Attachment 1
Conservation of Freshwater
Ecosystem Values Database
Review of updating requirements
De p a r t me n t of Pr i ma r y I n d u s t r i e s, Pa r ks ,
W ate r an d Envi r o n me n t
Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Database – Review of updating
requirements
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts – Australian Government
Water Fund
Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Program, Water and Marine Resources
Division, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
October 2010
© Department of Primary Industries. Parks, Water and Environment, July 2010
Published by:
Water and Marine Resources Division
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
GPO Box 44
Hobart Tas 7001
Telephone: (03) 6233 6328
Facsimile: (03) 6233 8749
Email: cfev@dpipwe.tas.gov.au
Website: www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/water
Financial support contributed by the Australian Government through the Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts – Australian Government Water Fund is gratefully
acknowledged.
Citation:
DPIPWE. (2010). Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Database.
Review of updating requirements. Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Program.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania.
ISBN:
??
Acknowledgements
This report has been prepared by Danielle Hardie and Tom Krasnicki of the Water
Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
Copyright
All material published in the report by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment (DPIPWE), as an agent of the Crown, is protected by the provisions of the
Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth). Other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act, or as
otherwise expressly provided, a person must not reproduce, store in a retrieval system, or
transmit any such material without first obtaining the written permission of DPIPWE.
Disclaimer
Whilst DPIPWE makes every attempt to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information
published in this report, it should not be relied upon as a substitute for formal advice from the
originating bodies or Departments. DPIPWE, its employees and other agents of the Crown
will not be responsible for any loss, however arising, from the use of, or reliance on this
information.
1 Contents
1
Contents........................................................................................................................... 4
2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
3
2.1
Background ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6
3.1
Reviewing information ................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1
AGWF CFEV validation project (from Davies et al. 2007) ................................ 6
3.1.2
NRM CFEV validation project (from Hydro Tasmania Consulting 2008) .......... 7
3.2
Prioritising tasks ......................................................................................................... 8
4
Results ............................................................................................................................. 9
5
Recommendations for the CFEV Program ................................................................. 11
6
References ..................................................................................................................... 13
Appendices
7
Faults Matrix .................................................................................................................. 14
8
Dam Assessment tool .................................................................................................. 15
9
Summary of recommendations from CFEV validation reports ................................ 16
10
Error register ................................................................................................................. 28
11
Updates and Modifications .......................................................................................... 43
12
New and improved data ................................................................................................ 46
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
2 Introduction
2.1
Background
The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) has
completed a comprehensive assessment of freshwater-dependent ecosystems in Tasmania
through the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Program. Tasmania is
the only state in Australia that has taken steps towards setting up a comprehensive,
systematic and integrated framework for the identification and conservation of freshwater
ecosystem values.
Data was collated and analysed to strategically identify conservation values and conservation
management priorities for freshwater ecosystems across the State. The CFEV database
stores the assessment results to form an objective decision-making tool for water and land
managers. The data is supported by various documents and can be accessed on the internet
at: https://cfev.dpiw.tas.gov.au.
The CFEV assessment relied on the input of many different data sets, some of which were
the result of spatial modelling and analysis. The data sets in the CFEV database were
sourced in 2004 and while they were produced using the best available data and expert
knowledge at the time, further confidence in the results can be gained by ensuring these data
sets are kept as current as possible and data errors are minimised. As time passes, new data
is being collected and it is important that this is incorporated into the CFEV database. If the
database is not maintained, users will begin to query the quality of the data and look for more
current sources of information. Data management is now a critical issue which needs to be
resolved to ensure the continuing usefulness of the CFEV data.
The CFEV database is mainly used for assessing development proposals and prioritising
freshwater ecosystem values for conservation. The wide range of users includes:





State government agencies, particularly DPIPWE
Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions
Local government
Private industry (e.g. Agricultural companies, NRM consultants, Hydro Tasmania)
Universities
Two data validation reports and a growing number of observations from clients using the
CFEV data mean that the CFEV Program has a good understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of the CFEV data. Consolidation and review of this information is now needed to
assist the CFEV Program in seeking approval and hence, funding for implementing revisions
to the data, in order to improve data quality and keep the CFEV database current.
Many of the weaker aspects identified can be ameliorated by updating the base data sets that
feed into the database, while other flaws can be amended by re-running various stages of the
CFEV assessment process. While this second amendment is more difficult to perform it
would greatly improve the quality of the CFEV data. It is envisaged that the updating of the
CFEV database will be undertaken in a number of ways:




Updating minor errors or changes (e.g. typos) on an as-needs basis
Reviewing and updating data associated with input base data sets (e.g. mean annual
run-off, fluvial geomorphic mosaics and related attributions to ecosystem spatial units)
over a longer time frame (perhaps every 5-10 years)
Systematically re-running some basic rules sets (e.g. Integrated Conservation Value,
Conservation Management Priority) which use data sets that change regularly (e.g.
Special Values and Land Tenure) (perhaps annually)
Re-running more computational intensive algorithms/rule sets (e.g. condition expert
rule systems and the spatial selection algorithms) over longer time frames (perhaps
every 5-10 years or triggered by changes to certain input data sets)
A strategy for the access, management and revision of CFEV data sets is currently being
prepared and will discuss these options further.
5
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
2.2
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to review and consolidate several sources of information to
produce a list of prioritised tasks (a draft work plan) to inform the CFEV Program when
updating the CFEV database. The report also identifies and summarises some of the new
data that has been collected in Tasmanian since the original CFEV assessment (v1.0 2005)
that could be useful in the updating of specific CFEV data sets.
3 Methodology
The first version of the CFEV assessment was completed in 2005. Since that time, work has
been undertaken to validate aspects of the CFEV data in relation to field data and other
feedback on data quality has been provided to the CFEV Program by people using the data in
their decision-making and scientific analysis. Other errors have also been identified by the
CFEV Program staff in their management of the data.
3.1
Reviewing information
A large part of this project involved reviewing and summarising the following sources of
information:



Two validation reports (‘Australian Government Water Fund (AGWF) CFEV Validation
Report’ (Davies et al. 2007) and ‘Natural Resource Management (NRM) Validation of
the CFEV Project’ (Hydro Tasmania Consulting 2008)). Further detail on these two
projects can be found below.
Feedback provided by users of the CFEV data.
Errors identified by the CFEV Program staff (CFEV database_Error register.xls,
located on DPIPWE’s M: drive
M:\WRM_Water_Resources\WAP_Water_Assess_Plg\WAP_Shared\CFEV
Project\CFEV Database\Update and maintenance\Documentation).
A brief inventory of new data (those collected since 2005) was also undertaken to identify
potential sources of information that need to be considered for integration into the CFEV
database (see Section 12 in the Appendix). If these prove useful in a Tasmanian context and
there is support for their implementation, then they too would potentially be an additional
source of data to incorporate in the CFEV database. For this to be possible, a protocol for
assessing and introducing new data sets is required.
3.1.1 AGWF CFEV validation project (from Davies et al. 2007)
The AGWF CFEV validation project was undertaken for DPIPWE (then known as the
Department of Primary Industries and Water) by a consortium of environmental consultants
(Freshwater Systems, Technical Advice on Water, North Barker and Associates) in 20062007 and its main objectives were to:




Describe the relationships between CFEV and field data on selected attributes.
Identify data sets or parts of data sets that have low reliability, accuracy or precision.
Give an overall assessment of the suitability of the data sets for those assets for the
two purposes listed above.
Suggest other improvements/alternatives to data used in CFEV.
The main focus of this project was to conduct validation on a subset of High and Very High
Conservation Management Priority ecosystem units that have been selected for reporting for
water management planning. As such, high conservation value freshwater ecosystem assets
were selected from within the Meander, Macquarie, South Esk, Welcome and Montagu River
catchments.
Validation was conducted on a subset of freshwater ecosystem themes which are important
within the water management planning context specifically river sections from high
conservation river clusters and high conservation wetlands.
6
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data collection was conducted on the fluvial geomorphology, riparian vegetation, aquatic
fauna (macroinvertebrates and fish) and riverine macrophyte components for rivers and the
internal vegetation and riparian vegetation components for wetlands.
For each of these components, data was collected in three main areas:



Characterisation – data collected to allow matching/comparison with the relevant
CFEV biophysical class (e.g. fluvial geomorphic mosaic).
Condition assessment – data collected to describe the status of the component
relative to reference condition.
Management issues – to document what the key management issues are for each
asset, prioritising them, and making management recommendations for all issues,
including water management.
3.1.2 NRM CFEV validation project (from Hydro Tasmania Consulting 2008)
The CFEV validation project “NAP07 Conservation and Protection of Critical Freshwater
Ecosystems through Natural Resource Management Planning” formed part of an iterative
process that provided the first stage in assessing and refining and thereby improving the
reliability of CFEV database outputs.
The NRM CFEV validation project was undertaken for NRM South and NRM North by Hydro
Tasmania Consulting, in 2006-2007 and focussed mainly on the NRM North and NRM South
Regions within mainland Tasmania, incorporating the National Action Plan for salinity and
water quality (NAP) region.
The primary focus of the project was on field and desktop assessment of the CFEV
Classification and Condition inputs. Validation of the input data was carried out using:



internal validation checks (i.e. using the data that were used to create the modelled
data);
validation using external datasets (i.e. datasets that had not been used in the original
CFEV database development); and
field assessment to determine how well the input data (classification and condition)
represent the values that exist in the field.
The CFEV assessment framework was also assessed in terms of how data are manipulated
by the spatial selection algorithm and the effects of banding rules on ranking of relative
conservation value and management priority.
The river, wetland and saltmarsh ecosystem themes were selected as priority ecosystems for
assessment in this project. The assessment of these ecosystem themes targeted the base
layer data, ecosystem components and condition variable inputs. Aspects of the karst
ecosystem theme were also assessed through a workshop involving local experts.
The desktop validation of the CFEV database involved validation of input and output data and
testing the robustness of elements of the assessment framework at a statewide scale.
