Critical ecological assets in areas of high
salinisation hazard in the Tasmanian Midlands
Peter Davies and Phil Barker
October 2005
FFrreesshhwwaatteerr
SSyysstteemmss AAqquuaattiicc EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall CCoonnssuullttiinngg SSeerrvviiccee
fs fs
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 This project........................................................................................................ 5
2. Methods................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Study Area......................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Study Approach................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Ecological Assets .............................................................................................. 9
2.4 Hazard ratings ................................................................................................. 13
2.5 Hazard Integration rules .................................................................................. 22
2.6 Asset Prioritisation .......................................................................................... 22
2.7 Field Validation............................................................................................... 26
3. Results ................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Wetlands.......................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Waterbodies..................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Stream drainage............................................................................................... 33
3.4 Stream data validation..................................................................................... 42
3.5 Vegetation Assessment ................................................................................... 46
4. Discussion ............................................................................................................. 55
4.1 Overall results and caveats .............................................................................. 55
4.2 Primary vs Secondary salinisation .................................................................. 56
4.3 Groundwater flow systems.............................................................................. 57
4.4 Assets .............................................................................................................. 58
4.5 Salinity tolerance............................................................................................. 60
4.6 Surface salinity monitoring ............................................................................. 61
5. Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................... 64
6. References ............................................................................................................. 67 Appendix 1. Details of integrated hazard assessment analysis............................................................ 69 Appendix 2. Areas of Tasveg codes at medium and low hazard by GFS........................................... 70 Appendix 3. GFS by threatened flora species and threatened flora by hazard category..................... 77
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Colin Bastick, Bill Cotching and Simon Lynch (Land Management
Branch, Resource Management and Conservation Division, DPIWE) for guidance and
feedback during this project. Acknowledgments are also due to John Corbett for
assistance with GIS attribute accumulation for the drainage layer hazard rating.
Funding for this project was provided under the NHT NAP program, administered by the
Northern Midlands and Southern Midlands Municipal Councils.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker iv
Executive Summary
A GIS-based assessment has been conducted to identify ecological assets in high
salinisation hazard areas in the NAP region of the Tasmanian Midlands. Relative hazard
to aquatic ecosystems, wetlands, water bodies and streams, as well as to vegetation
communities from salinisation was evaluated. The hazard analysis was based on the
presence of particular groundwater flow systems, and on rainfall and vegetation
clearance. Hazard ratings were applied to these factors, and then to mapped polygons
describing each asset type by GIS overlay. Rule sets were applied to attribute each asset
polygon or streamline with an integrated hazard rating. High hazard ratings were
combined with information on asset features (e.g. wetland size, the presence of threatened
species etc) to develop a prioritised list of ecological assets in high salinisation hazard
areas.
148 wetlands (15% of the total) were rated as occurring in areas of highest hazard. 45 of
these wetlands and two water bodies were rated as occurring in areas of highest hazard
and being of high priority for management and/or monitoring. Around 7 - 8% of all
stream sections in the study area (ca 1 100 km) were rated as occurring in areas of high
hazard at low and median flows. These were primarily small headwater catchments of
several smaller river, creek and rivulet systems; and small floodplain or valley floor
tributaries of the lower Coal and Jordan and middle South Esk Rivers. Field evaluation
confirmed that high levels of stream salinity at baseflow were related to high hazard
ratings.
Relatively small areas of priority vegetation (848 ha) or numbers of threatened species
(100 populations) were located in areas of highest hazard. Only four of the highest
priority vegetation types (endangered/rare) were in the highest hazard category - lowland
Poa and Themeda native grasslands, Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland, and riparian
vegetation. There are seven vulnerable communities occurring in areas of highest hazard,
with only inland Eucalyptus amygdalina forest with more than 50 ha in high hazard areas.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker v
In comparison, relatively large areas of cleared agricultural land occur in areas of highest
hazard (39 139 ha).
Three groundwater flow systems were recognised as posing high salinisation hazard.
These were local scale systems in alluvial plains, floodplain alluviums and deeply
weathered sediments. Alluvial plain and floodplain alluvial systems account for the
greatest proportion of ecological assets located in areas of highest hazard. Field
assessment indicated that local systems in dunes are significant local sources of surface
salinity and should be further evaluated.
Recommendations are made with regard to future work, monitoring and assessment of
asset condition.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 1
Critical ecological assets in areas of high salinisation
hazard in the Tasmanian Midlands
Peter E Davies and Phil Barker
Freshwater Systems, North Barker Ecosystem Services
1. Introduction
This report describes a preliminary assessment of the relative degree of hazard from
salinisation to ecological assets in the Tasmanian midlands. These include streams,
wetlands, waterbodies (excluding farm dams) and terrestrial vegetation communities. The
study area encompasses the entire Northern and Southern Midlands municipalities, as
well as that part of the Clarence Municipality which falls within the Tasmanian
NAPSWQ (National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality) region. This
Consultancy is a component of the “Northern and Southern Midlands Understanding
Groundwater Flow Systems and Processes causing Salinity” projects that is funded by
the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water
Quality, and managed by the three municipalities. Technical support for the projects was
provided by the state government Departments of Primary Industry, Water and
Environment and Mineral Resources Tasmania In order to target future investment in
salinity management in the Tasmanian Midlands, the ecological assets at risk of
secondary salinisation need to be identified. This project aimed to identify the aquatic
ecosystems and terrestrial vegetation at highest risk of exposure to the effects of
secondary salinisation processes within the Tasmanian Midlands.
However, deficiencies in our current level of understanding of salinisation processes at
the scales of sub-catchments and individual ecological assets limits our analysis to
identifying the relative salinity hazard for the area in which each asset sits (for terrestrial
vegetation), or for the area which contributes water to the asset (for streams, waterbodies
and wetlands).
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 2
1.1 Background
Salt movement in the landscape is controlled by the movement and storage of water
within groundwater flow systems. Latinovic et al. (2003) describe the derivation of a
suite of conceptual models for a range of groundwater flow systems (GFS’s) in
Tasmania. These were subsequently modelled and mapped by GIS at a 1: 250 000 scale
for the entire state. Hocking et al. (in prep) describe the next stage of analysis, in which
models of key GFS types have been refined and mapped at a scale of 1: 100 000 for the
Tasmanian midlands. This work was conducted under NAP NHT funding.
The ‘groundwater flow system’ (GFS) concept was developed as part of the National
Land and Water Audit (Coram 1998). A GFS refers to the characteristics of a landscape
and it’s role in salinity transport and storage. Each GFS type is characterised by the
groundwater processes that occur within the GFS unit (e.g. groundwater recharge and
discharge), volume of water (storage) salt store, groundwater flow path (length),
geology/regolith and topography.
In the context of salinity management, GFS’s can be seen as salt transporting and storage
units acting over a variety of spatial and temporal scales of response. Transport and
delivery of salt is largely controlled by the GFS (hydraulic and hydrologic) regime. The
predominant salt load in Tasmania is now understood to result from fairly continuous
aerial loadings of current marine origin, and not from geological sources. This loading is
associated with rainfall and aerosol transport and delivery to the land surface, with the
salt then behaving conservatively in sub-surface hydrogeological systems.
The key factors that influence the potential for secondary salinisation of aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, are those that influence the hydrological regime of a GFS. Rainfall
and evapotranspiration are key factors, with the latter also strongly controlled by
vegetation. Changes in rainfall and evapotranspiration both spatially and temporally are
therefore key inputs into any analysis of salinisation risk. Land clearance is a significant
trigger of secondary salinisation. Intensive landuse involving cropping, irrigation and
urban developments may also lead to changes in local groundwater levels. Both factors
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 3
can lead to groundwater tables rising toward the surface and the enhanced transport of
salt to surface ecosystems.
Aquatic ecosystems can receive salt directly from rainfall and the groundwater, or
indirectly through surface drainage from locations where GFS’s discharge. A wide
variety of aquatic ecosystems occur in the study area including perennial and ephemeral,
upland hillslope and floodplain streams ranging widely in size and catchment area;
numerous wetlands ranging in size from fragments (many being remnants) to substantial
marshes or lagoons with varying degrees of ephemerality, human impact and salinity; a
large number of waterbodies, most being farm dams, but including montane lakes,
lowland salt lakes and several large artificial storages. Several areas are known to
experience primary salinity, especially in the Tunbridge area which features a number of
salt lakes and pans (Buckney and Tyler 1976), several of which were harvested for salt
for human use in the early days of European settlement. The impact of secondary
(human-induced) salinisation in aquatic ecosystems will tend to eliminate sensitive
freshwater species and promote the relative abundance of salt tolerant forms, several of
which have been observed in Tasmanian salt lakes and wetlands (De Dekker and
Williams 1982).
Native vegetation in the study area is characterised by dry forests and woodlands,
grasslands and to a lesser extent scrubs and heaths. Each of these vegetation formations,
but particularly the forests and woodlands, contains a range of vegetation communities or
species assemblages. The various vegetation communities organise themselves in the
landscape in a pattern that reflects, in part, their ecological requirements for soil and
water. The geographic variation between the communities will also reflect, at least in
part, the distribution of the various ground water flow systems because the GFS’s are
based on the underlying geology and other landscape features such as dunes and flood
plains.
Terrestrial vegetation may be affected directly by groundwater accession to the root zone,
which if salinised may cause physiological stress. The differential geographic
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 4
distributions of similar vegetation communities exposes them to different salinity
hazards. As such some vegetation communities will be at higher risk of degradation than
others.
Salinity expresses itself in vegetation in two ways. The first is via species assemblages.
For example, primary salinity is reflected by the presence of salt tolerant species. Where
primary salinity is concentrated, the species present may be specialised halophytes. These
plants are well adapted to exclude toxic salt loads from their metabolic processes by
taking up salt and storing it in specialised cells. Examples include succulents and
Atriplex, which has salty bladders on its leaves. Other species may tolerate salt to various
degrees but those with very low tolerance will be affected by salt toxicity or
physiological drought. The former is caused by disruption of the metabolism by salt
damage to cells. The latter is caused by the inability of some plants to take up water from
the soil against the osmotic gradient caused by the salt. This appears as if the plants have
died due to drought.
The net effect of the impact of salinity is the death of susceptible species and vegetation
communities. The expression of salinity may be at quite different scales in the landscape.
Local discharge areas may be very confined, such as at the base of dunes, while more
extensive expression may reflect rising water tables across low, flat land.
The overall impact of secondary salinisation on ecosystems is dependent on several
factors:
• the inherent susceptibility (sensitivity) of the biota to saline conditions over a
range of concentrations;
• whether the ecosystem is already saline i.e. has experienced primary salinisation;
• the regime of salt concentration – particularly temporal variation with season,
flow etc;
• the presence of other impacts accompanying secondary salinisation, including
waterlogging, sedimentation, erosion, nutrient enrichment, invasion by exotic
species, flow reduction, overgrazing by stock etc.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 5
1.2 This project
The identification of Groundwater Flow System (GFS) characteristics and the mapping of
their areal extent in the Tasmanian NAP region conducted by Latinovic et al. (2003) and
Hocking et al. (in prep) allows, for the first time, a preliminary assessment of the relative
salinisation hazard to key aquatic and terrestrial ecological assets.
In Tasmania there has been a relatively thorough assessment of the distribution and
conservation status of aquatic ecosystems (via the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem
Values or ‘CFEV’ project), as well as of vegetation communities (provided in the TasVeg
database), while state-wide data on threatened flora and fauna is actively managed (e.g. in
the GTSpot database). In the following assessment the conservation status provides the
basis for the prioritisation of the vegetation community and flora assets. Conservation
status of aquatic ecosystems is in the process of being finalised within the CFEV project
and could not be used in this assessment.
In this project we have conducted an assessment of salinisation hazard for all terrestrial
vegetation and aquatic ecological assets within that part of the Tasmanian NAP region
which falls within the Municipalities of the Northern Midlands, Southern Midlands and
Clarence, by spatial overlay and analysis. The analysis involves rating the key hazards
which determine risks of secondary salinisation – groundwater systems, vegetation cover
and rainfall/evaporation. The ecological assets – vegetation communities and species,
wetlands, waterbodies and river drainage – are then rated with an integrated relative
hazard from secondary salinisation by using a rule set applied to the individual hazards to
which they are spatially linked.
In this report we identify the priority aquatic and terrestrial vegetation assets occurring in
areas of highest hazard from secondary salinisation which are in need of monitoring and
potential management. We also describe key knowledge gaps required to refine the
identification of risks to and monitoring of the assets, their susceptibilities to secondary
salinisation, and evidence of impacts.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 6
2. Methods
2.1 Study Area
The study area consists of the entire Northern and Southern Midlands Municipalities and
that part of the Clarence Municipality which falls within the Tasmanian NAP region
(Figure 1).
Campbelltown
Northern
Midlands
Southern
Midlands
Clarence
Oatlands
Richmond 10 km
Figure 1. Study area showing Northern and Southern Midlands municipalities and NAP
region component of Clarence municipality.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 7
2.2 Study Approach
A risk assessment approach was attempted in order to define the relative risk of
salinisation for all mapped ecological asset units in the study area. Risk assessment
combines knowledge of likelihood of expression of a particular hazard or set of hazards,
and their consequences i.e. Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.
Two main factors precluded an effective risk assessment being conducted for this study.
Firstly, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the spatial distribution of salinity
expression within individual Groundwater Flow System units. This was primarily due to
the current low level of knowledge of internal groundwater and salt transport processes
for the Tasmanian Midland GFS’s. The different GFS types are known to indicate
different relative salinity hazards. However, the size (and connectivity) of these mapped
units is generally larger than the scale of individual ecosystem assets (river reaches,
wetlands, vegetation patches etc). Insufficient knowledge of the spatial distribution of
likely salt delivery to individual ecological asset units therefore reduces the potential to
assess the likelihood of their salinisation. As a result the likelihood cannot be estimated
with sufficient accuracy.
Secondly, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the consequence of salinisation
for individual assets. There is a lack of historical understanding of natural or primary
salinisation history of the assets. There is also a lack of understanding of the degree to
which salinisation will result in actual impairment of the ecological condition of the
assets. Thus, the consequences are poorly understood.
It was therefore decided to conduct only the first step of a risk assessment, namely
identifying the relative salinisation hazard to which each asset is exposed. In future, a
more fine-scaled understanding of salt delivery within GFS units, combined with an
assessment of likely relative responses of individual assets to varying degrees of salt
exposure, will allow a comprehensive risk assessment to be conducted.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 8
An integrated hazard assessment was conducted in which:
1. Specific hazard components were identified;
2. All mapped units of each ecosystem type within the study area were attributed
with hazard feature values;
3. Hazard component attributes were assigned with Hazard ratings (high, medium,
low);
4. Integrated Hazard Ratings were derived for each ecosystem unit by applying a
rule set to the individual attribute Hazard ratings;
5. The ecosystem units were then prioritised by Integrated Hazard rating and other
ecosystem unit features.
The primary hazards associated with secondary salinisation, and for which reliable spatial
data were available were, as indicated in Section 1.1: Groundwater flow systems, Rainfall
and Vegetation clearance.
These hazards were mapped and attributed for each mapped unit (feature) of the
following ecosystem types – wetlands, waterbodies, streams and terrestrial vegetation.
The ecosystem types and hazards were mapped at a 1: 25 000 scale.
Each hazard attribute was assigned a Hazard rating (low, medium and high). A fourth
hazard, landuse, was also evaluated but was deemed to contain sufficient errors at a small
scale (sub 1: 100 000) to be of limited use.
For each ecosystem unit (wetland/waterbody polygon, drainage line section), hazard
ratings were combined using a rule set, to define a relative Integrated Hazard rating. The
Integrated Hazard ratings (high, medium, low) were then used, along with several other
features of the assets (e.g. ‘special values’ such as threatened species; size etc.), to
prioritise the ecosystem asset units.
We made the following assumptions during this analysis:
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 9
• that all assets falling substantially or completely within the spatial extent of the
GFS units were likely to be linked to that GFS either by direct discharge or by
vertical exchange between subsurface or surface water and groundwater;
• that our current knowledge of the distribution of recharge and discharge locations
within GFS units was insufficiently developed to be used to prioritise assets;
• that salt behaves entirely conservatively within the landscape i.e. is not consumed
or destroyed, and follows surface flow paths after discharge from groundwater to
the surface;
• that salt delivery/exchange between wetlands terrestrial vegetation and the GFS
was primarily restricted to the spatial extent of the polygon describing it and its
immediate environs (ie there is little lateral distribution of salt into adjacent units);
• that salt delivery/exchange between stream sections and the GFS occurred over
the entire area of the section’s catchment – either the immediate catchment linked
to the individual stream section or reach (hereafter known as the river section
catchment or RSC) under very low flows, or the entire catchment of the drainage
upstream of the individual stream section (hereafter known as the upstream or
‘accumulated’ catchment) under ‘normal’ flows.
