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 Thurstans, Mchael Todd, Fonnal identification of oqective(s) ...... 26 6. Review and rank the projects ...... 8 Todd Walsh, Matthew Webb.Jason Wiersma and Belinda EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protecoon axf Prioritisation of other related oqectives ...... 26 Yaxley. Biod~rsity Consern:itioo Ac.t 1999 7. Identify resource constraints ...... 8 Addendum ...... 26 The project was run try Clare l-lawlcins. Dydee Mam and FPA Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority 8. Calculate cost sharing. sensitivity analyses, References • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Richard Schahinger: choose set of prtjects ...... 9 FPS Tasmanian Forest Practices System 9. Regular iterations and iill rebuild every 5 yrs ... I0 Appendix ...... 18 The invaluable coDaboration of Richard Maloney and Jodie NRM In this report any or aDofTasmania 's three Davis of the New Zealand Government's Department Results ...... I I List 2 - Data deficient species ...... 28 regional Natural Resource Management of Conservation, and of Liana Joseph ofthe University List 3 - Excluded Critically Endangered agencies (Cradle Coast North and South) Table I.Threatened species considered of Queensland, together with their coHeagues is also during the PPP process ...... I I Endangered & Vuheral:fo species (outside gratefuDy ac knO'Nledged, in providing the Threatened PPP Project Prioritisation Protocol, explained in Tasmanian remit) ...... 30 Species Section with their Project Prioritisation Protocol List I: Prioritised threatened fauna and detail in the Methods section List 4 - Excluded Critically Endangered methods. and in training and supporting our use and flora projects ...... 12 Endangered & Vuheral:fo species (other development ofthese for Tasmania's threatened species. Success A percentage estimate ofthe likelihood of Figure I. Project Benefit. Success and specified reasons) ...... 32 success of a project Cost: relationship with rark...... 19 Funding b-the v.ork described this report was n List 5 - Currently short term secure species ...... 34 provided by the Tasmanian NRMs (Prioritisation of TSP Act Tasmanian T#Yeatened Spe:ies Protectiai Act Table 2 BreakOO'Ml of projects across Threatened Rora and Fauna Recovery Actions for 1995 NRM regions ...... 20 the Tasmanian NRM Regions - Contract l\b. FF209) Project prescrptions br all species in List I are supplia:l in UQ University of Queensland Disa,ssion ...... 21 and try the Australian Government Department of a separate document. Environment. Water. Heritage & the Arts (Recovery Plan UTas University ofTasmania Implementation in Tasmania 2009).

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 20/ 0

IV Contract requirement Context Win1le (2008) reviewed biodil.€rsity investment How PPP works prioritisation too Is in terms of their appropriateness in Conservation efforts br ttreatened fbra and fauna in A consistent Statewide approach for both flora and resolving N RM prioritisation issues. This review made it The PPP focuses on the cost efficiency cl projects Tasmania have to date focused primarily on species fauna prioritisation will enable considerable efficiencies in clear that there remains room for improvement with all in achieving a defined objective. Where minimising listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection condu::ting recovery projects and also identify Statewide methods, and 1hat different tools are of use br different ttreatened species extinctions is the objective, the and cross regional priorities for future action. This will be a and Biodiversity C.Onservooon k:.t 1999,with Lnding by parts ofthe process.The Project Prioritisation Protocol approach identlies a project for each species which the Australian Government for the preparation and valuable broad scale tool for Statewide and cross regional (PPP; Joseph et al. 2009) prioritises actions within an is tailored to achiel.€ a target level of recovery. and implementation of single and multi species Recovery Plans. planning, with all organisations coordinating to undertake available budget and is the only such method identified prioritises these i:rojects, on the basis cl Benefit, likelihood The three Tasmanian NRM regions had a responsibility recovery actions being able to compare and contrast of Success (feasibility) and Cost byWintle (2008) which did not use arbitrarily scaled for implementation cl Recovery Plans under the NHT2 priorities for threatened species recovery actions. indices (ie a scoring system) and explicitly took into Project efficiency = Benefit x Success Tasmcllian Bilateral Agreement. No such requirements Type of method required account project Cost and likelihood of Success. Since it Cost are presently stiJX.Jla1ed, but it is expected that ongoing depends on only three factors (project Benefit likelihood irllleStment in the implementation cl recovery plan Consistent.The NRMs required a consistent approach of Success and Cost), focussing only on a single objective For threa1ened species recovery. Benefit of the project actions will contriue at some level 1hrough the NRM across the Regions in prioritising 1hreatened species by which to gauge Benefit. it is easy to understand and to the species is calOJlated as the difference between regions, Local, State, the Australian Go.iemment and o1her recovery actions. Furthermore, it was important that provides o:,nsistency. So::>ring systems addressing multiple 1he probability of 1he species being secure with and organisations. the me1hod treated all threatened species consistently. objectives in a single prioritisation exercise can be subject without 1he project (de1ails in PPP S1ep 5).The Benefit Recovery plans for different species may have quite may thus be considered as a measure of urgency ofthe Budgetary constraints mean that that the recovery actions to a lack oftransparency. where projects with very high different oqectives, with some simply aiming to ensure project. While it may initially appear that urgency should required for the 680 listed species listed as threatened social importance but very low likelihood of success could that the species does not become further threatened, be the only gliding factor; on a limited budget not all under 1he Tasmanian Ttreatened Spedes Prot.ecoon Act score more highly than projects with, say.high urgency while others aim to secure several populations across species can be recovered at once. If some of the most /995 cannot all be funded simultaneously. For the same and likefihood of success.The PPP approach also has the Australia.The reasons for these difi!rences are varied, urgent species are the most costly. by the time they reason, a large number of 1hreatened species still lack advantage of identifying recovery actions for all species making prioritisation of the rerommended actions difftelJIL have been recovered other species may be extinct. It is reco\€ry plans and many recovery plans are out of under consideration as part of the process tailored to a Consistency also depends on the me1hod being objective important to rerognise that most threa1ened species date. Some form of prioritisa1ion cl recovery actions is consistent prioritisation objective.The approach allows the and repeatable. are not on a steady. predictable trajectory of decline; it is required, as was recommended in the Ttreorened Spedes assessment of a large number of species over a relatively short period of1ime. more accurate to express their situa1ion in terms of the Strotegy for Tasmania (Parks & Wildlife Service, 2000). Transparent It is also particularly important that th~ likelihood of extinction within a stated period of }ears. Apart from a priority list of recovery actions prepared prioritisation process is transparent.The prioritisation of The New Zealand government's Department of Out of 20 species with a 5% risk of going extinct within in 2007 for 1hrea1ened flora in the Cradle Coast NRM threatened species recovery actions can be a contentio~s Conservation (OOq has been applying the PPP to its SO years, an average of one can be expected to go extinct Re~on (Schahinger 2007), there has been no regional subject there are a wide range of views about which threatened species objectives for 1he past four years, in this time frame. Thus prioritisation of a few, expensive, prioritisation of Recovery Plans to guide the NRM regions species are most important for many species there is starting with the objective of minimising threa1ened highly urgent species may be accompanied by the loss cl in planning their recovery actions. For this reason, the much uncertainty surrounding their needs, and, under species extinctions.A rollaboration was formed between other; less expensil.€, equally urgent species.Additionally. three NRMs o:,ntracted the Threatened Species Section a limited budget the risk cl extinction 'MII always exisL DAPWE and the del.€1opers of the PPP from OOC some projects cannot be guaranteed to be successful; 1he to prepare a priority list ofthreatened species recovery Transparency will help ensure that decisions are clearly and the University of Queensland (UQ), to guide the me1hod prioritises investment in tre projects most likely actions, with documented details including locations.The justified and that the priority list is used appropriately. Threa1ened Species Section in applying this approach to to recover species. outcomes of the project are relevant to all organisations Tasmania's threatened species. Up-to-date. Any opportunity to identify recovery involl.€d in the roordination cl threa1ened species Likelihood of 'Success' is considered at various levels actions that are currently appropriate during the recovery actions in Tasmania relating to each action within a i:roject and incorporates prioritisation process would be of significant advantage. expressions of confidence of the estimates. Details on A large number of threatened species still lack reco\€ry how these estimates are made are provided below. plans and many recovery plans are out of date.

