the whole model re-run either annually or on-demand to feed into ongoing emergency plan revisions. This means that plans can be kept current and therefore effective, as threat conditions change. Although out of the scope of this project, marine assets and vulnerabilities to heat waves, biosecurity, on-farm long-term drought risk and so on, could also be added via additional inputs as required.
The resolution of the model was determined to ensure it best met the needs of emergency response and decision-making purposes. Similar risk assessment models within Tasmania use a 100m x 100m grid cell to represent mapped features and this has proven to be a good compromise between on-ground accuracy and efficient modelling processes.
The parameters and priorities agreed by the NRM organisations and external stakeholders to develop for each threat the natural capital asset priority ratings described below such that modelled outputs can directly feed into the framework of each of the three NRM emergency response plans.
A risk assessment model has been developed for each threat using the following methodology:
A Threat Rating Layer
1. A model for the threat was acquired or developed to describe for any given site across the state, the likelihood or hazard associated with that threat rated from highest to lowest likelihood/severity.
2. The descriptive likelihood/severity ratings for each site were converted into a numeric risk value to allow for mathematic calculation. For example:
a) Low Threat Rating assigned a Threat Value of 1
b) Moderate Threat Rating assigned a Threat Value of 2
c) High Threat Rating assigned a Threat Value of 3.
B Natural Capital Priority Ranking Layer
1. A model to represent the location of each natural capital asset was developed and assigned a priority to rate vulnerability to each threat. The mapped outputs relevant to the Cradle Coast region can be found in Appendix 2.
2. The descriptive priority rating for each natural capital asset was converted into a numeric priority value to allow for mathematic calculation. For example:
a) Low Priority Rating assigned a Priority Value of 1
b) Moderate Priority Rating assigned a Priority Value of 2
c) High Priority Rating assigned a Priority Value of 3.
3. For each site (100m x 100m grid cell) the maximum priority value of all the natural capital assets present on that site was chosen to represent the final natural capital priority value for that site. For example, if three different species or vegetation communities were present within the 100m x 100m grid cell, then the species or vegetation community with the highest priority rating would be used to set the overall priority value for that grid cell.
C Risk Assessment Rating Layer
1. The risk assessment model was developed by way of multiplication of the two input ratings for each site across the state:
Risk Assessment Value = Threat Value x Maximum
Natural Capital Priority Value
2. The resultant Risk Assessment Value calculated for each site across the state describes its overall rank relative to all other sites for the given threat. For example:
a) Any site with the highest risk assessment value (i.e. 3 x 3 = 9), has the highest ranking for emergency planning and decision making, as these sites have at least one natural capital asset of highest priority rating which may experience a threat event of the highest threat rating.
b) Any site with a risk assessment value (i.e. 1 x 1 = 1) has the lowest ranking.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 1: Example Risk Rating Calculation Matrix – Threat Rating x Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating
The following sections describe in more detail how each of the input components were developed, including source datasets.
Fire Threat Model
The Fire Threat Rating model for 2024 was sourced from the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (TPWS). TPWS express the threat of a bushfire in terms of five ‘likelihood’ ratings:
• Rare
• Unlikely
• Possible
• Likely
• Almost Certain
This model is developed from a large and varied range of external sources and internal fire weather and vegetation fire behaviour models and accounts for:
• Ignition Potential:
– Lightning Strike Probability
– Historic Fire Start Points
• Suppression Capability:
– Likelihood of Detection, – Proximity to brigade/air resource.
• Head Fire Intensity:
– Vegetation Type (defines Rate of Spread based on vegetation specific fire behaviour models)
– Slope
– Fuel Load (fire age versus fuel accumulation by vegetation type),
– 95% Percentile Historic Weather.
No further work was required on this model, as it had already been assigned threat values which were used directly in the risk assessment modelling undertaken.
Flood Threat Model
The Flood Threat Rating model was developed from three sources:
The State Emergency Service (SES), Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (DPFEM) has developed a range of flood hazard models covering a range of annual exceedance probability (AEP) scenarios and for current and 2100 modelled climate change weather scenarios. The flood model chosen for this project used the 2100 climate weather scenario and a 1% AEP. This model was chosen as it models the worst-case scenario in terms of extent affected by flooding.
2. Flood Extent June 2016:
The extent of the 2016 Floods around Evandale were mapped in August 2016 by the Flood Recovery Program. Where this 2016 flood mapping extended beyond the modelled statewide flooding extent above, these areas were included in the model.
3. lIST Hydrographic Area – Flood Plain
Where the Flood Plains mapped within the LIST Hydrographic Area layer extended outside the above two layers, these areas were included in the model.
All areas covered by the features described above were assigned a nominal threat rating of ‘high’, but essentially the extent was used to represent that the areas that would be affected by water in the event of a flood (i.e. presence versus absence of excess water). This was a simplistic approach and could possibly have been further developed with the depth models also created by SES had time permitted.
Coastal Erosion Threat Model
The Coastal Erosion Threat Rating model was developed using the ‘Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands 20161201’ dataset as developed by DPAC. The following extract from their technical report describes the hazard bands used to assign Threat Ratings to the model:
The four coastal erosion hazard bands are:
• Acceptable: the area is unaffected by coastal recession until after 2100, and not subject to controls.
• Low: the area vulnerable to coastal recession by 2100 or is protected by coastal defences.
• Medium: the area vulnerable to coastal recession to 2050.
• High: the area vulnerable to hazardous erosion now, and typically found on sand dunes; for the purpose of SCP, this is considered the area that is a potentially actively mobile landform.
Coastal Erosion Investigation area: an area adjacent to the coastline for which there is insufficient information to classify it into Acceptable, Low, Medium, or High hazard bands. The width of the area is the cumulative width of the Low, Medium, and High hazard bands.
For the purposes of risk modelling, the hazard bands described above were assigned the following Threat Ratings:
A PPENDI x TAB l E 2: Assignment of Coastal Erosion Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands (DPAC)
Coastal Erosion Hazard Band
Coastal Erosion Threat Priority
Acceptable Excluded
Coastal Erosion investigation Area Investigation
Coastal Erosion Threat Value
NA
0 – These areas were included in the final model to identify areas that may yet be at threat but had no final risk rating assigned.
Coastal Inundation Threat Model
The Coastal Erosion Threat Rating model was developed using the ‘Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands 20161201’ dataset as developed by DPAC. The following extract from their technical report describes the hazard bands used to assign Threat Ratings to the model:
The coastal inundation hazard bands are defined as follows:
• Low: areas vulnerable to a 1% AEP storm event in 2100; these areas have a medium-term flooding issue.
• Medium: areas vulnerable to a 1% AEP storm event in 2050; the medium band also contains all of the land that will be impacted by a 0.8m SLR by 2100.
• High: areas that will be within a 0.2m SLR from the mean high tide line by 2050; these areas are currently impacted by the Highest Astronomical Tide.
Coastal Investigation: areas that are not covered by LiDAR and are below the 10m contour and within the coastal zone.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 3: Assignment of Coastal Inundation Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Inundation Hazard Bands (DPAC)
Coastal Inundation Hazard Band
Coastal Inundation Threat Priority
Coastal Investigation Investigation
Coastal Inundation Threat Value
0 – these areas were included in the final model to identify areas that may yet be at threat but had no final risk rating assigned
Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Priority Model
The range or location of each identified biodiversity natural capital asset was derived from a range of sources, including:
• Natural Values Atlas,
• TASVEG 4.0,
• Species of National Environmental Significance 1km Grids February 2024 (DCCEEW).
