Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways Part B Ecological Value Guideline

Developer:	National Rivers Consortium
Method Type:	Framework
Application:	Australia
Scale:	Aggregation, Regional, Sub-regional
Purpose Types:	Value
Water Types:	Estuarine, Freshwater, Marine
Keywords:	river, significance

Description

Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways consists of a conceptual framework (Part A) and guidelines on ecological values (Part B), ecological sustainability (Part C), planning (Part D) and evaluation (Part E). The guidelines aim to support a systemic and adaptable approach to protecting waterways and floodplains. Part B Ecological Value Guideline outlines a flexible, generic method for assessing ecological values of waterways, for a range of scales and purposes. Based on surveys of recent assessment methods, the method suggests criteria, indicators and measures to use and which of these are critical. Indicators and measures are dependent upon the scale and purpose of the assessment. A waterway classification system and reference sites are used for the naturalness, rarity and representatives criteria. Ratings may be weighted according to the importance of each criterion. It is left to the user to design the assessment system, (including the output), based upon available data, scale and purpose.The examples provided with the guideline demonstrate the method's adaptability, ranging from simple to complex.

Purpose Summary

To provide a systematic, comprehensive and flexible method to assess the ecological values of waterways.

Purposes

Value
- Ecological values

Outputs

Outputs can vary to meet project requirements and range from simple or complex and can be produced in a variety of forms:

A single index for the overall value of a waterway for broadscale planning or high level briefings.
Ratings for each ecological value criteria for individual reaches for sub-catchment planning or development assessment. Results can be presented within a GIS, as a table or graphically.

Uses

Prioritisation of waterway protection actions
Proposal evaluations.

The scale can vary from to catchment level to individual reaches.

Strengths

Flexibility, the method can be adapted to whatever data is available.
Indicators can be selected on the basis of their appropriateness to the evaluation purpose.

Limitations

The assessment includes some subjective elements.
Comprehensive data may be missing.
Pristine sites to use as reference sites for 'natural condition' may not exist in some catchments.
Aggregation of scores into one rating may be misleading by discounting a single highly scoring criterion.
The method doesn't include economic or social values.

Criteria Basis

The method assesses environmental values using as criteria:

Naturalness
Representativeness
Diversity
Rarity
Special features.

These criteria were selected after a review of other methods by Dunn (2000).

Resources Required

Required resources depend upon the complexity of the numerical system used and how it is to be presented. A simple system may only require an Excel spreadsheet, limited data and an expert. More complex systems may require a GIS for analysis and presentation of results, extensive data and a panel of experts and stakeholders. The method can be done in a workshop.

Time Required

Medium term

The time required to complete an assessment depends upon the data available, complexity of the numerical system used and the type of consultation. It could take a week to a year.

Data Required

The method can be adapted to whatever data is available. The data required is dependent upon the scale. Indicators identified as critical include: flow modification, floral community composition and structure, absence of exotic flora/fauna, faunal community composition, channel features modification, in-stream flora or riparian communities, fish communities or assemblages, invertebrate, fish or other vertebrate habitats, river features, hydrological diversity and geomorphic features and processes.

Recommended Users

Potential users of the method include government planners and managers, developers, consultants and the community.

Criteria / Indicators

ecological importance:
- diversity
  - hydrological diversity within catchment
  - genetic
  - species
  - community
  - regional/landscape
  - rocktypes, substrate size classes
  - in-stream habitats
  - channel type/floodplain
  - regional/landscape
- naturalness
  - catchment disturbance
  - connectedness of waterway elements
  - flow modification
  - water chemistry
  - floral community composition and structure
  - absence of exotic flora/fauna
  - faunal community composition
  - natural ecological processes
  - channel features composition
- rarity
  - hydrological regimes
  - natural water chemistry
  - flora/fauna species
  - invertebrate, fish or other vertebrate habitats
  - communities/ecosystems
  - ecologicalprocesses
  - geomorphic features and processes
- representativeness
  - hydrological processes
  - water quality characteristics
  - aquatic macroinvertebrate communities
  - instream flora or riparian communities
  - fish communities or assemblages
  - ecological processes
  - river system or section
- special features
  - maintenance of offshore habitat/communities
  - maintenance of karst systems
  - maintenance of groundwater dependent systems
  - migratory species habitat
  - dispersal of terrestrial species
  - drought refuge
  - habitat for important indicator or keystone taxa
  - habitat for flagship taxa
  - refuge for native species and communities

Case Studies

The Hunter case study

Reference: Healthy Rivers Commission. (2003). A decision support process for rapid assessment of catchment goals and priorities. Occasional paper OCP 1009.Healthy Rivers Commission, Sydney.

Link: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/programservices/pdf/ocp9.pdf

References

Bennett, J., Sanders, N., Moulton, D., Phillips, N., Lukacs, G., Walker, K. & Redfern, F. (2002). Guidelines for protection of Australian waterways. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
Dunn H. (2000), Identifying and protecting rivers of high ecological value, LWRRDC Occasional Paper No. 01/00.