Prioritisation of Threatened Flora and Fauna Recovery Actions
for the Tasmanian NRM Regions
Threatened Species Section
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment
Nature Conservation Report 10/03
June 2010 Executive Summary
The Threatened Species Section (TSS) of the Department Act) were assessed. The developers provided substantial I\GPYHIHERHWLEVIHGSWXW ;LIVIWYJ½GMIRXJYRHWEVIRSX 8LISYXGSQIWVITVIWIRXWMKRM½GERXWXITWMREHHVIWWMRK of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment guidance and support to the Threatened Species Section. available to carry out all projects simultaneously, extinction 6IGSQQIRHEXMSRWERHSJXLI Auditor- (DPIPWE) was contracted by Tasmania’s three NRM risk can only be minimised and not eliminated. However, General’s Special Report on the Management of threatened Projects were prioritised on the 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 objective: the minimisation of 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 [MXLMRXLIWLSVXXIVQ ]IEVW 8LMWSFNIGXMZIVI¾IGXWXLI less than $1 million, with only $180,000 required in the MHIRXM½IHWTIGMIWVIUYMVMRKEWXEXYWVIZMI[ YRHIVXEOIRSRXLIFEWMWSJXLIMVGSWXIJ½GMIRG]MRQIIXMRK requirement of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 ½VWX½ZI]IEVW8SWIGYVIXLIXSTVEROMRKWTIGMIW the following objective and target: for a strategy to ensure the survival of threatened species. The list, when used correctly, represents an invaluable SR0MWXGSWXWPIWWXLERLEPJXLEXVIUYMVIHXS Threatened species conservation helps address numerous decision-making tool for planning threatened species Objective: Within 50 years, to secure in the wild WIGYVIXLIVIQEMRMRKPS[IWXVEROMRKWTIGMIW8SQMRMQMWI different objectives, but it is ineffective and confusing to conservation programs, but there are a number of ways in in Tasmania the greatest number of I\XMRGXMSRVMWOMXMWQSWXGSWXIJ½GMIRXXSWIGYVIWTIGMIW prioritise projects on the basis of some combination of which it can potentially be misused: threatened taxa as possible. in their priority order because of the generally lower cost, these; the relative importance of each objective to funding LMKLIVPMOIPMLSSHSJWYGGIWWERHLMKLIVFIRI½XSJXLIMV 7IPIGXMSRSJWMRKPIEGXMSRW[MXLMRLMKLVEROMRKTVSNIGXW Target %XE\SRMWHI½RIHEWWIGYVI[LIRMXW agencies can change annually. However, weightings can later projects. Some lower-ranking species may, however, rank as high priority for funding. be applied to the prioritised 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 favour Tasmanian endemics, they can either MRGVIEWMRKERHEVIWYJ½GMIRXXLEXXLIVIMW species protection or ecosystem function protection, and +VSYTMRKSJGSQQSREGXMSRWEWTVMSVMXMIWJSVQYPXM fund only projects on these species, or apply a weighting 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 degree of endemicity to the list. 8VIEXQIRXSJTVSNIGXWVEROMRKPS[SVEFWIRXJVSQ0MWX year timeframe, given that all known and 8LIQENSVMX]SJTVSNIGXW SJ EVIGSR½RIHXSE Each project represents the minimum required to secure 1 as low priority for all conservation objectives. predicted threats are adequately mitigated. WMRKPI261VIKMSR 'VEHPI'SEWX 2SVXL 7SYXL each species over a 50 year time frame, but may not 58). Forty-four, however, are shared between two or more RIGIWWEVMP]FIWYJ½GMIRXXSWIGYVIEPPMXWTSTYPEXMSRWRSVMXW %WWYQTXMSRXLEXEJYPP]JYRHIHTVSNIGX[MPPJYPP] The Project Prioritisation Protocol (PPP), developed regions. recover a species. by the University of Queensland (UQ) and the New genetic diversity. For the present purpose, the short-term securing of extra species was viewed as a higher priority Key outcomes of the project were: Zealand Government’s Department of Conservation %WWYQTXMSRXLEXXLIVEROMRKTVIWIRXIHMRXLIVITSVXMW (DOC), provided a consistent and transparent approach than the securing of extra populations of a species already %HIGMWMSRQEOMRKXSSPEPPS[MRKJYRHIVWXSYRHIVWXERH exactly correct. in prioritising recovery projects to minimise threatened secure over the short term. A review of the implications the tradeoffs of their resource allocation between this species extinctions. This approach prioritises projects on of the selected objective is appropriate for future work. Recommendations for future work include a review of the and other objectives. XLIFEWMWSJXLIMVGSWXIJ½GMIRG]MRQIIXMRKERSFNIGXMZI prioritisation within the next 5 years, in light of progress A prioritised list (List 1) indicates an order for funding to ensure that the maximum is achieved with a limited 0MWXWSJ TVMSVMXMWIHXLVIEXIRIHWTIGMIWTVSNIGXW HEXE and new information, incorporating all Tasmanian species. recovery projects for the 171 species on which there was budget. One project was designed to secure each species. HI½GMIRXWTIGMIW WTIGMIWEPVIEH]WIGYVI WTIGMIW Additionally, the objective needs to be more formally WYJ½GMIRXMRJSVQEXMSRERH[LMGLI\TIVXWGSRWMHIVIHGSYPH Projects were ranked in the order that they should be I\GPYHIHJSVWTIGM½IHVIEWSRW agreed in light of the implementation of the 2009 priority be secured purely through Tasmania-based projects over a MRMXMEXIHSRXLIFEWMWSJXLIMV&IRI½XXSXLIWTIGMIWXLI list. A longer term objective may be more appropriate. If 50 year period. This order may change when cost-sharing 4VSNIGXTVIWGVMTXMSRWEHHVIWWMRKEGSRWMWXIRXSFNIGXMZI likelihood of their Success and their Cost, as assessed 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 of questions. In view of time constraints, only species IJ½GMIRXMJTVMSVMXMWEXMSRMWGEVVMIHSYXEGVSWWEPPSFNIGXMZIW I\XMRGXMSRWGSWXIJ½GMIRXP] listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable and costs shared between funded projects across as well under either the Commonwealth Environment Protection To secure all 171 threatened species on the priority as within these objectives. and Biodiversity 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 2010 ii iii Contents
Acknowledgements Terms and abbreviations Introduction ...... 2 Potential misuses of the priority list ..... 24
The input of the following experts in providing the &IRI½X 8LIPIZIPSJGSRXVMFYXMSRSJETVSNIGX Contract requirement ...... 2 Selection of single actions within high-ranking projects as high priority for funding ...... substantial information required for the prioritisation XS[EVHWEWXEXIHSFNIGXMZIHI½RIHJSVXLMW Context ...... 2 process is gratefully acknowledged: exercise in the Methods (PPP Step 5) Grouping of common actions as priorities Type of method required ...... 2 for multi-species recovery actions ...... Rachael Alderman, Jayne Balmer, Leon Barmuta, Phil Cost Estimated total cost of a project Methods ...... 3 Bell, Stewart Blackhall, Kevin Bonham, Bill Brown, Alex Treatment of projects ranking low or absent CFOC Caring for our Country (Australian Buchanan, Oberon Carter, Stuart Chilcott, Peter Davies, How PPP works ...... from List 1 as low priority for all conservation Government funding agency) Niall Doran, Michael Driessen , Rob Freeman, Robbie PPP steps ...... objectives ...... 25 Gaffney, Rosemary Gales, Louise Gilfedder, Mark Green, DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, (I½RISFNIGXMZI ...... Assumption that a fully funded project will Scott Hardie, Stephen Harris, Clare Hawkins, Dean Heinze, Heritage and the Arts fully recover a species ...... 25 Mick Ilowski, Jean Jackson, Menna Jones, Matt Larcombe, 2. List biodiversity assets ...... 5 Peter Last, Billie Lazenby , Drew Lee, Peter McQuillan, Nick DOC The New Zealand Government’s Assumption that the priority list is exactly correct ..25 (IWMKRQEREKIQIRXTVSNIGXW ...... Mooney, Sarah Munks, Matthew Pauza, David Pemberton, Department of Conservation Future recommendations ...... 26 Annie Philips, Wendy Potts, Karen Richards, Alastair )WXMQEXI'SWXERH7YGGIWWSJIEGLTVSNIGX ...... DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Regular review ...... Richardson, Tim Rudman, Richard Schahinger, Andrew Water and Environment )WXMQEXI&IRI½XSJIEGLTVSNIGX ...... 7 Sharman, Chris Spencer, Shaun Thurstans, Michael Todd, *SVQEPMHIRXM½GEXMSRSJSFNIGXMZI W ...... 6IZMI[ERHVEROXLITVSNIGXW ...... 8 Todd Walsh, Matthew Webb, Jason Wiersma and Belinda EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Prioritisation of other related objectives ...... Yaxley. Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 7. Identify resource constraints ...... 8 Addendum ...... 