In order to assess the reliability of the CFEV database and provide a measure of the
confidence in the outputs, the project targeted three main aspects of the database:



7
an assessment of the reliability of input data by a desktop study of data
characteristics and a comparison of CFEV database attributes for ecosystem
components and condition variables with field observations and other available data;
an assessment of aspects of the sensitivity of the database modelling processes; and
an investigation of the appropriateness and reliability of the CFEV database
assessment of management priorities.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
3.2
Prioritising tasks
The original approach to prioritisation involved a cataloguing process to summarise the
updates that were possible in terms of their form; for example, errors, or new data sets that
have become available. These observations were grouped into the following categories (in
no particular order :
Ecosystem/catchment base data – spatial error
Ecosystem/catchment base data – attribute error
Ecosystem/catchment base data – new data
Source data – spatial error
Source data – attribute error
Source data – new data
Change to CFEV assessment framework – to improve existing rules/modelling
Change to CFEV assessment framework – to incorporate new data (not previously in
the CFEV assessment)
Update existing data set with more current data
Update existing data set with new data (not previously in the CFEV assessment)
Typographical error
Incorrect or inappropriate description
New description data
Double-checking of existing data
Error which requires further field validation
Error which requires further data analysis
Error which requires further desktop validation
Improvements to reporting
Many of the tasks identified within these categories have flow-on effects which in turn create
additional tasks (e.g. a data set improved with more current data may trigger a re-assessment
or re-running of rule sets which would subsequently change other attributes), and as such,
some tasks may fall under more than one category. The assessment processes involved for
each data set ultimately needs to be reviewed on a task-by-task basis.
A small workshop (consisting of Water Assessment Branch, DPIPWE staff) was then
conducted to determine the importance of each of these categories in the context of future
updating and maintenance of the CFEV database and establish some criteria for prioritising
the tasks. With the outcomes of the initial workshop, a draft work plan for updating the CFEV
database was developed (Section 5).
The main outcome of the workshop was the idea that CFEV data exists as a collection of data
sets, all of which vary in the amount that they are used (and so are of different priority), and
also vary in the amount that their source data is updated. This is also true of different parts of
the same ecosystem, for example ICV requires less effort than RCV to update and is also
reliant upon very different source data and so is likely to vary in the frequency that it needs to
be revised. This modular approach to the data makes it much easier to start updating tasks
without first securing large amounts of funding for the process.
In order to guide the prioritisation of these update tasks, a brief analysis of past and current
use of the CFEV data was recommended, the results of which are presented in the following
chapter.
A number of pressures were acknowledged at the meeting as being important drivers for the
prioritisation process. In the following Results section, we have combined these factors to
create a list of high priorities, and a set of work tasks that are of high or moderate priority, but
more importantly are possible with minimum resources and are therefore worth putting in
motion immediately. The meeting also suggested that some analysis be made of data sets
that do not yet require updates.
Pressures driving prioritisation
A number of aspects need to be considered in the prioritisation of tasks. The primary
concerns identified include:
8
Updating requirements for the CFEV database




Ease - Quick and easy to update – can it be done in-house? Preference is also given
to improving data quality and over changes to the assessment framework (e.g. rulesets).
Cost - Some consideration of available resources was also made.
Use - how much is the data used by clients (this was addressed with a survey)
Repercussions - how important is it for the data to be up-to-date in the contexts where
it is used? For example if it is being used for on-ground management of conservation
values it is more important than if it is being used in coarse summary documents.
Two concepts external to this process need to be considered (and were raised at the
workshop). The first is the idea of parallel data sets; data that is used by CFEV clients
regularly, but is not officially a part of the CFEV framework. An example of this would be yield
data if it was updated using the newly modelled hydrology for the state. It could be
associated with the CFEV river sections and accessed in place of MAR, but it would not feed
in to the framework and replace MAR in its inputs to CFEV attributes such as Naturalness.
The second concept, is the idea of automated linkages in the data which will take more initial
effort to establish, but will then maintain themselves. A good example of this would be a
dynamic link with the Natural Values Atlas (NVA) that automatically updates SV records to
allow ICV to be re-generated when new threatened species records become available.
It was also suggested at the meeting that the errors from the error register that can be fixed
in-house with little effort, should simply be addressed as time becomes available, and are
therefore ignored in the prioritisation process. The implementation of SDE database
management will hopefully make these smaller amendments simpler to perform than they
have been in the past.
4 Results
The major results from this work take the form of survey results, and a series of concepts
coupled with a tabular prioritisation of the CFEV update tasks. These will ultimately inform
the CFEV business plan for 2011.
Table 1. Data request summary 2005-2010 (n = 123)
Data Requested
%use
Rank
RS (River Sections)
76
1
ES (Estuaries)
52
2
WL (Wetlands)
48
3
SM (Saltmarshes)
45
4
WB (Waterbodies -Lakes)
45
5
KT (Karst)
40
6
RSC (River Section Catchments)
36
7
SV (Special Values)
36
8
GDEs (Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems)
29
9
SC (Sub Catchments)
24
10
C (Catchments)
7
11
9
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Table 2. User survey results 2010 (n=18)
Layer
%use
rank
RS
94
1
WB
83
2
ES
83
3
WL
78
4
SM
72
5
KT
53
6
GDE
39
7
Table 3. User survey results 2010 (n=18)
Attribute
Table 4. User survey results 2010 (n=18)
Function
%use
Site assessment
78
mapping
78
Table 5. User survey results 2010 (n=18)
Platform
%use
ARC
61
CFEVCI
53
WIST
28
MAPINFO
28
%use
ICV
78
SV
78
RCV
72
N
67
CMP-I
61
Biophysical Classes
61
CMP-P
56
The results of the user survey and the analysis of data use suggest that the rivers layer (RS)
is the most used (Table 2) and requested (Table 1 ) of the data sets. Of the CFEV attributes,
ICV and the Special Values are most used (Table 3), and are supplied with most data
requests. Wetlands are the next most requested data set, but they are only the fourth most
used according to the user surveys. Waterbodies and Estuaries rank second and third in use,
but only feature in about half the data requests.
Clients are using CFEV data as regularly for mapping as they are for data drilling (Table 4),
which is not surprising as most reporting involves both tasks. Most CFEV data users are
either using the data in their own desktop GIS applications (ARC>Mapinfo), or using the
CFEV Corporate Interface (Table 5). Importantly, more than half of the users are using
desktop GIS despite our initial hope that the Corporate Interface would perform most of the
more common CFEV assessment tasks. This suggests that there may be a need for access
directly to data sets as well as access through the CFEV Corporate Interface. It should be
noted that in many instances, the Corporate Interface could be used instead of desktop GIS,
but people that used CFEV data before the release of the Corporate Interface are often
unwilling to change the way they access the data.
The user survey does not capture all of the in-house DPIPWE users, the two principle tasks in
which CFEV data features, are dam assessments, and environmental flow reports for state
catchments. Three of the officers principally involved in dam assessments highlighted the
river and wetland ecosystems, as the most used (estuaries were next on the list but featured
considerably less frequently). Of the CFEV attributes, all feature in a dam assessment report
with the exception of CMP-I. Two CFEV features require fixing to make the dam assessment
process smoother. The first of these is access to an appropriate estimate of Mean Annual
Run-off (MAR); the second is access to current Special Values records (SVs). CFEV
assessment for environmental flows reports use a similar set of CFEV variables/layers, but
are more likely to include the other ecosystem layers, as they are reported at the catchment
10
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
scale, rather than being restricted to stream lines and the ecosystems they intersect, as is the
case with dam assessments.
Confounding factors
The results above consider the usefulness and use of the data in its current state. Slight
modifications of unused data might make them far more useful, with minimum effort and cost.
These categories deserve a higher priority than they would warrant from use statistics alone.
For example the Important Biophysical classes will be useful once they include all of the
important classes accessible (rather than just the primary class responsible for selection). In
a similar mechanism, data such as special values that are out of date currently have low
usage statistics that reflect the fact that they are redundant, not the fact that they are
unuseful. Currently CFEV assessments are ameliorated with Natural Values Atlas reports to
make sure that the Special Values (mainly threatened species) are current.
5 Recommendations for the CFEV Program
Overall, the priorities for attention are listed in Table 7. These have been ranked using the
fault matrix (see Section 7 Faults Matrix) assembled from tables of errors and validation and
new data, combined with the usage observations from the previous section. This list can be
considered as a simple ranked list in a funded scenario, or the components that require
resources can be temporarily passed over in an unfunded scenario.
The CFEV framework was originally intended to be re-run on a five year basis, with the
simpler framework components (such as ICV) being updated more regularly. This is
obviously not feasible and has been replaced with a protocol to re-run sub components from
the framework as new data becomes available to feed into it. Table 6 lists components that
could potentially be updated now due to new improved data sets (listed in Section 12 )
Table 6. Parts of the CFEV framework for which new data exists as of October 2010 (0.5
indicates partial data sets, 1 indicates full sets for the state.)
RS
WL
WB
ES
Spatial data
1
specifically
MAR
ABSTI
specifically
Special
Values
records
CMP (land
tenure)
KT
0.5
Condition
assessment
Classification
SM
1
0.5
1
1
karst
biological
TASVEG TASVEG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Error correction and maintenance takes precedence over an update schedule, except in
cases where the data currency results in errors in reports, such as with Special Values.
11
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
In instances where there are multiple errors, and perhaps an update required for a specific
component of the CFEV framework, these are likely to be performed at the same time. This
means that the prioritisation can address components rather than tasks, each component
being considered to be as important as the most pressing task associated with it.
Table 7. Priorities for the CFEV Program. Priority scores are calculated from update and
maintenance score plus a use score that promoted the RS, and WL ecosystems, and the SVs
for all ecosystems, as these are a priority as described on page 10. (asterisks** denote work
that will require extra funding)
Task
**RS Condition assessment
**WL Spatial data
WL Special Values rules
WL Special Values records
**WL Condition assessment
**RS Classification
RS Special Values records
**WL Classification
**SM Spatial data
WB Special Values records
ES Special Values records
SM Special Values records
KT Special Values records
RS Spatial data
RS CMP
WL CMP
WB Spatial data
KT Special Values rules
**SM Condition assessment
**KT Classification
RS Special Values rules
WB CMP
SM CMP
**KT Condition assessment
**WB Condition assessment
**WB Classification
WB Special Values rules
ES Special Values rules
**SM Classification
SM Special Values rules
**KT Spatial data
ES CMP
KT CMP
**ES Spatial data
**ES Condition assessment
**ES Classification
Priority
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.9
2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
3
3
3
Details (doesn’t include all errors from Section 10)
New landuse data needs to be incorporated
There are issues with Wetland definition in CFEV
Frogs particularly need work as they are being missed
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
New landuse data needs to be incorporated
Geomorphology component needs to be reworked
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
incorporate TASVEG v2
incorporate newly mapped saltmarshes
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
Update and recalculate ICV (automate process if possible)
Small segments need merging, anabranches need addressing
land tenure has been updated
land tenure has been updated
land tenure has been updated
possibly need to incorporate new species from NVA
Use new aerial photos and mapping to rerun
could be re-done with biol info
need to consider the way multi non-outstanding are used
land tenure has been updated
land tenure has been updated
Coord system wrong for condition layer
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
No pressing issues
The CFV program has a number of ongoing maintenance and update tasks that need to be
managed alongside the priorities outlined in this report. The major database restructure
performed by DPIPWE CIT and the addition of metadata to the corporate interface have
precipitated a new phase in the CFEV data management, that will hopefully culminate in a
new database management system based around ARC SDE ( see the “CFEV Data access
and management protocol” - in prep.). This will undoubtedly have some impact on the way
the priorities in this document are addressed.