June 2010 Threatened Species P6oritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 20/ 0

2 3 I. Define objective it was recognised that the project plans, and therefore 2. List biodiversity assets the prioritisation, woukl remain stable over a 5-10 year PPP steps Several objectives addressing Tasmanian threatened period, after which the work woukl require review. For the purposes of minimising extinctions, the relevant species recovery are currently being met t,,, a range of biodiversity assets were Tasmania's fbra and fauna taxa. The PPP process in Tasmania was carried out ongoing projects ( eg recovery of iconic species and the The TSP Act and the National Strategy for the Due to time constraints, only the more threatened species through the follo.ving steps: reduction of broad scale threats).The Threcxened Species Conservation ofAustralia's Biological Diversity (ANZECC were assessed: projects to secure these species are I. Define objective Strotegy for Tasmania (Parks & Wildlife 2000) recommends 1996) emphasise the need to conserve species in situ and likely to be of higher Benefit than projects to secure less prioritising on the basis ofthe degree of immediate in the wild, and the Commonwealth Environment Protection threatened species.This included all species listed on the 2. List biodiversity assets threat and a number of other criteria induding endemism. and Biodiversity- Conservooon Act / 999 (EPBC Act) e>BC Act or TSP Act as Critically Endangered, Endangered keystone role and cultural significance. However. it is considers species translocated outside their natural range orVunerable. 3. Design management projects ineffective and confusing to prioritise projects on how as Extinct in the Wikl, and so the objective recognises this Wide ranging species which did not have an exclusively 4. Estimate Cost and Success of each project they meet so me combination of objectives, as the relative distinction. importance of each objective to funders can change Tasmania based population were excluded from the Objective: Wrthin SO years, to secure in the wild exercise since they could not be secured purely by 5. Estimate Benefit of each project amually. Prioritisation is most effective and transparent in Tasmania the greatest number of lasmanian projects. Macquarie Island species were also 6. Review and rank the projects when addressing a single objective that is target based. threatened taxa as possible. excluded as they were very unlikely to be funded by specific and with dear definitions of terms. the Tasmania based agencies fo r which this project was Target: A taxon is defined as secure when its NI objective towards the minimisation of number prepared. Lower order plants ( 14) were exduded due numbers and distribution are stable or FolCMI up steps would likely comprise: of extinctions was favoured, since this responds to to a lack of expert availability. though it is anticipated that increasing, and are sufficient that there is the requirement of the Tasmanian Threatened Spedes these will be considered in the project's 5 year review. 7. Identify resource constraints a 95% probability that it will survive the Protectia1 k.t 1995 (fSP Act) for a strategy to ensure the stochastic events anticipated 01.er a SO Listed taxa were not distinguished on the basis of 8. Calculate cost sharing, sensitivity analyses, survival ofthreatened species. The wording of oqectives year timerrame, given that al known and whether they were a species or a subspecies. There is choose set d prtjects used t,,, DOC for prioritisation towards minimisation predicted threats are adequately mitigated. a strong argument that it is more important 1D secure of number of extinctions was revie.ved for use by the a species than a subspecies. but also a genus might be 9. Regular iterations and full rebuild every 5 yrs Threatened Species Section. Given the limited period more important than a species.The degree of difference of time available to the Threatened Species Section, it between subspecies may also vary between different was helpful to take advantage ofthe substantial v,,ork groups. This is a complex issue for which there is no carried out by DOC to develop these objectives. DOC simple answer. so fo r this prioritisation exercise each identified two objecti1.es towards minimising species legally listed entity was considered separately. extinctions. whereby species were secured for SO and 300 years respectively. Fo r this exercise, a SO period was selected, whereby projects represent the minimum effort required to secure each species.These projects are not sufficient to secure all populations or genetic diversity of their target species. The securing of extra species was viewed as a higher priority than the securing of extra populations of an aready secure species.A SO year period was also selected for the maximum length for a project, being considered the longest period 01.er which experts could envisage a realistic project plan.At the same time,

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 4 5 3. Design management projects 4. Estimate Cost and Success of of staff for a few days each year. and in costing this, it 5. Estimate Benefit of each project each project was assumed that this employment would be shared Experts were asked to design an appropriate prtject to with other projects - the expense of hiring a member For threatened species recovery. Benefit of the project to secure each species o-.er 50 years with a protebility of at For each recommended action, cost and likelihood of staff purely for the single action was not covered. Car the species (n) is calculated by taking B" {the estimated least 95%. Projects had to include outcome monitoring of success were estimated, in dollars and percentage travel costs and project management were deemed probability of the species reaching the target le-.el of (for species security), to allow project auditing and probability respectively. by those with most experience to be dependent on the organisa1ion carrying out the security without any actions) away from the target 95% learning from any lack of success. Experts were required in that action.These were not necessarily the species project.We strongly recommend output monitoring probability that the prescribed project w:>uld achieve, ie: to specify location, intensity and duration of an action experts.With the aid of the database, it was possible to (monitoring to ensure that each action is effective, eg that Project Benefit= 95 - B" most likely to secure the species. locations were typically ensure that cost and success estimates of similar actions a rabbit proof fence really does exclude rabbits), so that areas where the populations considered easiest to secure were consistent across species unless there was a key any unsuccessful prtject can be properly re designed. Since knowledge of many threatened species is not were found. If that action was insufficient to secure the difference (for example relating to the location or precise Howe-.er. we acknowledge that fimds will not aMtays sufficient to estimate parameters for population viability species v.rth 95% probability. additional actions were function of the action). All estimates were conservative be available to support this. Fully costed budgets would models, experts were asked to estimate security specified. W"lere possible, two to three independent to ensure that the project would be successful. Estimates provide greater accuracy fer species near the funding probabilities directly. were given at today's prices; inflation was not taken into experts were brought together in a workshop to allocation cut off fine, but obtaining these was beyond maximise coverage of irforrnation and consensus in account. the scope of the project. It is acr.;sable for funders to desi~ing a project to secure each species. An interviewer Success estimates divided into input success', 'output incorporate a contingency fund providing flexibility for the asked standardised questions, entemg answers including success' and 'outcome success', whereby experts in the above costs and for new information emerging once the location polygons onto a database developed by DOC. relevant methods were asked to estimate the likelihood projects have started. Consistency across species was maximised by the use of for each and indicate their confidence around this. Input only two regularly communicating inteNewers for the Actions that were already funded, or which were success relates to whether the proposed method for the whole process. W"lere opinions diverged. the interviewer specifically the legal obligation of an agency. were also not action can be done; output success relates to whether it worked through the justifications for each opinion with costed. will be carried out effectively; outcome success relates to the experts until consensus was reached, recording any how effectively it will help the species as intended. Although the above list of excluded costs suggests that di~rences of opinions that remained at the end of the final costs may be higher than the provided estimates, discussion. W"lere w:,rkshops were not possible, one to For each project costs of actions were summed and cost sharing (PPP Step 8) may reduce them. one interviews were conducted, but wherever available probabilities of success of actions were multiplied, to more than one expert was consulted. provide an overall estimate of project Cost and Success. Methods to manage potential inaccuracies in estimates are also discussed in PPP Step 8. As discussed in the section on the objective, projects were Excluded costs In general, costing was conservative required to secure species in the wild, v.rthin thei- natural to ensure that the project would be achie-.ed. However. range. If it was considered impossible to attain security three groups of costs were not estimated and will need in this way. experts designed a project where the species to be added as appropriate when appying for the funds: was secured in areas at as short a distance from its known output monitoring (unless deemed an essential part natural range as possible, recognising that there may be of carrying out the action); car travel (purchase, fuel limited information on precise boundaries to a species' and running costs, food and accommodation); project historical natural range, and that many ofthese projects management (all aspects of salaries, super etc. were will actually occur in areas where the species either has included, but not the costs of running an office, including existed or could be reasonably expected to exist. computers, software, administration, human resources). Many actions required the employment of a member