26 The project was run by Clare Hawkins, Dydee Mann and FPA Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority 8. Calculate cost-sharing, sensitivity analyses, References ...... 27 Richard Schahinger. choose set of projects ...... 9 FPS Tasmanian Forest Practices System 9. Regular iterations and full rebuild every 5 yrs . . . 10 Appendix ...... 28 The invaluable collaboration of Richard Maloney and Jodie Davis of the New Zealand Government’s Department NRM In this report, any or all of Tasmania’s three Results ...... 11 0MWX¯(EXEHI½GMIRXWTIGMIW ...... 28 of Conservation, and of Liana Joseph of the University regional Natural Resource Management Table 1. Threatened species considered 0MWX¯)\GPYHIH'VMXMGEPP])RHERKIVIH of Queensland, together with their colleagues is also agencies (Cradle Coast, North and South) during the PPP process ...... 11 Endangered & Vulnerable species (outside gratefully acknowledged, in providing the Threatened PPP Project Prioritisation Protocol, explained in Tasmanian remit) ...... Species Section with their Project Prioritisation Protocol List 1: Prioritised threatened fauna and detail in the Methods section 0MWX¯)\GPYHIH'VMXMGEPP])RHERKIVIH methods, and in training and supporting our use and ¾SVETVSNIGXW ...... 12 Endangered & Vulnerable species (other development of these for Tasmania’s threatened species. Success A percentage estimate of the likelihood of *MKYVI4VSNIGX&IRI½X7YGGIWWERH WTIGM½IHVIEWSRW ...... success of a project Cost: relationship with rank ...... 19 Funding for the work described in this report was List 5 – Currently short-term secure species ...... provided by the Tasmanian NRMs (Prioritisation of TSP Act Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act Table 2. Breakdown of projects across Threatened Flora and Fauna Recovery Actions for 1995 NRM regions ...... 20 the Tasmanian NRM Regions – Contract No. FF209) Project prescriptions for all species in List 1 are supplied in UQ University of Queensland Discussion ...... 22 and by the Australian Government Department of a separate document. Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts (Recovery Plan UTas University of Tasmania Implementation in Tasmania 2009).
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 iv 1 Introduction Methods
Contract requirement Context Wintle (2008) reviewed biodiversity investment How PPP works prioritisation tools in terms of their appropriateness in 'SRWIVZEXMSRIJJSVXWJSVXLVIEXIRIH¾SVEERHJEYREMR %GSRWMWXIRX7XEXI[MHIETTVSEGLJSVFSXL¾SVEERH resolving NRM prioritisation issues. This review made it 8LI444JSGYWIWSRXLIGSWXIJ½GMIRG]SJTVSNIGXW Tasmania have to date focused primarily on species JEYRETVMSVMXMWEXMSR[MPPIREFPIGSRWMHIVEFPIIJ½GMIRGMIWMR clear that there remains room for improvement with all MREGLMIZMRKEHI½RIHSFNIGXMZI;LIVIQMRMQMWMRK listed on the Commonwealth Environment Protection conducting recovery projects and also identify Statewide methods, and that different tools are of use for different threatened species extinctions is the objective, the and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with funding by and cross-regional priorities for future action. This will be a parts of the process. The Project Prioritisation Protocol ETTVSEGLMHIRXM½IWETVSNIGXJSVIEGLWTIGMIW[LMGL 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 achieve a target level of recovery, and implementation of single and multi-species Recovery Plans. planning, with all organisations coordinating to undertake EZEMPEFPIFYHKIXERHMWXLISRP]WYGLQIXLSHMHIRXM½IH TVMSVMXMWIWXLIWITVSNIGXWSRXLIFEWMWSJ&IRI½XPMOIPMLSSH The three Tasmanian NRM regions had a responsibility recovery actions being able to compare and contrast by Wintle (2008) which did not use arbitrarily scaled of Success (feasibility) and Cost: for implementation of Recovery Plans under the NHT2 priorities for threatened species recovery actions. indices (ie a scoring system) and explicitly took into 4VSNIGXIJ½GMIRG]!&IRI½X\7YGGIWW Tasmanian Bilateral Agreement. No such requirements Type of method required account project Cost and likelihood of Success. Since it Cost are presently stipulated, but it is expected that ongoing HITIRHWSRSRP]XLVIIJEGXSVW TVSNIGX&IRI½XPMOIPMLSSH investment in the implementation of recovery plan Consistent. The NRMs required a consistent approach of Success and Cost), focussing only on a single objective *SVXLVIEXIRIHWTIGMIWVIGSZIV]&IRI½XSJXLITVSNIGX actions will continue at some level through the NRM across the Regions in prioritising threatened species F][LMGLXSKEYKI&IRI½XMXMWIEW]XSYRHIVWXERHERH to the species is calculated as the difference between regions, Local, State, the Australian Government and other recovery actions. Furthermore, it was important that provides consistency. Scoring systems addressing multiple the probability of the species being secure with and organisations. the method treated all threatened species consistently. objectives in a single prioritisation exercise can be subject [MXLSYXXLITVSNIGX HIXEMPWMR4447XIT 8LI&IRI½X Recovery plans for different species may have quite may thus be considered as a measure of urgency of the Budgetary constraints mean that that the recovery actions to a lack of transparency, where projects with very high different objectives, with some simply aiming to ensure project. While it may initially appear that urgency should VIUYMVIHJSVXLI PMWXIHWTIGMIWPMWXIHEWXLVIEXIRIH social importance but very low likelihood of success could that the species does not become further threatened, be the only guiding factor, on a limited budget not all under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection 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 1995 cannot all be funded simultaneously. For the same and likelihood of success. The PPP approach also has the Australia. The reasons for these differences are varied, urgent species are the most costly, by the time they reason, a large number of threatened species still lack advantage of identifying recovery actions for all species QEOMRKTVMSVMXMWEXMSRSJXLIVIGSQQIRHIHEGXMSRWHMJ½GYPX have been recovered other species may be extinct. It is recovery plans and many recovery plans are out of under consideration as part of the process tailored to a Consistency also depends on the method being objective important to recognise that most threatened species date. Some form of prioritisation of 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 Threatened Species assessment of a large number of species over a relatively short period of time. more accurate to express their situation in terms of the Strategy for Tasmania (Parks & Wildlife Service, 2000). Transparent. It is also particularly important that the likelihood of extinction within a stated period of years. 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 MRJSVXLVIEXIRIH¾SVEMRXLI'VEHPI'SEWX261 threatened species recovery actions can be a contentious Conservation (DOC) has been applying the PPP to its 50 years, an average of one can be expected to go extinct Region (Schahinger 2007), there has been no regional subject: there are a wide range of views about which threatened species objectives for the 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 threatened highly urgent species may be accompanied by the loss of in planning their recovery actions. For this reason, the much uncertainty surrounding their needs, and, under species extinctions. A collaboration was formed between other, less expensive, equally urgent species. Additionally, three NRMs contracted the Threatened Species Section a limited budget, the risk of extinction will always exist. DPIPWE and the developers of the PPP from DOC some projects cannot be guaranteed to be successful; the to prepare a priority list of threatened species recovery Transparency will help ensure that decisions are clearly and the University of Queensland (UQ), to guide the method prioritises investment in the projects most likely actions, with documented details including locations. The NYWXM½IHERHXLEXXLITVMSVMX]PMWXMWYWIHETTVSTVMEXIP] Threatened 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 involved in the coordination of threatened 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 project and incorporates TVMSVMXMWEXMSRTVSGIWW[SYPHFISJWMKRM½GERXEHZERXEKI I\TVIWWMSRWSJGSR½HIRGISJXLIIWXMQEXIW(IXEMPWSR A large number of threatened species still lack recovery how these estimates are made are provided below. plans and many recovery plans are out of date.