12
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
6 References
Davies, P.E., Cook, L. S. J., Koehnken, L., and Barker, P. (2007). Conservation of Freshwater
Ecosystem Values Validation Report. Report to the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem
Values Project. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.
Dunn, H. (2002). Assessing the Condition and Status of Tasmania’s Wetlands and Riparian
Vegetation: Summary of Processes and Outcomes of the National Land and Water Audit.
Nature Conservation Report 02/09. Nature Conservation Branch, Department of Primary
Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania.
Dyer, F., Houshold, I., Jansen, A., Spink, A., Slijkerman, J. and Grove, J. (2008) Physical
Form Summary and Recommended Way Forward. Tasmanian River Condition Index Phase
Three. NRM South, Hobart
Hydro Tasmania Consulting. (2008). NAP07 Validation of the Conservation of Freshwater
Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Database. NRM North and South, Hobart.
------------APPENDICES FOLLOW------------
13
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
7 Faults Matrix
CFEV Update and Maintenance - Faults Matrix: 1=ok, 0.6=unknown, 0.3 = fixable error, 0 = bad error or out of date. E columns are errors; R columns are
components in need of revision.
E
R
E
R
E
R
E
R
E
R
E
R
E
R
Component
RS
RS
WL
WL
WB
WB
ES
ES
SM
SM
KT
KT
General
General
Spatial data
0.3
1
0
0
0
0.6
1
1
0
0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Condition
assessment
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
1
1
0.3
0.3
0
1
0.6
0.6
improved aerial photo coverage,
improved MAR, improved land-use
include biophys classes that aren't
primary but are still responsible for
RCVA
Classification
0.6
0
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
1
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
0
0.6
RCV
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Special Values
records
0.6
0
0.3
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.6
0
0.3
0
Special Values
rules
1
0.6
0
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0
revisit non aquatics, platypus and
multiple non outs rules
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
multiple non signif being good is
questionable
1
0.3
1
0.3
0.6
0.3
1
0.3
1
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
possibly drop from future runs, Land
tenure needs updating if used
ICV
CMP
Recurring 0’s are explained at the end of rows, otherwise:
KT Condition: The condition layer was in the wrong projection when applied.
RS Classification: Geomorphology requires a reworking as the basic management unit is flawed.
KT Classification: A biological dataset is now available and could be included.
WL Special Values: The spatial rules for frogs are unforgiving, so they aren’t in the Macquarie (for example).
14
SVs from 2004
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
8 Dam Assessment tool
DRAFT CFEV Dam assessment process - using the CFEV database to identify values that
may be compromised by dam development
CMPP2
Moderate or Low
CFEV report minimal include map and standard
recommendations
High or Very High
ICV
Moderate or Low
High or Very High
RCV
Special Values - all non-outstanding
or undifferentiated
B or C
Special Values - outstanding
A
CFEV report required:
- stress Biophysical Classification (NB these need to be
field verified)
- include outstanding Special Values
15
CFEV report required:
-stress outstanding Special Values
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
9 Summary of recommendations from CFEV validation reports
AGWF Ground-truthing (Freshwater Systems and associates: Technical Advice on Water, North Barker and Associates (Davies et al. 2007))
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
RIVERS
1
Geomorphic condition
(RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
Disturbances and modifications to river banks, local
riparian zones and floodplains, reducing the field
condition rating, were not represented within the
CFEV River geomorphic condition rating. Land
clearance was often extensive and extreme,
suggesting that the underlying catchment clearance
data in the CFEV database was in error, possibly out
of date or rated inadequately for certain land uses.
6. Source data new
8. Change to
framework – new
data
9. Update with
more current data
10. Update with
new data
2
Geomorphic condition
(RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
The distribution and condition of riparian and
floodplain vegetation is an important control on
geomorphic condition which is not directly considered
by the CFEV geomorphic condition modelling.
6. Source data new
8. Change to
framework – new
data
9. Update with
more current data
10. Update with
new data
16
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
3
Geomorphic condition
(RIVERS)
River channelisation is not mapped or quantified in
the CFEV assessment.
6. Source data new
RS_GEOM
4
Geomorphic condition
(RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
5
6
Geomorphic condition
(RIVERS)
8. Change to
framework – new
data
The spatial extent of large, unnatural sediment loads
downstream of historical mining sediment sources
were not sufficiently represented in the CFEV
database.
10. Update with
new data
Better resolution of this impact is needed
within the expert rule systems.
RS_GEOM
CFEV geomorphic condition score overestimates the
impact of flow regulation on geomorphic condition in
specific geomorphic contexts.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
Macroinvertebrate
condition (RIVERS)
Improve spatial modelling/mapping of intensive point
source impacts to improve the accuracy of attribution
Broad attribution with the CFEV
macroinvertebrate O/E (RS_BUGSOE)
impairment band appears successful
6. Source data new
RS_BUGCO
8. Change to
framework – new
data
16. Further data
analysis
7
Macroinvertebrate
observe/expected rank
abundance (RIVERS)
RS_BUGSOE
17
Replace numeric attribute descriptors for
RS_BUGSOE with the aggregated band descriptors
to reflect the “high probability” nature of the
attribution at river section scale, rather than suggest
an absolute membership of the aggregated bands
(see also Task 20 under NRM Ground-truthing
Project below)
12. Incorrect
description
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Integrate RS_FISHCON with RS_EXOTICF in a rule
set to provide an overall integrated native fish
condition attribute.
The native fish condition attribute
(RS_FISHCON) provides only a limited
surrogacy for some drivers of native fish
condition.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
Field/attribute
8
Fish condition (RIVERS)
Some additional data on other factors
affecting native fish should be considered if
this condition attribution is revised (e.g.
aspects of geomorphic and/or riparian
condition).
9
Fish condition (RIVERS)
RS_FISHCON
Correct RS_FISHCON attribution for all drainage
within the South Esk Basin to reflect the effect of the
Trevallyn Dam on eel recruitment.
16. Further data
analysis
2. Ecosystem data
– attribute error
10. Update with
new data
16. Further data
analysis
10
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
RS_NRIPV
RS_ACNRIPV
11
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
RS_NRIPV
RS_ACNRIPV
18
It is recommended that over time, a more
comprehensive riparian vegetation condition
assessment be adopted into the CFEV assessment.
Improve the riparian vegetation condition
assessment to include:
the presence of non-native vegetation.
attributes that reduce the field-based
condition score (e.g. disturbance indicators
and presence of weeds).
Correct identification errors in the base data (in this
case TASVEG), especially for grasslands.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
10. Update with
new data
5. Source data –
attribute error
9. Update with
more current data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
12
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
Improve attribution through incorporation of data from
higher resolution of the riparian zone.
10. Update with
new data
RS_NRIPV
RS_ACNRIPV
WETLANDS
13
Biophysical class
(Dominant vegetation)
(WETLANDS)
WL_DVEG
14
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
GEOM (Spatial)
19
Correct TASVEG errors for wetlands for Poa and
Themeda grasslands and aquatic herb field.
Further resolve and update the CFEV dominant
vegetation class of ‘Other’.
The CFEV wetland data should be based only on
wetlands above a minimum size i.e. (e.g. 0.25 - 0.5
ha), as for waterbodies.
In the majority of cases, the field-based
wetland vegetation attribution agreed with
that recorded in the CFEV database (i.e.
WL_DVEG). A number of errors were
recorded associated with errors in TASVEG
or changes in vegetation since TASVEG
mapping occurred.
9. Update with
more current data
Inspection of a number of small wetlands in
the south-east in late 2006 suggested that
small wetlands in agricultural catchments
are likely to change with rapidity through
changes in land management, dam
construction, etc., rapidly making the CFEV
data out of date. In addition, many of these
wetlands are too small or fragmented to
enable effective management outside onfarm planning
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Specific errors in TASVEG should be addressed,
namely misidentification of grassland (Poa,
Themeda, etc.) as agricultural land.
It appears that the rule-based integration of
condition variables agreed well with a fieldbased expert evaluation of overall
condition. This rule based integration does
not need changing. Differences were
largely due to differences between
TASVEG and field data on vegetation
composition and condition.
9. Update with
more current data
Field/attribute
15
Wetland condition
(WETLANDS)
WL_NSCORE
Update TASVEG data, especially in relation to
forestry activities, and then update the CFEV
vegetation data, as real changes to land
management and land use accumulate.
GENERAL (SOURCE
DATA)
16
Fluvial geomorphic
mosaics (GEOMMOSAICS)
GEOM (Spatial)
4. Source data –
spatial error
Further field survey work to define boundaries, as
well as the influence of the sequence of upstream
mosaics on individual reach character, may add
benefit to the accuracy of CFEV attributions in the
future.
15. Further field
validation
16. Further data
analysis
17
Fluvial geomorphic
responsiveness
(GEOMMOSAICS)
GEOM_RESP
The ‘geomorphic responsiveness’ attribute, used in
various expert rule systems and mapping rules,
should be varied to consider the proximity and
responsiveness of neighbouring mosaics.
Small scale variability in river condition is
not reflected in the CFEV geomorphic
condition rating.
5. Source data –
attribute error
NRM Ground-truthing (Hydro Tasmania Consulting (Hydro Tasmania Consulting 2008))
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Field/attribute
20
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Review the method and inputs used to determine the
CFEV RS_BUGSOE condition variable.
