TO LS AND TE HNIQUES c - Queensland Wetlands Information ... · National River Contaminants Program and National Rivers Consortium are now entering their final year of investment,

There is growing emphasis on regional managementfor rivers, with an expectation being placed oncatchment management authorities and other regionalgroups to take on the responsibility of planning andmanaging their natural resources for the long-term.The shift to a regional model poses several challengesfor organisations like Land & Water Australia, as theresearch we invest in, and the information we producemust be relevant, accessible and meet the particularneeds of regional groups.This edition of RipRaphighlights some tools and techniques that have recently been developed with these challenges in mind.

continued page 3

EDITION 26, 2004

RPR Pi aR I V E R A N D R I P A R I A N L A N D S M A N A G E M E N T N E W S L E T T E R

TO LS ANDTE HNIQUES

for rivermanagement

oc

This publication is managed by Land & Water Australia, GPO Box 2182, Canberra ACT 2601

Land & Water Australia’s missionis to provide national leadership in utilising R&D to improve thelong-term productive capacity,sustainable use, management and conservation of Australia’sland, water and vegetationresources. The Corporation willestablish directed, integrated andfocused programs where there isclear justification for additionalpublic funding to expand orenhance the contribution of R&D to sustainable management of natural resources.

Land & Water Australia’s Home Page is: www.lwa.gov.au

Edition 26, June 2004RipRap is published throughoutthe year. Contributions andcomments are welcomed andshould be addressed to the Editor.

Editor: Dr Siwan Lovett

Feedback and comments to:Dr Siwan LovettProgram CoordinatorRiparian Lands R&D ProgramLand & Water Australia GPO Box 2182Canberra ACT 2601Tel: 02 6263 6000 Fax: 02 6263 6099Email: [email protected]: www.rivers.gov.au

Designed by: Angel InkPrinted by: Goanna Print

ISSN 1324-6941Product code PN040728

2 THEME RESEARCH RAPT IN RIVERS IT’S A WRAP INFORMATION

Theme: Tools and techniques for river management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 and 3

Development and application of a method for the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition . . . . . 4

Trialling of the Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Catchment assessment techniques to help determine priorities in river restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Riparian restoration reduces in-stream thermal stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Understanding our River Landscapes — A new way of learning about our rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

An Australian Handbook of Stream Roughness Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Rapt in rivers: Rivers Arena update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

It’s a Wrap: News from around Australia’s States and Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

CON entst

From the EditorLand & Water Australia’s National Riparian Lands R&D Program,National River Contaminants Program and National Rivers Consortiumare now entering their final year of investment, and this edition of RipRapis starting the process of translating the research undertaken into practicaland useful tools and techniques for people working in river and riparianmanagement. This edition provides information about new RapidAppraisal of Riparian Condition tools; stream temperature guidelines; andhow to extend the use of tools such as SedNet so that they can assist catch-ment communities decide where to invest limited resources.We also featuresome new web-based products that enable you to explore how riversfunction, as well as how to predict stream roughness coefficients forAustralian river conditions. In developing these tools and techniques wehave tried to be innovative and keep the needs of the user foremost in ourminds.We hope you find this edition useful, and encourage you to contactus if you have any ideas about how we can further improve the communi-cation and distribution of our research.

RIP rian lands:WHERE LAND AND WATER MEET

a

Land & Water Australia has moved offices. The postal address is unchangedNew telephone is 02 6263 6000 and new facsimile is 02 6263 6099.*

For its natural resource management programs,the Australian Government recognises more than60 regional authorities as well as additional Stategovernment authorities operating at the catch-ment level. These organisations are charged withsetting and meeting ambitious targets of improvedriver health, as well as a host of other land andwater management objectives. The move to aregional level recognises that local action is notenough to solve larger scale problems. We nowknow that problems such as habitat degradation,flow modification and water quality, requirelarger-scale strategic investment, with explicitaccount of the catchment and regional benefits ofwork being done at the local river reach.

This shift in responsibility to the regionallevel provides communities with potentially moreresponsibility than they have ever had before in managing their natural resources. However,it also brings with it considerable challenges.Asking a community to come together (largelyvoluntarily) and develop a technically competentcatchment land and water management plan,with detailed analyses of problems and priorities,requires that the regions have good access toscientific data and its interpretation, and topeople skilled, willing and able to participate.However, in many parts of Australia this is not thecase. Different groups may have quite differentvisions for the catchment, the process of collatingdata and reaching agreement on priorities is oftenill-defined, and people with the requisite skillshard to find. Many regional groups are newlyformed, and are dealing with unfamiliar govern-ment programs and reduced State agency capac-ities. These groups have limited resources andcapacity to manage the large problems they face.It is also the case that even when research is avail-

able to assist decision making, it often requirespeople with considerable skill to apply it to partic-ular regional situations.

When thinking about these challenges, Land& Water Australia’s Rivers Arena committeditself to continuing to produce research in waysthat make it relevant and accessible to regionalgroups, but to also try and play a more active rolein supporting regional communities. Over thenext 12 months we will be taking our researchinto the community by providing training tointermediaries (e.g. local catchment manage-ment authorities) so that they can use the toolsand techniques being produced and pass thoseskills onto others in their region. Each of ourresearch projects is also tasked with making theirfindings accessible and relevant in a regionalcontext, and this edition of RipRap builds onearlier products such as the RehabilitatingAustralian Streams CD ROM and the RiparianManagement Technical Guidelines, that aim to put the techniques into the hands of those doingthe work. In this edition we cover the basicprinciples and key management strategiesrequired to optimise river restoration effortswhen considering stream temperature, streamroughness coefficients and riparian condition.We also highlight a new educational tool thatenables people to explore how river and riparianenvironments function, by choosing the topicsthat interest them and going at their own pace.We hope that you find this edition of RipRapuseful, and if you are interested in being involved in our regional workshops, or have ideasabout how we can better communicate withregional groups, please contact Penny Cook or Dianne Flett at Land & Water Australia on 02 6263 6000.

THEME RESEARCH RAPT IN RIVERS IT’S A WRAP INFORMATION 3

By Ian Prosser and Siwan Lovett

TO LS AND TE HNIQUESfor river management

o c

Photo below and front cover: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

DEV LOP ENTand application of a method for theRiparian habitats are where terrestrial andaquatic ecosystems meet.They are vital sites in acatchment, supporting high levels of biodiversityand being critical in controlling flows of energyand nutrients between terrestrial and aquaticecosystems. Being at the boundary of terrestrialand aquatic ecosystems means that riparian areasare powerful indicators of catchment quality.Human settlement has always been focused onrivers and is often a major determinant ofriparian structure and function. One of thebiggest impacts on riparian areas has been theintroduction of domestic stock, with grazingbeing the major land use over 60% of Australia’sland surface. Stock concentrate around watersources, which means riparian and wetlandhabitats, as well as those around artificialwatering points in pastoral regions, suffer greaterimpacts from domestic and feral grazing herdsthan dryland areas. These impacts have led toextensive loss of ecological condition in riparianareas in Australia.

Given the critical role of riparian areas withincatchments, and their extensive degradation inAustralia, there is a need for improved manage-ment of these areas. A baseline for improvedmanagement must be an understanding ofcurrent condition, and the factors which deter-mine this. Within this context a need was identi-fied for a rapid method of measuring ripariancondition, both to enable assessment of a largenumber of sites in a catchment and to investigaterelationships with current management practices.This project focused on developing a rapidmethod which could be used at a large number ofsites and was responsive to changes in grazingmanagement.

by Amy Jansen, Alistar Robertson, Leigh Thompson & Andrea Wilson

Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC)Assessment methods incorporating indicators of geophysical and biological properties andprocesses are likely to provide reliable estimatesof ecological condition in riverine ecosystems.Ladson et al. (1999) described an index ofstream condition based on 18 indicators thatmeasure alterations to the hydrology, physicalform, streamside vegetation, water quality andbiota of streams. This project used a similarapproach, and chose indicators to reflectfunctional aspects of the physical, communityand landscape features of the riparian zone,as defined by Naiman & Decamps (1997) (seeTable 1 opposite). Some of the indicators chosenreflect a variety of functions, e.g. differentaspects of vegetation cover can play a role inreducing bank erosion, providing organic matterand habitat for fauna, and providing connectionsin the landscape. The Rapid Appraisal ofRiparian Condition (RARC) index is made upof five sub-indices, each with a number ofindicator variables (see Table 2 overleaf). Eachsub-index is scored out of 10, with a totalpossible score of 50 representing best condition.Photos 1 and 2 show contrasting sites in excel-lent and very poor condition.

Applications of the RARC indexThe RARC was initially developed as a tool todetermine the impacts of grazing managementpractices on riparian condition, and to identifythose practices which resulted in minimalimpacts. We have now tested this approach inthree areas of south-eastern Australia: on theMurrumbidgee River between Gundagai andHay in NSW; in West and South Gippsland,Victoria; and in the Goulburn-Broken catchmentalso in Victoria. In all three regions, we examinedthe relationship between stocking rates andriparian condition, with Figure 1 (overleaf)showing our results. Clearly, riparian conditiondeclined with increased stocking rates, across allregions and a large range of stocking rates. Given


CONDITIONrefers to the degree to which human-altered ecosystems diverge from localsemi-natural ecosystems in their abilityto support a community of organismsand perform ecological functions.

me

Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition


Functions Components Indicators

Physical

Reduction of erosion of banks Roots, ground cover Vegetation cover*

Sediment trapping Roots, fallen logs, ground cover Canopy cover, fallen logs, ground cover vegetation, leaf litter cover

Controlling stream microclimate/ Riparian forest Canopy coverdischarge/water temperatures

Filtering of nutrients from upslope Vegetation, leaf litter Ground cover vegetation, leaf litter cover

Community

Provision of organic matter Vegetation Vegetation cover*, leaf litter coverto aquatic food chains

Retention of plant propagules Fallen logs, leaf litter Fallen logs, leaf litter cover

Maintenance of plant diversity Regeneration of dominant species, Native canopy and shrub regeneration, presence of important species, grazing damage to regeneration, reeds, dominance of natives vs exotics native vegetation cover*

Provision of habitat for aquatic Fallen logs, leaf litter, standing dead trees/ Fallen logs, leaf litter cover, standing dead trees, and terrestrial fauna hollows, riparian forest, habitat complexity vegetation cover*, number of vegetation layers

Landscape

Provision of biological connections Riparian forest (cover, width, Vegetation cover*, width of riparian vegetation, in the landscape connectedness) longitudinal continuity of riparian vegetation,

Provision of refuge in droughts Riparian forest Vegetation cover*

* Vegetation cover = canopy, understorey and ground cover

Photo 1: A site in excellent condition on the Edward River (RARC score = 50;note continuous canopy of native trees, standing dead trees and fallen logs,native shrub understorey, reeds and regeneration of canopy trees).

Photo 2: A site in very poor condition on the Murrumbidgee River (RARC score= 13.2; note discontinuous canopy, lack of shrubs, small amounts of leaf litter,lack of native ground cover and reeds, little regeneration of canopy trees).

Table 1: Functions of the riparian zone at different levels of organisation, the components of the riparian ecosystem which perform those functions, and the indicators of the function used in this study.

R R CAFor furtherinformationAmy JansenCharles Sturt UniversityTel: 02 6933 4092Email: [email protected]

Sub-index Indicators

HABITAT ~ Width of riparian vegetation(Habitat continuity and extent) ~ Longitudinal continuity of riparian vegetation

COVER ~ Canopy (greater than 5 metres tall)(Vegetation cover, ~ Understorey (1–5 metres tall)structural complexity) ~ Ground (less than 1 metre tall)

~ Number of layers

DEBRIS ~ Leaf litter(Standing dead trees, ~ Standing dead trees (greater than 20 centimetresfallen logs, leaf litter) diameter at breast height)

~ Fallen logs (greater than 10 centimetres diameter)

NATIVES ~ Canopy (greater than 5 metres tall)(Dominance of natives vs exotics) ~ Understorey (1–5 metres tall)

~ Ground (less than 1 metre tall)~ Leaf litter

FEATURES ~ Native canopy species regeneration(Indicative features) ~ Damage to regeneration

~ Native shrub/sub-canopy regeneration~ Reeds

the large number of sites in poor condition in all catchments, this suggests that stocking rates commonly used on private properties aretoo high to maintain riparian zones in goodcondition.

Why is the RARC a useful tool? What does riparian condition tell us about the biodiversity and functioning of riparian zones? The RARC has been tested against moredetailed measures of the biodiversity andfunctioning of riparian zones in the Murrum-bidgee and Gippsland regions. There was asignificant positive relationship between litterdecomposition rates in the soil and the COVERsub-index of the RARC score in both Summer(r = 0.50, p <0.05) and Autumn (r = 0.78,p <0.01), indicating that decomposition rateswere higher where there was more vegetationcover in the riparian zone of the MurrumbidgeeRiver.

There were highly significant relationshipsbetween bird communities and all sub-indices,as well as the total RARC score (r = 0.68,p <0.0001), indicating that riparian bird commu-nities varied according to the condition of theriparian zone of the Murrumbidgee River. Ofparticular significance (r = 0.74, p <0.0001) wasthe DEBRIS sub-index (scoring for leaf litter,fallen logs and standing dead trees), indicatingthat retention of leaf litter and woody debris in riparian habitats is crucial to the survival ofriparian bird communities. Many of the speciesmost dependent on these features (e.g. BrownTreecreepers) are threatened or decliningthroughout the agricultural regions of southernAustralia. In Gippsland, there was also a signifi-cant relationship (r = 0.59, p <0.0001) betweenbird communities and the total RARC score,indicating again that riparian bird communitiesvaried according to the condition of riparianzones in Gippsland.


Table 2: Sub-indices and indicators used in the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition.

r = correlation coefficient (indicates the strength of a relationship

p = significance (where p < 0.05indicates a significant relationship)

DSE/ha/annum

MurrumbidgeeGippslandGoulburn-Broken

Cond

ition s

core

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

20 40 60 80

Figure 1: Condition scores in relation to stocking rates (DSE/ha/annum) forthree regions: Murrumbidgee River, West and South Gippsland, and upper andmid-Goulburn-Broken catchment.

DEV LOP ENT and application of a method for the RARCe m

Given the importance of riparian zones insupporting high levels of regional biodiversity,and the links between riparian condition and bio-diversity demonstrated here, the RARC is a usefultool for assessing riparian condition and hencebiodiversity and functioning of riparian zones.

Inter-observer reliability testing of the RARCTen people participated in a RARC trainingworkshop in November 2003, including threealready trained in the method. As part of thetraining, 11 sites were each visited by three tofour observers. Each observer independentlyscored riparian condition at each site, so thatpairs of scores for each site could be comparedas shown in Figure 2. It can be seen that mostscores fell within two points of each other,and the maximum difference between the scoresof different observers at the same site was five points, or 10% of the total possible score.This suggests very good inter-observer relia-bility, with even minimal training (half a day).

Concluding commentThe RARC is a general tool for assessing riparian zone function and biodi-versity. It shows clear relationships with more detailed measures of biodi-versity and function in catchments where this has been tested. It is alsosimple to use, easily taught to new users, and shows good inter-observerreliability. It is now freely available as the fourth in our River and RiparianManagement Technical Guideline series, contact CanPrint Communicationson 1800 776 616 or download it from the website www.rivers.gov.au.

If you would like further information about the method, are are inter-ested in attending a training workshop, please contact:

ReferencesJansen, A. & Robertson, A.I. 2001a, Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of

riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 38, pp. 63–75.Jansen, A. & Robertson, A.I. 2001b, Riparian bird communities in relation to land management practices in floodplain

woodlands of south-eastern Australia, Biological Conservation, vol. 100, pp. 173–185.Ladson, A.R., White, L.J., Doolan, J.A., Finlayson, B.L., Hart, B.T., Lake, S. & Tilleard, J.W. 1999, Development and

testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia, Freshwater Biology, vol. 41,pp. 453–468.

Naiman, R.J. & Decamps, H. 1997, The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones, Annual Review of Ecology andSystematics, vol. 28, pp. 621–658.

Thompson, L., Robertson, A., Jansen, A. & Davies, P. 2003, Identifying Best Management Practices for Riparian Habitatsin Gippsland Dairy Regions: Riparian condition and relationships with farm management, Johnstone Centre Report no. 178, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University.


Observer 1

Equal

Within 2 points

Within 5 points

Obse

rver 2

00

10

20

30

40

10 20 30 40

Figure 2: Scores obtained for the RARC by pairs of observers at the same sites.

DEV LOP ENT and application of a method for the RARCe m

Background Riparian zones are vital elements of the savannalandscape. Their contribution to biodiversity,cultural values and the economy is dispropor-tionate to the small area they occupy. They areimportant for maintaining water quality, streamgeomorphology and the biodiversity of thestream and surrounding savanna. However,savanna riparian zones are highly vulnerable tothe effects of disturbances such as weed invasion,feral animals, fire and overgrazing. Threats toriparian health are compounded by the fact thatriparian zones are the focus for much activityrelated to the development of northern Australia(such as grazing, agriculture and tourism) andthe concentration of use in these habitats is likelyto increase in the future. Consequently, there isa growing need for practical techniques forassessing and monitoring the condition or healthof savanna riparian zones.

Techniques to determine the ecologicalintegrity of waterways and associated riparianzones have been developed to provide informa-tion that assists in land management, ecologicalrestoration and rehabilitation (Karr 1999). Manyof these techniques are framed around scoringsystems, in which it is assumed that the natural,fully integrated ‘healthy’ system will score highmarks and that less natural and less healthysystems receive correspondingly low scores. InAustralia, there has been the recent developmentof rapid appraisal techniques that enhance theaccumulation of data on the condition of theriparian zones in many localities, and with anemphasis being on ‘rapid’, i.e. for surveys to becompleted and results to be presented in a shortened time-frame. The advantage of rapidappraisals is that they can be completed by anindividual with limited scientific knowledge, andcan facilitate programs to provide immediateassistance to land management, restoration andrehabilitation. There can be both environmentaland economic advantages in implementing suchprograms.

Rapid appraisal of riparian conditionmethods have been developed for river systems insoutheast Australia and the moist areas of eastern

By John Dowe, Ian Dixonand Michael Douglas

Queensland. However, for river systems in theseasonally dry/monsoonal areas of tropicalAustralia, these methods have proved not to betotally suitable, and a more appropriate methodfor such areas has been developed by the TropicalSavannas Co-operative Research Centre (CharlesDarwin University,Australian Centre for TropicalFreshwater Research, Townsville, and CSIRO –Sustainable Ecosystems). This article introducesthe Tropical Rapid Appraisal of RiparianCondition (TRARC) method, and presents theresults of a testing of the method at 34 sites withinthe Burdekin River catchment. The TRARC isdesigned to complement the RARC described onpage 4 of this edition of RipRap.

Tropical river systemsAre there fundamental differences between riversystems in southern Australia and northernAustralia that should be considered in the studyof riparian zones? The rapid assessment ofriparian condition (RARC) method proposed by Jansen & Robertson (2001) was developed for the multi-use impact sites of rivers in south-east Australia, and has been used at sites on the Murrumbidgee, Murray, Goulburn andLaTrobe Rivers (Jansen et al. 2004). Jansen et al.(2004) concluded that their method “is a goodindicator of the biodiversity and functioning ofriparian zones”. Werren & Arthington (2002)proposed a method aimed at providing astandard riparian assessment of Queenslandstreams. This method was based on a strongtheoretical framework for the examination andscoring of perennially flowing streams in themoister areas of eastern Queensland (Werren2002). Neither the Jansen et al. (2004), nor the Werren & Arthington (2002) methods hasproven to be totally effective in dealing with therivers in the seasonally dry/monsoonal areas oftropical Australia, primarily because they did notaccount for some of the key characteristics thatdistinguish these systems from those elsewhere.Some of the factors that may distinguish riversystems in seasonally dry northern Australia


TRI LL NG of the Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition method

RT AR C

a i

from those in southern Australia and easternQueensland include:~ pronounced effects of seasonality on the

vegetation;~ predictable and regularly recurrent fire

events;~ unpredictable but recurrent high impact

flood events;~ greater diversity in biotic influences;~ lower diversity in land-use patterns, (gener-

ally dominated by cattle grazing); and ~ lower occurrence of exogenous impacts.Notwithstanding that there should be a differentapproach to riparian condition appraisals basedon the factors listed above, the basic indicatorsto be measured and used in condition appraisalsremain similar to those used in the establishedschemes (for example, see page 5 of this editionof RipRap).

Tropical Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (TRARC) The Tropical Rapid Appraisal of RiparianCondition (TRARC) is used to score a numberof readily observable attributes of the vegetationin the riparian zone, to provide an overall scorethat is intended to comparatively grade the‘ecological health’ of the site. Total scores arecalibrated at 0–100, with higher scores indicating‘healthier’ sites. Additional geomorphologic andtopographic features are also recorded.The basicscoring system is composed of the followingelements:~ riparian width and linear continuity;~ percent cover of canopy, understorey and

ground cover vegetation;~ presence of woody debris and standing dead

vegetation;~ indigenous species regeneration; and~ presence of weed species.In addition, supplementary data records thefollowing:~ slumping, gullying and sheet erosion;~ location of fences and water points;~ number of cow pats (as an indicator of

stocking rates);

~ water permanency;~ dominant tree population structure; and~ dominant weed population structure.The supplementary data sheets do not directlycontribute to the TRARC score system, as mostof the data collected are either descriptive orqualitative. These data are most appropriatelyused for the characterisation of sites, based onsingle characters (e.g. dominant tree species) orsmall suites of characters.

Methods used in the preliminary studyThe base criteria for scoring the TRARCmethod were developed during the TropicalSavannas CRC Riparian Health Workshopconducted in October 2003 at James CookUniversity, Townsville. The method was thenapplied to riparian vegetation adjacent to 34 permanent waterholes in the Burdekin Rivercatchment. At each waterhole site, a single 100 metre transect was laid out parallel to thestream flow, with the midpoint positionedadjacent to the centre of the water body. In caseswhere the water body exceeded 100 metres inlength, a representative section of bank waschosen. Transects were placed most commonlyat 5 metres from the stream flow edge but where access was restricted or the riparian zonewas relatively wide, transects were laid up to 20 metres from the stream edge. The transectwas traversed on foot and indicators appropri-ately scored on the data sheets. The time taken to complete each survey varied between 50 and90 minutes per site, depending on the topog-raphy, complexity of the site, and density ofvegetation. Cow pat frequencies were used toestimate stocking rates.

ResultsThe allocation of scores and ratings for the 34 sites is provided in Table 1. The greatestnumber of sites, 13 (38.2% of total), was in the‘average’ category, but the results were signifi-cantly biased toward the ‘very poor’ and ‘poor’categories in which 7 (20.6%) and 11 (32.4%)


in the Burdekin River catchment, northeast Queensland

Table 1: The allocation of ratings and scores to the 34 sites used in thepreliminary TRARC study in the Burdekin catchment area.

sites were respectively allocated. Only three(8.8%) of the sites were in the ‘good’ categoryand there were no sites in the ‘excellent’ category.The site with the highest score was an anabranchof the Cape River (Figure 1). The site with thelowest score was a water hole on the upper BasaltRiver (Figure 2).

A range of data was collected, with detailedanalyses undertaken of tree species, weed speciesand the impact of stock. The impact of stock was measured by the relationship between thenumber of cowpats at each site and the corre-sponding TRARC scores for those sites(Figure 3). The results indicate that with anincrease in the number of cowpats there is acorresponding decrease in the TRARC score.

DiscussionRapid appraisal methods, by their very nature,can provide only a ‘snap shot’ of the condition ofvegetation in the riparian zone.There are restric-tions on time, on the amount of data that can be collected, and are confined to examination ofa site on a single day of a year. Survey sites canbe strongly influenced by seasonal changes,fluctuations in stocking rates, and the ‘natural’flow of plant dispersal, establishment, growthand senescence, and indeed may not be repre-sentative of the site over an extended time frame.However, if the key components of riparianhealth can be documented in a comparative andconsistent manner, then an appropriate anduseful appraisal of the site is possible.