These were reviewed and where the datasets defining the range/habitat were too coarse (1km grids, or sporadic historic sighting records), an effort was made to derive a more accurate location from other available sources. This was particularly the case for several priority fauna species, so where possible, the habitat description in the conservation or listing advice was interpreted such that vegetation communities within the TASVEG 4.0 dataset could be extracted to represent the habitat of the fauna required. In the case of bird species, this equated to nesting and foraging habitat.
Once the geographic extent of each biodiversity natural capital asset was defined, a default priority rating value was assigned to each based on the following rules:
• Only biodiversity natural capital assets which are vulnerable to the threat were prioritised - natural capital assets which are not vulnerable to the threat were assign a priority ranking of zero for that threat.
• The conservation or threatened species listing advice was reviewed and those reported as more vulnerable/ susceptible to the threat were assigned a higher priority for that threat.
• The geographic distribution of the natural capital asset was assessed and those species, vegetation communities or sites with a wider distribution were generally assigned a lower priority to those with a narrow distribution, over-riding the priorities assigned based on the conservation/listing advice. The reasoning being that widely distributed populations or habitats would generally be at less risk of extinction or significant loss to a single emergency event likely to happen within a year, than those natural capital assets only found in very concentrated locations.
For the threat of fire only, an additional set of analyses was undertaken to further enhance the priority rating process. Given many species, vegetation communities
or sites had very large geographic extents defined in the model, to fine tune areas more vulnerable to fire within those areas, the ‘Tolerable Fire Intervals (TFI) for TASVEG Communities,’ as developed by the NRET Conservation Science Section, were applied. By applying this fine tuning, the priority assigned to these widely dispersed assets could be downplayed in areas where the impact of fire was likely to be less significant, such that the priority for more narrowly dispersed assets would not be masked in the final risk assessment model where they overlapped.
The TFI concept was developed to assist natural resource managers with planning the timing of prescribed burning programs to balance the need to reduce bushfire hazard against maintenance of functional ecosystems. In terms of the biodiversity natural capital assets in this project, the Tolerance Fire Interval:
• Is a measure that is directly applicable to the flora and vegetation community assets,
• Serves as a surrogate for fauna assets by maintaining direct habitat,
• Serves as a surrogate for aquatic fauna asset conservation by maintaining surrounding habitat, preserving water quality, etc.
TFI’s provide an upper and lower range of age between fire events within which the frequency of fire is more likely to be acceptable to maintain a vegetation community’s identity and function. Too frequent a fire regime will likely impede the ability for plants to recover from fire such that they will persist when subject to a subsequent fire (represented by the ‘Minimum TFI’ value). Conversely, too infrequent a fire regime may affect species that require disturbance for regeneration, which in turn is often linked to inter-species competition and vegetation successional processes (represented by the ‘Maximum TFI’ value). A further separation of the Minimum TFI into the frequency of low and high severity fires was also made, and for this exercise, the ‘Minimum TFI (high severity fire)’ value was chosen to represent the likely impact of a bushfire. Bushfires are not always high severity fires, but this option was chosen to represent the ‘worst-case’ scenario.
Using the December 2023 Fire History dataset as sourced from LIST, which records fire extents back to 1920, the age since the last fire event was calculated for each location across the state and was overlaid with
the Tolerance Fire Intervals as applied to TASVEG 4.0 communities to highlight areas that would be inside or outside their minimum tolerance fire interval if a fire occurred in 2024. If a portion of the biodiversity natural capital asset overlapped TASVEG communities in which a 2024 fire would be outside the minimum TFI, that portion was assigned a higher priority rating than the remainder of the asset. This process only focused on calculating the age since fire based on the previous fire event, it did not attempt to model areas which might have had two or more prior fires recorded. A multiple fire age history model could be developed further to highlight areas which might be at higher risk again if a subsequent fire occurred.
In modelling terms, if the 'Age Since Fire' value was less than the 'Minimum TFI (high severity fire)' value for a location, then the priority assigned to the biodiversity natural capital asset was elevated for that location in which the historic fire occurred.
Agricultural Natural Capital Asset Priority Model
The extent of the agricultural natural capital assets was defined using the Tasmanian Land Use (2021) dataset, and the following land classes were included:
• Production from Relatively Natural Environments but excluding:
2.2.0 Production native forests.
• Production from Dryland Agriculture and Plantations but excluding:
3.1.0 Plantation forests,
3.1.1 Hardwood plantation forestry,
3.1.2 Softwood plantation forestry.
• Production from Irrigated Agriculture and Plantations but excluding:
–
4.1.0 Irrigated plantation forests.
The primary agricultural natural capital asset modelled in this project was soil, and so vulnerability to the identified threats was used to assign priority ratings.
For the threats of flood, coastal erosion and coastal inundation, the potential for water erosion was considered one main risk to loss of agricultural productivity.
For coastal inundation, and possibly coastal erosion, the introduction of saline water into the agricultural setting would be an additional threat to productivity, but this can be assumed to have the same risk rating for all sites
susceptible to coastal inundation or coastal erosion, so no priority rating was modified to account for increased salinity.
Stakeholders reported that the influx of debris from floods was another possible source of threat to agricultural land, especially where that debris was significant in volume. Again, for the threat of flooding, the likelihood of debris being deposited was assumed to be equal across all sites affected by flood, so no specific priority rating was developed to account for debris.
Based on these assumptions, the vulnerability of the agricultural natural capital assets was prioritised based solely on the Vulnerable soils water erosion hazard ratings as developed in 2018 by NRE . The water erosion mapping shows areas where a water erosion hazard might exist if sufficient groundcover is not maintained, which could lead to soil resource degradation through soil, organic matter and nutrient loss, resulting in sedimentation and contamination of drainage lines and waterways after significant rainfall and runoff events. The hazard ratings for water erosion were developed from a combination of Digital Soil Mapping (DSM) inputs of the soil properties Coarse Fragments, Sand %, Silt %, Clay %, Organic Carbon %, Soil Permeability, and Soil Structure, with Slope and Slope-Length (from the SRTM Digital Elevation Model) .
For this modelling exercise is it was assumed that the presence of natural vegetation was likely to signify areas of lower erosion potential, and as such vegetated areas were assigned the lowest priority ranking for the threats of flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation.
The presence of forest, woodland or native vegetation was modelled using a combination of the National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release, DCCEEW) and TASVEG 4.0 (NRET). Where forest woodland or native vegetation was identified on a site from these two datasets, this overrode the priority rating previously assigned based on vulnerability to water erosion hazard. The national woody vegetation layer was incorporated into the modelling as it has a finer resolution (25m cells) and is likely to be more current across the whole state than TASVEG 4.0 given it was mapped from recent imagery, so is more likely to identify linear strips of forest/vegetation along riverbanks, that help mitigate erosion. The effect of salinity from coastal inundation on the forest, woodland and native vegetation were not considered in this modelling exercise.
