DOCSLIB.ORG

Australia's Faunal Extinction Crisis Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Threatened Species Section (TSS) of the Department Act) were assessed.The developers provi::led substantial excluded and shared costs).Where sufficient funds are not The outcomes represent significant steps in addressing of Primary Industries, Parks.Water and Environment guidance and support to the Threatened Species Seeton. available to carry out all projects simultaneously, extinction Recommendations 3, 4 and 14 of the 2CXJ9 Audtor (DPIPYVl:) was contracted by Tasmania's three NRM risk can only be minimised and not eliminated. However; Generol's $pedal Report on the Manogemert of threatened Projects were prioritised on 1he basis of their contribution to groups to prioritise threatened species recovery actions. many species are surprisingly inexpensive to secure: the species.The exercise provided key information for listing a single oqective: the minimisation ci number of extinctions top 28 species can be secured over a 50 year period for statements, recovery plans and monitoring plans, and Prioritisation of projects to secure threatened species was within the short term (50 years).This objective reflects the less than $ 1 million, with only $180,000 required in the identified species requiring a status review. undertaken on the basis of their cost efficiency in meeting requirerrent of the Threatened Spe:es Protection Act 1995 frst five years.To secure the top ranking 165 species the folowing objective and target: for a strategy to ensure the survival ofthreatened species. The list, 'Mien used correctly. represents <11 invaluable (96%) on List I costs less than half that required to Threatened species conservation helps address numerous decision making tool for planning threatened species Objective: Within 50 years, to secure in the wild secure the remaining 6 lowest ranking species.To minimise different d:>jectives. but it is ineffective and confusing to conservation programs, but there are a number of ways in in Tasmania the greatest number of extinction risk, it is most cost efficient to secure species prioritise projects on the tesis of some combination of which it can potentially be misused: threatened taxa as possible. in their priority order because of the genera Hy lower cost these; the relative inportance of each objecti-.e to funding higher likelihood of success and higher benefit of their • Selection ci single actions within high ranking projects A taxon is defined as secure when its agencies can change annualo/. Hcmever; weightings ar-i later Target: projects. Some lower ranking species may, however; rank as high priority for funding. be appied to the pioritised list if required. For example, if numbers and distribution are stable or highly on the basis of a different objective, such as iconic funders wish to fcM:>ur Tasmanian endemics, they ar-i either increasing, and are sufficient that there is species protection or ecosystem function protection, and • Grouping of common actions as priorities for multi fund ono/ projects on these species.or apply a ....eig-iting a 95% probability that it will survive the thereby receive funding sooner from a separate source. species recovery actions. stochastic events anticipated over a 50 based on dewee of endemicity to the list. • Treatment of projects ranking low or absent from List year timeframe, given that all known and The majority of projects ( 127 of 171) are confined to a Each project represents the minimum required to secure I as low priority for all conservation objectives. predicted threats are adequately mitigated. single NRM region (Cradle Coast 26; North 43; South each species over a 50 year time frame, but may not 58). Forty four; however; are shared between t'M:> or more necessarily be sufficient to secure all its populations, nor its • Assumption that a fully funded project will fiJly The Project Prioritisation Protocol (PPP), developed regions. reco-.er a species. by the University of Queensland (L.JQ) and the New genetic diversity. For the present purpose, the short term securing of extra species was viewed as a higher piority Key outcomes of the project were: Zealand Government's Department of Conservation • Assumption that the ranking presented in the report is (DOQ,provided a consistent and transparent approach than the securing of extra populations of a species already • A decision making tool allowing funders to understand exactly correct. in prioritising recovery projects to minimise threatened secure over the short term. A review of the implications the tradeoffs oftheir resource allocation between this species extinctions.This approach prioritises projects on of the selected objective is appropriate for future work. Recommendations for future 'M:>rk include a review of the and other objectives. the basis oftheir cost efficiency in meeting an