As it appears to underestimate the
condition observed in field samples.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
Field/attribute
RIVERS
18
Macroinvertebrate
observed/expected rank
abundance (RIVERS)
RS_BUGSOE
19
Macroinvertebrate
observed/expected rank
abundance (RIVERS)
RS_BUGSOE
20
Geomorphic condition
assessment (RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
21
Geomorphic condition
assessment (RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
21
16. Further data
analysis
Replace the numerical scores with the text form of
the CFEV classification within the CFEV database
(see also Task 7 under AGWF Ground-truthing
Project above)
This will reduce the risk of users comparing
AUSRIVAS or rank-abundance model
outputs O/E scores directly to the CFEV
RS_BUGSO/E scores.
Make available in the CFEV Project Technical Report
the relative weightings of input variables to
geomorphic condition scores, preferably on a
catchment-by-catchment basis for the purposes of
model development and scenario replication
(testing).
Integrate new data into the CFEV database as they
become available through the Tasmanian River
Condition Index (TRCI) project, existing and future
River Styles® analyses, and the geomorphic mosaics
database, to strengthen the current geomorphic
condition data.
2. Ecosystem data
– attribute error
12. Incorrect
description
18. Improvement
to reporting
Linkages between these programs and
CFEV need to be clearly defined.
8. Change to
framework – new
data
10. Update with
new data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
22
Geomorphic condition
assessment (RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
Develop vegetation functionality criteria as an input
variable to the CFEV geomorphic condition
predictions.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
16. Further data
analysis
23
Geomorphic condition
assessment (RIVERS)
RS_GEOM
Review the CFEV Geomorphic assessments to
include information on anthropogenic stressors,
responses and condition for all major catchments.
This information will provide important
contextual information for planning and
management.
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
16. Further data
analysis
24
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
The documentation of the assignment of native/nonnative classifications is clarified.
18. Improvement
to reporting
RS_NRIPV
RS_ACNRIPV
25
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
RS_NRIPV
RS_ACNRIPV
The CFEV assessment framework is rerun to test the
effects of different options for assigning riparian
vegetation condition.
The assessment of naturalness can be
made more robust, by using a range of
scores for vegetation polygons in place of
the binary categories (natural or exotic)
currently used.
16. Further data
analysis
WETLANDS
26
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
GEOM (Spatial)
22
Develop a concise definition of CFEV Wetlands.
18. Improvement
to reporting
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
27
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
Redevelop or redescribe the Wetland database
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
GEOM (Spatial)
18. Improvement
to reporting
28
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
GEOM (Spatial)
29
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
GEOM (Spatial)
30
Wetland condition
(WETLANDS)
Remove “island polygons” from CFEV wetland
polygons
Investigate methods to identify wetlands within
cleared and non-wetland vegetation community
types.
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
The use of LIST wetlands database
features to identify areas within cleared and
non-wetland vegetation types that could
support wetland ecosystems is likely to
provide a significant overestimate of
wetland area. Further methods (CFEV
DEM) should be tested to identify the likely
occurrence of wetlands within these
vegetation types.
Incorporate data on farm dams, drains and roads into
the assessment of wetland condition.
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
16. Further data
analysis
8. Change to
framework – new
data
WL_NSCORE
10. Update with
new data
31
GEOM (Spatial)
23
Develop a man-made wetlands (and waterbodies)
layer for inclusion in the CFEV assessment.
The CFEV farm dams dataset should be
included in the CFEV assessment as
artificial or man-made wetlands. This would
be consistent with inclusion of artificial
wetlands in wetland definitions contained in
DIWA.
6. Source data –
new data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
SALTMARSHES
32
Spatial unit
(SALTMARSHES)
Correct saltmarsh identification polygons from field
data and other data sources.
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
Correct attribution errors from field validation data.
2. Ecosystem data
– attribute error
GEOM (Spatial)
33
(SALTMARSHES)
General
34
Saltmarsh condition
(SALTMARSHES)
Consolidate unreliable condition assessment classes.
The number of classes for attributing the
condition variables within and adjacent to
saltmarshes should be reduced to presence
and absence rather than a graded score of
absent, minimal, moderate and high
disturbance. This would reduce the level of
disagreement between the scores derived
from aerial photographic interpretation of
disturbance and those observed on the
ground.
2. Ecosystem data
– attribute error
Classify the geomorphic characteristics of
saltmarshes.
Biogeographical and ecological
characteristics of saltmarshes should be
incorporated into the final RCV value to
allow representative sets of saltmarshes to
be included in conservation priorities.
Therefore, it is recommended that a
geomorphic saltmarsh classification be
developed that can be included into the
CFEV database.
6. Source data –
new data
SM_NSCORE
35
Saltmarsh classification
(SALTMARSHES)
General
24
8. Change to
framework – new
data
16. Further data
analysis
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Include additional attribute information for
substantiation of conservation value.
Impacts such as rabbit grazing and trail
bike tracks should be included in the data
set as attributes for individual CFEV
saltmarsh polygons for substantiation of
conservation status.
8. Change to
framework – new
data
Field/attribute
36
Saltmarsh condition
(SALTMARSHES)
SM_NSCORE
10. Update with
new data
KARST
37
Spatial unit (KARST)
GEOM (Spatial)
Check the definition and completeness of the karst
base layer polygons.
1. Ecosystem data
– spatial error
14. Doublechecking data
18. Improvement
to reporting
38
Karst classification
(KARST)
Incorporate a biological ecosystem component into
the karst classification.
General
A biological assessment of karst at a statewide scale has been undertaken The data
produced by this assessment may be
suitable for the development of a
bioregionalisation for the CFEV karst
classification.
6. Source data –
new data
8. Change to
framework – new
data
16. Further data
analysis
39
Karst condition (KARST)
KT_NSCORE
Develop a standardised karst sampling method.
15. Further field
validation
16. Further data
analysis
GENERAL (SOURCE
DATA)
25
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
40
Macroinvertebrate
assemblages
(BUGASSEMBLAGES)
Assess the implications of creating unique
macroinvertebrate classification units by splitting first
order and montane macroinvertebrate communities
from their parent assemblages.
16. Further data
analysis
41
Macroinvertebrate
assemblages
(BUGASSEMBLAGES)
Develop field assessment methods to test the validity
of first order and montane macroinvertebrate
assemblages.
15. Further field
validation
42
Fluvial geomorphic
mosaics descriptions
(GEOMMOSAICS)
Complete and field validate the remaining
geomorphic mosaic descriptions.
12. Incorrect
description
15. Further field
validation
MOSAIC_NAM
DESCRIPTION
43
Fluvial geomorphic
mosaics (GEOMMOSAICS)
General
44
Fluvial geomorphic
mosaics (GEOMMOSAICS)
General
45
Fluvial geomorphic
mosaics (GEOMMOSAICS)
General
26
Test the use of geomorphic mosaics as the
classification units for the geomorphic ecosystem
component in place of geomorphic river types.
16. Further data
analysis
Broaden the analysis of documented River Styles®
assessments to include the Snug River, Macquarie
River, Northwest Bay River, St Patricks River, Jordan
River and the Mersey and South Esk catchments.
16. Further data
analysis
Integrate new data into the CFEV database as they
become available through the Tasmanian River
Condition Index (TRCI) project, existing and future
River Styles® analyses, and the geomorphic mosaics
database, to strengthen the current geomorphic
mosaics and geomorphic responsiveness.
Linkages between these programs and
CFEV need to be clearly defined.
8. Change to
framework – new
data
10. Update with
new data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
46
Fluvial geomorphic river
types
(GEOMRIVERTYPES)/mos
aics (GEOMMOSAICS)
Map floodplains, alluvial reaches and course slope
deposit sites of priority rivers as per
recommendations in Jerie et al. (2003) for inclusion
in the geomorphic classification.
6. Source data –
new data
Correct the polygon layer of tree assemblages to
remove the overlapping polygons.
4. Source data –
spatial error
GEOM (Spatial)
47
Tree assemblages
(TREEASSEMBLAGES)
GEOM (Spatial)
27
8. Change to
framework – new
data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
10 Error register
Errors identified in data that already exists in the CFEV database (e.g. typos, inadequate descriptions, etc.) as at 5 July 2010.
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
RIVERS
48
Spatial unit (RIVERS)
GEOM (Spatial)
64
Spatial unit (RIVERS)
GEOM (Spatial)
65
Crayfish assemblages
(RIVERS)
Disconnected group of river sections RS_ID
258410, 258409, etc.
Incorrect crayfish attribution.
RS_CRAYS
66
Riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
RS_ACNRIPV
RS_NRIPV
67
Riparian vegetation
condition description
(RS_ACNRIPV)
RS_DESCRIPTION
28
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Merge small river cluster tails with larger
adjacent river clusters
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Peter provided Dan H with new crayfish
distribution polygons. Dan H has updated
the RS_CRAYS field. Needs rechecking.
See also CRAYFISH error below.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
Should be different (as one is accumulated... but
mostly aren't). Interestingly there is an example in
the paper file where a first order stream is different
but shouldn't be.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Needs to be re-written to exclude number range in
brackets.
12. Incorrect
description
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
68
Integrated Conservation
Value (RIVERS)
RS_ICV
69
Integrated Conservation
Value (RIVERS)
RS_ICV
70
Roads descriptions
(RS_ACRD_C,
RS_ACRD_U,
RS_ACRD_S)
River sections with ‘Multiple outstanding’ values
return an incorrect ICV. Should be VH but is down
as M. RS_ID 222564
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Reverse of above error exists for RS_ID 236226,
i.e. ICV is H but should be M. Same for 232460
and 123203, and others. Would be worth running a
check on all river sections for instances like ICV VH
but SV_DIV<2.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Needs to be re-written to exclude number range in
brackets.
12. Incorrect
description
Needs to be fixed as at moment ranges in
categories overlap.
12. Incorrect
description
14. Doublechecking data
RS_DESCRIPTION
71
Roads descriptions
(RS_ACRD_C,
RS_ACRD_U,
RS_ACRD_S)
RS_ACRD_C_MIN
RS_ACRD_C_MAX
etc.
72
Catchment disturbance and
Native riparian vegetation
condition (RIVERS)
RS_CATDI
RS_NRIPV
29
Contradicting values where RS_CATDI is 1 and
RS_NRIVE is 0, e.g. RS_ID 257354.