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 2 (I½RISFNIGXMZI it was recognised that the project plans, and therefore 2. List biodiversity assets the prioritisation, would remain stable over a 5–10 year PPP steps Several objectives addressing Tasmanian threatened period, after which the work would require review. For the purposes of minimising extinctions, the relevant species recovery are currently being met by a range of FMSHMZIVWMX]EWWIXW[IVI8EWQERME´W¾SVEERHJEYREXE\E 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 following steps: reduction of broad-scale threats). The Threatened Species Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (ANZECC were assessed: projects to secure these species are (I½RISFNIGXMZI Strategy for Tasmania (Parks & Wildlife 2000) recommends IQTLEWMWIXLIRIIHXSGSRWIVZIWTIGMIWMRWMXYERH PMOIP]XSFISJLMKLIV&IRI½XXLERTVSNIGXWXSWIGYVIPIWW prioritising on the basis of the 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 including endemism, and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) EPBC Act or TSP Act as Critically Endangered, Endangered OI]WXSRIVSPIERHGYPXYVEPWMKRM½GERGI,S[IZIVMXMW considers species translocated outside their natural range or Vulnerable. (IWMKRQEREKIQIRXTVSNIGXW ineffective and confusing to prioritise projects on how as Extinct in the Wild, and so the objective recognises this Wide-ranging species which did not have an exclusively )WXMQEXI'SWXERH7YGGIWWSJIEGLTVSNIGX they meet some combination of objectives, as the relative distinction. Tasmania-based population were excluded from the importance of each objective to funders can change Objective: Within 50 years, to secure in the wild exercise since they could not be secured purely by )WXMQEXI&IRI½XSJIEGLTVSNIGX annually. Prioritisation is most effective and transparent in Tasmania the greatest number of Tasmanian projects. Macquarie Island species were also when addressing a single objective that is target-based, 6IZMI[ERHVEROXLITVSNIGXW threatened taxa as possible. excluded as they were very unlikely to be funded by WTIGM½GERH[MXLGPIEVHI½RMXMSRWSJXIVQW the Tasmania-based agencies for which this project was Target %XE\SRMWHI½RIHEWWIGYVI[LIRMXW An objective towards the minimisation of number TVITEVIH0S[IVSVHIVTPERXW [IVII\GPYHIHHYI numbers and distribution are stable or Follow-up steps would likely comprise: of extinctions was favoured, since this responds to to a lack of expert availability, though it is anticipated that MRGVIEWMRKERHEVIWYJ½GMIRXXLEXXLIVIMW the requirement of the Tasmanian Threatened Species these will be considered in the project’s 5-year review. 7. Identify resource constraints a 95% probability that it will survive the Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) for a strategy to ensure the stochastic events anticipated over a 50 Listed taxa were not distinguished on the basis of 8. Calculate cost-sharing, sensitivity analyses, survival of threatened species. The wording of objectives year timeframe, given that all known and whether they were a species or a subspecies. There is choose set of projects used by DOC for prioritisation towards minimisation predicted threats are adequately mitigated. a strong argument that it is more important to secure of number of extinctions was reviewed 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 of the substantial work groups. This is a complex issue for which there is no carried out by DOC to develop these objectives. DOC simple answer, so for this prioritisation exercise each MHIRXM½IHX[SSFNIGXMZIWXS[EVHWQMRMQMWMRKWTIGMIW legally listed entity was considered separately. extinctions, whereby species were secured for 50 and ]IEVWVIWTIGXMZIP]*SVXLMWI\IVGMWIETIVMSH[EW selected, whereby projects represent the minimum effort required to secure each species. These projects are not WYJ½GMIRXXSWIGYVIEPPTSTYPEXMSRWSVKIRIXMGHMZIVWMX] of their target species. The securing of extra species was viewed as a higher priority than the securing of extra populations of an already secure species. A 50 year period was also selected for the maximum length for a project, being considered the longest period over which experts could envisage a realistic project plan. At the same time,
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 5 $?
?
3. Design management projects 4. Estimate Cost and Success of of staff for a few days each year, and in costing this, it )WXMQEXI&IRI½XSJIEGLTVSNIGX each project was assumed that this employment would be shared Experts were asked to design an appropriate project to with other projects – the expense of hiring a member *SVXLVIEXIRIHWTIGMIWVIGSZIV]&IRI½XSJXLITVSNIGXXS secure each species over 50 years with a probability of at For each recommended action, cost and likelihood the species (n) is calculated by taking B (the estimated of staff purely for the single action was not covered. Car n 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 level of (for species security), to allow project auditing and probability respectively, by those with most experience to be dependent on the organisation 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 would 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 4VSNIGX&IRI½X! ¯&n 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 project can be properly re-designed. Since knowledge of many threatened species is not [IVIJSYRH-JXLEXEGXMSR[EWMRWYJ½GMIRXXSWIGYVIXLI difference (for example relating to the location or precise However, we acknowledge that funds will not always WYJ½GMIRXXSIWXMQEXITEVEQIXIVWJSVTSTYPEXMSRZMEFMPMX] species with 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 WTIGM½IH;LIVITSWWMFPIX[SXSXLVIIMRHITIRHIRX to ensure that the project would be successful. Estimates provide greater accuracy for species near the funding probabilities directly. experts were brought together in a workshop to [IVIKMZIREXXSHE]´WTVMGIW MR¾EXMSR[EWRSXXEOIRMRXS allocation cut-off line, but obtaining these was beyond maximise coverage of information and consensus in account. the scope of the project. It is advisable for funders to designing a project to secure each species. An interviewer Success estimates divided into ‘input success’, ‘output MRGSVTSVEXIEGSRXMRKIRG]JYRHTVSZMHMRK¾I\MFMPMX]JSVXLI asked standardised questions, entering 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 JSVIEGLERHMRHMGEXIXLIMVGSR½HIRGIEVSYRHXLMW-RTYX only two regularly communicating interviewers for the Actions that were already funded, or which were success relates to whether the proposed method for the whole process. Where opinions diverged, the interviewer WTIGM½GEPP]XLIPIKEPSFPMKEXMSRSJEREKIRG][IVIEPWSRSX action can be done; output success relates to whether it [SVOIHXLVSYKLXLINYWXM½GEXMSRWJSVIEGLSTMRMSR[MXL 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 differences of opinions that remained at the end of the ½REPGSWXWQE]FILMKLIVXLERXLITVSZMHIHIWXMQEXIW discussion. Where workshops 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, within their natural to ensure that the project would be achieved. 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 applying 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 of these projects management (all aspects of salaries, super etc. were will actually occur in areas where the species either has MRGPYHIHFYXRSXXLIGSWXWSJVYRRMRKERSJ½GIMRGPYHMRK 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 7 2010