• that the spatial extent of salt delivery/exchange between waterbodies and the GFS
was intermediate between that for wetlands and streams.
2.3 Ecological Assets
2.3.1 Aquatic Assets & Data
The aquatic ecosystem units used in this study were sourced from the CFEV
(Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values) project GIS data (DPIWE unpub. data).
These data consisted of polygon or line layers with associated database files, in shape file
format, mapped at a 1: 25 000 scale. The data for all three ecosystem types were sourced
in late December 2004.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 10
CFEV ‘special values’ data for freshwater dependent ecosystem biota were sourced in
late December 2004, and consisted of point and polygon data on threatened and priority
aquatic fauna and flora species and communities, sites of high aquatic species richness
and significant aquatic bird sites.
All aquatic ecosystem data were analysed using ArcView GIS (Version 3.1). All hazard
feature values (attributes) were attributed to the stream catchment (RSC), wetland and
waterbody polygons by intersection with the hazard layers in ArcView.
2.3.2 Wetlands
For the purposes of this analysis, a wetland is defined as a mapped area other than a
permanent water body or streamline which is either permanently or ephemerally wet. The
LIST mapping of wetlands includes swamps, marshes and related features. The more
comprehensive CFEV Wetland layer consists of 20 597 mapped wetland polygons for
Tasmania (with a total area of 206 800 ha). It is comprised of all mapped LIST wetlands
combined with wetlands identified from mapped TasVeg vegetation classes. The CFEV
Wetland polygon layer was clipped to the study area boundary, resulting in a total of 996
wetland units in the study area.
Provenance of CFEV data: The wetland layer had been derived by combining the LIST
1: 25 000 Hydrology theme (subset: wetland swamp area and wet areas) with the TasVeg
vegetation layer (Version May 2004) (codes As, CA, ALK, Br, BPB, BF, L, Me, Sm, Pr,
Ps, Waf, Was, We, Ws). LIST polygons were added to TasVeg polygons. All LIST-only
wetlands were classified as ‘Undifferentiated We’. Where significant overlap occurred,
the TasVeg polygons have been given preference. The CFEV Wetland polygon layer
was also attributed with data on condition, and biophysical classification data.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 11
2.3.3 Waterbodies
A waterbody is a standing body of water whether artificial or natural. For this project
only waterbodies which were not farm dams were considered, as the focus is on
waterbodies which are either natural or have significant natural or environmental
features.
The CFEV Waterbody layer was used for this analysis, consisting of ca. 1 350 waterbody
polygons for Tasmania. The CFEV Waterbody polygon layer was clipped to the study
area boundary, resulting in a total of 16 waterbodies in the study area.
Provenance of CFEV data: The CFEV waterbody layer is comprised of all LIST
waterbodies mapped at 1: 25 000 scale, excluding: all waterbodies < 1 ha in area; and all
farm dams and other small artificial waterbodies. The layer is also attributed with
condition, and biophysical classification data.
2.3.4 Streams
For this project, streams are defined as those elements of surface drainage which have
been mapped at the 1: 25 000 scale. The CFEV Stream Drainage layer was used in this
analysis. It consists of ca. 350 000 stream drainage section lines (with a total length of ca
153 000 km) for Tasmania, mapped at the 1: 25 000 scale. The CFEV Stream Drainage
layer was clipped to the study area boundary, resulting in a total of ca 28 000 stream lines
in (falling within or across the boundary of) the study area, totalling 14 827 km of stream
length.
The CFEV River Section Catchments (RSC) layer consists of ca. 475 000 stream
drainage section catchments for Tasmania. The CFEV RSC layer was clipped to the study
area boundary, resulting in a total of 200 RSC’s intersecting with the study area. The
initial intersection included all RSC’s falling within of across the study area. Any RSC’s
with a substantial proportion of area (>30%) falling outside the study area were removed,
as they could not be adequately attributed with hazard rating data.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 12
Provenance of CFEV data: The stream drainage layer had been derived by updating and
editing the LIST 1: 25 000 Hydrology theme for errors. The CFEV RSC polygon layer
was derived from a new (2004) state 1: 25 000 DEM to which the drainage layer was
linked. Catchment polygons were developed for every stream segment, with an upper size
limit. Both the drainage lines and RSC polygons were attributed with modelled Mean
Annual Runoff, stream order, and data on condition and biophysical classes (for methods,
see CFEV Technical Report, DPIWE Water Assessment and Planning Branch, in prep.).
2.3.5 Vegetation Assets and Data
A Mapinfo® GIS with raster capability was used to “clip” the DPIWE TasVeg layer
(mapped at 1:25000 scale) and undertake the spatial analysis. TasVeg codes are listed in
Appendix 2. The workflow and documentation for this process is shown in Appendix 1
(section A1.2.1). The TasVeg mapping units were intersected with the GFS polygons
(noting the limitations due to inaccuracy of the TasVeg data).
2.3.6 Flora Assets and Data
Threatened flora records were accessed from DPIWE’s GTSpot database and processed
as follows:
• records with an accuracy of worse than 500 m removed.
• one record per species selected from each 500 m x 500 m grid over the study area
to remove duplicate records with slightly different grid references.
The following data limitations were noted for this analysis:
• variable and frequently low accuracy of data (location and taxonomic);
• the GFS data set not covering the entire study area;
• some river catchments (e.g. Jordan) not fully contained within the study area
and/or the GFS data set;
• geographic bias in collection of flora record data (i.e. not systematic);
• presence of redundant data (due to extinctions) in the data set;
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 13
• the absence of any data/knowledge of viability of populations associated with
database records.
2.4 Hazard ratings
2.4.1 Groundwater Flow Systems
GIS data for GFS’s were provided by DPIWE in shape file format, with 12 GFS types
occurring within the study area mapped at a nominal 1: 100 000 scale (as described by
Hocking et al. in prep, Figure 2).
Hazard ratings were applied to each GFS present in the study area as shown in Table 1
(Figure 3). These ratings were based on the following considerations with regard to their
potential to deliver high salt loads to surface (e.g. root zone) and aquatic systems:
• Local systems are present a greater hazard from enhanced delivery of salt to
surface ecosystems in relatively short time frames (e.g. decades) and spatial scales
(several km);
• Lowland alluvial and floodplain systems have significantly higher potential to
both store and deliver salt to surface and groundwater-interacting ecosystems;
• Higher relief and more porous (eg dune) systems are likely to have shorter
residence times and higher ‘flushing’ rates and are therefore less likely to deliver
high concentrations of salt (though some dune systems are known to have highly
localised and occasionally concentrated salt discharge zones).
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 14
Figure 2. Groundwater Flow systems in the study area.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 15
Table 1. Hazard Ratings applied to GFS units.
Rating GFS
High Local scale system in alluvial plains
Local scale system in deeply weathered sediments
Local scale system in floodplain alluviums
Medium Local scale system in dunes
Local scale system in high relief dolerite
Intermediate scale system in low relief layered fractured sediments
Low Local scale system in high relief colluvium
Local scale system in high relief folded fractured rocks
Local scale system in high relief granite
Local scale system in high relief layered fractured sediments
Intermediate scale system in low relief dolerite
Intermediate/Local scale system in fractured basalt
2.4.2 Rainfall
Hazard ratings were assigned to mean annual rainfall as follows (Figure 4):
• High = ≤ 500 mm;
• Medium = 500 – 700 mm;
• Low = > 700 mm.
These values were based on the consideration that low rainfall is also coupled with high
evaporation rates in the Tasmanian midlands, and that areas with rainfall below 500 mm
are particularly at risk in the medium to long term (Hocking et al. in prep). A long term
mean annual rainfall isohyet data layer was provided by DPIWE. This rainfall dataset
was generated using software developed by Centre for Resource and Environment
Studies ANU Canberra, mapped at 1: 50 000 scale (Hutchinson 1998).
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 16
Figure 3. Map of GFS Hazard rating for the study area. Red = High, Yellow = Medium,
Green = Low.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 17
Figure 4. Map of Mean annual rainfall Hazard rating for the study area. Red = High,
Yellow = Medium, Green = Low.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 18
2.4.3 Vegetation Clearing
Hazard ratings for vegetation clearing were assigned as follows (Figure 5):
High = intensive clearing (> 50% for aquatic ecosystems; > 80% for vegetation);
Medium = moderate clearing (25 – 50% for aquatic ecosystems; 40 – 80% for
vegetation);
Low = minimal clearing (< 25% for aquatic ecosystems; < 40% for vegetation).
Data on vegetation clearing for the hazard rating for aquatic ecosystems was sourced
from CFEV, mapped at the 1: 25 000 scale (as the CFEV Catchment Disturbance layer,
developed independently from the TasVeg layer, for methods, see CFEV Technical
Report, DPIWE Water Assessment and Planning Branch, in prep.). For the vegetation
risk analysis the data was sourced directly from TasVeg (see Appendix 1, Section A1.2.2
for this workflow).
The CFEV Catchment Disturbance Index was attributed to all river section catchments
(RSC) in the study area and used as an index of native vegetation clearance.
A catchment layer for Tasmanian wetlands is not currently available due to the low
resolution of existing digital elevation models (DEM’s). The CFEV project has used a
derived wetland catchment layer in which river section catchments (RSC’s) have been
linked to wetlands where significant overlap occurs between the wetland polygon and the
RSC. However, significant inaccuracies in the character of the attribution of the RSC’s to
wetland polygons in this layer in the low lying areas of the midlands limited their use as
adequate surrogates for true wetland catchments. This wetland catchment layer was not
used in the current study.
A riparian vegetation condition index had been developed for all wetland polygons within
the CFEV project, by buffering the TasVeg data for 100 m around all wetlands and
calculating the % of native vegetation. We deemed this to be a more accurate surrogate
for wetland catchment clearance, and used this data set to provide % catchment clearance
for each wetland in the study area.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 19
Figure 5. Map of vegetation clearance Hazard rating for the study area. Red = High, Yellow
= Medium, Green = Low.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 20
2.4.4 Landuse
Hazard ratings for landuse were assigned as follows (Figure 6):
High = intensive landuse (Irrigated cropping; Intensive animal production;
Urban/disturbed);
Medium = medium intensity landuse (Cropping; Plantation; Improved pasture;
Horticulture; Productive wetlands)
Low = extensive/low intensity landuse (Native Pasture and Other native veg;
Conservation; Forestry; Water).
Intensive landuse that intensifies or otherwise disrupts water infiltration into the surface
is seen as a key potential salinity hazard. The landuse data was sourced from BRS (2002).
Significant limitations noted in these data for this analysis were inaccuracies in land use
categorisation and the variability, especially between years, in the degree to which some
intensive land use practices (e.g. irrigation) are practised and hence effectively mapped.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 21
SSoorreellll DDeerrwweenntt VVaalllleeyy
CCllaarreennccee ((cciittyy))
BBrriigghhttoonn
SSoouutthheerrnn
MMiiddllaannddss
NNoorrtthheerrnn
MMiiddllaannddss
CCeennttrraall HHiigghhllaannddss
GGllaammoorrggaann--SSpprriinngg BBaa
BBrreeaakk OO DDaayy MMeeaannddeerr VVaalllleeyy
Figure 6. Map of landuse Hazard rating for the study area. Red = High, Yellow = Medium,
Green = Low.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 22
2.5 Hazard Integration rules
Given the scale of this assessment and the current inability to map the locations or zones
of GFS saline discharge, rules to integrate hazard ratings were deliberately kept simple.
The following rules were used to derive a relative integrated salinisation hazard rating for
all ecosystem units from the individual hazard ratings for GFS, rainfall and vegetation
clearance.
• Integrated Hazard = High, if hazard ratings for GFS, rainfall and vegetation
clearance were all High.
• Integrated Hazard = Low or Absent, if GFS Hazard rating was Low.
• Integrated Hazard = Medium, for all other cases.
The coding and numeric form of the ratings used in the calculations applied to the GIS
database files for each ecosystem layer are described in 1 (section A1.1).
The following rule also incorporated landuse hazard ratings to explore the identification
of the highest risk ecosystems from within the High Integrated Hazard set (this was done
only for aquatic ecosystems).
• Integrated Hazard = Highest, if all four hazard ratings (GFS, rainfall, vegetation
clearance and landuse) were all High.
2.6 Asset Prioritisation
All ecosystem units with a high integrated hazard rating were prioritised, except for
waterbodies for which the small number precluded prioritisation. CFEV special values
data was overlayed on all RSC’s and associated with wetlands if records for relevant
values fell within or immediately adjacent to the RSC associated with them. Prioritisation
was conducted using the following criteria:
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 23
2.6.1 Wetlands
Units were assigned to highest priority if they:
1. were rated with Higher or Highest integrated salinisation hazard; and
2. contained or were immediately adjacent to a river section catchment for which a
wetland Special Value was recorded; and/or
3. were > 5 ha in size (where larger size is considered to imply potentially greater
integrity and biodiversity – many small wetland fragments are frequently in poor
condition and/or contain seral vegetation);
4. were listed in DIWA (the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia) or
proposed for such listing by the Nature Conservation Branch of DPIWE (Dunn
2002).
2.6.2 Stream drainage
Units were assigned to highest priority if they were:
• attributed with High or Highest integrated salinisation hazard for > 40% of the
River Section Catchment area – this was called the Low Flow Integrated Hazard;
and/or
• attributed with High or Highest integrated salinisation hazard for Normal Flows
for > 40% of the entire or ‘accumulated’ catchment area - this was called the
Normal Flow Integrated Hazard.
In the first scenario, the assumptions were made that under low to very low flow
conditions, baseflows in streams would be primarily sourced from very local ground
water and sub-surface water sources. In the absence of an understanding of the scale and
local topology of GFS unit discharge, it was assumed that the immediate local catchment
(the RSC) for each drainage section would control the quality of these flows. Hence, a
Low Flow Integrated Hazard was derived for every river section based on applying the
Integrated Hazard rules for data derived only from its RSC.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 24
This Low Flow Integrated Hazard represents a ‘worst case’ hazard scenario typical of dry
summers, and in which instream biota would be expected to experience maximum stress
from the interaction of raised salt concentrations, higher temperatures, reduced flows and
reduced dissolved oxygen.
In the second ‘Normal Flow’ scenario, the assumptions were made that under normal (to
high) flow conditions, the predominant streamflow would be the product of flow yield
from a stream section’s entire catchment – i.e. the RSC plus the entire ‘accumulated’
catchment upstream. Hence, a Normal Flow Integrated Hazard was derived for every
river section based on applying the Integrated Hazard rules for data derived from entire
catchment.
The long-term annual flow yield for every stream section has been modelled as mean
annual runoff (MAR) within the CFEV project (noting potentially higher inaccuracy in
first order than larger streams). Normal Flow Integrated Hazard was therefore calculated
as follows:
1. % of all RSC area rated as high, medium or low risk was calculated for each RSC,
as above;
2. % of area at high risk was summed downstream through the drainage network,
weighted by MAR – this effectively ‘accumulated’ the percentage of area of high
Integrated Hazard in proportion to the catchment yield;
3. an ‘accumulated’ percentage of high Integrated Hazard was attributed to each
RSC;
4. steps 2 – 3 were repeated for medium and low Integrated Hazard.
In both of these scenarios, Integrated Hazard is considered, like salt, to behave
conservatively (i.e. is considered to change in proportion to water yield, measured as
mean annual runoff).
If more than 40 % of a river section’s RSC area was rated as high risk, a river section was
assigned a High Low Flow Integrated Hazard. If more than 40 % of a river section’s
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 25
accumulated catchment area was rated as high Integrated Hazard, a river section was
assigned a High Normal Flow Integrated Hazard.
If more than 40 % of a river section’s RSC area was rated as medium Integrated Hazard,
a river section was assigned a Medium Integrated Hazard rating under low flows. If more
than 40 % of a river section’s accumulated catchment area was rated as medium
Integrated Hazard, a river section was assigned a Medium Integrated Hazard rating under
normal flows.
2.6.3 Terrestrial vegetation
Prioritisation was conducted on both the vegetation classes and individual species.
Vegetation classes: The TasVeg mapping units were attributed with their statewide
conservation status (as per CARSAG 2004) to give four priority classes:
1 – Endangered or Rare (small extent)
2 – Vulnerable (larger extent), Critical ecological function
3 – Not threatened (p)
4 – Cultural or cultivated
The area in hectares of each TasVeg unit in each priority class and each risk category was
then calculated.
