A review of strategies for planning and management of the natural resources of biodiversity, freshwater, land and soils in the Tasmanian midlands

Transcription

1 A review of strategies for planning and management of the natural resources of biodiversity, freshwater, land and soils in the Tasmanian midlands R.I. Knight & P.J. Cullen 2009

2 Suggested citation: Knight, R.I. & Cullen, P.J. (2009). A review of strategies for planning and management of the natural resources of biodiversity, freshwater, land and soils in the Tasmanian midlands. Natural Resource Planning, Hobart, Tasmania. Published by: Natural Resource Planning Pty Ltd ACN: PO Box 4530 Bathurst Street Hobart, TASMANIA, Australia. Natural Resource Planning Pty Ltd 2009 This work is protected under Australian copyright law. The report may be freely circulated and reproduced without modification, provided the authors are acknowledged.

3 CONTENTS i Executive Summary v How to use this document vi Acknowledgements 1 1. Introduction 4 2. The Methodology of the Review A framework of terms and definitions Review of Assets and Issues Review of Property Management Planning Frameworks Results and Discussion Review of Asset and Issues Biodiversity Asset Class Freshwater Asset Class Land and Soils Asset Class Review of Property Management Planning Frameworks Results and discussion Asset and Issues Analysis Biodiversity Asset Class Native Vegetation Asset Clearing Bias Connectivity Conservation Status Grazing Impacts Invasive Species Old Growth Forest Pathogens Remnant Vegetation Representativeness Reservation Status Riparian Vegetation Tree Decline Vegetation Condition Wilderness Priority Species Asset Threatened Species Hollow Dwelling Species Other Priority Species Areas of High Species Diversity continued over

4 Freshwater Asset Class Estuaries Asset Conservation Management Priority Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Asset Karst Asset Conservation Management Priority Rivers Asset Conservation Management Priority Riparian Vegetation Saltmarshes Asset Conservation Management Priority Waterbodies Asset Conservation Management Priority Wetlands Asset Conservation Management Priority Wetland Vegetation Land and Soils Asset Class Soils Asset Aeolian Soils Land Capability Vegetation Cover Salinity & Sodicity Soil Condition Soil Surface Erodibility Streambank Erodibility Geoconservation Asset Geoconservation Significance Management Planning Frameworks Review Treatement of management planning in strategy documents Specified contents for property management plans The Tasmanian Property Management Framework Attachments 115 Attachment 1 List of recommended national Assets and Indicators for NRM 118 Attachment 2 List of documents considered for Asset and Issues Analysis 118 Overarching documents 120 Other documents 123 Attachment 3 Process standards and Technical standards tables from the PMS Framework guidebook

5 Executive Summary Natural Resource Planning (NRP) was funded by the Australian Government s Caring for Our Country Open Grants Program to undertake a project Using landscape ecology to prioritise property management actions in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Northern Midlands and South East bioregions comprised the area addressed by the project. This report is one of five main outputs from the projects. It presents a review of existing Commonwealth, State and other policies and strategies relevant to managing the natural resources of biodiversity, freshwater, land and soils in the project region. The review has two purposes: 1. To provide a systematic classification of Natural Resource Management (NRM) Assets and Issues within the project region, for use as input to a Regional Ecosystem Model, for practical elaboration in the User Tools component of the project, and to form a reference list of Issues to be addressed in the demonstration Property Management. 2. To summarise current approaches, frameworks, expectations and requirements for Property Management Planning applicable to the Project region. This will enable the demonstration management plans to be formulated to be consistent with these approaches. Section two outlines the methodology that was developed to undertake the review. The Review uses the Recommended National Assets and Indicators for Natural Resource Management as a basis for developing a hierarchical classification of natural resource Asset Classes, Asset and Issues relevant to the project region. Three Asset Classes from the national list are covered by the Review - Biodiversity, Freshwater and Land and Soils. Within each Asset Class discrete Assets - aspects of natural capital identified as having value - are identified. Within each Asset are identified a range of Issues, which are the apsects of an Asset which may need a particular focus through management. Section three summarises the results of the review. The review identified 11 Assets under which 35 Issues were classified on the basis of their inclusion in strategy documents. This list of Issues represents a checklist that encompasses the scope of natural resource management relevant to the selected Asset Classes. The list of Asset Classes, Asset and Issues identifed is presented in Figure (i). Biodiversity was found to be a relatively well classifed Asset Class in comparison to Freshwater and Land and Soils. The Freshwater Asset Class is classified inconsistently in some the reviewed strategy documents but a highly structured classification was provided by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values project and was adopted unaltered. The Soils Asset Class was found to have had only limited attention to classification. i

