Vegetation and Elevation surveys were conducted at four sites in the Gulf of Carpenteria to provided crucial validation of observations made from aerial surveys and provided further significant insights of the impacts and subsequent changes that occurred across the Gulf coastline up to late 2019. Field studies primarily focused on shoreline fringing stands dominated by the Grey Mangrove Avicennia marina var. eucalyptifolia. A total of eight transects, perpendicular to the shoreline were established at four shoreline sites across the Gulf of Carpentaria. These included matched pairs for each of two severity levels of 90%–100% and 60%–80% dieback of mangrove fringes. A series of profile transects were established and measured from the landward edge to the sea edge of mangroves. Transects were run from a highwater point at the head, directly towards the sea edge. This method captured common reference elevation levels for all sites while maximising coverage of the entire elevation range of the tidal wetland (mangroves plus tidal saltpan and saltmarsh vegetation), from approximately highest astronomical tide levels (~HAT) at the head, to approximately mean sea level (~MSL) at the seaward edge of living mangrove trees. On ground surveys consisted of two components: a) elevation measures from HAT (highest astronomical height – defined by the highwater mark) to MSL (mean sea level – defined by the seaward mangrove edge); and b) vegetation species, structure and density for mangrove and saltmarsh species present along with observations of condition and being likely 2015 dieback. The latter condition was determined from vegetative degradation states of mangrove trees, and as seen in satellite imagery mapping. Methods: Locations: The field studies started with the two locations in Queensland during 4–10 August 2018 and then moved onto those in the Northern Territory during 11–17 October 2018. A total of eight transects, perpendicular to the shoreline were established at the four shoreline sites across the Gulf of Carpentaria. Limmen – Roper region (NT) - 1A with 90% - 100 % dieback - 1B with 60% - 80% dieback Mule - Roper region (NT) - 2B with 90% - 100 % dieback - 2A with 60% - 80% dieback Karumba - SE Gulf (QLD) - 4A with 90% - 100 % dieback - 4B with 60% - 80% dieback Mitchell north - W Cape (QLD) - 5A with 90% - 100 % dieback - 5D with 60% - 80% dieback Transect Set Up Summary: Each transect was based or anchored at the observed nominal Highest Astronomical Tide (~HAT) level of the highwater benchmark at each transect ‘head’, via the beach wash zones indicative of the highest reach of tidal waters. A second reference position at the sea edge of mangroves was taken as a proxy relative to mean sea level (~MSL). The location of the head position was chosen so that a straight line transect could be taken to the fringing mangrove stand, and to the sea edge at the proxy position of mean sea level (~MSL). Three additional ‘internal’ ecotone position markers between ~HAT and ~MSL of the tidal wetland zone were recorded for each transect, including the landward fringing mangrove to the saltpan–saltmarsh position (M1-lower); the lower elevation limit of saltpan–saltmarsh bordering the upper dieback mangrove edge (M2-upper); and the lower elevation limit of mangrove dieback (M2-dead/live). Further details about the transect set up can be found in the final report volume 2 (Duke et al, 2020). Surveys: Long plots were used to describe and quantify mangrove and saltmarsh vegetation along each transect. The long plot method allowed the plot width to be adjusted during the survey depending on stem density of particular sections along the transect - where there were closely spaced trees, plots were narrower (<2 m wide) than where trees were larger and further apart (>2 m wide). Elevation levels were recorded at 20–30 m intervals or more frequently where there were otable changes in topography or there were notable changes in vegetation type and condition. Levels were made using a Topcon construction surveyors rotating laser and staff. Where it was necessary to relocate the laser instrument, additional reference points were taken for each transition point providing offset measures to link each series of measurements. Elevation levels were recorded all the way from the head marker to the sea edge amongst or just beyond the last trees. Vegetation was scored for species, stem diameter, height, condition as well as distance along the transect and distance left or right of the measuring tape. Trees were scored in 30 m sections within a fixed distance from the measuring tape depending on stand density. The width was mostly set at two metres, but on occasion, this was reduced to one metre or up to four metres wide as necessary. Along each transect, at each 30-metre interval or at ecotone points, photographs were taken at four square directions to the transect line – towards the sea, 90 degrees to the right, back towards the ‘head’ and 90 degrees to the left. At these same points, canopy photos were taken using a camera