Emergency Preparedness – Statewide Spatial Analysis and Mapping Report

Table of Figures

Project Team

The following individuals formed part of the project team, with various contributions to this project:

Team member Company

Steve Giudici Esk Spatial

Jeremy Wilson Esk Spatial

Luke Ellis Esk Spatial

Dannielle Denning Esk Spatial

Darren Schunke Esk Spatial

Role

Project Manager

Data sourcing, collation and analysis, model generation

Model development and automation

Data sourcing, collation and analysis, industry expertise

Data collation, mapping automation and analysis

Patrick Groenhout Greenwood Strategy Stakeholder Engagement

Jill Roscoe Greenwood Strategy Stakeholder Engagement

Penny Johnson NRM South Project Manager (to 21st March 2024)

Maudie Brown NRM South Project Manager (from 21st March 2024)

Rebecca Kelly isNRM

Biodiversity expert, NRM North representative

Ben Correy NRM Cradle Coast NRM Stakeholder

Additional contributors from the NRM regions include Iona Flett, Cindy Hull, Todd Nation, Jennifer Hemer, Nepelle Crane, Andrew Baldwin, Ben Slingsby, James Stronach and Spencer Gibbs.

Executive Summary

The Emergency Preparedness – Statewide Analysis and Mapping (this report) forms part of the statewide NRM’ s “Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan.”

The statewide NRM report addresses a growing need to enhance our preparedness for natural disasters and their impact on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets. The Plan considers the most likely disaster scenarios for the State, which include emergency flood (including coastal inundation), fire, and biosecurity incursion scenarios.

Esk Spatial worked with the three NRM organisations and key stakeholders to identify and map the priority natural capital assets across the Tasmanian landscape (tenure blind) using existing data, and to analyse the vulnerability of these assets to extreme weather events to guide the development of the NRM Response Plan.

The key deliverable of this project is an ongoing spatial analysis resource that the NRM organisations can use in decision-making prior to, during, and after future emergency events.

A comprehensive risk assessment model was developed for each identified threat to biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets, including Fire, Flood, Coastal Erosion, and Coastal Inundation. Each risk assessment model consists of three key components:

1. Threat Rating, defining the extent and/or severity of the threat, categorised by the likelihood or hazard,

2. Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating, assessing the priority of natural capital assets in terms of conservation value and vulnerability to the threat, and

3. Risk Assessment Rating, combining the Threat Rating and Natural Capital Asset Priority Rating to identify areas of highest risk and priority within natural capital assets.

The process involved developing a well-structured, semi-automated GIS model using standard ESRI software, allowing for easy adjustment and annual or on-demand updates to accommodate changing threat conditions. The model's resolution was determined to balance on-ground accuracy with efficient modelling processes, utilising a 100m x 100m grid cell representation.

Parameters and priorities agreed upon by NRM organisations and stakeholders were utilised, to develop natural capital asset priority ratings for each threat, facilitating direct integration into NRM emergency response plans. The methodology involved acquiring or developing threat models, converting descriptive ratings into numeric values, and multiplying threat and priority ratings to derive overall risk assessment values for each site.

These risk assessment values enable ranking of sites relative to others, aiding emergency planning and decision-making by highlighting areas with the highest potential impact from threats to natural capital assets.

Stakeholder interviews and sessions covered the areas of Natural Capital priority, themes of biodiversity preservation, coastal management, fire management, climate change, agricultural assets, and risk management in the context of critical assets Through these sessions, a framework of priority setting was developed, and confirmed through subsequent workshops and additional feedback. This framework informed the subsequent data analysis which was required to confirm the modelling outputs.

The output models are designed such that future iterations can include these values as further information on range and habitat becomes available.

Moving forward, future iterations of the modelling process must address several considerations, including rectifying previously unusable data sources, identifying additional data requirements to

enhance natural capital asset modelling accuracy, and pinpointing specific data enhancements needed for evaluating significant species. Establishing a practical timeframe for future updates is crucial for maintaining the ongoing relevance and effectiveness of the modelling efforts.

We recommend undertaking a partial reiteration of this project within a timeframe that addresses the primary issues related to fire modelling before the next fire season. Specifically, this would involve refining and improving species range boundaries, which would directly inform biodiversity risk assessment modelling for flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation. The urgency to enhance models for agricultural risk assessment may be less pressing, as many threat timeframes are contingent on sea level rise.

Once the major limitations of the modelling are addressed, a re-run every two to three years is likely sufficient to capture significant changes in priority natural capital assets and threat models. However, the models can be easily re-run at any time should there be any nationally significant changes that require attention.

1 Scope of Works

The key components of this project included:

1. Preliminary Analysis:

a. A desktop review of available plans and projects relevant to the scope of the project.

b. Preliminary stakeholder engagement to gather insights and input, assist in the development of a robust priority setting framework.

2. Data collection and analysis:

a. Sourced available data layers pertaining to priority natural capital assets and information on vulnerability and susceptibility to extreme weather events.

b. Analysed the collected data to develop a risk assessment model for priority natural capital assets concerning emergency events.

3. Stakeholder engagement workshop:

a. Organised a stakeholder engagement workshop focused on Natural Capital Priority Ranking, facilitating discussions among key stakeholders

b. Gathered input from stakeholders to inform the prioritisation process and ensure alignment with NRM needs and objectives.

4. Creation of data layers and maps:

a. Utilised the analysed data to create data layers and maps that can be used by each NRM organisation involved in the project.

b. These data layers and maps serve as essential tools for NRM organisations to develop effective response plans and strategies tailored to their specific regions and priorities.

5. Final Report:

a. Compiled findings, insights, and recommendations into a final report (this document).

2 Preliminary Analysis Methodology

2.1 Desktop review

A desktop review was undertaken of NRM strategic plans and projects and other documentation relevant to the project, as well as similar projects undertaken by other organisations. This step ensured that all relevant priorities and data sets were identified and accounted for prior to commencing modelling work.

2.2 Preliminary stakeholder engagement

A two-phase consultation process was designed and implemented. It included consultation with key decision-makers within each of the NRMs, as well as other critical stakeholders that required direct engagement. The primary objective of the consultation process was to source information directly from key stakeholders which would assist in developing the priority setting framework, in order to:

• Fully understand perspectives on strategic priorities for modelling and protection,

• Ensure all relevant data was explored and accounted for, and

• Ensure relevant threats and assets are understood and accounted for in the plans.

The first phase of the preliminary stakeholder consultation was a series of semi-formal one-on-one interviews (30-45 minutes in duration) with targeted external stakeholders across the state. Due to timing issues and Departmental preference, a workshop was held with specifically identified Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) stakeholders in lieu of individual interviews.

The second phase of stakeholder consultation was an online workshop with key NRM staff, as discussed in section 2.5

2.2.1 Stakeholder interviews

2.2.1.1 Identification of stakeholders

A total of 29 key decision-makers within the Natural Resources field were invited by email to participate in the interview process. Of these, 18 stakeholders responded, and 7 stakeholders were interviewed. The identified stakeholders comprised a mix of natural resources experts as summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 – Identified Stakeholders

Departmental preference for engaging NRE stakeholders in a group setting instead of individual interviews was addressed through an additional workshop. This resulted in formal consultation with a further six stakeholders bringing the total stakeholders consulted to 13. These figures exclude representatives from NRM organisations that took part in the preliminary consultation.

2.2.1.2 Interview questions

Targeted and semi-formal one-on-one stakeholder interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders. The interviews followed the structure and format presented in Appendix 1. Interviews were undertaken by video-conferencing technology.

The interviews included qualitative questions using a conversational approach to assess direct views on priority assets and explore any additional sources of data that would be of value to the project's modelling.

The group workshop setting for identified NRE stakeholders followed a similar approach to that of the interviews, albeit with the addition of draft outputs presented for more tailored feedback.

Preliminary consultation was undertaken by Greenwood Strategy between 29 February and 21 March 2024.

2.2.1.3

Natural Capital Priorities

Stakeholders acknowledged the significance of factors such as biodiversity preservation, coastal management, fire risk mitigation, climate change adaptation, and agricultural resilience. Several discussions concerning natural capital priorities were either very broad in scope or focused on specific locations or issues, occasionally delving into levels of detail that exceeded the project's scope. The insights gathered provided a foundation for further data analysis and refinement of natural capital priorities which were tested at the two workshops.

Below is an excerpt of some key outcomes and feedback from interviews:

2.2.1.4 Biodiversity Preservation

• 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.

2.2.1.5 Coastal Management

• Preserving natural function and form of coastal environments is vital, considering increasing pressure and vulnerability.

• Coastal environments, due to their fragility, are seen as a higher priority than flooding in terms of potential impact and loss.

• Encroachment of the sea onto land areas threatens habitats.

• Coastal inundation poses a significant threat, especially at the lower end of the estuary.