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 6 7 6. Review and rank the projects 7. Identify resource constraints 8. Calculate cost-sharing, sensitivity to understand that cost sharing may change the project analyses, choose set of projects rankings. The interviewers reviewed the data and, with the aid of The primary constraints on resource allocation are: the database, ensured that estimates relating to similar Cost sharing estimates can only be completed once the Quality of estimates affects the ranking, and thus which I. The total budget available for the management of actions were consistent across species. The database budget is known, so that it is dear how many projects projects are funded n any given year. In many cases, only threatened species; generated management presaiptions desaibing the can be funded and where the potential for cost sharing rough estimates can be provided by experts. though presaibed project for each species.A page is devoted 2. Separate organisational or funding objectives which lies. For greatest cost efficiency. this exercise should be these will be stfficient to give an approximate ranking. to each action within the project with estimates of cost need to be met as part of the resource albcation. carried out by a coordinating agency to ensure there is no Only after funds have been allocated to the fist will the and success and a map of its recommended location. overlap in funding. cut off be apparent n terms of the number of the highest Final versions of the projects were presented to the lead Once these are known, the highest priority projects ranking projects that can be funded.At this time, sensitivity It may seem initially appealng to share costs among all expert on each taxon for re1Aew. that can be funded within the budget and consistent analyses can be carried out to identify any projects with separate funding or organisational objectives are similar actions.regardless of whether the rest of each that are sufficiently cbse to this cut off that additional Projects were ranked on the basis of thei- Benefit. Success selected for full bng term funding. Fluctuations in amual project will be funded. Howe.1e.r. partial funding of a low information will affect whether they are funded or not.A and Cost as desaibed above (Methods: How PPP works). budgets or external funding opportunities may mean that ranking project is an inefficient use of funds to minimise review of the design and estimates ofthese projects will some projects are not properiy funded e.1e.ry year. but extinctions. By the time ful funding is available for the This report presents the fndings of the above six steps. thel be appropriate. the design of these can be reviewed light of this and project circumstances have changed and the project may Likely subsequent application is described in the steps n incorporated in a re run of the prioritisation exercise. take a very different form.Alternatively. the partial funding Once the projects to be funded are selected, agencies can below. Most projects ill\/Olve a large outlay in initial years, and may be nsufficient to prevent extinction of the species then be identified to carry them out DOC is currently at then a much smaller commitment over the bnger term. before full funding is available. this stage.These agencies should be consulted to confirm After this initial outlay, funds are likely to be available for estimates of project Cost and Success and to calculate the UQ and DOC have developed software to ensure the the next projects on the priority list previously excluded costs desaibed above. fair sharing of costs between projects. The way costs Some fundng and organisational objectives (including are sha-ed will depend on the action - for example, the \M'iere multiple funders are nvolved in applying the those of Caring for our Country [CFOC]) cannot be sharing of costs between t'M:l projects requiring different prioritisation list. it will be essential to ensure that addressed by the prioritisation exercise as they are areas (eg I ha versus 8 ha) offencing in the same place resource allocation to priority projects is well coordinated. multiple and change on each funding round.To mnimise will be different from the sharing of costs between projects This could be mediated through regular NRM workshops extnctions within this constraint it is recommended that, requiring someone to negotiate for the covenanting oftwo and by the Threatened Species Section recording funding for each fundng round, the highest ranking projects that different areas on the same property. Once cost sharing commitments and implementation of rec<>1ery actions on meet the CFOC objectives and align with the objectives has been calculated, the saved costs may allow the funding the database. of relevant programs are identified, and partnerships of a1 additional project. Thus orignally. there may twe developed to apply for full funding for each. been funds available for Projects I to 8, with money left over that was insufficient to cover Project 9. Mer sharing costs of actions within Projects I to 8, there may be sufficient funds to cover Project 9 as well

In the bng term, DOC aims to calculate cost sharing between projects across, as well as withn, objectives.

Because cost sharing depends on budget allocation, it cannot be calculated as part of this report but there may be opportunities to carry it out in future. It is important

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 8 9 9. Regular iterations and full rebuild Forty eight e>ed further below, and It is recommended that the prioritisation exercise is considered in the initial assessment for the process listed in the Appendix. repeated e.1ery 5 years, in light of project progress, new (Table I), comprisi~ those listed as Oitically Endangered, For each ofthe species on List I, project prescriptions infcrmation and changing threats.This process is li<.ely Endangered orVulnerable under at least one a the a-e provided in a separate document accompanying this to be quicker than the initial exercise, since e>

Table I.Threatened species considered dJring the PPP process

All species considered were listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vunerable under at least one of the TSP .Act and EPBC Act Species that were ranked under the PPP process a-e listed as "yes". Species considered to be already secure in the wild are listed as "No benefit". Species which cot.id not be secured in the wild within SO years are fisted as "< 95%".Where data were insufficient to make assessments and, therefore, species were not ranked, they were listed as "Data Deficient". Species that were excluded for other reasons a-e listed as"Excluded''. Further details ofthese categories are provided in the text and lists of the species in each category are prOl/ided in the .Appendix.

TSP Act terms: e ndangered; vulnerable; rare; net listed under the TSP Act.

EPBC Act terms: EXtinct in the wild (Pedder galaxias); CRitically endangered; ENdangered; VUinerabie; Marine Mi~atory; Not Listed under the EPBC Act

TSPk.t

No benefit 25 31 2 2 fjJ No benefit 10 9 36 60 < 95% 9 2 11 < 95% 2 4 5 II Data defcient 32 8 4 45 Data 7 6 32 45 Excluded 11 11 2 7 31 deficient Total 188 108 8 14 318 Excluded 8 18 5 31 Total 34 63 58 161 318

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 10 11 S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC N&S N&S N&S N&S NRM NRM CC&S Projects Projects ves and ves EPBCA 1999               1 8021 N             1 5518 N&S     0 2829  S                                     cost ($M) cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative or other object C N 1 7897 N NRM NRM endemic endemic Tas Tas Tas Tas end CC 0 5092 CC end S end CC endemic endemic Act Act v VU end v VU end S v v vC v v 1 0871 N e e eN eee EN CR end CR end end N eS e CR end S ee CR end ee ENe end S 1 1782 S 1 2187 N e CR end eEN e CR end S 0 7707 S e end CC e EN end e end CC 0 0525 CC e EN ende N 0 8272 N 1 0588 CC&N 9 e 5e   2 e EN end S 18 e CR end CC 17 e 15 e 12 e 11 e EN end CC 22 e EN end S  28 e CR end N 27 e CR end 29 v end N 21 v 5 89 20 e EN end CC 5 95 19 e         7 72 10 e EN end S       7 90 8 e S    5 19 25 e CR end N 0 7880 N 5 17        11 72   27 17 1 e end CC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC ($M) ($M)                                0 0828   0 0502 0 0228           0 0157                         0 0152                      0 90 0 0581                                                            0 90 1 00   1 00 Success Cost Success Cost 20 0 70 0 85   0 25 0 80 0 0295 0 05 0 90 0 15 0 81 0 20 0 85 0 100 05 0 81 0 85          0 55 0 15 0 81 0 15 0 0 55         0 10 0 90 0 0252 0 25 0 80 0 85 0 0771 8 82 7 e end CC 0 2091 CC                              0 55 0 70 0 0205 18 80     &IRI½X &IRI½X me fern IWWIV KY RIE¾S[IV anky buttons dwarf bushpea br st y waterpepper m d ands greenhood 0 90 spur ve e a arthur r greenhood ver 0 15 0 81 XL GOWXIQ JE V] ½RKIVW broad p b rd-orch d 0 90 Hydrob d Sna (V k ng Creek) Cave CrCave cket ferny panax ferny ve boron vet a VI¾I\IH IZIV EWX RKFYWL p nk z er a Hydrob d Sna (West Gaw er) a p ne cand es pungent eek-orch d 0 85 south esk heath prem nghana b ybuttons 0 25 bordered heath purp e cora pea 0 80 swamp eyebr ght 0 80 b ackhood sun-orch d 0 85 morr gum sbys heath dustym 0 25 er 0 75 0 15 grass and cand es 0 20 0 81 VSFYWX ½RKIVW three hummock eek- orch d soft peppercress sk rted treefern 0 20 0 77 shy eyebrshy ght Hydrob d Sna (B yth R ver) go fers eek-orch d 0 10 0 90 sma forkfern 0 25 0 50 tunbr dge eek-orch d FEWE X KY RIE¾S[IV         Hydrob d Sna (Farnhams Creek) pen nsu a eyebr ght 0 25 0 85 0 0088 m d ands buttercup 0 25 0 81 Bornem ssza s Stag Beet e sma raspfern 0 15 0 80 skyb ue sun-orch d 0 10 Common name Common name marsh eek-orch d 0 70 0 90 Vanderschoor s Stag Beet e ye rush ow y 0 15 0 77 0 0211 . 8]TI  Type 1Type pen nsu a eyebr ght 0 25 0 51 sambucifolia