objective, prioritisation within the next 5 years, in light of progress A prioritised list (List I ) indicates an order for funding to ensure that the maximum is achieved with a limited • Lists of. prioritised threatened species projects; data and new information, incorporating all Tasmanian species. recovery projects for the 17 1 species on which there was budget. One project was designed to secure each species. deficient species; species ak-eady secure; species Additionally, the objective needs to be more formally sufficient information and which experts considered could Projects we re ranked in the order that they should be excluded for specified reasons agreed in light of the implementation ofthe 2CXJ9 priority be secured purely through Tasmania based projects over a initiated, on the basis of their Benefit to the species, the list. A longer term objective may be more appropriate. If 50 year period.This order may change when cost sharing • Project prescriptions addressing a consistent objective likelihood of their Succe$ and their Cost. as a$essed by the approach is taken up nationally. species which cannot is incorporated by a coordinating agency. Cost sharing can for each of 171 species, with detailed costs, timing and relevant experts using the best available information.Two be secured purely through Tasmania based actions can be only be calculated when it is known which projects can be locations. interviewers maintained consistency using a standardised included. Biodiversity conservation could be most cost funded, since projects must be funded entirely to minimise set ofquestions. In view of time constraints, only species effbent if prioritisation is carried out across all objectives, extinctions cost efficiently. listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered orVulnerable and costs shared between funded projects across as well under either the Commonwealth Envirorrnent Protect.ion To secure all 171 threatened species on the priority as within these objectives. orx:J BiodNersity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or the list over a 50 year period was estimated to cost Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP approximately $155 million (not withstanding some June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 20/ 0 iii Acknowledgements Terms and abbreviations lntl"'OCluction •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l Potential misuses of the priority list . .... 24 The ill)UI: ofthe following experts in providing the Benefit The level of contribution of a project Contract requi rement .......................... 2 Selection of single actions within hi~ ranking projects as high priority for funding . ..... .... 24 sul:61:antial information req..iired for the prioritisation towards a stated objective, defined for this Context . ....... .. ...... .. .. ... ... .. .... 2 process is gratefully acknO'Nledged: exercise in the Methods (PPP Step 5) Grouping of common actions as priorities Type of method required .... .. ....... .. .... 2 for multi species recovery actions ........ ...... 24 Rachael AJderman, Jayne Balmer, Leon Bannuta, Phil Cost Estimated total cost of a project Methods • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 Bell, Stewart Blackhal, Kevin Bonham, Elill Brown, Alex Treatment of projects ranking low or absent CFCX: Caring for our Country (AL.lstralian Buchanan, Oberon Carter; Stuart Chicott.Peter Davies, How PPP works . .. ... ... .. .. .. .... .. .... 3 from List I as low priority for al conservation Government funding agenc y) Niall Doran, Mchael Driessen • Rob Freeman, Robbe PPP steps ....... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... 4 objectives . .. ... .... ..... .... ..... .. ..... 25 Gaffney. Rosemary Gales. Louise Gifedder. Mark Green, DEWI-IA Department of Environment, Water. I. Defi ne objective ............ .. .............. 4 Assumption that a fuly funded project wil Scott Hardie.Stephen Harris, Oare Hawkins.Dean Heinze. Heritage and the Arts fu Hy recover a species ....... ................. 25 Mick llowski,Jean Jackson, Menna Jones, Matt Larcombe, 2. List biodiversity assets........................ 5 Peter l ast, Balie Lazenby , Drew Lee, Peter McQuilan, l\ick DOC The New Zealand Government's Assumption that the priority list is exactly correct .. 25 3. Desi0" management projects .................. 6 Mooney, Sarah Munks, Matthew Pauza David Pemberton, Department of Conservation Future recommendations .............. 26 Annie Phi~ps,Wendy Potts.Karen Richards.Alastair 4. Estimate Cost and Success of each project ...... 6 DPIP-NE Department of Primary Industries. Parks, Regular review ............................... 26 Richardson,lim Rudman, Richard Schahinger.Andrew Water and Environment 5. Estimate Benefit of each project ............... 7 Sharman, Chris Spencer; Shaun
Recommended publications
  • DI 136Of2002.Rtf