2.2.1.6 Fire Management

• 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.

2.2.1.7 Climate Change

• Climate change is the biggest driver of natural capital risks, altering the frequency and intensity of events.

• It affects 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.

2.2.1.8 Agricultural Assets

• 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 agriculture sector.

• Salinity incursion and coastal inundation threaten agricultural productivity.

• Flood risk management is essential for protecting fertile floodplain environments.

2.2.1.9 Risk Management

• 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.

Stakeholders also noted that 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.

2.3 Preliminary framework

Based on the desktop review and initial stakeholder engagement, a preliminary priority setting framework was developed. This framework was tested during the NRM and NRE stakeholder engagement workshops. Participants provided feedback and the approach to ranking of natural capital assets was confirmed. This framework informed the subsequent data analysis which was required to confirm outputs for section 3

2.4

Sourcing available data

Available data was sourced for natural capital assets using a similar approach in developing the data layers and maps used to inform the development of the NRM Strategy 2030 in 2021. This included collating statewide data from various sources, including but not limited to:

1. The Tasmanian Government Land Information System (theLIST),

2. Australian Government open data portal, 3. Geoscience Australia and any other relevant portals.

This data was filtered based on the priorities agreed with the NRM organisations. 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. These layers have then been used to create mapping outputs

2.5 Stakeholder engagement workshop – Natural Capital Priority Ranking

In parallel with construction of the risk assessment model, a workshop was conducted involving key representatives across the three NRM organisations. The primary objective of the workshop was to

obtain preliminary feedback on draft outputs and validate the ranking of each natural capital asset against the proposed Natural Capital Priority Ranking values used in the modelling to ensure that they reflect the priorities of the NRMs at a regional level, and wider state and national conservation priorities

An explanation of the method used to prioritise risks and vulnerabilities was discussed, as were the criteria and factors considered in prioritising NRM emergencies. Participants were provided the opportunity to discuss specific feedback on areas of interest or concern relating to the preliminary outputs

The engagement of NRE stakeholders was pivotal in ensuring comprehensive input for the project. Recognising the Department’s preference for NRE stakeholders to be consulted collectively, a workshop was convened specifically. See Appendix 3 for a full list of stakeholders who participated in this project. Subsequently, a workshop dedicated to NRM stakeholders was also conducted. Both events served as important platforms for updating key stakeholders on project progress and soliciting further input to enhance the identification and mapping of priority natural capital assets.

During these workshops, stakeholders were presented with an overview of the project’s methodology, including the process for accessing relevant data sources and the types of data utilised in the development of the risk assessment model.

Stakeholders engaged in discussions regarding the vulnerability assessment of biodiversity assets and agricultural natural capital assets to various emergency scenarios. Drawing on existing information holdings, stakeholders contributed valuable insights to enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the vulnerability analysis.

The workshop emphasised the importance of providing an ongoing resource for NRM organisations to support decision making in emergency preparedness and response.

Moving forward, continued collaboration and engagement with stakeholders will be essential to ensure the effectiveness and relevance of the NRM Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan.

3 Modelling Methodology

3.1 Overview

A risk assessment model was 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

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 rerun 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 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.

Esk has used the parameters and priorities agreed on 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.

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

2. 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.

Table 2 – 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

3.2 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

3.3 Flood Threat Model

The Flood Threat Rating model was developed from three sources:

1. Statewide 1% AEP Climate Change Peak Flood Extent:

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 Augst 2016 by the vas part of 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

3.4 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 report1 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:

Table 3 – Assignment of Coastal Erosion Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands (DPAC)

Erosion investigation Area Investigation

3.5 Coastal Inundation Threat Model

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

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 report2 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 0.8 m SLR by 2100,

1 Page 5 of Summary Report of Coastal Hazards, Coastal Hazards in Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet, 1st December 2016

2 Page 7 of Summary Report of Coastal Hazards, Coastal Hazards in Tasmania, Department of Premier and Cabinet, 1st December 2016

• High: areas that will be within a 0.2 m 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 10 m contour and within the coastal zone.

Table 4 – Assignment of Coastal Inundation Threat Ratings and Values as derived from Coastal Inundation Hazard Bands (DPAC)

Coastal Investigation Investigation

3.6 Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Priority Model

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

The range or location of each identified biodiversity natural capital asset was derived from a range of sources, including:

• Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas – Observation Records (29/02/2024),

• TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania,

• Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012,

• Species of National Environmental Significance 1km Grids February 2024 (DCCEEW),

• Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

These were reviewed and where the datasets defining the range/habitat were too coarse (1km grids, or sporadic historic observation 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 prioritisednatural 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.

Appendix 4 provides an overview of the final geographic extent developed for each biodiversity natural capital asset and the default priority rating assigned for each threat, as used in the modelling.

Appendix 5 describes the source data and methodology used to define the geographic extent for each biodiversity natural capital asset.

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 Communities3’ 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 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 (refer areas in red in Figure 1).

3 https://nre.tas.gov.au/Documents/Tolerable%20Fire%20Intervals%20for%20TASVEG%20communities%20.pdf

Figure 1 – Fire Age Model as applied to indicate vegetation communities that would fall outside their minimum Tolerance Fire Interval (high severity fire) if a fire occurred in 2024

3.7 Agricultural Natural Capital Asset Priority Models

The extent of the agricultural landscape was defined using the Tasmanian Land Use (2021) dataset, and the following land classes were included:

• 2. Production from Relatively Natural Environments but excluding:

• 2.2.0 Production native forests

• 3. 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

• 4. Production from Irrigated Agriculture and Plantations but excluding

• 4.1.0 Irrigated plantation forests

Within this agricultural landscape the soils and the remnant native vegetation were considered to be key natural capital assets to be at risk from the threats modelled in this planning process. The priority rating for the soils and remnant native vegetation was applied as described in the next two sections.

3.7.1 Agricultural Soils Priority Model

For the threats of flood, coastal erosion and coastal inundation, the potential for water erosion was considered a significant risk to soils

For coastal inundation, and possibly coastal erosion, the introduction of saline water into the agricultural setting would be an additional risk to soil productivity It was assumed that loss of productivity due to salinity would 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. This is unlikely to be the case as the velocity and volume of water present at various stages of the flood’s flow, and interaction with fixed objects like trees, fences and vegetation, would likely define where debris would be deposited, but such modelling was beyond the scope of this project.

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 NRE4 . 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)5

4 Refer page 12 of Managing Vulnerable Soils under Irrigation in Tasmania (https://nrmdatalibrary.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/FactSheets/WfW/ListMapUserNotes/Vulnerable_soils.pdf)

5 Refer LIST Metadata record for Vulnerable Soils: Hillslope Water Erosion Hazard: https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record

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 given it was mapped from recent imagery, so is more likely to identify linear strips of forest and vegetation along riverbanks, that help mitigate erosion (refer Figure 2). The effect of salinity from coastal inundation on the forest, woodland and native vegetation were not considered in this modelling exercise.

Figure 2 – Example of the National Woody and Sparse Woody Vegetation (DCCEEW) dataset indicating presence/absence of riparian forest within a flood zone

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 soil-based 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

Table 5 – Assignment of Agricultural Natural Capital Priority Ratings and Values as derived from Water Erosion Hazard Bands (NRET) and presence/absence of vegetation

bands where forest, woodland or native vegetation

‘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

3.7.2 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Priority Model

For the threats of flood, coastal erosion and coastal inundation, it was considered that the main threat to remnant native vegetation would be the physical interaction of excess flowing running through the vegetation or eroding the underlying soil structure. In the case of the coastal threats, introduction of saline water may also likely have an impact on some vegetation types.

Using the vegetation data modelled in the Agricultural Soils Priority Model as described in section 3.7.1 above, all remnant native vegetation within the Agricultural landscape was assigned a priority rating of High. Inclusion of woody vegetation mapped from the National Woody and Sparse Vegetation Layer (2022) in the model captured riparian vegetation in the modelling to a reasonable level of spatial accuracy.

3.8 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 assets6 was assigned a vulnerability rating to the main classes of biosecurity threats, as describe below:

• Terrestrial Predator Vulnerability (i.e. cats, rats, etc),

• Aquatic Predator Vulnerability,

• Marine Predator Vulnerability,

• Habitat Disturbance Vulnerability (i.e. deer, pigs, etc),

• Predatory Wasp Vulnerability,

• Phytophthora Vulnerability,

• Myrtle Rust Vulnerability,

• Weed Vulnerability,

• Pathogen Vulnerability

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 Bee, and Queensland Fruit Fly7, 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.

6 Refer the ‘NRM_Biodiversity_Natural_Capital_Asset_Priority’ GIS layer provided in the GIS Products package

7 https://nre.tas.gov.au/biosecurity-tasmania/current-biosecurity-alerts

4 Project Outputs

The key deliverable of the project is to provide an ongoing resource that the NRM organisations can use in decision-making prior to, during, and after future emergency events. The key project 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 Model for each threat.