Flora (species): A priority classification was conducted by attributing plant species with
their conservation status, sourced from the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act
1995, to give three classes: Endangered, Vulnerable and Rare. These data were then
intersected with the Risk layer for flora. The number of records of each species in each
Integrated Hazard category was then counted.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 26
2.7 Field Validation
2.7.1 Streams
Following assignment of Integrated Hazard ratings to the stream drainage, several ‘hot
spot’ areas were identified as containing a wide range of Integrated Hazard values. A
survey was conducted in late January - early February 2005 by measuring conductivities
in all streams containing water at road crossings in the following areas:
• the lower and mid Coal River valleys;
• the upper Jordan catchment near Jericho and along Mud Walls Rd;
• along the Macquarie, Valleyfield and Mt Joy Roads;
• along the Tunbridge Tier Road and the Isis River valley;
• in the Conara to Epping Forest area;
• along the eastern ends of the Glen Esk, Lake Leake and Esk Main Roads;
• in the Melton Mowbray to Jericho area.
Conductivity was measured at each location, observations were made of flow, and the
location recorded by hand-held GPS. Risk ratings and % vegetation clearance were
recorded for each drainage section from the relevant GIS layers. Conductivity readings
were compared between Integrated Hazard levels both graphically and by one-way
analysis of variance (in the Systat 10.1 package).
2.7.2 Waterbodies
A literature and data search was conducted for conductivity data for the waterbodies
assessed in this study. Median conductivities were compared for each Integrated Hazard
level.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 27
3. Results
3.1 Wetlands
Of the 996 wetlands in the study area, 148 were identified as having high Integrated
Hazard. 15 of these were not fully ‘embedded’ within a high hazard GFS unit, but were
still included in the high Integrated Hazard group. 10 of the 148 were also assigned to the
Highest Integrated Hazard category when land use was included in the Integrated Hazard
assessment (Table 2). Most high Integrated Hazard wetlands occur in the Northern
Midlands (70% and 80% of the total by number and area respectively, Table 3), reflecting
the more extensive areas of high hazard GFS units and of wetlands in the lower gradient
terrain. The geographical distribution of high Integrated Hazard wetlands is shown in
Figure 7.
Table 2. Integrated Hazard rating for all study area wetlands, by GFS Hazard rating.
Integrated Hazard Rating
GFS Hazard
RatingHighest High
Moderate to
LowLow to Absent Grand Total
1 10 138 189 20 357
2 159 196 355
3 284 284
Grand Total 10 138 348 500 996
High Integrated Hazard wetlands occurred in the following areas:
1. Northern Midlands:
• Cleveland – Conara area;
• Isis River and middle Macquarie River;
• Ellinthorpe plains;
• Saltpan Plains;
• Buffalo Creek and lower St Pauls River valleys;
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 28
• Isolated wetlands between Ross and Campbelltown;
• Birralee Creek valley.
2. Southern Midlands:
• Upper Jordan and Dulverton Rt;
• Mangalore area.
3. Clarence Municipality:
• Pages Ck and the lower Coal River valley.
Table 3. Distribution of wetlands in high Integrated Hazard areas by municipality.
Municipality Total
Northern Southern Clarence
Number 103 32 13 1448
Area (ha) 980 212 32 1224
22 of the 148 high Integrated Hazard wetlands had an area greater than 10 ha. Eight were
associated with special values, within or immediately adjacent to their local catchment
(RSC), four of these being records of the green and gold bell frog (Litoria raniformis).
These also included single records for five threatened flora species that were observed
associated with or adjacent to high Integrated Hazard wetlands.
Overall, there were 45 High priority wetlands - those rated at high Integrated Hazard with
areas > 5 ha and/or associated with special values (Table 4). There were a number of
wetlands adjoining or connected to larger stream channels (e.g. Isis River, Pages Ck),
though a number were isolated from mapped stream drainage (e.g. Diprose Lagoon). In
addition there were two wetland complexes – groups of wetlands which formed a logical
grouping. Both of these were associated with stream banks/floodplains – on Dulverton Rt
(Southern Midlands) and Marengo Creek (Clarence).
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 29
Table 4. List of all priority wetlands rated with a High Integrated Hazard of salinisation.
Shaded blocks indicate wetlands within a single wetland complex. All listed GFS’s
are local in scale. X indicates Special Value is present.
Municipality GFS WL_ID Description/Name; Property Area (ha)
Integrated
Hazard
Special
Values
Northern MidlandsLocal system in floodplain
alluviums17827 S Esk Floodplain east of Fernhill Rd 27.0 Highest
17579 Diprose Lagoon, Cleveland 135.8 High
16781 York Lagoon 1, Isis R 72.8 High X
16817 Isis River riparian wetland 1 62.8 High
16812 York Lagoon 2, Isis R 46.6 High X
16855 Wetland on trib of Blacksmiths Ck; Snaresbrook 23.2 High
16843 Isis River riparian wetland 2; Bicton 22.0 High
17602 Small wetland adjacent to Diprose Lagoon; Inglewood 7.4 High
17734 Stockyard Lagoons; Midwood/Esk Vale 5.2 High
Local system in alluvial plains 16862 Lag on Macquarie Rd, E of Isis 48.8 High
16490 Grimes Lagoon, G L Sanctuary, lower Blackman R 24.3 High
19543 Wetland at Benham 2 19.8 High
16452 Wetland south of Glen Morey Saltpan 15.0 High
17559 Wetland, Mt Joy Rd 2 14.9 High
19643 Wetland at Benham 5, Brushy Hill Ck 14.9 High
17571 Wetland, Mt Joy Rd 1 14.0 High X
19537 Wetland at Benham 4 13.4 High X
19536 Wetland at Benham 3 13.4 High
16528 Wetland upstream Bar Lagoon 13.0 High
19544 Wetland at Benham 1 9.9 High X
17466 Wetland on Trib of Isis R, Macquarie Rd 9.9 High
17509 Floodplain wetland, Macquarie R; Stewarton 9.7 High
16760 Macquarie R floodplain wetland; Ashby 9.4 High
16776 Wetland adjacent to trib of upper Isis R; Verwood?, Auburn? 7.3 High
16517 Blackman R floodplain, Mansion Hill; Lochiel 6.5 High
Local system in deeply
weathered sediments17601 Cleveland Lagoon, Cleveland 76.8 High
17526 Small wetland south of Diprose Lagoon; Inglewood? 5.6 High
17467 Wetland above Macquarie R floodplain; Rokeby 5.6 High
Southern Midlands Local system in alluvial plains 15899 Wetland on Birralee Ck, York Plns Rd 39.9 High
15455 Wetland on Baghdad Rt, Mangalore 23.8 High X
15742 Woodford Plain, Huntworth Ck trib., Jericho Rd 19.1 High
16443 Wetland upstream Brents Lagoon, Tunbridge 13.5 High
15898 Wetland on Birralee Ck 2 9.5 High
15900 Wetland on Birralee Ck 1 7.7 High X
15740 Wetland on trib of Jordan R; Rosehill 7.6 High
16421 Wetland adjacent to Midland Hway, 1km north of Woodbury. 6.5 High
Local system in alluvial plainsWetland
Complex15747 Wetland 3 on trib of Dulverton Rt, Mt Anstey, Jordan R 16.9 High
" 15810 Wetland 2 on trib of Dulverton Rt, Mt Anstey, Jordan R 4.9 High
" 15811 Wetland 1 on trib of Dulverton Rt, Mt Anstey, Jordan R 4.8 High
Clarence Local system in alluvial plains 15481 Pages Ck Flpn 2, Richmond 7.1 Highest
15485 Pages Ck Flpn 3 Richmond 12.4 High
Local system in alluvial plainsWetland
Complex15484 Marengo Ck wetland 1 1.1 High X
" 15480 Marengo Ck wetland 3 1.0 High
" 15483 Marengo Ck wetland 2 0.7 High
" 15479 Marengo Ck wetland 4 0.6 High
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 30
Figure 7. Map showing location of all High Integrated Hazard wetlands in the study area.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 31
3.2 Waterbodies
Of the 16 waterbodies assessed within the study area, two were rated with high Integrated
Hazard, five with medium, and nine with low Integrated Hazard (Table 5, Figure 8).
Conductivity measurements were sourced from DPIWE Water Assessment and Planning
Branch (unpub. data, Craigbourne Dam, Lake Dulverton), Davies (unpub. data, Ben
Lomond lakes), Tassell (unpub. data, Tunbridge area salt lakes) and from Croome and
Tyler (1972), Buckney and Tyler (1973, 1976), De Dekker and Williams (1982). The
order of median conductivity values was consistent with the assigned Integrated Hazard
levels (Table 5) as follows: High = 15630, Medium = 454, Low = 40 EC units (15.6,
0.45 and 0.04 dS/m).
Craigbourne Dam was assigned a medium Integrated Hazard rating, and it should be
noted that the majority of the drainage upstream of the dam was also assigned a medium
risk rating (see section 3.3). This combination leads us to include it in the list of priority
waterbodies. This list is: Bells and Bar Lagoons and Craigbourne Dam. The Eeles Corner
floodplain pools while rated as high risk, are small and likely to be periodically flushed
by the South Esk (though they warrant survey).
Table 5. Integrated Hazard ratings for waterbodies in the study area, dominant GFS in and
salinity recorded from various sources (see text).
Municipality Name Wb_id Hazard Salinity (EC)
Northern Midlands Bells Lagoon 1075 Highest 7160
Bar Lagoon 1052 Highest 24100
Eeles Crnr, S Esk floodplain pools 153 High
Reedy Lagoon 1046 Medium 454
Forest Lagoon 1035 Medium 738
Folly Lagoon 1043 Medium ca. 300
Lake Leake 939 Low 35
Little Lagoon 1037 Low 35Lake Baker, Ben Lomond 149 Low 38
Unnamed Lake, Ben Lomond 151 Low 40
Lake Youl, Ben Lomond 152 Low 42
Youls Tarn, Ben Lomond 150 Low 40
Southern Midlands Lake Craigbourne 1200 Medium 450
Lake Tiberias 1186 Medium 460-880
Lake Dulverton 1169 Low 1880*
Tooms Lake 1135 Low 45
* influenced by bore water releases
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 32
Figure 8. Waterbodies assessed in the study area. High and medium Integrated Hazard
waterbodies indicated.
High
risk
Medium
risk
Eeles Corner Ben Lomond
lakes
Ellinthorpe
Plains L Leake
Tooms L
Craigbourne
Dam
L
Tiberias
L
Dulverton
High
Hazard
Medium
Hazard
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 33
3.3 Stream drainage
Of the 27 906 sections of stream drainage within the study area, 17 147 sections (61.4%)
were rated as of either high or medium integrated hazard at low flows and 16 073
(57.6%) at normal flows. This represents a total of 8 849 and 8 163 km of stream length,
respectively, out of the total 14 827 km of streams within the study area.
A total of 2 100 sections (7.5% of all sections in the study area) were rated as being at
high integrated hazard at low flows and 1 979 (7.1%) at normal flows – 1 072 and 724
km of stream length, respectively. The location of drainage and associated river section
catchments rated at high integrated hazard under low flows are shown in Figures 9 and
10. The extent of drainage rated at high integrated hazard under normal flows is only
marginally smaller than under low flows (Figure 11).
Stream drainage at high integrated salinisation hazard under either low or normal flows
consists primarily of first order streams (i.e. ‘headwater’ stream sections with no
tributaries, according to the Strahler stream order system) – totalling 1044 sections
(49.7% of all high integrated hazard drainage sections), and 488 km (45.5% of all high
integrated hazard drainage length).
The high integrated hazard rated stream sections were primarily small headwater
catchments of several smaller river, creek and rivulet systems; and small floodplain or
valley floor tributaries of the lower Coal and Jordan and middle South Esk Rivers (Table
6). Detailed descriptions of the high integrated hazard (and hence high priority) drainage
systems are provided in Tables 7 to 9.
Table 6. River drainage at high integrated salinisation hazard.
Region Catchments
Conara Blanchards Ck
Epping Forest Epping Forest - Vaucluse area
Isis Isis R and tribs
Woodbury Currajong and Tin Dish Rts
Richmond - Coal Valley Pages Ck
Tribs of lower Coal R
Jordan upper Jordan R tribs
Mangalore Rt tribs
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
34
Table 7. Stream drainage systems in the Northern Midlands Municipality rated at relative high integrated salinisation hazard at ‘normal’
flow (from hazard assessment based on the river section catchment or RSC). Locations 1 and 2 refer to upper and lower corners of
rectangular areas which include the high integrated hazard sections. PP = private property.
Municipality
Dominant GFS
NStream system name/description; properties
Access
Location (1)
Location (2)
Northern Midlands
Local system
in Alluvial plains
1Small tribs and lower reaches of unnam
ed streams/drains, Ravine Ck tributary; Upper
Winburn.
Nile Rd; PP
528019 5385204
530635 5382106
2Vaucluse Reservoir Ck and unnam
ed Ck to east, draining into S Esk; Vaucluse, Glen
Esk.
Glen Esk Rd; PP
536977 5375998
540880 536992
3Long M
arsh Ck, lower reaches, and 1st order tribs of St Pauls R; Glenair, Robins Law
nAll PP
568319 5371033
572371 5368787
41st-2nd order streams and channel tributaries of Macquarie River at Taranaki, M
t Joy,
Mittagong, Darlington Park, Leverington, Carnarvon, Coburg
Macquarie and Delmont Roads;
PP
514172 5377689
518267 5370019
5Stream and wetland drainage flowing into M
acquarie R at Lincoln Park
Mt Joy Rd; PP
520929 5376299
522538 5370417
6Stream and wetland drainage flowing into M
acquarie R at Valleyfield
Mt Joy Rd; PP
522800 5372381
525666 5369090
7
Upper Isis River, wetlands and small tributaries including Ferndale Creek, Joes Creek,
Unnam
ed Ck south of Potters Ck; inflows to Bar Lagoon; Ellenthorp, Verwood,
Plassey.
Verwood Road; PP
521823 5347296
529024 5342419
8Unnam
ed Ck tributary of lower Isis R and wetland; Barton.
Macquarie Rd; PP
517093 5365069
520181 5369020
Local system
in Alluvial plains
9
Middle to lower reaches of all sm
all stream
s draining into South Esk River that cross or
lie to the east of the Midlands Highway between Cleveland and Powranna, including
entire drainage of creek adjacent to Esk Vale homestead; Woorak, Glasslough, Clyne
Vale, M
idwood, Esk Vale, Fairfield, The Bend, Eberton, Haw
kridge, Eskdale.
Midlands Hway; PP
523177 538709
538021 5373233
Local system
in deeply weathered
Tertiary sediments
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
Local system
in Alluvial plains
10
Small (1 or 2 order) tributaries of middle Isis River and associated wetlands; Rothbury,
Bicton.
Isis River Rd; PP
522221 5364000
519625 5355711
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
11
Catchment of Blanchards Creek west of Guidons Bottom, and lower tribs and trunk of
Blacksm
iths Creek; Snaresbrook, Brookdale, W
anstead, Stockwell, Kenilworth.
Midlands Highway at Conara,
Valley Field Road; PP
542012 5360846
526357 5367209
Local system
in deeply weathered
Tertiary sediments
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
12
Unnam
ed Ck and wetlands at Greenhill; Greenhill.
Macquarie Rd; PP.
526198 5365779
523121 5362765
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
13
Unnam
ed Cks and wetlands at Egleston and Streanshalh; Egleston, Streanshalh.
Macquarie and Connell Rds; PP.
524712 536937
528584 5360944
Local system
in deeply weathered
Tertiary sediments
Southern &
Northern Midlands
Local system
in Alluvial plains
14
Floods Creek and M
ill Brook, runners, backchannels and small tribs, lower Blackman
River, Paddys Marsh; Cheam, Annandale.
Tunbridge Tier Rd; PP
526096 5337455
532063 5334698
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
35
Table 8. Stream drainage systems in the Southern Midlands and Clarence Municipalities rated at relative high integrated salinisation
hazard at ‘normal’ flow (from integrated hazard assessment based on the river section catchment or RSC). Locations 1 and 2
refer to upper and lower corners of rectangular areas which include the high integrated hazard sections.
Municipality
Dominant GFS
NStream system name/description; properties
Access
Location (1)
Location (2)
Southern Midlands
Local system
in Alluvial plains
15
Unnam
ed Creek draining Blue Gate Marsh and Bells Lagoon plains, Chock n Log Gully
Ck.
Tunbridge Tier Rd, Landing
ground access track; PP
525337 5342175
532639 5335126
16
Downs Creek m
ainstem
throughout, to junction with M
acquarie; Beaufront.
Stony Gully Road; PP
549063 5342827
540085 5347834
17
Upper tribs of Stayles Valley and the Shelves, Tacky Creek catchment; Beaufront?
PP
546104 5346061
549097 5343340
18
Birralee Ck, upper and middle reaches, and associated wetlands, small tribs, and drainage
into and from W
inspear Lagoon; Birralee
Lem
ont Rd; PP
545648 5316291
553205 5320421
19
Small tribs of Jordan, associated wetlands; Rosehill, M
erris, Lynwood.
Lower M
arshes Rd; PP
515760 5311471
520564 5308447
20
Gangways Ck; Hutton Park
Muddy Plains Rd; PP
518071 5302914
514675 5307822
21
Cross M
arsh Ck; North Stockman
518959 5294997
514661 5296620
22
Small tribs of Baghdad Rt, associated wetland; Shene, Ballyhooly, The Nutshell.