    DI 136Of2002.Rtf

    Australian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna 2002 (No. 1) Disallowable instrument DI2002— 136 made under the Nature Conservation Act 1980, s 17 (Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna) I revoke all previous determinations under section 17 of the Nature Conservation Act 1980. I declare the species listed in schedule 1 to be protected fish and protected invertebrates. I declare the species listed in schedule 2 to be exempt animals. I declare the species listed in schedule 3 to be protected native plants. I declare the species listed in schedule 4 to be protected native animals. Dr Maxine Cooper Conservator of Flora and Fauna 28 June 2002 SCHEDULE 1 PROTECTED FISH AND INVERTEBRATES Common Name Scientific Name Clarence River Cod Maccullochella ikei Clarence Galaxias Galaxias johnstoni Swan Galaxias Galaxias fontanus Cairns Birdwing Butterfly Ornithoptera priamnus Mountain Blue Butterfly Papilio ulysses Trout Cod Macullochella maquariensis Murray River Crayfish Eustacus armatus Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Perunga Grasshopper Perunga ochracea Two-spined Blackfish Gadopsis bisinosus Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica Canberra Raspy Cricket Cooraboorama canberrae Spiny Freshwater Cray Euastacus crassus Spiny Freshwater Cray Euastacus rieki Spotted Handfish Brachionichthys hirsutus Barred Galaxias Galaxias fuscus Pedder Galaxias Galaxias pedderensis Elizabeth Springs Goby Chlamydogobius micropterus Mary River Cod Maccullochella peelii mariensis Lake Eacham Rainbow Fish Melanotaenia eachamensis Oxleyan Pygmy Perch Nannoperca oxleyana Red-finned Blue-eye Scaturiginichthys vermei1ipinnis Great White Shark Carcharodon carchanias Grey Nurse Shark Carcharias taurus Edgbaston Goby Chiamydogobius squamigenus Murray Hardyhead Craterocephalus fluviatilis Saddled Galaxias Galaxias tanycephalus Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla Blind Gudgeon Milyeringa veritas Flinders Ranges Gudgeon Mogurnda n.
  • Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

    Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

    Appendix 4 1 World Heritage Values of the Tasmanian Wilderness 1.1 Note that the Department of the Environment's website states that: A draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value which will take into account the new areas added in 2013 is expected to be considered by the World Heritage Committee in 2014. Outstanding Universal Value 1.2 The Tasmanian Wilderness is an extensive, wild, beautiful temperate land where cultural heritage of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people is preserved. 1.3 It is one of the three largest temperate wilderness areas remaining in the Southern Hemisphere. The region is home to some of the deepest and longest caves in Australia. It is renowned for its diversity of flora, and some of the longest lived trees and tallest flowering plants in the world grow in the area. The Tasmanian Wilderness is a stronghold for several animals that are either extinct or threatened on mainland Australia. 1.4 In the southwest Aboriginal people developed a unique cultural tradition based on a specialized stone and bone toolkit that enabled the hunting and processing of a single prey species (Bennett's wallaby) that provided nearly all of their dietary protein and fat. Extensive limestone cave systems contain rock art sites that have been dated to the end of the Pleistocene period. Southwest Tasmanian Aboriginal artistic expression during the last Ice Age is only known from the dark recesses of limestone caves. 1.5 The Tasmanian Wilderness was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982 and extended in 1989, 2010, 2012 and again in 2013.
  • 2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)

    2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)

    IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Tasmanian Wilderness - 2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessment 2014 (archived) Finalised on 07 November 2014 Please note: this is an archived Conservation Outlook Assessment for Tasmanian Wilderness. To access the most up-to-date Conservation Outlook Assessment for this site, please visit https://www.worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org. Tasmanian Wilderness SITE INFORMATION Country: Australia Inscribed in: 1989 Criteria: (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Site description: In a region that has been subjected to severe glaciation, these parks and reserves, with their steep gorges, covering an area of over 1 million ha, constitute one of the last expanses of temperate rainforest in the world. Remains found in limestone caves attest to the human occupation of the area for more than 20,000 years. © UNESCO IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Tasmanian Wilderness - 2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) SUMMARY 2014 Conservation Outlook Good with some concerns Competing land-use claims along the boundaries of the Tasmanian Wilderness has been a contentious issue ever since the inscription of the property in 1982 and its further extension in 1989. The recent boundary extensions of 2010, 2012 and 2013 have contributed to the Outstanding Universal Value of the site and improved the scope for effective management of the property. Despite considerable management efforts, a high number of threats face both the initially inscribed property and areas to which it was extended. The biggest issues arise from inadequate resourcing of scientific research into WH values and monitoring; increasing pressures to allow intrusive commercial tourism which could impact heavily on key sites and WH values; protection and management of areas which have been recently added to the property.
  • Australia's National Heritage