4.1 Data Package Description

All GIS the main components of the models developed in this project are provided in a set of ESRI File Geodatabases projected in UTM Zone 55 (GDA 1994 Datum), as described in Table 6 below.

Table 6 – Description of GIS layers packaged for this project File

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Cat

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Chytrid_Fungus

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Deer

Biosecurity_Model.gdb European_Green_Crab

Biosecurity_Model.gdb European_Wasp

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Phytophthora

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Phytophthora_Isolation_records

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Phytophthora_Symptoms

Biosecurity_Model.gdb PhytophthoraPoly

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Phytophthora_susceptibility_veg_no_pc _records_region

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Weeds_Declared

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Weeds_DeclaredPoly

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Weeds_Priority

Biosecurity_Model.gdb Weeds_PriorityPoly

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Agricultural_Soils_Coastal_Erosion_Prior ity_Rating

Agricultural_Soils_Coastal_Erosion_Risk _Assessment_Model

Sightings of Felis catus

Observation records where Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is present.

Sightings of Dama dama

Sightings of Carcinus maenas

Sightings of Vespula germanica

Observation records from NVA where Phytophthora cinnamomic is present.

Observations records Phytophthora cinnamomic is present.

Observations where P Phytophthora cinnamomic symptoms are present.

Mapped area where Phytophthora cinnamomic symptoms are present

TASVEG Communities identified as susceptible to Phytophthora but which have no current recorded observations of Phytophthora presence

Observations where declared weeds are present.

Mapped areas where declared weeds are present.

Observations where priority weeds are present

Mapped areas where priority weeds are present.

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural soils in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal erosion

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal erosion on agricultural soils

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb

Agricultural_Vegetation_Coastal_Erosio n_Priority_Rating

Agricultural_Vegetation_Coastal_Erosio n_Risk_Assessment_Model

Biodiversity_Coastal_Erosion_Priority_R ating

Biodiversity_Coastal_Erosion_Priority_R ating_Detail

Biodiversity_Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Asse ssment_Model

Coastal_Erosion_Risk_Model.gdb Coastal_Erosion_Hazard_Rating

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb Agricultural_Soils Coastal_Inundation_P riority_Rating

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb

Agricultural_Soils_Coastal_Inundation_R isk_Assessment_Model

Agricultural_Vegetation_Coastal_Inunda tion_Priority_Rating

Agricultural_Vegetation_Coastal_Inunda tion_Risk_Assessment_Model

Biodiversity_Coastal_Inundation_Priorit y_Rating

Biodiversity_Coastal_Inundation_Priorit y_Rating_Detail

Biodiversity_Coastal_Inundation_Risk_A ssessment_Model

Coastal_Inundation_Risk_Model.gdb Coastal_Inundation_Hazard_Rating

Fire_Risk_Model.gdb

Fire_Risk_Model.gdb

Biodiversity_Fire_Priority_Rating

Biodiversity_Fire_Priority_Rating_Detail

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural remnant native vegetation in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal erosion

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal erosion on agricultural remnant native vegetation

Merged model of the priority ratings applied to biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal erosion

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to each biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal erosion

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal erosion on biodiversity natural capital assets

Model of the coastal erosion threat ratings applied to the natural capital assets

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural soils in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal inundation

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal inundation on agricultural soils

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural remnant native vegetation in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal inundation

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal inundation on agricultural remnant native vegetation

Merged model of the priority ratings applied to biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal inundation

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to each biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of coastal inundation

Final risk assessment model for the threat of coastal inundation on biodiversity natural capital assets

Model of the coastal inundation threat ratings applied to the natural capital assets

Merged model of the priority ratings applied to biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of fire

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to each biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of fire

Fire_Risk_Model.gdb

Fire_Risk_Model.gdb

Fire_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

Flood_Risk_Model.gdb

NRM_Assets.gdb

NRM_Assets.gdb

NRM_Assets.gdb

Vulnerable_Soils.gdb

Biodiversity_Fire_Risk_Assessment_Mo del

Fire_Likelihood_Rating

TASVEG4_FireAge_ToleranceFireInterval _Model

Agricultural_Soils_Flood_Priority_Rating

Agricultural_Soils_Flood_Risk_Assessme nt_Model

Agricultural_Vegetation_Flood_Priority_ Rating

Agricultural_Vegetation_Flood_Risk_Ass essment_Model

Biodiversity_Flood_Priority_Rating

Biodiversity_Flood_Priority_Rating_Deta il

Biodiversity_Flood_Risk_Assessment_M odel

Flood_Hazard_Rating

NRM_Agricultural_Soils_Priority

NRM_Agricultural_Natural_Remnant_Ve getation_Priority

NRM_Biodiversity_Natural_Capital_Asse t_Priority

Hillslope_Erosivity

Vulnerable_Soils.gdb Water_Erosion_Hazard

Vulnerable_Soils.gdb

Wind_Erosion_Hazard

Description

Final risk assessment model for the threat of fire on biodiversity natural capital assets

Model of the fire threat ratings applied to the natural capital assets

Fire Age and Tolerance Fire Interval model as applied to TASVEG 4 communities

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural soils in terms of vulnerability to the threat of flood

Final risk assessment model for the threat of flood on agricultural soils

Model of the priority ratings applied to agricultural remnant native vegetation in terms of vulnerability to the threat of flood

Final risk assessment model for the threat of flood on agricultural remnant native vegetation

Merged model of the priority ratings applied to biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of flood

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to each biodiversity natural capital assets in terms of vulnerability to the threat of flood

Final risk assessment model for the threat of flood on biodiversity natural capital assets

Model of the flood threat ratings applied to the natural capital assets

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to the agricultural soils for all threats

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to the agricultural soils for all threats

Detailed model of the priority ratings applied to each biodiversity natural capital asset for all threats

NRET model of soil vulnerability to hillslope erosivity

NRET model of soil vulnerability to water erosion

NRET model of soil vulnerability to wind erosion

4.2 Risk Assessment Models

The following sections provide figures displaying each of the three model components for each threat risk assessment model for both biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets, namely:

1. Threat Hazard 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

It should be noted that the distribution of natural capital asset priority ratings relative to the threat being modelled will often seem counterintuitive in regard to their location across Tasmania (refer Figure 4, Figure 7, Figure 10, Figure 13, Figure 16, Figure 19, Figure 22, Figure 25, Figure 28 and Figure 31 ahead).

For example, in the map describing the priority rating for Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets for Coastal Erosion (Figure 7) various ratings appear within the map well away from the coast.

This seeming inconsistency arises because priorities are applied to the whole range of boundary of the natural capital asset, and many assets include a range which spans from the coast to well inland. As such, priority ratings are assigned in a location agnostic manner, and it is the interaction with the geographic distribution of the threat which ties the final risk model down to more relevant locations This approach avoids the need to second guess where the threat might occur whilst assigning priorities to natural capital assets, allowing updates to the geographic location of either the threat or the natural capital asset to be undertaken independently of one another during future runs of the models

4.2.1 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Fire Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 3 – Fire Threat (Likelihood) Rating Model

Figure 4 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Fire Priority Rating Model

5 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Fire Risk Assessment Model

Figure

4.2.2 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Flood Risk Assessment Model Components

6 – Flood Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure

Figure 7 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Flood Priority Rating Model

Figure 8 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Flood Risk Assessment Model

4.2.3 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model Components

9 – Coastal Erosion Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure

Figure 10 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Coastal Erosion Priority Rating Model

Figure 11 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model

4.2.4 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 12 – Coastal Inundation Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure 13 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Coastal Inundation Priority Rating Model

Figure 14 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Model

4.2.5 Agricultural Soils Flood Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 15 – Flood Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

16 – Agricultural Soils Flood Priority Rating Model

Figure

Figure 17 – Agricultural Soils Flood Risk Assessment Model

4.2.6 Agricultural Soils Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 18 – Coastal Erosion Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

19 – Agricultural Soils Coastal Erosion Priority Rating Model

Figure

Figure 20 – Agricultural Natural Capital Asset Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model

4.2.7 Agricultural Soils Coastal Inundation Risk Model Components

21 – Coastal Inundation Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure

Figure 22 – Agricultural Soils Coastal Inundation Priority Rating Model

Figure 23 – Agricultural Soils Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Model

4.2.8 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Flood Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 24 – Flood Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

25 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Flood Priority Rating Model

Figure

26 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Flood Risk Assessment Model

Figure

4.2.9 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model Components

Figure 27 – Coastal Erosion Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure 28 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Erosion Priority Rating Model

Figure 29 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Model

4.2.10 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Model Components

30 – Coastal Inundation Threat (Hazard) Rating Model

Figure

31 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Inundation Priority Rating Model

Figure

32 – Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Model

Figure

5 Risk Assessment Model Results

To assist with interpretation of the mapped outputs, a series of tables has been produced summarising the area and/or percentage of the range/location of each natural capital asset under each risk assessment rating for each threat.