PP
522068 5278305
521286 5276573
23
Pages and M
arengo Cks, lower reaches and lower small tribs, Richmond;
Cold Blow and M
iddle Tea Tree
Rds; PP
530885 5270223
536370 5267525
Clarence
Local system
in Alluvial plains
24
Four sm
all tribs of the lower Coal River, draining east of Coal River Tier and crossing
the Cam
pania Rd between Richmond and Plummers Cks; Carrington, Enfield, Kincora.
Colebrook Rd; PP
533443 5274632
536007 5269353
25
Small floodrunners and floodplain creeks of the lower Coal R, east of the Coal between
Eliza Farm and Richmond; Eliza Farm, Inverquharity, Stradley.
Prossers and Fingerpost Rds; PP
535670 5275446
537319 5268840
26
Smaller tribs and lower sections of drainage between and Cam
bridge along eastern shore
of Pittw
ater - in catchments of Cross Pigeon Hole and Belbin Rts; Moores, Stony and
Duckhole Cks;
Colebrook and Grass Tree Hill
Rd; PP
532147 5266571
537326 5259934
27
Uptown Ck, lower reaches; Lynrowan
Acton Rd; PP
538194 5256637
536384 5255928
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
36
Table 9. Stream drainage systems rated at relative high integrated salinisation hazard at low to very low flows (from integrated hazard
assessment based on the river section catchment or RSC). Locations 1 and 2 refer to upper and lower corners of rectangular areas
which include the high integrated hazard sections.
Municipality
Dominant GFS
NStream system name/description; properties
Access
Location (1)
Location (2)
All sections listed at high risk for Normal flows plus:
Northern
Midlands
Local system
in Alluvial plains
28
Order 1 - 3 tributaries of the South Esk 2 - 4 km W
of Avoca; Hanleth, Eastbourne
Esk M
ain Rd; PP
550763 5371648
555528 5370060
29
Main Ck line draining the Bona Vista Estate; Bona Vista
PP only
557693 5375827
559020 5374304
30
Jacobs Ck, lower reaches and tribs; Beverley
Macquarie Rd; PP
528417 5361551
530300 5358997
31
Hut Run (lower) and Tacky Creek (middle); Beaufront?
PP only
548825 5348322
545623 5347087
32
Kittys Rt, central reaches from Kittys Hill to Trefusis; Trefusis, Ratharney.
Mitchells Flat to
Trefusis track on PP
543684 5327469
545992 5326096
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
33
Kingstone Rt, lower reaches; Rothbury.
Macquarie &
Rothbury
Rds; PP
519897 5365695
517845 5364293
Southern
Midlands
Local system
in Alluvial plains
34
Currajong Rt below W
oodbury, and tributary above Paddys Hill, Tin Dish Rt above
Lagoon, Pass Ck from Pass and Antill Ponds; Lowee Park, Kuranda, Rockwood, Middle
Park, Antill Ponds
Midlands Hway, Glen
Morey and Old Tier
Rds; PP
535931 5331618;
530782 5329902
528354 5329923;
533922 5325799
35
Ringwood Ck (trib of upper Jordan), middle reaches along M
ud W
alls Rd
Mud W
alls Rd
525354 5305423
526496 5299953
36
Quoin and Summerfield Cks, lower reaches; Woodlands, The Follies
Midlands Hway; PP
517348 5297652
514432 5295768
37
Woodlands Ck, middle reaches and trib at Rekuna
Tea Tree Rd; PP
521497 5278026
530396 5276050
Local system
in Quaternary alluvium
38
Plummers Ck, middle and lower reaches, and floodplain drainage line; Kincora?,
Pinehurst, Southfork, Churchill.
Colebrook and Tea Tree
Rds; PP
535939 5274207
533358 5275340
39
Unnam
ed Ck and drainage channel system
, trib of Coal R near Lowdina.
Colebrook Rd; PP
535313 5279489
536731 5278795
Local system
in deeply weathered
Tertiary sediments
Clarence
Local system
in Alluvial plains
40
Pages Creek, entire m
ain drainage and m
ost tribs
Middle Tea Tree Road;
PP
530818 5270589
535162 5266834
Local system
in Alluvial plains
41
Barilla Rt, lower trib, reaches and dam
s, adjacent to Cam
bridge airport.
Backhouse lane; PP
538063 5258682
536882 5257517
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 37
Few large-stream drainage sections were rated as at high integrated hazard. Only 237
(11.3%) of the high integrated hazard stream sections had stream orders greater than 3,
totalling 112 km (10.4% of all high risk drainage length). 893 drainage sections totalling
465 km of river within the study area are of stream order > 5 – these are the main stems
of the South Esk and Macquarie Rivers, Brumbys Ck, Little Swanport and Blackman
Rivers, and the Jordan and lower Coal Rivers. None of these ‘main stem’ river sections
was rated at high integrated hazard under either normal or low flows.
However, 601 sections (298 km) of > 5 order streams were rated as medium integrated
hazard under low flows. 335 sections (142 km) of these rivers were rated as medium
integrated hazard under normal flows and these only occurred in the Southern Midlands –
the entire mainstem of the Coal below Craigbourne, and all reaches of the Jordan and
Little Swanport Rivers that fall within the study area.
Substantial lengths of drainage in all three municipalities were rated as being at medium
integrated hazard (Figure 12). They comprised 52.5% and 50.2% of stream length at low
and normal flows, respectively totalling 7 777 and 7 439 km total stream length. These
river systems are listed in Table 10.
Table 10. River drainage systems rated at medium relative integrated salinisation hazard.
System Component
Jordan R and tribs Upper and lower catchment
Baghdad Rt
Coal R and tribs Upper and lower catchment
Isis R Lower slopes and floor of catchment
Murphys and Back Creek Whole catchment
Lake River Middle and lower catchment
Little Swanport R Upper catchment
Glen Morriston Rt Whole catchment
South Esk (Avoca downstream) All floodplain reaches of lower catchment drainage
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 38
Figure 9. Stream drainage sections with high proportions (> 40%) of river section
catchments (RSC’s) rated at high integrated salinisation hazard i.e. high integrated
hazard at low flows (pink to dark red). Light blue indicates stream sections at
medium or low integrated hazard.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 39
Figure 10. Locations of river section catchments (RSC’s) with high proportions (> 40%) of
RSC area rated at high integrated salinisation hazard i.e. high integrated hazard at
low flows (pink to dark red). Grey indicates catchments with 20-40% of stream
length rated as high integrated hazard.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 40
Figure 11. Stream drainage sections with high proportions (> 40%) of their entire
(‘accumulated’) catchment rated at high integrated salinisation hazard i.e. high
integrated hazard at normal flows (pink to dark red). Light blue indicates stream
sections at medium or low integrated hazard.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 41
Figure 12. River drainage sections with high proportions (> 40%) of river section
catchment (RSC) area rated at Medium and High integrated salinisation hazard at
low flows (red). Light blue indicates stream sections at low integrated hazard.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 42
3.4 Stream data validation
Stream conductivities were measured in January 2005, during a period of prolonged low
summer flows. Values covered a wide range (Table 11), with six sites measured at over
5,000 EC units (5 dS/m), and four over 10,000 EC (10 dS/m). The highest levels were
recorded in several small streams in the Northern Midlands in the middle Macquarie and
Blackman River valleys, as well as in Pages Ck and Inverquharity Rivulet in the lower
Coal River valley (Clarence Municipality).
High integrated hazard rating sites had higher stream conductivities than medium or low
rating sites, with an anomalously high value in each of the medium and low integrated
hazard groups. On inspection, both of these two sites were found to be the only field sites
visited which had significant proportions of their catchments occupied by a local dune
system GFS. These two sites were removed from the subsequent analyses (and are
discussed later).
The difference between high and medium or low integrated hazard values was
statistically significant (Figure 13, p = 0.03, and p < 0.0001 respectively by one-way
ANOVA). Mean values for high, medium and low integrated hazard rating sites were 4
730, 1 377 and 1 172 EC respectively (4.7, 1.4, 1.2 dS/m). It should be noted that the
sample of low integrated hazard streams was restricted to the area surveyed, and that this
median value is likely to be substantially higher than one derived from a more
representative sample of low integrated hazard streams across the entire study area.
Some further discrimination was obtained by classifying sites by both integrated hazard
and degree of vegetation clearance of the river section catchment (Figure 14). Again,
high integrated hazard rating sites had significantly higher conductivities than those with
low ratings (all p < 0.01 by one-way ANOVA). Site groups with high levels of vegetation
clearance also tended to have higher conductivities than those with low to medium
clearance, even at low or medium integrated hazard ratings, though high variance and
low sample sizes precluded these groups differing significantly statistically.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 43
Overall, the field sampling indicates that the integrated hazard analysis successfully
identifies drainage with high salinities at low flow, with the exception of some
catchments where local dune system GFS’s underly a substantial proportion of the river
section catchment. These data indicate that stream salinity is at least partly a consequence
of the salinity hazard, especially in catchments with high integrated hazard ratings.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 44
Table 11. Conductivity values measured at stream sites in late January 2005 under low flow
conditions, by municipality and ranked in order of decreasing conductivity.
Municipality Name Road Easting Northing Easting Northing Conductivity
Datum: AGD 1966 Datum: GDA EC units
Northern Midlands Tributary of Blackman R. Tunbridge Tier Rd. 531411 5336410 531523 5336593 16100
Tributary of MacQuarie R. Valleyfield Rd. 525633 5369864 525745 5370047 15710
Lincoln Lagoon Ck. Mt. Joy Rd. 522265 5371898 522377 5372081 14080
Blacksmith's Ck. Midland Highway. 537738 5365339 537850 5365522 10040
Pinnacle's Ck. Lake Leake Rd. 544660 5356416 544772 5356599 4620
Tributary of S. Esk R. Esk Main Rd 543348 5369561 543460 5369744 3070
Blanchard's Ck. Valleyfield Rd. 528793 5365038 528905 5365221 2180
Tributary of MacQuarie R. Mt. Joy Rd. 516659 5378990 516771 5379173 2140
Tributary of MacQuarie R. Valleyfield Rd. 523587 5371086 523699 5371269 2130
Viney's Ck. Nile Rd. 532886 5382500 532998 5382683 1760
Llewellyn Ck Esk Main Rd 547885 5370370 547997 5370553 1500
Tin Dish Rt. Sorell Springs Rd. 535771 5324959 535883 5325142 1402
Tributary of Tin Dish Rt. York Plains Rd. 534695 5319775 534807 5319958 1235
Pass Ck. Sorell Springs Rd. 533885 5325657 533997 5325840 1146
Currajong Rt. Midland Highway. 532348 5327892 532460 5328075 1074
Blanchard's Ck. Esk Main Rd 540686 5368788 540798 5368971 995
Tributary of S. Esk R. Esk Main Rd 545416 5370140 545528 5370323 967
Tributary of Isis R. Isis Rd. 520860 5361224 520972 5361407 950
Jacob's Ck. MacQuarie Rd. 528725 5361099 528837 5361282 915
Tributary of S. Esk R. Glen Esk Rd. 537525 5374561 537637 5374744 550
Blanchard's Ck. Esk Highway. 537129 5368163 537241 5368346 515
Barton Ck. Nile Rd. 537640 5379563 537752 5379746 437
Flood's Ck Tunbridge Tier Rd. 526275 5336800 526387 5336983 431
Blackman R. Midland Highway. 534741 5334599 534853 5334782 318
Isis R. Isis Rd. 525490 5351980 525602 5352163 293
Isis R. MacQuarie Rd. 520156 5365593 520268 5365776 217
Potter's Ck. Isis Rd. 523262 5352101 523374 5352284 185
Isis R. Isis Rd. 520442 5359688 520554 5359871 181
Tom Taylor's Ck. Isis Rd. 520262 5358969 520374 5359152 136
Tributary of Isis R. Isis Rd. 520714 5356773 520826 5356956 131
Tributary of Tin Dish Rt. Sorell Springs Rd. 537073 5322496 537185 5322679 126
South Esk R. Glen Esk Rd. 539517 5375396 539629 5375579 123
Ben Lomond Rt. Nile Rd. 540228 5377858 540340 5378041 113
Tributary of Isis R. Isis Rd. 520304 5358337 520416 5358520 112
Southern Midlands Serpentine Valley Ck. Lovely Banks Rd. 518828 5300274 518940 5300457 3180
Wetland - Huntworth Ck. Jericho Rd. 525402 5308074 525514 5308257 2880
Tributary of Huntworth Ck. Jericho Rd. 524804 5308523 524916 5308706 2870
Wetland - Huntworth Ck. Jericho Rd. 526756 5308246 526868 5308429 2190
Native Hut Rt. Colebrook Rd. 534769 5276874 534881 5277057 2150
Quoin Rt. Midland Highway. 514671 5296550 514783 5296733 1750
Little Quoin Ck. Midland Highway. 515667 5292260 515779 5292443 1696
Ringwood Ck. Mud Walls Rd. 525560 5302907 525672 5303090 1112
Jordan R. Rotherwood Rd. 515683 5311969 515795 5312152 1018
Jordan R. Jericho Rd. 524098 5308094 524210 5308277 1010
Tributary of Ringwood Ck. Mud Walls Rd. 525450 5304374 525562 5304557 702
Jordan R. Mud Walls Rd. 525471 5305318 525583 5305501 690
Clarence Page's Ck. Colebrook Rd. 534907 5267901 535019 5268084 8810
Inverquharity Ck. Prosser's Rd. 537874 5272770 537986 5272953 8280
Duckhole Rt. Colebrook Rd. 533971 5266166 534083 5266349 3150
Page's Ck. Middle Tea Tree Rd. 531838 5269988 531950 5270171 3080
Tributary of Inverquharity Ck. Fingerpost Rd. 537912 5273319 538024 5273502 2670
Barilla Rt. Colebrook Rd. 535932 5257100 536044 5257283 1743
Malcolm's Ck. Colebrook Rd. 533895 5264848 534007 5265031 1560
Tributary of Coal R. Colebrook Rd. 535050 5272300 535162 5272483 1534
Belbin Rt. Colebrook Rd. 533991 5262321 534103 5262504 1410
Tributary of Page's Ck. Middle Tea Tree Rd. 532388 5269523 532500 5269706 1164
Coal R. Fingerpost Rd. 535568 5273476 535680 5273659 557
Tributary of Coal R. Colebrook Rd. 535506 5269653 535618 5269836 395
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 45
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Risk (Low Flow)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Conductivity (microS/cm)
Low Medium High
Figure 13. Box plot of stream conductivity at low flows from 56 locations in the study area,
grouped by low flow integrated hazard rating. Centre lines = medians, box edges =
quartiles, lines indicate outliers.
HH HL HM LL ML
Clearance - Risk (Low Flow)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Conductivity (microS/cm)
13 18 10 9 6
Veg Clearance: High High High Low Med
Low Flow Risk: High Low Med Low Low Low Flow Hazard:
Figure 14. Box plot of stream conductivity at low flows from 56 locations in the study area,
grouped by vegetation clearance and low flow integrated hazard (High, Medium,
Low). N indicated in bold. Dashed line shows 1500 EC (1.5 dS/m) biological effects
threshold (see Discussion). Centre lines = medians, box edges = quartiles, lines and
stars indicate outliers. Clearance was rated as follows: > 50% = High, 20 – 50% =
Medium, < 20% = Low.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 46
3.5 Vegetation Assessment
The integrated hazard assessment (Table 12) summarises the areas at integrated hazard
for each level of priority for the whole GFS and each municipality and indicates that
there are relatively few hectares (848 ha) of land supporting threatened vegetation types
(priority levels 1 - 2) at the highest integrated hazard compared to the area at the lowest
integrated hazard (57 422 ha). However, the strong bias in the extent of clearance toward
the highest integrated hazard areas also reflects the lack of priority vegetation in them due
to clearance. Indeed, in some instances, the extents of past clearance are precisely why
the vegetation types in these areas are the highest priority vegetation types and are rare,
endangered or vulnerable. Nevertheless the areas of high priority communities at the
lowest integrated hazard are an order of magnitude greater than the areas at the highest
integrated hazard .
Table 12 details the areas at risk for each Tasveg code in each integrated hazard category,
and Tasveg classes are listed in Appendix 3 by priority and integrated hazard level within
the study area. Closer assessment of these data indicates that thirty seven communities of
native vegetation have some area at highest integrated hazard. This compares to 60 rated
at medium risk and 92 native communities at the lowest integrated hazard.
Table 13 indicates the extent of native vegetation that is at highest integrated hazard. The
table also indicates the GFS that each occurs in on a municipal basis.