Refer email sent by Rod Knight dated
3/12/09.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
16. Further data
analysis
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
73
Land Tenure Security
(RIVERS)
RS_ID 209462 all have values of 0 - should equal 1
if added together.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Change attribute from EOTC, WOTC etc. to east,
west and corridor.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
RS_LTS_L
RS_LTS_M
RS_LTS_H
74
Tyler corridor (RIVERS)
RS_TYLER
14. Doublechecking data
75
Acid mine drainage
(RIVERS)
RS_ACID
76
Attribute descriptions –
Wild Rivers
(RS_ATTRIBUTEDESCRIP
TIONS)
Probably should change 0-1 scale at the moment it
has 1 = present but should reflect same scale
direction as other condition variables.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Change description to reflect what is written in
BUGOESITES_ATTRIBUTEDESCRIPTIONS for
CDI and RDI.
12. Incorrect
description
RS_WILDRIV
77
Geomorphic
responsiveness (RIVERS)
RS_GEOMRESP
30
Luke Temby checked the RS_GEORESP field
against the new GEOMMOSAICS table which now
houses the GEORESP data and found that there
are records that do not match (the value in the
RIVERS table does not match that in the
GEOMMOSAICS table when matched up against
their mosaic code). Here they are (RS_ID 82560,
310916, 237328, 215705). Refer to Luke's email
dated 17/06/10.
Decided it was an error in the RIVERS data
set and that we should use what is in the
GEOMOSAICS table. Should double check
when updating or reviewing RIVERS data.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
78
Conservation Management
Priority
(RIVERCLUSTERS)
Very High is stated as 'V' instead of 'VH'.
11. Typo
RC_CMPP1
WETLANDS
49
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
GEOM (Spatial)
79
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
Missing wetlands.
GEOM (Spatial)
80
Spatial unit (WETLANDS)
Spatial unit (WETLANDS,
WATERBODIES)
Spatial unit (WETLANDS,
WATERBODIES)
GEOM (Spatial)
31
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Big Lagoon is a deflation basin but is not listed as a
wetland or waterbody?
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Spatial overlap between wetlands and waterbodies.
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
GEOM (Spatial)
82
Requested that Louise provide mapped or
point locations of wetlands and any
additional data relating to these sites.
WL_ID 7193 and 7198 should be merged.
GEOM (Spatial)
81
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Some of the wetlands around Tunbridge
are missing from the wetlands layer;
possibly for a systematic reason (i.e. not
associated with a TASVEG vegetation
type). Two examples on the Blackman
River and a large wetland north of the
Gliding club near Tunbridge
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
83
Geomorphic
responsiveness
(WETLANDS)
Add geomorphic responsiveness attribute to
wetlands. Is needed for Physical classification.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
WL_GEORESP
84
Wetland classification
(WETLANDCLASSIFICATI
ON)
14. Doublechecking data
Native fish assemblage should read frog
assemblage.
Fixed
WL_CLASS_TYPE
85
Wetland Special Values
(WL_SPECIALVALUES)
General
86
Catchment disturbance and
Native riparian vegetation
condition (WETLANDS)
14. Doublechecking data
Frog records (SVs) are missing from many of the
wetlands. Probably due to a rather severe
attribution rule. Paper example shows the map
sheets the original records extend across and
where records exist in wetlands. Both L. raniformis
and P. semimarmorata should be in the Macquarie
but aren't in any wetlands in the Macquarie.
Contradicting values where WL_CATDI is 1 and
WL_NRIVE is 0. e.g. WL_ID 16496.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Refer email sent by Rod dated 3/12/09
WL_CATDI
WL_NRIVE
87
Wetland classification
(WETLANDCLASSIFICATI
ON)
WL_CLASS_TYPE
SALTMARSHES
32
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
Burrowing crayfish regions is stated as
‘Macroinvertebrate assemblages’ rather than
‘Burrowing crayfish’.
Check others as well.
12. Incorrect
description
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Saltmarshes attributed with wrong location. Check.
Locations are wrong, but the classifications
don't seem to be effected. Need to re-do
the location field in SALTMARSHES.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Field/Attribute
88
Location (SALTMARSHES)
SM_LOCATION
14. Doublechecking data
89
Land fill adjacent to
saltmarshes
(SALTMARSHES)
SM_ID 50 incorrectly attributed? Check. Also
doesn't seem to be in saltmarsh condition
spreadsheet.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
SM_LFADJ
90
Spartina anglica adjacent to
saltmarshes
(SALTMARSHES)
14. Doublechecking data
SM_ID 319 incorrectly attributed? Check.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
SM_SPADJ
14. Doublechecking data
KARST
51
Condition assessment
(KARST)
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Karst layer used in condition assessment is wrong
by 200 m (i.e. maybe in the old projection (AGD64))
KT_NSCORE
91
Catchment disturbance
(KARST)
KT_CATDI
33
Scores are incorrectly attributed as 1- CATDI. It
has been altered for the Technical report.
The CATDI used for N-scores and expert
rule systems appears to have been
corrected. It’s just the KT_CATDI that is in
the database.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
92
Attribute descriptions –
Subcatchment5 identifier
(KT_ATTRIBUTE_DESCRI
PTIONS)
Typo (Firth instead of Fifth).
11. Typo
Should there be a KT_SELORD for Karst?? Check
with Rod.
3. Ecosystem
data – new data
Update waterbodies spatial data layer to include
waterbodies that dropped out of analysis (e.g. SE of
Tunbridge) (i.e. exist in rivers data layer as artificial
drainage but are not present in the waterbodies
data later
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Some waterbodies missing. Examples have
connectors instead of rivers running through where
the waterbody should be (so the rivers data got it
right). Good examples just south of Tunbridge.
(see paper file) RS_IDs under where waterbodies
should be include: 257315,257164, 257312,
257341. Another example near WD_ID 12264 and
12368, and others.
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
Fish condition and native fish condition descriptions
need updating for waterbodies to reflect differences
in lake level manipulation scores.
12. Incorrect
description
SUBCAT5_ID
93
Selection order (KARST)
WATERBODIES
50
Spatial unit
(WATERBODIES)
GEOM (Spatial)
94
Spatial unit
(WATERBODIES)
GEOM (Spatial)
95
Fish condition and native
fish condition descriptions
(WB_FISHC,
WB_FISHCON)
DESCRIPTION
34
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
96
Area (WATERBODIES)
WB_AREA
RSC_AREA
97
Name (WATREBODIES)
WB_NAME
98
Hydro barriers and
storages (WATERBODIES,
EXOTICFISHIMPACT,
FLOWVARIABILITY)
WB_HYDSTOR
WB_HYDBAR
WB_DAM
Should be different. But are the same for many
examples. See example from the tech report in
paper file. Check if RSCs adjacent to waterbodies
without river sections are included in the
RSC_AREA for waterbodies.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Update name of WB_ID = 1187 to Lake Catagunya
and WB_ID = 610 to Lake Plimsoll.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Compare HYDSTOR in WATERBODIES table with
HYDBAR in EXOTICFISHIMPACT table and DAM
in FLOWVARIABILITY table. Currently two have 44
and the other 39. Should probably be the same
and delete two of the fields (keep the one in
WATERBODIES and also include one in
INVALIDWATERBODIES if appropriate). Check
with Peter as there may be a reason for this.
14. Doublechecking data
Change Cockle Ck. to Cockle Creek.
11. Typo
Remove all grasslands at < 600m. Refer Table 34
in Technical report.
1. Ecosystem
data – spatial
error
14. Doublechecking data
ESTUARIES
99
Name (ESTUARIES)
ES_NAME
GROUNDWATER
DEPENDENT
ECOSYSTEMS
100
GDE wetland vegetation
(GDE_WETLANDVEGETA
TION)
GEOM (Spatial)
35
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
101
GDE Coastal sands
description
(GDE_COASTSANDS_AT
TRIBUTEDESCRIPTIONS)
Typo in description (‘dependent’)
11. Typo
Special value 385 is listed as short paperpark
swamp. Should be paperbark.
11. Typo
Special values look-up tables need to include
threatened veg communities (i.e. need to create
new table which includes the threatened vegetation
communities and their RFA ratings).
13. New
description data
Lovettia (Huon stock) labelled as Tasman stock.
Check.
11. Typo
GDECS_DESC
SPECIAL VALUES
102
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
SV_NAME
103
104
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
SV_NAME
105
CFEV reference
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_343 reference should be Neyland not Leyland
14. Doublechecking data
14. Doublechecking data
Check.
14. Doublechecking data
SV_CFEVREF
106
CFEV reference
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_CFEVREF
36
11. Typo
SV_367 reference should be Davies & Humphries
(1995) not (1996)
Check.
11. Typo
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Individual SV_IDs are assigned multiple records
from different SV_TYPEs e.g. 172 Karst fauna and
Mt Cripps caves
Fixed. Conflict was misinterpreted…
makes sense when SV_TYPE is displayed.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Field/Attribute
107
Special Values identifier
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_ID
14. Doublechecking data
108
109
Special Values identifier
(SPECIALVALUES)
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
Priority geomorph features incorrectly attributed,
e.g. Mt Kripps to Western Ck, Mt Weld to Mt Kripps.
Might be a case of them all being wrong by one
place.
Check.
Two priority geomorphic feature names missing?
This turned out to be worse. Numbering
was caput… Related to the error above.
SV_NAME
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
110
Special Values Type
(SPECIALVALUES)
Phylogentically distinct species mispelt for all
records except platypus
Check.
14. Doublechecking data
SV_TYPE
111
SPECIALVALUES
General
112
Estuarine Special Values
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_ESTUARY
37
SV_371 (Grevillea australis var. tenuifolia) is not
attributed to any ecosystem. Should be just rivers.
SV_254 (Platypus) should not be attributed to
estuaries?
11. Typo
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Check with Peter Davies.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
The Priority Geo sites seem to be ranked based on
an old version of the Tas Geoconservation
database. Needs revising.
Check.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Field/Attribute
113
Special Values Status
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_STATUS
14. Doublechecking data
114
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
SV_NAME
115
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
Common names missing for Mesocanthotelson and
other isopods (inconsistently)
Fixed
Common names without caps in many instances
Fixed
14. Doublechecking data
SV_NAME
116
Special Values identifier
(SPECIALVALUES)
11. Typo
11. Typo
14. Doublechecking data
SV_ID 666 Epacris impressa aff exserta
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
SV_ID
14. Doublechecking data
117
Special Values accuracy
(SPECIALVALUES)
Many accuracies missing from table. Mainly
associated with the original polygon data
SV_ACCURAC
Fixed. Added accuracies of 500 for
platypus, 500 for lovettia, 100 for veg
commmunities and 100 for geo sites
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
118
Special Values Diversity (all
ecosystem tables)
**_SVDIV
Counts based on count of SV_RECID ...not
diversity ...i.e. No of different types
Fixed using crosstab and table joins.