5.1 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Fire Risk Model

Note the items highlighted in grey were excluded from analysis as their modelled range was too generic/broad to accurately model

Acanthiza pusilla magnirostris (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi)

Prasophyllum taphanyx Graveside

Pseudomys novaehollandiae

Thymichthys politus Red Hand Fish

Zearaja maugeana Maugean Skate

Table 8 – Fire Risk Assessment Results for Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities

Eucalyptus ovataCallitris oblonga Forest

Eucalyptus ovata / Eucalyptus brookeriana Forests and Woodlands

Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia

Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania

Subtropical &

Tasmanian White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Wet Forest

Table 9 – Fire Risk Assessment Results for National Priority Sites

Table 10 – Fire Risk Assessment Results for Ramsar Wetlands

Table 11 – Fire Risk Assessment Results for Regionally Threatened and Important Species

Strepera

5.2 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Flood Risk Model

Note the items highlighted in grey were excluded from analysis as their modelled range was too generic/broad to accurately model

Table 14 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for National Priority EPBC Listed Threatened Species

Acanthiza pusilla magnirostris (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi)

magna subsp. greeniana

raniformis

Table 15 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities

ovata - Callitris oblonga Forest

Eucalyptus ovata / Eucalyptus brookeriana Forests and Woodlands

Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East

Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania

Subtropical & Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh

Tasmanian White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Wet Forest

Table 16 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for National Priority Sites

Table 18 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for Regionally Threatened and Important Species

Table 17 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for Ramsar Wetlands

Table 20 – Flood Risk Assessment Results for Regionally Important Areas

5.3 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Coastal Erosion Risk Model

Note the items highlighted in grey were excluded from analysis as their modelled range was too generic/broad to accurately model

Table 21 – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Results for National Priority EPBC Listed Threatened Species

Acanthiza pusilla magnirostris (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi)

Acanthornis magna subsp. greeniana

viverrinus

Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse

Thinornis cucullatus cucullatus Hooded Plover

Thymichthys politus Red Hand Fish

maugeana

Table 22 – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Results for Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities

Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens

Eucalyptus ovata - Callitris oblonga Forest

Eucalyptus ovata / Eucalyptus brookeriana Forests and Woodlands

Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia

Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania

Subtropical & Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh

Tasmanian White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Wet Forest

Table 23 – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Results for National Priority Sites

Bruny

Table 24 – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Results for Ramsar Wetlands

morrisbyi

Limnodynastes peronii Striped Marsh Frog

Oreisplanus munionga subsp. larana Marrawah Skipper

Oreixenica ptunarra Ptunarra Brown Butterfly

Pardalotus quadragintus Forty Spotted Pardalote

Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot

Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island Green Rosella

Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling

Puffinus tenuirostris Short-tailed Shearwater

Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian Devil

Table 26 –

Table 27 – Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Results for

5.4 Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets – Coastal Inundation Risk Model

Note the items highlighted in grey were excluded from analysis as their modelled range was too generic/broad to accurately model

Gold Bell Frog

Table 29 – Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Results for Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities

Table 30 – Coastal Inundation Risk Assessment Results for National Priority Sites

Oreisplanus munionga subsp. larana Marrawah Skipper

Oreixenica ptunarra Ptunarra Brown Butterfly

Pardalotus quadragintus Forty Spotted Pardalote

Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot

Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island Green Rosella

5.5 Agricultural Soils Flood Risk Model

4.

3.3.3

3.6.2

4.2.0

4.2.3

4.2.4

4.3.3

4.3.7

4.3.8

4.4.0

4.4.5

4.4.9 Irrigated grapes

4.5.0 Irrigated

4.5.3

4.5.4

5.6 Agricultural Soils Coastal Erosion Risk Model

Table 37 – Primary Land Use Classes by Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Rating for Agricultural Soils

Land Use Class

2.

3.4.2

3.6.1

3.6.2

4.2.0

4.3.2

38 – Tertiary Land Use Classes

4.3.3

4.3.7

4.3.8

4.4.1

4.4.3

4.4.5

4.4.6

4.4.7

4.4.9

4.5.0

4.6.2

5.7 Agricultural Soils Coastal Inundation Risk Model

2.1.0

3.2.3

3.2.5

3.3.0

3.3.3

3.5.0

3.6.2

4.2.4

4.3.3 Irrigated hay and silage

4.3.7 Irrigated alkaloid poppies

4.3.8

4.4.0

4.4.1

4.4.2 Irrigated olives

4.4.3 Irrigated tree nuts

4.4.5 Irrigated shrub berries and fruits

4.4.6 Irrigated perennial flowers and bulbs

4.4.7

4.4.9

5.8 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation – Flood Risk Model

5.9 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation – Coastal Erosion Risk Model

Table 42 – Vegetation Type by Coastal Erosion Risk Assessment Rating for Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation

Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes

(DSC) Eucalyptus amygdalina - Eucalyptus obliqua damp sclerophyll forest

(DSG) Eucalyptus sieberi forest and woodland on granite

(DSO) Eucalyptus sieberi forest and woodland not on granite

(DVC) Eucalyptus viminalis - Eucalyptus globulus

5.10 Agricultural Remnant Native Vegetation – Coastal Inundation Risk Model Table

(DTD) Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on dolerite

(DTO) Eucalyptus tenuiramis forest and woodland on sediments

(DVC) Eucalyptus viminalis - Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest and woodland

(DVG) Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest and woodland

(GPL) Lowland Poa labillardierei grassland

(GSL) Lowland grassy sedgeland

(GTL) Lowland Themeda triandra grassland

Non eucalypt forest and woodland (NAD) Acacia dealbata forest

(NAF) Acacia melanoxylon swamp forest

(NAL) Allocasuarina littoralis forest

(NAR) Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises

Saltmarsh and wetland

Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes

(WGL) Eucalyptus globulus wet forest

eucalypt forest and woodland (WGK) Eucalyptus globulus King Island forest

(WNL) Eucalyptus nitida forest over Leptospermum

(WNU) Eucalyptus nitida wet forest (undifferentiated)

(WOB) Eucalyptus obliqua forest with broad-leaf shrubs

(WOU) Eucalyptus obliqua wet forest (undifferentiated)

(WRE) Eucalyptus regnans forest

6 Known limitations and gaps

6.1 Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Model – Modelled Ranges

As described in the methodology, where the range of a species or vegetation community appeared too broad (1km grids, whole of Tasmania), scattered (reliant only on infrequent observation records) or inaccurate (included large areas of sea for a species reliant on terrestrial habitat) to model, we put in considerable effort to derive a more accurate location from other available sources such as interpreting habitat descriptions into target Tasmanian vegetation communities which could be used in the risk modelling process However, despite best efforts, many of the resultant models appear to be still out of date, incomplete or inaccurate so results from this iteration of the emergency preparedness modelling should be used with caution and should be reviewed and improved prior to revisiting the modelling.

Where the literature to describe the range, habitat and/or extent of the natural capital asset was either lacking or too broad to accurately locate geographically, they were excluded from the risk assessment modelling process (refer Table 44)

Table 44 – Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets which were excluded from the Risk Assessment Modelling due to insufficient information to accurately locate their range/habitat

Neophema chrysostoma Blue-winged Parrot

During the breeding season (spring and summer), birds occupy eucalypt forests and woodlands. Before migrating from Tasmania in autumn, many birds congregate on saltmarshes and agricultural land before departing north.

Inclusion of these broad species ranges as currently described would have covered most of Tasmania with inaccurate priority rankings, masking the rankings of more accurately located natural capital assets. In any future iteration of this modelling process, it is recommended that more research be put into determining better models to describe the habitat and extent of these species

In general, to provide robust risk assessment modelling it is very important that ranges for all the priority biodiversity natural capital assets be reviewed and updated as accurately as possible and this is likely a high priority for any future iterations of this modelling exercise, particularly for the fire risk assessment modelling given several species are currently excluded

6.2 Agricultural Natural Capital Risk Assessment Models

The biodiversity-focused fire risk assessment model built in this project was designed from the framework of, and even used similar input data models as, the long established TPWS BRAM model process, which is based on a solid set of assumptions and scientific research. However, the risk assessment models built for the agricultural natural capital assets in this project were novel, and due to time limitations had to be applied in a more simplistic approach than the biodiversity and fire modelling

The underlying science and assumptions applied by DPAC to devise the hazard bands for the coastal erosion and coastal inundation models was robust, as did the flood modelling produced by SES and the water erosion vulnerability modelling produced by NRET, but the assumptions on how these inputs were combined in the final model in this project require more research and fine tuning to ensure they have been applied appropriately

Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis Tasmanian Azure Kingfisher Riparian vegetation

It is recommended that more research and stakeholder engagement be undertaken to improve the agricultural risk models for any future iterations of this process.