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 1. The total budget available for the management of actions were consistent across species. The database budget is known, so that it is clear how many projects projects are funded in any given year. In many cases, only threatened species; generated management prescriptions describing the can be funded and where the potential for cost-sharing rough estimates can be provided by experts, though prescribed project for each species. A page is devoted 2. Separate organisational or funding objectives which PMIW*SVKVIEXIWXGSWXIJ½GMIRG]XLMWI\IVGMWIWLSYPHFI XLIWI[MPPFIWYJ½GMIRXXSKMZIERETTVS\MQEXIVEROMRK to each action within the project, with estimates of cost need to be met as part of the resource allocation. carried out by a coordinating agency to ensure there is no Only after funds have been allocated to the list will the and success and a map of its recommended location. overlap in funding. cut-off be apparent, in 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 appealing to share costs among all expert on each taxon for review. 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 XLEXEVIWYJ½GMIRXP]GPSWIXSXLMWGYXSJJXLEXEHHMXMSREP 4VSNIGXW[IVIVEROIHSRXLIFEWMWSJXLIMV&IRI½X7YGGIWW selected for full long-term funding. Fluctuations in annual project will be funded. However, partial funding of a low- information will affect whether they are funded or not. A and Cost as described above (Methods: How PPP works). budgets or external funding opportunities may mean that VEROMRKTVSNIGXMWERMRIJ½GMIRXYWISJJYRHWXSQMRMQMWI review of the design and estimates of these projects will some projects are not properly funded every year, but extinctions. By the time full funding is available for the 8LMWVITSVXTVIWIRXWXLI½RHMRKWSJXLIEFSZIWM\WXITW then be appropriate. the design of these can be reviewed in light of this and project, circumstances have changed and the project may Likely subsequent application is described in the steps 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 involve a large outlay in initial years, and QE]FIMRWYJ½GMIRXXSTVIZIRXI\XMRGXMSRSJXLIWTIGMIW XLIRFIMHIRXM½IHXSGEVV]XLIQSYX(3'MWGYVVIRXP]EX then a much smaller commitment over the longer term. before full funding is available. XLMWWXEKI8LIWIEKIRGMIWWLSYPHFIGSRWYPXIHXSGSR½VQ 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 described above. fair sharing of costs between projects. The way costs Some funding and organisational objectives (including are shared will depend on the action – for example, the Where multiple funders are involved in applying the those of Caring for our Country [CFOC]) cannot be sharing of costs between two projects requiring different prioritisation list, it will be essential to ensure that addressed by the prioritisation exercise as they are areas (eg 1 ha versus 8 ha) of fencing in the same place resource allocation to priority projects is well coordinated. multiple and change on each funding round. To minimise will be different from the sharing of costs between projects This could be mediated through regular NRM workshops extinctions within this constraint, it is recommended that, requiring someone to negotiate for the covenanting of two and by the Threatened Species Section recording funding for each funding round, the highest ranking projects that different areas on the same property. Once cost-sharing commitments and implementation of recovery actions on meet the CFOC objectives and align with the objectives has been calculated, the saved costs may allow the funding the database. SJVIPIZERXTVSKVEQWEVIMHIRXM½IHERHTEVXRIVWLMTW of an additional project. Thus originally, there may have developed to apply for full funding for each. been funds available for Projects 1 to 8, with money left SZIVXLEX[EWMRWYJ½GMIRXXSGSZIV4VSNIGX %JXIVWLEVMRK costs of actions within Projects 1 to 8, there may be WYJ½GMIRXJYRHWXSGSZIV4VSNIGX EW[IPP
In the long term, DOC aims to calculate cost-sharing between projects across, as well as within, 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 ? Results
6IKYPEVMXIVEXMSRWERHJYPPVIFYMPH Forty-eight experts contributed to the design of projects WTIGMIW[IVIIMXLIVZMI[IHEWHEXEHI½GMIRXRSXTSWWMFPI every 5 yrs to secure Tasmania’s threatened species, as listed in to secure through Tasmanian NRM-funded projects or XLI%GORS[PIHKIQIRXW-RXSXEP WTIGMIW[IVI already secure. These are described further below, and It is recommended that the prioritisation exercise is considered in the initial assessment for the process listed in the Appendix. repeated every 5 years, in light of project progress, new (Table 1), comprising those listed as Critically Endangered, For each of the species on List 1, project prescriptions information and changing threats. This process is likely Endangered or Vulnerable under at least one of the are provided in a separate document accompanying this to be quicker than the initial exercise, since experts and TSP Act and EPBC Act. Of these, 171 species were report. Each prescription comprises a summary cover TVSNIGXWLEZIEPVIEH]FIIRMHIRXM½IHERHXLSWIETTP]MRK fully assessed for prioritisation (List 1), including the page and a page with details of each action, including the method are now familiar with its application. Between development of a project for each to secure it over location. reviews, new information can also be entered on the a 50 year period with 95% probability. The remaining database as it emerges.
Table 1. Threatened species considered during the PPP process
All species considered were listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable under at least one of the TSP Act and EPBC Act. Species that were ranked under the PPP process are listed as “yes”. Species considered to be already WIGYVIMRXLI[MPHEVIPMWXIHEW±2SFIRI½X²7TIGMIW[LMGLGSYPHRSXFIWIGYVIHMRXLI[MPH[MXLMR]IEVWEVIPMWXIHEW ± ²;LIVIHEXE[IVIMRWYJ½GMIRXXSQEOIEWWIWWQIRXWERHXLIVIJSVIWTIGMIW[IVIRSXVEROIHXLI][IVIPMWXIHEW ±(EXE(I½GMIRX²7TIGMIWXLEX[IVII\GPYHIHJSVSXLIVVIEWSRWEVIPMWXIHEW±)\GPYHIH²*YVXLIVHIXEMPWSJXLIWIGEXIKSVMIW are provided in the text, and lists of the species in each category are provided in the Appendix.
TSP Act terms: endangered; vulnerable; rare; not listed under the TSP Act.
EPBC Act terms: EXtinct in the wild (Pedder galaxias); CRitically endangered; ENdangered; VUlnerable; Marine Migratory; Not Listed under the EPBC Act.