Check.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
38
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Counts based on count of SV_RECID ...not
diversity ...i.e. No of different types
Fixed using crosstab and table joins.
Check.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Field/Attribute
119
Outstanding Special Values
Diversity (all ecosystem
tables)
**_OUTSV
120
Undifferentiated Special
Values Diversity (all
ecosystem tables)
14. Doublechecking data
Counts based on count of SV_RECID ...not
diversity ...i.e. No of different types
Fixed using crosstab and table joins.
Check.
**_UNDIFSV
121
Non-outstanding Special
Values Diversity (all
ecosystem tables)
14. Doublechecking data
Counts based on count of SV_RECID ...not
diversity ...i.e. No of different types
**_NONSV
122
Name (SPECIALVALUES)
SV_NAME
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Fixed using crosstab and table joins.
Check.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
Update all common names for plants according to
The Little Book of Common Names for Tasmanian
Plants.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
123
Platypus
(SPECIALVALUES)
(SV_ID = 254)
39
Platypus is 'predicted' as being everywhere as a SV
and is the only value that isn't a known record so
should we be dealing with platypus like this or only
if it has an actual record. Becomes a bit hard to
defend particularly in places which are drains
across paddocks, etc.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
16. Further data
analysis
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
124
125
Threatened Flora
Communities
(SPECIALVALUES)
New listings of threatened flora communities (e.g.
wetlands) that need to be considered in the SV
assessment.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
SV_TYPE
All wetlands are threatened flora communities... not
an error but currently isn't reflected in the SVs
(definition on FPA website - fact sheet).
16. Further data
analysis
General
(SPECIALVALUES)
Re-jig special values data.
Possible with modelled distributions rather
than point records.
16. Further data
analysis
600 features with the problem "short segments".
Repair Geometry tool will fix this in about a
minute. Rod to undertake as part of Hydro
CFEV Ground-truthing Project
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Tree assemblage T12 - refers to north-west but
should say north-east
Altered in TSDEV. Check.
11. Typo
Review and re-write some of the descriptions to
better fit the context.
So they make sense when viewing data in
WIST and the Corporate interface.
Various
CATCHMENTS
126
Spatial unit
(SUBCATCHMENTS)
GEOM (Spatial)
GENERAL (SOURCE
DATA)
127
Tree assemblages
(TREEASSEMBLAGES)
14. Doublechecking data
DESCRIPTION
128
Descriptions (all description
tables)
DESCRIPTION
129
Important biophysical class
(All ecosystem tables)
**_CLASSN
40
Consider putting in where a site is selected for more
than one value at the same time.
12. Incorrect or
inappropriate
descriptions
3. Ecosystem
data – new data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
130
Biophysical class name
(BIOPHYSICALCLASSES)
NAME?
New table to included to describe biophyical class
types e.g. B = Macroinvertebrates etc.?? Check
with John to see if he put in database or just rigged
something up for interfaces.
131
Land Tenure Security
descriptions (**_LTENSEC,
**LTSMAP)
Land tenure description files not visible using
MapInfo. Can see them using Sonswish.
132
Naturalness drivers
descriptions
(NATURALNESS
DRIVERS)
New table to be included to describe naturalness
variables e.g. Sediment input etc.?? Check with
John Gooderham to see if he put in database or just
rigged something up for interfaces.
13. New
description data
Check if this is the case in ArcGIS and
Oracle SQL Developer.
14. Doublechecking data
13. New
description data
DESCRIPTION?
133
Tyler Corridor
(TYLERCORRIDOR)
DESCRIPTION
134
Fluvial geomorphic mosiacs
(GEOMMOSAICS)
Update attribute descriptions to generalise for
rivers, waterbodies and wetlands rather than just
rivers.
Crayfish assemblages
(CRAYFISH)
RS_CRAYS
WB_CRAYS
136
Descriptions (all description
tables)
DESCRIPTION
41
12. Inappropriate
description
Check that 0 should be bed rock and 1 should be
alluvial - PD
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Check with Peter re crayfish rules. Check whether
NW corner of Tas should be C0 or C1. Is currently
C1 for rivers and C0 for waterbodies (as per old
rules).
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Add units to description tables
12. Incorrect
description
GEOM_RESP
135
Consult with CIT (Luke Temby)
14. Doublechecking data
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Error description
Details/Comments
Updating category
Field/Attribute
137
Condition variables (All
ecosystem tables)
Various
138
Classification (All
ecosystem classification
tables **CLASSIFICATION)
BEWARE…Rules in tech report (I think) refer to 0-1
which are back to front from final output values.
Need to update so that all values are around the
same way (i.e. 0 = bad and 1 = good)!
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
Update to be in m2 not hectares so it is consistent
with all other area calculations.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
**_TOTAL_AREA_WITHIN
_CLASS
139
Macroinvertebrate
assemblage sites
(BUGASSEMSITES)
14. Doublechecking data
Some SITE_NAME records are the same as
SITE_CODE. Need to check with Tom and update
SITE_NAME records.
SITE_NAME
140
Macroinvertebrate
assemblage sites
(BUGASSEMSITES)
14. Doublechecking data
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
14. Doublechecking data
BUG_ID 111 should read ‘Iris River downstream1’
not ‘Iris R downstream1’ for SITE_NAME. Update.
11. Typo
Delete or move ‘Indicator taxa:’ from
CLASS_DESCRIPTION to
SPECIES_COMPOSITION field. Check what it
means when looked up in CFEVCI and WIST.
12. Incorrect
description
SITE_NAME
141
42
Classification (All
ecosystem classification
tables **CLASSIFICATION)
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
11 Updates and Modifications
Summary of suggested updates and modifications Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) assessment
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Contact: Allison Woolley
10. Update with
new data
Field/attribute
52
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_TYPE
53
(SPECIALVALUES)
SV_NAME
SV_NAME_SN
Include TASVEG updates as well as 5
important communities (Poa grassland
community + others?) that have been remapped for the state.
Reassess Special Values as not all SVs are
aquatic (e.g. Eucalyptus rodwayii, possibly
Agrostis propinqua)
16. Further data
analysis
CATCHMENTS
GENERAL (SOURCE
DATA)
55
Fluvial geomorphic river
types
Fluvial geomorphic river types are not
manageable units
16. Further data
analysis
56
Crayfish assemblages
Crayfish classes should be modified so that
absence of crayfish is one class regardless
of whether its altitude or regionally based.
Currently it’s the commonest and rarest
crayfish class
5. Source data –
attribute error
GENERAL (OTHER)
43
16. Further data
analysis
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
58
Representative
Conservation Value (All
ecosystem tables)
**_RCV
59
Condition assessment
(RIVERS, WETLANDS)
**_NSCORE
60
Given that the best cases (RCV - A) are not
reserved (CFEV sort of assumes that it
works), do we need some assessment of
replaceability to allow a recalculation or reestimate of the consequences of not
reserving a given occurrence of a particular
biophysical class?
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
Lots of people query the multiple uses of
variables like **_CATDI in the development
of Naturalness scores (N-score) (see
wetlands particularly, and also for rivers,
where the flow variability index is used in the
expert rule system for macroinvertebrate
condition as well as for flow change).
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
A way to flag ‘basket cases’ (areas that are
very poor condition/and or the values don’t
seem to exist anymore) statewide.
16. Further data
analysis
61
All ecosystem tables
Include all biophysical classes that are
‘important’ at a site…not just the primary
(**_CLASSN) (i.e. the string including
iteration score of CLASS_ORDR from Rod’s
data.
62
Various tables
Include confidence layers (i.e. a map of
points that were input to models, using the
assumption that points more disparate from
the original data required much more
extrapolation).
44
16. Further data
analysis
16. Further data
analysis
Note, CLASS_ORDR missing for Rivers –
check with Rod).
3. Ecosystem
data – new data
16. Further data
analysis
18. Improvement
to reporting
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
ID
CFEV data set (Table)
Recommendation/observation
Details/comments
Updating category
Field/attribute
63
Various tables
6. Source data –
new data
Also a layer of ground-truthed values (for
comparison).
18. Improvement
to reporting
57
Conservation Management
Priority (All ecosystem
tables)
**_CMPI1
**_CMPI2
**_CMPP1
**_CMPP2
45
Possibly drop CMP from a re-run of CFEV as
nobody uses it and multiple people are
suspicious of the Land Tenure Security (LTS)
data (i.e. Tim Doeg, Helen Dunn)
Make CFEV Version 2 an asset flagging
tool rather than a tool for suggesting
conservation management priorities that
are never addressed, and ends up as a
flagging tool that isn’t quite right.
2. Ecosystem
data – attribute
error
7. Change to
framework –
existing rules
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
12 New and improved data
Summary of data sources used in the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) assessment
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Notes
Acid mine drainage
Mineral Resources
Tasmania (MRT)
Rivers
Mining sedimentation
Y
John Pemberton
(Senior
Geologist)
6233 8371
There has been no
update of the Acid mine
drainage data since
original data was
sourced. There has
been some site specific
sampling at old mines
sites but no new
river/regional work.
Macroinvertebrate
Observed/Expected (O/E) rank
abundance
Native fish condition
Aerial photos
Service Tasmania –
Department of
Primary Industries,
Parks, Water and
Environment
(DPIPWE)
Saltmarshes
Saltmarsh condition
assessment - various condition
variables.
Y
Astacopsis sp.
distributions
School of Zoology –
University of
Tasmania (UTas)
Rivers
Crayfish (Astacopsis genus)
regionalisation
N
Forestry Tasmania
46
Waterbodies
Haven’t checked but it is
very likely that new
aerial runs over some of
the saltmarshes have
been carried out since
2005.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Notes
Australian River
Assessment System
(AUSRIVAS) –
benthic
macroinvertebrates
Water and Marine
Resources Division
(WMRD) – DPIPWE
Rivers
Macroinvertebrate
assemblages
Y – O/E
only
Tom Krasnicki
(Senior Aquatic
Ecologist (River
Health))
6233 3195
Ongoing assessment of
60 long term monitoring
sites for Tasmania
Together indicator
12.2.2. All taxa have
only been identified to
family level.