6.3 Aquatic/Marine Natural Capital Assets

Although there were several aquatic and marine natural capital assets listed for inclusion in the modelling, the bulk of the threat data available to us, and subsequently the modelling undertaken in this project, was terrestrial in nature, so they were largely underrepresented in the risk assessment outputs.

We endeavoured to address some of their conservation requirements by modelling the threat to the local riparian habitat, crucial for preserving water quality for these species. However, this approach overlooked the significance of upstream ecosystems. Any impacts on these upstream environments from events such as fire or flood would likely affect downstream species as well, leading to heightened runoff and sediment flow, among other consequences.

In terms of the effect on aquatic species, including marine species, a different approach to modelling would be required that accounts for risk assessment to upstream environment on a catchment by catchment basis

6.4 Definition of Coastline

Several of the acquired datasets varied in their delineation and precision of the Tasmanian coastline, resulting in inconsistent spatial alignment along the coast. While this inconsistency posed fewer issues for fire and flood risk modelling, it could prove critical for coastal erosion and inundation modelling, potentially leading to the improper identification of high-risk areas. This discrepancy was particularly notable concerning the range boundaries for biodiversity natural capital assets. Further efforts will be necessary to establish a uniform coastline as the foundation for defining range boundaries in future iterations of this process.

6.5 Data Consistency

Statewide Data provided by LIST Open Data is often tiled by municipality but the file format for many was inconsistent between tiles. This meant that column names were inconsistent, particularly in the case of ESRI shapefile columns which were truncated when the tiles were merged back into a statewide version, causing issues within the modelling. In some cases, the ZIP files for some tiles were corrupted. This was experienced with the following layers within this project:

• Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands 20161201,

• Coastal Inundation Hazard Bands 20161201,

• Coastal Projected Storm Tide 20161201 (1% AEP 21000).

7 Conclusion and Recommendations

The Emergency Preparedness – Statewide Analysis and Mapping report plays an integral role in the statewide NRM's overarching "Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Preparedness and Emergency Response Plan." This initiative responds to the increasing necessity to fortify our readiness for natural disasters and their potential impact on biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets, considering diverse disaster scenarios such as floods, fires, and biosecurity incursions.

Collaborating closely with three NRM organisations and key stakeholders, Esk Spatial conducted a thorough assessment to identify and map priority natural capital assets across Tasmania, leveraging existing data. This analysis, conducted in a tenure-blind manner, also scrutinised the vulnerability of these assets to extreme weather events, thereby guiding the development of the NRM Response Plan. Central to this project is the creation of an ongoing spatial analysis resource empowering NRM organisations to make informed decisions pre, during, and post-emergency events.

Drawing from publicly available and stakeholder data, the Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Risk Assessment Modelling produced outputs including Threat Risk Rankings, Natural Capital Asset Priority Rankings, and a comprehensive Risk Assessment Model. Stakeholder engagement sessions, encompassing a wide array of thematic areas such as biodiversity preservation, coastal management, and climate change, contributed to the establishment of a robust priority-setting framework. This framework, validated through subsequent workshops and feedback, guided the data analysis necessary to validate the modelling outputs.

Looking ahead, future iterations of the modelling process must address various considerations, including rectifying previously unusable data sources, identifying additional knowledge data requirements for enhanced modelling accuracy, and pinpointing specific data enhancements necessary for evaluating significant species. Establishing a pragmatic timeframe for future updates is essential to maintaining the ongoing relevance and effectiveness of the modelling efforts.

The most significant limitation to the modelling implemented was a lack of accurate information about key biodiversity natural capital assets, particularly the range locations for threatened species. Current data sets providing such location information are either too broad in nature or out of date. We would recommend that a partial re-iteration of this project be undertaken in a time frame that would clean up the main issues relating to the fire modelling prior to the next fire season, specifically the improvements and fine tuning of the species range boundaries. These improvements would feed directly into the biodiversity risk assessment modelling for flood, coastal erosion, and coastal inundation. The timing to improve the models for the agricultural risk assessment models are likely less pressing given much of the timeframes for increased threat rely on sea level rise

Once the major limitations to the modelling are improved, it is likely a re-run every two to three years would be sufficient to pick up the major changes in priority natural capital assets and threat models, however the models can be easily re-run at any time should there be any change of national significance that needs addressing.

Through concerted efforts and continued refinement, this initiative stands poised to strengthen Tasmania's resilience in the face of environmental challenges, safeguarding its natural capital into the future.

Appendix 1 – Preliminary Stakeholder Engagement Interviews

Questions for preliminary stakeholder engagement interview

1. What are the priority biodiversity and agricultural natural capital assets for your organisation in Tasmania? Why?

2. What are the key threats to these (specifically related to fire, coastal inundation, storms and biosecurity)? Why?

3. Do you have data and/or other information available to assist with modelling the threat?

4. Are you aware of any other sources of data?

5. Is there anyone else we should be speaking to on this topic?

6. Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Appendix 2 – Stakeholder Workshop Agenda

Statewide Spatial Analysis and Mapping Workshop

Esk Spatial and Greenwood Strategy have been engaged to work collaboratively with the three NRM organisations and key stakeholders to identify and map the priority natural capital assets across the Tasmanian landscape that are vulnerable to fire, flooding, coastal inundation, and biosecurity emergencies (tenure blind). This includes the identification and mapping of biodiversity assets and agricultural natural capital assets, drawing on existing information holdings at Commonwealth State or regional level investigation, and to analyse the vulnerability of these assets to fire, flood, coastal inundation, and biosecurity emergencies. This will guide the development of the NRM Biodiversity and Agricultural Natural Capital Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan.

The key deliverable of the project is to provide an ongoing resource that the NRM organisations can use in decision making prior to, during, and after future emergency events.

Desktop review and stakeholder consultation have concluded. This meeting is to update the NRMs on data outputs so far and to garner additional input from the NRMs.

Time and date:

12PM – 2PM, Monday 18 March 2023

Agenda:

1 Welcome and Introductions

• Welcome

• What we hope to achieve from today’s session

2 Project Overview

• Overview of the NRM Emergency Preparedness – Statewide Spatial Analysis and Mapping project.

• Explanation of the project's goals, scope, and timeline.

3 Process to Access Data

• Presentation on the process for accessing relevant data for the identification and mapping of biodiversity assets and agricultural natural capital assets.

• Data layer sources.

4 Data Accessed and Used

• Overview of the types of data accessed and utilised in the development of a risk assessment model.

•

5 Priority Setting Method

• Explanation of the method used to prioritise risks and vulnerabilities in the NRM context.

Pat Groenhout

Pat Groenhout

Jeremy Wilson

Jeremy Wilson

Jeremy Wilson

• Presentation of the criteria and factors considered in prioritising NRM emergencies

6. Description of Draft Outputs

• Presentation of preliminary outputs.

Opportunity for Input

• Facilitated discussion to gather specific feedback on areas of interest or concern relating to the draft outputs.

7. Summary

• Wrap up and next steps

Jeremy Wilson

Pat Groenhout

Pat Groenhout

Appendix 3 – List of Stakeholders’ attendance

Stakeholder Company Section Date interviewed

Ashley Bastock Department of Natural Resources and Environment Agriculture, Forestry and Water 8/03/2024

Caroline Brown Department of Natural Resources and Environment Agriculture, Forestry and Water 8/03/2024

Luke Roberts Department of Premier and Cabinet State Planning Office / Resilience and Recovery Tasmania 29/02/2024

Claire Kain Department of State Growth Mineral Resources Tasmania 4/03/2024

Amy Koch Forest Practices Authority 18/03/2024

David Storey Department of Natural Resources and Environment Natural Values Atlas 14/03/2024

Kathryn Pugh City of Launceston 7/03/2024

Katy Edwards Department of Natural Resources and Environment Parks and Wildlife Service NRE Workshop 21 March 2024

Liv Espie Department of Natural Resources and Environment NRE Workshop 21 March 2024

Aaron Cashion Department of Natural Resources and Environment Emergency Services GIS NRE Workshop 21 March 2024

Chris Emms Department of Natural Resources and Environment Parks and Wildlife Service

Nepelle Crane NRM South

NRE Workshop 21 March 2024

NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

James Stronach NRM South NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

Todd Nation NRM South NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

Cindy Hull NRM South

Ben Slingsby NRM North

NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

Andrew Baldwin NRM North NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

Ben Correy NRM Cradle Coast

Rebecca Kelly IsNRM

NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

NRM Workshop 18 March 2024

Appendix 4 – Modelled Range and Priority Ratings of Individual Biodiversity Natural Capital Assets

National Priority EPBC Listed Threatened Species

Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities

National Priority Sites

Ramsar Sites

Regionally Threatened and Important Species

Regionally Threatened and Important Communities/Habitats

Regionally Important Places/Areas

Appendix 5 – Methodology and Data Sources for Biodiversity Natural Capital Asset Modelled Ranges

Official Name

Acanthiza pusilla magnirostris (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi)

King Island Brown Thornbill

Eucalypt forest, woodland and teatree.