TSP Act EPBC Act Species e v r n/l Total Species EX CR EN VU MM N/L Total yes 111 1 171 yes 1 20 25 1 171 2SFIRI½X 25 22 2SFIRI½X 5109 < 95% 9 2 11 < 95% 2 5 11 (EXEHI½GMIRX 81 Data 7 Excluded 11 11 2 7 HI½GMIRX Total 188 108 8 Excluded 8 18 5 Total 1 58 1
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 EPBCA 1999 cost ($M) cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative NRM NRM endemic endemic Tas Tas Tas Tas endemic endemic I1IXLSHW 4447XITW 874ERH cts may be of great value for other objectives and other objectives be of great value for cts may Act Act g current available information. The 50-year cost The 50-year information. g current available v VU end v VU end S vv N 1.7897 1.8021 N N vCC v v 1.0871 N e e eN eee EN CR end CR end end N 1.5518 N&S e CR end S ee CR end eS ee ENe end S 1.1782 S 1.2187 N e CR end eEN e CR end S 0.7707 S e end CC e EN end e end CC 0.0525 CC e EN ende N 0.8272 N 1.0588 CC&N 9 e 0.2829 S 5e 2 e EN end S 18 e CR end CC 17 e end CC 0.5092 CC 15 e end S 12 e end CC 11 e EN end CC 22 e EN end S 28 e CR end N 27 e CR end 29 v end N 21 v 5.89 20 e EN end CC 5.95 19 e 7.72 10 e EN end S 7.90 8 e S 5.19 25 e CR end N 0.7880 N 5.17 11.72 27.17 1 e end CC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC ($M) ($M) 0.0828 0.0228 0.0502 0.0157 0.0152 0.90 0.0581 0.90 1.00 1.00 Success Cost Success Cost YXQSRMXSVMRKERHGSWXWLEVMRKGEPGYPEXMSRWEWI\TPEMRIHMRXL 0.70 0.85 0.15 0.81 0.10 0.81 0.55 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 dwarf bushpea 0.05 0.85 bristly waterpepper midlands greenhood 0.90 spur velleia 0.10 0.90 0.0252 arthur river greenhood 0.15 0.81 XLMGOWXIQJEMV]½RKIVW broadlip bird-orchid 0.90 Hydrobiid Snail (Viking Creek) Cave Cricket Cave ferny panaxferny 0.25 0.80 0.0295 velvet boroniavelvet 0.05 0.90 VI¾I\IHIZIVPEWXMRKFYWL pink zieria 0.20 0.85 PIWWIVKYMRIE¾S[IV Hydrobiid Snail (West Hydrobiid Snail (West Gawler) alpine candles 0.15 0.81 pungent leek-orchid 0.85 south esk heath 0.15 preminghana billybuttons 0.25 purple coralpea 0.80 swamp eyebright 0.80 bordered heathlime fern 0.20 0.55 lanky buttons blackhood sun-orchidblackhood 0.85 morrisbys gumheath dustymiller 0.25 0.75 0.15 grassland candles 0.20 0.81 VSFYWX½RKIVW three hummock leek- orchid soft peppercress skirted treefern 0.20 0.77 shy eyebright shy Hydrobiid Snail (Blyth Hydrobiid Snail (Blyth River) golfers leek-orchid 0.10 0.90 small forkfern 0.25 0.50 tunbridge leek-orchid FEWEPXKYMRIE¾S[IV Hydrobiid Snail (Farnhams Creek) peninsula eyebright 0.25 0.85 0.0088 midlands buttercup 0.25 0.81 Bornemissza's Stag Beetle small raspfern 0.15 0.80 skyblue sun-orchidskyblue 0.10 marsh leek-orchid 0.70 0.90 Vanderschoor's Stag Vanderschoor's Beetle yellow rushlilyyellow 0.15 0.77 0.0211 . . var Type 1Type peninsula eyebright 0.25 0.51 8]TI subsp subsp. subsp. sambucifolia aff. aff. Pultenaea humilis Persicaria subsessilis Pterostylis commutata :IPPIMETEVEHS\E Pterostylis rubenachii Caladenia campbellii Chiloglottis trapeziformis Beddomeia hermansi Micropathus kiernani Polyscias (Douglas-Denison) Boronia hippopala 3^SXLEQRYWVI¾I\MJSPMYW Zieria veronicea veronicea Hibbertia calycina Beddomeia averni Stackhousia pulvinaris Prasophyllum olidum Prasophyllum )TEGVMWI\WIVXE Craspedia preminghana Craspedia Euphrasia semipicta Euphrasia Hardenbergia violacea psilantherea Euphrasia gibbsiae gibbsiae Euphrasia Epacris limbata Pneumatopteris pennigera Leptorhynchos elongatus Thelymitra atronitida Thelymitra Eucalyptus morrisbyi Spyridium eriocephalum 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 Common name Species Common name Prasophyllum limnetes Prasophyllum Hoplogonus vanderschoori Tricoryne elatior 0MWX 4VMSVMXMWIHXLVIEXIRIHJEYREERH¾SVETVSNIGXW Other threatened species proje Rank indicates the order in which projects should be initiated to minimise extinctions. Estimates are based on expert priorityshould not be disregarded on the basis of being absent or low opinion usin on this list. North Cradle (N) and South (S). Coast (CC), Project location is indicated under NRM Projects: 1. Table terms are as for IWXMQEXIWI\GPYHITVSNIGXQEREKIQIRXGEVXVEZIPERHWSQISYXT
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 cost ($M) cost ($M) Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative NRM NRM endemic endemic Tas Tas Tas endemic endemic Act Act v VU end v 2.8807 S v v VU end S v v EN end v v end v v N 2.5125 N vS v VU Tas N v end N vS e e EN end S e EN end ee CR EN end end eS e VU end N e e S 2.2810 S eN e CC 1.8722 CC 70 e CR end S 71 e EN end 90 e CC 88 e EN end 58 e EN end 57 e EN end 87 v end CC 55 e 85 e end CC 8182 e e N N 51 v 78 e 77 e 2.9789 CC 1.71 1.75 75 e N 1.82 72 e EN Tas CC 1.95 1.89 1.071.07 97 98 e e VU CR end S 0.99 101 e CR end S 0.98 102 r VU end S 1.01 100 v VU end 1.01 99 e EN end S 2.05 1.17 92 v VU end 2.08 2.11 2.15 59 e EN 2.59 52 e CR end N 2.1108 N 1.52 1.58 79 e EN end S 2.98 50 v S B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC ($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 N 0.1055 0.0521 0.0111 1.57 80 v VU end S Success Cost Success Cost 0.55 0.25 0.75 0.80 &IRI½X &IRI½X dwarf wedgepea 0.15 cutleaf daisy 0.10 0.59 tasmanian sea-lavender 0.10 0.81 maidenhair spleenwort 0.05 apsley heath 0.05 0.72 0.0197 southport heath 0.20 pedder bristlewort 0.20 ¾IWL]KVIIRLSSH tasmanian smokebush 0.05 0.77 tufted knawel 0.10 0.59 chestnut leek-orchidchestnut 0.25 scrambling groundfern 0.10 0.90 yellow eyebrightyellow 0.15 0.50 sagg spider-orchid 0.70 0.25 dwarf sunray 0.05 small-leaf dustymiller 0.05 shiny cliff-eyebrightshiny 0.05 creeping dustymiller 0.10 grass cushion 0.05 miena cider gum 0.85 0.25 tasmanian bertya 0.10 smooth heath 0.05 0.85 ribbed heathmyrtle 0.05 0.81 drooping pine 0.05 0.90 0.0219 2.05 Live-bearing Seastar poison lobelia 0.10 0.59 soft bushpea 0.05 0.90 0.0215 2.09 bare midge-orchid 0.10 Catadromus CarabidCatadromus Beetle blue devilblue 0.05 0.90 0.0211 mt arthur boronia 0.15 blotched sun-orchidblotched northcoast eyebright 0.55 0.15 grassland paperdaisy 0.15 blue wallabygrassblue 0.10 tall heath 0.05 0.85 0.0197 clubmoss bushpea 0.10 0.59 Hydrobiid Snail (Blizzards Creek) ben lomond cushionplant 0.05 0.90 0.0187 mauvetuft sun-orchidmauvetuft 0.10 0.59 HEZMIW[E\¾S[IV australian gypsywort 0.10 golden spray Stanley Snail 0.10 0.70 Simson's Stag Beetle forest bindweedforest lesser joyweedsmall tongue-orchidsandstone bushpea 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.10 Southern Hairy Red Snail 0.15 hairy cliff-eyebright 0.05 masked cliff-eyebrightmasked 0.15 stinking pennywort 0.20 0.81 coast new-holland-daisy 0.25 spiky anchorplant 0.20 river mint 0.05 0.72 . . . . var . tricolor . subsp subsp subsp var . 