Macroinvertebrate O/E rank
abundance
Freshwater Systems
Biogeochemical/
limnological data
Professor Peter Tyler
(data and
publications)
Rivers
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Tasmanian limnological
publications and data by Tyler
and colleagues were reviewed
and then used at input to:
N
Special Values (SVs) Priority
limnological sites
Tyler corridor
‘Tyler’ biogeochemical
classification
Waterbody depth
Biophysical
Naturalness (BPN)
Layer
47
Information and Land
Services (ILS)
Division – DPIPWE
Rivers
(primarily)
Catchment disturbance
Y
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Burrowing crayfish
School of Zoology –
UTas
Wetlands
SVs Threatened fauna species
N
Burrowing crayfish
regionalisation
(Assoc. Prof. Alistair
Richardson)
Groundwater Dependent
Ecosystems (GDEs) Burrowing
crayfish
Climate data (rainfall
and evaporation)
Bureau of
Meteorology
Rivers
(primarily)
Mean Annual Run-off (MAR)
Dams databases
DPIPWE (Water
Information
Management System
(WIMS)) – farm
dams
Rivers
Flow variation index
Waterbodies
Abstraction index
Wetlands
Regulation index
Karst
Native fish condition
Tree assemblages
Exotic fish condition
Hydro Tasmania –
Hydro dams (see
also Hydro
infrastructure and
discharge data set
below)
48
Y
Y
Contact
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Estuarine fish
Commonwealth
Scientific and
Industrial Research
Organisation
(CSIRO)
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
biophysical classification
N
DPIPWE
Estuary bioregions
Tasmanian
Aquaculture and
Fisheries Institute
(TAFI)
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
biophysical classification
N
Estuary biota
TAFI/UTas
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
biophysical classification
N
Estuary physical
classification
TAFI
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
biophysical classification
N
Exotic fish presence
and biomass
Freshwater Systems
Rivers
Exotic fish impact
Y
Waterbodies
Inland Fisheries
Service (IFS)
49
Contact
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Notes
Geoconservation
database
Resource
Management and
Conservation
Division (RMC) –
DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
SVs Priority geomorphic
features assessment
Y
Peter Voller
(Manager (Land
Conservation))
6336 5365
An updated version of
the Tasmanian
Geoconservation
Database (TGD) (v 6.0)
was released in 2008.
This will be superseded
later this year by TGD
version 7.0.
Geomorphic river
regionalisation
RMC – DPIPWE
Rivers
Fluvial geomorphic mosaics
Y
Peter Voller
(Manager (Land
Conservation))
6336 5365
The Fluvial Landscape
Mosaics, and
geomorphological
characterisation of
streams (not sure if that
data has a formal
name), were upgraded
significantly during the
Tasmanian River
Condition Index (TRCI)
project (Dyer et al.
(2008) and is
undergoing continuous
development, primarily
by Alex Spink
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Alexandra Spink
(River
Management
Co-ordinator
NRM North)
6233 5058
50
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Notes
Geo Temporal
Species Point
Observations
Tasmania (GTSpot)
RMC – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
SVs Threatened flora species
Y
Kristy Goddard
(Section Head
(Conservation
Values
Information))
No longer exists. Is now
the (Natural Values
Atlas (NVA) and new
data has been added
since 2005.
SVs Threatened fauna species
SVs Priority flora species
SVs Priority fauna species
SVs Fauna species of
phylogenetically distinct
species
Human population
density
TAFI
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
condition assessment.
N
Hydro infrastructure
discharge data
Hydro Tasmania
Rivers
MAR
Y
?
Flow variation index
Abstraction index
Regulation index
Hydrological
classification
Dr Jocelyne Hughes
Rivers
Hydrological regions
N
IBRA tree
assemblages
ILS – DPIPWE
Rivers
Tree assemblages
N
Karst spatial units
Y
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Karst Atlas
RMC – DPIPWE
Karst
Karst physical classification
51
Peter Voller
(Manager (Land
Conservation))
6336 5365
The Tasmanian Digital
Karst Atlas v3.0 has not
been updated.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Land Information
Systems Tasmania
(LIST) Coastline
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Catchments
N
Contact
Notes
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Most of the ILS layers
are updated very
frequently; most
certainly since 2004.
Sub-catchments
River Section Catchments
LIST Contours
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Catchments
N
Sub-catchments
River Section Catchments
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
LIST Geology
ILS – DPIPWE
Rivers
Exotic fish impact
Y
Macrophyte assemblages
‘Tyler’ biogeochemical
classification
LIST Hydrographic
theme
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Rivers spatial units
Waterbodies spatial units
Wetlands spatial units
Estuaries spatial units
Catchments
Sub-catchments
River Section Catchments
Buffer zones
52
N
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Notes
LIST Land Tenure
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Land Tenure Security
Y
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Most of the ILS layers
are updated very
frequently; most
certainly since 2004.
LIST Land Use
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Catchment disturbance
Y
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Most of the ILS layers
are updated very
frequently; most
certainly since 2004.
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Most of the ILS layers
are updated very
frequently; most
certainly since 2004.
Land use (nutrients)
LIST Roads
ILS – DPIPWE
Rivers
Macroinvertebrate O/E rank
abundance
Y
LIST Topographic
data layer
ILS – DPIPWE
Rivers
(primarily)
Rivers spatial units
N
LIST Waterbodies
ILS – DPIPWE
Waterbodies
Waterbodies spatial units
N
Rivers
Regulations index
Wetlands
Abstraction index
LIST Wetlands
ILS – DPIPWE
Wetlands
Wetland spatial units
N
Macroinvertebrates –
soft sediment
assemblages
TAFI/UTas
Estuaries
Edgar et al. (1999)’s estuary
biophysical classification?
N
53
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
National Estate
palaeobotanical sites
School of Plant
Science – UTas
All
ecosystem
themes
SVs Palaeobotanical sites
assessment
N
Native fish
distribution (Regional
Forest Agreement
(RFA) Fish
Database)
IFS
Rivers
Native fish assemblages
N
Non-forest covenants
(Non-forest
Vegetation Program
(NFVP))
RMC – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Land Tenure Security
Y
N -probably can
assume that
new data has
been added
since 2005.
Protected areas
(Protected Areas on
Private Land (PAPL))
RMC – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Land Tenure Security
Y
N -probably can
assume that
new data has
been added
since 2005.
Private Forests
(Private Forest
Reserves Program
(PFRP))
RMC – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Land Tenure Security
Y
N -probably can
assume that
new data has
been added
since 2005.
check with John
Harkin (PPCP)
54
Contact
Waterbodies
Freshwater Systems
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Platypus distribution
Forest Practices
Authority (FPA)
All
ecosystem
themes
SVs Phylogenetically
distinctiveness assessment
N
Sarah Munks
(Acting General
Manager
(Biodiversity
Program))
6233 8710
Platypus Mucor
disease
Forest Practices
Authority
Rivers
Platypus condition
Y
Sarah Munks
(Acting General
Manager
(Biodiversity
Program))
6233 8710
RMC – DPIPWE
Platypus
Conservation
Program
6233 6553
Regional Forestry
Agreement (RFA)
Reserves
55
ILS – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Land Tenure Security
Y
Steve Sellers
(Senior Spatial
Information
Officer)
6233 6159
Notes
Seems to have been
quite a bit of work done
on the Mucor disease
since 2005 (refer to
DPIPWE website
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.
au/inter.nsf/WebPages/
SSKA7AH66E?open#ProjectU
pdate)
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Contact
Spartina angelica
distribution
Primary Industries
Division – DPIPWE
Saltmarshes
Spartina adjacent to
saltmarshes
Y
Marine Farming
6233 3370
TASVEG
RMC – DPIPWE
Rivers
Wetlands spatial units
Y
Waterbodies
Saltmarsh spatial units
Wetlands
Wetland vegetation
Saltmarshes
Saltmarsh vegetation
Karst
Urbanisation
Anne Kitchener
(Coordinator
(Tas Vegetation
Monitoring &
Mapping
Program))
Notes
The CFEV assessment
used Version 0.1 of
TASVEG. Version 1.0
of TASVEG has since
been released.
6233 4501
Catchment disturbance
Riparian vegetation condition
SVs Threatened vegetation
communities
SVs Priority vegetation
communities
Threatened flora and
fauna species
distribution
RMC – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
SVs Threatened flora species
Y
SVs Threatened fauna species
SVs Priority flora species
SVs Priority fauna species
SVs Phylogenetically distinct
fauna species
Water Assessment
and Planning (WAP)
Stream Gauging
Data
56
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
(primarily)
Mean Annual Runoff
Y
Phil Bell
(Section Head
(Threatened
Species))
6233 2863
Most records will be
uploaded to the NVA.
Just need to check if
there are any others we
would use that don’t get
put on the NVA.
not updated, but
replaced by catchment
based models (contact:
S:Gurung)
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Input to which CFEV
assessment component/data
set?
Likely to
need
updating?
Wave/tidal energy
TAFI
Saltmarshes
Saltmarsh biophysical
classification
N
Willows data
TCT
Rivers
Willows
Y
Contact
Notes
NRM regions
Mike AskeyDoran (Principal
Weed
Management
Officer)
6233 6168
Water Information
Management System
(WIMS)
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
Regulation index
Waterbodies
Abstraction index
Y
Wetlands
Karst
Donald Hine
(Water
Resources
Systems
Administrator)
6233 8455
Bill Shackcloth
(Section Head
(Water and Dam
Administration))
6233 2613
Yield
DPIPWE
Rivers
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Karst
57
MAR
Y
Shivaraj Gurung
6233 3015
Currently available for
subcatchments (roughly
equiv to CFEV subcats,
but will be available as a
grid that can then be
snapped to rivers
sections.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Summary of potential new or improved data sources available since the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) assessment (2005)
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Notes
Acid Sulphate Soil
mapping
NRM South
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Reconnaissance
mapping by Mineral
Resources Tasmania
2001 and DPIW 2008
(draft) (Declan
McDonald).
Algae
Water and Marine
Resources Division
(WMRD) – DPIPWE
No consistent statewide
dataset on either benthic or
planktonic algae in any
ecosystem type. Distributions
or measures could not be
mapped or reliably modelled.
N
Not statewide coverage.
N
?