It was considered that applying the fire risk models used for the threat of bushfire to biodiversity assets would not be appropriate for agricultural assets in terms of impact on soils. As such, bushfire was not modelled for agricultural natural capital assets as part of this project. However, where bushfires do start on, or escape onto, agricultural land, the main risk to soils would be subsequent risk of erosion due to wind, water or steep slope and the layers for these potential hazards are provided for reference. It would be recommended
that more work be put into modelling the threat of bushfire to the agricultural natural capital assets in future iterations of this modelling based on these erosion hazard ratings. The layers developed by NRET to describe soils vulnerable to wind erosion, hillslope erosion and water erosion have been packaged with the model outputs to assist with emergency response planning, should they need to be consulted when assessing the possible impacts of fire on soils.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 4: Assignment of Agricultural Natural Capital Priority Ratings and Values as derived from Water Erosion Hazard Bands (NRET) and presence/absence of vegetation
Water Erosion Hazard Band
All hazard bands where forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
‘Very Low’ Band where no forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
‘Low’ Band where no forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
‘Moderate’ Band where no forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
‘High’ Band where no forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
‘Very High’ Band where no forest, woodland or native vegetation is present
Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating
Natural Capital Asset Priority Value
Biosecurity Threat
Current known invasive species are typically widespread within Tasmania, and the distribution mapping available to this project was generally limited to point-based observation records, rather than actual or modelled range boundaries. It was considered that use of observation data in this format could produce potentially misleading results if applied to the risk assessment modelling framework for this project. Although the mapping might indicate a species has not been observed in a location, it can’t be relied upon to define absence, as the lack of observation records are limited by human access. For example, the locations of observation records frequently follow roads, or walking trails, so don’t cover large areas where access is scarce. Further work to interpret the observation mapping into likely ranges would improve the utility of these datasets for risk modelling.
Stakeholder feedback did underscore the importance of considering the presence or absence of pests, weeds, and pathogens in assessing the ecosystem's ability to recover from emergency events. Although the observation records might not be suitable for confirming absence of an invasive species, they certainly can be used to indicate known presence in, or proximity to, natural capital assets. Used with this awareness of their limitations, these datasets can still be important supplemental information for emergency response planning with respect to risks to recovery from other threats. As such, all available information on known invasive species was included with the packaged model outputs.
Although no risk assessment model was prepared for the threat of biosecurity, each of the biodiversity natural capital assets was assigned a vulnerability rating to the main classes of biosecurity threats, as describe below:
Using these ratings, biodiversity natural capital assets vulnerable to each biosecurity threat type can be filtered out and viewed in GIS software as needed and compared against known locations of the biosecurity threats.
Risk assessment modelling could be applied to future threats as they become apparent, assuming that areas at risk from the threat can be defined accurately. However, the current Tasmanian biosecurity alerts, including the Small Hive Beetle, Varroa mite, and Queensland Fruit Fly, do not appear directly relevant as threats to the natural capital assets defined in this project, so were not modelled.
It should be noted that the 'Phytophthora_susceptibility_ veg_no_pc_records_region' GIS Layer packaged with this report describes area likely susceptible to Phytophthora but which have no current observation records within them. In terms of risk from Phytophthora. This dataset offers a potential source for future risk assessment modelling and highlights areas meriting attention in the current emergency response planning.
Appendix 2� Modelled Range and Priority Ratings of Natural Capital Assets
Biodiversity Assets
This section shows best available information on the range of priority biodiversity assets across Tasmania. The assessed priority for each species shown in these figures reflect modelled priorities only and does not capture additional considerations such as tenure used in the final assessment of the susceptibility of the natural asset to the various types of emergency events.
National Priority EPBC Listed Threatened Species
Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities
National Priority Sites and Ramsar Sites
Regionally Threatened and Important Species
Regionally Threatened and Important Communities/Habitats
Regionally Important Places/Areas
Agricultural Assets
Agricultural soils flood priority rating
Agricultural soils coastal erosion and coastal inundation priority rating
Agricultural vegetation flood priority rating
Agricultural vegetation coastal erosion and inundation priority rating
Water assets (represented by flood hazard rating)
Appendix 3: Consultation summary
This section summarises the Consultation Plan developed to seek feedback from stakeholders during the development of this Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Plan. The three regional NRM organisations in Tasmania – Cradle Coast, NRM North and NRM South – undertook joint consultation activities at a Statewide level to ensure a consistent approach was applied and to minimise the demands on Statewide stakeholders. NRM North undertook additional consultation with region specific stakeholders.
The Consultation Plan including the framework for consultation applied and the approaches implemented is first described before the feedback from stakeholders is summarised for each Phase is summarised in this section.
Framework for consultation – IAP2
Spectrum of public participation
The goals for community engagement in any project vary. Table 1 shows the IAP2 spectrum of public participation (IAP2, 2014). This provides a useful way of classifying the different types of community engagement, goals and the promises made to stakeholders as part of their participation in the project. Moving from left to right in the table corresponds to an increasing level of public impact on the project or decision.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 5: IAP2 Spectrum of public participation
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Goal To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.
To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.
Promise We will keep you informed. We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how the public influenced the decision.
To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decisions.
Stakeholder consultation to support development of this Plan consisted of three phases with stakeholder groups identified for each level of engagement in each phase of the project:
• Phase 1 focused on high level input to priority natural capital assets, threats, and data and information gathering.
To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision, including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.
We will look to you for direct advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.
To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.
We will implement what you decide.
• Phase 2 focused on impacts, actions, responsibilities, gaps and opportunities to prepare, respond and recover from emergencies.
• Phase 3 is yet to be undertaken and will focus on seeking feedback on this Draft Preparedness and Response plan.
The purpose of stakeholder engagement with each group, a list of organisations to be approached for input during each phase and methods for engagement are provided below.
Phase 1 – l ate February 2024
This phase of consultation was led by EskSpatial mapping with input and participation from NRM organisations.
Purpose
1. Introduce project to key stakeholders.
2. Validate initial priorities identified for biodiversity and agriculture and seek feedback on natural capital assets that should be included in the plan.
3. Seek feedback on risks and threats to these assets related to flood, fire, coastal inundation and biosecurity.
4. Source data, information and other expert knowledge to inform the project.
5. Identify other stakeholders who should be included in phase 1 consultation.
6. Provide details on timeframes for the broader project and who should be involved in later phases of consultation.
Level of engagement
Consult
Stakeholders
Stakeholders contacted and invited to engage in consultation activities are summarised in Appendix Table 6.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 6: Stakeholder organisations invited to participate in Phase 1 consultation
Stakeholder Focus area
Department of Premier and Cabinet Emergency Management – Preparedness, Response and Recovery
NRE: Water
NRE: Threatened species and conservation programs
Water related biodiversity assets and threats
Biodiversity assets, threats and emergency responses
NRE: Agriculture Agricultural assets, threats and emergency responses
NRE – Biosecurity Tasmania Invasive Species Branch
MRT and State Emergency Services
NRM organisations
Biosecurity related threats to agriculture and biodiversity
Modelling and data for natural emergencies, emergency response for fire, flood and coastal inundation
Biodiversity and agriculture – assets, threats, actions and data
NRE: Parks and Wildlife Service TWWHA and biodiversity: fire and biosecurity emergencies
Forest Practices Authority
Tasmanian Fire Service & State Fire Management Council
Natural Values Atlas
Biodiversity: priority assets, threats and actions, particularly related to fire
Biodiversity and agriculture fire related threats
Bushfire risk management
Data sets and modelling for priority assets, impacts and threats of emergencies
Method
Consultation involved one to one online semi-structured interviews with individuals and small groups from the same organization or similar interests and expertise as well as two workshops – one with NRE staff and the other with NRM staff. Questions used to guide these interviews were:
• What are the priority biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets for your organisation in Tasmania? Why?