with a fisheye lens. The survey data contains wood sampling and tree coring investigations which could not be completed during the project's reporting time frame. Future project work will include high-level analytical work required, including elemental scans and carbon dating. Evidence of tree cores collected during the field surveys can be found within each vegetation survey sheet and the tree cores tab of the workbooks. Limitations of the data: While terrestrial forestry practice recommended that stem diameter be measured at 1.3 m above the ground – as diameter measured at breast height (DBH) – this was found to be impractical in these and other mangrove forests. The difficulties encountered included the common occurrence of multiple stems, short height mature trees and shrubs (<1.3 m), multiple forms of plant types (shrubs and trees), low branching (<1.3 m), and high placed roots and buttresses (>1.3 m). A more appropriate standard was applied in these studies of measuring stem diameters above highest prop roots and buttresses and below lowest branching Special consideration was taken in measuring stem diameters because slight differences in these measures could create considerable differences and errors in calculations of biomass and carbon content when using allometric equations. Format of the data: The data are complied in two excel workbooks detailing the QLD and NT surveys. The workbooks contain three tabs for each survey type (Vegetation transect data, transect elevation profile and undercanopy surveys). Both workbooks contain a Totals/Summary tab with statistics from each site, as well as a tree cores tab detailing the core samples. Data dictionary: see data package For the map layer: LOCATION: Name of the site HEAD_LAT: Latitude of the transect head point in decimal degrees HEAD_LONG: Longitude of the transect head point in decimal degrees SEAWARD_LA: Latitude of the transect head or seaward point in decimal degrees SEAWARD_LO: Longitude of the transect head or seaward point in decimal degrees IMPACT_SEV: Whether the site is a high dieback or moderate dieback site LENGTH : Length of the transect in meters ELEVATION: Elevation range in meters (m) CANOPY_DOM: Dominate species of tree for the transect P__DEAD_CA : Percent of dead trees in the canopy survey. Recorded in the % Damage (tree loss) cell at the top of each vegetation survey tab. The total live and dead trees are calculated, then summed to show the total survey trees. The equation of total dead trees/total trees*100 is used to them present the % damage (tree loss) figure. TOTAL_CANO: Shows the total number of live and dead trees in the transect MAX_CANOPY: Records the tallest tree surveyed in the transect (uses MAX formula in each Vegetation TREEs datasheet) UC_DOM__SP: Records the dominate undercanopy speecies, found on each site Undercanopy tab - columns Live & dead: AM Sap / AM Seedl, AA shrub/ AA seedl, Other Sap Species, Other Seedl species P__DEAD_UC : Percent of dead growth in the undercanopy. From the undercanopy tab of each transect fite, the total counts of live and dead Sap / Seedl are calculated for each species, then totalled in UC Live, UC Dead. The % Dead UC then uses equation of total dead UC/Total UC*100 to present the % UC Dead figure. TOTAL_UC: Records the total UC figure (total counts of live and dead Sap / Seedl are calculated for each species) MEAN_UC_HG: Mean height of the undercanopy in meters (m) TREE_CORES: Number of tree cores for the transect MEAN_STEM: The mean steam diameter (cm) for the transect References: Duke N.C., Mackenzie J., Hutley L., Staben, G., & Bourke A. 2020. Assessing the Gulf of Carpentaria mangrove dieback 2017–2019. Volume 2: Field studies. James Cook University, Townsville, 150 pp. eAtlas Processing: The original data were provided as two excel workbooks. No modifications/ minor modifications to the original data were performed. This metadata was created using the above referenced report. The map layer is derived of summary data extracted from the workbooks. Included in the data download package is our best estimate of the descriptions for the data attributes as a draft data dictionary which will be updated when further information is made available by the project team. Location of the data: This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\custodian\2018-2021-NESP-TWQ-4\4.13_Assessing-gulf-mangrove-dieback