6 The review identified six strategy documents that addressed management planning frameworks. Specifications for property management plans in two NRM strategies and from the Tasmanian Property Management Systems framework were also reviewed. The review found a limited relationship between the various management planning frameworks and the NRM strategies which set priorities within the project region. Changes to management planning frameworks which occurred later in 2009 were not able to be incorporated in the review. Section four presents the analysis of Assets and Issues in detail. Analysis of each Issue includes a summary, referenced where possible to published research. A table identifying the strategy documents addressing the Issue is also included, followed by a summary of the relevant provisions from each document. Section five presents the review of property management planning frameworks. The strategy documents which address management planning are identified, along with a summary of the relevant provisions from each document. Specifications for items to be included in property management plans from NRM North and NRM South are discussed, as is the draft of the Tasmanian Property Management Systems framework. ii

7 Figure (i). Classification of NRM Asset Classes, Asset and Issues iii

8 iv

9 How to use this document This document is one of several stand-alone products (documents, data products and tools) produced by Natural Resource Planning s project Using landscape ecology to prioritise property management actions in Tasmania. The project is funded under the Australian Government s Caring for Our Country Open Grants program. The figure below shows the components of the project, with the main products from the project highlighted in green. Strategic Review - List of A sset C lasses & Issues - Issues relevant to Management Plans Management planning standards Property-specific mapping & info. - Paddocks, etc; Property Management Plans Regional spatial data - Av ailable - Not available Map at property scale Issue-Property matrix - Landowner prioritised management actions Regional Ecosystem Model Spatial layers of: - A ssets and Issues - NRM priority & significance Property report - Rev iew information - Remap where required Checklist of property NRM issues & priorities Decision support - Property level decision classes - Rating of issues on property State of Knowledge database - A naly tical database for REM - Regional and subcatchment reporting - Property level reporting and mapping (input to management planning) This document - the Review - is the first component of the project and provides the foundation for all other aspects of the project. The list of Asset Classes and Issues from the Review is used as the input to the development of the Regional Ecosystem Model. The model is a set of spatial layers representing management priorities for Issues identified in the Review. While the specifications for the Regional Ecosystem Model are documented separately, the rationale for the inclusion of the Issues in it, and their characteristics, are derived from the Review. Issues identified in the Review that are relevant to standards for Property Management Plans form an input to that component of the project. The input is in the form of checklists for items to be included in management plans to be consistent with other management planning processes. The checklist will also identify additional Issues relevant to management plans but which are not included in the management planning frameworks reviewed here. v

10 Acknowledgements The members of the project Steering Committee are thanked for their input to the development of this document, their insightful perspectives on the complexities of natural resources science and management, and review of earlier drafts of the document. The Steering Committee comprised: Dr Nan Bray Landowner and farmer, former CSIRO Chief of Marine Science; Dr Michael Brown Ecological consultant, former Forestry Tasmania Head of Research; Dr Steven Cork Director, EcoInsights, former CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Principal Research Officer; Nikki den Exter (to August 2009) and Jarrah Vercoe NRM South; Michael Foley Partnerships Manager, Conservation Volunteers Australia (Tasmania); George Rance Director, National Strategic Services, former Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association CEO; and Rae Young Landowner and farmer, former DPIWE Botanist. The project was conducted with funding from the Australian Government s Caring for Our Country Open Grants Program. The authors and Natural Resource Planning gratefully acknowledge the support of the Program. This is a piece of work we see as important and it iss unlikely to be have been undertaken without financial assistance. The authors also extend our thanks to other members of the project team - Janine Berechree and Craig Woodfield - for background research, input to various stages of preparation, and tireless work on the GIS datasets that underpin the investigation and assessment of natural resource processes in the project region. v i

11 1. Introduction Property Management Planning is increasingly being recognised as one means by which many natural resource management objectives will be delivered. Concurrently there is increasing evidence and recognition that many natural resource management issues need to be addressed at the landscape scale or through consideration of landscape processes. This creates a potential dilemma as choices about how many issues will be addressed on private land are likely to remain at the discretion of individual land owners and managers. Property management planning frameworks have the potential to address this, particularly if they are well designed and tied to regulation, incentives or market forces. For example, farmers wishing to access water allocations under the Tasmanian Government s plans to expand irrigation are now required to have a property management plan. The standards and content of such management plans will therefore be important in delivering natural resource management outcomes. Natural Resource Planning (NRP) has been funded under the Australian Government s Caring for Our Country Open Grants program for a project Using landscape ecology to prioritise property management actions in Tasmania. The project includes five main outputs: 1. A review of existing Commonwealth, State and other policies, strategies, plans and programs that are relevant to ecologically responsible farm management in the project region - the Northern Midlands and South East bioregions of Tasmania. Its use is to enable farm management actions to be cross referenced with the range of relevant strategies. (Activity 3.1) 2. A Regional Ecosystem Model for the Northern Midlands and South East bioregions 1 that includes biodiversity 2, land and water resources information. This model will use new data, demonstrate innovative use of existing data and methods of data integration, including integration of landscape function and landscape-scale factors. The model will be used to set priorities for natural resource management. (Activity 3.2) 3. A State of Knowledge database to generate property reports and to assist in strategic (i.e. non property-specific) priority setting. (Activity 3.3). 4. A set of tools to prioritise management actions to address biodiversity, land and water management priorities for both specific properties and at broader scales. (Activity 3.4) 1 Bioregion (or ecoregion): an ecologically and geographically defined area. Bioregions cover relatively large areas of land or water, and contain characteristic, geographically distinct, assemblages of natural communities and species. The biodiversity (see below) of the flora, fauna and ecosystems that characterize a bioregion tend to be distinct from that of other bioregions. 2 Biodiversity: the number and relative abundance of lifeforms, the genes they contain and the ecosystems they form. 1