is limbata Pultenaea humilis Persicaria subsessilis Pterostylis commutata :IPPIME TEVEHS\E Pterostylis rubenachii Caladenia campbellii Chiloglottis trapeziformis Beddomeia hermansi aff Polyscias Micropathus kiernani (Doug as-Den son) Boronia hippopala 3^SXLEQRYW VI¾I\MJSPMYW Zieria veronicea subsp veronicea Hibbertia calycina Beddomeia averni Stackhousia pulvinaris Prasophyllum olidum Prasophyllum )TEGVMW I\WIVXE Craspedia preminghana Craspedia Euphrasia semipicta Euphrasia Epacr Hardenbergia violacea Euphrasia gibbsiae subsp . gibbsiae Euphrasia psilantherea Pneumatopteris pennigera Leptorhynchos elongatus Thelymitra atronitida Thelymitra Eucalyptus morrisbyi Spyridium eriocephalum var eriocephalum Stackhousia subterranea Caladenia tonellii atratum Prasophyllum Lepidium hyssopifolium Cyathea Xmarcescens Cyathea Euphrasia fragosa Euphrasia Beddomeia petterdi Prasophyllum incorrectumPrasophyllum Tmesipteris parva Prasophyllum tunbridgensePrasophyllum Hibbertia basaltica Beddomeia fultoni Euphrasia semipicta Euphrasia Ranunculus prasinus Hoplogonus bornemisszai Doodia caudata Thelymitra jonesii Thelymitra Species Species Prasophyllum limnetes Prasophyllum Hoplogonus vanderschoori Tricoryne elatior 0MWX  4VMSVMXMWIH XLVIEXIRIH JEYRE ERH ¾SVE TVSNIGXW Rank nd cates the order n wh ch projects shou d be n t ated n order to m n m se ext nct ons Other threatened spec be of great va es projects may ue f shou d not be sregarded on the bas s of be ng absent or pr ow or ty on thIWX s QEXIW I\G st Est YHI mates are based on expert op TVSNIGX n QEREKIQIRX on usTabe 1terms Project are as for ng current ava GEV ocat on ab XVEZI s e nd nformat cost The 50-year cated under NRM Projects on ERH Crad e Coast (CC) WSQI North (N) and South (S) SYXTYX QSR XSV RK ERH GSWXWLEV RK GE GY EX SRW EW I\T E RIH R XLI 1IXLSHW 444 7XITW   874 ERH

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 12  S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N CC CC CC CC CC CC N&S N&S N&S N&S N&S NRM NRM CC&S CC&S CC&N CC&N Projects Projects CC N&S CC N&S   2 8807 S                                                                                                   cost ($M) cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative N N N N CC NRM NRM endemic endemic Tas Tas Tas end end CC end CC endemic endemic Act Act v VU end v v v VU end S v v EN end v v v v N 2 5125 N vS v VU Tas N v end N vS e e EN end S e EN end ee CR EN end end eS e VU end N e e S 2 2810 S eN e CC 1 8722 CC  70 e CR end S   71 e EN end        90 e 88 e EN end 58 e EN end 57 e EN end 87 v 55 e 85 e 8182 e e 51 v 78 e 77 e 2 9789 CC  1 751 71 75 e 1 82 72 e EN Tas CC 1 95 1 89 1 071 07 97 98 e e VU CR end S   0 99 101 e CR end S 0 98 102 r VU end S 1 01 100 v VU end 1 01 99 e EN end S 2 05 1 17 92 v VU end 2 08 2 11    2 15 59 e EN      2 59 52 e CR end N 2 1108 N      1 52 1 58 79 e EN end S 2 98 50 v S B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC ($M) ($M)                     0 0298 1 09 0 0172 2 01 0 0298 1 09 95 e      0 0985  0 92           0 0897 1 18 91 v 0 1590 1 27 89 e              0 1055 0 0521 0 0111 1 57 80 v VU end S                                                                                                                                          Success Cost Success Cost 0 10 0 59 0 10 0 59 0 15 0 50 0 05 0 72 0 0197 0 20 0 05 0 05 0 85 0 25 0 55 0 05 0 85 0 05 0 90 0 0219 2 05       0 25 0 05 0 90 0 0211 0 75 0 80          0 10 0 70     0 20 0 20 &IRI½X &IRI½X ng p ne esser joyweed dwarf wedgepea 0 15 cut eaf da sy tasman an sea- avender 0 10 0 81 ma denha r sp eenwort 0 05 aps ey heath southport heath pedder br st ewort 0 20 ¾IWL] KVIIRLSSH tasman an smokebush 0 05 0 77 tufted knawe chestnut chestnut eek-orch d 0 25 scramb ng groundfern 0 10 0 90 ye eyebr ow ght sagg sp der-orch d 0 70 0 25 dwarf sunray sma - eaf dustym er 0 05 sh c ny ff-eyebr ght 0 05 creep ng dustym er 0 10 grass cush on m ena c der gum tasman an bertya 0 10 smooth heath r heathmyrt bbed e 0 05 0 81 droop L ve-bear ng Seastar po son obe a 0 10 0 59 soft bushpea 0 05 0 90 0 0215 2 09 bare m dge-orch d 0 10 Catadromus CarabCatadromus d Beet e mt arthur boron ab ue dev 0 15 b otched sun-orch dnorthcoast eyebr ght 0 55 0 15 grass and paperda sy 0 15 b ue wa abygrass 0 10 ta heath 0 05 0 85 0 0197 c ubmoss bushpea 0 10 0 59 Hydrob d Sna (B zzards Creek) ben omond cush onp ant 0 05 0 90 0 0187 mauvetuft sun-orchmauvetuft d 0 10 0 59 austra an gypsywort 0 10 HEZ IW [E\¾S[IV go den spray Stan ey Sna S mson s Stag Beet e forest bforest ndweed sma tongue-orch dsandstone bushpea 0 10 0 10 Southern Ha ry Red Sna 0 15 ha ry c ff-eyebr ght 0 05 masked cmasked ff-eyebr ght 0 15 st nk ng pennywort 0 20 0 81 coast new-ho and-da sy 0 25 sp ky anchorp ant 0 20 Common name Common name r m ver nt 0 05 0 72 var . iana subsp . subsp . a subsp . . tricolor var . Gompholobium ecostatum Brachyscome rigidulaBrachyscome Limonium baudinii Asplenium hookerianum Epacris apsleyensis Epacris stuartii Centrolepis pedderensis Pterostylis wapstrarum Conospermum hookeri Scleranthus diander Scleranthus Prasophyllum castaneum Prasophyllum Hypolepis distans Euphrasia scabra Euphrasia Caladenia saggicola Triptilodiscus pygmaeus Triptilodiscus Spyridium lawrencei Euphrasia amphisysepala Euphrasia Spyridium obcordatum Isoetopsis graminifolia Eucalyptus gunnii divaricata Bertya tasmanica tasmanica Epacris glabella Thryptomene micrantha Pherosphaera hooker Pherosphaera Parvulastra vivipar Lobelia pratioides Pultenaea mollis Corunastylis nudiscapa Catadromus lacordairei Boronia hemichiton Eryngium ovinum Thelymitra benthamiana Thelymitra collina Euphrasia tetragona Leucochrysum albicans albicans subsp . Austrodanthonia popinensis Epacris grandis Stonesiella selaginoides Beddomeia wiseae Chionohebe ciliolata Thelymitra malvina Thelymitra Lycopus australis Phebalium daviesii Viminaria juncea Miselaoma weldi Hoplogonus simsoni Calystegia marginataCalystegia Alternanthera denticulata Cryptostylis leptochila 1MVFIPME S\]PSFMSMHIW Austrochloritis victoriae Euphrasia phragmostoma Euphrasia . 'fabula' sp . Euphrasia ,]HVSGSX]PI PE\M¾SVE oricola Discaria pubescens Species Species Vittadinia australasica Vittadinia australasica Mentha australis