Presentation of maps of the distribution of high priority communities at highest and
medium integrated hazard is not feasible at a scale suitable for a report such as this. The
distributions can be viewed at appropriate scale on a GIS.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 47
Table 12. Area in hectares of vegetation types (TasVeg code) in each conservation priority
class (endangered / rare; vulnerable; non threatened native; non native) and
integrated hazard classes.
All GFS
Conservation priority
class
High
hazard zone
Medium
hazard zone
Low
hazard zone
Endangered/Rare 535 5679 14951
Vulnerable 313 10909 42471
Non-threatened native 798 24592 344354
Non native 39139 170713 122020
Northern Midlands
Conservation priority
class
High
hazard zone
Medium
hazard zone
Low
hazard zone
Endangered/Rare 517 4409 10426
Vulnerable 258 8405 14955
Non-threatened native 654 14803 249322
Non native 25747 115115 57451
Southern Midlands
Conservation priority
class
High
hazard zone
Medium
hazard zone
Low
hazard zone
Endangered/Rare 61 1220 4031
Vulnerable 20 2012 25386
Non-threatened native 114 8708 92226
Non native 9745 50911 62932
Clarence
Conservation priority
class
High
hazard zone
Medium
hazard zone
Low
hazard zone
Endangered/Rare 7 49 493
Vulnerable 35 491 2129
Non-threatened native 28 1081 2805
Non native 3647 4686 1637
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 48
3.5.1 Vegetation in areas of highest integrated salinisation hazard.
There are only four of the highest priority vegetation types (endangered/rare) in the
highest integrated hazard category; these are the two native grasslands lowland Poa and
Themeda grassland, Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland and riparian vegetation. Only
the grassland communities have more than 50 ha at highest integrated hazard .
There are 6 vulnerable native communities at highest integrated hazard , only one of
which has more than 50 ha at highest integrated hazard ; this is inland Eucalyptus
amygdalina forest. The remainder include very small areas of E. amygdalina forest on
sandstone, Inland E. tenuiramis forest and 1 ha of E. globulus woodland. The remaining
priority 2 vegetation at high integrated hazard are salt marsh and wetland and herbfield
marginal to wetland. The salt marshes probably reflect primary salinity. The wetlands are
dealt with in more detail above.
There are 21 other non threatened native communities in areas at highest integrated
hazard . Ten of them have less than 10 ha at high integrated hazard, another eight have
less than 100 ha and E. amygdalina woodland on dolerite has 162 ha and Danthonia,
Stipa, Themeda native grasslands have 245 ha at high integrated hazard .
Over 39 000 ha of improved pasture and otherwise cleared agricultural land occur in
areas at highest integrated hazard. There is an overwhelming proportion of land cleared
for pasture or cropland compared to remaining native vegetation (> 39 000 ha compared
to < 2 000 ha). On a large scale, this may suggest that regardless of the conservation
value of the native communities, the retention of their area is unlikely to significantly
contribute to the management of salinity in the areas at highest integrated hazard.
However, local groundwater flow systems may respond to very local changes in
vegetation depending on where the salinity associated with them is expressed.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 49
Table 13 indicates the extent (ha) of
native vegetation that in areas of
highest integrated hazard in each GFS
and Municipality. GFS 1. Local
alluvial plains; GFS 2. Local deeply
weathered sediments; GFS 3. Local
flood plain alluviums (Quaternary).
Intermediate and low integrated
hazard are shown in Appendix 2.
Vegetation codes are those of Tasveg1.
Priority 1 -= endangered/rare; 2 =
vulnerable, 3 = non threatened native.
Northern Midlands
Vegetation Priority
GFS
1
GFS
2
GFS
3 Total
Gl 1 153 0 233 386
Gt 1 47 1 2 50
OV 1 20 12 3 35
Ri 1 40 0 5 45
AI 2 59 137 0 196
AS 2 14 1 0 15
Ms 2 2 0 0 2
We 2 5 1 7 13
Wh 2 21 0 0 21
Ws 2 7 4 0 12
AC 3 4 1 5
AD 3 11 10 21
D 3 1 1
Ea 3 63 77 1 141
Ed 3 28 28
Eop 3 4 25 5 33
Ep 3 18 29 1 48
Er 3 1 1
Ev 3 23 12 0 35
Ew 3 20 9 29
Gn 3 98 4 20 123
GnEa- 3 22 0 23
GnEo- 3 0 0
GnEp- 3 24 24
GnEv- 3 5 5
Gsl 3 4 4
1 Tasveg 2003. Tasmania’s Vegetation. A
Technical Manual for Tasveg: Version 1.
DPIWE.
Hw 3 0 0
Rs 3 49 49
Tw 3 1 1
TwEo- 3 0 0
Tz 3 1 0 1
V 3 52 25 6 83
Total 800 346 28 1430
Southern Midlands
Vegetation Priority
GFS
1
GFS
3 Total
Gl 1 33 1 34
Gt 1 14 0 14
OV 1 2 0 2
Ri 1 1 0 1
Eg 2 1 0 1
Ms 2 16 0 16
TI 2 2 1 4
Waf 2 1 0 1
AD 3 11 0 11
Ed 3 1 0 1
Ep 3 10 0 10
Et 3 1 0 1
Gn 3 65 0 65
O 3 2 0 2
P 3 1 0 1
PJ 3 0 0 0
Tw 3 4 0 4
Tz 3 8 1 9
TzEv- 3 1 1 2
V 3 9 2 11
Total 183 6 193
Clarence (part)
Vegetation Priority
GFS
1
GFS
3 Total
Gl 1 7 1 8
AI 2 5 0 5
AS 2 11 1 12
Eg 2 3 0 3
Ma 2 10 1 11
Ms 2 5 0 5
AV 3 1 0 1
Gn 3 2 0 2
Gsl 3 4 0 4
Tz 3 4 0 4
V 3 18 1 19
Total 70 4 74
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 50
3.5.2 Vegetation in areas of intermediate integrated hazard
The highest priority vegetation in the medium integrated hazard category also features the
native grasslands and E. ovata forests and woodlands. However, both are more extensive
with the native grasslands covering more than 5 000 ha and E. ovata forest and woodland
occurring over more than 400 ha. The remaining five highest priority communities have
about 100 or less ha at high integrated hazard.
Vulnerable vegetation types are dominated in area by the forest types Inland E.
amygdalina, E. amygdalina forest on sandstone and Inland E. tenuiramis forest with > 7
000 ha, about 1 500 ha and about 1 000 ha respectively. Salt marsh and succulent salt
marsh (which probably reflect primary salinity) have > 200 ha in this category and
wetlands in general more than 500 ha. Two other important forest types, E. pauciflora on
sediments and Grassy E. globulus forest have 500 and 200 ha respectively.
Of the non threatened native vegetation in the medium integrated hazard category, twenty
have less than 100 ha and a further 12 less than 500 ha while the remaining communities
include nearly 7 000 ha of native grassland, 4 000 ha of E. viminalis forest and woodland,
3 000 ha of E. amygdalina forest and woodland and about 1 000 ha of Acacia mearnsii
scrub.
There are over 170 000 ha of improved pasture, cropland or otherwise cleared
agricultural land in the medium integrated hazard category. Again this very high
proportion of cleared agricultural land; 180 000 ha versus about 45 000 of remnant native
vegetation, illustrates a greatly decreased potential for the retention of native vegetation
to ameliorate the hazard of salinisation.
3.5.3 Vegetation at lowest risk
Fortunately there are significant areas of the endangered and rare communities in the
lowest integrated hazard category. These include native grasslands with nearly 4 000 ha
of Themeda grassland and over 7 000 of Poa grassland mapped. Similarly, the largest
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 51
proportion of E. ovata forest and woodland is in this category with nearly 1 000 ha
mapped and the rare E. risdoni forest and riparian vegetation have 95% and 80%
respectively of their distribution in this category.
The pattern is similar for the vulnerable forest communities with the largest proportions
of their areas being in the lowest integrated hazard category. While most communities in
this category have less than 50 ha significant areas occur under inland E. amygdalina
forest (7 300 ha), inland E. tenuiramis forest (12 600 ha), E. amygdalina forest on
sandstone (15 400 ha) and nearly 3000 ha of E. pauciflora on sediments.
Non threatened native vegetation at lowest integrated hazard is the most extensive
vegetation in any integrated hazard category, having more than 340 000 ha extant. This
is the only instance where native vegetation cover is higher than that of agricultural land
(122 000 ha).
3.5.4 Integrated Salinisation Hazard to Flora
The threatened flora data set for the Northern and Southern Midlands and Clarence (the
relevant part) municipalities numbered 1915 records. We applied a 500 m grid filter to
reduce the data set to single occurrences of each species within this area. This was
intended to remove duplicates, records from very close proximity and records referring to
the same site but providing slightly different spatial information. This reduced the data
set to 1 351.
Table 14 summarises the data and indicates that the pattern of integrated hazard
associated with threatened flora is similar to that of vegetation. That is, there are
relatively few species at highest risk compared to intermediate and lowest integrated
hazard. This relationship is even stronger for numbers of populations at high integrated
hazard, there being less than 100 at highest integrated hazard and more than 700 at the
lowest integrated hazard. This pattern is true for each of the municipalities.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 52
Table 14. A summary of the number of species and total number of populations of
endangered, vulnerable and rare plant species, in areas of High, Medium and Low
salinisation hazard for the whole study area and for each municipality.
Whole study area Hazard
Species High Medium Low
Endangered 8 25 23
Vulnerable 11 18 21
Rare 19 55 75
Number of
populations High Medium Low
Endangered 27 113 152
Vulnerable 21 143 207
Rare 51 223 414
Northern Midlands Hazard
Species High Medium Low
Endangered 1 2 3
Vulnerable 7 20 20
Rare 9 14 17
Number of
populations High Medium Low
Endangered 15 67 113
Vulnerable 18 127 178
Rare 33 141 231
Southern Midlands Hazard
Species High Medium Low
Endangered 3 10 8
Vulnerable 2 6 9
Rare 8 19 42
Number of
populations High Medium Low
Endangered 12 44 38
Vulnerable 2 12 28
Rare 11 47 108
Clarence Hazard
Species High Medium Low
Endangered 0 1 1
Vulnerable 1 2 1
Rare 5 17 8
Number of
populations High Medium Low
Endangered 0 2 1
Vulnerable 1 4 1
Rare 7 35 75
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 53
The complete data set is detailed in Appendix 3 and this indicates the number of records
for each species in each integrated hazard category by GFS. The data in Appendix 3 are
ordered to allow the number of records at high integrated hazard to be compared to the
number of records at low integrated hazard to gauge the potential over all impact on the
species. Appendix 3 indicates that only two species occur only in the highest integrated
hazard category and these are both rare, Schoenoplectus validus and Vallisneria
americana. These records should be verified. On the other hand, 31 species are recorded
from areas at the lowest integrated hazard only. Of these, four are endangered and three
are vulnerable species. The balance of 23 rare species. These are, however, only records
of these species’ locations and do not indicate a definitive distribution. The species
found only in the lowest integrated hazard areas are listed in Table 15.
Table 15. Species only recorded from the areas at lowest hazard, their Threatened Species
Protection Act 1995 (TSPA) status, number of records. e = endangered, v=
vulnerable and r = rare.
Species TSPA Records
Aristida benthamii e 1
Hardenbergia violacea e 1
Prasophyllum stellatum e 1
Schoenus latelaminatus e 2
Asplenium hookerianum v 1
Epacris virgata (graniticola) v 1
Haloragis aspera v 1
Tricoryne elatior v 2
Acacia mucronata dependens r 2
Acacia pataczekii r 1
Acacia siculiformis r 6
Acacia ulicifolia r 2
Asperula minima r 1
Austrostipa bigeniculata r 1
Caustis pentandra r 1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 54
Species TSPA Records
Centaurium spicatum r 1
Chionohebe ciliolata r 1
Cuscuta tasmanica r 1
Cyphanthera tasmanica r 1
Deyeuxia densa r 1
Eucalyptus barberi r 1
Eucalyptus perriniana r 4
Hovea corrickiae r 1
Hovea longifolia r 2
Hovea tasmanica r 2
Isolepis habra r 1
Juncus vaginatus r 5
Lepidosperma tortuosum r 2
Lobelia rhombifolia r 1
Monotoca submutica autumnalis r 1
Olearia hookeri r 2
Pentachondra ericifolia r 7
Phyllangium divergens r 1
Poa mollis r 1
Potamogeton pectinatus r 3
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus r 11
Rhodanthe anthemoides r 1
Stellaria multiflora r 13
Uncinia elegans r 2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 55
4. Discussion
4.1 Overall results and caveats
The integrated hazard analysis conducted here has identified a significant number of
aquatic ecosystem assets and vegetation types at potentially high integrated hazard of
secondary salinisation. We have identified 45 priority wetlands, two priority waterbodies,
and 41 priority stream drainage systems at highest integrated hazard of secondary
salinisation.
The data indicate that there are opportunities for many of the vegetation assets to be
protected in areas that are at intermediate or low integrated hazard of secondary
salinisation. Field verification of the vegetation and floristic data is required to provide
confidence in the existence of this opportunity for protection of these assets.
Field validation with conductivity measurements in streams and in waterbodies indicates
that the integrated hazard assessment has some basis in reality. However it should be
noted that:
• this hazard assessment is merely a relative assessment of the broad potential for
salinisation, not a fully developed risk assessment - any use of the terms high,
medium and low integrated hazard in this document should be taken as indicating
only relative integrated hazard levels;
• the assessment identifies areas at high integrated hazard of secondary salinisation,
but does not discriminate these from areas which have experienced primary
(natural) salinisation;
• the assets rated at high integrated hazard may vary considerably in their potential
exposure to salinity loadings due to the current lack of definition of where within,
or external to, mapped GFS polygons actual salinity effects are expressed, and
asset connectivity to GFS salt discharges;
• the assets rated at high integrated hazard may vary considerably in their potential
exposure to salinity loadings due to the current lack of definition of where within,
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 56
or external to, mapped GFS polygons actual salinity effects are expressed, and
asset connectivity to GFS salt discharges;
• some stream systems (e.g. Jordan, South Esk) fall either along or substantially
outside the study area and could not be fully attributed or assessed – this was a
problem for those systems with sub-catchments outside the study area which
contributed significant runoff to sections within the study area. These stream
sections therefore have their integrated hazard level either under or over
estimated.
4.2 Primary vs Secondary salinisation
Ecosystem and biological susceptibility to secondary salinisation will be affected by the
natural salinity history of the individual assets. Management of secondary salinisation
impacts on natural ecosystems should be accompanied by an understanding of the extent,
location and nature of primary salinity. The location and extent of primary salinisation
could be partially determined through a combination of historical research (reviewing
early shire survey maps, notes and diaries etc) and environmental research (extending
these results with spatial modelling).
The manifestation of salinity is a reflection of a change in recharge relative to the
transmissive capacity of the regolith. The clearing of native vegetation in landscapes with
a high salt store and relatively low transmissivity produces salinity in areas where it
generally did not occur immediately prior to European settlement. Secondary salinity
normally occurs in those areas where (for a range of reasons) the increase in recharge
cannot be accommodated by the transmissive capacity of the regolith down the flow path.
Secondary salinity does not have a generic relationship with the locations associated with
primary salinity. However, some areas of primary salinity may have an enhanced
susceptibility to additional salinisation through changes to recharge induced by land use.
Identification of pre-European salinisation would need an analysis of the pre-
development water balance for the susceptible flow systems. Such modelling would be
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 57
based on pre-European vegetation and climatic conditions. This could be combined with
historical, anecdotal evidence. Historical records may however contain information
indicating salinisation which developed within a short time (ca 20+ years) after European
settlement and development. Historical records must therefore be ‘screened’ to restrict
observations to those indicating true ‘pre-development’ conditions.
A key value of this is to distinguish areas of primary salinity and the ecological assets
associated with it from those currently or potentially threatened by secondary salinity.
This will assist in distinguishing sensitive ecosystems from those with a long-term history
of adaptation to salt conditions. Examples of this include the ‘salt lakes’ area in the
Tunbridge are, known from very early European discovery and settlement.
4.3 Groundwater flow systems
The current study is limited by the scale of knowledge with regard to the locations of
recharge and discharge zones for the individual GFS’s. More work is needed in this area
in the critical geographic areas identified in this assessment. This should include
development of more detailed (small contour interval) digital elevation models of some
areas of the midlands, investigations into GFS hydrology, field surveys for existing salt
discharge zones, and more explicit modelling of each GFS with regard to topography,
topology and flow paths.
Field surveys also indicate that local systems in dunes are also a local salinisation hazard,
depending on their individual characteristics. Further work is needed in mapping these
systems at smaller scales to identify local areas of salt discharge. Substantial local dune
systems occur in catchments of streams and tributaries:
• flowing into the Macquarie River along Mt Joy Road, on Barton and Darlington
Park, and along Valleyfield road;
• in the Blanchards Creek catchment;
• in the lower Elizabeth and middle Macquarie River catchments in the vicinities of
Campbelltown and Ross, Ashby and Mt Augusta;
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 58
• in the Ellinthorpe and Saltpan Plains areas near Tunbridge;
• in the Blackwood Creek area in the upper Brumbys Creek catchment;
• near Melton Mowbray, including the lower reaches of Quoin Rivulet and Cross
Marsh Creek;
• along the southern shores of Pittwater.