Rivers
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Estuaries
Astacopsis gouldi
distribution
58
Inland Fisheries
Service (IFS)
Rivers
Waterbodies
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Notes
Atlas of Tasmanian
Wetlands for
Potential Inclusion
into the Directory of
Important Wetlands
in Australia
NRM South
Wetlands
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
The aim of this project
was to identify and rank
wetlands appropriate for
inclusion into DIWA for
Tasmania. Wetlands
were assessed on
information and criteria
from a number of
sources, including the:
Directory of
Important
Wetlands in
Australia
(DIWA);
Assessing the
condition and
status of
Tasmania’s
Wetlands and
riparian
vegetation
(Dunn 2002)
and
Conservation of
Freshwater Ecosystem
Values (CFEV)
database, v1.0 (2005).
59
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Bird distribution
Birds Australia
Waterbodies
Distribution data analysed and
mapped. Preliminary
classifications of regional
assemblages conducted, but
deemed unreliable.
Distributions could not be
reliably modelled.
N
Data not publicly available
N
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Wetlands
Saltmarshes
Estuaries
Catchment clearance
Forestry Tasmania
Rivers
Contact
Waterbodies
Private forest
companies
Estuaries
Wetlands
Karst
CFEV Groundtruthing Project
(Australian
Government Water
Fund (AGWF))
WMRD – DPIPWE
Wetlands
Freshwater Systems
60
Rivers
John
Gooderham
(Program
Manager
(CFEV))
6233 6713
Peter Davies
(Director)
6226 7856
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
CFEV Validation
Project (NRM)
NRM South
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Wetlands
Saltmarshes
Deflation Basin
Project
61
Hydro Tasmania
Consulting
Karst
NRM South
Wetlands
Waterbodies
Notes
Abigail Foley
(Senior
Environmental
Scientist)
6230 4583
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Soil, vegetation and GIS
data for 89 deflation
basins in the midlands
and the north, east and
south coasts of
Tasmania. Soil and
vegetation analysis,
together with GIS data
about the location,
shape and water
balance was used to
characterise the basins
into several groups and
assess levels of
disturbance.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Diatoms
Deakin University
Professor Peter Tyler
Waterbodies
High quality data restricted to
waterbodies. Insufficient
coverage to characterise all
waterbodies and rivers across
state.
N
Not based on systematic
assessment for all values or
wetland types. Only includes a
selection of (high value)
wetlands.
N
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Rivers
DPIPWE
Contact
Notes
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
This project developed
Ecological Character
descriptions (including
climatic, hydrogeomorphological,
vegetation and fauna
assessments) for
Interlaken Lakeside
Reserve and East Coast
Cape Barren Island
Lagoons and Moulting
Lagoon.
Freshwater Systems
Directory of
Important Wetlands
in Australia (DIWA)
inventory
Resource
Management and
Conservation (RMC)
Division – DPIPWE
Rivers
Waterbodies
Wetlands
Saltmarshes
Estuaries
Ecological Character
Descriptions (ECD)
for three Ramsar
Wetland sites in
Tasmania
62
NRM South
Wetlands
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Ecological Character
Descriptions (ECD)
for the Lower
Ringarooma River
Floodplain Ramsar
Wetland
NRM North
Wetlands
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
?
Environmental flows
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
No consistent statewide
coverage of environmental
flow provisions or
implementation.
Y
Scott Hardie
(Senior Aquatic
Ecologist
(Environment))
6233 6713
Environmental
Monitoring of Marine
farms
WMRD – DPIPWE
Estuaries
Data not consistent across
estuaries statewide.
N
Estuarine health
Tasmanian
Aquaculture and
Fisheries Institute
(TAFI)
Estuaries
Not a statewide coverage.
Only conducted on 22
estuaries.
Y?
Estuary catchment
boundaries
Hydro Tasmania
Estuaries
CFEV generated own
catchment boundaries using
1:25 000 drainage network to
be consistent with rivers
mapping.
N
63
Y - check with
TAFI and ask
about any
estuary projects
that have been
happening in
recent years.
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Floodplain vegetation
communities/species
DPIPWE
Rivers
No statewide coverage.
N
Frog Disease –
Chytrid Fungus
RMC – DPIPWE
Wetlands
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Frog distribution
World Wildlife Fund
(WWF)
Waterbodies
Waterbody classification:
N
Wetlands
Regional frog assemblages
developed by experts and
mapped.
Wetlands
Tasmanian
Conservation Trust
(TCT)
Wildlife
Enquiries
6233 6556
Wetland classification:
Regional frog assemblages
developed by experts and
mapped.
RMC – DPIPWE
Geomorphic river
characterisation
RMC – DPIPWE
Rivers
No statewide coverage.
Y
Geomorphic river
condition
RMC – DPIPWE
Rivers
No statewide data available.
N
64
Contact
Y (Check with
Ian Household
about additional
River Styles
assessments
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Groundwater Flow
Systems and salinity
hazard mapping
NRM South
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Groundwater
modelling (AGWF)
WMRD – DPIPWE
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Miladin Latinovic
(Senior
Groundwater
Management
Officer)
6233 2542
Bryce Graham
(Section Head
(Ecohydrology))
6233 5308
Wetlands
?
Rivers
Wetlands
GDEs
Hydrological
modelling (AGWF)
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Hydrological
regionalisation
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
No statewide coverage of
gauging stations.
N
Interim
Biogeographic
Regionalisation of
Australia (IBRA)
Information and Land
Services (ILS) –
DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Bioregionalisation based on
terrestrial biotic information.
Deemed not directly relevant –
confirmed by crosscomparison.
N
Index of Stream
Condition (ISC)
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
No a statewide coverage.
N
65
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Lake Sorell and
Crescent
Rehabilitation Project
IFS
Waterbodies
Limited to only these
lakes/wetlands. Could be used
as a reference on a case by
case basis as required.
N
LIST Floodplain form
and character
ILS – DPIPWE
No consistent statewide
coverage or consistent
hydrological basis.
N
Marine Farms
TAFI
Estuaries
No uniform data on the
impacts of marine farms on
estuary condition.
N
Monitoring River
Health Initiative
(MRHI) macrophytes
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
Data limited to visual % cover
estimates.
N
Wetlands
Rivers
Wetlands
Waterbodies
Contact
Wetlands
Estuaries
Priority Freshwater
Dependent
Ecosystems (NRM)
NRM South
Wetlands
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Ramsar wetlands
RMC – DPIPWE
Waterbodies
Not based on systematic
assessment for all values or
wetland types. Only includes a
selection of (high value)
wetlands.
N
Wetlands
Estuaries
66
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Riparian vegetation
clearance
DPIPWE
Rivers
No consistent data available.
N
Riparian vegetation
communities/species
School of Geography
and Environment –
UTas (Dr Elizabeth
Daley
Rivers
Not a statewide coverage. Not
publicly available.
N
Not a statewide coverage. Not
publicly available.
N
Waterbodies
Contact
Estuaries
Wetlands
Riparian vegetation
abundance
School of Geography
and Environment –
UTas (Dr Elizabeth
Daley)
Rivers
Saltmarsh fauna
School of Zoology –
UTas
Saltmarshes
Not enough statewide
coverage. Data only collected
from 52 saltmarshes around
the state whereas CFEV
included 335 saltmarshes.
N
Saltmarsh vegetation
communities
School of Geography
and Environment –
UTas
Saltmarshes
Not enough statewide
coverage.
N
Seagrass
TAFI
Estuaries
No statewide coverage at the
time of assessment.
Y
SEAMAP Tasmania
TAFI
Estuaries
Patchy coverage – not
statewide.
?
67
Waterbodies
Wetlands
?
Notes
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Tasmania
Sustainable Yields
Project
CSIRO
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
?
Wetlands
WMRD – DPIPWE
Bryce Graham
(Section Head
Ecohydrology))
6233 5308
Tasmanian
Catchment Mapping
Parks and Wildlife
Service – DPIPWE
All
ecosystem
themes
Maps boundaries of
catchments of all rivers and
grouped into regions. Regions
are based on local government
boundaries so the data layer is
essentially devised for
management planning
N
Tasmanian
Environmental Flows
(TEflows) Project
NRM South
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Wetlands
Estuaries
WMRD – DPIPWE
68
Notes
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
Scott Hardie
(Senior Aquatic
Ecologist
(Environment))
6233 6713
The project primarily
investigated the
influence of flow change
on the physical and
biological structure of
freshwater dependent
ecosystems, including
wetlands and estuaries.
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Notes
Tasmanian River
Condition Index
(TRCI) Project
NRM South
Rivers
NA – Has only been
undertaken since the CFEV
assessment was conducted.
New data
Kaylene Allen
(Water Coordinator)
6221 6116
The project primarily
developed a
methodology, however
some data was
reviewed and collected
(as part of field testing)
which may be of use for
input to the CFEV
assessment This data
set is statewide in scope
and maps river condition
based on river
morphology, hydrology,
riparian vegetation and
aquatic habitat
indicators.
Water quality
WMRD – DPIPWE
Rivers
No consistent data sets for
statewide mapping or
modelling.
N
N
Waterway health
Hydro Tasmania
Rivers
Only Hydro storages and
rivers. Not statewide
coverage.
N
N
Wetlands audit
RMC – DPIPWE
Wetlands
Not based on systematic
assessment for all values or
wetland types. Only includes a
selection of (high value)
wetlands.
N
N
69
Updating requirements for the CFEV database
Data
Custodian
Ecosystem
theme
Justification for exclusion in
original CFEV assessment
(version 1.0)
Likely to
have been
improved?
Contact
Wetlands of
Tasmania
RMC – DPIPWE
Wetlands
Not based on systematic
assessment for all values or
wetland types. Only includes a
selection of (high value)
wetlands.
N
N
Wild Rivers data
RMC – DPIPWE
Rivers
Used different criteria and
developed only for identifying
‘wild’ rivers. Not consistent
with requirements for the
CFEV naturalness scoring and
data out of date. Not mapped
at 1: 25 000 scale and only
included high condition rivers.
N
N
Zooplankton
IFS
Waterbodies
No consistent statewide data
available.
N
N
School of Zoology –
UTas
70
Notes
Contact details
Water and Marine Resources
Division
Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and
Environment
GPO Box 44
Hobart Tas 7001
Telephone: (03) 6233 6328
Facsimile: (03) 6233 8749
Email: cfev@dpipwe.tas.gov.au