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010  15 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N CC CC CC CC CC N&S N&S N&S NRM NRM CC&N CC&N CC&N Projects Projects CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S                                                                                             cost ($M) cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative NRM NRM endemic endemic Tas Tas Tas Tas endemic endemic VU Act Act r EN end S v EN end v VU bend v VU end S v v VU end N v VU end S v VU end S v EN end N v v EN end v VU end S 11 2190 S e CR end S e ee end end S CC 9 0155 S e end CC 8 7170 CC e EN end e e e e EN end e EN end e EN end e EN end S e e CR end e 155 v VU end S 151 e EN end S 152 e CR end N 150 e EN end  128 e N 129 v end CC 127 e end CC 125 e EN end  120121 e e EN CR end end N S  122 v VU end 8 5855 N&S 118119 e v VU end CC N  117 v end S   115 v end N   112 v 111 v VU 5 2709 N&S  105 e N 0 05 157 v VU end           0 17 0 19 0 22   0 25       0 28      0 82 107 e EN end S 0 85 B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC 7158 0 15 ($M) ($M)                            0 2910                0 7278         0                0 0502      0 0785 0 0817        0 1117      0 0299 0 75 110 v VU end N      0 0229 0 80 108 e EN end S           0 01     0 08           0 07 0 58 0 80                               0 09                 Success Cost Success Cost   0 10 0 25         0 70   0 85 0 29 0 15 0 80 1 9590 0 80 0 28                     0 75 0 08 0 80 0 28 0 75 0 08 0 15 0 58 0 5820 0 15 0 85 0 50 0 25                 0 85 0 52 0 15 0 18            0 05 0 05 0 05 &IRI½X &IRI½X ng E]½WL sopod (Great Lake) 0 25 0 55 0 2985 k ngs omat a shy pshy nkbe s Shy AShy batross Hydrob d Sna (Kedd es Creek) Marrawah Sk pper Swan Ga ax as 0 85 Great Lake ParagaGreat Lake ax as 0 25 0 55 Swamp Ga ax as Arthurs Paraga ax as G ant Freshwater 'VE]½WL Centra North Burrow ng 'VE]½WL south esk p ne 0 15 0 80 mounta n poranthera 0 05 0 25 0 1097 0 11 L tt e Tern br st y rockfern Hydrob d Sna (Tabe Cape) Fa ry Tern Hydrob d Sna (Buttons R vu et) Scottsda e Burrow 'V Mt Arthur Burrow ng 'VE]½WL m ford eek-orch d 0 70 0 11 Sadd ed Ga ax as sand grasstree 0 10 b ack br st esedge &YVVS[ RK 'VE]½WL (Burn e) Shannon Paraga ax as 0 15 0 55 4XYREVVE &VS[R &YXXIV¾]   Wedge-ta ed Eag e Chaosto a Sk pper 0 25 Sa S t Lake ater 0 25 0 17 Sna (Cataract Gorge) 0 05 sh grasstree ny 0 05 Go den Ga ax as bearded m dge-orch d 0 20 0 15 crowded crowded eek-orch d 0 05 northern eek-orch d 0 15 Eastern Barred Band coot (Tasmana) Port Davey SkatePort Davey 0 25 0 19 tasman an pear wort 0 25 Chevron Looper Moth 0 20 1 00 0 2887 TVIXX] TIEV ¾S[IV c g over yc ne 0 05 r boron ver a 0 05 t waterm ny fo b ackt p sp der-orch d Mt Mangana Stag Beet e 0 15 0 80 0 1528 0 79 109 v end 5 1917 S JVI]G RIX [E\¾S[IV bearded heath 0 05 pretty heath 0 10 0 19 Common name Common name SVERKIX T ½RKIVW [L XI ½RKIVW Lomatia tasmanica Tetratheca gunnii Tetratheca Thalassarche cauta Beddomeia phasianella Oreisplanus munionga larana +EPE\MEW JSRXERYW 4EVEKEPE\MEW IPISXVSMHIW +EPE\MEW TEVZYW 4EVEKEPE\MEW QIWSXIW Astacopsis gouldi Engaeus granulatus Engaeus granulatus Callitris subsp . oblonga oblonga Oreoporanthera petalifera Oreoporanthera Sterna albifrons sinensis Cheilanthes distans Onchotelson spatulatus Beddomeia capensis Sterna nereis Beddomeia hallae Engaeus spinicaudatus Engaeus orramakunna Prasophyllum milfordense Prasophyllum +EPE\MEW XER]GITLEPYW Xanthorrhoea arenaria Chorizandra enodis Engaeus yabbimunna 4EVEKEPE\MEW HMWWMQMPMW 3VIM\IRMGE TXYREVVE %UYMPE EYHE\ ¾IE]M Antipodia chaostola Haloniscus searlei Pasmaditta jungermanniae Pasmaditta Xanthorrhoea bracteata +EPE\MEW EYVEXYW Corunastylis morrisii 4VEWSTL]PPYQ GVIFVM¾SVYQ Prasophyllum secutum Prasophyllum Perameles gunnii Perameles Zearaja maugeana Zearaja Sagina diemensis Amelora acontistica Amelora Cryptandra amara Glycine latrobeana Boronia gunnii Myriophyllum integrifolium Caladenia anthracina Lissotes menalcas Philotheca freyciana Epacris barbata Epacris virgata &IEGSRW½IPH Species Species Caladenia aurantiaca Caladenia prolata

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010  17 S S S N N NRM CC&S Projects CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S CC N&S                           cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative NRM endemic

Tas Tas &IRI½X WLS[W RS XVIRH [MXL VERO 7YGGIWW XIRHW XS G )WXMQEXIW SJ TVSNIGX 'SWX MR VIPEXMSR XS VERO

endemic HIGVIEWI [MXL VERO ERH 'SWX MRGVIEWIW WMKRM½GERXP] JSV most of the lowest ranked projects (Figure 1a–c). The total estimated cost of all 171 prioritised projects across the 50 Act year period was approximately $155 million (Figure 1e). vVU vMM vVU e VU end S e EN end 112 9087 CC N&S e e end N e EX end S e EN end e EN end

*MKYVI  4VSNIGX &IRI½X 7YGGIWW ERH 'SWX VIPEXMSRWLMT [MXL rank        159 e EN end S E )WXMQEXIW SJ TVSNIGX &IRI½X MR VIPEXMSR XS VERO [MXL regression line 00 171 r VU 0 0 00 170 v VU 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 01 0 02 0 05 158 e CR end S    B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC H )WXMQEXIW SJ 4VSNIGX )J½GMIRG] MR VIPEXMSR XS VERO  ($M)                         0 19 0 10 0 07 0 29        Success Cost             0 85 0 50       &IRI½X

F )WXMQEXIW SJ TVSNIGX 7YGGIWW MR VIPEXMSR XS VERO [MXL regression line I 'YQYPEXMZI GSWX 1 SJ TVSNIGXW myrt e orch bow d 0 90 0 02 Spotted-ta ed Quo 0 25 0 09 Dwarf Ga ax as Austra an Gray ng 0 10 0 21 Pedra Branca SkPedra nk Tasmanan Dev New Ho and Mouse Wh te-be ed Sea-Eag e Hydrob d Sna (Cataract Gorge) Pedder GaPedder ax as 0 10 0 21 7TSXXIH ,ERH½WL   Common name Green and Go den Frog 0 20 tapered eek-orch d 0 10 0 09 0 2550 C arence Ga ax as 0 10 0 52 Thynninorchis nothofagicola Dasyurus maculatus maculatus +EPE\MIPPE TYWMPPE Prototroctes maraena Niveoscincus palfreymani Sarcophilus harrisii Pseudomys novaehollandiae Haliaeetus leucogaster Beddomeia launcestonensis +EPE\MEW TIHHIVIRWMW Brachionichthys hirsutusBrachionichthys Species Litoria raniformis 4VEWSTL]PPYQ ETS\]GLMPYQ +EPE\MEW NSLRWXSRM