'fabula' . sp . albicans . 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 hookeriana Pherosphaera Parvulastra vivipara Parvulastra vivipara Lobelia pratioides Pultenaea mollis Corunastylis nudiscapa Catadromus lacordairei Eryngium ovinum Boronia hemichiton tetragona Thelymitra benthamiana Thelymitra collina Euphrasia Leucochrysum albicans subsp Austrodanthonia popinensis Epacris grandis Stonesiella selaginoides Beddomeia wiseae Chionohebe ciliolata Thelymitra malvina Thelymitra Phebalium daviesii Lycopus australis Viminaria juncea Miselaoma weldi Hoplogonus simsoni Calystegia marginataCalystegia Alternanthera denticulata Cryptostylis leptochila 1MVFIPMES\]PSFMSMHIW Austrochloritis victoriae Euphrasia phragmostoma Euphrasia Euphrasia Euphrasia ,]HVSGSX]PIPE\M¾SVE oricola Discaria pubescens Species Common name Species Common name 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 ($M) ($M) 0.2910 0.7278 0.7158 0.15 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 0.70 0.85 0.29 0.75 0.08 0.75 0.08 0.15 0.58 0.5820 0.15 0.85 0.50 0.85 0.52 0.15 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.05 &IRI½X &IRI½X kings lomatia shy pinkbells shy Shy AlbatrossShy 0.15 0.80 1.9590 Hydrobiid Snail (Keddies Creek) Marrawah Skipper Swan Galaxias 0.85 Great Lake ParagalaxiasGreat Lake 0.25 0.55 Swamp Galaxias 0.10 0.25 Arthurs Paragalaxias Giant Freshwater 'VE]½WL Central North Burrowing 'VE]½WL south esk pine 0.15 0.80 mountain poranthera 0.05 0.25 0.1097 0.11 Little Tern 0.80 0.28 bristly rockfern Isopod (Great Lake) 0.25 0.55 0.2985 Hydrobiid Snail (Table Hydrobiid Snail (Table Cape) Fairy Tern 0.80 0.28 Hydrobiid Snail (Buttons Rivulet) Mt. Arthur Mt. Burrowing 'VE]½WL Scottsdale Burrowing 'VE]½WL leek-orchidmilford 0.70 0.11 Saddled Galaxias 0.25 sand grasstree 0.10 black bristlesedgeblack &YVVS[MRK'VE]½WL (Burnie) Shannon Paragalaxias 0.15 0.55 4XYREVVE&VS[R&YXXIV¾] Wedge-tailed Eagle Wedge-tailed Chaostola Skipper 0.25 Salt Lake SlaterSalt Lake 0.25 0.17 Snail (Cataract Gorge) 0.05 shiny grasstreeshiny 0.05 Golden Galaxias bearded midge-orchid 0.20 0.15 crowded leek-orchidcrowded 0.05 northern leek-orchid 0.15 Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Tasmania) Port Davey SkatePort Davey 0.25 0.19 tasmanian pearlwort 0.25 Chevron Looper Moth 0.20 1.00 0.2887 TVIXX]TIEVP¾S[IV clover glycineclover 0.05 river boronia 0.05 tiny watermilfoil tiny blacktip spider-orchid blacktip Mt. Mangana Stag BeetleMt. 0.15 0.80 0.1528 0.79 109 v end 5.1917 S JVI]GMRIX[E\¾S[IV bearded heath 0.05 pretty heath 0.10 0.19 SVERKIXMT½RKIVW [LMXI½RKIVW . subsp Lomatia tasmanica Tetratheca gunnii Tetratheca Thalassarche cauta Beddomeia phasianella Oreisplanus munionga larana +EPE\MEWJSRXERYW 4EVEKEPE\MEWIPISXVSMHIW +EPE\MEWTEVZYW 4EVEKEPE\MEWQIWSXIW Astacopsis gouldi Engaeus granulatus Engaeus granulatus Callitris oblonga oblonga Oreoporanthera petalifera Oreoporanthera Sterna albifrons sinensis Cheilanthes distans Onchotelson spatulatus Beddomeia capensis Sterna nereis Beddomeia hallae Engaeus orramakunna Engaeus spinicaudatus Prasophyllum milfordense Prasophyllum +EPE\MEWXER]GITLEPYW Xanthorrhoea arenaria Chorizandra enodis Engaeus yabbimunna 4EVEKEPE\MEWHMWWMQMPMW 3VIM\IRMGETXYREVVE %UYMPEEYHE\¾IE]M Antipodia chaostola Haloniscus searlei Pasmaditta jungermanniae Pasmaditta Xanthorrhoea bracteata +EPE\MEWEYVEXYW Corunastylis morrisii 4VEWSTL]PPYQGVIFVM¾SVYQ 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 Common name Species Common name 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 &IRI½XWLS[WRSXVIRH[MXLVERO7YGGIWWXIRHWXS G )WXMQEXIWSJTVSNIGX'SWXMRVIPEXMSRXSVERO
endemic HIGVIEWI[MXLVEROERH'SWXMRGVIEWIWWMKRM½GERXP]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 $155 million (Figure 1e). vVU vMM vVU e VU end S e EN end 112.9087 CC,N&S e e end N e EX end S e EN end e EN end
*MKYVI4VSNIGX&IRI½X7YGGIWWERH'SWX VIPEXMSRWLMT[MXL rank 159 e EN end S E )WXMQEXIWSJTVSNIGX&IRI½XMRVIPEXMSRXSVERO[MXL regression line 0.00 171 r VU 0.00 170 v VU 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 158 e CR end S B*S/C Rank TSP Act EPBC H )WXMQEXIWSJ4VSNIGX)J½GMIRG]MRVIPEXMSRXSVERO ($M) 0.19 0.10 0.07 0.29 Success Cost &IRI½X
F )WXMQEXIWSJTVSNIGX7YGGIWWMRVIPEXMSRXSVERO[MXL regression line I 'YQYPEXMZIGSWX 1 SJTVSNIGXW myrtle orchid elbow 0.90 0.02 Spotted-tailed Quoll 0.25 0.09 Dwarf Galaxias Australian Grayling 0.10 0.21 Pedra Branca Skink Pedra Tasmanian DevilTasmanian 0.85 0.50 New Holland Mouse White-bellied Sea-Eagle Hydrobiid Snail (Cataract Gorge) Pedder GalaxiasPedder 0.10 0.21 7TSXXIH,ERH½WL Green and Golden Frog 0.20 tapered leek-orchid 0.10 0.09 0.2550 Clarence Galaxias 0.10 0.52 Thynninorchis nothofagicola Dasyurus maculatus maculatus +EPE\MIPPETYWMPPE Prototroctes maraena Niveoscincus palfreymani Sarcophilus harrisii Pseudomys novaehollandiae Haliaeetus leucogaster Beddomeia launcestonensis +EPE\MEWTIHHIVIRWMW Brachionichthys hirsutusBrachionichthys Species Common name Litoria raniformis 4VEWSTL]PPYQETS\]GLMPYQ +EPE\MEWNSLRWXSRM
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 18 19 -HIRXM½GEXMSRSJXLIEGXMSRWQSWXGSQQSRP] 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 RSXHEXEHI½GMIRX[IVII\GPYHIHJVSQXLITVMSVMXMWEXMSR VIZMI[IH[MXLVIKEVHXSXLI0MWXWTIGMIW2IEVXLI 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 TVSNIGXWEVIPSGEXIHMREWMRKPIVIKMSR[LMPIEVIWLEVIH 8EWQERMERFEWIHTVSNIGXW-RXLIGEWISJXLIWTIGMIWSR appropriate, would be incorporated into a project if there analysis indicates that more than 10 projects selected across regions. 0MWX %TTIRHM\ XLMW[EWIMXLIVFIGEYWIXLI]EVILMKLP] 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*SVWSQI0MWXWTIGMIWLS[IZIVXVERWPSGEXMSR 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. ETTPMGEXMSRSJXLMW½RHMRKMWI\TPSVIHMRXLI(MWGYWWMSRERH NRM projects Total EHHMXMSREPWTIGMIWSR0MWX %TTIRHM\ [IVII\GPYHIH 8LIWTIGMIWSR0MWX[IVIHMWGYWWIHMRWSQIHIXEMP in Potential Misuses of the Priority List. Cradle Coast FIGEYWIRSTVSNIGXGSYPHFIMHIRXM½IHXLEX[SYPHFVMRK 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, 8LIWTIGMIWEPVIEH]HIIQIHXSFIWIGYVISZIVXLI 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 MRGVIEWIHVMWOWJVSQ[MPH½VISVHVSYKLXHYIXSGPMQEXI 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 [SYPHFISJ^IVS&IRI½XJSVWLSVXXIVQWIGYVMX])\TIVXW example, actions to secure the Tasmanian devil in the wild Grand Total 171 spend part of their year on mainland Australia where MHIRXM½IHWSQISJXLIWIWTIGMIWEWVIUYMVMRKEVIZMI[SJ included the establishment of a number of fences across WMKRM½GERXXLVIEXWEPWSI\MWX2STVSNIGXETTVSTVMEXI their conservation status. However, others were viewed large tracts of land. These would need to cross rivers JSVJYRHMRKMR8EWQERMEREPSRIGSYPHFIMHIRXM½IHXLEX XSFIWIGYVIWTIGM½GEPP]FIGEYWISJXLIWTIGMEPTVSXIGXMSR 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 RYQFIVWERHGSR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSRSJWSQIWTIGMIWEPWS 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 MRXLI%TTIRHM\-RXLIGEWISJ³HEXEHI½GMIRX´WTIGMIW secure them within the required period. In some cases, fences, without which the number of expensive items, 0MWX%TTIRHM\ I\TIVXWHMHRSXJIIPGSR½HIRXXLEX 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 Discussion
Species’ positions on List 1 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 FIWIGYVIHXLVSYKLWSPIP]8EWQERMEFEWIHTVSNIGXW 0MWX many high-ranking species are at risk from a single threat, 7SYXLVI¾IGXWXLILMKLPIZIPWSJIRHIQMGMX]MRXLIVIKMSR species which in many cases lack any of these documents, %REHHMXMSREPX[SWTIGMIWSR0MWX XLIW[MJXERHSVERKI WYGLEWLEFMXEXQSHM½GEXMSRERHSGGYT]WQEPPEVIEW[LMGL 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, IRHIQMG¾SVE 6IMHIXEP 8LIWLEVIHTVSNIGXW[MPP 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 of threatened 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. 8EWQERMER%YHMX3J½GI QEHIXLIWTIGM½G 3XLIVWTIGMIWSR0MWXETTIEVIHXSFIWYJJIVMRKXLVIEXW 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. JSVGSRWMHIVEXMSRYRHIVXLI³HEXEHI½GMIRX´SFNIGXMZI ERH 8LII\IVGMWILEWXLYWQEHIWMKRM½GERXWXITW on List 1 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 AERHMREGGYVEGMIWSJIWXMQEXIW?6IWYPXWA ;LIVI The bringing together of experts on each species useful way to direct broad-scale landscape management. WYJ½GMIRXJYRHWEVIRSXEZEMPEFPIXSGEVV]SYXEPPTVSNIGXW 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 XLIMVXLVIEXIRIHWTIGMIWWXEXYW[IVIMHIRXM½IH be funded in their present form. Others may be estimated than $1 million over a 50 year period, with only $180,000 XSLEZIEPS[PMOIPMLSSHSJWYGGIWW1SWXWMKRM½GERXP]IEGL *SVX]½ZISJ8EWQERME´W'VMXMGEPP])RHERKIVIH)RHERKIVIH VIUYMVIHMRXLI½VWX]IEVW8LIGSWXSJWIGYVMRKXLI [MPPFIHMVIGXIHXSEZIV]WTIGM½GPSGEXMSR[LIVIXLI and Vulnerable species cannot be effectively secured as XSTVEROMRKWTIGMIWSR0MWX SZIVE]IEV I\TIVXWMHIRXM½IHXLITSTYPEXMSR[MXLXLIFIWXGLERGI XLI]EVIGSRWMHIVIHXSFIHEXEHI½GMIRX 0MWX (3' period is less than half the cost of securing the remaining of being secured. The same action elsewhere may not LEWWMQMPEVP]MHIRXM½IHEWYMXISJHEXEHI½GMIRXWTIGMIWEW PS[IWXVEROMRKWTIGMIW8SQMRMQMWII\XMRGXMSRVMWOMXMW contribute to securing the species. As described in the worthy of prioritisation under a separate objective – to QSWXGSWXIJ½GMIRXXSWIGYVIWTIGMIWMRXLIMVTVMSVMX]SVHIV 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. QIER7YGGIWW[LMPIXLIMVQIERTVSNIGX&IRI½XMWWMQMPEV TVSNIGXWXSFIJYRHIHLEZIFIIRMHIRXM½IH
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 22 ? Potential misuses of the priority list 2010 2060 2110 Assumption that a fully funded project will fully recover a species
8LIVIGSZIV]EGXMSRWMHIRXM½IHF]XLMWI\IVGMWISRP] 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 RSXJYRHIHRS[MXQE]WYFWIUYIRXP]FIGSQIHMJ½GYPXSV 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: ppyy
Grouping of common actions as Treatment of projects ranking low or priorities for multi-species recovery absent from List 1 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 Assumption that the priority list is Selection of single actions within priorities for this area may compromise other areas. 8LIVIEVIEHHMXMSREPVIEWSRW[L]MXMWPIWWGSWXIJ½GMIRX Cost-sharing among projects within and between lists exactly correct high-ranking projects as high priority to fund grouped actions without considering whether for funding addressing different objectives may allow more projects to The priority order for projects is likely to change over the projects to which they relate are being funded. The be funded. contribution of the action to securing a species, and XMQIJSVWIZIVEPVIEWSRW8LITVSNIGXIJ½GMIRG]ZEPYIW ! The list prioritises whole projects on the basis of their its likelihood of success, may be very variable between 7MKRM½GERXP]XLISFNIGXMZI[LMGLJSVQIHXLIFEWMWSJXLI &IRI½X\7YGGIWW'SWX HVMZMRKXLIVEROMRKEVIKIRIVEPP] GSWXIJ½GMIRG]MRQIIXMRKXLIXEVKIXSJWIGYVMRKE projects. Furthermore, close examination of the grouped prioritisation exercise is still imperfectly worded and is very close between species (Figure 1d). Decisions threatened species. The actions suggested for each species actions is likely to reveal important differences in the way not Tasmanian State Government policy, but essentially regarding threatened species conservation are subject to security project are the minimum set of actions required they are to be realised for each project. It may be that expresses the aim of minimising Tasmanian species the many uncertainties relating to imperfect knowledge. to secure the species. None of the actions is obsolete, unless the action is carried out for an adequate duration, extinctions in response to the requirement of the New information may change values. The PPP method, therefore if any of the actions are not funded the species or in the appropriate location, it will do nothing to secure Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 for a strategy to while simple and transparent, is still being developed to MWYRPMOIP]XSFIWIGYVIH-XMWRSXGSWXIJ½GMIRXXSMRZIWX the species. ensure the survival of threatened species. ensure the most accurate expression of estimates. in parts of projects which may not fully be realised: an isolated action that reduces the threat to a low-ranking As described in the Methods (PPP Step 8), the search (3'LEWMHIRXM½IHSXLIVFMSHMZIVWMX]GSRWIVZEXMSR The order may also change when currently excluded WTIGMIWQE]RSXFIWYJ½GMIRXXSTVIZIRXMXWI\XMRGXMSR8S for true overlaps in actions (ie cost-sharing) can only objectives relating to short and long term security, costs and cost-sharing are incorporated (Methods: PPP 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 7XITW [LMGLGERSRP]FIHSRI[LIRMXMWORS[R which projects will be funded. Sensitivity analyses can be be directed to an action which is part of a project that is FIIRMHIRXM½IH 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 GSR½VQEXMSRSJIWXMQEXIW[SYPHLIPTHIGMHI[LIXLIVE 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 1 may be treated as the clearest of community values or keystone role in maintaining HMJ½GYPXXSIWXMQEXIVIPEXMZIMQTSVXERGISJEGXMSRW currently available guide to priorities for funding to ecosystems. minimise threatened species extinctions.
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 25 Future recommendations References
Regular review Addendum %2>)'' National strategy for the conservation of Schahinger, R. (2007). Threatened Flora – Prioritisation Australia’s biological diversity. Department of the SJ6IGSZIV]%GXMSRW 'VEHPI'SEWX261VIKMSR As indicated in the Methods (PPP Step 9), a review of New information has emerged on some species between )RZMVSRQIRX7TSVXERH8IVVMXSVMIW-7&2 Threatened Species Section, Department of the prioritisation is appropriate within the next 5 years the completion of the analyses and the production of the Primary Industries and Water, Hobart. (as resources permit), in light of progress and new ½REPZIVWMSRSJXLMWVITSVX information, incorporating all Tasmanian species. Joseph, L.N., Maloney, R.F. & Possingham, H.P. (2008). 8EWQERMER%YHMX3J½GI Management of threatened A new survey has found Pardalotes quadragintus (Forty– Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species. Report of the Auditor-General: Special *SVQEPMHIRXM½GEXMSRSJSFNIGXMZI W 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 ¯ over the coming months. Conversely, recent surveys for Wintle, B.A. (2008). A review of biodiversity investment of the implementation of the 2009 priority list. A longer Limnodynastes peroni 7XVMTIH1EVWL*VSK MHIRXM½IHE 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, R.S., 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 of Tasmania. Flora of Australia TSSVP]ORS[RITLIQIVEP¾SVEWTIGMIWMRXLI1MHPERHW 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 H[EVJWYRVE] EW[IPPEWXLI³HEXEHI½GMIRX´WTIGMIW review, or only species. Finally, if the Federal government Amphibromus macrorhinus (longnose 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 JSVXLI½VWXXLVIIWTIGMIW[MPPRIIHWSQIQSHM½GEXMSRW 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 &MSHMZIVWMX]GSRWIVZEXMSRMWPMOIP]XSFIQSWXGSWXIJ½GMIRX 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 YTHEXIWSRER]WMKRM½GERXTVMSVMX]SVTVSNIGXGLERKIW XLIWISFNIGXMZIW(3'LEWMHIRXM½IHSFNIGXMZIWVIPEXMRKXS short and long term security, conservation of ecosystem types and functions, and community values.
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 27 Appendix
0MWX¯(EXEHI½GMIRXWTIGMIW
)\TIVXWHMHRSXGSRWMHIVXLEXXLIVI[EWWYJ½GMIRX 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; VUlnerable; Marine excluded from the prioritisation exercise. Migratory.
Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act TAS NRM Species Common name TSP Act EPBC Act TAS NRM endemic endemic endemic endemic Alcedo azurea diemenensis %^YVIOMRK½WLIV e Prasophyllum robustum robust leek-orchid e CR end CC Amphibromus macrorhinus longnose swampgrass e N 4VEWSTL]PPYQXETLER]\ 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 Pterostylis tunstallii tunstalls greenhood e N Beddomeia tumida Hydrobiid Snail (Great Lake) e end S Pultenaea sericea chaffy bushpea v N Brachionichthys politus 6IH,ERH½WL VU end Rhytidosporum 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 FPEGOXSRKYI½RKIVSVGLMH e Solanum opacum greenberry nightshade e Caladenia lindleyana lindleys spider-orchid e CR end Stenopetalum lineare narrow threadpetal e Caladenia pallida rosy spider-orchid e CR end Sterna striata White-fronted Tern v Caladenia sylvicola JSVIWX½RKIVW e CR end S Sympterichthys sp. (CSIRO ;EXIVJEPP&E],ERH½WL VU end Calochilus campestris copper beard-orchid e N 8 Castiarina insculpta Miena Jewel Beetle e end S Sympterichthys sp. (CSIRO >MIFIPP W,ERH½WL VU end 8 Colobanthus curtisiae KVEWWPERHGYT¾S[IV rVU Taskiria mccubbini McCubbins Caddis Fly e end S 'SVYREWX]PMW½VXLMM ½VXLWQMHKISVGLMH e CR end S Taskiropsyche lacustris Lake Pedder Caddis Fly e end S Corybas fordhamii swamp pelican-orchid e N Thelymitra bracteata leafy sun-orchid e S Diporochaeta pedderensis Lake Pedder Earthworm e 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 aff. montanum mountain leek-orchid e Prasophyllum perangustum knocklofty leek-orchid e CR end S
June 2010 Threatened Species Prioritisation Threatened Species Prioritisation June 2010 28 29 0MWX¯)\GPYHIH'VMXMGEPP])RHERKIVIH )RHERKIVIH :YPRIVEFPIWTIGMIW SYXWMHI 8EWQERMERVIQMX
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. 7II0MWXJSVEHHMXMSREPI\GPYHIHWTIGMIW%FFVIZMEXMSRWEW 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 (MSQIHIEI\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 :YPRIVEFPIWTIGMIW SXLIV WTIGM½IHVIEWSRW
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 JSVWSQISJXLIWIWTIGMIW´TVSNIGXW7II0MWXJSVSXLIV I\GPYHIHWTIGMIW%FFVIZMEXMSRWEWJSV0MWX!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[RYQFIVWZIV]GSR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSR[LIVIEXVMWO greenianus JVSQ½VIPMQMXIHMRJSVQEXMSR Beddomeia camensis Hydrobiid snail (Cam River) e end CC 0.15 0.72 20,195 :IV]GSR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSRRS[LIVIXSXVERWPSGEXI HYIXS competition and other threats) Beddomeia waterhouseae Hydrobiid snail (Clayton’s e end CC :IV]GSR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSRRS[LIVIXSXVERWPSGEXI HYIXS 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 'SR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSR[MPPPMOIP]FIJYVXLIVVIHYGIHEWWIE level rise & storm events remove habitat. Engaeus martigener *YVRIEY\&YVVS[MRK'VE]½WL v EN end N 0.25 0.55 'SR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSRZIV]ZYPRIVEFPIXSGPMQEXIGLERKIERH [MPH½VIW(SYFPMRKXVERWPSGEXMSRIJJSVXQMKLXEXXEMR 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'PMQEXIGLERKIEPWSQE]FILIEZ]MQTEGX Lissotes latidens Broad-toothed Stag Beetle e EN end S 0.50 0.11 :IV]PS[RYQFIVWGSR½RIHHMWXVMFYXMSRLEFMXEXEXVMWOJVSQ ½VI'PMQEXIGLERKIPMOIP]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]WLSVXXIVQWIGYVIWTIGMIW
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 %GEGMEE\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 4MQIPIEE\M¾SVEWYFWTE\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 KVEWWPERH¾E\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 )TEGVMWZMVKEXE /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