    Australia's National Heritage

    AUSTRALIA’S australia’s national heritage © Commonwealth of Australia, 2010 Published by the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts ISBN: 978-1-921733-02-4 Information in this document may be copied for personal use or published for educational purposes, provided that any extracts are fully acknowledged. Heritage Division Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Email [email protected] Phone 1800 803 772 Images used throughout are © Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and associated photographers unless otherwise noted. Front cover images courtesy: Botanic Gardens Trust, Joe Shemesh, Brickendon Estate, Stuart Cohen, iStockphoto Back cover: AGAD, GBRMPA, iStockphoto “Our heritage provides an enduring golden thread that binds our diverse past with our life today and the stories of tomorrow.” Anonymous Willandra Lakes Region II AUSTRALIA’S NATIONAL HERITAGE A message from the Minister Welcome to the second edition of Australia’s National Heritage celebrating the 87 special places on Australia’s National Heritage List. Australia’s heritage places are a source of great national pride. Each and every site tells a unique Australian story. These places and stories have laid the foundations of our shared national identity upon which our communities are built. The treasured places and their stories featured throughout this book represent Australia’s remarkably diverse natural environment. Places such as the Glass House Mountains and the picturesque Australian Alps. Other places celebrate Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture—the world’s oldest continuous culture on earth—through places such as the Brewarrina Fish Traps and Mount William Stone Hatchet Quarry.
  • Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

    Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

    Contents (1995 - 83) Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Long Title Part 1 - Preliminary 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Interpretation 4. Objectives to be furthered 5. Administration of public authorities 6. Crown to be bound Part 2 - Administration 7. Functions of Secretary 8. Scientific Advisory Committee 9. Community Review Committee Part 3 - Conservation of Threatened Species Division 1 - Threatened species strategy 10. Threatened species strategy 11. Procedure for making strategy 12. Amendment and revocation of strategy Division 2 - Listing of threatened flora and fauna 13. Lists of threatened flora and fauna 14. Notification by Minister and right of appeal 15. Eligibility for listing 16. Nomination for listing 17. Consideration of nomination by SAC 18. Preliminary recommendation by SAC 19. Final recommendation by SAC 20. CRC to be advised of public notification 21. Minister's decision Division 3 - Listing statements 22. Listing statements Division 4 - Critical habitats 23. Determination of critical habitats 24. Amendment and revocation of determinations Division 5 - Recovery plans for threatened species 25. Recovery plans 26. Amendment and revocation of recovery plans Division 6 - Threat abatement plans 27. Threat abatement plans 28. Amendment and revocation of threat abatement plans Division 7 - Land management plans and agreements 29. Land management plans 30. Agreements arising from land management plans 31. Public authority management agreements Part 4 - Interim Protection Orders 32. Power of Minister to make interim protection orders 33. Terms of interim protection orders 34. Notice of order to landholder 35. Recommendation by Resource Planning and Development Commission 36. Notice to comply 37. Notification to other Ministers 38. Limitation of licences, permits, &c., issued under other Acts 39.
  • The Wilderness Society

    The Wilderness Society

    Australia's Faunal Extinction Crisis Senate Inquiry Submission: The Wilderness Society Summary Our magnificent biodiversity and native animals are unique in the world, and have strong cultural and social value to Australians of all backgrounds. Australians depend on thriving ecosystems for their well-being and prosperity, and extinction fundamentally threatens the healthy functioning of those ecosystems. Australia has one of the world’s worst records for extinction and protection of animal species. Australia is ranked first in the world for mammal extinctions, second in the world for ongoing biodiversity loss, and the pace of our extinction crisis is quickening, with the extinction rate likely to double in the next 20 years. Australia has significant international obligations to prevent the extinction of Australia’s animal species. We are also morally, ethically, intergenerationally and practically obliged to end our extinction crisis. However, systemic failures in current Commonwealth environment laws and protections for faunal species ensures we cannot meet those obligations. Under these laws, we have no enforceable mechanisms to end threats to animals and their habitat. Existing protection mechanisms like recovery plans and critical habitat listings are out of date, not implemented and not funded, if they exist at all. The National Reserve System remains important but offers minimal protection where our wildlife is most under threat from human activity. Most worryingly, we have so little data that we do not know the current status and trend of most Australian species, and monitoring of recovery actions is largely non-existent. Australia needs to act quickly to stem the tide of extinction. In the short term, Australia must implement and fully fund existing protection mechanisms and stop threats to wildlife habitat.
  • Threatened Fishes Committee Report - May 2001

    Threatened Fishes Committee Report - May 2001

    Threatened Fishes Committee Report - May 2001 By David Crook As promised in the last newsletter, a provisional list of threatened Australian fishes using the IUCN classification scheme has been prepared and is presented below. Due to the new listing of many marine threatened species, the number of listed species has dramatically increased from 91 to 210. This increase in numbers provides significant challenges for the committee in terms of keeping the list up to date, and increases the need for input from Society members with specialist knowledge of particular taxa. It is simply not possible for the committee members to keep fully up-to-date with the status of all 210 species. The classifications for freshwater fish in the provisional list are based upon assessments conducted by Peter Jackson and Rob Wager in 1996. The conservation status of several of these species has been updated since then through the Threatened Fish Committee’s nomination process. The classifications for the marine and estuarine species are based upon the recommendations made in the draft “Conservation Overview and Action Plan for Australian Threatened and Potentially Threatened Marine and Estuarine Fishes” prepared by John Pogonoski, John Paxton and Dave Pollard. The provisional list is presented here to allow ASFB members an opportunity to raise any issues of concern prior to the list going before the committee for adoption at the annual conference in Perth. Please take the time to go through the list so that any mistakes, misclassifications or opinions regarding the list are brought to the committee’s attention. Any changes to the provisional classifications will need to go through the normal nomination process (nomination forms are available from me on request).
  • The Lake Pedder Decision

    The Lake Pedder Decision

    Hrasky, S. , & Jones, M. J. (2016). Lake Pedder: Accounting, environmental decision-making, nature and impression management. Accounting Forum, 40(4), 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.005 Peer reviewed version License (if available): CC BY-NC-ND Link to published version (if available): 10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.005 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Elsevier at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.005. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Lake Pedder: Accounting, Environmental Decision-Making, nature and impression management Sue Hrasky and Michael Jones University of Tasmania, University of Bristol Acknowledgements We wish to thank participants at the 15th Financial Reporting and Business Communication Conference, Bristol, July 2011, the 23rd International Congress on Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR), St Andrews, September 2011 and the 10th CSEAR Australasian Conference, Launceston, December 2011, for their helpful comments and suggestions. My thanks also to Claire Horner for her help collecting data. Finally, I would like to thank Glen Lehman and an anonymous reviewer Corresponding Author Department of Accounting and Finance University of Bristol 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, UK Email: [email protected] Phone: +44 (0)117 33 18286 Lake Pedder: Accounting, Environmental Decision-Making, Nature and Impression Management Abstract This paper looks at the role of accounting in a major environmental infrastructural project the flooding of Lake Pedder in Tasmania in the 1960s.
  • Gazette 21572

    Gazette 21572

    [75] VOL. CCCXXVI OVER THE COUNTER SALES $2.75 INCLUDING G.S.T. TASMANIAN GOV ERNMENT • U • B E AS RT LIT AS•ET•FIDE TASMANIA GAZETTE PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY WEDNESDAY 20 JANUARY 2016 No. 21 572 ISSN 0039-9795 CONTENTS Notices to Creditors Notice Page JOHN DAVID RUSSELL late of 2111 Elphinstone Road North Hobart in Tasmania orchard farm manager/divorced died on Administration and Probate ..................................... 76 the fourteenth day of September 2015: Creditorsnext of kin and others having claims in ·respect of the property of the Councils ................................................................... 107 abovenamed deceased are required by the Executors Helen Elizabeth Gill and Sally Ann Giacon c/- Tremayne Fay and Crown Lands ............................................................ 78 Rheinberger 3 Heathfield Ave Hobart in Tasmania to send particulars of their claim in writing to the Registrar of the Living Marine Resources Management ................... 77 Supreme Court of Tasmania by Monday the twenty-second day of February 2016 after which date the Executors may distribute Mental Health ........................................................... 75 the assets having regard only to the claims of which they then· have notice. Nature Conservation ................................................ 77, 81 Dated this twentieth day of January 2016. Notices to Creditors ................................................. 75 TREMAYNE FAY AND RHEINBERGER, Solicitors for the Estate. Public Health ...........................................................
  • Threatened Species of Tasmania

    Threatened Species of Tasmania

    threatened species Threatened Species of Tasmania SUPPORTED BY Department of Primary Industries and Water plants and A celebration of all our native plantsanimals and animals On Threatened Species Day we is only one of 684 listings on the area is protected in some form While National The irreversible here will be even more should all consider the importance Threatened Species List. Other of reserve, which is a fact that the Threatened impact of the catastrophic, if they were to SJREXMZI¾SVEERHJEYRESRXLI species include the orange-bellied whole Tasmanian community can Species Day establish. Bandicoot, bettong, variety of islands that make up parrot, the Miena jewel beetle, the be proud of. Private landowners potoroo and many species of on September 7 remembers the Red Fox Tasmania. The rich biodiversity wedge-tailed eagle, Baudins sea- and land managers are continuing ground nesting birds would rapidly extinction of the Thylacine, the day and beauty of our ecosystem is lavender, myrtle elbow orchid and to make protection of natural The European red fox has had a disappear from our landscape, as is as much about caring for all our renowned, and its uniqueness swamp eyebright. values a high priority. These devastating and irreversible impact they have done already from the native wildlife as it is about those celebrated. facts augur well for the future of on native wildlife across mainland mainland. Some may disappear under threat. All species of plant Recovery plans and private land Tasmania’s beautiful and unique %YWXVEPMEERHMWMHIRXM½IHMR before we realise it. and animal hold an important The recent listing of the iconic programs are both examples plants and animals.
  • Notifiable Instrument

    Notifiable Instrument

    Australian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Protected Native Species List 2015 (No 1)* Notifiable Instrument NI2015–317 made under the Nature Conservation Act 2014 s 111 (Minister to make protected native species list) s 407 (Protected fish, invertebrates, native plants and native animals to be protected species) 1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Nature Conservation Protected Native Species List 2015 (No 1). 2 Commencement This instrument commences on the day after notification. 3 List of threatened species I make the protected native species list and relevant categories in the schedule. Note 1: Section 407 of the Nature Conservation Act 2014 (the Act) is a transitional provision. Section 407 refers to declarations made under section 34 of the former Nature Conservation Act 1980 (1980 Act) to the effect that a fish, invertebrate, native plant or native animal is protected. Under section 407 any fish, invertebrate, native plant or native animal so declared at the time of commencement of the Act is taken to be eligible to be included in the restricted trade category on the protected native species list under section 112 (Protected native species list—eligibility) of the Act. Note 2: The fish, invertebrates, native plants and native animals listed in the schedule were previously declared as protected under the 1980 Act (refer to Nature Conservation Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna 2002 (No 2) DI2003-6). Note 3: Section 111 of the Act requires the Minister to make a list of native species that are protected
  • THE Tasmanian Naturalist

    THE Tasmanian Naturalist

    THE Tasmanian Naturalist Number 116 1994 llBRAVX CTORIA museum Published by Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc. NUMBER 116 1994 ISSN 0819-6826 IBRMVI Naturalist T.F.N.C. EDITOR: ROBERT J. TAYLOR CONTENTS Fauna of Mount Wellington. Robert J.Taylor and Peter B. McQuillan 2 The occurrence of the metallic skink Niveoscincus mettallicus in the intertidal zone in south-west Tasmania. M. Schulz and K. Kristensen 20 A brief history of Orielton Lagoon and its birds. Len E. Wall 23 First recording of the European shore crab Carcinus maenas in Tasmania. N.C. Gardner, S.Kzva and A. Paturusi 26 Pultenaea subumbellata and Pultenaea selaginoides - not quite the plants you think. A.J.J. Lynch 29 Distribution and habitat of the moss froglet, a new undescribed species from south west Tasmania. David Ziegler 31 Identity and distribution of large Roblinella land snails in Tasmania. Kevin Bonham 38 Aspley River South Esk Pine Reserve: a survey of its vascular plants and recommendations for management. David Ziegler and Stephen Harris 45 Evaluating Tasmania's rare and threatened species. Sally L. Bryant and Stephen Harris 52 A sugar glider on Mount Wellington. Len E. Wall 58 Book Review 59 Published annually by The Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club Inc., G.P.O. Box 68A, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 The Tasmanian Naturalist (1994) 116: 2-19 FAUNA OF MOUNT WELLINGTON Robert J. Taylor1 and Peter B. McQuillan2 139 Parliament Street, Sandy Bay, Hobart, Tasmania 7005 2 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, G.P.O. Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 Abstract. This paper reviews information on the fauna of Mt.