The major estuaries and their tidal wetlands of the Gulf of Carpentaria were impacted by mass dieback of mangroves in 2015-2016. To assess the full extent of the dieback and the major changes in the wetland areas, surveys in 2017 and 2019 were conducted along 31–37 major estuary mouths. Methods: The estuary surveys were conducted during aerial surveys using the same methods generally (see associated metadata record for more details: Gulf of Carpentaria Mangrove Aerial Shoreline Surveys 2017 & 2019 (NESP TWQ 4.13, JCU)). Shoreline edges were filmed and observations scored within a few kilometres of each estuary mouth. The observations recorded included a standard set of 10-20 features related to natural and human associated pressures like storm impacts, shoreline erosion, 2015 dieback of mangroves, fire damage, feral pig damage plus roads and buildings. Observations were summarised for each factor based on extent and severity scores to provide respective rankings of influence. These observations were further linked to respective likely drivers like sea level rise, storm winds, rough seas, plus the human associated ones of fire, pigs and weeds. The surveys collected observational data to classify the state, condition and health of the shoreline using criteria: 1. Driver type: list the drivers of change observed 2. Indicator: the indicator observed 3. Habitat: listing of the tidal wetland habitats affected 4. Extent: estimate the proportion of the tidal wetland affected 5. Severity: estimate severity of impact – time to natural recovery and effect on ecosystem function/structure 6. Time frame: when did the impact occur 7. Observations: notes and other comments These strategies were used to evaluate habitat condition associated with particular drivers, as well as providing an evaluation of local and national management priorities. The follow criteria were used to score the extent, severity and time frame (where applicable) for the criteria: Variable: Extent of impact on the tidal wetlands – The extent of tidal wetlands impacted determined by the proportional area showing impact. Impact extent assessment scoring criteria: 1. 1 – 10% 2. 10 – 30% - around 25% 3. 30 – 60% - around 50% 4. 60 – 90 % - around 75% 5. >90% Assessment metric: Extent score – extent of impact in the tidal wetlands Variable: Severity of impact on tidal wetland area – the severity of tidal wetlands impacted as determined by the degradation state observed. Impact severity assessment scoring criteria: 1. None – present but no observable effect 2. Minor – recovery within less than one year 3. Moderate – recovery over 1 – 2 years 4. Major – recovery over 2 – 10 years 5. Severe – recovery unlikely – collapse/replace Assessment metric: Severity score – severity of impact in the tidal wetlands Variable: Time frame of the impact on tidal wetland area – The timing of the impact on tidal wetlands as determined by the recovery potential observed. Impact time frame Assessment scoring criteria: 1. No observable effect, but potentially so 2. Current – now 3. Recent – less than 2 years ago 4. 4. Old – 2- 10 years ago 5. Very old - >10 years Assessment metric: Time frame score – time of occurrence of impact affecting tidal wetland area. Limitations of the data: Format of the data: This data consists of the survey assessment sheets from each estuary (xlsx) plus summary spreadsheets for each survey year. Each survey assessment sheet presents the original scores for Extent and Severity for each of the variables, as well as the calculations for respective rankings of influence. Note - The rankings of influence was used for the basis of the map visualisation by eAtlas, presenting the combined summary for each survey year as a shapefile. Data dictionary: 2019 Gulf of Carpentaria Tidal Wetland Threat Assessment Sheets: The extent, severity, time frame, restoration potential and other observations were collected for each of the following variables: Human Related Variable Driver Type: Indicator / Habitat Structure Loss: rock walls, wharf, ramps, roads / any zone Direct Loss: clearing, dead trees, landfill / any zone Altered Hydrology: bunds, drains, impoundments / higher zones mostly Encroachment: no buffer, cut-off flows / upper edge zone Access Tracks: wheel tracks, foot paths / Salt pans + high tide margin Stock Impacts: cattle, horses, goats – tracks / Salt pans + high tide margin Feral Damage: pigs, wallows, digging and tracks / Salt pan mangrove + freshwater wetlands Pollutant impact: oil spill, scum, dump, dieback / any zone Nutrient Excess: enhanced growth, expansion / any zone Fire Scorch: burnt vegetation - grass, dieback, blackened / upper margin - fringing zone Weed Smother: smothering weeds present / Beach ridge veg - mangrove upper edges Climate-natural Variable Driver Type: Indicator / Habitat Storm Damage: broken stems, damaged canopies, dead trees / mangrove closed canopies Shoreline erosion: fallen trees, steep bank, dieback / seaward + main channel edge stands of mangroves Root Burial: dead trees, burying sediments /shoreline and sea edge mangroves Inner Fringe Collapse: patchy dieback, canopy gaps / waters edge canopies Bank Erosion: channel edges eroded, fallen trees, steep / lower estuary banks Pan Scouring: upper pan, eroded edges, sheet erosion / upper salt pans Ecotone Shift -ve: dead trees pan edges / saltpan – mangrove Ecotone Shift +ve: new growth – seedlings, saplings / saltpan – mangrove Depositional gain: new growth – seedlings, saplings / waters edge margins Terretrial Retreat: dead terrestrial edge trees, eroded edge /terrestrial fringe Light gaps: dead trees, circular patch / mangrove closed canopies Altered hydrology: impounded, ponded water, dead trees /shoreline and sea