The extensive areas of salt lakes and pans around Ellinthorpe and Saltpan Plains are
strongly associated with dune deposits. The role of dune systems in current transport and
surface discharge of salt needs further assessment.
4.4 Assets
4.4.1 Asset condition
There is insufficient information on the status of ecological assets in the Midlands
potentially at genuine risk from enhanced salinisation. To date most effort with regard to
aquatic assessment has been conducted outside this region, with the recent exception of
the Little Swanport River catchment, and riparian vegetation research being conducted in
the upper Macquarie River. There is no overall audit of wetland and river condition
available for the NAP region. CFEV condition assessments are of value (though they do
not take salinity specifically into account), the National River Health Program monitoring
had only a small focus in the region, and there are no other systematic assessments of
wetland condition available of any relevance (Dunn 2002).
An audit of asset condition should be conducted for those areas identified at greatest
integrated hazard in this study. The audit should include both terrestrial vegetation and
aquatic ecosystem components, and have an emphasis on systematic auditing of
ecological condition at ecosystem, community and species level (for selected species),
coupled with reporting on physical and salinity conditions. Such an audit could form the
basis of longer term ongoing monitoring.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 59
The relative nature of this assessment does not allow differentiation between assets which
are already experiencing secondary salinisation from those that may do in the future. The
wide range in conductivity values found in the field survey for the high integrated hazard
sites suggests that both lack of knowledge of individual GFS and local catchment system
hydrology, and/or lags in response times to the initiation of asset salinisation may be
occurring. Again, a better understanding of the rate and spatial variability in groundwater
dynamics in the GFS units is required to understand possible response rates and true risks
of salinisation.
4.4.2 Asset mapping and verification
This identification of ecosystem assets is also constrained by the accuracy of existing
data on the location and condition of the assets themselves. Location and linkages
between stream drainage, while improved in the CFEV drainage layer, still needs further
work for specific areas in the midlands (e.g. flood plain channels and runners, smaller
tributary streams). A small number of errors in the mapped drainage layer used in this
analysis were also observed (stream discontinuities, crossed drainage lines, missing
drainage lines). Current wetland mapping is inadequate due to inaccuracies in TasVeg
mapping and further ground-truthing is required in areas at high salinisation risk.
Field verification of the vegetation and flora asset data is required to provide confidence
in the results of this hazard based prioritisation. Such verification should first confirm
the communities at highest integrated hazard and then confirm their existence and
viability of areas at lower integrated hazard . For plant species, the viability of
populations at low integrated hazard should be established. Monitoring of the condition
and continuing viability of important stands of vegetation and flora populations should
focus on those that are least buffered by occurrences at lowest integrated hazard .
4.4.3 Inclusion of farm dams
This assessment does not include farm dams. Farm dams are often not regarded as
significant environmental assets, but may frequently maintain biological values, or have
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 60
created key habitats for birds and aquatic fauna and flora. The salinisation risk for farm
dams, whether connected to stream drainage or not, would obviously be of key interest to
landowners in terms of suitability for stock and domestic supply. A ‘farm dam’ polygon
layer is available from within the CFEV data sets. The same caveats raised regarding the
level of accuracy in the current assessment would still apply if it were to be extended to
include farm dams.
4.5 Salinity tolerance
There are no well established thresholds for salt effects on aquatic or terrestrial
ecosystems, despite the intense national interest in salinity management (Bailey 1998,
Bailey and James 2000, Bailey et al. 2002, Nielsen et al. 2003). There has been little
national investment in research into salt tolerance or effects on natural aquatic
ecosystems (Bailey and James 2000). There is a need to conduct a field-based assessment
of ecological indicators in the Tasmanian NAP region and their relationship to salinity.
This could be coupled with some laboratory-based tolerance tests for selected key local
aquatic species common to the NAP region. The results of this could be coupled with a
workshop-based review of salt tolerance and susceptibility to then establish some
regional thresholds for sub-surface and surface water salt levels. Monitoring and
management could then be focused around such an agreed set of thresholds. A broad
overview of data available on salt tolerance suggests that salinity levels above 1 000 mg/l
(ca 1 500 EC, or 1.5 dS/m) has a number of negative impacts on the viability of both salt
(halo) tolerant and intolerant species. Only highly halotolerant species survive in waters
above 4 500 EC (4.5 dS/m), and diversity is generally observed to be highly reduced.
Comparison of values observed in this study with these thresholds suggests that streams
rated as having catchments with high integrated hazard are predominantly above the
1 500 EC threshold, with several sites well above the 4 500 EC level (Figure 14). A
significant proportion of stream sites with high levels of land clearance also fall above the
1 500 EC threshold. This suggests that increases salinity may be having a degree of
impact on the ecology of these stream sections, though undoubtedly in concert with a
range of other impacts in what are generally small headwater stream sections.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 61
4.6 Surface salinity monitoring
More intensive field surveys of stream drainage salinities should be conducted to assist in
the identification of salinity ‘hot spots’, and to monitor key catchments. Key locations for
monitoring stream salinity include:
• Small streams within the main high integrated hazard areas described in Table 6;
• Main stem river sections in the upper and lower Jordan, upper and lower Coal,
lower South Esk, middle Macquarie (upstream of Brumbys Ck) and the Blackman
and Isis Rivers;
• Main stems of key sub-catchments at integrated hazard or with high stream
conductivities – including Pages and Blanchards Creeks, and Tin Dish, Mangalore
and Currajong Rivulets.
Ideally, this monitoring should be conducted with data-logged conductivity sensors to
allow capture of the high variability in stream conductivity data, but a minimum routine
spot sampling program could be conducted at baseflows during low flows in spring,
summer and autumn.
Knowledge of background salinity levels for Tasmania is limited. There are substantial
data sets on stream conductivity that have been collected by various agencies (DPIWE,
IFS, Hydro etc) as well as community groups, industry and local government. Much of
these data are not in databases, but could be readily collated and entered into a single
state-wide database. With some data screening/attribution with regard to its pollution
status, the data could be used to gain an initial overview of the state’s, and the NAP
region’s surface water salinity status. We conducted an initial comparison of data from
our field sampling with data from statewide stream surveys conducted by DPIWE (the
‘MRHI’ program, Krasnicki et al. 2001). Conductivity data from the low flow (autumn
season) surveys was used for comparison with data from this study. In order to compare
our results with near-natural ‘background’ levels, we removed all data from sites with
significant impairment/pollution (as determined by AUSRIVAS macroinvertebrate
sampling analysis results). It can clearly be seen (Figure 15) that salinities in the study
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 62
area fall well outside normal background levels for the state. While we expect that stream
salinities in this study area will fall at the upper end of the background range i.e. in the
high hundreds to ca 2 000 EC (2 dS/m), we suggest that values above that indicate
secondary salinisation – which are associated with most sites assessed as high integrated
hazard in our analysis.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 10 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 10000 20000 50000
EC
%
Statewide This study
Figure 15. Frequency distribution of stream salinities under low flow summer-autumn
conditions for 313 sites sample state-wide (data from DPIWE), and for 59 sites
sampled within the study area (this study). Note the uneven EC scale – numbers
indicate lower bounds of each scale interval.
Assessing changes in salinity of surface ecosystems is difficult. Saline ecosystems
experience fluctuations in saline loading, concentration and export. These fluctuations are
determined by variability in the surface hydrological regime at varying time scales –
among years (wet and dry phases), within years (seasonally) and across rain events. They
are also determined by fluctuations in delivery and loading of GFS discharges, which
may follow longer term variability in climate. Salinity levels observed in the salt lakes in
the Tunbridge-Ellinthorpe area have been observed to fluctuate widely, with individual
lakes varying from several hundred to several thousand EC units between sampling
events (data from Buckney and Tyler 1973 and Tassell unpub. data 2004). Monitoring
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 63
and assessing changes in salinity levels in aquatic ecosystems will be problematic and
will require long-term intensive data collection and detailed interpretation if trends in
salinity are to be detected. For example, detection of trends in the salinity of the Murray
River also required intensive data and sophisticated statistical interpretation (Walker et al.
1999).
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 64
5. Summary and Conclusions
While we have cited a range of data limitations and knowledge gaps, this hazard
assessment has:
• Identified those areas where integrated secondary salinisation hazards are highest
and lowest;
• Indicates that secondary salinisation of stream systems is likely to be largely
restricted, at least initially, to smaller streams - particularly first order systems
rising within catchments overlying high hazard rated GFS units - rather than
larger ‘main-stem’ rivers;
• Confirmed that high levels of baseflow stream salinity are related to high
proportions of local catchment area with high GFS and rainfall hazards and high
levels of land clearing;
• Confirmed that places rated as at high integrated hazard support the lowest area of
extant threatened vegetation;
• Identified that a significant portion of cleared agricultural land is rated at high
integrated hazard;
• Identified significant opportunities to protect remaining threatened vegetation on
medium and low integrated hazard land;
• Illustrated that relatively few listed threatened species and known occurrences of
them occur in high integrated hazard areas;
• Identified key knowledge gaps which require attention before major investments
in salinity management for protection of environmental assets occur.
45 High priority wetlands (those rated at high integrated hazard with areas > 5 ha and/or
associated with special values) were identified as being at integrated salinisation hazard
risk. Of the 16 waterbodies assessed within the study area, two were rated at high
integrated hazard.
7.5% of all stream sections in the study area (1 072 km) were rated as being at highest
integrated hazard at low flows and 7.1% at normal flows. These were primarily small
headwater catchments of several smaller river, creek and rivulet systems; and small
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 65
floodplain or valley floor tributaries of the lower Coal and Jordan and middle South Esk
Rivers. Field sampling indicates that the hazard assessment successfully identifies
drainage with high salinities at low flow.
The distribution and abundance of threatened vegetation and threatened flora suggests
that there are relatively small areas of vegetation (848 ha) or numbers of species (100
populations) in areas of high integrated hazard. Furthermore, for all but two threatened
species there are larger areas of vegetation (57 462 ha) or greater numbers of species
records in areas of lower integrated hazard (700 populations).
There are only four of endangered communities in the highest integrated hazard category;
these are the two native grasslands lowland Poa and Themeda grassland, Eucalyptus
ovata forest and woodland and riparian vegetation. Only the grassland communities have
more than 50 ha at highest integrated hazard. There are seven vulnerable communities at
highest integrated hazard, only one of which has more than 50 ha in area; this is inland
Eucalyptus amygdalina forest.
Over 95% of improved pasture and otherwise cleared agricultural land occurs in areas of
highest integrated hazard to priority vegetation types suggesting that, regardless of the
conservation value of the native communities, the retention of their area is unlikely to
significantly contribute to the management of salinity in the areas at highest hazard.
Fortunately there are significant areas of endangered communities in the lowest
integrated hazard category. These include native grasslands with nearly 4 000 ha of
Themeda grassland and over 7 500 ha of Poa grassland mapped. Similarly, the largest
proportion of E. ovata forest and woodland is in this category with nearly 1 500 ha
mapped.
Overall, three groundwater flow systems were recognised as posing high secondary
salinisation hazard. These were local scale systems in alluvial plains, floodplain
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 66
alluviums and deeply weathered sediments. The greatest proportion of identified assets
occur in the alluvial plain and floodplain alluvial systems.
Field assessment also indicates that local systems in dunes are significant local sources of
surface salinity, especially in small catchments sourced within the dune systems. These
systems may have experienced primary salinity, and are at risk of secondary salinisation
and should be further evaluated.
Further work required:
1. Identification though historical and/or model-based research of areas and assets
subject to primary (pre-European) salinisation.
2. An audit of asset ecological condition should be conducted for those areas identified
of greatest integrated hazard in this study.
3. A better understanding of the rates of and spatial variability in groundwater and salt
dynamics in the GFS units is required to understand possible response rates and risks.
4. Integration of knowledge from 1 - 3 into a full analysis of risks to ecological assets.
5. Field verification of the vegetation and flora asset data is required to provide
confidence in the results of risk/hazard-based prioritisations.
6. Conduct a field-based assessment of ecological indicators in the Tasmanian NAP
region and their relationship to salinity, coupled with some laboratory-based tolerance
tests for selected key local aquatic species common to the NAP region
7. More intensive field surveys of stream drainage salinities should be conducted to
assist in the identification of salinity ‘hot spots’, and to monitor key catchments. Key
locations for monitoring stream salinity are listed in this report.
8. Conduct planting and or pot trails to determine the most suitable Tasmanian native
flora for rehabilitation of affected areas.
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 67
6. References
Bailey P, Boon P and Morris K 2002. Australian biodiversity Salt sensitivity database.
Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation. Canberra.
Bailey PCE 1998. Effects of increased salinity on riverine and wetland Biota. Final report
Project UMO18. Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation. June 1998. 21
pp.
Bailey PCE and James K 2000. Riverine and wetland salinity impacts – assessment of
R&D needs. Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation. Occasional Paper
No. 25/99, Canberra, 55 pp.
Buckney RT and Tyler PA 1973. Chemistry of Tasmanian inland waters. Int. Revue ges.
Hydrobiol. 58, 61 - 78.
Buckney RT and Tyler PA 1976. Chemistry of salt lakes and other waters of the sub-
humid regions of Tasmania. Aust. J. Freshwater. Mar. Res. 27, 359 – 366.
Coram JE 1998. National Classification of Catchments for land and river salinity control,
RIRDC Publication Number 98/78, Rural Industries Research and
Development Corporation, Canberra.
Croome RL and Tyler PA 1972. Physical and chemical limnology of Lake Leake and
Tooms Lake, Tasmania. Arch. Hydrobiol. 70, 341 – 354.
De Dekker P and Williams WD 1982. Chemical and biological features of Tasmanian salt
lakes. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 33, 1127 – 1132.
Dunn H 2002. Assessing the Condition and status of Tasmania’s wetlands and riparian
vegetation: Summary of processes and outcomes of a component of the
National land and Water Audit. Nature Conservation Branch, Technical Report
02/09. Department of Primary Industries, water and Environment, Hobart
Tasmania. 36 pp.
Hocking M, Bastick CH, Dyson P and Lynch, S (in prep). Understanding Groundwater
Flow Systems in the Northern Midlands. Land Management Branch, Resource
Management and Conservation Division, DPIWE, Launceston.
Harris, S and Kitchener, A. 2003. Tasmania’s Vegetation. A Technical Manual for
Tasveg: Version 1. DPIWE.
Hocking M, Bastick CH, Dyson P and Lynch, S (in prep). Understanding Groundwater
Flow Systems in the Southern Midlands. Land Management Branch, Resource
Management and Conservation Division, DPIWE, Launceston.
Krasnicki T, Pinto R and Read M 2001. Australia wide assessment of river health:
Tasmania program Final Report. Department of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment, Tech Report No. WRA 01/2001. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 57
pp.
Latinovic M, Matthews L, Bastick C, Lynch S, Dyson P and Humphries E 2003.
Tasmanian Groundwater Flow Systems for Dryland Salinity Planning. Mineral
Resources Tasmania, Tasmanian Geological Survey Record 2003/12.
Nielsen DL, Brock MA, Rees GN and Baldwin DS 2003. Effects of increasing salinity on
freshwater ecosystems in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 51, 655 –
665.
Walker GR, Morton R, Robinson G, Jones H, Nathan R, Clarke R, McNeill V 1999.
Estimation of historical trends in stream salinity for various catchments of the
Murray-Darling Basin. In: Managing Saltland into the 21st Century: Dollars
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 68
and Sense from Salt: Productive Use and Rehabilitation of Saline Land 5th
National Conference, 9-13 Mar 1998, Tamworth NSW, Proceedings. Marcar
NE and Hossain AK (eds). National Committee for the Productive Use and
Rehabilitation of Saline Land (PURSL), Canberra ACT, 1999-02, pp. 6-11
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 69
Appendix 1. Details of integrated hazard assessment analysis
A1.1 Hazard rating and integration rules
This section details the numerical encoding used for hazard rating and the numerical
forms of the rule sets for derivation of integrated hazard ratings (see Section 2.5 in body
of report) that were applied to the intersected GIS database files.
Table 1. Hazard ratings attributed to areas with rainfall, and catchments with percentage
land clearance, in the ranges described. The rainfall data set had some areas coded as 9999. The rainfall attributed to these areas was that of the adjacent rainfall polygon from the same catchment.
Hazard rating Rainfall mm Hazard rating % land clearance
High = 1 < 500 High = 1 > 75 - 100
High = 1 500 - 600 Medium = 2 > 50 - 75
Medium = 2 600 - 700 Low = 3 0 - 50
Low = 3 > 700
The integrated hazard for vegetation and threatened flora was based on the additive
sequences in Table 2. The calculation was done using a value of 4 for GFS rating 3 to
ensure that GFS category 3 was never raised to a higher risk category by the influence of
rainfall and clearance ratings.
Table 2. Risk rating assignment to various combinations of Hazard rating for the hazards
GFS, Rainfall and vegetation clearance.
GFS
rating
Sum of rainfall &
clearance ratings
Sum all
hazard
ratings
Risk
(n)
Risk
(name)
1 2 3 1 High
1 3 - 4 4 - 5 2 Medium
1 5 - 6 6 - 7 3 Low
2 2 - 3 4 - 5 2 Medium
2 4 - 6 6 - 8 3 Low
3 (4) 2 - 6 6 - 10 3 Low
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 70
Appendix 2. Areas (ha) of Tasveg codes at medium and low
hazard by GFS.
Priority 1 = endangered/rare; 2 = vulnerable, 3 = non threatened native.
Tasveg Priority GFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
coOV 1 3 3
Eo 1 79 34 3 71 34 46 267
Gl 1 989 62 750 403 226 284 2714
GlEa- 1 27 1 28
GlEg- 1 0 10 10
GlEl- 1 6 7 14
GlEo- 1 1 1 24 6 3 36
GlEp- 1 50 17 24 91
GlEv- 1 58 86 58 202
Gs 1 17 17
Gt 1 625 57 187 370 24 317 1580
GtEa- 1 57 0 54 2 113
GtEm- 1 13 3 16
GtEo- 1 2 16 5 23
GtEp- 1 6 7 4 4 21
GtEr- 1 0 2 2
GtEv- 1 37 1 69 2 16 126
OV 1 70 56 2 12 4 145
Ri 1 82 19 2 15 1 119
Ta 1 1 0 44 6 50 101
VW 1 28 24 0 0 53
AI 2 789 4828 102 56 25 212 6011
AS 2 535 6 10 65 647 87 1350
coAI 2 434 1 1 14 449
coAS 2 41 1 28 69
coEai 2 0 1 1
coEas 2 6 0 0 20 26
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 71
Tasveg Priority GFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
coEg 2 2 3 2 7
Eai 2 103 387 9 8 21 528
Eg 2 2 17 16 35
Eps 2 10 0 11
GG 2 26 171 26 223
Ma 2 73 37 1 59 169
Mg 2 2 2
Ms 2 31 12 43
PS 2 56 34 39 349 12 490
TI 2 7 3 63 845 919
Waf 2 1 0 1
We 2 4 5 83 0 0 8 100
Wh 2 23 2 6 0 2 33 66
Ws 2 96 52 260 2 409
AC 3 160 22 0 182
AD 3 708 25 13 586 78 4 1415
AV 3 2 19 21
BF 3 3 3
coAD 3 30 2 4 1 37
coD 3 0 0
coDSC 3 1 1
coDT 3 5 5
coEa 3 58 889 7 9 5 5 973
coEac 3 19 19
coEad 3 7 1 0 8
coEd 3 10 1 11
coEl 3 6 22 28
coEm 3 3 7 10
coEt 3 8 5 5 18
coEv 3 1 1 1
coEw 3 10 2 1 8 21
coP 3 1 1
coPJ 3 0 0
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 72
Tasveg Priority GFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
coTw 3 3 3
coTwEa- 3 8 8
coV 3 32 18 50
crAC 3 5 5
crAD 3 6 50 6 62
crAI 3 94 94
crAS 3 0 10 19 29
crEp 3 1 1
crEw 3 7 7 14
crGG 3 3 1 4
crO 3 0 0 0
crP 3 34 12 46
crTI 3 36 36
crV 3 21 67 50 139
D 3 82 38 21 141
DSC 3 36 1 0 0 37
DT 3 6 1 1 0 9
Ea 3 516 1277 101 283 296 171 2645
Eac 3 10 10
Ead 3 33 6 19 13 0 72
Ed 3 49 5 54
El 3 7 1 19 17 44
Em 3 4 80 26 109
Eop 3 5 5 15 21 0 1 47
Ep 3 194 46 11 281 323 98 954
Er 3 69 9 12 90
Es 3 4 4
Et 3 7 36 284 0 326
Ev 3 44 20 1 215 51 75 407
Ew 3 433 140 17 1231 464 299 2584
Gc 3 13 13
Gn 3 2095 489 250 1595 375 192 4997
GnEa- 3 578 150 12 234 39 74 1087
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 73
Tasveg Priority GFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
GnEm- 3 4 4
GnEo- 3 102 2 29 1 28 162
GnEp- 3 194 1 115 23 17 351
GnEv- 3 332 89 1 390 80 50 942
Gsl 3 134 6 33 2 176
GslEv- 3 33 28 30 91
Hw 3 15 0 0 15
HwEo- 3 2 2
HwEr- 3 160 0 160
O 3 152 1 67 72 292
OT 3 19 0 0 20
P 3 3 0 164 114 281
PJ 3 26 15 5 46
Ro 3 72 23 2 7 104
Rs 3 20 2 0 28 50
SI 3 11 0 1 0 13
Tw 3 29 13 61 103
TwEa- 3 10 7 0 17
TwEo- 3 2 2
TwEt- 3 1 12 13
TwEv- 3 0 1 2 3
Tz 3 105 44 54 581 130 191 1106
TzEv- 3 0 83 2 85
V 3 621 258 103 1567 688 444 3680
Total 23086 18050 4054 19248 11623 5892 81954
Tasveg Priority Ha
coEo 1 23
coOV 1 25
Eh 1 15
Eo 1 482
Eq 1 7
Tasveg Priority Ha
Gl 1 6286
GlEa- 1 122
GlEd- 1 113
GlEl- 1 3
GlEo- 1 255
GlEp- 1 665
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 74
Tasveg Priority Ha
GlEv- 1 295
Gs 1 325
GsEd- 1 10
GsEi- 1 4
GsEr- 1 3
GsEv- 1 39
Gsh 1 7
GshEd- 1 1
Gt 1 3289
GtEa- 1 321
GtEm- 1 27
GtEo- 1 13
GtEp- 1 47
GtEr- 1 32
GtEv- 1 212
NP 1 16
OV 1 910
RI 1 1035
Ta 1 60
VW 1 309
AI 2 5823
AS 2 13644
BA 2 13
coAI 2 233
coAS 2 1718
coEai 2 222
coEas 2 121
coEg 2 198
coGG 2 8
coPS 2 20
coTI 2 1
Eai 2 1112
Eas 2 0
Eg 2 346
Tasveg Priority Ha
Eps 2 8
G 2 5
GG 2 3216
Hh 2 8
HhEl- 2 2
Ma 2 13
ME 2 5
Ms 2 3
PS 2 2854
Sm 2 19
TI 2 12606
Waf 2 56
We 2 65
Wh 2 47
Ws 2 102
X 2 3
AC 3 8503
AD 3 57058
Ae 3 8571
Ah 3 221
Ar 3 146
AV 3 149
Aw 3 99
BF 3 21
BR 3 44
C 3 923
coAC 3 29
coAD 3 4858
coD 3 8587
coDSC 3 18
coDT 3 491
coDWB 3 38
coEa 3 2510
coEac 3 146
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 75
Tasveg Priority Ha
coEad 3 264
coEd 3 1738
coEl 3 517
coEm 3 464
coEp 3 93
coEt 3 256
coEv 3 228
coEw 3 840
coGnEa- 3 7
coO 3 270
coOT 3 1
coP 3 1216
coPJ 3 240
coRO 3 35
coSO 3 0
coTw 3 7
coTwEa- 3 33
coTz 3 2
coV 3 765
crAC 3 2
crAD 3 222
crAI 3 35
crAS 3 25
crD 3 795
crDT 3 7
crEd 3 8
crEp 3 1
crEw 3 16
crO 3 146
crOT 3 12
crOV 3 2
crP 3 315
crRI 3 3
crTI 3 203
Tasveg Priority Ha
crV 3 571
D 3 56102
DSC 3 285
DT 3 16943
DWB 3 305
Ea 3 8655
Eac 3 32
Ead 3 1700
Ec 3 33
Ed 3 1557
Edt 3 44
El 3 580
Em 3 1626
Eop 3 229
Ep 3 2186
Er 3 393
Et 3 1174
Ev 3 1711
Ew 3 20248
Gn 3 17807
GnEa- 3 6466
GnEd- 3 65
GnEm- 3 159
GnEo- 3 238
GnEp- 3 1536
GnEr- 3 14
GnEt- 3 14
GnEv- 3 7232
Gsl 3 450
GslEv- 3 1683
Ha 3 172
HaEa- 3 10
HaEc- 3 13
HaEd- 3 13
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker 76
Tasveg Priority Ha
Hg 3 156
HgEo- 3 21
Hs 3 45
Hw 3 1067
HwEa- 3 21
HwEd- 3 92
HwEo- 3 112
HwEr- 3 438
L 3 24
M- 3 5
M+ 3 83
O 3 9575
OT 3 1131
P 3 13619
PJ 3 1919
R 3 106
Ro 3 4479
RoEd- 3 6
Rs 3 65
Sb 3 419
SbEa- 3 10
SbEd- 3 89
SbEl- 3 70
SbEv- 3 5
SbEx- 3 12
SI 3 744
Sl 3 24
SlEr- 3 16
SO 3 375
Sr 3 32
SrEd- 3 40
St 3 33
StEa- 3 2
StEd- 3 5
Tasveg Priority Ha
StEr- 3 1
Sw 3 288
SwEd- 3 25
SwEr- 3 24
TD 3 312
Tw 3 555
TwEa- 3 288
TwEd- 3 13
TwEl- 3 13
TwEm- 3 2
TwEt- 3 44
TwEv- 3 32
Tz 3 3042
TzEv- 3 110
V 3 53292
WhEd- 3 6
WhEi- 3 18
WsEd- 3 21
Total 401775
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
77
Appendix 3. GFS associated with each threatened flora species and threatened flora associated
with GFS in each hazard category.
(a) GFS associated with each threatened flora species
Priority
Species name
GFS group
Hazard
1
Hazard
2
Hazard
3 Totals
Endangered Alternanthera denticulata
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Amphibromus macrorhinus
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
3
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Arachnorchis anthracina
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
2
Arachnorchis lindleyana
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Aristida benthamii
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Austrodanthonia popinensis
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
7
7
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
12
4
16
Local scale GFS in dunes
3
3
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Cheilanthes distans
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
78
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Cryptandra amara
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
4
4
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Discaria pubescens
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Epacris acuminata
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
4
4
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
28
28
Epacris exserta
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
17
1
20
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
2
2
Hardenbergia violacea
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Hyalosperma demissum
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
1
4
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Isoetopsis graminifolia
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
79
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
2
Lepidium hyssopifolium
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
7
7
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
5
7
12
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
14
3
17
Leptorhynchos elongatus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
5
5
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
2
2
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
4
4
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
4
7
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Myosurus minimus
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Prasophyllum correctum
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Prasophyllum milfordense
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
Prasophyllum olidum
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Prasophyllum stellatum
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
80
Prasophyllum tunbridgense
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Pterostylis commutata
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Pterostylis cycnocephala
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Ranunculus prasinus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
3
3
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Schoenus latelaminatus
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Scleranthus fasciculatus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
5
6
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
3
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
3
4
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
6
6
12
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
81
Stackhousia gunnii
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
6
6
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
1
3
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
4
5
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
4
5
Vulnerable Acacia axillaris
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
12
12
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
4
4
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
20
2
24
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
34
34
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
3
3
Asplenium hookerianum
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Brachyscome rigidula
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
1
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
2
2
Brunonia australis
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
82
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
5
8
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
15
16
31
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
4
4
Callitris oblonga oblonga
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
6
37
11
54
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
3
3
Colobanthus curtisiae
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
4
4
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
4
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
2
5
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
4
4
Epacris virgata (graniticola)
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Eryngium ovinum
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
83
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Glycine latrobeana
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
7
4
11
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
17
18
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Haloragis aspera
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Lobelia pratioides
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Lythrum salicaria
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Mirbelia oxylobioides
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
8
9
Myriophyllum integrifolium
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Persicaria decipiens
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Pultenaea humilis
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
5
3
9
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
84
Pultenaea prostrata
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
4
5
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
5
3
8
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Scleranthus diander
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
4
4
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
4
Spyridium lawrencei
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
4
5
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
4
4
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
1
1
Tricoryne elatior
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Triptilodiscus pygmaeus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Velleia paradoxa
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
85
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
1
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Rare
Acacia mucronata dependens
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Acacia pataczekii
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Acacia siculiformis
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
5
5
Acacia ulicifolia
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Amphibromus neesii
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
2
Aphelia gracilis
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
3
3
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Aphelia pumilio
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
1
4
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Arthropodium strictum
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
86
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Asperula minima
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Asperula scoparia scoparia
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
1
3
Asperula subsimplex
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Austrostipa bigeniculata
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Austrostipa blackii
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Austrostipa nodosa
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
4
6
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
4
4
Austrostipa scabra
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
2
2
Baumea gunnii
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
5
5
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Bolboschoenus caldwellii
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
3
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
87
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
Bolboschoenus medianus
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Bossiaea obcordata
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
2
2
Brachyloma depressum
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Brachyscome sieberi gunnii
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
4
4
Caesia calliantha
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
4
1
8
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
9
5
17
Local scale GFS in dunes
2
2
4
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
4
5
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Callitriche umbonata
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Calocephalus citreus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
3
4
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
3
3
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
88
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
6
6
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
5
5
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
2
3
Carex gunniana
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
6
6
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
4
4
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
6
6
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
7
7
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Caustis pentandra
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Centaurium spicatum
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Chionohebe ciliolata
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Cuscuta tasmanica
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Cynoglossum australe
Local scale GFS in dunes
8
8
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Cyphanthera tasmanica
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Deyeuxia densa
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
4
4
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
4
4
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
5
4
9
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
89
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
3
4
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
5
5
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Epilobium willisii
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Eucalyptus barberi
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Eucalyptus perriniana
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Eucalyptus risdonii
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
3
64
67
Euphrasia collina deflexifolia
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
2
2
Eutaxia microphylla
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Glossostigma elatinoides
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Haloragis heterophylla
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Hovea corrickiae
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
90
Hovea longifolia
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Hovea tasmanica
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Hypoxis vaginata
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
3
3
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Isoetes drummondii drummondii
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Isoetes elatior
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Isolepis habra
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Juncus amabilis
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
3
4
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
2
Juncus fockei
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Juncus prismatocarpus
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Juncus vaginatus
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
3
3
Lachnagrostis punicea punicea
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
91
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
1
3
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
6
9
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
3
3
6
Lepidosperma tortuosum
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Leucopogon virgatus brevifolius
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Lobelia rhombifolia
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Melaleuca pustulata
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Monotoca submutica autumnalis
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Muehlenbeckia axillaris
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Olearia hookeri
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
2
2
Pellaea calidirupium
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
3
4
Pentachondra ericifolia
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
6
6
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Phyllangium divergens
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Pilularia novae-hollandiae
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
92
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Pimelea curviflora sericea
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Poa mollis
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
5
5
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
5
3
8
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
8
9
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Potamogeton pectinatus
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Pterostylis squamata
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
2
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
2
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Puccinellia stricta perlaxa
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Ranunculus pumilio pumilio
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
93
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
3
3
Rhodanthe anthemoides
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Rumex bidens
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Schoenoplectus validus
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Scleranthus brockiei
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Scutellaria humilis
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Senecio squarrosus
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
2
2
Spyridium vexilliferum
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
3
3
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Stellaria multiflora
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
8
8
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
4
4
Stylidium despectum
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Teucrium corymbosum
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
6
6
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
94
Trithuria submersa
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Uncinia elegans
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Vallisneria americana
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
1
1
Villarsia exaltata
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
2
2
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
2
2
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
3
3
6
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
1
7
5
13
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
2
3
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
3
19
22
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured ro
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
1
1
Vittadinia cuneata
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
5
5
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
5
5
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
3
3
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
4
2
6
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
5
5
10
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
2
1
3
Vittadinia gracilis
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
3
3
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
7
7
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
95
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
2
2
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
5
1
6
Vittadinia muelleri
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
6
6
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract
4
4
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
4
4
8
Local scale GFS in dunes
1
1
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
7
7
14
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured s
4
4
Wilsonia rotundifolia
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
1
1
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
6
3
9
Local scale GFS in dunes
7
7
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
96
(b) Threatened flora associated with each GFS.