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 18 19 -HIRXM½GEXMSR SJ XLI EGXMSRW QSWX GSQQSRP] The projects are broken down in Table 2 according to Forty two species considered for assessment which were The role of captive breeding and translocation was recommended was limited by the choice of action their location in NRM regions, from the information RSX HEXE HI½GMIRX [IVI I\GPYHIH JVSQ XLI TVMSVMXMWEXMSR VIZMI[IH [MXL VIKEVH XS XLI 0MWX  WTIGMIW 2IEV XLI headings in the database used, since these headings presented in List 1. One hundred and twenty seven process since they could not be secured purely by end of the exercise, it was agreed that these actions, if were designed for New Zealand. However, a cursory TVSNIGXW EVI PSGEXIH MR E WMRKPI VIKMSR [LMPI  EVI WLEVIH 8EWQERMER FEWIH TVSNIGXW -R XLI GEWI SJ XLI  WTIGMIW SR appropriate, would be incorporated into a project if there analysis indicates that more than 10 projects selected across regions. 0MWX  %TTIRHM\  XLMW [EW IMXLIV FIGEYWI XLI] EVI LMKLP] was no alternative way to attain 95% security for the each of the following actions as part of the management mobile species, with no discrete population depending WTIGMIW *SV WSQI 0MWX  WTIGMIW LS[IZIV XVERWPSGEXMSR required to secure a species: covenants, ecological burns, (eg breeding) on Tasmania, or because they live on and captive breeding were not considered while their translocations, public education, negotiation with councils, Table 2. Breakdown of projects across NRM regions Macquarie Island which is very unlikely to receive funding project was being designed. A review may identify that in landowners and forestry agencies and weed control. The by the agencies for which this project was prepared. The some cases these actions are appropriate. ETTPMGEXMSR SJ XLMW ½RHMRK MW I\TPSVIH MR XLI (MWGYWWMSR ERH NRM projects Total EHHMXMSREP  WTIGMIW SR 0MWX  %TTIRHM\ [IVI I\GPYHIH 8LI WTIGMIW SR 0MWX  [IVI HMWGYWWIH MR WSQI HIXEMP in Potential Misuses of the Priority List. Cradle Coast  FIGEYWI RS TVSNIGX GSYPH FI MHIRXM½IH XLEX [SYPH FVMRK before it was concluded that they could not be secured North  the species to 95% likelihood of security within 50 years, Many projects required some initial research or a feasibility through Tasmania based projects. In some cases, a project South 58 for a variety of other reasons detailed in the list. These study in order to direct the actions more precisely. In was developed, but none met the target. Cradle Coast & North  reasons related to the constraints of the project needing this case, costs of actions were especially likely to be Cradle Coast & South to be Tasmania based and within a 50 year timeframe, 8LI  WTIGMIW EPVIEH] HIIQIH XS FI WIGYVI SZIV XLI overestimated, and success underestimated, in order to  and included factors that could not be controlled, such as short term are presented in List 5 (Appendix). No ensure that the overall project had a 95% probability North & South  MRGVIEWIH VMWOW JVSQ [MPH½VI SV HVSYKLX HYI XS GPMQEXI projects were designed for these species, since they of securing the species. As perhaps the most extreme All regions 18 change. For example, orange bellied and swift parrots [SYPH FI SJ ^IVS &IRI½X JSV WLSVX XIVQ WIGYVMX] )\TIVXW example, actions to secure the Tasmanian devil in the wild Grand Total 171 spend part of their year on mainland Australia where MHIRXM½IH WSQI SJ XLIWI WTIGMIW EW VIUYMVMRK E VIZMI[ SJ included the establishment of a number of fences across WMKRM½GERX XLVIEXW EPWS I\MWX 2S TVSNIGX ETTVSTVMEXI their conservation status. However, others were viewed large tracts of land. These would need to cross rivers JSV JYRHMRK MR 8EWQERMER EPSRI GSYPH FI MHIRXM½IH XLEX XS FI WIGYVI WTIGM½GEPP] FIGEYWI SJ XLI WTIGMEP TVSXIGXMSR and roads, and extend onto the coast line, so that devils One hundred and forty two species considered would reliably mitigate these threats. The extremely low afforded them by their threatened status, or were viewed were entirely blocked from bringing disease into fenced for assessment were ultimately excluded from the RYQFIVW ERH GSR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR SJ WSQI WTIGMIW EPWS to be at risk over the longer term. off areas. Extensive negotiation with landowners would prioritisation process (Table 1). These species are listed contributed to the conclusion that no project could thus be necessary prior to deciding the position of the MR XLI %TTIRHM\ -R XLI GEWI SJ  ³HEXE HI½GMIRX´ WTIGMIW secure them within the required period. In some cases, fences, without which the number of expensive items, 0MWX  %TTIRHM\  I\TIVXW HMH RSX JIIP GSR½HIRX XLEX lack of information was also cited as an issue, although such as river crossings required, can only be approximately they currently knew enough about a species’ needs to those species for which this was the key issue were placed guessed. design a project to secure it, even if that project might in List 2. include some initial research. Most of these species have only been found very rarely, so that they have been listed as threatened without any further information being obtained.

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 20 21 Species' positions on List I were determined by a wide The majority of projects are located in a single NRM The 171 project prescriptions provide up to date key Thirty one species were excluded because they could not range of factors, and there were few patterns. However. region.The high number of projects exclusive to NRM information for listing statements and recovery plans for be secured through solely Tasmania based projects (List 3). many high ranking species are at risk from a single threat. South reflects the high levels of endemicity in the region, species which in many cases lack any of these documents, An additional two species on List 4 (the swift and orange such as habitat modification, and occupy small areas which especially in the central east coast (dolerite and granite and also to feed into the development of a system to bellied parrots) were excluded for the same reason.These are easiest to protect.They tend to be less well known, endemic flora) (Reid et al. 1999).The shared projects will monitor threatened species. The 2009 Auditor General's thirty three species can only be secured if efforts are which may be why these easy to secure species have not require the partner organisations to collaborate closely in Special Report on the Management ofthreatened species managed at a national, or in some cases, international level. already been recovered. Some of the fauna lowest on order to ensure that the whole project is achieved. (Tasmanian Audit Office 2009) made the specific Other species on List 4 appeared to be suffering threats the list are wide ranging and thereby encounter several recommendation that more listing statements and It is important to recognise that this exercise does not to which experts could not design a solution. In some different threats. recovery plans are prepared, and that a threatened species indicate that the lower ranking species should never cases it may be appropriate to include these species monitoring system is implemented (Recommendations The estimated cost of securing all 171 threatened species receive funding.The list only indicates an order for funding. for consideration under the 'data deficient' objective 3, 4 and 14).The exercise has thus made significant steps on List I was approximately $155 million over a 50 year Furthermore, the security of these species may rank highly described above. in addressing these recommendations, in four months of period (notwithstanding some excluded and shared for a separate objective. work, at the cost of less than two standard recovery plans. costs and cost sharing calculations [Methods: PPP Steps The list of the commonest actions may initially seem a 4 & 8) and inaccuracies of estimates [Results)).Where The bringing together of experts on each species useful way to direct broad scale landscape management. sufficient funds are not available to carry out all projects provided many other advantages, including improved However. it is important to examine the way common simultaneously. extinction risk can only be minimised and consensus on recovery actions for species which lacked actions vary across projects. Some actions may be not eliminated. However. many species are surprisingly recovery teams. Additionally, species requiring review of contributing to low ranking projects which are unlikely to inexpensive to secure: the top 28 can be secured for less their threatened species status were identified. be funded in their present form. Others may be estimated than $ I million over a 50 year period, with only $180,000 to have a low likelihood of success. Most significantly, each Forty five ofTasmania's Critically Endangered, Endangered required in the first 5 years.The cost of securing the will be directed to a very specific location where the and Vulnerable species cannot be effectively secured as top ranking 165 species on List I (96%) over a 50 year experts identified the population with the best chance they are considered to be data deficient (List 2). DOC period is less than half the cost of securing the remaining of being secured.The same action elsewhere may not has similarly identified a suite of data deficient species as 6 lowest ranking species.To minimise extinction risk, it is contribute to securing the species.As described in the worthy of prioritisation under a separate objective - to most cost efficient to secure species in their priority order Methods (PPP Step 8), the search for these overlaps (ie acquire enough information on each species to enable the because of both their lower mean Cost and their higher cost sharing) can only effectively be carried out once design of a project to secure it. mean Success, while their mean project Benefit is similar. projects to be funded have been identified.

June 20 I 0 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 22 23 2010 2060 2110

Assumption that a fully funded project will fully recover a species

The recovery actions identified by this exercise only While the list represents an invaluable decision making secure threatened species for 50 years, and still allow the tool for prioritising threatened species recovery action loss of populations and of genetic diversity.They represent funding when used correctly. there are a number of ways a bare minimum for short term security of each species. in which it can be misused. Most have been indicated in If actions to secure species over a longer term period are various sections of the rest of the report, but in order to not funded now, it may subsequently become difficult or ensure the proper use of the priority list, they are more impossible to secure the species over the long term. fully explained in this section. Potential misuses include:

Grouping of common actions as Treatment of projects ranking low or priorities for multi-species recovery absent from List I as low priority for actions all conservation objectives