Acanthornis magna subsp. greeniana King Island Scrubtit

Ammoniropa vigens

Ammonite Snail

Wet sclerophyll forest and swamp forest and known sites vegetation community.

Using available Range Boundary Mapping and NVA Observations as a guide to likely habitat location, manually selected relevant TASVEG 4.0 communities (DGL, DKW, WGK, WGL, WVI, WOU, WOR, WOL, WOB, NME)

Using available Range Boundary Mapping and NVA Observations as a guide to likely habitat location, manually selected relevant manually selected TASVEG 4.0 communities (Wet eucalypt forest and woodland Veg Group, SMR and NME)

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

TASVEG 4 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Astacopsis gouldi Giant Freshwater Crayfish

Dry and wet eucalypt forests on dolerite in the Hobart lowlands, below 400 m altitude. To date, the species has only been found under dolerite rocks.

Rivers and streams in the Arthur River catchment and all rivers. and streams flowing into Bass Strait except those of the Tamar River catchment and rivers east of Gladstone. Flowing and still waters mainly below about 400 m. in altitude, in all sizes of stream; the species can also occur in farm dams.

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasia n Bittern Freshwater wetlands and, rarely, in estuaries or tidal wetlands.

100m buffer on existing observations

FPA Giant Freshwater Crayfish Habitat Suitability (High)

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Davies, Munks, Cook, Von Minden and Wilson (2007), Mapping Suitability of Habitat for the Giant Freshwater Crayfish, Astacopsis gouldi: Background Document To GIS Mapping Layer, Forest Practices Authority Scientiic Report 4.

Manually selected TASVEG 4.0 wetlands (Codes: ASF, AWU, AHF, AHL, AHS) which intersected with

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Species of National Environmental

https://fpa.tas.gov.au/Docu ments/ScientificReport4.pd f

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmanias-

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Galaxias fontanus Swan Galaxias

Methodology used to define Range Model

Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Open grassland (including farmland), tussock grassland, grassy woodland, dry eucalypt forest, coastal scrub and alpine heathland. Male territory 44ha, Female territory 35ha 400m buffer on existing observations (Sightings, Present, on or after 01/01/2014)

Occurs naturally only in the headwaters of the eastern-flowing Swan River above Hardings Falls (approximately 15 km due west of Bicheno) and tributaries of the northern-flowing Macquarie River (starting approximately 25 km west of Cranbrook and waters to the south).

The breeding range of the swift parrot is largely restricted to the east and southeast coast of Tasmania and closely mirrors the distribution of blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus). The species breeds in the north-west of the state between Launceston and Smithton, however, the number of birds involved and frequency of these breeding events is not well understood.

Data Source Reference

Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

Data Source Link

vegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

CFEV Rivers intersecting with Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids) with a 20m buffer.

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/opendata/

Manually selected TASVEG 4.0 community with nest observation records (back to 1990) and appended STT Tasmania Swift Parrot Potential Nesting Habitat

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://services.thelist.tas.g ov.au/arcgis/rest/services/ Public/NaturalEnvironment /MapServer/94

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire%

Dasyurus viverrinus Eastern Quoll

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Potential breeding habitat remaining in the northwest is scarce and highly fragmented.

Methodology used to define Range Model

ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Data Source Reference

Litoria raniformis

Neophema chrysogaster

Growling Grass Frog or Green and Gold Bell Frog

Permanent freshwater lagoons. restricted to lowland areas, mainly in coastal zones with the exception of the Deloraine-LongfordLaunceston region, and historically it was common in the Midlands region.

Merged TASVEG 4.0 communities (ASF, AWU, AHF, AHL, AHS), CFEV wetlands and Hydrographic Area (Wetland ) that intersect with Range Boundary Mapping.

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

LIST Hydrographic Areas

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

Data Source Link

20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Orangebellied Parrot

Salt marshes, coastal dunes, pastures, shrub lands, estuaries, islands, beaches and moorlands generally within 10 km of the coast.

The known breeding range of the Orange-bellied Parrot is mostly confined to nearcoastal areas of south-west Tasmania between Birchs Inlet, in Macquarie Harbour, and Louisa Bay on the southern coast. Most breeding activity occurs within 20 km of Melaleuca and 5 km of Birchs Inlet.

Nesting Habitat modelled using relevant TASVEG 4.0 communities (DNI, DNF, WNU, WNU, WNR) clipped to 20km around Melaleuca and 5km around Birchs Inlet

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania Species of National Environmental Significance Database Species of National Environmental Significance Database

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Neophema chrysostoma Bluewinged Parrot

During the breeding season (spring and summer), birds occupy eucalypt forests and woodlands. Before migrating from Not Modelledrange too inaccurate

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Tasmania in autumn, many birds congregate on saltmarshes and agricultural land before departing north.

Methodology used to define Range Model

Data Source Reference

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew

Sheltered intertidal sandflats or mudflats that are open and without vegetation or seagrass. Forages near mangroves, on saltflats or saltmarsh, around rockpools, amongst rubble on coral reefs, and on ocean beaches near the tideline. The species shows a preference for soft substrates containing little or no hard material.

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Data Source Link

Phebalium daviesii Davies Waxflower

Prasophyllum taphanyx Graveside Leek-orchid

One extant location consisting of two sites on the banks of the lower reaches of the George River near St. Helens. 3 consvervation plantings along Scamander River Stat Forest, Banticks Creek State Reserve, George River.

Single population in the Northern Midlands region. It grows in native grassland dominated by Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra) and Spear Grasses (Austrostipa spp.) on well drained basaltic loams.

50m buffer of Georges River, Scamander River and Banticks Creek based on Hydline.

GTL and GCL intersect within Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

LIST Hydrographic Lines

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse

Open heathlands, open woodlands with a heathland understorey and vegetated sand dunes.

Manually selected TASVEG 4.0 community with observation record. (Flinders Island Only).

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Thinornis cucullatus cucullatus Hooded Plover

Ocean beaches, particularly wide beaches backed by dunes with large amounts of seaweed, creek

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

mouths and inlet entrances. It may also occur on nearcoastal saline and freshwater lakes and lagoons, tidal bays and estuaries, on rock platforms, or on rocky or sandy reefs close to shore.

Methodology

Data Source Reference

Thymichthys politus Red Hand Fish

Found in 0-2-m water depth. Once found across southeastern Tasmania, only two small populations of red handfish near Hobart now survive. They only produce 30-60 eggs at a time with females standing guard over them. The eggs are attached to standing structures and once hatched, the juveniles tend to remain close to the area where they were born. Juvenile hatchlings look similar to the adults.

(Source: https://fishing.tas.go v.au/species/handfis h-red).

Zearaja maugeana Maugean Skate

The species has only been recorded in two isolated estuaries in southwestern Tasmania, Macquarie Harbour and, to a lesser extent, Bathurst Harbour.

Observation records 100m buffer

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Data Source Link

Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens

Threatened Ecological community Sphagnum peatland

Used Hydrographic Area (Estuary) representing Macquarie Harbour and Bathurst Harbour

LIST Hydrographic Areas

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions and relevant TASVEG 4.0 community (Codes: ASP)

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Eucalyptus ovataCallitris oblonga Forest

Threatened Ecological community

Occurs along rivers in the Midlands and East Coast regions of Tasmania

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Dominated by black gum or Brookers gum (Eucalyptus ovata / E. brookeriana)

Eucalyptus ovata / Eucalyptus brookeriana Forests and Woodlands

Threatened Ecological community

ecological community is a type of eucalypt forest to woodland that is restricted to Tasmania and is associated with sites that are typically damp and/or poorly draining.

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions and TASVEG 4.0 (Codes: DOV, DOW, WBR)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Data Source Reference Data Source Link

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia

Threatened Ecological community

Kelp forests are shallow coastal ecological communities of cold water regions organised around the structure and productivity of members of the order Laminariales

Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania

Threatened Ecological community

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

Subtropical & Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Threatened Ecological community

Lowland Temperate Grasslands of Tasmania. The ecological community is comprised of two major sub-types differentiated by the dominant native tussock-forming perennial grass species: Lowland Poa labillardierei (Silver Tussock Grass) Grassland and Lowland Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass) Grassland

Consists mainly of salt-tolerant vegetation (halophytes) including: grasses, herbs, sedges, rushes and shrubs in the intertidal zone and commonly occurs in association with estuaries.