edge mangroves 2015 Dieback: dead trees on back front edge / rear of mangrove front 2017 Gulf of Carpentaria Tidal Wetland Threat Assessment Sheets: Driver Type: Indicator / Habitat Pigs: wallows, pigs and tracks / inner mangrove + freshwater wetlands Fire: burnt vegetation – grass / Terrestrial margin - fringing mangroves Vehicle tracks: wheel tracks / Salt pans + high tide edge Cattle: cattle and tracks / Salt pans + high tide edge Weeds: weed species present / Beach ridge veg. / to mangrove upper edges 2015 Dieback: dead trees on pan edges / mangrove closed canopies Ecotone Shift: dead trees on pan edges / AM + Ceriops closed canopies Terretrial Retreat: dead terrestrial edge trees / Terrestrial fringe Saltpan scouring: eroded edges – escarpments / upper saltpans Light gaps: dead trees in a small circular patch / mangrove closed canopies Storm Damage: damaged canopies, dead trees / Mangrove closed canopies Depositional gain: new growth - seedlings. Saplings / waters edge margins Shoreline erosion: inner fringe collapse / seaward + main channel edge stands of mangroves Bank Erosion: channel edges eroded / lower estuary banks Altered hydrology: impounded, ponded water, dead trees / shoreline and sea edge mangroves Root Burial: dead trees and mobile sediments / shoreline and sea edge mangroves Note in some cases similar terminology was used for the same attribute for the different survey years, i.e. Access Tracks = Vehicle tracks, Stock impacts = cattle, Feral Damage = pigs. Data Dictionary - Shapefile Attributes Shapefile Attributes / Data Attribute: Description CATCHMENT/CATCHMENT: Catchment name. Estuaries are grouped in catchment areas described in the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Project [CSIRO (2009) Water in the Gulf of Carpentaria Drainage Division. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia. xl + 479pp] SITE_NO/SITE_NO Number allocated to the site NAME/LOCATION_NAME: Location name REPEAT SURVEY/REPEAT SURVEY: whether the survey was repeated in 2019 (Y) or not (N) LATITUDE/LATITUDE: Latitude of the survey location. Coordinates mark the location of each estuary mouth. LONGITUDE/LONGITUDE: Longitude of the survey location. Coordinates mark the location of each estuary mouth. MANGROVE_S/MANGROVE_SPP_NO: Number of observed mangrove species for the location. S19-HUMAN/HUMAN_ISSUES: Total score of all Human threat issues for the 2019 survey assessment. Indicates the combined entent and severity scores across all the human issues and gives an idea of which areas are most impacted for this category. S19-CLIMATE/CLIMATE _ISSUES: Total score of all Climate threat issues for the 2019 survey assessment. Indicates the combined entent and severity scores across all the human issues and gives an idea of which areas are most impacted for this category. S19_S_LOSS/2019_STRUCTURE_LOSS Rock walls, wharf, ramps, roads found on any habitat zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_D_LOSS/2019_DIRECT_LOSS: Clearing, dead trees, landfill found on any habitat zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_ALT_HY/2019_ALTERED_HYDROLOGY: Bunds, drains, impoundments on the higher zones mostly. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_ENCROA/2019_ENCROACHMENT: No buffer, cut-off flows on the upper edge habitat zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_TRACKS/2019_ACCESS_TRACKS: Wheel tracks and/or foot paths on the Salt pans & high tide margin. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_STOCK/2019_STOCK_IMPACTS: Cattle, horse or goats tracks on the Salt pans & high tide margin. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_FERAL/2019_FERAL_DAMAGE: Pigs, wallows, digging and tracks on the Salt pan mangrove & freshwater wetlands. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_POLLUT/2019_POLLUTANT_IMPACT: Oil spill, scum, dump, dieback found in any habitat zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_NUTRI/2019_NUTRIENT_EXCESS: Enhanced growth, expansion in any habitat zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_FIRE/2019_FIRE_SCORCH: Burnt vegetation (grass, dieback, blackened / upper margin) on the fringing zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_WEED/2019_WEED_SMOTHER: Smothering weeds present on the beach ridge vegetation - mangrove upper edges. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_STORM/2019_STORM_DAMAGE: Broken stems, damaged canopies or dead trees in the mangrove closed canopies. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_S_EROS/2019_SHORELINE_EROSION: Fallen trees, steep bank, dieback at seaward and main channel edge stands of mangroves. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_ROOT_B/2019_ROOT_BURIAL: Dead trees and burying sediments on the shoreline and sea edge mangroves. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_FRINGE/2019_INNER_FRINGE_COLLAPSE: Patchy dieback, canopy gaps at thewaters edge canopies. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_B_EROS/2019_BANK_EROSION: Channel edges eroded, fallen trees, steep lower estuary banks. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_PAN_SC/2019_PAN_SCOURING: Upper pan, eroded edges and/or sheet erosion on the upper salt pans. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_NEG_ES/2019_NEG_ECOTONE_SHIFT: Dead trees pan edges on the saltpan – mangrove habitat. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_POS_ES/2019_POS_ECOTONE_SHIFT: New growth – seedlings or saplings on the saltpan – mangrove habitat. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_D_GAIN/2019_DESPOSITIONAL_GAIN: New growth – seedlings, saplings at the waters edge margins. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_TERRE/2019_TERRETRIAL_RETREAT: Dead terrestrial edge trees or eroded edge on the terrestrial fringe. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_L_GAPS/2019_LIGHT_GAPS: Dead trees or circular patch on mangrove closed canopies. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_ALT_HY/2019_ALTERED_HYDROLOGY: Bunds, drains, impoundments on the higher zones mostly. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S19_2015_D/2019_2015_DIEBACK: Dead trees on back front edge of the rear of mangrove front. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_TRACKS/2017_ACCESS_TRACKS: Wheel tracks and/or foot paths on the Salt pans & high tide margin. Extent and severity were assessed in the 2017 survey according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_STOCK/2017_STOCK_IMPACTS: Cattle, horse or goats tracks on the Salt pans & high tide margin. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_FERAL/2017_FERAL_DAMAGE: Pigs, wallows, digging and tracks on the Salt pan mangrove & freshwater wetlands. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_FIRE/2017_FIRE_SCORCH: Burnt vegetation (grass, dieback, blackened / upper margin) on the fringing zone. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_WEED/2017_WEED_SMOTHER: Smothering weeds present on the beach ridge vegetation and mangrove upper edges. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_STORM/2017_STORM_DAMAGE: Broken stems, damaged canopies or dead trees in the mangrove closed canopies. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_S_EROS/2017_SHORELINE_EROSION: Fallen trees, steep bank, dieback at seaward and main channel edge stands of mangroves. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_ROOT_B/2017_ROOT_BURIAL: Dead trees and burying sediments on the shoreline and sea edge mangroves. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_B_EROS/2017_BANK_EROSION: Channel edges eroded, fallen trees, steep on the lower estuary banks. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_PAN_SC/2017_PAN_SCOURING: Upper pan, eroded edges and/or sheet erosion on the upper salt pans. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_NEG_ES/2017_NEG_ECOTONE_SHIFT: Dead trees pan edges on the saltpan – mangrove habitat. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_POS_ES/2017_POS_ECOTONE_SHIFT: New growth – seedlings or saplings on the saltpan – mangrove habitat. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_D_GAIN/2017_DESPOSITIONAL_GAIN: New growth – seedlings, saplings at the waters edge margins. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_TERRE/2017_TERRETRIAL_RETREAT: Dead terrestrial edge trees or eroded edge on the terrestrial fringe. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_L_GAPS/2017_LIGHT_GAPS: Dead trees or circular patch on mangrove closed canopies. Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_ALT_HY/2017_ALTERED_HYDROLOGY: Impounded, ponded water or dead trees on the shoreline and sea edge mangroves - Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. S17_2015_D/2017_2015_DIEBACK: Dead trees on back front edge of the rear of mangrove front - Extent and severity were assessed according to fixed criteria, and the Extent*Severity summary score combined shows the respective rankings of influence. References: Duke N.C., Mackenzie J., Kovacs J., Staben G., Coles, R., Wood A., & Castle Y. (2020). Assessing the Gulf of Carpentaria mangrove dieback 2017–2019. Volume 1: Aerial surveys. James Cook University, Townsville, 226 pp. eAtlas Processing: The original data were provided as excel spreadsheets. No modifications to the underlying data were performed and the data package are provided as submitted. The mapping product was generated based on the workbook 'GULF_Threat_Summary #2.xlsx' particularly the '2017-2019' tab & '2019_Gulf Threats ALL' tab (Human_Issues & Climate_Issues data columns). These figures were copied to a new csv file and formatted to optimise visualisation on the map. Columns not recorded during the 2017 survey were removed from the dataset to reduce the scroll length when observing the table associated with each point. Descriptions presented here are derived from information from the final report by the eAtlas team. Location of the data: This dataset is filed in the eAtlas enduring data repository at: data\\custodian\4.13_Assessing-gulf-mangrove-dieback