As explained above, separation of actions from their The list only prioritises projects on the basis of minimising projects, disregarding whether those projects will be fully threatened species extinctions over the short term. funded or not. will not minimise species extinctions under This objective represents only one area for biodiversity a limited budget. conservation investment, and investment solely in the priorities for this area may compromise other areas. Assumption that the priority list is Selection of single actions within There are additional reasons why it is less cost efficient Cost sharing among projects within and between lists exactly correct high-ranking projects as high priority to fund grouped actions without considering whether addressing different objectives may allow more projects to The priority order for projects is likely to change over for funding the projects to which they relate are being funded.The be funded. time for several reasons.The project efficiency values(= contribution of the action to securing a species, and The list prioritises whole projects on the basis of their Benefit x Success/Cost) driving the ranking are generally its likelihood of success, may be very variable between Significantly, the objective which formed the basis of the cost efficiency in meeting the target of securing a very close between species (Figure Id). Decisions projects. Furthermore, close examination of the grouped prioritisation exercise is still imperfectly worded and is threatened species.The actions suggested for each species regarding threatened species conservation are subject to actions is likely to reveal important differences in the way notTasmanian State Government policy, but essentially security project are the minimum set of actions required the many uncertainties relating to imperfect knowledge. they are to be realised for each project. It may be that expresses the aim of minimising Tasmanian species to secure the species. None of the actions is obsolete, New information may change values.The PPP method, unless the action is carried out for an adequate duration, extinctions in response to the requirement of the therefore if any of the actions are not funded the species while simple and transparent, is still being developed to or in the appropriate location, it will do nothing to secure Threatened Species Protection Act / 995 for a strategy to is unlikely to be secured. It is not cost efficient to invest ensure the most accurate expression of estimates. the species. ensure the survival of threatened species. in parts of projects which may not fully be realised: an The order may also change when currently excluded isolated action that reduces the threat to a low ranking As described in the Methods (PPP Step 8), the search DOC has identified other biodiversity conservation costs and cost sharing are incorporated (Methods: PPP species may not be sufficient to prevent its extinction. To for true overlaps in actions (ie cost sharing) can only objectives relating to short and long term security, Steps 4 & 8), which can only be done when it is known minimise extinctions, the cost of this investment should effectively be carried out once projects to be funded have conservation of ecosystem types and functions, and which projects will be funded. Sensitivity analyses can be be directed to an action which is part of a project that is been identified. community values.Tasmania is also currently addressing being entirely funded. these objectives, even if a PPP type prioritisation process carried out at this time to identify where more thorough has not been undertaken for each of them. Thus some confirmation of estimates would help decide whether a The list therefore does not provide guidance on the of the species projects ranking low for the objective of project falls above or below the funding cut off line. relative importance of individual actions within projects. minimising extinctions rank much more highly in terms Furthermore, in the experience of DOC, experts found it Nonetheless, List I may be treated as the clearest of community values or keystone role in maintaining difficult to estimate relative importance of actions. currently available guide to priorities for funding to ecosystems. minimise threatened species extinctions.

June 20 I 0 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 24 25 Regular review Addendum ANZECC ( 1996). National strategy for the conservation of Schahinger; R. (2007). Threatened Flora - Prioritisation Australia's biological diversity. Department of the of Recovery Actions: Cradle Coast NRM region. As indicated in the Methods (PPP Step 9), a review of New information has emerged on some species between Environment, Sport andTerritories. ISBN O 6422 Threatened Species Section, Department of the prioritisation is appropriate within the next 5 years the completion of the analyses and the production of the 4427 8. Primary Industries and Water; Hobart. (as resources permit), in light of progress and new final version of this report. information, incorporating all Tasmanian species. Joseph, L.N., Maloney. RF. & Possingham, H.P. (2008). Tasmanian Aud it Office (2009). Management of threatened A new survey has found Pardalotes quadragintus (Forty­ Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species. Report of the Auditor General: Special Formal identification of objective(s) spotted Pardalote) to be much less secure than previously species: a project prioritization protocol. Report No. 78. thought; a new project will be developed for this species The objective needs to be more formally agreed in light Conservation Biology 23:328- 338. over the coming months. Conversely. recent surveys for Wintle, BA (2008).A revie.v of biodiversity investment of the implementation of the 2009 priority list. A longer Limnodynastes peroni (Striped Marsh Frog) identified a Parks & Wildlife Service (2000) Threatened species strategy prioritization tools. A report to the Biodiversity term objective may be more appropriate, or could be substantial population on King Island, indicating that this for Tasmania. Department of Primary Industries, Expert Working Group toward the development considered in addition to the short term objective. species is more feasible to secure than was previously Water & Environment.Tasmania. of the Investment Framework for Environmental thought - again, a new project is required. In addition, the Resources. Work to agree on the objective should include a review Reid, J.B., Hill, RS., Brown, M.j., and Hovenden, M.j. high rainfalls of 2009 have led to the emergence of several of the target taxa. It may be argued that all species should (1999). Vegetation ofTasmania. Flora ofAustralia poorly known ephemeral flora species in the Midlands, be considered, rather than only those listed as threatened, Supplementary Series Number 8.Australian including Lobelia pratioides (poison lobelia), Myriophyllum since some species absent from the list are expected Biological Resources Study, Canberra. to be suitable for nomination soon. It is also important integrifolium (tiny watermilfoil) and Triptilodiscus pygmaeus to decide whether subspecies should be included for (dwarf sunray), as well as the 'data deficient' species review, or only species. Finally. if the Federal government Amphibromus macrorhinus Qongnose swampgrass) and participates in the approach, species which cannot be Schoenus latelaminatus (medusa bog sedge).The projects secured purely through Tasmania based projects can be for the first three species will need some modifications, included. while the latter two species will need to be re assessed.

Prioritisation of other related As discussed above, it is to be expected that the species objectives order on the priority list is dynamic, and may change as new information emerges. For this reason, it is Biodiversity conservation is likely to be most cost efficient recommended that those involved in funding decisions if prioritisation is carried out across all objectives, and regularly check with the Threatened Species Section for costs shared between projects across as well as within updates on any significant priority or project changes. these objectives. DOC has identified objectives relating to short and long term security, conservation of ecosystem types and functions, and community values.

June 20 I 0 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 26 27 List 2 - Data deficient species

Experts did not consider that there was sufficient TSP Act terms: endangered; vulnerable; rare; information available on these species to guide the EPBC Act terms: EXtinct in the wild (Pedder galaxias); design of a project to secure them. They were therefore CRitically endangered; ENdangered; VUinerabie; Marine excluded from the prioritisation exercise. Migratory.

Species Common name TSPAct EPBCAct TAS NRM Species Common name TSPAct EPBCAct TAS NRM endemic endemic endemic endemic Alcedo azurea diemenensis Azure kingfisher e Prasoph'(f lum robustum robust leek orchid e CR end cc Amphibromus macrorhinus longnose swampgrass e N Prasoph'fllum tophanyx graveside leek orchid e CR end N Beddomeia kershawi Hydrobiid Snail (Macquarie River) e end N Pterodroma mollis Soft plumaged Petrel e vu Beddomeia krybetes Hydrobiid Snail (St. Pauls River) V end N Pterostyf is tunstalli i tunstalls greenhood e N Beddomeia tumida Hydrobiid Snail (Great Lake) e end s Pultenaea sericea chaffy bushpea V N Brachionichthys politus Red Handfish vu end R.hytidosporum inconspicuum alpine appleberry e Caladenia australis southern spider orchid e N Schayera baiulus Schayer's Grasshopper e end Caladenia brachyscapa short spider orchid e N Schoenus latelaminatus medusa bog sedge e N Caladenia congesta blacktongue finger orchid e Solanum opacum greenberry nightshade e Caladenia lindleyana lindleys spider orchid e CR end Stenopetalum lineare narrow threadpetal e

Caladenia pa/Iida rosy spider orchid e CR end Stema striata White fronted Tern V Caladenia sylvicola forest fingers e CR end s Sympterichthys sp. (CS/RO Waterfall Bay Handfish vu end Calochilus campestris copper beard orchid e N #T/996.01) Castiarina insculpta Miena Jewel Beetle e end s Sympterichthys sp. (CS/RO Ziebell's Handfish vu end #T6.0I) Colobanthus curtisiae grassland cupflower r vu Taskiria mccubbini McCubbins Caddis Fly e end s Corunastyf is f,rthii firths midge orchid e CR end s Taskiropsyche lacustris Lake Pedder Caddis Fly e end Corybas fordhamii swamp pelican orchid e N s Thelymitra bracteata leafy sun orchid e Diporochaeta pedderensis Lake Pedder Earthworm e s Triglochin mucronatum prickly arrowgrass e N Discocharopa vigens Land Snail V end Xerochrysum palustre swamp everlasting vu Gazameda gunnii Gunn's screw shell V

Gratiola pubescens hairy brooklime V

Haloragis aspera rough raspwort V Marginaster littoralis Seastar e end s Myosurus australis southern mousetail e s Plantago gaudichaudii narrow plantain V s Prasophyllum off. montanum mountain leek orchid e Prasophyllum perangustum knocklofty leek orchid e CR end s

June 20 I 0 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 28 29 0MWX  ¯ )\GPYHIH 'VMXMGEPP] )RHERKIVIH )RHERKIVIH :YPRIVEFPI WTIGMIW SYXWMHI 8EWQERMER VIQMX

These species were excluded either because they are highly mobile with no purely Tasmania based population, or because they live in an area in which Tasmania based organisations were very unlikely to invest. None of these species are endemic either to Tasmania or an NRM region. 7II 0MWX  JSV EHHMXMSREP I\GPYHIH WTIGMIW %FFVIZMEXMSRW EW for List 2.

Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act Reason for exclusion Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act Reason for exclusion Halobaena caerulea Blue Petrel v VU Macquarie Island species Diomedea dabbena Tristan Albatross EN Migratory species Leucocarbo atriceps Macquarie Island Shag v VU Macquarie Island species Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross VU Migratory species purpurescens (MSQIHIE I\YPERW Wandering Albatross e VU Migratory species Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant Petrel v EN Macquarie Island species Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross EN Migratory species Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel r VU Macquarie Island species Diomedea sandfordii Northern Royal Albatross EN Migratory species Mirounga leonina Southern Elephant Seal e VU Macquarie Island species Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle v VU Migratory species Procellaria cinerea Grey Petrel e Macquarie Island species Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale e EN Migratory species Pterodroma lessonii White headed Petrel v Macquarie Island species Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale e VU Migratory species Arctocephalus tropicalis Subantarctic Fur Seal e VU Migratory species Numenius Eastern Curlew e Migratory species Balaenoptera musculus Blue Whale e EN Migratory species madagascariensis Balaenoptera physalus Fin Whale v VU Migratory species Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross r VU Migratory species Carcharodon carcharias Great White Shark v VU Migratory species Phoebetria palpebrata Light mantled Sooty v Migratory species Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle e EN Migratory species Albatross Chelonia mydas Green Turtle v VU Migratory species Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe v Migratory species Dermochelys coriacea Leathery Turtle v VU Migratory species Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey headed Albatross e VU Migratory species Diomedea Amsterdam Albatross EN Migratory species Thalassarche melanophrys Black browed Albatross e VU Migratory species amsterdamensis Thalassarche steadi White capped Albatross VU Migratory species Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross VU Migratory species

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010   0MWX  ¯ )\GPYHIH 'VMXMGEPP] )RHERKIVIH )RHERKIVIH :YPRIVEFPI WTIGMIW SXLIV WTIGM½IH VIEWSRW

For these species, which are all fauna, projects were developed but could not achieve security within constraints of Tasmania based project location or stipulated 50 year timeframe. However, the role of captive breeding and translocation may need to be reviewed JSV WSQI SJ XLIWI WTIGMIW´ TVSNIGXW 7II 0MWX  JSV SXLIV I\GPYHIH WTIGMIW %FFVIZMEXMSRW EW JSV 0MWX  ! 8EWQERMER breeding endemic.

Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act TAS endemic NRM region Security Project Project Project Cost Reason target security not possible without &IRI½X Success ($) project Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi Brown Thornbill (King Island) e EN end CC     Very low numbers, limited information. Acanthornis magnus Scrubtit (King Island) e CR end CC     :IV] PS[ RYQFIVW ZIV] GSR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR [LIVI EX VMWO greenianus JVSQ ½VI PMQMXIH MRJSVQEXMSR Beddomeia camensis Hydrobiid snail (Cam River) e end CC 0.15  0.72 20,195 :IV] GSR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR RS[LIVI XS XVERWPSGEXI HYI XS competition and other threats) Beddomeia waterhouseae Hydrobiid snail (Clayton’s e end CC     :IV] GSR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR RS[LIVI XS XVERWPSGEXI HYI XS Rivulet) competition and other threats) Chrysolarentia decisaria Tunbridge Looper Moth e end S 0.20 0.55   Appear to be very low numbers. Dasybela achroa Saltmarsh Looper Moth v end S     'SR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR [MPP PMOIP] FI JYVXLIV VIHYGIH EW WIE level rise & storm events remove habitat. Engaeus martigener *YVRIEY\ &YVVS[MRK 'VE]½WL v EN end N 0.25 0.55   'SR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR ZIV] ZYPRIVEFPI XS GPMQEXI GLERKI ERH [MPH½VIW (SYFPMRK XVERWPSGEXMSR IJJSVX QMKLX EXXEMR  FIRI½X Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot e EN end * CC, N & S 0.10  0.27  Can only be secured with additional mainland based actions. Limnodynastes peroni Striped Marsh Frog e CC & N 0.50  0.17  Chytrid disease effects unknown may be trivial or highly WMKRM½GERX 'PMQEXI GLERKI EPWS QE] FI LIEZ] MQTEGX Lissotes latidens Broad toothed Stag Beetle e EN end S 0.50  0.11  :IV] PS[ RYQFIVW GSR½RIH HMWXVMFYXMSR LEFMXEX EX VMWO JVSQ ½VI 'PMQEXI GLERKI PMOIP] LIEZ] MQTEGX Neophema chrysogaster Orange bellied Parrot e CR end * CC & S Very low numbers; can only be secured with additional mainland based actions.

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010   0MWX  ¯ 'YVVIRXP] WLSVXXIVQ WIGYVI WTIGMIW

These species were estimated to be short term secure already, without requiring additional management. Abbreviations as for List 2.

Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act TAS NRM Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act TAS NRM endemic endemic endemic endemic %GEGME E\MPPEVMW midlands wattle v VU end Hyalosperma demissum moss sunray e Acrotriche cordata coast groundberry v North Isopogon ceratophyllus horny conebush v North Anogramma leptophylla annual fern v Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife v %XVMTPI\ WYFIVIGXE sprawling saltbush v Myoporum parvifolium creeping boobialla v North Barbarea australis riverbed wintercress e CR end Pachyptila turtur subantarctica Fairy Prion (southern sub species) e VU Beddomeia briansmithi Hydrobiid snail (Fern Creek) v end North Pardalotus quadragintus Forty spotted Pardalote e EN end Beddomeia fromensis Hydrobiid snail (Frome River) e end North Persicaria decipiens slender waterpepper v Beddomeia lodderae Hydrobiid snail (Upper Castra v end Cradle Phyllangium divergens wiry mitrewort v Rivulet) Coast 4MQIPIE E\M¾SVE WYFWT E\M¾SVE bootlace bush e Cradle Beddomeia ronaldi Hydrobiid snail (St. Patricks River) e end North Coast Bedfordia arborescens tree blanketleaf v North Platycercus caledonicus brownii King Island Green Rosella v end Blechnum cartilagineum gristle fern v Plesiothele fentoni Lake Fenton Trapdoor Spider e end South Caladenia caudata tailed spider orchid v VU end Pomaderris elachophylla small leaf dogwood v Caladenia dienema windswept spider orchid e CR end Cradle Prasophyllum amoenum dainty leek orchid e EN end South Coast Prasophyllum favonium western leek orchid e CR end Cradle Caladenia patersonii patersons spider orchid v Coast 'EVI\ XEWQERMGE curly sedge VU Prasophyllum pulchellum pretty leek orchid e CR end Corunastylis brachystachya shortspike midge orchid e EN end Cradle Prasophyllum stellatum ben lomond leek orchid e CR end North Coast Prostanthera rotundifolia roundleaf mintbush v North Cyathea cunninghamii slender treefern e Pseudemoia pagenstecheri Tussock Skink v Desmodium gunnii slender ticktrefoil v Pterostylis atriola snug greenhood e EN end Dianella amoena KVEWWPERH ¾E\PMP] rEN Pterostylis cucullata subsp. leafy greenhood e VU Diuris lanceolata large golden moths e EN end Cradle cucullata Coast Pterostylis ziegeleri grassland greenhood v VU end Diuris palustris swamp doubletail e Pultenaea prostrata silky bushpea v Epacris acuminata claspleaf heath r VU end Scaevola aemula JEMV] JER¾S[IV e Epacris graniticola granite heath v EN end North Scleranthus fasciculatus spreading knawel v )TEGVMW ZMVKEXE /IXXIVMRK pretty heath v EN Stenanthemum pimeleoides propellor plant v VU end Euphrasia semipicta Type 2 peninsula eyebright e EN end South Sterna vittata bethunei Antarctic Tern e EN end Glycine microphylla small leaf glycine v Tasmanipatus anophthalmus Blind Velvet Worm e end North Goedetrechus mendumae Blind Cave Beetle (Ida Bay) v end South Thelymitra antennifera rabbit ears e Goedetrechus parallelus Slender Cave Beetle (Junee v end South Tyto novaehollandiae castanops Masked Owl e end Florentine) Veronica novae hollandiae coast speedwell v end Hakea ulicina furze needlebush v North Vombatus ursinus ursinus Common Wombat (Bass Strait) VU end

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010   Notes

June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation