burnett mary regional nrm & climate adaptation …...bundaberg mundubbera hervey bay mount perry...

Burnett Mary Regional NRM

& Climate Adaptation Plan 2015

Plants and Animals Asset Background Report

Burnett Mary

August 2015

Plants and Animals Asset Background Report – Burnett Mary | 2015

Pg | 2

This report has been prepared by Burnett Mary Regional Group staff in consultation with offi cers of the several Queensland Government agencies.

Contents

1.0 Overview – Description and values 4

2.0 Asset Delineation 5

3.0 Potential Climate Futures/Vulnerable Assets 9

4.0 Plants and Animals - Strategic Direction, Targets & Desired Outcomes 10

5.0 Future Investment 16

6.0 Monitoring & Evaluation of the Plants and Animals indicators 20

7.0 Appendices 22


Pg | 3

www.bmrg.org.au/our-programs/biodiversity-conservation/regional-recovery-threatened-species-ecological-communities/

1.0 Overview – Description and values

The Burnett Mary region is located in overlapping climate zones with tropical infl uences to the north, predominantly subtropical lowlands in the south, and temperate climatic conditions in the Bunya Mountains to the south west of the region. The area also spans two biogeographic regions: the Southeast Queensland Bioregion in the east, and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion in the west. The Burnett Mary region’s variety of climates, soils, vegetation, topography, and historical management by indigenous peoples and others make it a region of great ecological diversity.

Remnant vegetation covers about 45% of the region, with most of this existing in public estate lands and a large proportion in State forest. Areas with very high biodiversity values within the region include the Fraser Island / Cooloola Coast, Cania Gorge, Bunya Mountains, Kinkuna / Woodgate, Bustard Bay, Bulburin, Conondale / Kilkivan range and the Burrum-Cherwell catchments. These areas have large tracts of relatively intact remnant vegetation, providing habitat for numerous threatened species and serving as major bastions for biodiversity.

The Burnett Mary region contains many priority species requiring urgent attention through improved conservation practices (www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/species-recovery/). Nationally listed communities under threat include semi-evergreen vine thicket, Brigalow and rainforest (coastal and riparian). Further communities at risk are identifi ed under the Regional Ecosystem Framework (Queensland Government).

Key threatening processes to biodiversity in the region are a result of previous and continuing reduction in the extent and condition of native habitat through fragmentation, degradation, and alteration of hydrology. The biggest cause of habitat loss and fragmentation in Queensland has been vegetation clearing for agriculture. Increases in human population and continuing demand for urban growth, particularly along the coast, continue to place pressure on an already fragmented natural environment. In aquatic systems, in-stream barriers (dams, weirs and barrages) are major causes of fragmentation and habitat loss.

Weeds and pests have signifi cant economic and social impacts and are among the most signifi cant threats to the condition of terrestrial ecosystems. Weeds and pests can alter ecosystem function, reduce productivity and profi tability for primary industry, and seriously limit the long-term sustainability of natural systems. They can increase the risk of fi re, change the structure of vegetation, increase costs of infrastructure maintenance, and reduce the amenity of recreation areas. Bio-security through weed and pest control is assisted by appropriate land management and is critical to maintaining or improving terrestrial ecosystem function.

Altered fi re regimes have also been identifi ed as a signifi cant threat to priority native fl ora and fauna in the Burnett Mary Region (DERM 2009). Examples include grassland decline in the Bunya Mountains, associated with low fi re frequency, and declining condition of rainforest boundaries caused by too frequent fi re associated with invasive pasture grasses. BMRG has developed fi re guidelines for the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion to help land managers plan hazard reduction burning and to undertake planned burns in order to improve production and conservation outcomes (click here to view).

Climate Change impacts pose an overarching threat to the structural integrity of a vast number of terrestrial ecosystems on a number of fronts; these include likely changes to:

distribution areas, through temperature tolerance

distribution and structure, through increased temperature in drought periods and potential reductions in spring rainfall

structure and integrity of native vegetation, through the increased likelihood of intense and regular fi re associated with an increased frequency of Fire Weather.

The healthier the condition and relative connectivity of native vegetation and freshwater ecosystems, the more resilient they will be too long and short term environmental changes.

1 Accad, A. and Neldner, V.J. (2015) Remnant Regional Ecosystem Vegetation in Queensland, Analysis 1997-2013. (Queensland Department of

Science, Information Technology and Innovation: Brisbane).


Pg | 4

2.0 ASSET DELINEATION

The most logical and readily applicable basis for meaningful asset delineation at the strategic level was determined to be the 1:1 Million Broad Vegetation Group (BVG) Classifi cation developed by Neldner et al. (2015) (see www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/broad-vegetation/). Several BVGs were subdivided into diff erent geographic areas to capture discrete diff erences in Asset sensitivity and adaptive capacity across the region. Table 1 identifi es the Burnett Mary’s BVGs.

The individual fauna and fl ora species of these communities, including those scheduled as rare and threatened, were considered values associated with the BVGs. This framework is carried forward into the setting of strategic direction and targets for the asset.

It should also be noted that, broadly, the Plants and Animals asset group does not consider Land Zone 23 ecosystems. In general, but not exclusively, these are covered in the Coastal and Marine asset section of the plan.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the region’s BVGs that were NOT identifi ed in the group of ten, most vulnerable to climate change. (see Figure 2 for climate change-vulnerable BVGs)

2 Neldner, V.J., Niehus, R.E., Wilson, B.A., McDonald, W.J.F. and Ford, A.J. (2015). The Vegetation of Queensland. Descriptions of Broad Vegetation

Groups. Version 2.0. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation.

3 Ecosystems with a substrate of Quaternary coastal sand deposits


Pg | 5

Burn

ett R

Mar

y R

Auburn R

Stuart R

Isis R

Rei

d C

k

Tina

na C

k

Nogo R

Gregory R

Barker

Ck

Boyne R

Bara

mba

h C

k

St Johns Ck

Elliot R

Yabb

a C

k

Baffle Ck

Kolan R

Gin Gin Ck

Cardarga Ck

Perry

R

Burrum R

Munna Ck

Three Moon C

k

Boonara Ck

Kandanga Ck

Cherwell R

Gla

ston

bury

Y C

k

Baywulla Ck

MONTO

WONDAI

GYMPIE

NANANGO

GOOMERI

GIN GIN

GAYNDAH

KINGAROY

EIDSVOLD

CHILDERS

BIGGENDEN

BUNDABERG

MUNDUBBERA

HERVEY BAY

MOUNT PERRY

MARYBOROUGH

¹

Burnett MaryNRM & Climate Adaptation Plan 2015

Plants and Animal AssetsOther Terrestrial Communities

Projection: UTM (MGA Zone 56)Datum: GDA94

While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, BMRG and DNRM make no representationsor warranties about its accuracies, reliabilities, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose anddisclaims all responsibilities and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses,losses, damages (including indirect and consequential damage) and costs you might incur as a result of theproduct being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ROMA

WEIPA

GYMPIE

MACKAY

CAIRNS

EMERALD

COOKTOWN

BRISBANE

LONGREACH

MOUNT ISA

GLADSTONE

HERVEY BAY

TOWNSVILLE

GOONDIWINDI

CHARLEVILLE

THURSDAY ISLAND

Legend

Other TerrestrialCommunities

TE3a2

TE4a1

TE4a2

TE4b

TE8b1

TE8b2

TE9a

TE9f

TE9g1

TE9g2

TE9h1

TE9h2

TE10a

TE10b

TE11a

TE12a

TE13c1

TE13c2

TE13d

TE17a

TE17b

TE18a

TE18b

TE20a

TE21ab

TE22a

TE24a

TE28a

TE28d

TE28e

TE29a

TE29b

TE32b

0 40 8020 km

FraserIsland

CORAL SEA

Rivers

Highway

BMRG Boundary** See relevant asset section of the NRM plan for full description of each asset code

Figure 1 - Burnett Mary Broad Vegetation Groups (EXCLUDING those identifi ed as most vulnerable to climate change and shown in Figure 2)


Pg | 6

Asset Code4

1:1 Million BVG Class

Broad Vegetation Group Description

RAINFORESTS, SCRUBS

TE 2a 2aComplex evergreen notophyll vine forest frequently with Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine) from foothills to

ranges. (land zones 8, 11, 12) (CQC, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 5a, 5b)

TE 3a1 3aMAINLAND - Evergreen to semi-deciduous, notophyll to microphyll vine forest/ thicket on beach ridges and

coastal dunes, occasionally Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine) microphyll vine forest on dunes. Pisonia grandis

on coral cays. (land zone 2) (BRB, CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 2b)

TE 3a2 3aFRASER ISLAND - Evergreen to semi-deciduous, notophyll to microphyll vine forest/ thicket on beach ridges

and coastal dunes, occasionally Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine) microphyll vine forest on dunes. Pisonia

grandis on coral cays. (land zone 2) (BRB, CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 2b)

TE 4a1 4aSAND SYSTEMS (LANDZONE 2) - Notophyll and mesophyll vine forest with feather or fan palms in alluvia and

in swampy situations on ranges or within coastal sandmasses. (land zones 2, 3, 11, 12) (CQC, SEQ, WET, CYP)

(Tracey 1982 2b,3b, 3c)

TE 4a2 4aALLUVIAL AND HILLSLOPES (LANDZONE 3, 11, 12) - Notophyll and mesophyll vine forest with feather or fan

palms in alluvia and in swampy situations on ranges or within coastal sandmasses. (land zones 2, 3, 11, 12)

(CQC, SEQ, WET, CYP) (Tracey 1982 2b,3b, 3c)

TE 4b 4bEvergreen to semi-deciduous mesophyll to notophyll vine forest, frequently with Archontophoenix spp. (palms)

fringing streams. (land zone 3) (CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 1c)

TE 5a1 5aLAND ZONE 5 & 8 -Araucarian notophyll/microphyll and microphyll vine forests of southern coastal bioregions.

(SEQ)

TE 5a2 5aLAND ZONE 10,11 & -Araucarian notophyll/microphyll and microphyll vine forests of southern coastal

bioregions. (SEQ)

TE 7a 7aSemi-evergreen vine thickets on wide range of substrates. (land zones 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, EIU, GUP,

NET, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 11)

WET EUCALYPT OPEN FORESTS

TE 8a 8a

Wet tall open forest dominated by species such as Eucalyptus grandis (fl ooded gum) or E. saligna, E. resinifera

(red mahogany), Lophostemon confertus (brush box), Syncarpia glomulifera (turpentine), E. laevopinea (silvertop

stringybark). Contains a well-developed understorey of rainforest components, including ferns and palms, or

the understorey may be dominated by sclerophyll shrubs. (land zones 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, CYP, NET,

SEQ, WET)

TE 8b1 8bCOASTAL AREAS - Moist open forests to tall open forests mostly dominated by Eucalyptus pilularis (blackbutt)

on coastal sands and sub-coastal sandstones. Also includes tall open forests dominated by E. montivaga, E.

obliqua (messmate stringybark) and E. campanulata (New England ash). (land zones 2, 5, 8) (SEQ)

TE 8b2 8b

RANGE AREAS - Moist open forests to tall open forests mostly dominated by Eucalyptus pilularis (blackbutt)

on coastal sands, sub-coastal sandstones and basalt ranges. Also includes tall open forests dominated by E.

montivaga, E. obliqua (messmate stringybark) and E. campanulata (New England ash). (land zones 10, 11, 12)

(SEQ)

Table 1 - Burnett Mary Broad Vegetation Groups, mapped at 1:1,000,000 scale

TETETETE 888b2b2b2b 8b

RANGE AREAS - Moist open forests to tall open forests mostly dominated by Eucalyptus pilularis (blackbutt)

on coastal sands, sub-coastal sandstones and basalt ranges. Also includes tall open forests dominated by E.

montivaga, E. obliqua (messmate stringybark) and E. campanulata (New England ash). (land zones 10, 11, 12)

(SESEQ)Q)( )

4 TE – Terrestrial Ecosystem


Pg | 7

Asset Code4



EASTERN EUCALYPT WOODLANDS TO OPEN FORESTS

TE 9a 9a

Moist to dry eucalypt open forests to woodlands, dominated by a variety of species including Eucalyptus

acmenoides (narrow-leaved white stringybark), E. carnea (broad-leaved white mahogany), E. propinqua

(small-fruited grey gum), E. siderophloia (red ironbark), E. tindaliae (Queensland white stringybark), E. racemosa,

Corymbia intermedia (pink bloodwood), C. trachyphloia (yellow bloodwood), E. planchoniana (Planchon's

stringybark), E. baileyana (Bailey's stringybark), E. moluccana (gum-topped box) and Angophora leiocarpa (rusty

gum). (land zones 5, 8, 10, 11) (SEQ).

TE 9f 9fWoodlands dominated by Corymbia spp. e.g.: C. intermedia (pink bloodwood), C. tessellaris (Moreton Bay ash)

and/or Eucalyptus spp. (E. racemosa, E. tereticornis (blue gum)), frequently with Banksia spp., Acacia spp. and

Callitris columellaris (white cypress pine) on coastal dunes and beach ridges. (land zone 2) (SEQ)

TE 9g1 9gINLAND SYSTEMS - Moist woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus tindaliae (Queensland white stringybark) or E.

racemosa or E. tereticornis (blue gum) and Corymbia intermedia (pink bloodwood) on remnant Tertiary surfaces.

(land zones 3, 5) (SEQ)

TE 9g2 9gCOASTAL SYSTEMS - Moist woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus tindaliae (Queensland white stringybark) or E.

racemosa or E. tereticornis (blue gum) and Corymbia intermedia (pink bloodwood) on remnant Tertiary surfaces.

(land zones 3, 5) (SEQ)

TE 9h1 9h

EAST OF RANGE - Dry woodlands dominated by species such as Eucalyptus acmenoides (narrow-leaved white

stringybark) (or E. portuensis), E. tereticornis (blue gum), Angophora leiocarpa (rusty gum), Corymbia trachyphloia

(yellow bloodwood) or C. intermedia (pink bloodwood), and often ironbarks including E. crebra (narrow-leaved

red ironbark) or E. fi brosa (dusky-leaved ironbark). A heathy shrub layer is frequently present. On undulating to

hilly terrain. (land zones 11, 12) (BRB, SEQ)

TE 9h2 9h

WEST OF RANGE - Dry woodlands dominated by species such as Eucalyptus acmenoides (narrow-leaved white

stringybark) (or E. portuensis), E. tereticornis (blue gum), Angophora leiocarpa (rusty gum), Corymbia trachyphloia

(yellow bloodwood) or C. intermedia (pink bloodwood), and often ironbarks including E. crebra (narrow-leaved

red ironbark) or E. fi brosa (dusky-leaved ironbark). A heathy shrub layer is frequently present. On undulating to

hilly terrain. (land zones 11, 12) (BRB, SEQ)

TE 10a 10aDry woodlands to open woodlands dominated by Corymbia citriodora (spotted gum). Can occur on land zones

7, 10, 11, and 12. (BRB, DEU)

TE 10b 10bMoist open forests to woodlands dominated by Corymbia citriodora (spotted gum). Can occur on land zones 5,

10, 11, and 12. (CQC, EIU, NET, SEQ)

TE 11a 11aMoist to dry open forests to woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus orgadophila (mountain coolibah). Some areas

dominated by E. tereticornis (blue gum), E. melliodora (yellow box), E. albens (white box), E. crebra (narrow-leaved

red ironbark) or E. melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark). (BRB, EIU, SEQ)

TE 12a 12a

Dry woodlands to open woodlands dominated by ironbarks such as Eucalyptus decorticans (gum-topped

ironbark), E. fi brosa subsp. nubila (blue-leaved ironbark), or E. crebra (narrow-leaved red ironbark) and/or

bloodwoods such as Corymbia trachyphloia (yellow bloodwood), C. leichhardtii (rustyjacket), C. watsoniana

(Watson's yellow bloodwood), C. lamprophylla, C. peltata (yellowjacket). Occasionally E. thozetiana (mountain

yapunyah), E. cloeziana (Gympie messmate) or E. mediocris are dominant. Mostly on sub-coastal/inland hills

with shallow soils. (BRB, DEU, GUP, SEQ)

TE 13c1 13cLANDZONE 3 - Woodlands of Eucalyptus crebra (sens. lat.) (narrow-leaved red ironbark), E. drepanophylla

(grey ironbark), E. fi brosa (dusky-leaved ironbark), E. shirleyi (shirley's silver-leaved ironbark) on granitic and

metamorphic ranges (land zone 3, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, NET, SEQ, WET)

TE 13c2 13cLANDZONE 11&12 - Woodlands of Eucalyptus crebra (sens. lat.) (narrow-leaved red ironbark), E. drepanophylla

(grey ironbark), E. fi brosa (dusky-leaved ironbark), E. shirleyi (shirley's silver-leaved ironbark) on granitic and

metamorphic ranges (land zone 3, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, NET, SEQ, WET)

TE 13d 13dWoodlands dominated by Eucalyptus moluccana (gum-topped box) (or E. microcarpa (inland grey box)) on a

range of substrates. (land zone 3, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, NET, SEQ, WET)


Pg | 8

Asset Code4



EUCALYPT OPEN FORESTS TO WOODLANDS ON FLOODPLAINS

TE 16a1 16a

SEQ BIOREGION - Open forest and woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river red gum) (or E.

tereticornis (blue gum)) and/or E. coolabah (coolabah) (or E. microtheca (coolabah)) fringing drainage lines.

Associated species may include Melaleuca spp., Corymbia tessellaris (carbeen), Angophora spp., Casuarina

cunninghamiana (riveroak). Does not include alluvial areas dominated by herb and grasslands or alluvial plains

that are not fl ooded. (All bioregions except CYP)

TE 16a2 16a

BRIGALOW BELT BIOREGION - Open forest and woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus camaldulensis (river

red gum) (or E. tereticornis (blue gum)) and/or E. coolabah (coolabah) (or E. microtheca (coolabah)) fringing

drainage lines. Associated species may include Melaleuca spp., Corymbia tessellaris (carbeen), Angophora spp.,

Casuarina cunninghamiana (riveroak). Does not include alluvial areas dominated by herb and grasslands or

alluvial plains that are not fl ooded. (All bioregions except CYP)

TE 16c 16cWoodlands and open woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus coolabah (coolabah) or E. microtheca (coolabah) or

E. largifl orens (black box) or E. tereticornis (blue gum) or E. chlorophylla on fl oodplains. Does not include alluvial

areas dominated by herb and grasslands or alluvial plains that are not fl ooded. (All bioregions except WET).


TE 17a 17aWoodlands dominated by Eucalyptus populnea (poplar box) (or E. brownii (Reid River box)) on alluvium, sand

plains and footslopes of hills and ranges. (land zones 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10) (BRB, DEU, MUL, SEQ)

TE 17b 17bWoodlands to open woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus melanophloia (silver-leaved ironbark) (or E. shirleyi

(shirley's silver-leaved ironbark)) on sand plains and footslopes of hills and ranges. (land zones 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12)

(BRB, DEU, EIU, MUL, NET, NWH, SEQ)

TE 18a 18a

Dry woodlands to open woodlands, dominated by bloodwoods (Corymbia dallachiana, C. terminalis (long-

fruited bloodwood), C. plena, or C. leichhardtii (rustyjacket)) or ironbarks (Eucalyptus quadricostata (Pentland

ironbark), E. crebra (narrow-leaved red ironbark) or E. exilipes (fi ne-leaved ironbark)), often with E. acmenoides

(narrow-leaved white stringybark), Angophora leiocarpa (rusty gum) and Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress

pine) in the Brigalow Belt, on sandy plateaus and plains. (land zones 3, 5) (BRB, DEU, EIU, GUP)

TE 18b 18bWoodlands dominated Eucalyptus crebra (sens. lat.) (narrow-leaved red ironbark) frequently with Corymbia spp.

or Callitris spp. on fl at to undulating plains. (land zones 3, 5) (BRB, CYP, DEU, EIU, GUP)

CALLITRIS WOODLAND - OPEN FORESTS

TE 20a 20aWoodlands to open forests dominated by Callitris glaucophylla (white cypress pine) or C. intratropica (coast

cypress pine) (land zones 3, 5, 10, 12) (BRB, DEU, EIU, MUL)

MELALEUCA OPEN WOODLANDS ON DEPOSITIONAL PLAINS

TE 21ab (merged 21a and 21b)

21a Low woodlands and low open woodlands dominated by Melaleuca viridifl ora (coarse-leaved paperbark) on

depositional plains. (land zones 3, 5, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, CYP, DEU, EIU, GUP, SEQ, WET)

TE 21ab 21bLow open woodlands and tall shrublands of Melaleuca stenostachya or M. citrolens or other Melaleuca spp.

(land zones 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CYP, DEU, EIU, GUP, SEQ)

TE 22a 22aOpen forests and woodlands dominated by Melaleuca quinquenervia (swamp paperbark) in seasonally

inundated lowland coastal areas and swamps. (land zones 2, 3) (CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET)


Pg | 9

Asset Code4



OTHER ACACIA DOMINATED OPEN-FORESTS, WOODLANDS AND SHRUBLANDS

TE 24a 24a

Low woodlands to tall shrublands dominated by Acacia spp. on residuals. Species include A. shirleyi

(lancewood), A. catenulata (bendee), A. microsperma (bowyakka), A. clivicola, A. sibirica, A. rhodoxylon

(rosewood) and A. leptostachya (Townsville wattle). (land zones 5, 7, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CHC, CYP, DEU, EIU, GUP,

MUL, MGD, NWH)

TE 25a 25aOpen forests to woodlands dominated by Acacia harpophylla (brigalow) sometimes with Casuarina cristata

(belah) on heavy clay soils. Includes areas co-dominated with A. cambagei (gidgee) and/or emergent eucalypts

(land zones 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11) (BRB, DEU, MUL, MGD, SEQ)

OTHER COASTAL COMMUNITIES OR HEATHS

TE 28a 28aComplex of open shrubland to closed shrubland, grassland, low woodland and open forest, on strand and

foredunes. Includes pure stands of Casuarina equisetifolia (coastal sheoak). (land zone 2) (BRB, CQC, CYP, GUP,

SEQ)

TE 28d 28dSand blows to closed herblands of Lepturus repens (stalky grass) and herbs on sand cays and shingle cays. (land

zone 2) (CQC, CYP, SEQ)

TE 28e 28eLow open forest to woodlands dominated by Lophostemon suaveolens (swamp box) (or L. confertus (brush box))

or Syncarpia glomulifera (turpentine) frequently with Allocasuarina spp. on rocky hill slopes. (land zones 3, 5, 11,

12) (CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET)

TE 29a 29aOpen heaths and dwarf open heaths on coastal dunefi elds, sandplains and headlands. (land zones 2, 3, 5, 11,

12) (CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET)

TE 29b 29bOpen shrublands to open heaths in montane frequently rocky locations. (land zones 5, 7, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC,

CYP, DEU, NWH, SEQ, WET)

3.0 POTENTIAL CLIMATE FUTURES / VULNERABLE ASSETS

The BVGs of the region were assessed by an expert panel to determine their relative vulnerabilities to climate change. The panel considered BVG vulnerabilities under a 2090, high greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5) scenario. The following climate change exposure indicators were used in the assessment:

temperature increases

increasing lengths of dry periods

Spring rainfall decrease

more frequent and intense fi res (measured as an increase of very high fi re weather conditions (FFDI).

An “order of vulnerability to climate change” was established; from this the ten most vulnerable BVGs were further scrutinised at a second expert panel workshop. The revised list of these most vulnerable BVGs, along with expert panel comments, is presented in Table 2. Importantly, climate change vulnerability order DOES NOT equate to “investment priority” and should not be interpreted as such.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the region’s ten Broad Vegetation Groups identifi ed as most vulnerable to climate change.

5 See Appendix 1 Vulnerability Assessment User Manual – Version 1 for assessment method adopted. An independent local consultant (external to

BMRG) was engaged to review the assessment and outputs, prior to 2nd expert panel workshop consideration of the assessment results and vision

and targets for the asset.

6 See Appendix 2 Expert Panel members


Pg | 10

Burn

ett R

Mar

y R

Auburn R

Stuart R

Isis R

Rei

d C

k

Tina

na C

k

Nogo R

Gregory R

Barker

Ck

Boyne R

Bara

mba

h C

k

St Johns Ck

Elliot R

Yabb

a C

k

Baffle Ck

Kolan R

Gin Gin Ck

Cardarga Ck

Perry

R

Burrum R

Munna Ck

Three Moon C

k

Boonara Ck

Kandanga Ck

Cherwell R

Gla

ston

bury

Y C

k

Baywulla Ck

MONTO

WONDAI

GYMPIE

NANANGO

GOOMERI

GIN GIN

GAYNDAH

KINGAROY

EIDSVOLD

CHILDERS

BIGGENDEN

BUNDABERG

MUNDUBBERA

HERVEY BAY

MOUNT PERRY

MARYBOROUGH

¹

Burnett MaryNRM & Climate Adaptation Plan 2015

Plants and Animal AssetsTerrestrial Communities Vulnerable

to Climate Change

Projection: UTM (MGA Zone 56)Datum: GDA94

While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, BMRG and DNRM make no representationsor warranties about its accuracies, reliabilities, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose anddisclaims all responsibilities and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses,losses, damages (including indirect and consequential damage) and costs you might incur as a result of theproduct being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

ROMA

WEIPA

GYMPIE

MACKAY

CAIRNS

EMERALD

COOKTOWN

BRISBANE

LONGREACH

MOUNT ISA

GLADSTONE

HERVEY BAY

TOWNSVILLE

GOONDIWINDI

CHARLEVILLE

THURSDAY ISLAND

Legend

Terrestrial Communities Vulnerable to ClimateChange ( 1 = most vulnerable)

1 - Asset TE 5a1

2 - Asset TE 5a2

3 - Asset TE 2a

4 - Asset TE 25a

5 - Asset TE 16c/TE 16a1

6 - Asset TE 7a

7 - Asset TE 8a

8 - Asset TE 16a2

9 - Asset TE 3a1

0 40 8020 km

FraserIsland

CORAL SEA

A climate change vulnerability assessment was used to identify the region’smost vulnerable broad vegetation groups. The findings of this assessmentwere reviewed by an “expert panel” to confirm the following order of climatechange-vulnerable vegetation groups for the region.

Rivers

Highway

BMRG Boundary

** See relevant asset section of the NRM plan for full description of each asset code

Figure 2 - Burnett Mary Broad Vegetation Groups identifi ed as most vulnerable to climate change


Pg | 11

Table 2 - Most climate-change vulnerable BVGs of the Burnett Mary.

Order Asset BVG

collectionBVG description Workshop comments

1 TE 5a1RAINFORESTS, SCRUBS

LAND ZONE 5 & 8 – Araucarian

notophyll/microphyll and

microphyll vine forests of

southern coastal bioregions.

(SEQ)

Considerable regeneration of regrowth, particularly after

management action, i.e. remove stock - natural regeneration.

Destroyed by fi re; most patches isolated in grazing lands where fi re

is used for pasture management.

Threat - highly vulnerable to fi re so that patch size is an important

factor in terms of persistence in the landscape.


LAND ZONE 10, 11 & - Araucarian

notophyll/microphyll and

microphyll vine forests of

southern coastal bioregions.

(SEQ)

Generally occurs as larger tracts in rougher, harder country. Not

suited to grazing and other ag uses. Naturally resilient.

Threat - weed infestations that raise vulnerability to fi re incursion.

3 TE 2aRAINFORESTS, SCRUBS

Complex evergreen notophyll

vine forest frequently with

Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop

pine) from foothills to ranges.

(land zones 8, 11, 12) (CQC, SEQ,

WET) (Tracey 1982 5a, 5b)

Generally at higher (cooler) altitudes on more fertile soils (than

other rainforests/scrubs), such as Maleny. Also, high rainfall-

adapted. (note: 1000mm isohyet south of Gympie).

Threats - higher temperatures associated with climate change

and reduced rainfall would create signifi cant change in spp.

composition.

4 TE 25a

OTHER ACACIA DOMINATED OPEN FORESTS, WOODLANDS AND SHRUBLANDS

Open forests to woodlands

dominated by Acacia harpophylla

(brigalow) sometimes with

Casuarina cristata (belah) on

heavy clay soils. Includes areas

co-dominated with A. cambagei

(gidgee) and/or emergent

eucalypts (land zones 3, 4, 5, 7, 9,

11) (BRB, DEU, MUL, MGD, SEQ)

Extent signifi cantly reduced from pre-clear coverage. Some

resilience to fi re, often weed infested, structural change evident

with uncertainty surrounding long term response(s) to wet/dry

“pulses” in terms of seed set and apparent dieback of canopy

(possibly emergent canopy natural dieback from age OR as part of

longer cycle(s)). Uncertainty regarding the impact of Indigenous

fi re regimes / mosaic burns but fi res approaching from adjacent

open plain country a major threat. Increase in extent is almost

impossible due to patch isolation and size.

POSSIBLE RESEARCH – specifi c requirements for seed set.

5 TE 16a1


SEQ BIOREGION - Open forest

and woodlands dominated

by Eucalyptus camaldulensis

(river red gum) (or E. tereticornis

(blue gum)) and/or E. coolabah

(coolabah) (or E. microtheca

(coolabah)) fringing drainage

lines. Associated species

may include Melaleuca spp.,

Corymbia tessellaris (carbeen),

Angophora spp., Casuarina

cunninghamiana (riveroak).

Does not include alluvial

areas dominated by herb and

grasslands or alluvial plains that

are not fl ooded. (All bioregions

except CYP)

This is a robust community but has been extensively cleared

because of its high value for ag production (grazing and cropping).

It regenerates readily but trampling by cattle destroys sapling

regrowth. Community important for habitat connectivity,

streambank stabilisation, hollows (nesting / roosting habitats).

Major threat - land use intensifi cation to support activities

displaced from adversely aff ected coastal alluvial ecosystems.

Action?? - Mapping of blue gum fl ats north of Kolan River seems

to be missing from viewed coverage. Also, in Brigalow Belt South,

limited extent of the bioregional equivalent of 12.3.3, i.e. 11.3.4

Coolabah…/ E. camaldulensis – limited extent in BM region.

6 previously 9

TE 16c


Woodlands and open

woodlands dominated by

Eucalyptus coolabah (coolabah)

or E. microtheca (coolabah) or

E. largifl orens (black box) or E.

tereticornis (blue gum) or E.

chlorophylla on fl oodplains.

Does not include alluvial

areas dominated by herb and

grasslands or alluvial plains that

are not fl ooded. (All bioregions

except WET).

(Specht classifi cation used In QLD RE system for woodlands closed/

open and forest closed/open).

Tends to be more open than TE16a1. In the BM region, no

largifl orens or coolabah.

TE16a1 and TE16c are ecologically diff erent but inextricably

linked in terms of management, therefore TE16c elevated to same

vulnerability as TE16a1.


Pg | 12

Order Asset BVG

collectionBVG description Workshop comments

7 TE 7aRAINFORESTS, SCRUBS

Semi-evergreen vine thickets on wide range of

substrates. (land zones 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) (BRB,

CQC, EIU, GUP, NET, SEQ, WET) (Tracey 1982 11)

These communities are naturally more tolerant

to drier conditions than other closed forests, but

susceptible to falling water tables in extreme

events (most are GDE’s). Also provide habitat for

EVR fauna, black-breasted button quail. Heavily

fragmented with edge eff ect problems (weeds,

fi re, feral animals) and intensive surrounding land

uses. Thickening of fi re adapted species as aquifer

levels fall.

Threats - groundwater extraction, weeds, fi re.

8 TE 8aWET EUCALYPT OPEN FORESTS

Wet tall open forest dominated by species such as

Eucalyptus grandis (fl ooded gum) or E. saligna, E.

resinifera (red mahogany), Lophostemon confertus

(brush box), Syncarpia glomulifera (turpentine), E.

laevopinea (silvertop stringybark). Contains a well

developed understorey of rainforest components,

including ferns and palms, or the understorey

may be dominated by sclerophyll shrubs. (land

zones 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12) (BRB, CQC, CYP, NET, SEQ,

WET)

None mapped north of Baffl e or Eurimbula -

Syncarpia glomulifera on LZ 12 and 5. In high

county BM region south, Maleny. Will retreat

with warming and drying climate, loss of vine

forest elements results in reversion to more open

woodland. At present, this community acts as a

fi re buff er for vine forests and provide important

bird habitat. If lost, rainforests more susceptible

to fi re.

Threat – warming and drying climate, fi re.

9 TE 16a2


BRIGALOW BELT BIOREGION - Open forest

and woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus

camaldulensis (river red gum) (or E. tereticornis

(blue gum)) and/or E. coolabah (coolabah) (or E.

microtheca (coolabah)) fringing drainage lines.

Associated species may include Melaleuca spp.,

Corymbia tessellaris (carbeen), Angophora spp.,

Casuarina cunninghamiana (riveroak). Does not

include alluvial areas dominated by herb and

grasslands or alluvial plains that are not fl ooded.

(All bioregions except CYP)

Brigalow Belt “equivalent” of TE16a2, similar

comments apply but this BVG not subject to same

population pressures as TE16a2. Areas generally

characterised as “good soils”.

Threat - alluvial areas may be subject to increasing

agricultural use pressure as coastal activities are

displaced.


MAINLAND - Evergreen to semi-deciduous,

notophyll to microphyll vine forest/ thicket on

beach ridges and coastal dunes, occasionally

Araucaria cunninghamii (hoop pine) microphyll

vine forest on dunes. Pisonia grandis on coral cays.

(land zone 2) (BRB, CQC, CYP, SEQ, WET) (Tracey

1982 2b)

Is this a “lost cause”? Potentially should be

elevated…?

Occurrence on Agnes Water volcanic and is

therefore less vulnerable to sea level rise.

Pre-clear extent is seen as the potential range

for re-establishment but urban development

pressures high so that there is limited opportunity

for re-establishing. Without intervention, BVG will

potentially be lost.

Potential projects:

- better mapping in southern BM Region for

additional examples on higher ground, and

- surveys and mapping to ID other examples

(other than 12.2.2) that meet the EPBC Act criteria

(see the EPBC Policy criteria and SPRAT species list)

- clarifi cation of prioritisation for protection;

should consider current state, adjoining buff ers,

health of surrounding systems, potential for

seawater incursion (adj to heaths), altitude and

patch size.

Threats – urban development, rising SL, weeds


Pg | 13

4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS - STRATEGIC DIRECTION, TARGETS & DESIRED OUTCOMES

The strategic direction and targets listed in the NRM Plan are non-statutory. They do not relate to regulatory processes under local, Queensland or Australian Government legislation. Rather, their primary purpose is to guide on-ground investment that improves land management and delivers activities that sustain the region’s assets.

The Strategic Direction, 2020 Targets and Desired Outcomes for the Plants and Animals Asset are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 - Plants and Animals - Strategic Direction, Targets and Desired Outcomes

AssetStrategic Direction

2020 Targets Desired Outcomes

Plants and Animals

Healthy vegetation communities, associated landscape processes and habitat values are maintained across the region.

Extent

The extent of the region’s

vegetation communities will be

maintained at the 2013 baseline.

Opportunities for linking and enlarging vegetation community

fragments with larger habitat patches are pursued, to increase the

extent of vegetation communities.

Diversity

The diversity of vegetation

communities will be maintained

at 2013 levels and opportunities

for sustaining species’

populations, particularly those

that are threatened , will be

improved.

• No loss of regional biodiversity

• Survival prospects for threatened species and communities are

improved

• Regeneration of “regrowth” areas to “remnant” status.

Landscape function

Landscape function is enhanced

through activities that address

threatening processes.

On-ground activities are implemented that address threats to the

“health” of vegetation communities, including:

• fragmentation and small patch size of vegetation communities

• inappropriate fi re regimes

• invasive, exotic species

• inappropriate land management systems.

Target - Native Vegetation Extent

2020 Target – The extent of the region’s vegetation communities will be maintained at the 2013 baseline.

The region’s native vegetation underpins ecosystem services such as the provision of clean water and air, and provides a wide variety of habitats to support thousands of native plant and animal species. Vegetation tracts across the Burnett Mary range in condition from near pristine to severely degraded. Minimising fragmentation of existing larger tracts of native vegetation, building connectivity to smaller tracts and rehabilitating degraded areas underpin many nature conservation outcomes.

An important indicator of the status of the Burnett Mary’s natural resource base and the health of the landscape is the comparison between the current extent of remaining vegetation types and pre-clearing vegetation types and their extent. This comparison also assists in interpreting the impacts of landscape change since European settlement.

The extent and connectivity of some of the region’s native vegetation is already signifi cantly compromised, in particular semi evergreen vine forest, Brigalow forests, fl oodplain forests, and littoral forests.

In general, large tracts of vegetation provide signifi cant habitat for a wider range of wildlife while small, isolated remnants are less likely to provide habitat of the same quality. Thus, large patches are necessary to maintain viable population numbers. Smaller populations in smaller patches are more easily extinguished by chance events. Smaller tracts are also more susceptible to the negative impacts of surrounding urban and agricultural land uses, as well as impacts from invasive weeds and pests and inappropriate fi re regimes.


Pg | 14

Connectivity can also assist in maintaining viable populations across networks of habitat patches. Without connectivity, populations become isolated and genetic diversity diminishes over time e.g. the koala. As resources diminish, the ability of wildlife to migrate and colonise new areas is impeded, especially when vegetation is cleared and incompatible adjacent uses are established. Similarly, the transport of seeds and pollen can be inhibited by habitat fragmentation, threatening genetic diversity in plant populations.

Improved knowledge of the extent and connectivity of vegetation within the Burnett Mary region will improve our understanding of the ability of ecosystems to maintain genetic diversity and species resilience, in the face of environmental and landscape change. Knowledge of the pre-clearing extent of vegetation types also supports the prioritisation of activities aimed at restoring or rehabilitating degraded areas.

Target - Native Vegetation Diversity and Habitat Value

2020 Target - The diversity of vegetation communities will be maintained at 2013 levels and opportunities for sustaining species’ populations, particularly those that are threatened , will be improved.

The presence of healthy, self-sustaining populations of native animals and plants in an area is generally a good indication that there is adequate and suitable habitat available. Functional and connected habitats aid successful breeding, which in turn results in healthy, viable populations. However, determining whether a population is self-sustaining can be diffi cult, particularly for sparse populations (like some birds) or long-lived organisms that may regenerate episodically, such as some plants. Populations of some species may be declining due to reductions in habitat over the last century; it can take decades or centuries for habitat destruction to eventually drive a species out of a landscape.

There are a number of species and populations that are under considerable threat in the Burnett Mary region. Many regional plants and animals are scheduled under international, national and state legislation and covenants - to protect those species’ populations and habitats, and to maintain the ecosystems upon which they rely.

9 Most recent version of RE coverage released by the Herbarium (version 9)

10 Species or Ecological Communities Listed under NCA / EPBC or Regional Ecosystems with endangered or of concern biodiversity status ( https://

www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/biodiversity-status/ and species of regional signifi cance that are not scheduled.)


Pg | 15

Burnett Mary species requiring particular attention include:

threatening processes responsible for population declines, and subsequent conservation listings, vary enormously. In general, limited information is available for each species or community. Addressing these knowledge gaps is central to improved understanding and better planning of on-ground actions that will sustain these populations as they confront the dual threats of habitat loss (both past and future) due to development pressures, and changing climate. Critical information includes – habitat requirements and key lifecycle features (breeding sites where species start life, the areas where they spend their adult life and their movement between these critical sites) for animals, and tolerance limits / critical life stage environmental triggers for plants.

This knowledge is essential to a greater understanding of the health and viability of regional plant and animal populations, and the connectivity of the landscapes across the region.

Target – Landscape Function

2020 Target – Landscape function is enhanced through activities that address threatening processes.

A healthy environment is essential to providing ecosystem services such as clean water, nutrient cycling, local climate amelioration and suitable wildlife habitat. The preceding targets for extent and diversity focus on the “building blocks” for a healthy environment. This third target focuses on processes, particularly on mitigation of threatening processes such as degradation of ecosystem condition associated with weeds, pests, clearing and inappropriate fi re regimes. At present there is no comprehensive measure of vegetation condition across this region. Such a measure would ideally consider:

Threatening processes, including – incompatible adjacent land uses, altered fi re regimes, proximity to urbanisation and presence of pest plants and animals

fl oristic diversity and structure

other important habitat features for wildlife.

Understanding the current condition of ecosystems within the landscape and ecosystem susceptibility to threatening processes will inform future planning and actions to address the stated target.

Fire management is employed to

protect people and property through hazard reduction

support agricultural production

improve biodiversity outcomes

control pests and weeds.

Future climate scenarios indicate increasing periods of severe fi re weather, in terms of duration and intensity.

Animals

Water mouse (Xeromys myoides)

Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus)

Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis)

Queensland lungfi sh (Neoceratodus forsteri )

Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus )

Oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana)

Black-breasted button quail (Turnix melanogaster)

Coxen’s fi g parrot (Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni )

Illidge’s ant-blue butterfl y (Acrodipsas illidgei )

Plants

Cycas megacarpa

Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi

Macrozamia lomandroides

Blandfordia grandifl ora

Alectryon ramifl orus

Clausena smyrelliana

Phaius australis

Acacia porcata

Pomaderris clivicola


Pg | 16

These projections highlight the importance of “getting fi re management right”. Successful blending of traditional and contemporary knowledge relating to fi re frequency, with an understanding of the eff ects of fi re intensity and timing, has great potential to improve the sustainability of fi re management across the region. In particular, improved outcomes in terms of seed release and germination, plant fl owering and the lifecycles of cohabiting species can result.

Invasive pest animals and weeds are a common and major problem in the Burnett Mary region. Weeds and pest animals have the potential to adversely alter ecosystem condition and function, reduce primary industry productivity and profi tability, and seriously limit the long-term sustainability of natural systems. They increase the risk of fi re, change the structure of vegetation, increase costs to infrastructure maintenance, and reduce the amenity of recreation areas. Pest animals further compound the threat that fragmentation presents to native wildlife. The impacts of pest animals include direct predation, competition for food and other resources, introduction of disease and destruction of habitat, often increasing soil erosion and lowering water quality. Without suitable management, weeds and pest animals cause major ecological and economic harm to the region. Further, weeds require prioritisation in terms of threat level, funding and forward planning, based on research into potential range expansion under varying climate change scenarios.

5.0 FUTURE INVESTMENT

Ensuring that the region’s natural systems are healthy and diverse and that connectivity is maintained or restored, will help buff er the anticipated eff ects of climate change and provide resilience to threatening processes or stressors. Focusing management on a whole of landscape approach, including publicly and privately owned land, will provide resistant ecosystems and protect diversity. Better outcomes are achieved through collaborative partnerships between governments, key industry groups and community sectors. Acknowledging the success of existing biodiversity conservation programs and providing adequate resources for future investment will strengthen and build upon achievements thus far.

Some specifi c activities, identifi ed for the delivery of desired outcomes for Plants and Animals, from community consultation and scientifi c expert panel advice, are listed in Table 4. In identifying these activities, prioritisation was recommended after consideration of activity costs, benefi ts and risks, barriers to adoption, social acceptability and carbon sequestration potential.

The three targets address extent, diversity and landscape function for the Plants and Animals asset, and are inextricably linked. Conserving biodiversity depends on maintaining extensive areas of native vegetation in good condition that eff ectively connect ecosystems in local, regional, state and national contexts.

For each target, aligned activities to achieve the desired outcomes are listed. Each of the activities is categorised - Planning and Governance, On-Ground, Community Capacity Building and Science – and also priority ranked from 1 to 3 (1 - high, 2 - moderate, 3 - low).


Pg | 17

Table 4 - Suggested Activities to deliver 2020 Targets

2020 Targets

Activity Category

ActivityPriorityRanking

Carbon Sequestration / Mitigation Co-Benefi t

PA1. The extent of the region’s vegetation communities will be maintained at the 2013 baseline

Planning & Governance

Promote the use of current and relevant spatial datasets such as species

data, vegetation mapping, wetlands mapping, and condition based

assessment e.g. biodiversity planning assessment.

2

Support activities that increase compliance and enforcement of existing

regulations, e.g. through surveys of high value regrowth areas and

promotion of the value of these areas.2

Provide best-available advice to all planning processes that potentially

impact the ecological connectivity of terrestrial environments.2

Support local government to address identifi ed threatened and/or

signifi cant environmental values in planning schemes and other strategic

land use documents.

2

On-Ground

Encourage the retention of high value regrowth and support planting

projects in priority areas, identifi ed in broader assessments e.g.

biodiversity planning assessments, corridor studies,…

1 Highly relevant

Support projects and data collection that improve Regional Ecosystem

mapping at the local scale.2

Community Capacity Building

Support and build the capacity of community groups and relevant

organisations to deliver on-ground biodiversity activities.2

Relevant if activities

increase native vegetation

extent

Increase community and land manager understanding of the biodiversity

assets that occur on their properties, in the region and across jurisdictions

e.g. rural fi re brigades, utility providers, other land management

agencies...

1

Community education to

improve understanding

of carbon sequestration

function and how it relates

to land management

Science

Maintain and update spatial datasets e.g. biodiversity planning

assessments, Regional Ecosystems and Queensland wetlands.2

Continue to streamline data sharing arrangements for spatial information. 2

Support projects that identify or provide new insight into the projected

vulnerability of ecosystems to threatening process under a changing

climate e.g. grazing, fi re or, weeds.1

Identify vulnerability thresholds for terrestrial asset groups with the aim of

defi ning areas of greatest risk (within and between assets).1


Pg | 18

2020 Targets

Activity Category



PA2. The diversity of vegetation communities will be maintained at 2013[1] levels and opportunities for sustaining species populations, particularly those that are threatened[2], will be improved


Provide best-available advice to planning and policy reviews related to

the management of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.2

Promote and use computer based decision support tools to provide an

unbiased prioritisation method for regional investment.2

Establish a list of scheduled and signifi cant regional species, considering

the Back on Track prioritisation process, to target research funding

opportunities.2

On-Ground

Establish a baseline and associated method required for monitoring

terrestrial biodiversity (e.g. signifi cant vegetation communities,

threatened species and ecosystems).1+ Highly relevant

Address data gaps, particularly for threatened and/or signifi cant species

through "ground truthing" activities to improve existing data and

knowledge. This includes confi rmation of probable habitat mapping and

actual threatening processes.

1

Promote on-ground management techniques aimed at maintaining

biodiversity values, including connectivity and condition of priority Broad

Vegetation Groups. 2

Medium potential if the

increase to existing extent

is in a growth phase.


Develop and deliver awareness raising activities that target the region's

threatened species and ecosystems e.g. school "sponsorship" of high

value bushland patches. 2

Community education to

improve understanding

of carbon sequestration

function and how it relates

to land management.

Facilitate training for groups and individual in survey techniques and

data upload to recognised databases such as WildNet (species records),

Wetland Info and Koala Tracker.2

Science

Improve spatial data reliability through ground validation (targeted

assessment using standard methods) and other activities that confi rm

species/communities presence and /or viability. 1

Develop management guides for specifi c Broad Vegetation Groups e.g.

preferred burning regimes suited to enhancing identifi ed component

species, as well as entire ecosystems.2

Maintain carbon balance

to provide fuel reduction

outcomes whilst retaining

biodiversity values

Revise regional biodiversity planning assessments to ensure most recent

information is captured and that recommendations are evidence-based.1

Promote and implement projects that aim to identify species-level

response to fi re regime and how this relates to life history response, long

term persistence and/or extinction risk.1

Promote and implement projects that aim to identify ecosystem level

response to fi re regime and how this relates to species and supporting

habitat persistence.1

Maintain carbon balance

to provide fuel reduction

outcomes whilst retaining

biodiversity values

Identify species and ecosystems that are not listed as threatened but are

either signifi cant, or at threat at the regional scale. 1

Establish a diversity baseline consistent with the prioritisation method

used to assess the climate change vulnerability of the region's BVGs. 1+

Review vulnerability

assessment improve

understanding of potential

carbon sequestration and

the eff ects of threatening

process (multifaceted

method)


Pg | 19

2020 Targets

Activity Category



PA3. Landscape function is enhanced through activities that address threatening processes.


Ensure future planning and related actions are informed by a clear

understanding of ecosystem condition and threatening processes.1

Work with other NRM groups to develop projects across regional

boundaries to provide consistency and improved outcomes.2

Working to provide

carbon sequestration at

bioregional scale

Promote connectivity and function through local corridors and retention

of vegetation (including regrowth) for maintained or improved landscape

function.2 Relevant

On-Ground

Undertake fi eld based activities to determine the actual level of threat to

biodiversity and use this to inform future planning and prioritisation of

resource investment.1 Highly relevant

Compile existing data sets to establish a baseline to maintain ecological

connectivity. 1+

Deliver programs to mitigate threatening processes identifi ed as having

an impact on biodiversity values. Program to be developed irrespective of

tenure or jurisdiction. 1

Support landholders to understand relevant legislation and to further

adopt industry Best Management Practice.2

Land holder education

regarding carbon

sequestration related

methodologies.


Promote better understanding of the nature of threatening processes and

how this aff ects biodiversity or landscape function – through delivery of

workshops, web portals and other mechanisms.2


regarding carbon


methodologies.

Improve stakeholder understanding by delivering workshops and

using other mechanisms such as property management planning for

biodiversity outcomes.2


regarding carbon


methodologies.

Science

Develop and maintain an inventory of threatening processes, specifi c to

the Burnett Mary region.1

Review codes of practice, BMP statements and biodiversity-related

management recommendations to ensure they refl ect current evidence-

based fi ndings.3

Support the development, review and implementation of ecosystem,

single and multi-species recovery plans and associated recommendations.1

Promote and support projects that aim to identify ecosystem functional

response to threatening processes under a changing climate. 2

Revise the 'vulnerability assessment' method used within this plan to

integrate new data and improve the knowledge of the potential risk to

target assets. 1

Model regional fragmentation/connectivity to identify priority areas for

investment (i.e. retain and promote regeneration, biodiverse plantings,

avoid deforestation) to meet PA3.

Establish a diversity baseline consistent with the prioritisation method

used to assess the climate change vulnerability of the region’s BVGs.

1Linked to carbon

sequestration planning

and on ground projects.


Pg | 20

Activities identifi ed in Table 4 to preserve the extent of the region’s vegetation communities emphasise the ongoing need for shared use, collection and revision of best available spatial data for planning and management decisions. Retaining high value or signifi cant regrowth vegetation underpins current landscape carbon sequestration, while undertaking native vegetation plantings in key areas will add to future landscape carbon stores, with consequent benefi ts in terms of reducing atmospheric warming.

In order to better understand the level of diversity that occurs within the region’s Plants and Animals asset there is a need to identify data gaps for threatened species and consider application of the Back on Track prioritisation framework, to target funding and research opportunities. Continued implementation of recognised and robust methods for fi eld data collection, to validate mapping for threatened species habitat and determine the condition of important ecosystems, is required.

Within the landscape vegetated corridors support plants and animals at local, regional, state and national scales. They provide ecological connectivity to enable the migration and movement of plants and animals, stabilise or trap soil (reducing sediment loads in water fl ows) and facilitate genetic fl ow.

Our understanding of threatening processes is limited. Improved knowledge can be gained through fi eld based programs to determine actual threat levels to biodiversity. In turn, this improved understanding better informs prioritisation and planning activities so that the most appropriate threat abatement programs are funded.

There is a need to raise awareness of biodiversity assets that exist on all land tenures and support NRM groups, Landcare and community groups, as well as private land holders to implement on ground biodiversity projects that contribute to realising these targets. In particular improved management of native vegetation on private lands complements that on public land and augments biodiversity values across the region.

Moreover working in partnership with neighbouring NRM groups to develop projects across regional boundaries provides consistency and improved outcomes.

6.0 MONITORING & EVALUATION OF THE TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM ASSETS

To eff ectively monitor and evaluate the condition of biodiversity at the regional or bioregional scale a collaborative, systematic and long-term approach is essential. Signifi cant eff ort would be required to deliver co-ordinated management across jurisdictions and interests that would include – authorities exercising legislative controls, research institutions, technical specialists and community groups. Central to that management would be the development of working partnerships across the sectors, to share knowledge, resources and responsibilities in a way that results in a meaningful approach to region-wide monitoring and evaluation.

Existing methods and data are available and central to informing the establishment of baselines or benchmarks. Examples include BioCondition assessments (Queensland Herbarium), remotely sensed fi re scar mapping (e.g. MODIS and Landsat) and further Queensland Government-generated biodiversity products including the Regional Ecosystem Framework, Biodiversity Planning Assessments, Queensland Land Use Mapping Program , Aquatic Conservation Assessments, Queensland Wetlands Program, Wildnet and Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Assessments.

Investigation of the applicability of the Vegetation Assets, States and Transitions framework (VAST), that classifi es vegetation according to its degree of anthropogenic modifi cation from a natural state, is recommended as a fi rst step in establishing a region-wide approach to long-term monitoring of the condition of the region’s terrestrial habitats.

that classifi es vegetation according to its degree of anthropogenic modifi cation from a natural state, isrecommended as a fi rst step in establishing a region-wide approach to long-term monitoring of the condition of the region’s terrestrial habitats.


Pg | 21

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability

NRM PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

VULNERABILTY ASSESSMENT USER MANUAL – Version 1 (Draft)

Prepared for the Burnett-Mary Regional Group

Geoff Park and Michelle Dickson, Natural Decisions

27th June 2014

Background

Natural Decisions www.naturaldecisions.com.au has been engaged by the Burnett-Mary Regional Group (BMRG) to support regional NRM planning that incorporates consideration of climate change.

This work is a component of a broader project that will lead to the development of a ‘climate-ready’ regional NRM Plan.

Specifi cally, the contribution from Natural Decisions will:

Develop and refi ne a vulnerability assessment methodology, in collaboration with relevant BMRG staff .

Apply this methodology in the form of a case study to nominated biodiversity assets for the Burnett-Mary region.

Support BMRG staff in the application of the method to other asset classes in the region.

This document is a draft User Manual to support the BMRG undertake a vulnerability assessment for regional natural resource management assets.

It is designed to be used in conjunction with a customized spreadsheet tool.

Vulnerability Assessment - Overview of Method

This project proposes applying an overall vulnerability assessment method that is largely consistent with that outlined and adopted in the: Guidelines For Developing a Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Undertaking an Integrated Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment; November 2012; Local Government Association of South Australia. This method describes how likely exposure to climate scenarios, and sensitivity and adaptive capacity of assets to these climate changes, are used to assess the potential impact and vulnerability of assets to these changes. This process was developed by the Allen Consulting Group, 2005, and is based on that developed by the IPCC, 2007.

The conceptual framework on which this vulnerability assessment process is generally based is presented in Figure 1 (Adapted from: Capon et al., 2013). The key variation to this general framework in the approach proposed in this project is that the human adaptation strategies (e.g. projects aimed at protecting assets) that may infl uence adaptive capacity and hence the impact of climate change considered after asset vulnerability is determined. As will be identifi ed later in this document, adaptive capacity for the purposes of this project is defi ned as the properties of the natural asset based on its current state and essentially refl ects the asset’s capacity for autonomous adaptation.


Pg | 22

Fig 1- Conceptual framework for assessing vulnerability to climate change, showing relationships between exposure, sensitivity, impacts, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Solid lines indicate direct aff ective relationships between biophysical parameters (such as the impact of climate change on direct climate stressors, or of non-climate stressors on exposure to climatic stimuli). Dashed lines indicate the eff ects of human activity, including the impacts of climate change and adaptation and mitigation activities. (Adapted from: Riparian Ecosystems in the 21st Century: Hotspots for Climate Change Adaptation; Samantha J. Capon et al; Ecosystems (2013) 16: 359–381)

Defi nition of terms

The term ‘vulnerability’ is used in many diff erent ways by various research communities, such as those concerned with secure livelihoods, food security, natural hazards, disaster risk management, public health, global environmental change, and climate change (Fussel and Klein, 2006).

The glossary of the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report (Houghton et al., 2001; McCarthy et al., 2001) defi nes vulnerability (to climate change) as follows.

Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse eff ects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.

The glossary of the 2001 IPCC Assessment Report (Houghton et al., 2001; McCarthy et al., 2001) defi nesvulnerability (to climate change) as follows.

Vulnerabability: ThT e ded grg eee to whw icichh a sysyyyststemem iis s suuscscepeppptitiblb e e toto, oror uunaablb e e tot coppppe e wiw thth, ,, adversse e effe eectts s ofo ccliimamatet chchchchananangegege, , , inininnclclludddinning g g clclcllimimmmatataatee e vavavaririririabababbililililitititity yy ananannd dd d d exexexexextrtrttreeemme esesese . VuVuVuVVulnnlnlnlnererrrababababililitititity y y yy isiisis aaa ffffununnununcctctctioionn ofofofof tttheehehehe cccchahahahh rararactctctererer, mamamamamagngnngngnitititititududududude,ee,ee, aaaaandndndn rarararatetetetee oooof f f f clclcclclimimimimatatatata e ee e e vavavvariririiiatatatatioioioioioonnn tototototot wwwwwwwhihihihihihichchchchcc aaaaa sssysysysysy teteteteteemmmmm isissssi eeexxpxpxpxpxx osososososososeddededededd, , , itittititi ss s seseseeseseeensnsnsnsnnsititititiiitiviviviviviviititititity,y,y,y,yy aaaaandndndndndn iiiiitststst aaaadadadaddadaptptptpttptivivivivive e e ee ccacacaccaapapapapapap cicicicc tytytytyt .


Pg | 23

The IPCC describes vulnerability as a function of impact and adaptive capacity and “the degree, to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse eff ects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and its adaptive capacity” (IPCC 2007). The components of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are described below (IPCC 2007) and their relationship to vulnerability illustrated in Figure 3 (Allen Consulting Group 2005).

Again, in the context of this project, vulnerability (and hence the scope of the assessment) can be defi ned as a “measure of possible harm” (Hinkel 2011). In this case harm to the environment would include such things as a loss of habitat or species diversity, disruption to food webs, reduction in ecosystem services or loss of ecosystem resilience and the capacity to bounce back from stresses, reduced water quantity or quality or an increase in habitat fragmentation.

In the context of the current project we provide the following working defi nitions in an eff ort to achieve a consistent understanding and interpretation of the proposed framework for this project. These defi nitions are based on those provided in “Guidelines for Developing a Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Undertaking an Integrated Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment; November 2012; Local Government Association of South Australia.”

Exposure: relates to the infl uences or stimuli that impact on a system. Exposure is a measure of the predicted changes in the climate for the future scenario assessed. It includes both direct stressors (such as increased temperature), and indirect stressors or related events (such as increased frequency of wildfi re).

Sensitivity: refl ects the responsiveness of a system to climatic stressors or infl uences, and the degree to which changes in climate might aff ect that system in its current form. Sensitive systems are highly responsive to climate and can be signifi cantly aff ected by small climate changes.

For the purposes of this project, assessment of sensitivity will be made in reference to a benchmark example or state of the particular asset.

Adaptive capacity: is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. The adaptive capacity of a system or society describes its ability to modify its characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with changes in external conditions. The more adaptive a system, the less vulnerable it is. It is also defi ned as the property of a system to adjust its characteristics or behaviour in order to expand its coping range under existing climate variability or future climate conditions. For the purposes of this project, adaptive capacity will be assigned in terms of the ability of an asset to adjust to climate stressors based on its current state, which may vary from pristine to degraded.

This project is focused on the vulnerability of environmental assets to anticipated climate change stressors or infl uences.

Applying the conceptual framework

The proposed approach to assessing potential impacts and vulnerability of natural assets to climate change requires consideration of the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the relevant asset.

The climate change impact assessment is to incorporate multiple climate change projection scenarios and will consider the potential climate change impact and vulnerability using the assessment methodology detailed below.below.


Pg | 24

Fig 1- Climate change impact and vulnerability assessment framework

Natural Decisions has developed and applied a preliminary version of an NRM asset vulnerability assessment method based on this proposed impact assessment process to selected assets in the North Central CMA. This preliminary process has been further developed in a state-wide vulnerability assessment recently completed for 7 Victorian CMAs. Further detail and example outputs from this process are available on request.

This process identifi es asset value, sensitivity to diff erent climate exposure surfaces (that relate to climatic stressors under a particular climate scenario), adaptive capacity, potential impact, and assessed vulnerability rating.

Climate Scenarios

The Regional Projections Report: East Coast (15th April 2014) provides preliminary climate projections for the East Coast NRM Cluster, to which the Burnett-Mary region is associated.

The model simulations presented in the report represent the full range of emission scenarios, as defi ned by the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) used by the IPCC, with particular focus on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The former being a medium stabilisation scenario (by the end of the 21st century) and the latter a high-emission scenario, for which emissions continue to rise beyond the 21st century.

Projections are given for two time periods: the near future (2020-2039; 2030) and the end of the century (2080-2099; 2090). The spread of model results in each of these periods can be attributed to three sources: the range of future emissions, the climate response of the models, and natural variability. For most variables, the projections for the near future will be similar amongst diff erent RCPs. For some variables, including rainfall, it is possible that much of the range in that period stems from natural variability. For the later period, other sources are generally more infl uential on the model spread.


Pg | 25

PriorityRanking


Higher temperatures

The region has warmed at 0.05°C/10years since 1911.

Continued substantial warming for mean, maximum and minimum temperature is projected with high

confi dence.

For the near future (2030), the mean warming is around 0.4 to 1.3°C above the climate of 1986–2005, with

only minor diff erence between RCPs, and for the far future (2090) it is 1.3 to 2.5°C for RCP4.5 and 2.7 to 4.7°C

for RCP8.5.

More frequent and hotter hot days; less frost

A substantial increase in the temperature reached on the hottest days, the frequency of hot days and

the duration of warm spells is projected with high confi dence.

Rainfall changes are less clear than temperature changes

The region experienced prolonged periods of extensive drying in the early 20th century, but annual

rainfall shows no long term trend throughout the 20th century.

In summary, there is high confi dence that natural climate variability will remain the major driver of

rainfall changes in the next few decades in this region (20-year mean changes of -15 to +10% annually,

and -30 to +25% seasonally relative to the climate of 1986-2005).

In the far future under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 in East Coast South a decrease in winter rainfall is projected,

with medium confi dence. The magnitude of possible winter diff erences from the climate of 1986–2090

range from around -25 to +5% under RCP4.5 and -30 to 0% under RCP8.5.

Increased intensity of heavy rainfall events; changes to drought less clear

Understanding of physical processes and high model agreement provides medium confi dence that

the intensity of heavy rainfall extremes will increase. The magnitude of change, and the time when any

change may be evident against natural fl uctuations, cannot however, be confi dently projected.

Evident towards the end of this century under RCP8.5, is a projected (medium confi dence) increase in

time spent in drought as well as a projected (low confi dence) increase in the frequency and duration of

extreme meteorological drought.

Increased evaporation rates, and reduced soil moisture: changes to runoff less clear

Projections for potential evapotranspiration indicate increases with global warming in all seasons with

largest absolute rates in summer.

Soil moisture projections suggest overall seasonal decreases for later in the century (medium

confi dence). These changes in soil moisture are strongly infl uenced by those in rainfall, but tend to

be more negative due to the increase in potential evapotranspiration. For similar reasons, runoff is

projected to decrease, but only with low confi dence. More detailed hydrological modelling than that

employed here is needed to confi dently assess changes to runoff .

Higher sea levels and more frequent sea level extremes

Sea levels have risen around Australia at an average rate of 2.1 mm/yr between 1966 and 2009 and 3.1

mm/yr over 1993 to 2009, consistent with global average rates.

Continued increase in sea levels for the East Coast Cluster region is projected with high confi dence. In

the near future (2030), the projected range of sea level rise for the East Coast Cluster coastline is 0.08 to

0.18 m above the 1986-2005 level, with only minor diff erences between RCPs. For the far future (2090)

the sea level rise is in the range 0.30 to 0.65 m for RCP 4.5 and 0.44 to 0.88 for RCP 8.5.

Overview of projections


Pg | 26

The report suggests consideration of the following scenarios in regional adaptation planning.

Warmer (0.5-1.5°C warming) with little change in rainfall (-5 to +5%). This would occur by 2030 under any emission scenario, but may persist through to the end century under RCP2.6. In this case, Brisbane’s future climate would be more like the current climate of Hervey Bay (QLD).

Hotter (1.5-3°C warming), and much drier (>15% reduction). This is possible mid- to late century in the northern part of the cluster and especially under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. In this case, Brisbane’s future climate would be more like Bowen (QLD).

Much hotter (>3°C warming), and much drier (>15% reduction). This is also possible late in the century under RCP8.5 in the northern part of the cluster. In this case, Brisbane’s future climate would be more like Ayr (QLD).

Warmer (0.5-1.5°C warming) and wetter (5-15% increase). This would occur by 2030 under any emission scenario, but may persist through to the end of this century under RCP2.6. In this case, Brisbane’s climate would be more like that of Atherton (QLD).

Hotter (1.5-3°C warming), but drier (5-15% reduction). This is also possible by 2050 under RCP4.5 or RCP8.5. In this case, Brisbane’s climate would be more like that of Bundaberg (QLD).

Assessing Vulnerability

There are two major steps in the vulnerability assessment process:

A) Impact Assessment

B) Adaptive Capacity Assessment

These are outlined in detail below, with a worked example for native vegetation provided.

A. Impact Assessment Step

The potential Impacts of climate change are related to the interaction of asset exposure (the magnitude of change an asset will face due to modifi cations to the climate) and asset sensitivity (how much the asset will be aff ected by those changes).

The impacts of climate change on assets is calculated according to the following method (adapted from that described by the LGASA Guidelines, where the terms are additive) where potential impact is the product of exposure and sensitivity.

Impact (I) = Exposure (E) * Sensitivity (S)

Table 1 below outlines the set of exposure indicators and variation levels relevant to the NRM assets in the Burnett-Mary region, while Table 2 outlines which of these indicators are relevant to each asset class.

Sensitivity criteria

Sensitivity refers to the degree to which assets respond to the climate stressors they face. Some assets will have a proportionately large reaction compared to others, even of the same type. For example, some plant species may have a very narrow physiological tolerance to changes in temperature, while other more generalist species are sensitive only to very extreme changes in temperature.

It is proposed that when assessing sensitivity this is done in relation to an agreed benchmark state.

Table 3 below provides a possible list of sensitivity criteria by which to assess the likely impact of climate change stressors on the natural assets. It is proposed that the use of spatial data be used to assign a rating in relation to these criteria be explored and pursued wherever practical.

Steps:

1. Each assessment set should relate to a specifi ed climate scenario and time frame, for example RCP 8.5 at 2090. Document which combination has been nominated.

2. Select the asset class, in this case Native Vegetation – Broad Vegetation Groups, for the assessment.

3. For each asset within the asset class assign sensitivity by predicting the response type for the respective exposure indicators. Response types are characterized by the following table.


Pg | 27

Example: RE 6a - Notophyll vine forest and microphyll fern forest to thicket on high peaks and plateaus of southern Queensland.

The sensitivity score can be handled in a number of ways. In the example provided above for RE 6a, there are a number of possible methods:

A) Average the scores – S= 4, E = 3 so I = 12

B) Assign sensitivity according to the highest score – S = 5, E = 3 so I =15

C) Assign sensitivity according to only those factors which are deemed to be of most importance, for the given asset, with suffi cient knowledge to make the assessment.

A combination of B and C is recommended where only those indicators deemed to be most important are considered and that the highest sensitivity value is used. For the example given while more frequent and intense fi res has scored the highest value, it was deemed that there was low confi dence in this indicator. As a result the assigned sensitivity score of 4 was assigned, yielding a potential impact of 12 for this asset.



Exposure indicator Response type Sensitivity Score for RCP 8.5 at 2050 (E = 3)

Temperature Increase E – High Exponential 3 Average length of dry period increases D – Low Exponential 4 More frequent & intense fires C – High Linear 5

Summary of exposure and sensitivity indicators

Table 2: Exposure indicators relevant to each of the asset categories in the Burnett-Mary region

Summary of exposure and sensitivity indicators

Table 1- Proposed exposure indicators to be applied for assessment of asset sensitivity

Table 2- Exposure indicators relevant to each of the asset categories in the Burnett-Mary region

Pg | 28

Indicator No. Indicator Very low Low Moderate

Table 3- Sensitivity indicators

Pg | 29

Indicator No. Indicator Very low Low Moderate

Pg | 30


Pg | 31

B. Adaptive Capacity Step

Adaptive Capacity is the ability of an asset or system to adjust or adapt to climate change stressors (including variability and extremes, and direct and indirect variables), in the absence of human intervention, that is autonomous adaptation.

Examples of natural systems with low adaptive capacity include species with limited genetic variablity, or with a very specialist requirements for breeding habitat or food sources, or habitats that are already degraded through the impacts of clearing, invasive species or excessive water extraction.

Table 4 below outlines the links between the various asset categories and adaptive capacity indicators.

It is important to note that assessing the adaptive capacity of assets is made with reference to their current state (which may be anywhere between pristine and degraded), rather than the benchmark state which was used when assessing sensitivity.

It is proposed that an all things considered judgement is made in assigning adapative capacity into one of the following categories, Very Low (1), Low (2), Moderate (3), High (4) or Very High (5), for each of the criteria nominated for the specifi c asset class. These criteria and proposed are detailed in below in Table 5.

Assignment of Adaptive Capacity using existing Spatial Data Attributes

As with sensitivity, it is proposed that the use of spatial data to assign a rating in relation to these criteria be explored and pursued whereever practical. However, in relation to adaptive capacity a broader range of contextual parameters that can be derived from spatial data may be considered. For example, the fragmentation or an asset, or its place in a catchment.

Direct Asset Attributes

Adaptive Capacity will also be assigned at the Asset Category level. In some instances, an indicator of adaptive capacity may be provided in the spatial dataset used to depict the Asset Category. For example, the size of an asset, or an existing condition rating, may be used for this purpose.

Derived Attributes

Derived attributes relating to the context or landscape in which a natural asset resides may be used to assign a measure of Adaptive Capacity. For example, the amount of a catchment or sub-catchment that is cleared, or signifi cantly disturbed, in which a natural asset resides may be a surrogate or indicator for its likely Adaptive Capacity to climate change stressors.

Calculating Vulnerability

Vulnerability is defi ned as the measure of possible harm which could aff ect an asset or system, arising from climate change. This harm may include habitat contraction or degradation, loss of species diversity and ecosystem function, local extinction, reduction in water fl ows and availability, and loss of ecosystem resilience.

Vulnerability is a function of potential impact, and adaptive capacity.

Steps:

1. Estimate the adaptive capacity for each of the attributes relevant to the asset being considered. This may be done by:

Reference to available mapping and spatial analysis

Expert judgment based on local knowledge

2. Calculate the average value for adaptive capacity (A). The example for RE 6a is outlined below.

Asset – RE 6a Score

Current extent as % of pre-clearing 2

Condition class 3

Average patch size 2

Average score 2.33


Pg | 32

3. Calculate V according to the following equation

V = I * (1 – A/Amax), where Amax is the maximum possible value of A.

For the example provided (RE 6a), this provides the following result.

V = 12 * (1 – 2.33/5)

-> V = 6.4

Table 4: Proposed adaptive capacity indicators for each of the asset categories in the Burnett-Mary region.


Pg | 33

Table 5: Criteria for scoring adaptive capacity

Adaptive capacity indicator Description

Variation level (Degree of adaptive capacity)

1 (Very Low)

2 (Low)

3 (Moderate)

4 (High)

5 (Very high)

ExtentCurrent extent as % of

pre-clearing<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80

Condition Condition class 1 2 3 4 5

Fragmentation (within same vegetation type)

Average patch size < 1ha 1-5ha 5-10ha 10-20ha >20ha

Connectivity (with all native vegetation

% native vegetation

within 100 metre

buff er

<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80

Adjoining land use% of asset buff er

(100m from asset) with

high intensity land use >50% 30-50% 20-30% 10-20% <10%

Catchment land use% of native vegetation

in catchment<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80

Physical formBank erosion /

instability

Very

highHigh Moderate Low Very low

Position in landscape Stream order tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

Depth tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

Extraction levels% of permissible

volume extractedtbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

Hydraulic connectivity/barriers% of river /estuary

impacted by barrier<20 20-40 40-60 60-80 >80

Riparian vegetation (extent/condition)

Condition class 1 2 3 4 5

Proximity to coastDistance from river

mouth / estuary<1km 1-5km 5-10km 10-20km >20km

Salinity extent% Area of mapped

salinitytbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

Erosion extent% Area of mapped

erosiontbd tbd tbd tbd tbd

Groundcover % Ground cover <40 40-50 50-60 60-70 >80


Pg | 34

7.2 Expert Panel Contributors

Expert Panel 1 workshop, held 30 July 2014

Renae Cabrie Dept Environment and Heritage Protection

Caroline Haskard Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Eric Anderson Barung Landcare

Kirsten Wortel Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Rachel Lyons Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Steve Husband Forestry Plantations Queensland

Expert Panel 2 workshop, held 13 May 2015

David Aslin Dept Natural Resources and Mines

David Field Dept Environment and Heritage Protection

Emily Maher Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Eric Andersen Barung Landcare

Fred Bennett Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

George Martin Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Kevin Bowden Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Kirsten Wortel Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Mike Moller Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Rod Buchanan Burnett Mary Regional Group for NRM

Roger CurrieWide Bay Burnett Environment and Conservation Council / Regional Ecosystems Mapping

Consultancy

Tim Ryan Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation (Qld Herbarium)

burnett mary regional nrm & climate adaptation …...bundaberg mundubbera hervey bay mount perry...

Documents