12 5. Demonstration Property Management Plans addressing natural resource management issues for 8 properties (~27,000ha) in the project region (Activity 4.2). These will demonstrate the methods used and the application and implications of the consideration of landscape factors in the prioritisation of property management actions to deliver NRM objectives. The management plans will only address natural resource management. Other aspects of property planning (e.g. financial planning, succession planning, etc) are beyond the scope of the project This report addresses the first of these activities Activity 3.1 Review. The Review has two purposes: 1. To provide a systematic classification of NRM Assets and Issues within the project region, for use as input to the Regional Ecosystem Model (Activity 3.2), for practical elaboration in the User Tools component of the project (Activity 3.4), and to form a reference list of Issues to be addressed in the demonstration Property Management Plans (Activity 3.5) to be produced from the Project. 2. To summarise current approaches, frameworks, expectations and requirements for Property Management Planning applicable to the Project region. This will enable the demonstration management plans to be formulated to be consistent with these approaches. The review identifies the relationships between Assets and Issues and existing strategy Documents. For the current purpose Documents is defined broadly to include policy frameworks, NRM Strategies, Government and non-government programs, legislation and international agreements. Establishing the relationships of Documents to Assets and Issues is important for a number of reasons: Many Documents deal with the same Assets and Issues. The review identifies the Documents whose NRM objectives would be progressed if relevant Assets and Issues were addressed and minimise the need to cross-reference multiple documents. Some Documents deal with the same or closely related Assets and Issues but using different terminology. The analysis will potentially reduce the number of Assets and Issues that need to be addressed when working at scales (geographic and jurisdictional) to which multiple Documents may apply. In some cases, emerging Issues that are not yet addressed by known Documents may be identified (e.g. from newly published scientific papers). Identifying these issues may highlight the need for Strategies to be updated so that any lists of natural resource management issues maintain currency and relevance. The review will test whether a systematic classification can be developed and applied to the natural resources field. 2

13 The project is based on a landscape ecology approach to aid in the understanding and management of the natural resources of the Northern Midlands and South East bioregions. Landscape ecology: the study of the interaction of landscape patterns and processes at a range of scales. It includes biophysical and societal, causes and influences and is a broadly interdisciplinary science. 3

14 2. The methodology of the Review 2.1 A framework of terms and definitions Before the current strategic review can be completed it is necessary to establish a framework which is relevant to the region and consistent with the National NRM framework developed by DEWHA (2008a). 3 The framework established here is used as a basis to review and refine the classification system for the project. The development of the National framework, and to a lesser extent its predecessors, has involved an increasing emphasis on the integration of knowledge, information, data and practice to deliver NRM objectives. Accompanying the emphasis on integration has been a trend to classify the assets that NRM seeks to manage and protect. Classification brings with it a need for consistent use of terms, definitions and structure, i.e. to be systematic. The hierarchical classification system for national assets and indicators for NRM (DEWHA, 2008a) has been adopted as the basis of classification used in this project. Some modifications have been made to deal with issues of data availability, regional circumstances and scientific defensibility. Definitions have been based on the national framework for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (DEWHA, 2008b 4 ). Figure 1 illustrates the logical structure and definition of key terms in the national NRM framework. Attachment 1 contains the list of Asset Classes, Assets and Indicators from the national framework. The following points were considered in developing the framework for classification of natural resources relevant to the project area: The focus of this review (and of the project in general) is limited to the natural capital components of Assets. The undefined term Indicator Heading, whilst clearly intended to facilitate the grouping of related Indicators, was considered to be a term which might be difficult to interpret and is tied to the concept of Indicators. For the project it was considered that the term Issue would be more appropriate, as it allows for the identification of facets of an Asset that are acknowledged as needing to be managed in an NRM context but which may not be amenable to assessment using Indicators or Surrogate Indicators. 3 Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008a). Recommended National Assets and Indicators for Natural Resource Management. Australian Government, Canberra. 4 Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts (2008b). Australian government natural resource management monitoring, evaluation, reporting & improvement framework. Australian Government, Canberra. 4

15 Figure 1. Structure and definitions in national NRM framework Terms Asset Class Assets Indicators Surrogate Indicators Definitions No definition given. Has been used to classify Assets into groups: Biodversity; Inland & marine waters; Land; as well as the socio-economic Asset Classes of Resource managers, NRM organisations and institutions, and Industry contributions. A useful thing or quality; something that has a value. In the NRM context, assets can be classified as follows: human capital - labour and influences on the productivity of labour, including education, skills and health; social capital claims on others by virtue of a social relationship; natural capital - land, water, atmosphere and biological resources; physical capital - value produced by economic activity, including infrastructure, equipment and technology; and financial capital - savings and credit. A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable basis for assessing achievement, change or performance. It is a unit of information measured over time that can help show changes in a specific condition. A given goal or objective can have multiple indicators. Measures developed to monitor the performance of an activity where asset condition monitoring is non-existent or not appropriate. The inclusion of Native Vegetation as an Asset in the Land Asset Class (see Attachment 1) but only of Significant... ecological communities in the Biodiversity Asset Class fails to recognise that Native Vegetation has importance to biodiversity irrespective of the conservation significance of particular ecological communities. Native vegetation has an intricate association with biodiversity conservation issues like surrogacy 5 and ecosystem thresholds 6 which may not be inherent in vegetation seen to be of little significance but which underpins landscape scale ecosystem processes. For the current project it is considered that Native Vegetation is an Asset to both Biodiversity and Land Asset Classes, but is assessed by different issues. The project does not deal with Marine habitat and Coastal and Estuarine issues are likely to be of only localised relevance in some parts of the project region. Tasmania s existing information base on freshwater ecosystems, including estuaries and aspects of freshwater coastal ecosystems (e.g. saltmarshes) is highly developed in both its conceptual and information systems as a result of the Conservation of 5 Surrogacy in biodiversity conservation is the ability of some form of classification to explain or capture distinct elements of biodiversity. For example, native vegetation communities are often used as a surrogate for distinct assemblages of species. 6 Ecosystem thresholds are points on continua of ecosystem variables at which rapid and often irreversible ecological change occurs. 5

16 Freshwater Ecosystems Values (CFEV) project (DPIW, ). The CFEV project addressed river, karst, wetland, waterbody, saltmarsh, estuarine and groundwater dependent ecosystems and their associated special values. The term Freshwater Ecosystems has been adopted as the Asset Class to describe those elements of the national framework s Inland and Marine Waters that are relevant to the project. A large number of additional Assets are identifiable in Tasmania and are applicable to the project region. This is a reflection of the emphasis of the project on regional, sub-regional and local scales, and also to the fact that Tasmania is relatively rich in spatial data and analysis compared to many parts of Australia. The role of production environments in the maintenance of natural resources has received little attention in strategies. Production environments are important in natural resource management, with potentially positive and negative impacts on natural resources. The key terms and definitions adopted for the project are shown in Figure 2, along with the major Asset Classes and Assets identified and also examples of Issues identified under various Assets. 7 Department of Primary Industries & Water (2008). Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values (CFEV) project technical report. CFEV program, Department of Primary Industries & Water, Hobart. 6

17 Figure 2. Conceptual structure and key definitions for project Key terms Definitions Examples Asset Class Assets Issues A group of natural Assets (see below) that share key characteristics, respond similarly to natural or anthropogenic processes, and lend themselves to similar or complementary broad approaches to their management. Asset Classes can generally only be classified using broad descriptive terms. Asset Classes are usually assessed and administered discretely. Assets are aspects of natural capital biodiversity and freshwater resources identified as having value. Assets share many characteristics internally and are often suitable for systematic classification. Assets are not groups of Issues but are the natural resources to which objectives are most frequently assigned. Issues are aspects of Assets which may need a particular focus through management to protect an Asset. Each Issue will typically represent one way of looking at the natural resource management needs of an Asset. Issues are usually suitable for quantitative or qualitative analysis to provide reliable bases for management of Assets. Natural Resources Asset Class Asset Issues Biodiversity Native Conservation status vegetation Vegetation condition... Priority Threatened species species Hollow dwelling species Land Soils Soil condition Surface erodibility... Geo- Significance level heritage Freshwater Rivers Management priority Riparian vegetation... Wetlands Management priority Other CFEV themes... 7

18 2.2 Review of Assets and Issues Asset and Issues were reviewed using the following process. 1. The Framework developed above was expanded and populated with a draft list of Assets and Issues from the general knowledge of the Project Team. 2. A set of Overarching Documents (see Attachment 2) was identified as the starting point for the analysis. An Overarching Document was defined as one addressing natural resource management in all three Asset Classes. 3. The Overarching Documents were reviewed and the tables of Assets and Issues (see below) compiled. Notes to assist in interpretation were included where appropriate. 4. Additional Documents considered to be priorities for particular Asset Classes were then identified (see Attachment 2) and the process of review repeated to enhance the documentation of Assets and Issues. 5. A draft of the Strategic Review was prepared and submitted to the project Steering Committee for comment and approval. 6. A final version of the Review was then produced, taking account of feedback and comment. The scope of the review was deliberately constrained for two reasons. Firstly, the practicality of dealing with every relevant strategy document was beyond the resources of the project. Secondly, many of the documents which could potentially have been included were limited in the region to which they applied and their scope. The documents selected for review were instead intended to be a comprehensive sample in which all major Issues were mostly likely to be addressed. An Issue that was not addressed in the review is climate change. Climate change has the potential to skew the interpretation and management of all the Issues identified in the Review. However, it is considered the issue falls outside the scope of the project. It is hoped that the information provided by the project will contribute to the ability of land managers to adapt their practices in response to climate change and may also identify opportunities to participate in mitigating or offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. 8

19 2.3 Review of property management planning frameworks The review of property management planning was conducted in much the same way as the review of assets and issues. documents used in the assets and issues review and other documents were examined to identify some of the major natural resource management issues that could be progressed through property management plans. The results of the review are presented in Section 5. It summarises the content specifications that have been included in recent tender documents for management planning services under NRM organisation s funding programs. Attachment 3 outlines the principles and objectives of the Tasmanian Property Management Systems Framework and the current technical standard for dealing with the environment in property management plans. A discussion of the relationships between these three aspects of property management planning in Tasmania and potential issues in their suitability to deliver natural resource outcomes is presented in Section

20 3. Results and discussion 3.1 Review of Assets and Issues Tables 1 to 3 show the list of Assets and Issues identified for each asset class. They are crossreferenced to the Documents from which they derive. These tables present a summary of the detail for each asset and issue identified in the review process. The full details are presented in Section 4, which contains a detailed description and discussion of each Issue, along with a summary of its scope. The review of Assets and Issues uses a selection of strategy documents relevant to planning and management of natural resources in the region. Firstly documents that address all three Asset Classes were selected. Further documents were included in the review where judged to be relevant and important. A number of problems were identified during the review. There are considerable inconsistencies in the use of terms. Terminology and classification are probably most consistent in the Biodiversity Asset Class. The greatest inconsistencies are in the Freshwater Asset Class, with a common issue in strategies being the use of the term aquatic which is so broad as to be difficult to interpret. It would have been difficult to construct a logical classification of the Freshwater Asset Class if not for the existence of the CFEV classification. Another problem to emerge is the use of the term priority in a blanket sense. It is perhaps inevitable that strategy documents will focus on higher priority actions for the Issues they address. Some of the reviewed documents (e.g. Nature Conservation ) identify target actions as high or higher priority than others. However, on the whole there is limited stratification of priorities into classes. An exception is the CFEV prioritisation, which explicitly reports priorities in classes from Low through to Very High for each of the Assets is addresses. A similar problem arises in the identification of the importance or significance of Issues. One of the purposes in conducting the review was to use it to inform the assignation of priority and significance classes to the NRM Issues to be addressed. Many of the Issues which the reviewed documents address are limited in the extent to which they ascribe significance. In reviewing the issue of Geo-heritage, for example, a single category of significance has been used although the relative significance and threat to particular sites is highly variable. The scope of Issues addressed in the review was one devised by the project team based on its experience and knowledge of the natural resources field. Most of the Issues identified were included in the reviewed documents. However, some Issues were dealt with either peripherally or not at all. For example, north facing slopes were included as an Issue on the basis that projects have been undertaken to reduce the impact of grazing on their soils and biota. In this case it appears priority has been assigned on the basis of confluence of a number of Issues vegetation conservation status, threatened species and soil erodibility. The absence of a classification means that in cases such as this the rationale for a priority may be obscured. 10

21 An area which was felt to be insufficiently addressed in the reviewed documents was the relationships between biodiversity and production environments. There is widespread recognition that natural biodiversity is important to production through, for example, the provision of ecosystem services. However there is limited recognition in the strategies that production environments can also be important in conserving biodiversity. In plantations, for example, the representation of native invertebrates can vary considerably. For example, Robson et al. ( ) found most native invertebrate orders that were present in native woodland were absent from a pine plantation. In contrast, Bonham et al. ( ) found almost half the taxa of native land snails occurred in plantations, along with a species of velvet worm for which plantations were previously considered inhospitable. Some of the research into biodiversity in production environments has identified ways in which the management of the production environment can benefit biodiversity. For example, Hazell et al. ( ) found that waterbodies with high levels of emergent vegetation cover that lack fish are likely to support a high number of frog species, regardless of origin (i.e. natural or constructed). Alsfeld et al. ( ) identified biodiversity benefits that can be gained from the provision of coarse woody debris in artificial waterbodies. Farm dams are likely to take on increasing importance for biodiversity under climate change and, through management, offer the potential to ameliorate some of the impacts on aquatic biodiversity associated with the widespread the loss of wetland habitat. The relationships between biodiversity and production environments can also be strongly influenced by the spatial configuration of the matrix of natural, semi-natural and production components of the environment, and associated management actions. It was evident from the review that the three natural resource Asset Classes have received differing levels of emphasis in strategic planning. Biodiversity tends to be relatively highly classified and the relationships between its various Assets and Issues is more developed. In comparison, classification of the Land and Soils and Freshwater Asset Classes has received relatively little attention in strategic planning. For example, the Biodiversity Asset Native Vegetation has a large number of Issues identified within it. The Freshwater Asset Waterbodies has only one Issue identified - CFEV Conservation Management Priority - which reflects less attention to classification in strategic planning rather than it being a less complex Asset. A purpose of the review was to test whether a systematic classification can be applied to NRM issues, at least in so far as they are relevant to the project and its target region. The differences in purpose, terminology and classification identified above mean that the match of any classification to the strategies it seeks to reflect will be less than ideal, but is considered achievable. 8 Robson, T.C., Baker, A.C. & Murray, B.R. (2009). Differences in leaf-litter invertebrate assemblages between radiata pine plantations & neighbouring native eucalypt woodland. Austral Ecology, 34(4): Bonham, K.J., Mesibov, R. & Bashford, R. (2002). Diversity & abundance of some ground-dwelling invertebrates in plantation vs. native forests in Tasmania, Australia. Forest Ecology & Management, 158(1-3): Hazell, D., Hero, J-M., Lindenmayer, D. & Cunningham, R. (2004). A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation, 119(1): Alsfeld, A.J., Bowman, J.L. & Deller-Jacobs, A. (2009). Effects of woody debris, microtopography, & organic matter amendments on the biotic community of constructed depressional wetlands. Biological Conservation, 142(2):

22 Some Issues were found to be duplicated or confounded. These were removed from the classification where possible and the subject they sought to address incorporated in the Issue(s) from which they are derived. For example, Tree Decline was identified in a number of the reviewed strategies, but was considered to duplicate part of the subject covered by Vegetation Condition. Representativeness was identified as a confounded Issue, as it contained elements of Remnant Vegetation and Vegetation Condition Biodiversity Asset Class The Biodiversity Asset Class is the component of regional ecosystems dealing with biodiversity the diversity of species, their genes and/or their assemblages. In common with the National NRM framework, the treatment of biodiversity as an Asset Class is here limited to its terrestrial components, with the aquatic component dealt with under Freshwater. The separation is not clear cut and some overlap is inevitable. The overlap has been minimised by focusing attention in the Freshwater Asset Class on the integrated management priorities from the CFEV project and on Assets which are more related to ecosystem function (e.g. riparian vegetation and geophysical factors) than on Assets which will inevitably be addressed under biodiversity (e.g. threatened aquatic species). The National for the Conservation of Australia s Biological Diversity provides the overall framework in which the Commonwealth and Australian State governments have agreed to progress biodiversity conservation. A number of other important strategy documents have been developed that nest within the Biodiversity e.g. documents relating to the development of a National Reserve System. A framework document such as the Biodiversity contains a number of important elements that operate at a scale which is larger than that of Assets and Issues being considered here (e.g. internationally through Australia being a signatory to the Biodiversity Convention), but nonetheless provide important context for them. At the time of writing the Biodiversity is under review, with a draft having been prepared and issued for public comment (National Biodiversity Review Task Group ). Large numbers of scientists have identified concerns with draft and suggested major reworking is required to meet biodiversity conservation objectives (Arthrington and Nevill ). For the purpose of this project it was determined that the existing Biodiversity would be used without reference to proposed changes in the draft National Biodiversity Review Task Group (2009). Australia s biodiversity conservation : consultation draft. Department of Environment, Heritage, Water & the Arts, Canberra. 13 Arthrington, A.H. & Nevill, J. (2009). Australia's Biodiversity Conservation : Scientists' letter of concern. Ecological Management & Restoration, 10(2):

23 Table 1. Assets and Issues in the Biodiversity Asset Class Issues Nat. Cons. O verarching Documents 14 DEW FPC NRM NRM Nth Sth Tas. Tog. Other Documents Asset: Native Vegetation Clearing Bias ( ) Y Y Y Permanent Forest Estate Policy Connectivity ( ) Y Y Y National Biodiversity Vegetation Conservation Status ( ) Grazing Impacts ( ) Invasive Species ( ) Old Growth Forest ( ) Y Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Permanent Forest Estate Policy Regional Forest Agreement National Biodiversity Tasmanian Threatened Species Y Y Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Threatened Species Tasmanian Weed Management Y Y Y National Biodiversity Regional Forest Agreement Pathogens ( ) Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Threatened Species Remnant Vegetation ( ) Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species 14 Nat. Cons. DPIW Nature Conservation, DEW National NRM assets and indicators; FPC Forest Practices Code; NRM North NRM North strategy; NRM South NRM South strategy; Tas. Tog. Tasmania Together revised benchmarks. 13

24 Issues Representativeness ( ) Nat. Cons. O verarching Documents 14 DEW FPC NRM NRM Nth Sth Tas. Tog. Other Documents National Biodiversity Reservation Status ( ) Y Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Regional Forest Agreement Y Y National Biodiversity Riparian Vegetation ( ) Tree Decline ( ) Y Y Tasmanian Salinity Vegetation Condition ( ) Wilderness ( ) Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species National Biodiversity Regional Forest Agreement Asset: Priority species Threatened Species ( ) Hollow Dwelling Species ( ) Other Priority Species ( ) High Species Diversity ( ) Y Y Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species Regional Forest Agreement Y Y Regional Forest Agreement Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Regional Forest Agreement Y National Biodiversity Regional Forest Agreement 14

25 3.1.2 Freshwater Asset Class The Freshwater Asset Class is a highly interconnected and interdependent group of Assets. All are dependent on physical and biological aspects of the aquatic environment and their relationships to the terrestrial environment. In Tasmania, a comprehensive assessment of freshwater ecosystems has been undertaken by the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values project (DPIW ). The material presented in the following sections draws on the CFEV project unless otherwise noted. The CFEV project involves the following elements: Broad classification of freshwater assets into ecosystem themes of Estuaries, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, Karst, Rivers, Saltmarsh, Waterbodies and Wetlands; An audit of available spatial data for each theme; Generation of a classification schema for each theme, including multiple layers of classification in some themes, that applied to all features in a theme and was used as the basis for assessing Representativeness; Generation of condition data for each theme which could be applied to all its features, used for assessing Naturalness; Generation of special values data (e.g. threatened species) which applied to some of the features in each theme, used for assessing Distinctiveness; Production of a GIS database for each theme to provide for spatial representation and analytical capacity; and Spatial prioritisation of all features in each theme in terms of their conservation value and also their Conservation Management Priority. Figure 3 summarises the CFEV assessment framework. CMP-I and CMP-P stand for Conservation Management Priority - Immediate and Conservation Management Priority Potential. Respectively they indicate the relative priority to implement management actions immediately and to implement management responses when potential threats arise. Each of these management priority categories is further divided to CMPI-1, CMPI-2, CMPP-1 and CMPP-2, in which 1 and 2 represent conservation priorities with special values taken into account (2) and not taken into account (1). In conducting this review it was evident that there is considerable inconsistency in the use of terms and in the nesting of Issues and Indicators. For example, the National Assets and Indicators document identifies a number of Recommended Indicators for the Asset Aquatic Environments. The scope of the term is not defined and it does not nest easily with the approach taken in the CFEV project. 15 Department of Primary Industries & Water (2008). Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values (CFEV) project technical report. CFEV program, Department of Primary Industries & Water, Hobart. 15

26 Figure 3 Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values assessment framework Source: CFEV technical report, p(ii). The CFEV process for assessing representativeness and assigning management priorities is relatively complex and driven by multiple variables which operate at site, distal, whole of catchment, and between catchment (e.g. water diversion) scales. Including all potential Issues from the CFEV project in this review would potentially duplicate work already done and lead to inconsistent results. Identifying factors which impact on Naturalness of CFEV freshwater ecosystems is important to determining appropriate management responses, due to the use of Naturalness to drive the relative ranking of the classification of physical elements to produce the measure of Representativeness. The CFEV prioritisation system contains steps to ensure all freshwater features can be distinguished from all others, but the role of Naturalness can generally be described as: For any set of sites with the same biological and physical characteristics, that with the highest Naturalness will be considered the most Representative, with Representativeness declining as Naturalness declines. The site with the same characteristics and lowest Naturalness will be considered the least Representative. 16

27 The approach adopted was based on first treating the Conservation Management Priority within each CFEV Theme as the major Issue. The CFEV themes that are of most relevance within the project region are Rivers and Wetlands. There are relatively few Karst areas and natural Waterbodies in the region, particularly on freehold properties. Estuaries and Saltmarsh are largely restricted to the coastal zone. Where considered practical and appropriate, a subset of factors from the CFEV database was then identified on the basis of their capacity to contribute most to understanding of site-based assessment requirements, particularly for managing or improving Naturalness. This primarily involved picking key offsite and onsite factors in selected CFEV ecosystem themes. The inclusion of offsite factors is considered important to determining the efficacy and prospects of local scale management actions. Table 2. Assets and Issues in the Freshwater Asset Class Issues Asset: Estuaries Conservation Management Priority ( ) Nat. Cons. O verarching Documents DEW FPC NRM NRM Nth Sth Tas. Tog. Other Documents Y Y Y National Biodiversity CFEV project Asset: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems General ( ) Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Asset: Karst Conservation Management Priority ( ) Asset: Rivers Conservation Management Priority ( ) Riparian vegetation ( ) continued over Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species CFEV project Y Y Y National Biodiversity CFEV project Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Threatened Species CFEV project 17

28 Issues Asset: Saltmarsh Conservation Management Priority ( ) Nat. Cons. O verarching Documents DEW FPC NRM NRM Nth Sth Y Tas. Tog. Other Documents Tasmanian Salinity CFEV project Asset: Waterbodies Conservation Management Priority ( ) Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species CFEV project. Asset: Wetlands Conservation Management Priority ( ) Wetland Vegetation ( ) Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Tasmanian Threatened Species CFEV proejct Y National Biodiversity CFEV project 18

29 3.1.3 Land Asset Class The Land Asset Class comprises Assets and Issues whose primary drivers are geological history, geomorphic processes and climatic conditions. The strategy review identified eight Issues in two Assets Soils and Geoconservation. Appropriate management of these Assets and their component Issues is important to achieving natural resource outcomes, particularly where dual environmental and production objectives are involved. It was evident from the reviewed strategies that there is currently no view of the Land Asset Class or the Soils Asset that provides for integrated consideration across multiple Issues. Most Issues are described in the strategies with limited reference to related Issues. There are nonetheless strong links between some Issues within the Land Asset Class, and with elements of the Biodiversity and Freshwater Asset Classes. For example, Vegetation Cover can have a strong influence on whether underlying surface and streambank erodibility are expressed, both locally and at the catchment scale. Vegetation cover at the catchment scale and meso-scale is also a major factor in the CFEV assessment of Naturalness for Karst, Rivers and Wetlands, and hence in their Conservation Management Priority. Aeolian Soils may also be sites of Geoconservation Significance, while important Karst sites are often important for Priority Species (e.g. as Threatened Species or in the RFA treatment of Cave dwelling fauna as priorities for conservation). Table 3. Assets and Issues in the Land Asset Class Issues Asset: Soils Aeolian Soils ( ) Land Capability ( ) Vegetation Cover ( ) Salinity and Sodicity ( ) Soil Condition ( ) Soil Surface Erodibility ( ) Streambank Erodibility ( ) Asset: Geoconservation Geoconservation Significance ( ) Nat. Cons. O verarching Documents DEW FPC NRM NRM Nth Sth Tas. Tog. Other Documents Y Y Protection of Agricultural Land Policy Y Y Y Tasmanian Salinity Y Y Y Y Y National Biodiversity Tasmanian Salinity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tasmanian Salinity Y Y Y Y Y Tasmanian Salinity 19

30 3.2 Review of the Management Planning Frameworks Table 4 lists those Documents that address management planning. Recent specifications for the format of plans and the major elements of the Tasmanian Property Management Systems Framework are detailed in Section 5. The review drew on documents which were available at the commencement of the strategy review; further development and changes since that time were beyond the scope of the review. Table 4. Documents addressing Property management Planning Issues Property management planning O verarching Document Nat. DEW FPC NRM NRM Tas. Other Documents Cons. Nth Sth Tog. Y - - Y Y - National Biodiversity Tasmanian Weed Management Tasmanian Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land A number of issues from the review of property management planning frameworks have been identified and are considered to impact on the ability to deliver natural resource outcomes through property management plans. The reviewed strategy documents address property management planning with two different but overlapping emphases. The Nature Conservation and NRM South are distinguished from the other documents in having a larger number of provisions that can be described as performance-based. For example, the Nature Conservation proposes formalising management planning in parts of the regulatory approvals framework. The NRM South also focuses on property management being oriented towards outcomes. An example is MAT W10 which aims to have soil management mechanisms in place for all priority river reaches by These contrast with the other reviewed documents which appear to be more focused on process-based aspects of property management. These documents use terms such as encouraging, developing, identifying and prioritising. NRM North and NRM South have specified the information that is required in a Property Management Plan but both are unclear on what standards are to be applied to this information. There are known issues and limitations with many Tasmanian spatial data sets and a reliance on desktop analysis alone is fraught with problems and will reduce reliability of any analysis of natural resource issues. 20