• What are the key threats to these (specifically related to fire, coastal inundation, storms and biosecurity)? Why?
• Do you have data and/or other information available to assist with modelling the threat?
• Are you aware of any other sources of data?
• Is there anyone else we should be speaking to on this topic?
• Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Stakeholder feedback from Phase 1 consultation
Feedback on priority assets and threats were used to refine the modelling undertaken to support development of the Plan. Some of the key outcomes and feedback from interviews were:
• Hazards are naturally occurring noting that climate change can enhance threats. Emergency management focus is for ecosystem function to be maintained during and post-events.
• Protecting critically endangered species and ecosystems from fire is imperative.
• Specific flora and fauna species were identified as priority species.
• Protecting geodiversity values and native species is of high importance.
• The estuary and wetlands are crucial biodiversity assets.
• Preserving natural function and form of coastal environments is vital, considering increasing pressure and vulnerability.
• Coastal environments, due to their fragility, are seen as higher priority than flooding in terms of potential impact and loss.
• Encroachment of the sea onto land areas threatened habitats.
• Coastal inundation poses a significant threat, especially at the lower end of the estuary.
• Critically endangered species and ecosystems must be safeguarded against bushfires.
• Minimising the impacts of fire preparation activities is essential.
• Understanding species’ adaptability to fire and implementing measures to protect vulnerable species and ecosystems, especially in alpine zones, is crucial.
• Climate change is the biggest driver of natural capital risks, altering the frequency and intensity of events. It affected all threats differently, exacerbating challenges for biodiversity preservation, coastal management and agricultural productivity.
• Rapid environmental changes pose challenges for adaptation, particularly for biodiversity with limited time to adjust.
• Carbon, soil and grass quality are fundamental assets for agriculture. Soil loss or degradation is a key threat.
• Both fire and flood will have a significant impact on the agricultural sector.
• Salinity incursion and coastal inundation threaten agricultural productivity.
• Flood risk management is essential for protecting fertile floodplain environments.
• Proactive measures such as relocating vulnerable assets out of flood zones are crucial for agricultural resilience.
• Preventing landslides through effective water management and vegetation preservation is vital, especially in mountainous regions.
• The development of the Emergency Preparedness Plan should prioritise the protection of critical assets while considering the evolving challenges posed by climate change and human activities.
Phase 2 – early April 2024
This phase of consultation coordinated engagement with statewide stakeholders across all three regions.
Purpose
To seek stakeholder feedback on:
• The range of impacts that emergencies (fire, flood, coastal inundation and biosecurity) can be expected to have on natural capital assets.
• The types of actions that could be implemented to mitigate these impacts before, during and after emergencies.
• Current emergency management approaches.
• Roles and responsibilities for emergency management as well as gaps and opportunities.
• Stakeholder preferences for engagement in phase 3.
Level of engagement
Consult
Stakeholders
Stakeholder organisations who participated in Phase 2 consultation are summarised in Appendix Table 7.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 7: Stakeholder organisations who participated in Phase 2 consultation
Stakeholder Focus area
Department of Premier and Cabinet Emergency Management – Preparedness, Response and Recovery
NRE
State Emergency Service
Biodiversity assets
Flood management
Tasmania Fire Service Fire management
Tasmanian Irrigation
Agricultural natural assets
TasFarmers Agricultural natural assets
Department of Defence
Environment and sustainability
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service Environment, sustainability and fire management
Methods
A discussion paper was developed to provide background and seek structured feedback on impacts, actions, roles and responsibilities and future engagement. Conceptual frameworks were developed and used to seek structured feedback on the range of impacts that result from natural emergencies which affect natural assets and the actions to prepare, respond and recover to minimise these impacts on priority assets.
Stakeholder feedback was sought on:
• The range of impacts that emergencies (fire, flood, coastal inundation and biosecurity) can be expected to have on natural capital assets.
• The types of actions that could be implemented to mitigate these impacts before, during and after emergencies.
• Approaches to emergency management including roles and responsibilities as well as gaps and opportunities for NRMs and other stakeholders to work more closely together to enhance disaster management.
• Stakeholder preferences for engagement in phase 3.
Methods used for consultation were:
• Two Statewide online workshops.
• Email feedback on the Discussion paper by stakeholders unable to attend workshops.
Stakeholder feedback from Phase 2 consultation
Stakeholder feedback from Phase 2 consultation is summarised below split into feedback from Statewide consultation and consultation with stakeholders within the Northern Tasmanian Management Unit.
Statewide stakeholders
Conceptual frameworks and actions that should be included in the Plan
Stakeholders said that it’s important to remember that fires and floods have a purpose and many natural systems require them as part of the cycle even though this plan is focusing on negative impacts and strategies to minimise these. Negative impacts on natural assets of actions taken before events to mitigate social and economic impacts (including infrastructure) of emergencies should be considered for coastal inundation, flood and fire.
Fire
To consider in the framework for bushfire:
• Drop in groundwater common after bushfires.
• Successional impacts on floristics after fires – in the medium to long term impacts on successional pathways depending on fire frequency.
• Planned burning direct and indirect impacts – need to be more specific about what can achieve with planned burns. It is possible to use a planned burn to create a fire breaks around priority assets but a broader goal would be to increase resilience across landscape by implementing appropriate fire regimes. If we could get planned burning right at the landscape scale, what could we achieve?
• TPWS successfully implemented asset-based protection of King Billy pines in the Denison ranges during a bushfire emergency. Parks are in the process of developing similar plans for key areas in the TWWHA.
• Large volumes salt water being dumped into some areas is a big issue. Very limited funding and action here. Where to start with remediation?
• Fire hazard should include actions such as clearing vegetation that shouldn’t be cleared before and during fires.
• Reestablishing riparian fencing and vegetation in the recovery phase.
• Protect water quality by trapping ash, debris and sediment.
Flood
One stakeholder noted that because Tasmania is so mountainous our experience with floods is very different here than mainland. Flooding here is mostly flash flooding rather than long period floods with several weeks of inundation. This usually impacts on localised area.
To consider in the framework for floods:
• Add impacts from actions taken to mitigate flood impacts on people and infrastructure such as levees.
• Raised groundwater causes landslips and landslides after floods. Also, there are underground impacts eg Beaconsfield mine destabilization after the 2016 flood.
• The estuarine environment is also impacted by floods, with interactions between tides and rivers. Impacts include those on river mouth morphology as well as potentially significant impacts on attributes like seagrass beds, shark nurseries and economic entities like oyster beds.
• Channel morphology and stream migration changes are also possible eg upper Meander catchment. Farmers will often act to reestablish traditional pathways where this occurs. Property boundary issues can arise after channel migration. A permit NRE is required to do any in-stream works.
• Other impacts on karst system can include debris, nutrients and contaminants carried by floodwaters. Also subsequent slumping and sink holes.
• Logjams are often a more significant issue downstream from Forestry lands. It’s important to prepare for flood by removing log jams that have previously formed. Rock deposits can also be a significant issue.
• Dam safety event is a significant risk from intense rainfall events.
• Biosecurity emergencies can be impact of flood emergencies with pests and diseases resulting from flood impacts.
Coastal inundation
Stakeholders questioned what we mean by coastal inundation - is it storm surge or sea level rise or a combination of both?
To consider in frameworks for coastal inundation:
• Salinisation can be a short-term impact after a storm surge. Increases in sea water entering underground aquifers can have significant impacts on groundwater extraction as well as waste water treatment.
• Local salinisation is temporary impact but longerterm impacts will come from sea levels rise. This will have big consequences for coastal communities in terms of groundwater extraction for drinking and onsite wastewater treatment.
• Coastal inundation recovery actions can have negative environmental impacts. For example there’s often a focus on beach nourishment where near shore dunes are dug and sand returned to the beach. There is a lot of conflicting demand where things are done for public safety but will have negative environmental impacts.
• Large tree falls may be a consequence of coastal inundation eg Garden Island beach.
• Land values, size of titles may be reduced as a result of floods/coastal inundation.
Biosecurity
• TPWS have prepared Biosecurity preparedness and response plans for sites. Having plans ready to go is key.
• An important part of preparing for biosecurity emergencies is to address threats that are present before incursion into high value areas, eg deer strategy to avoid having to go into emergency response phase.
• Consider slow versus rapid onset events.
Roles, responsibilities, opportunities and gaps
Current approaches
• ‘Significant events’ are covered by State Recovery Plan includes Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements (DRFA).
• ‘Affected area recovery committees’ can be run at Local or State Government levels depending on impacts of emergency.
• TPWS is not as active in floods.
• The Red Hot Tips program is considering natural values. Promoting these types of programs with landholders important.
• Fire management area committees develop plans annually. Infrastructure and people tend to be focus but would be useful to work more closely to ensure greater coverage of natural capital assets.
Coordination of effort
• Coordination of effort at the appropriate scale, local engagement is a key for success eg strategic tree planting post-flood should be planned with view amenity also in mind.
• Coordination of effort is difficult in multi-tenure settings, especially with corporate and private landowners.
• Coordination of risk reduction efforts is a key.
• Promote partnerships with community should be in recommendations.
• Coordination of effort at the appropriate scale, local engagement is a key for success eg strategic tree planting post-flood should be planned with view amenity also in mind.
Planning for emergencies
• Recovery and restoration plans for impacts on specific identified assets can be a helpful tool, these become increasingly complex in multi-jurisdictional environments.
• ‘Transition to Recovery Plans’ have been implemented for fires and floods in Tasmania.
• State Fire Protection Plan is under review at present. It is unlikely to undergo massive revision.
• TPWS have novel strategies for responding to emergencies. The current process is good but needs
to be applied more broadly. For EPBC listed species that are relatively common across Tasmania these may not be a useful focus. They are more appropriate for high risk, limited range assets.
Gaps
Stakeholders said that we're still trying to figure out how we can do good ecological management that reduces risks to people. The availability of skilled people and windows for undertaking burns are key issues that make it difficult to burn safely in a way that reduces impacts on the community while protecting natural assets.
The recovery phase is currently managed by DPAC and local councils. Unless and emergency is declared as a state emergency there is no state funding for recovery. Most funding is focused on getting communities back to a functional mode.
TFS in recovery phase should be doing some impact minimization and rehabilitation as they withdraw but they generally don’t. It’s very much based on the individual as to whether it happens or not. Recovery for natural capital assets doesn’t happen unless they throw big money about. Actions like repairing bulldozer lines should be being undertaken by private landholders but this is unlikely to happen.
Most of the work being done at the moment is not specific to species, it tends to focus more broadly to consider all natural values. Planned burns on private land are mostly undertaken by TFS. Its not clear whether natural assets are being considered.
What we don’t do well is landscape scale planning of fire regimes and ecological values. TFS has started have a focus on this for fuel reduction using strategic plans. eg Bicheno plan covering 20,000 ha areas. Strategic fuel management includes this but the focus is not on ecological values. Stakeholders thought it was unlikely we would ever have enough funding for this to be done.
After 2019 bushfire recovery funding aimed at people and assets. Stakeholders indicated that they did manage to get some ecological recovery into this and that having an agricultural focus might help qualify recovery works for this funding more easily.
After 2016 TPWS looked at restoration for Pencil Pine woodland. They know how to do this recovery work but need funding when it happens. TPWS staff said it would be useful to have at least a skeleton of plans for recovery and restoration for high risk and likelihood species and events so we can be ready. For example, we need
thousands of pine seedlings to do the rehabilitation work. For this we need to have seed, know where to get the cuttings from etc.
Another issue is the timeframes for which recovery funding is provided. Most funding is only for 12 months but many of the environmental recovery actions, such as weed management, require funding for 4 years before native vegetation has recovered significantly.
Stakeholders said that the biggest constraint was resources and a lot more could be done with more resourcing. There’s lots of knowledge and good initiatives but having money and the right people is an issue.
There is always room for better coordination and communication. The three main agencies in the fire space work well together but no doubt some issues could be improved.
What do we do well now/works well from a TFS and PWS perspective:
• We have good mapping of most fire sensitive natural values that other states don’t have. BRAM contains data layers that inform this, values protection planning data. Other jurisdictions are coming on board now with what we already have in place.
• We have good approaches already implemented for 4 or 5 areas but need more resources to expand this out. We know what we could or should be doing but being able to do it is the issue.
• We do a good job of knowing where values exist, understanding fire runs and potential impacts. We have people within PWS, Forestry and TFS who have broad knowledge of values and understand fire management for these. An issue is that there is not a lot of development of new people with this understanding. We need systems for developing this skilled labour. This might be a mentoring system and better acknowledgement of career pathways. People need on-ground experience of fire plus education and university knowledge. We need to make sure there are pathways from being on the fire ground to someone doing fire management.
There is no agency whose pure responsibility or job is to focus on natural assets in recovery or the response phase. One of the issues faced is that human life and built assets will always be more highly valued in emergency management. No one is working in this space for recovery.
Flood restoration and management of riparian areas is impacted by land tenure. In areas where riparian areas are clearly defined as crown land reserved negotiation of who’s responsible has been complex, with policies and guidance having been updated with landholders to make this clearer. It’s more challenging where no crown land reserve. Landowners are responsible but still need permits from NRE for works. Managing expectation and understanding of landholders is complex. Cost is encumbered on the landholder but they still need to follow regulatory processes, can’t do what they want to do and can experience a loss of land. It’s a difficult discussion to have. Clean up of debris and rocks is a negotiated process but some processes have been developed.
There were low levels of understanding of policies and arrangements in the landslide and coastal erosion space.
Where impacts are the byproduct of a significant event, recovery arrangements will take this into account. If an event is not classes as significant, recovery arrangements may not be activated, creating a much more ambiguous environment. Recovery will depend on who is involved and where issues are. There are legislated responsibilities and a range of supporting documentation. Delivery on ground depends on where and what it is trying to manage. Challenge to get coordinated efforts, informed by technical advice with a well-presented plan to reduce risks associated with flooding in a particular area. We need coordination of effort at the level required. Local engagement is essential to make sure the design is accepted and implemented.
Stakeholders said it comes down to who’s responsible for the management of recovery. Transition to recovery plan, handover plan, coordinate response. Rapid impact assessment, understanding of all impacts across all the domains. Human, economic and social tend to be easy, lot of environmental impacts not necessarily understood. These haven’t tended to focus on specific habit or species proactively checked for in recovery phase but has been done for seagrasses in the past through affected area recovery committees that were established post event.
Having recovery treatment plans ready to go for critical natural assets is worth considering.
Opportunities
This process is an opportunity for NRMs to build and solidifying relationships. NRMs could play more of a role in this space. Best done through existing mechanisms. This process is starting the conversations.
Phase 3 – May 2024
This phase of consultation led the NRM organisations in two parts:
• Coordinated engagement with statewide stakeholders across all three regions.
• Separate engagement with region specific stakeholders led by individual NRM organisations.
Purpose
• Tier 1 stakeholders - to seek stakeholder feedback on this Draft Plan and the priorities they see for future work.
• Tier 2 stakeholders - to inform stakeholders that the Draft Plan has been released and provide an opportunity for comment.
Level of engagement
• Tier 1 stakeholders – Consult
• Tier 2 stakeholders – Inform
Stakeholders
Table 4 summarises organisations invited to participate in Phase 3 consultation.
A PPENDI x TAB l E 8: Stakeholder organisations invited to participate in Phase 3 consultation
Tier Organisation Organisation
Tier 1
• Department of Defence
• DPAC
• Forest Practices Authority
• Forico
• Landcare Tasmania
• Centre for Introduced Species Solutions
• NRE
• Private Forests Tasmania
• PWS
• SES
Tier 2
• All Local Government General Managers and NRM Officers (or similar)
• CCA Board members
• Cradle Coast NRM Regional Committee members.
• Cradle Coast Regional Economic Development Committee members.
• Landcare Tas - NW rep
• State Fire Management Committeesregional FMAC Dep Chairs
• FPA - NW rep
• SES - NW rep
• TFS – NW rep
• Australian Plant Society Tas Inc.
• Birds of King Island
• Burnie Field Naturalists Club inc.
• Circular Head Aboriginal Corporation
• Regional Landcare and Coastcare Groups
• Regional Friends of Groups
• Regional Wildcare Groups
• King Island Field Naturalists
• Live Well Tasmania
• NE Environment Centre
• Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT)
• TasFarmers
• Tasmanian Conservation Trust
• Tasmanian Farm Innovation Hub
• Tasmanian Irrigation
• Tasmanian Land Conservancy
• TFS
• Local Government (LGAT)
• Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre
• Local orchid enthusiast
• Paddle Tasmania Canoe Club
• Penguin Rehab and Release
• Shorebird Monitoring Group
• Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation
• Soil First Tasmania
• SPRATS (Sea-Spurge Remote Area Teams)
• Stanley Wild School
• Tas NW Wader Count Group
• Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre – NW rep
• Threatened Plants Tasmania
• Trial Harbour Progress Association
• West Coast Recreation Association
• Wynyard U3A
• Forico – NW rep
• TasRail NW reps
• TasNetworks – NW rep
• PWS – NW region
• STT – NW reps
• State Growth – NW rep.
• Wildlife Carer
Methods
Given the differing levels of participation anticipated for the two tiers of stakeholders different methods were applied for each tier.
Tier 1 stakeholders
The Draft Plan provided via email (with a weblink to mapping and the Draft Plan) to all key stakeholders identified in previous consultation phases, in particular, those who participated in previous consultation activities. Feedback sought through:
• Online feedback form.
• A Statewide online workshop.
• Targeted one-to-one meetings on request with key stakeholders.
Questions used to structure feedback during this phase are:
• Do stakeholders agree with the assessment of the susceptibility of specific natural assets identified in the Cradle Coast NRM region to each type of emergency?
• Are the actions identified to prepare, respond and recovery appropriate?
• Does the Plan accurately reflect roles and responsibilities for emergency management?
• Do they agree with the gaps and opportunities identified in the Plan to improve protection and restoration of natural assets in the face of emergencies?
• Do they agree with the potential roles of the regional bodies identified in the Plan?
• What do they feel are the most important factors in successful implementation of the Plan? What are the greatest barriers?
• What do they see as the next steps for the Plan and its implementation?
Tier 2 stakeholders
The Draft Plan and mapping available via a weblink. This link promoted through:
• Organisational social media pages.
• Emails to targeted stakeholders and organisations not part of Tier 1.
Comment sought through an online form available from the website and via email.
• Does the Draft Plan capture the main actions needed to prepare, respond and recover from bushfire, flood, coastal inundation and biosecurity emergencies to protect natural capital assets? What is missing?
• Do you agree with the gaps and opportunities in emergency preparation and response to protect natural capital assets identified in the Draft Plan? What should be changed?
• Do you feel the potential roles identified for Cradle Coast NRM in emergency management are appropriate? What other potential roles could or should we play?
• What are the barriers and challenges to seeing improved protection of natural capital assets during and after emergencies? Are these adequately captured by the Draft Plan?
• Do you have any specific feedback on the Draft Plan for the Cradle Coast region? For example, there may be missing information about a local asset, program or process that you would like to see added.
Feedback from Phase 3 consultation
Feedback from Phase 3 consultation came from a Statewide workshop, several one-to-one feedback sessions with Statewide stakeholders, responses to the Statewide online survey and email feedback from regional stakeholders.
11� Statewide workshop
7 participants from Tasmanian Irrigation, TasNetworks, Taswater, Hydro Tasmania, NRE, Tas Farm Innovation Hub, National Feral Cat and Fox Management Program, and 4 staff from NRM organisations.
Discussion: Actions
Cost of particular actions – especially in times when cash flow is tight – which is often the case in disaster –Priority on actions that would provide the best net plus to their recovery – or is it a transformational change that is required – or
Natural assets often ignored or forgotten – potentially the aim of the AG was to bring forward and acknowledgement the role of Natural assets in the term of recovery and resilience e.g. loss of shelterbelt can impact both productivity and biodiversity
Communities are in shock and are recovering physically and emotionally – rebuilding fences and stock – not focusing on the Natural Assets (feral animal control/ weed control) and funding is often short term – so the longer-term Environmental assets are not targeted in the timeframe.
Policy and permitting requirements etc are often another hurdle – procedures and policies in place to support the recovery needs to be in place –
Community buy in and awareness – i.e. if this ‘Pest’ does come in – the cost of control is high if left unattended and control would be much more difficult (i.e. 1080 to deal with pests)
Community and smaller landholder groups to support smaller groups to support capacity and on ground action. Not just NRM – (James – but how does this trickle down – NRM could do this)
Challenge – if you don’t have longer term investment then the groups or the services don’t exist – fade away
What are the actions and Gaps?
Hydro perspective (Ian Jones) – availability of resources is one of the biggest stumbling blocks when doing work – i.e. even with BAU Projects are hard to resource – need to support the resource/service base.
A lot of information sources that regional bodies can do in tap at the time of the event. Strengthen the role of NRM in disseminating BOM and emergency info to the community – rather than relying solely on the government pages (web)
Discussion: Gaps and opportunities
Emergency Services/Councils – how does this fit in with these processes
Preparedness for drought – a lot of overlap with preparedness for other emergencies
Understanding of location – spatially where priority species are – data gaps – habitat rather than species. Understanding and spatial mapping is lacking – some but could be better – and not necessarily in a single place of access. That we are reducing the risks (consider risks created by risk reductions). Making the data available
Discussion: Barriers and challenges
Priorities at the time often overlook longer term key recovery actions.
Include more granular detail on environmental assets coming into new scenarios – and starts to fine tune the identification of response and recovery actions –
Council consultation – information sharing and surfacing some of these learning and insights – and broadening the knowledge base between organisations –
Would encourage and support the sharing of information
Priorities – i.e. get things back to function – often focus on like for like replacement rather than taking a longerterm view of avoiding future issues (resilience). Improve the situation for future event! Avoid future loss (ie natural assets). Lack of time to plan and develop in the need to reinstate function.
Hub focus on preparedness – don’t get much into recovery – from a farmer perspective – it would be an opportunity to rethink – i.e .Whole farm Planning – to improve resilience and future recovery type actions –having the plans and being able to roll them out if an when an event occurs and helping to prevent the same ‘shock’ from impacting in the future Cavalier response to respond – rules that would normally apply are put aside – i.e. machinery crossing creek lines etc – natural asset values are set aside – in addition to people removing natural values that were damages – and not retaining values. Factors – need for haste, cost, although boards appetite for environmental impacts has reduced – it is still a factor (cultural change)
Opportunity to interrogate responses and learnings from past emergency situations (possible workshop topic) – what are the potential areas scope that could be identified for improving responses. Potential to change protocols and mindsets, opportunity to support better practice.
Other feedback
Where response plans are developed it would be a useful space to collaborate on priorities and risks
Opportunities to prevent duplication of these kind of activities. Where else can these datasets be used?
Act as a prompt as to how they are doing at emergency prep response planning – have they considered assets in a Natural Values sense are they considering actions – a good prompt in a planning for scenarios and useful information to inform thinking into the future. Agencies could resource share in some situations, more collaboration is always good.
12� Statewide stakeholder feedback from one-to-one sessions
Meeting notes: ReCFIT
• Important to clearly articulate roles and responsibilities.
• Make clear that the Plans target acute events and not chronic events (climate change).
• Suggest reviewing definitions against what is used in the TASDRA Disaster Risk Assessment – Tasmania State Emergency Service.
• Provide clarity about where this Plan sits in the broader Emergency Framework – is it in input resource?
• Key comments about the regionals Plans needing to recognise the statewide approach to Emergency Management and roles and responsibilities. It is important for future collaboration.
• Suggestion to look at the terms and scope used in the Regional Drought Resilience Planning Program Department of Premier and Cabinet (droughtready. tas.gov.au).
• Recognise that there is opportunity to support communities to be more resilient and prepared. Others also working in this space such as DPAC.
• Question about whether we had consulted with Emergency Management Committees? (We stated that we had communicated with the Tas Fire Council but not regional EM Committees as yet. This could be a next step).
Meeting notes: Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre
• If the plans do not cover cultural values in this first version are their recommendations to incorporate this in the future?
• All of the hazards in scope have the potential to impact cultural values and sites (discussed mutton bird rookeries, native shellfish habitats and cider gum as examples).
• Recommendations for future roles, opportunities and collaborations with Tasmanian Aboriginal people could include:
– opportunities to broaden cultural land management practices on different landscapes/ tenures to support resilience and recovery, – involvement of community in planning and management,
– capacity building of cultural fire practices, – advocacy and support for cultural practices.
13� Statewide online survey and email feedback
Two responses were received to the online survey as given below.
Question Response 1
Do the Draft Plans capture the main actions needed to prepare, respond and recover from bushfire, flood, coastal inundation and biosecurity emergencies to protect natural capital assets? What is missing?
No. Despite being set within a context of climate change (i.e. driving more frequent emergency events), the resilience of assets to the effects of climate change has not been included in the assessment and allocation of response actions. For example, threatened species are considered high priorities based on their level of RISK (i.e. their probability of becoming extinct), rather than their RESILIENCE to climate change (and more frequent disasters) (i.e. a forward projection of their probability of survival through time). The proposed approach does not align with the principles of ecological TRIAGE, and best practice resource allocation. The need for the adoption of the triage approach is becoming increasingly more important as the number of species/ecosystems at risk increases.
Response 2
Appendices accurately captures a range of prepare, respond and recover actions, although some of the “general” actions are so generic as to not be particularly helpful e.g. ‘identify gaps in knowledge and address these’, ‘undertake planning to prepare for emergencies’ (surely that is a given). The Southern plan would benefit from a column in the table that indicates the progress towards achieving the preparedness actions in particular that has already undertaken by relevant groups in order to prioritise future actions.
Do you agree with the gaps and opportunities in emergency preparation and response to protect natural capital assets identified in the Draft Plans? What should be changed?
No. Information on the species/ ecosystem resilience should play the predominant role in the allocation of resources - unfortunately, the absence of this information/data is the primary gap.
Agree with gaps and opportunities identified, however the choice to not include climate change and the impacts caused by climate change has reduced the usefulness of this plan for the region. The impacts to southern Tasmania as a result of climate change are well documented and understood (for e.g. in Climate Futures Tasmania technical reports). Not acknowledging this in the Plan reduces the effectiveness of the suggested actions as they are not prioritised based on climate impacts - droughts, flooding, and bushfires are all expected to become more frequent as a result of climate change in southern Tasmania.
Question
Do you feel the potential roles identified for NRM organisations in emergency management in the Draft Plan are appropriate? What other potential roles could or should they play?
What are the barriers and challenges to seeing improved protection of natural capital assets during and after emergencies? Are these adequately captured by the Draft Plans?
Do you have any other comments on the Draft Plans generally?
Note the next section provides an opportunity for specific feedback on the Draft Plan for each region
CRADLE COAST: Do you have any specific feedback on the Draft Plan for the Cradle Coast region?
NORTH: Do you have any specific feedback on the Draft Plan for Northern Tasmania?
SOUTH: Do you have any specific feedback on the Draft Plan for Southern Tasmania?
Response 1
Yes
The major barrier lies in the unpalatability of the social discussion required to adapt public policy towards allowing triage to play a more significant role in identifying priorities.
Response 2
I feel that NRM is best poised to operate in the mitigation, preparedness and recovery phases, with a reduced role in the response phase, as that is well-covered by existing emergency response plans.
Funding and support from government agencies to implement actions in the preparedness stage is the biggest barrier. Preventing impacts from emergencies is far more effective than responding to them.
No response No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
The draft Plan has done a good job at attempting to address a very large and complex issue for the region. My only specific feedback is that I think the Plan would benefit from a general tightening of content and a thorough edit. Some of the general information provided is too general to be relevant or accurate – e.g. on page 13 "In the NRM South Region, the landscape and environmental conditions significantly influence the nature of bushfires" – landscape and environmental conditions influence bushfire conditions everywhere, not just in the NRM South region.
Stakeholder feedback from Phase 3 –Regional consultation
A short survey was developed by all 3 NRM’s and accompanied the release of the draft plan. Not all respondents opted to answer all of the 5 focus questions in the survey. Some respondents gave their feedback in the form of a marked-up version of the draft document and mainly offered technical corrections or additional values/ideas to consider.
Draft plans were emailed to 132 representatives from a diverse range of local, state government and community groups.
Comments were received from 11 respondents from a variety of groups and organisations including: Landcare (3 groups), local councils (2), SES, PWS (regional fire and landscape programs) and State Roads. Due to the short timeframe for response several respondents noted that the views expressed were personal opinions only and did not necessarily reflect the official views of the organisations/agencies involved.
The following is a summary of responses submitted by these regional respondents.
Draft Plan main actions What is missing?
• Focus on EPBC listed species, TEC’s meant sensitive Alpine forests and other important Schedule 3A threatened species and threatened native vege communities of Nature Conservation Act 2002 were not covered.
• TASDRA and TERAG could be mentioned in early sections, along with TEMA, as risks from TASDRA/ TERAG are mentioned throughout the document.
• Priority Biodiversity Assets Preparedness table could include a timeframe when tasks/activities would best take place.
• Recovery investment dollars do not always yield good outcomes eg hard engineering post flood instead of revegetation and riparian vege enhancement. Currently post fire responses such as vegetation clearing and increased planned burning, require a focus shift towards protection of fire retardant vegetation.
• Aboriginal cultural landscapes, especially those vulnerable to coastal erosion and inundation.
• Firstly, it is somewhat disappointing to observe that climate change, heatwaves and drought are out of the documents scope being not classed as an ‘emergency event’. I strongly feel that these naturally occurring longer term environmental issues have as much potential to cause environmental harm as one-off events. I did observe within the report the action items to best prepare for bushfire, biosecurity, flooding and coastal inundations. The issue being that unless there is a high level of uptake by all landholder/manager to better prepare the greater the NRM area for natural disasters- the best outcomes may not be achieved. For example, one council might better prepare their respective highly erodible coastline while another may not. One forestry company may maintain firebreaks to a high standardanother may not. Without significant funding attached to the plan, the ability for organisations to prepare is largely linked to their own budgets. The document captures the main land holders/managers/ organisations well and there is none to my mind that have been omitted. In summary, the Plan does capture the main actions well.
What are the gaps and opportunities?
What should be changed?
• Reinforcing the relevance of aboriginal cultural burning practices (in particular cool burning) as a valid mechanism for threat abatement in some ecological systems.
• New State Flood Risk Assessment project will assist informing flood risk, NRM liaison with SES Flood Policy Unit would be beneficial.
• Landholders need improved info about flood effects in riparian vegetation and floodplains, weed control, potential consequences of vege clearing and channel armouring, installation of wetlands. Detailed mapping of catchment condition – eg weeds, riparian vege health could improve individual landholder management decisions.
• A need for greater investment in response and recovery planning with the provision of resident and abiding technical support and NRM’s are well placed to deliver this support, with dedicated resource investment.
• Table 3 on page 19 lists a number of priority biodiversity assets susceptible to emergency scenarios. I’m not sure if there are some assets that have been omitted from this list? eg E. Globulus King Island Forest, Banksia Serrata Woodland, Poa grassland and no mention of any specific rare or threatened priority species.
• Rather than have a general approach as the fourth action, these actions could be interpreted as prevention/mitigation measures aligning with TEMA’s use of PPRR. It can be interpreted that most of the activities in this action could reasonably be considered prevention/mitigation activities as they reduce the impact of an emergency event. Alternatively, another option could be to list ‘general approach’ before preparedness. The ‘general approach’ guides the remaining actions (preparedness, response and recovery) and place recovery at the end of the process.
• ‘Alpine bogs’ on the same table lists susceptibility as post fire damage by wallowing browsing and trampling by deer. Fallow deer specifically are not known to wallow and if that damage is identified for alpine bogs, it would also likely be a consideration for the greater TWWHA as well. I also note that Alpine Bogs are also listed as vulnerable to pathogens such as PC Myrtle Rust and Didymo yet there doesn’t appear to be a mention of these threats to other similar natural assets, post fire.
• The document doesn’t mention specific biosecurity threats from all individual species and the potential effects those incursions might have to both the natural and agricultural environment.
• Examples might include expansion of Lyrebird into the NRM region and potential introduction of Indian Myna bird.
• Introduction or expansion of introduced fish and aquatic dependant species into the Cradle Coast NRM region.
• Including but not limited to Redfin Perch, European Carp, Tench, Oriental Weather loach, Gambusia, Red claw and Yabby and Long Necked Turtle: – Terrestrial vertebrate pest including but not limited to Ferrets, Feral Pigs, Red Fox.
– Weeds including but not limited to: Chilean Needle Grass, African Feathergrass, Serrated Tussock and Bathurst Burr.
What potential roles could or should NRM’s play?
• “The plan has highlighted the need for NRM representation on the REMC”
• “Flood myth busting” including the promotion and support of environmentally sound projects. A flood preparation education program eg clean up flood impact zones before the event to reduce need for removal of plastics (eg sileage wraps) and other debris from downstream areas after.
• I think that Cradle Coast NRM have a very important role in networking between stakeholders in the region to meet shared objectives.
• There would be benefits for Cradle Coast NRM employees to be embedded into state government emergency response incident control emergencies eg bushfire, biosecurity, flood etc. If this is not already being done. I think it would give NRM NW valuable insights, learning opportunity, networking, and increase future capacity.
• Barriers and challenges to improved protection of natural capital assets during and after emergencies? Are these adequately captured?
• Unrealistic plan outcomes – CC NRM are currently under-resourced and it is unrealistic to expect that they will have capacity to “provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks”.
• Businesses and landholders have an expectation they will be assisted by state and federal grants post flood. This approach may need to be altered to encompass greater funding for preparation and less for recovery, to improve resilience of the system and reduce overall costs in the long term.
• Biosecurity measures cannot be presented as ‘guidelines’ as contractors will have a tendency not to adhere to them.
Specific feedback on CC Plan – missing information about a local asset, program or process?
• Language consistency. TEMA refers to the phases of managing emergency event and ‘response’ is one of these, heading ‘Response stages’ should be replaced with ‘Management Phases’.
• NRE is the coordinating agency for Environmental recovery.
• DPAC is the coordinating agency for social and cross domain recovery.
• TEMA 2023-24 is the current document, remove all references to Tas Emergency Management Plan (TEMP) which was the first version of the plan, and replace with TEMA.
• Aboriginal cultural landscapes, especially those vulnerable to coastal erosion and inundation.
• Drought issues and resilience building are highly relevant to the NW, particularly at the moment, with significant rainfall deficiency currently impacting large parts of the region and should be added to the Plan.
• Overall, this document is well-written and has a good level of detail.
• Some of the language could be more concise to increase the pace of the document.
• An Executive Summary and Recommendations would be a useful addition.
• A list of abbreviations and a glossary would be useful to give context to the plan.
• It would be good to see some of the maps showing a zoom into the cradle coast area.
• A map showing the area would be useful in the introduction, it could even have some examples of locations where agricultural and biodiversity assets exist and cultural practices occur. This would help visualise the variety of natural capital in the area.
• Page vii: 2023 BOM el Nino information is outdated and irrelevant. The predictions largely did not occur, except on King Island which still experiences severe drought conditions.
• Page 2: Reference to “fertile soils … in northern coastal region and on King Island…” imply King Island has similar fertile soils to Tasmania – it does not. Suggest rewording.
• Page 9: Suggest rewording ”Cradle Coast Authority hosts Cradle Coast NRM, which is the statutory body responsible for strategic planning and management of natural resources in the region.”
• This implies Cradle Coast is responsible for management of all natural resources in the region. Perhaps change to “Cradle Coast Authority hosts Cradle Coast NRM, which is a statutory body responsible for strategic planning for management of natural resources in the region.”
• Page 30 on, Response and Recovery Tables: continual suggestions that “Cradle Coast NRM may be able to provide on-ground human resources or access to potential resources through their networks” are misleading as to capacity of CCNRM , especially given likelihood of more frequent occurrences for emergencies as a result of climate change. I feel it is unrealistic, given the team already seem to be over committed.
1–3 Spring St, Burnie TAS 7320 03 6433 8400 | www.cradlecoast.com | @cradlecoastnrm www.facebook.com/CradleCoastNRM