Priority
GFS group
Species name
Hazard
1
Hazard
2
Hazard
3
Grand
Total
Endangered Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
Arachnorchis anthracina
1
1
Austrodanthonia popinensis
1
1
Cryptandra amara
4
4
Epacris acuminata
4
4
Epacris exserta
1
1
Hyalosperma demissum
1
1
Isoetopsis graminifolia
1
1
Lepidium hyssopifolium
1
1
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
5
5
Prasophyllum tunbridgense
1
1
Pterostylis cycnocephala
1
1
Ranunculus prasinus
3
3
Scleranthus fasciculatus
2
2
Stackhousia gunnii
6
6
Total
32
32
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract seds Austrodanthonia popinensis
7
7
Cryptandra amara
1
1
Lepidium hyssopifolium
7
7
Leptorhynchos elongatus
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
97
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
2
2
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
1
Stackhousia gunnii
1
1
Total
20
20
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
Arachnorchis anthracina
1
1
Epacris acuminata
1
1
Epacris exserta
3
3
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
3
3
Prasophyllum correctum
1
1
Prasophyllum olidum
1
1
Pterostylis cycnocephala
1
1
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
1
Stackhousia gunnii
2
2
Total
14
14
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
Austrodanthonia popinensis
12
4
16
Cheilanthes distans
1
1
Epacris acuminata
1
1
Epacris exserta
2
17
1
20
Lepidium hyssopifolium
5
7
12
Leptorhynchos elongatus
1
1
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
1
1
2
Prasophyllum correctum
1
1
Prasophyllum olidum
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
98
Prasophyllum tunbridgense
2
2
Pterostylis commutata
2
2
Pterostylis cycnocephala
1
1
2
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
5
6
Stackhousia gunnii
2
1
3
Total
24
45
1
70
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
Amphibromus macrorhinus
3
3
Arachnorchis anthracina
1
1
2
Arachnorchis lindleyana
1
1
Discaria pubescens
1
1
Hyalosperma demissum
3
1
4
Lepidium hyssopifolium
3
3
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
1
1
2
Schoenus latelaminatus
2
2
Scleranthus fasciculatus
3
3
Total
1
16
4
21
Local scale GFS in dunes
Amphibromus macrorhinus
2
2
Austrodanthonia popinensis
3
3
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
4
4
Prasophyllum milfordense
2
2
Pterostylis commutata
1
1
Pterostylis cycnocephala
1
1
2
Ranunculus prasinus
1
1
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
99
Stackhousia gunnii
1
4
5
Total
15
6
21
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
Alternanthera denticulata
1
1
Austrodanthonia popinensis
1
1
Epacris acuminata
2
2
Epacris exserta
2
2
Ranunculus prasinus
1
1
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
1
Total
1
3
4
8
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
Epacris exserta
1
1
Hyalosperma demissum
1
1
Prasophyllum stellatum
1
1
Stackhousia gunnii
1
1
Total
4
4
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
Amphibromus macrorhinus
1
1
Austrodanthonia popinensis
1
1
Cheilanthes distans
1
1
Cryptandra amara
1
2
3
Epacris acuminata
28
28
Epacris exserta
3
3
Hardenbergia violacea
1
1
Isoetopsis graminifolia
1
1
2
Lepidium hyssopifolium
1
2
3
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
100
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
3
4
7
Myosurus minimus
1
1
Prasophyllum tunbridgense
1
1
Pterostylis commutata
2
2
Pterostylis cycnocephala
1
1
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
3
4
Stackhousia gunnii
1
4
5
Total
12
52
64
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured rocks Epacris exserta
1
1
Scleranthus fasciculatus
1
1
Total
2
2
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
Aristida benthamii
1
1
Epacris exserta
2
2
Total
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured seds Austrodanthonia popinensis
1
1
2
Cryptandra amara
1
1
Lepidium hyssopifolium
14
3
17
Leucochrysum albicans albicans tricolor
1
1
Scleranthus fasciculatus
6
6
12
Total
1
22
10
33
Total
27
113
152
292
Vulnerable
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
Acacia axillaris
12
12
Brachyscome rigidula
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
101
Brunonia australis
2
2
Callitris oblonga oblonga
1
1
Colobanthus curtisiae
4
4
Glycine latrobeana
3
3
Myriophyllum integrifolium
2
2
Pultenaea prostrata
2
2
Scleranthus diander
4
4
Triptilodiscus pygmaeus
1
1
Velleia paradoxa
1
1
Total
34
34
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract dol Brunonia australis
2
2
Colobanthus curtisiae
1
1
Total
3
3
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
Acacia axillaris
4
4
Callitris oblonga oblonga
3
3
Colobanthus curtisiae
2
2
Pultenaea prostrata
1
1
Scleranthus diander
1
1
Spyridium lawrencei
1
1
Tricoryne elatior
1
1
Total
13
13
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
Acacia axillaris
2
20
2
24
Brachyscome rigidula
1
1
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
102
Brunonia australis
3
5
8
Callitris oblonga oblonga
6
37
11
54
Colobanthus curtisiae
2
2
4
Eryngium ovinum
1
1
Glycine latrobeana
1
1
2
Lobelia pratioides
1
1
Persicaria decipiens
1
2
3
Pultenaea prostrata
1
4
5
Scleranthus diander
1
1
Spyridium lawrencei
1
4
5
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
2
2
Velleia paradoxa
1
1
Total
18
77
18
113
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
Brachyscome rigidula
1
1
Brunonia australis
15
16
31
Callitris oblonga oblonga
1
1
Colobanthus curtisiae
1
1
Glycine latrobeana
7
4
11
Myriophyllum integrifolium
1
1
2
Pultenaea humilis
1
5
3
9
Pultenaea prostrata
5
3
8
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
4
4
Triptilodiscus pygmaeus
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
103
Total
1
40
28
69
Local scale GFS in dunes
Colobanthus curtisiae
3
3
Glycine latrobeana
1
1
Myriophyllum integrifolium
2
2
Pultenaea prostrata
2
2
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
1
1
Total
8
1
9
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
Acacia axillaris
2
2
Lythrum salicaria
1
1
Myriophyllum integrifolium
1
1
Persicaria decipiens
1
1
Pultenaea humilis
1
1
Total
2
4
6
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
Acacia axillaris
1
1
Brachyscome rigidula
1
1
Brunonia australis
1
1
Callitris oblonga oblonga
1
1
Colobanthus curtisiae
1
1
Glycine latrobeana
1
1
Tricoryne elatior
1
1
Total
7
7
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
Acacia axillaris
34
34
Brachyscome rigidula
2
1
3
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
104
Brunonia australis
1
1
Callitris oblonga oblonga
2
2
Colobanthus curtisiae
3
2
5
Eryngium ovinum
2
2
Glycine latrobeana
1
17
18
Myriophyllum integrifolium
1
1
Pultenaea prostrata
1
1
Scleranthus diander
2
2
4
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
2
2
Triptilodiscus pygmaeus
1
1
Velleia paradoxa
2
1
3
Total
10
67
77
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured rocks Acacia axillaris
2
2
Callitris oblonga oblonga
1
1
Stenanthemum pimeleoides
1
1
Total
4
4
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
Acacia axillaris
3
3
Callitris oblonga oblonga
3
3
Epacris virgata (graniticola)
1
1
Spyridium lawrencei
1
1
Total
8
8
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured seds Asplenium hookerianum
1
1
Brachyscome rigidula
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
105
Brunonia australis
4
4
Colobanthus curtisiae
4
4
Eryngium ovinum
1
1
2
Glycine latrobeana
1
1
Haloragis aspera
1
1
Lobelia pratioides
1
1
Mirbelia oxylobioides
1
8
9
Persicaria decipiens
1
1
Velleia paradoxa
1
1
2
Total
4
24
28
Total
21
143
207
371
Rare
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief dolerite
Acacia siculiformis
1
1
Aphelia gracilis
3
3
Austrostipa scabra
1
1
Baumea gunnii
5
5
Caesia calliantha
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
6
6
Dianella longifolia longifolia
4
4
Glossostigma elatinoides
1
1
Hypoxis vaginata
2
2
Isoetes drummondii drummondii
2
2
Isolepis habra
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
106
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
1
1
Pilularia novae-hollandiae
1
1
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
5
5
Potamogeton pectinatus
2
2
Teucrium corymbosum
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
2
2
Vittadinia cuneata
5
5
Vittadinia gracilis
3
3
Vittadinia muelleri
6
6
Wilsonia rotundifolia
1
1
Total
1
54
55
Intermediate scale GFS in low relief layered fract seds Amphibromus neesii
1
1
Asperula scoparia scoparia
1
1
Caesia calliantha
1
1
Calocephalus citreus
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
3
3
Carex longebrachiata
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
4
4
Eucalyptus perriniana
3
3
Haloragis heterophylla
1
1
Hypoxis vaginata
3
3
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
1
1
Lepidosperma tortuosum
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
107
Pilularia novae-hollandiae
1
1
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
1
1
Teucrium corymbosum
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
2
2
Vittadinia cuneata
5
5
Vittadinia gracilis
7
7
Vittadinia muelleri
4
4
Total
42
42
Intermediate/Local scale GFS in fractured basalt
Aphelia gracilis
1
1
Aphelia pumilio
1
1
Asperula scoparia scoparia
1
1
Austrostipa bigeniculata
1
1
Austrostipa nodosa
2
2
Austrostipa scabra
1
1
Caesia calliantha
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
3
3
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
1
1
Vittadinia cuneata
3
3
Vittadinia gracilis
1
1
Vittadinia muelleri
1
1
Total
18
18
Local scale GFS in alluvial plains
Amphibromus neesii
1
1
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
108
Aphelia pumilio
2
2
Asperula subsimplex
1
1
Austrostipa nodosa
2
4
6
Austrostipa scabra
1
1
Bolboschoenus caldwellii
3
3
Caesia calliantha
3
4
1
8
Calocephalus citreus
1
3
4
Calocephalus lacteus
6
6
Carex gunniana
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
4
4
Dianella longifolia longifolia
5
4
9
Epilobium willisii
1
1
Eucalyptus risdonii
1
2
3
Haloragis heterophylla
2
2
Hovea longifolia
2
2
Isoetes drummondii drummondii
1
1
Isoetes elatior
1
2
3
Juncus amabilis
1
3
4
Juncus prismatocarpus
1
1
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
3
6
9
Pellaea calidirupium
1
1
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
5
3
8
Pterostylis squamata
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
109
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
1
1
Rumex bidens
1
1
Schoenoplectus validus
1
1
Scleranthus brockiei
1
1
Teucrium corymbosum
3
3
Vallisneria americana
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
3
3
6
Vittadinia cuneata
4
2
6
Vittadinia gracilis
2
2
Vittadinia muelleri
4
4
8
Wilsonia rotundifolia
6
3
9
Total
43
65
14
122
Local scale GFS in deeply weathered sediments
Aphelia gracilis
1
2
3
Aphelia pumilio
3
1
4
Arthropodium strictum
2
2
Asperula scoparia scoparia
1
1
Brachyscome sieberi gunnii
1
1
Caesia calliantha
3
9
5
17
Callitriche umbonata
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
1
3
4
Haloragis heterophylla
2
2
Isoetes drummondii drummondii
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
110
Isoetes elatior
1
1
Juncus fockei
1
1
Lachnagrostis punicea punicea
2
2
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
2
2
Leucopogon virgatus brevifolius
1
1
Melaleuca pustulata
1
1
Muehlenbeckia axillaris
1
1
Pilularia novae-hollandiae
1
1
Poa mollis
1
1
Pterostylis squamata
2
2
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
1
1
Spyridium vexilliferum
3
3
Villarsia exaltata
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
1
7
5
13
Total
6
44
18
68
Local scale GFS in dunes
Aphelia pumilio
1
1
Austrostipa nodosa
1
1
Austrostipa scabra
1
1
Baumea gunnii
1
1
Bolboschoenus caldwellii
2
2
Bolboschoenus medianus
1
1
Brachyscome sieberi gunnii
1
1
Caesia calliantha
2
2
4
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
111
Callitriche umbonata
1
1
Calocephalus citreus
1
1
Calocephalus lacteus
5
5
Cuscuta tasmanica
1
1
Cynoglossum australe
8
8
Dianella longifolia longifolia
1
1
Eutaxia microphylla
1
1
Hypoxis vaginata
1
1
Juncus amabilis
1
1
Leucopogon virgatus brevifolius
1
1
Pimelea curviflora sericea
1
1
Pterostylis squamata
1
1
2
Puccinellia stricta perlaxa
1
1
Scutellaria humilis
1
1
Senecio squarrosus
1
1
Spyridium vexilliferum
1
1
Stylidium despectum
1
1
Trithuria submersa
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
1
2
3
Vittadinia cuneata
1
1
Vittadinia gracilis
1
1
Vittadinia muelleri
1
1
Wilsonia rotundifolia
7
7
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
112
Total
47
8
55
Local scale GFS in floodplain alluviums
Asperula subsimplex
1
1
Caesia calliantha
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
6
6
Haloragis heterophylla
1
1
Hovea tasmanica
1
1
Isoetes elatior
1
1
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
1
1
2
Leucopogon virgatus brevifolius
1
1
Ranunculus pumilio pumilio
1
1
Vittadinia gracilis
1
1
Wilsonia rotundifolia
2
2
Total
2
9
7
18
Local scale GFS in high relief colluvium
Arthropodium strictum
1
1
Eucalyptus risdonii
1
1
Haloragis heterophylla
1
1
Juncus vaginatus
2
2
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
2
2
Rhodanthe anthemoides
1
1
Stellaria multiflora
1
1
Wilsonia rotundifolia
1
1
Total
10
10
Local scale GFS in high relief dolerite
Acacia mucronata dependens
2
2
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
113
Acacia siculiformis
5
5
Acacia ulicifolia
2
2
Aphelia gracilis
1
1
Aphelia pumilio
2
2
Arthropodium strictum
1
1
Asperula minima
1
1
Asperula scoparia scoparia
2
1
3
Asperula subsimplex
1
1
Austrostipa nodosa
1
1
Brachyscome sieberi gunnii
4
4
Caesia calliantha
1
4
5
Calocephalus lacteus
1
2
3
Carex gunniana
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
7
7
Centaurium spicatum
1
1
Chionohebe ciliolata
1
1
Cynoglossum australe
1
1
Cyphanthera tasmanica
1
1
Deyeuxia densa
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
5
5
Epilobium willisii
2
2
Eucalyptus barberi
1
1
Eucalyptus risdonii
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
114
Euphrasia collina deflexifolia
1
1
Haloragis heterophylla
2
2
Hovea tasmanica
1
1
Hypoxis vaginata
1
1
Juncus amabilis
1
1
Lachnagrostis punicea punicea
2
1
3
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
2
2
Monotoca submutica autumnalis
1
1
Pellaea calidirupium
1
3
4
Pentachondra ericifolia
6
6
Phyllangium divergens
1
1
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
1
8
9
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
3
3
Scleranthus brockiei
3
3
Scutellaria humilis
1
1
Spyridium vexilliferum
1
1
Stellaria multiflora
8
8
Teucrium corymbosum
6
6
Uncinia elegans
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
3
19
22
Vittadinia cuneata
5
5
10
Vittadinia gracilis
1
1
Vittadinia muelleri
7
7
14
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
115
Total
31
124
155
Local scale GFS in high relief folded fractured rocks Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
2
2
Viola cunninghamii
1
1
Total
3
3
Local scale GFS in high relief granite
Aphelia pumilio
1
1
Bossiaea obcordata
2
2
Euphrasia collina deflexifolia
2
2
Hovea corrickiae
1
1
Pentachondra ericifolia
1
1
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
2
2
Spyridium vexilliferum
1
1
Vittadinia cuneata
1
1
Vittadinia gracilis
1
1
Total
12
12
Local scale GFS in high relief layered fractured seds Acacia pataczekii
1
1
Aphelia gracilis
1
1
Arthropodium strictum
1
1
Austrostipa blackii
1
1
2
Austrostipa nodosa
4
4
Austrostipa scabra
2
2
Brachyloma depressum
1
1
Caesia calliantha
1
1
Carex longebrachiata
1
1
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
116
Caustis pentandra
1
1
Dianella longifolia longifolia
1
1
2
Eucalyptus perriniana
1
1
Eucalyptus risdonii
3
64
67
Hypoxis vaginata
1
1
Juncus amabilis
1
1
2
Juncus vaginatus
3
3
Lepidium pseudotasmanicum
3
3
6
Lepidosperma tortuosum
1
1
Lobelia rhombifolia
1
1
Olearia hookeri
2
2
Pomaderris phylicifolia phylicifolia
1
1
Potamogeton pectinatus
1
1
Pterostylis squamata
1
1
Ranunculus sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
3
3
Rumex bidens
1
1
Scleranthus brockiei
1
1
Senecio squarrosus
2
2
Stellaria multiflora
4
4
Uncinia elegans
1
1
Viola cunninghamii
1
1
Vittadinia cuneata
2
1
3
Vittadinia gracilis
5
1
6
Critical Ecological Assets
Davies and Barker
117
Vittadinia muelleri
4
4
Total
26
104
130