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions; and TASVEG 4.0 (Codes: GPL, GTL)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance Distributions and TASVEG (Codes: AHS, ARS, ASS, AUS)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Ecological Communities of National Environmental Significance (ECNES) Database

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/ecnes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Tasmanian White Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Wet Forest

Threatened Ecological community

A wet sclerophyll forest with a canopy dominated by Eucalyptus viminalis and an understorey generally comprised of broad-leaved shrubs and ferns, occurring mainly on fertile, well-drained sites in the north of the state.

Island Bruny Island Island

Midlands Priority Place Identified priority place NA

Midlands Biodiversity Hotspot Identified priority place NA

TWWHA World Heritage Area NA

Methodology used to define Range Model

Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used relevant TASVEG 4.0 communities (Codes: WVI, DVF)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Data Source Reference

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to Bruny Island coastline

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

Data Source Link

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf

LIST Hydrographic Lines

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to priority place boundary

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to provided boundary

Used TWWWHA boundary to prioritise vegetation communities within the area based on vulnerability to threat.

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected

Digitised boundary using DCCEEW image

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/biodiversity /threatened/strategy/priori ty-places/midlands-regioncentral-tasmania#toc_1 https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://www.researchgate. net/publication/263487652

Supplied by NRM's

https://www.bushheritage. org.au/newsletters/2017/w inter/biodiversity-hotspot

LIST Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST%20World _Heritage_Area_informatio n.pdf

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Bruny

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Apsley Marshes Ramsar wetland Wetland

Methodology used to define Range Model

areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

Data Source Reference

Data Source Link

East Coast Cape Barren Island Lagoons Ramsar wetland Wetland

Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar wetland Wetland

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Interlaken Ramsar wetland Wetland

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Jocks Lagoon Ramsar wetland Wetland

Methodology

ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Lavinia Ramsar wetland Wetland

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Little Waterhouse Lake Ramsar wetland Wetland

Logan Lagoon Ramsar wetland Wetland

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Moulting Lagoon Ramsar wetland Wetland

Pitt Water-

Orielton Lagoon Ramsar wetland Wetland

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Ramsar Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used known present nests NVA records after 01/01/2014 buffered by 500m to represent potential nesting habitat

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

LIST Ramsar Wetlands

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=f9 d3f371-fc97-47cc-a80056d35ce67ea5

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Aquila audax fleayi Wedgetailed Eagle

Wide range of habitats, from the coast to highland areas.

Bettongia gaimardi Eastern Bettong

Dry open eucalypt forests and grassy woodlands eastern half of Tasmania, including Maria and Bruny islands

Intertidal mudflats, sandflats, and sandy beaches of sheltered coasts, estuaries, bays, inlets, lagoons, and harbours.

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used NVA observation records with 100m buffer

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Calidris canutus Red Knot

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Intertidal mudflats

Methodology used to define Range Model

Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

Data Source Reference

Data Source Link

Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot Intertidal mudflats

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis Tasmanian Azure Kingfisher Riparian vegetation

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used Specific habitat requirements too broad to model at this stage.

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Charadrius leschenaultia Greater Sand Plover Littoral and estuarine habitats.

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover Littoral and estuarine habitats.

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Data Source Reference

Data Source Link

Craspedia preminghana

Premingha na Billybuttons

Dasyurus maculatus Spottedtailed Quoll

Mt Cameron West, steep basalt cliffs with coastal vegetation including Correa backhousiana, Alyxia buxifolia and Urtica incise

Range of habitats throughout mainland Tasmania

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids) to defined core range, appended with NVA Observation records after 01/01/2014 buffered by 1.8km (average of 2sqkm to 5sqkm range).

For fire priority ranking, where the core range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High). All buffered NVA records were kept as Low.

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Engaeus granulatus

Central North Burrowing Crayfish

Seeps, wetlands and stream banks in central north Tasmania

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021 https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Methodology used to define Range Model

Data Source Reference

Data Source Link ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Engaeus martigener

Engaeus orramakunna

Furneaux Burrowing Crayfish

Engaeus spinicaudatus

Mount Arthur Burrowing Crayfish

Boggy areas and small clear water creeks in high altitude wet ferny gullies. The Furneaux burrowing crayfish is only found on Flinders Island and Cape Barren Island in the Bass Strait.

Variety of habitats, including undisturbed rainforests, eucalypts forests, open pastures, cattle-trampled pastures and roadside gutters.

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Used Range Boundary Mapping

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Scottsdale Burrowing Crayfish

Variety of habitats, including Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus (wet buttongrass) and heathy plains (particularly with peaty and saturated soils), surface seepages, the floodplains of creeks (often with scrubby or taller tea-tree vegetation), wet areas converted to pasture from any of the preceding habitat types, and some creek banks in open dry eucalypt forest

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Engaeus yabbimunna Burnie Burrowing Crayfish

Fern-dominated stream-side vegetation as well as in open and grassy sheep pasture, farm dams, roadside seeps and culverts, and sedgey marsh

Epacris stuartii Southport Heath

Heathland on an exposed dolerite headland at Southport Bluff.

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids)

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021 https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Forest Practices Authority (FPA)

Range Boundary Mapping 2012

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Forest Practices Authority (FPA)

Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

Official Name Descriptor

Eucalyptus gunnii Miena Cider Gum

Eucalyptus morrisbyi Morrisby’s Gum

Habitat Description Advice

Poorly drained highaltitude sites on the edges of treeless flats and frost hollows.

The two primary populations of Morrisby’s gum are found in moister aspects on infertile soils on the low rainfall eastern shore of the River Derwent. The Risdon Hill population occurs on Permian mudstones, and exists as part of a community which includes understorey species such as Acacia dealbata (silver wattle), Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood) and Acacia verticillata (prickly moses). The Calverts Hill population occurs on Jurassic dolerite and the nearby remnants on Quaternary sands.

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used NVA observation records with a 100m buffer

Data Source Reference

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Used NVA observation records with a 100m buffer

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Data Source Link

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Eudyptula minor Little Penguin

Little Penguins can be found nesting along much of Tasmania’s coastline in a wide variety of habitats. Nests can be found in burrows dug in the sand/soil, under native plants or weeds, under or between rocks, in caves, on steep cliffs, in culverts and stormwater drains, woodpiles, building material/rubble, under houses or machinery, or in some places, artificial penguin burrows. In fact, any hollow, crevice or cavity that provides some shelter in the coastal zone may provide a nesting opportunity for a Little Penguin.

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids) appended with NVA Observation records (mix of burrows and sightings) since 01/01/2014 buffered by 50m

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Galaxiella pusilla Dwarf Galaxias

Limnodynastes peronii Striped Marsh Frog

The species occurs in lowland swampy areas of far northwest and northeast Tasmania and Flinders Id. It is found in slow flowing waterways like streams in swamps and in drainage channels.

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used Range Boundary Mapping

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Rainforests, wet and dry forests, woodlands, shrublands, open and disturbed areas where they frequent swamps, flooded grasslands, pools and ponds.

Data Source Reference

Forest Practices Authority (FPA)

Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

Data Source Link

Oreisplanus munionga subsp. larana Marrawah Skipper

Dense Carex appressa sedgeland (e.g. along drains and forest margins) and swamp forest to plantations and pasture.

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Range Boundary Mapping

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Forest Practices Authority (FPA)

Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Oreixenica ptunarra Ptunarra Brown Butterfly Poa tussock grassland and sedgy grassland to Hakea microcarpa grassy shrubland to grassy open eucalypt woodland. Restricted to sites above 400 m where there is >25% cover of Poa tussocks.

Pardalotus quadragintus Forty Spotted Pardalote

White Gum forest within 3 km of the east coast from St Helens to Southport

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used Range Boundary Mapping

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Official Name Descriptor

Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot

Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island Green Rosella

Habitat Description Advice

Native grasslands and grassy woodlands

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used NVA observation records after 01/01/2014, present and less than 1km position accuracy with a 500m buffer

Eucalypt forest on the King Island

Range Boundary Mapping

Data Source Reference

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

Data Source Link

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling

Coastal rivers and streams in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.

Puffinus tenuirostris

Short-tailed Shearwater

Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian Devil

Headlands and islands covered with tussocks and succulent vegetation such as pigface and iceplant.

Wide range of habitats across Tasmania, especially in landscapes with a mosaic of pasture and woodland.

Generated a 50m buffer of Mersey River, Gawler River, River Tamar, North Esk River, Great Forester River, River Derwent, Huon River and Etterick River (King Island) based on Hydline and Hydarea

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids) appended with NVA Observation records (predominantly breeding colonies) since 01/01/2014 buffered by 100m

Used Range Boundary Mapping clipped to Tasman Penisula and Maria Island which are critical areas (Devil Facial Tumour Disease Free Areas)

Used Species of National Environmental Significance (public grids).

LIST Hydrographic Lines and Hydrographic Areas

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Strepera fuliginosa colei

Black Currawong (King Island)

Tetratheca gunnii Shy Susan

Wet sclerophyll forest, woodland and heath on King Island

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Serpentine outcrops in the foothills of the Dazzler Range near Beaconsfield, Tasmania

Used NVA observation records with a 100m buffer

Species of National Environmental Significance Database

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://www.dcceew.gov.a u/environment/environme ntal-informationdata/databasesapplications/snes

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl

Diverse range of forests and woodlands including agricultural and forest mosaics. Forests with relatively open understoreys, particularly when these habitats adjoin areas of open or cleared land.

Diana’s Basin Important Wetland Wetland / swamp

Methodology

For fire priority ranking, mature habitat availability areas were extracted from the range boundary and assigned a base priority for fire risk modelling as follows:

- Low Habitat Availability Class = Low Fire Priority - Medium/High Habitat Availability Class = Moderate Priority.

Where these priority areas had an age since last fire outside the minimum Tolerance Fire Interval, their priority rating was increased by a class.

Used CFEV Wetland Boundary

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used CFEV Wetland Boundary

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Mature Habitat Availability Modelling 2012.

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) Range Boundary Mapping 2012.

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://fpa.tas.gov.au/Docu ments/Fauna_Tech_Note_ 2_Mature_habitat.pdf

https://www.naturalvalues atlas.tas.gov.au/

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

McKerrows Marsh Important Wetland Wetland / swamp

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Forest

Tasmanian threatened vegetation community

Pure or almost pure stands of Melaleuca ericifolia (coast paperbark) with trees forming a dense (generally even-aged) canopy over a simple, sedgy understorey

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Low -> Moderate)

Used relevant TASVEG 4.0 community (Code: NME)

For fire priority ranking, where the range intersected areas likely to fall outside the Tolerance Fire

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

Tolerable Fire Intervals for TASVEG Communities, NRET, 2021

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/Doc

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

Seagrass Habitat

kanamaluka /Tamar estuary, North East Inlet, Georges Bay and Ansons Bay NA

Temperate Coastal Oyster Bed and Reef Native shellfish reefs in Georges Bay

Robbins Passage –Boullanger Bay

Coastal wetland proposed for Ramsar nomination

Native shellfish reefs in Georges Bay

Methodology used to define Range Model

Interval in the event of a 2024 fire, their priority was increased by one ranking (i.e. Moderate -> High)

Used merged CFEV Estuaries

Data Source Reference

Digitised polygons using 2013 survey maps

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Tarbath, David & Gardner, Caleb. (2013). Tasmanian Small Bivalve Fishery, 2013. 10.13140/RG.2.1.41 19.5683. Venerupis or Venus Clam.

Data Source Link

uments/Tolerable%20Fire% 20Intervals%20for%20TASV EG%20communities%20.pd f

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://www.researchgate. net/publication/278041806 _Tasmanian_Small_Bivalve _Fishery_2013

Extensive intertidal mudflats up to the high-tide line around Robbins Island, extending east around Perkins Bay to North Point.

Greater ForesterBrid Catchment Important Catchment NA

Used KML provided by Cradle Coast Authority

Cradle Coast Authority

https://www.planning.tas.g ov.au/__data/assets/pdf_fil e/0010/593569/Represent ative-4-Circular-HeadCoastal-AwarenessNetwork-additionalhearing-information,Robbins-PassageBoullanger-Bay,-Report-ofa-natural-heritage-trustproject-27-November2020.pdf

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to Greater ForesterBrid catchment area

LIST Hydrographic Areas

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Derwent Catchment Important Catchment NA

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to LGA boundaries for Derwent Valley and Central Highlands

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=0 2d3c724-9bfe-446a-a38ac47cbca31291

Tasman Peninsula Important Region NA

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to LGA boundaries for Tasman Peninsula

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

https://www.thelist.tas.gov .au/app/content/data/geometa-datarecord?detailRecordUID=0 2d3c724-9bfe-446a-a38ac47cbca31291 https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Official Name Descriptor

Habitat Description Advice

kanamaluka/Tama r Estuary Important Estuary Estuary

Macquarie Harbour Important Estuary Estuary

North East Corner of Tasmania Important Region NA

Methodology used to define Range Model

Used CFEV Estuary Boundary

Data Source Reference

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Used CFEV Estuary Boundary

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to north east corner (NRM Strategy 2021) shape

Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Data

Data Source Link

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

https://nre.tas.gov.au/wate r/water-monitoring-andassessment/cfevprogram/cfevresources#TheCFEVTechnic alReport

Digitsed area for NRM Strategy 2021

Ringarooma Catchment Important Catchment NA

Removed modified land from TASVEG and clipped to catchment area

LIST Hydrographic Areas

https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

https://listdata.thelist.tas.g ov.au/public/LIST_Hydrogra phic_Information.pdf https://nre.tas.gov.au/cons ervation/developmentplanning-conservationassessment/planningtools/monitoring-andmapping-tasmaniasvegetation-(tasveg)/tasvegthe-digital-vegetation-mapof-tasmania

Appendix 6 – Data Sources for Agricultural Priority Models

Agricultural Natural Capital Asset

Land Use

Vegetation cover

Vegetation cover

Source Data for Model

Source Reference

Tasmanian Land Use 2021 excluding forestry NCH Tasmanian Land Use 2021

TASVEG 4.0 for natural vegetation cover

National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data

Vulnerable Soils Water Erosion Layer

TASVEG 4.0 - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania

National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release, DCCEEW) and TASVEG 4.0 (NRET).

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Managing Vulnerable Soils under Irrigation in Tasmania 2018

Source Link

https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geometa-data-record?detailRecordUID=418ff94a-6a0544c9-951f-65c2e7c1f17b

https://nre.tas.gov.au/conservation/developmentplanning-conservation-assessment/planningtools/monitoring-and-mapping-tasmanias-vegetation(tasveg)/tasveg-the-digital-vegetation-map-oftasmania

https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/national-forest-andsparse-woody-vegetation-data-version-3-2018-release

https://nrmdatalibrary.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/FactSheets/ WfW/ListMapUserNotes/Vulnerable_soils.pdf

Appendix 7 – Data Sources for Threat Models

Threat Threat Layers

Source Data for Model

Fire BRAM 2024 Fire Likelihood BRAM 2024 Fire Likelihood

Flooding

Statewide 1% AEP Climate Change Peak Flood Extent

Flooding

Flooding

Coastal Erosion

Coastal Inundation

Biosecurity

Statewide_1pc_AEP_CC_Peak_ Flood_Extent_Polygon.shp

Flood Extent June 2016Tasmanian Flood Recovery June 2016 Flood HWM Flood Extents

Flood Plain

LIST Hydrographic Areas (Floodplain)

Coastal Erosion - High Hazard Band Coast Erosion Hazard Bands

Projected Storm Tide AEP2100 Coastal Projected Storm Tide

Cats (risk of reintroduction) on luntalanana Felis catus Observation Records

Biosecurity Chytrid fungus

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Observation Records

Biosecurity Deer Dama dama Observation Records

Biosecurity European Green Crabs Carcinus maenas Observation Records

Biosecurity European Wasps Vespula germanica Observation Records

Phytophthora cinnamomi symptoms point

Biosecurity

Phytopthora cinnamomi

Biosecurity Weed

Biosecurity

Weed, pest and invasive species threats to the Furneaux Islands

Phytophthora cinnamomi symptoms region

Phytophthora cinnamomi isolation records

Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Areas

Declared Weed Observation Records

Priority Weed Observation Records

Declared Weed Observation Records Priority Weed Observation Records

Source Reference

Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (TPWS)

State Emergency Service (SES), Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (DPFEM)

Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC)

LIST Hydrographic Areas

LIST Coastal Erosion Hazard Bands 20161201

LIST Coastal Projected Storm Tide 20161201

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Source Link

https://parks.tas.gov.au/aboutus/fire-management/bushfire-riskplanning

https://www.ses.tas.gov.au/about/r isk-management/flood-riskmanagement/tasmanian-floodmapping-project-reports/

https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/pu blic/DPAC_Flood_Extent_Report.pd f

https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/pu blic/LIST_Hydrographic_Information .pdf

https://listdata.thelist.tas.gov.au/pu blic/outgoing/sif/metadata/Coastal _Inundation_Mapping_Stage4_1.pd f

https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisio ns/osem/coastal_hazards_in_tasma nia

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

Forestry Tasmania

https://nre.tas.gov.au/biosecuritytasmania/plant-biosecurity/pestsanddiseases/phytophthora/phytophtho ra-publications/conservation-ofplant-species-threatened-by-pcinnamomi

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Observation Records 29/02/2024

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/

https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas. gov.au/