This trial of the TRARC method hasattempted to recognise weaknesses and strengthsin the method. Based on the results of 34 sites,the scores for the sites are strongly biased on the

Rating Score Number and percentage of sites with rating (n=34)

very poor <50 7 (20.6%)

poor 50–59 11 (32.4%)

average 60–69 13 (38.2%)

good 70–79 3 (8.8%)

excellent 80–100 0

‘negative’ side of the average of 59 [out of 100],and overall indicate that the riparian zones withinthe Burdekin River catchment are in relativelypoor ecological health. However, with a changein the weighting of some indicators, the scoringaverage may be readily shifted to the positive sideof the scale, and another conclusion may bedrawn. The qualitative indicators recorded on the supplementary data sheet, indicate that the


Figure 1: A survey site on an anabranch of the Cape River was the highest scoring site in the preliminary study, with ascore of 77 and allocated to the ‘good’ category. The dominant tree species was Melaleuca fluviatilis, and the dominantweed species was Cryptostegia grandiflora (rubber vine). Photo was taken 29 November 2003, prior to the commencementof the wet season.

Figure 2: A survey site on the upper Basalt River was the lowest scoring site in the preliminary study, with a score of 39and placed in the ‘very poor’ category. The dominant tree species was Eucalyptus camaldulensis and the dominant weedspecies was Brachiaria mutica. Photo was taken 22 January 2004 following the commencement of the wet season.

TRI LL NG of the TRARCa i

health of the surveyed sites is not as poor as indicated by the quantitative indicators. Ifsingle indicators such as: the presence of weeds;the regeneration and population structure ofdominant trees; and degree of geomorphologicdegradation as indicated by slumping andgullying, were incorporated into the scoringsystem, the average site score may increaseconsiderably. It may be that the TRARC scoringsystem needs to be refined to incorporate theseother measures.

The site data gathered by the TRARCmethod may also be used for other purposes. Forexample, site ‘characterisation’ as determined bya small number of ‘spot’ indicators is possible.Sites can be characterised by the dominant treespecies, the dominant deleterious weed species,and stocking rates, among other characters. Sitecharacterisation may assist with determiningdegrees of vulnerability within discreet areassuch as single rivers or catchments. The resultsof the 34 sites indicate that the presence ofcertain dominant tree species may predispose thesite to weed infestation or the damage caused bycattle. Conversely, it may be that certain weedspecies tend to infest certain ecological settings.For example, the rubber vine, Cryptostegiagrandiflora, has a propensity in the surveyed sitesto become established in sites where the popula-tion structure of the dominant tree species isdeemed ‘healthy’. The TRARC data may beuseful for identifying other such correlations andassociations.

Improvements to the TRARC methodFurther development of the TRARC willconsider the potential variation between differentseasons, users and sites. Ideally, sites should be surveyed a number of times per year to

determine an ‘average’ condition based on avariety of seasonal influences — for example,some of the deleterious weeds species can betransitory across the landscape, reflectingseasonal changes and long-term climate pertur-bations. Inter-operator variability will be exten-sively tested and the TRARC methods refinedaccordingly to ensure consistency of data collec-tion. The TRARC, like other rapid appraisals,aims to provide a balance between scientificaccuracy, time, cost and ease of use. On comple-tion of these trials, a collaborative Land & WaterAustralia and Tropical Savannas CRC – Riverand Riparian Management Technical Guideline(like the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian ConditionTechnical Update 4) will be produced to commu-nicate the method.

Concluding commentsAs Jansen et al. (2004) concluded that theirRARC method, as used in river systems of south-east Australia, was “a good indicator of the biodiversity and functioning of riparian zones”,the same can be said of the TRARC method inthe seasonally dry/monsoonal areas of tropicalAustralia.This trial of the method in the BurdekinRiver catchment provides a basis on which toimprove the TRARC method, and expand its useto other systems in tropical Australia. Savannaland managers in northern Australia will soonhave a standard method for rapidly appraising thecondition of their riparian vegetation.

For further informationIan DixonTropical Savannas CRCTel: 08 8946 6761Email: [email protected]


TRAR

C sco

re

–20

0

20

40

60

80

100

3 24 13 26 25 12 19 33 20 16 30 9 14 26 4 2 10 29 23 22 32 12 4 11 1 31 15 5 27 6 21 7 18 8

Figure 3: Graph with trend linesindicating the relationship betweenthe TRARC scores for all 34 sites andthe number of cowpats at each sitein the Burdekin River catchmentpreliminary study. TRARC scores arerepresented by the dark green blocks(each site); numbers of cow pats arerepresented by the light green blocks.

ReferencesJansen, A. & Robertson, A. 2001,

Relationships between livestockmanagement and the ecologicalcondition of riparian habitatsalong an Australian floodplainriver, Journal of Applied Ecology,vol. 38, pp. 63–75.

Jansen, A., Robertson, A.,Thompson, L. & Wilson, A.2004, Development andapplication of a method for therapid appraisal of ripariancondition, River ManagementTechnical Guideline No. 4, Land& Water Australia, Canberra.

Werren, G.L. & Arthington, A.H.2002, ‘The assessment ofriparian vegetation as anindicator of stream condition,with particular emphasis on therapid assessment of flow-relatedimpacts’, in Landscape Health inQueensland, A. Franks, J.Playford & A. Shapcott (eds),pp. 71–86, Brisbane, RoyalSociety of Queensland.

TRI LL NG of the TRARCa i


CAT HME T assessment techniquesto help determine priorities in river IntroductionThere is growing interest in rehabilitatingstreams to improve their physical and ecologicalcondition. Common stream problems includepoor water quality, sedimentation of aquatichabitat and degraded riparian zones.Unfortunately, the magnitude of work requiredto repair past degradation far exceeds theresources available. Stream rehabilitation musttherefore be targetted to those high-priority areasthat will produce greatest environmental benefitfrom the resources available. It is also wise totackle high-priority sites as early as possible,since physical and ecological response times torehabilitation actions can be long. Environmentaldegradation of stressed systems can occur inresponse to cumulative flood or drought events,and the longer a system is degraded prior torehabilitation, the greater the risk that the naturalresilience of the system will be exceeded.

Planning and funding decisions for rivermanagement are increasingly being made at theregional scale. There is also a growing require-ment for a technical basis to underpin decisionsabout river management. There are well estab-lished frameworks for setting rehabilitation prior-ities (for example, the Rehabilitating AustralianStreams, CD ROM and Manual, Rutherfurd etal.) and these are being implemented by manycatchment managers using databases that alsoconsider the social and economic goals for thecatchment. However, there is often a lack ofquantitative information on catchment conditionto enter into these databases. This project aimsto provide regional scale techniques for assessingsuspended sediment, sedimentation of habitatand riparian condition, which can be used toidentify priorities for the location and type ofrehabilitation activities to achieve maximumenvironmental benefit.

ApproachThe approach we have taken to developingcatchment assessment techniques is to representenvironmental processes in a GIS framework.

by Scott Wilkinson We are using spatial datasets as inputs to assesscondition across large-scale river networks.The process basis to the assessments allowscondition to be assessed, as well as identifyingthe causes of poor condition (and the necessaryrequirements for good condition). This enablespriorities for action to not only be identified, butto be simulated so that the impact of differentrehabilitation actions can be compared.

The two assessment techniques being devel-oped are:~ SedNet sediment budgets for river networks

(Prosser et al. 2001a, 2001b)~ Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition

(RARC) — an assessment of the biodiver-sity and function of riparian zones (Jansen &Robertson 2001, Jansen et al. 2004, seepage 4).

Both of these techniques existed prior to thisproject, however, neither technique was suited,nor tested, as a technical basis for regional catch-ment assessment and prioritisation. SedNet wasdeveloped as a continental scale technique forthe National Land and Water ResourcesAssessment, and the RARC was designed as asite based assessment technique.

The project has three focus catchmentswhere we are adapting, further developing, andtesting the techniques for setting priorities at a regional scale. The catchments are theMurrumbidgee upstream of Wagga Wagga in New South Wales, the Goulburn-Broken inVictoria and the Mt Lofty Ranges in SouthAustralia. These catchments were chosenbecause they are of suitable regional scale(6000–30,000 km2); erosion and riparian condi-tion are important issues; and they have manage-ment agencies actively planning stream rehabili-tation at the regional scale. Importantly, all three catchments have a sufficient amount ofdata to enable the assessment techniques to beapplied. The project is testing the assessmenttechniques in collaboration with the catchmentmanagement agencies, to determine in practicehow useful they are in informing the process of setting rehabilitation priorities to achieve aspecified catchment vision.

c n


restorationSedNetSedNet constructs sediment budgets (massbalances) for each reach or link in a river network(see Figure 1). Conceptual representations oferosion, transport and deposition processes areparameterised using regional datasets of canopycover, landuse, a digital elevation model andstream flow.

Tailoring SedNet for catchment-scale assess-ment has involved developing methods for usinghigh-resolution datasets, improving the processrepresentations to reduce uncertainty in thepredictions, and testing against observations.These changes have meant that SedNet can nowpredict the location of bedload accumulation(e.g. ‘sand slugs’), and the consequent impact on river habitat (see Figure 2), with an accuracyof up to 80%. This information can be used toidentify where habitat enhancement structuresmay be used to provide passage through reachesaffected by bedload accumulation. Thetechnique also allows us to predict the futuretrajectories of these sand slugs given plannedreductions in sediment supply.

In the stream rehabilitation strategies for allthree focus catchments, reducing the supply ofsuspended sediment is an important element inachieving the desired catchment vision. Since wepredict the sediment supply from each erosionprocess, SedNet can be used to identify thedominant erosion process as the greatest priorityfor control measures. For example, channelerosion (river bank and gully) can be reduced byriparian revegetation, while hillslope erosion canbe reduced by landuse and practise manage-ment.

SedNet can also be used to target erosioncontrol measures in the areas that supply thehighest rates of sediment (t/ha/y) to the streamnetwork. Sometimes the goal is to reducesuspended sediment export to the coast ordownstream river systems, and in this case theefficiency of transport to the catchment outlet isalso considered to determine the rate of ‘contri-bution’ to export. Figure 3 shows the rate ofcontribution to suspended sediment export fromthe Murrumbidgee focus catchment in t/ha/y.

The data shows that erosion downstream of thereservoirs contributes the most to export, whileerosion above the reservoirs settles out in thereservoirs.Targeting erosion control to the areaswith the highest rates of erosion can produce amuch greater reduction in suspended sedimentloads than the spatially random erosion controlmeasures that are commonly used. In theMurrumbidgee catchment, channel erosion isthe dominant sediment source. We found thattargetting 600 kilometres of riparian revegetationto the purple ‘hotspot’ areas in Figure 3, couldgive twice the reduction in suspended sedimentexport than would be provided by 600 kilo-metres of revegetation done at random. Figure 4shows this response.

Sub-catchmentgully erosion (t/y)

Riverbankerosion (t/y)

Downstreamyield (t/y)Floodplain and reservoir deposition

Tributarysupply (t/y)

Delivery ratio

Bedload transport and deposition (t/y)

Figure 1: Erosion, transport and deposition terms included in the SedNet mass balance of sediment for a river link

Figure 2: A sand slug caused by bedload accumulation in the Murrumbidgee catchment.

t/y = tonnes/yeart/ha/y = tonnes/hectare/year


The benefits of targeting rehabilitationefforts to high priority areas will take a numberof years to be realised, as vegetation takes time toestablish and stabilise gullies and river banks.The value of using SedNet is that it focusesactivity and resources in areas that will return thegreatest benefit, preventing scarce resourcesfrom being diluted by randomly choosing sitesfor rehabilitation.

Extending the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian ConditionFor catchment-scale assessment, we needed amethod of assessing riparian condition that does not require on-ground visits, since manycatchments are large and field time is expensive.The aim of this part of the project was to deter-mine whether existing vegetation cover mapping,derived from satellite imagery, could be used toassess riparian condition. Firstly, we investigatedthe relationship between the total RARC scorefor a site and those scores that potentially couldbe measured from remotely sensed data. Thesescores included canopy cover, riparian vegeta-tion width and longitudinal continuity of riparianvegetation. Canopy cover explained 67% of thevariance in the total RARC score for 46 sites in the Goulburn-Broken catchment in Victoria,while adding riparian vegetation width andlongitudinal continuity of riparian vegetationincreased this to about 75%. These threevariables can be readily measured from remotelysensed vegetation cover layers.

To compare the results from on-groundsurveys with those from satellite imagery, wethen derived canopy cover, riparian vegetationwidth and longitudinal continuity of riparianvegetation from satellite imagery, at the 46 siteswhere on-ground measurements were made.The imagery we used was derived from SPOTpan-chromatic imagery, using 10m pixels, calledTREEDEN25, which is available for all ofVictoria. Figure 5 shows the relationship betweenthe on-ground total RARC score, and the scorefor the 3 components derived from the satelliteimagery at the same sites. Measurement of these3 components explained 66% of the variance inthe on-ground RARC scores. In fact, measure-ment of the canopy cover score alone from thesatellite imagery explained a similar amount ofvariance in the on-ground RARC scores.

Given the good relationship between canopycover measured from the satellite imagery, andon-ground RARC scores, there is now potentialto assess riparian condition from existing vegetation cover data. We did this for theGoulburn-Broken catchment by assessingcanopy cover in riparian zones four times thewidth of stream channels, using the TREEDEN25 vegetation layer as an indicator of riparian

Fine s

edim

ent e

xport

(KT/

year)

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

Km riparian revegetation below dams (both sites)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Targeted riparian revegetationRandom riparian revegetation

Figure 3: Rates of specific suspended sediment contribution (t/ha/y) to Wagga Wagga in the Murrumbigee catchment.Figure 4: Comparing the effect of targetted vs random channel erosion control on suspended sediment levels at WaggaWagga.

CAT HME T assessment techniquesc n


condition. Figure 6 shows that of a total lengthof 4620 kilometres of streams assessed, a veryhigh percentage (67%) has <20% tree cover inthe riparian zone, indicating very poor riparianzone condition. Less than 15% of the total lengthhad >80% canopy cover in the riparian zone,indicating good condition.

These results suggest that riparian conditioncan be assessed using satellite imagery, albeitwith some loss of detailed information. Theinformation lost is clearly related to the conditionof understorey and ground cover layers, whichalthough often highly correlated with tree cover,may vary depending on the land managementpractices of individual property owners. Whilstthis detailed information is important, combiningthe RARC assessment approach with satelliteimagery allows broader catchment wide assess-ments to be made about riparian condition,with this approach useful for setting priorities for rehabilitation. For example, this techniquewill enable groups to target and protect smallremnants of vegetation in upstream reaches thatare in good condition, or to target revegetationefforts so that they build outwards from areasalready in good condition.

Application An important final stage of the project will be todevelop protocols for how SedNet and theRARC could be used more widely by catchmentgroups and others, to simulate scenarios andmake informed choices in planning rehabilitation

For furtherinformation

Scott WilkinsonCSIRO Land and WaterTel: 02 6246 5774Email:[email protected]

activities. SedNet software is being developed inthe Catchment Modelling Toolkit, and this willprovide one avenue for adoption. We will alsoevaluate the benefits of using the techniques inachieving river rehabilitation goals. This infor-mation, along with the focus catchment demon-strations, will hopefully result in the techniquesbeing broadly adopted as the basis for planningactivities designed to improve the condition ofour streams.The project is due for completion inJune 2006, and we will have full details of whereyou can access the final product in RipRap andon the www.rivers.gov.au website.

ReferencesJansen, A. & Robertson, A. 2001, Relationships between livestock

management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along anAustralian floodplain river, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 38, pp. 63–75.

Jansen, A., Robertson, A., Thompson, L. & Wilson, A. 2004, Development andapplication of a method for the rapid appraisal of riparian condition, RiverManagement Technical Guideline no. 4. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.(available from website www.rivers.gov.au).

Prosser, I.P., Rustomji, P., Young, B., Moran, C. & Hughes, A. 2001a,Constructing river basin sediment budgets for the National Land and WaterResources Audit, Technical Report 15/01, CSIRO Land and Water,Canberra.

Prosser, I.P., Hughes, A., Rustomji, P., Young, W.J., Moran, C.J. 2001b,‘Predictions of the sediment regime of Australian rivers’, in I.D. Rutherfurd,F. Sheldon, G. Brierley & C. Kenyon (eds), Third Australian StreamManagement Conference, Brisbane, 27–29 August, Cooperative ResearchCentre for Catchment Hydrology, pp. 529–533.

Rutherfurd I.D., Jerie K. & Marsh N. 2000, A rehabilitation manual forAustralian streams, CD ROM and Manual, Land & Water Australia, Canberra(available from website www.rivers.gov.au).

RARC

score

0

10

20

30

40

50

3 components0 20 40

Propo

rtion o

f tota

l leng

th

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Percentage of riparian zone with canopy cover

<20 20–39.9 40–59.9 60–79.9 80+

Figure 5: Measurement of the three components (canopy cover, riparianvegetation width and longitudinal continuity of riparian vegetation) derivedfrom satellite imagery in relation to total on-ground RARC scores at 46 sites in the Goulburn-Broken catchment, Victoria.

Figure 6: Proportion of total stream length with riparian zone canopy coveras indicated, for streams in the Goulburn-Broken catchment, Victoria.

CAT HME T assessment techniquesc n

by Peter Davies, TerryWalshe and Barbara Cook

Riparian vegetation has considerable benefits formany different aspects of river structure, bioticcomposition and ecological function. Despitethese multiple benefits, it has remained difficultto be prescriptive about the actual amount ofvegetation required to achieve various ecologicalgoals. This is unfortunate, as riparian zones are highly productive areas of agriculturallandscapes and farmers are often understandablyreticent to set-aside significant riparian regionsfor vaguely-defined benefits.

Riparian vegetation shades channels andconsequently reduces in-stream water tempera-tures. Temperature controls many ecologicalprocesses and can directly affect biodiversity byexceeding upper lethal limits of resident aquaticfauna, or indirectly by both increasing oxygendemand and decreasing oxygen saturation; thecombined effects of both can lead to anoxia(Bunn & Davies 2002).

While river managers need to consider thebroad range of benefits of riparian vegetation,one advantage of focussing restoration effort onachieving temperature targets is that the results ofon-ground action may be more easily predicted,measured and demonstrated, compared to otherstressors such as nutrients or sedimentation.Consequently, a recently completed projectfunded by Land & Water Australia characterised

bioregional temperature regimes throughoutAustralia and provided prescriptions for riparianrestoration needed to satisfy predeterminedtemperature thresholds.

Elevated in-stream temperature is a highlyvariable environmental stressor in both spaceand time. The differences between Australianbioregions and catchments are largely a functionof the seasonal effects of air temperature andrainfall. Summer stress will be relatively moreexaggerated where high air temperaturesco-occur with periods of low river flow, as is thecase in bioregions with a Mediterranean climate.In contrast, in the tropics, where high flowstypically occur in summer, in-stream tempera-tures will exhibit considerably less diurnal variation.

Prior to European settlement and associatedbroad-scale land clearing, it was likely that inwarmer times of the year and during times of low flow, most bioregions and catchments inAustralia experienced patches of temperaturestress that probably exceeded lethal or sub-lethallevels for resident biota. At larger spatial scales,in times of elevated thermal stress, higher-orderstreams would effectively act as seasonal refugiafor sensitive components of the biota. At a morelocal scale, deeper pools in smaller streams wouldalso provide some refugia function.


RIP RIAN REST RATIONreduces in-stream thermal stress ——

a o

Left: Sampling in the upper reachesof the Coal River, south-eastTasmania on a mid-winter’s morning.Centre: WhiteKanga – intact andfences riparian vegetation, south-eastTasmania. Right: Kauri-up – a tributary of theJohnstone River, Far NorthQueensland.

Under natural conditions, the interplay ofclimate and flow would sometimes result in thetransient loss of habitat and the imposition ofthermal barriers to effective dispersal and migration. With the widespread removal ordegradation of riparian vegetation, the problemtoday is that what was once a localised andtransient loss of habitat, has become a commonand possibly dominant feature throughout manyAustralian streams and rivers.

Adapting STREAMLINE for Australian environments‘STREAMLINE’ is a predictive model forstream temperature developed by New Zealand’sNational Institute of Water and AtmosphericResearch (Rutherford et al. 1997, Rutherford etal. 1999).The model allows broad description ofcontrasts in stream temperature regimes betweenbiogeographic regions. Simulation modellingundertaken in this project sought to identifyshade targets needed to relieve heat stress to anecologically tolerable level.

What might be a tolerable level of heat stressfor Australian systems? In this project, the use ofLT50 (lethal temperature) tests conducted over96 hours indicated thresholds of about 21°C

and 29°C for mayflies, the most sensitive macro-invertebrates occurring in “cool” and “hot”climates, respectively. Of the 14 locations aroundAustralia modelled in the project, we defined ‘hotclimates’ as any region having a latitude less than18°S of the equator. ‘Cool climate’ locationsassigned temperature thresholds (based on LT50

testing) of 21°C were those with latitudes greaterthan –35°. ‘Intermediate’ locations were assigneda temperature threshold calculated conserva-tively as a linear interpolation between 21°C and29°C based on latitude. For example, thresholdsfor Melbourne and Broome were calculated as 21°C and 29°C, respectively. Townsville’sassigned threshold was 28.4°C.

In reporting lethal effects, LT50 testscomprise two components — absolute tempera-ture and the time duration of exposure to thatspecific temperature.The 21°C and 29°C thresh-olds for cool and hot climates refer to exposuretimes of 96 hours. Sub-lethal effects would be observed at lower temperatures or lesserexposures. To account for sub-lethal effects, itwas desirable to include a safety buffer in eitherthe temperature threshold or the exposure time.The approach adopted in the project was todefine eight hours as the daily “window” of timebeyond which temperatures, in excess of thethreshold, were regarded as intolerable.


—– Upcoming guidelines for managers

This approach acknowledges that, evenwhere riparian vegetation is intact, the physi-ology of temperature sensitive biota will beoccasionally compromised under summer or lowflow conditions. In defining a time window ofeight hours, it is implicitly assumed that this levelof exposure represents a low level of risk for thelonger term integrity of a stream’s structure,function and composition. By necessity, this is aworking assumption and more detailed ecolog-ical and physiological studies are needed tosubstantiate its validity.

Although a range of factors affect in-streamtemperature, the predisposition of a stream reachto thermal stress is essentially related to thesurface area: volume ratio of the water it carries.Smaller streams cool and heat quicker than largerstreams because a greater proportion of theirwater volume is exposed to weather conditionsand any conduction effects of the stream bedsubstrate. We simulated first-order streams, andassumed that if these shade targets were satisfied,the thresholds for downstream receiving riverswould also be suitable for fauna.

The input variables for the STREAMLINEmodel relate to weather conditions, flow andchannel morphology (form and function). Theoutput of a single simulation run is the diurnaltrend in in-stream temperature over 24 hours.Twelve simulations for each of the 14 Australianlocations were run under conditions of zero shade,with each of the 12 simulations representingaverage monthly flow and weather conditions.Themaximum temperatures for each month reportedby these simulations for Broome, Townsville andMelbourne are shown in Figure 1.

Maximum temperatures are a coarsedescriptor of thermal stress. Greater insight isoffered by considering the amount of time (bothmonthly and daily) a site experiences in-streamtemperatures in excess of specified thresholds.Figure 2 illustrates the average effects of season-ality on diurnal in-stream temperatures for three locations as a three-dimensional surfacechart. For example, thermal stress in first-orderstreams is likely to occur throughout the year atBroome and Townsville, while in Melbourne it isrestricted to the warmer months.

The simulated data used to produce thethree-dimensional surface charts in Figure 2 aresummarised in Table 1, where the average dailytime window in which temperature thresholdsare exceeded are provided for each location andmonth. Although Broome and Townsville allexperience in-stream temperatures beyond theirassociated threshold throughout the 12 monthsof the year, the exposure time during coolermonths is ecological tolerable, being less thaneight hours.

The simulation output shown in the figuresand table are for lower order streams having noshade. For each location, simulations were re-runwith varying shade levels to ascertain the shaderequired to reduce the average daily exposuretime to eight hours or less within each month.For Broome, Townsville and Melbourne shadetargets of 60, 50 and 55% were identified respec-tively. Of the 14 locations modelled, the mostextreme shade targets were for Sydney (75%)and Hobart (5%).

Simulation results suggested no simplepattern in the shade requirements for different


In-str

eam

tempe

rature

(°C)

0

10

20

30

40

MonthJan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

BroomeTownsvilleMelbourne

Figure 1: Average maximum daily in-stream temperatures at three locationsfor a hypothetical first-order stream having zero shade.

RIP RIAN REST RATION a o

Stream shade created bydowncutting (topographicalshading), Western Australianwheatbelt.


Terry Walshe / Peter DaviesCentre of Excellence in NRMUniversity of WATel: 08 9842 0809Email:[email protected]@cyllene.uwa.edu.au


biogeographic regions of Australia.The location-specific interactive effects of seasonal variation in meteorological variables and flow mean that the targets need to be used with caution whenapplied to locations other than those modelled inthe project.

Shade can be provided in three ways — bankshade, vegetative shade from riparian vegetation,and macro-topographic shade from surroundinghills and landforms. Although the shade targetsderived from simulation do not discriminatebetween these three components, the project alsoreports a method to estimate the relative shadeprovided by macro-topography and field obser-vations needed to estimate the individual andcumulative effect of bank and vegetative shade.The project also included photographs showingthe % shade of different types of vegetation.

Land & Water Australia will make theproject’s findings more readily available to rivermanagers through an upcoming River andRiparian Management Technical Update. Seenext RipRap for details, or www.rivers.gov.au.

January 10.5 10.0 11.0

February 9.75 9.5 10.25

March 10.25 9.0 8.5

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

9.25 7.25 4.75

7.5 5.5 0

5.75 3.25 0

6.0 2.5 0

7.0 4.0 0

8.75 6.5 0.5

9.75 8.0 6.5

10.25 9.0 9.0

10.5 9.75 10.25

Broome(threshold = 29°C)

Townsville(threshold = 28.4°C)

Melbourne(threshold = 21°C)

RIP RIAN REST RATION a o

Table 1: Average daily hours of threshold exceedence by month and location,under conditions of zero shade. Shaded cells represent months and locationswhere average conditions under zero shade result in intolerable exposure tohigh in-stream temperatures.

Figure 2: Three-dimensional surface charts showing monthly and diurnal trends in average in-stream temperature for a hypothetical first order stream, with zeroshade, at three of the 14 locations modelled. The three axes represent time of day, (x-axis) with 0 and 24 hours = midnight, 8 hours = 8 am and 16 hours = 4 pm;month of year (y-axis) with 4 = April, 8 = August and 12 = December; and in-stream temperature (z-axis) ranging from –5°C to 40°C. Shaded areas are timeswhere in-stream temperature exceeds the threshold associated with the location.

ReferencesBunn, S. & Davies, P. 2002, Shade,

temperature, large woody debrisand river models, RipRap,vol. 22, pp. 10–12.

Rutherford, J.C., Blackett, S.,Blackett, C, Saito, L. & Davies-Colley, R.J. 1997, Predicting the effects of shade on watertemperature in small streams,New Zealand Journal of Marineand Freshwater Research, vol. 31, pp. 707–721.

Rutherford, J.C., Davies-Colley, R.J.,Quinn, J.M., Stroud, M.J. &Cooper, A.B. 1999, StreamShade. Towards a RestorationStrategy, NIWA and Departmentof Conservation, Wellington, NewZealand, ISBN 0478218702.

Broome

MelbourneTownsville


UNDER TA DING our River LandscapesA new way of learning about our rivers

A new interactive educational tool has beendeveloped to help people learn about the wayriver and riparian areas function, as well as investigating the different values rivers hold for the communities that live along them.‘Understanding our River Lanscapes’ bringstogether scientific and social information toenable you to explore different river types andriver values across Australia. In the past, we have tended to conduct research by invest-igating individual aspects of river and riparianfunctioning, this is because it is the most effective way of finding out how these processeswork. However, we need to be able to draw thisinformation together so that we can start tounderstand the different interactions andprocesses that occur to make our rivers andriparian areas such special places to be.

by Siwan Lovett Getting started…To get started — jump on to the websitewww.rivers.gov.au and click on ‘UnderstandingRiver Landscapes’. Once there you have a choiceof two entry points to start your exploration —they are river values and river types. In rivervalues you can see the range of ways peoplevalue their rivers.These then lead you to riparianmanagement aims that are aimed at protectingone or more of these values. By taking thisapproach you are also linked to the processes,such as shading, erosion control and buffering,that are being affected by management actions.

If you start from river types, you begin withthe processes that are most significant in eachtype of river (lowland floodplain, forestedheadwater stream etc.). From there you canexplore the various riparian management aims(benefits) that each process provides. Thisapproach keeps management activities andriparian processes at the centre of the material,before linking you to the values that people placeupon these parts of the landscape.

Interactive catchment diagrams provide youwith a fun way of moving through this material,in your own time. We also have a resourcessection that has all the diagrams and photosavailable for you to use in PowerPoint and otherpresentations.

We hope you enjoy this new way of exploringof rivers. We intend to link as much of ourresearch into Understanding River Landscapesso that it is continuously updated with the mostrecent findings from our programs.

s n

Ephemeral streans

Forested headwater streams

WWW.

rivers.gov.a

u


Over the last three years, a group of researchersat Monash University and The University ofMelbourne has been funded by Land & WaterAustralia to develop an Australian Handbook ofStream Roughness Coefficients. Although still beingexpanded, this handbook is now ready to beshared with technically minded readers of RipRapand others working to protect and manage rivers.

Stream roughnessIf you have ever tried to work out discharge, flowdepth or channel dimensions to carry a partic-ular flow, you have probably needed to estimatea roughness coefficient, the most common beingManning’s n. Using Manning’s n is a simple andwidely adopted approach to characterisingenergy losses as water flows down a stream.Manning’s n is used in the Manning equation.

Where, Q is discharge, A cross-sectional area,S is slope, R is hydraulic radius (area divided bywetted perimeter) and n is Manning’s n.

Although there has been criticism of thisformula and other methods have been suggested,the use of Manning’s n for simple hydrauliccalculations remains the preferred approach ofAustralian engineers and other practitionersworking in the field of ‘open channel’ flow.Manning’s n is a key parameter in a range ofactivities associated with hydrology and waterresources including floodplain management,stream restoration, and the design of hydraulicstructures.

Manning’s n typically ranges from 0.01 insmooth concrete channels with no obstructionsto 0.10 in streams with large amounts of largewoody debris and vegetation that impedes flow.Rarely, values as high as 0.2 have been used.

Existing guides to estimating stream roughnessGenerally it is necessary to estimate Manning’sn value for a particular situation and this is

By Tony Ladson usually based on handbooks or experience.In other countries such as New Zealand,Switzerland, Canada and the United States,roughness coefficients have been collected forsome streams and pictorial guides or empiricalequations, provide a firm basis for estimatingvalues in new situations. Unfortunately, therehas been little specific guidance for Australianstreams. That is where the Australian Handbookfor Stream Roughness Coefficients comes in.We have gathered information on roughness characteristics of Australian streams andconverted this work into a web-based systemthat is easy to interrogate and update.

We recognise that international guides willoften be useful to assist roughness estimation inAustralia and the handbook web site provideslinks to the key stream roughness databases thathave been developed by others such as theUnited States Geological Survey and the USArmy Corps of Engineers. We have also refer-enced all the guides we could find, even if theyare not available on the Internet. We hope thatthis collection of sources for roughness estima-tion will be valuable for people working torehabilitate streams.

A guide for Australian streamsThere will also be many Australian streams thatare quite different from their internationalcounterparts.To provide specific information onAustralian stream roughness, we approached key individuals, consultants, government depart-ments and reviewed the literature includingreports, conference papers and journal articles.From these sources, data on roughness coeffi-cients was collected on 25 Australian streamswith sites in Victoria, New South Wales,Queensland and the ACT. We are now seekingcopyright approval to include as much informa-tion as possible about each of these streams.Web pages associated with each stream will bereleased as soon as we have clearance. Check thesite regularly for updates.

www.rivers.gov.au

AN AUS RALIAN Handbook of Stream Roughness Coefficientst

2 1

Q = AR 3S 2

n


Information provided in the databaseFor each stream a standard report is providedthat includes:~ location;~ nearest stream gauge;~ catchment area; and ~ mean daily flowWe also aim to include links to a reach map,photographs, cross section plots and, if possible,a scanned copy of the document that providesthe source of the information. If, for copyrightreasons, we can’t reproduce the document, areference will be provided. Any other informa-tion such as bed material size, and details onmeasurements are also included.

An example: Acheron River at TaggertyAs an example, consider the Acheron River atTaggerty, in North East Victoria (Figure 1). Basicinformation about this river and the measurementsite is provided on the web site as in Table 1.For this site, roughness has been estimated for 12 discharges and all the measurements areincluded. An extract is shown in Table 2. Therelationship between discharge and Manning’s nvalue is also graphed (e.g. Figure 2).Where crosssections are available, these are provided alongwith the water surface elevations for the highestand lowest discharge.

Searching the databaseThe key problem in applying Manning’sequation is to estimate n values for a particularsite where there are probably no existingmeasurements. When using the Handbook, thechallenge will be to find one or more sites wheremeasurements are available, that are reasonablysimilar to the site were estimates are required.

The Handbook website provides searchoptions to help with this task. The database onAustralian stream roughness coefficients can besearched by: location of site, type of stream, andmethod used to estimation roughness. Someroughness estimation methods are more accuratethan others and we provide a rating of our confi-dence in the resulting values.

If you need to check estimates for similarstreams at sites outside Australia, there is alsoinformation on international websites and guides.

Figure 1: Acheron River at Taggerty — reach where roughness measurements were made.

Range of Manning’s n values 0.034–0.047

Estimated by Direct measurement of hydraulic properties

Nearest stream gauge 405209

Catchment area 619 km2

Latitude 7.317°

Longitude 145.717°

Elevation 198.177 metres

Average daily flow 800 ML/d

Channel type Gravel bed stream

Discharge ARI Flow Manning

(m3/s) (yr) Percentile n

3.17 0.1 26.8% 0.047

21.64 0.2 87.8% 0.043

72.94 1.7 99.7% 0.043

ARI = Average Recurrence Interval

Table 1: Extract of information that is provided for each site in the roughnesshandbook. This example is for the Acheron River at Taggerty in Victoria.

Table 2: Extract of roughness information provided in the Handbook, for theAcheron River at Taggerty.

AN AUS RALIAN Handbook of Stream Roughness Coefficentst



see the websitewww.rivers.gov.au Civil EngineeringMonash University Vic 3800Tel: 03 9905 4983Email: Tony.ladson

@eng.monash.edu.au

Expanding the databaseAlthough these case studies and the links to otherguides are a good start in developing theHandbook, the project could be improved if therewere further contributions. If you know of datathat should be included in the Handbook, or havedata to contribute, please contact me, TonyLadson <[email protected]>.

A particularly important source of datacould be from stream gauges where there areregular measurements of discharge. If additionalwater level measurements could be made at crosssections upstream and downstream of the maingauging site then roughness could be calculatedroutinely. This would be a major advance in theunderstanding of stream roughness in Australia.A similar approach was undertaken in NewZealand to produce probably the best data onstream roughness available from anywhere in the world (see Hicks & Mason 1998).

ConclusionAn Australian Handbook of Stream RoughnessCoefficients is now available at www.rivers.gov.auunder the ‘tools and techniques’ side menuheading on the front page of the site. Informationon roughness in Australian streams and links to other roughness guides and references isprovided. Please visit the site, use the examples,and check back regularly as we will provide moreinformation as it becomes available.

Your contributions are also welcome. If youknow of information that should be included, orhave your own measurements to contribute,please get in touch.We are also happy to receivefeedback on how the site can be improved.Two papers have been submitted to the Journalof Water Resources on this research — they willbe available from the www.rivers.gov.au websiteonce reviewed and accepted.

AcknowledgementsI would like to acknowledge the assistance of my colleagues: Brett Anderson, Ian Rutherfurdand Simon Lang and members of the steeringcommittee Bob Keller, Erwin Weinmann, JohnFenton and Rex Candy. Siwan Lovett and PhilPrice from Land & Water Australia have had thevision and perseverance to see this task through.Brenda Moon and Kim Lynch of The ReefMultimedia are responsible for the websitedevelopment.

Information on the Acheron River atTaggerty was obtained from Thiess Services Pty Ltd and we gratefully acknowledge theirassistance. In particular, the help of MichaelBriggs and Barbara Dworakowski is greatlyappreciated.

ReferencesHicks, D.M. & Mason, P.D. 1998, Roughness characteristics of New Zealand

Rivers. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, WaterResources Publications, Colorado.

Ladson, A.R., Anderson, B. & Rutherfurd, I. 2002, An Australian handbook ofstream roughness coefficients, 27th Hydrology and Water ResourcesSymposium, Melbourne, Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Ladson, A., Lang, S., Anderson, B. & Rutherfurd, I. 2003, An AustralianHandbook of Stream Roughness Coefficients, 28th Hydrology and WaterResources Symposium, Wollongong, NSW, The Institution of Engineers,Australia.

Figure 2: Variation of Manning’s n with discharge for the Acheron River atTaggerty.

Figure 3: Cross-section for the Acheron River at Taggerty and location of thehighest and lowest discharges where roughness measurements were made.

Mann

ing n

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

Discharge (m3/s)1 10 100

Eleva

tion (

m)

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

4

Distance (m)

Section 1 (downstream)

72.94 m3/s

3.17 m3/s

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

AN AUS RALIAN Handbook of Stream Roughness Coefficentst

RAP in rivers


Coastal Floodplain GuidelinesIn January 2004, Senator The Hon. JudithTroeth, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry launchedfloodgate and drainage guidelines for coastalagricultural floodplains of the Clarence River in northern NSW. Poorly designed drainage ofthese areas in the past has led to fish kills inimportant commercial and recreational fisheries,and significant issues with acid-sulphate soils.The guidelines outline principles and strategiesthat can be used to improve the environmentalperformance of floodplain drainage systems,while retaining their benefits for agriculture. Seepage 27 for further details.

For further informationA website with a printable version of the guidelines is available atwww.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/floodgate-guidelines

RAP in riverstPost-Graduate Certificate Course in River ManagementThe first Post-Graduate Certificate Course in River Restoration andManagement being delivered by Charles Sturt University, WaggaWagga, has commenced and will run over two semesters in 2004.Course material for River Hydrology and Geomorphology, andFloodplain Ecology, have been printed and materials for RiverProtection and Restoration, and Water Policy and Management, arecurrently being developed. Enquiries were received from a widerange of prospective students in 2003 and it is anticipated that anincrease in enrolments will occur in 2004.

For further informationRobyn WattsCourse Coordinator, School of Science & TechnologyCharles Sturt UniversityTel: 02 6933 2329Email: [email protected]

Tropical Rivers Data AuditIn response to the need to better understand Australia’s tropical riversystems, the Tropical Rivers Data Audit Project was commissionedwith funding provided by the Natural Heritage Trust’s Rivercareprogram. The project was undertaken between July and December2003, by NGIS Australia in conjunction with Gutteridge HaskinsDavey and Ecobyte Systems.

The data audit covered the major themes of Typology andClassification, Water Resources, River Condition, Biodiversity, andEstuary condition.The project collected over 250 data and metadatasets covering the targeted themes within the project area. It wasfound that many of these themes were adequately covered by existingdata sets. However, there were important gaps in information aboutsome of the key themes, leading to a number of recommendationsfor future research. Copies of the report are available from thewebsite www.rivers.gov.au.

For further informationBrendan EdgarLand & Water AustraliaTel: 02 6263 6043Email: [email protected]

NATIONAL RIVERS CONSORTIUM PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS


National Program for Sustainable IrrigationWorking at the interface between biophysical and social science, a research project beingconducted under the National Program forSustainable Irrigation aims to change the wayrisk-based approaches are incorporated intonatural resource management decisionprocesses. This new decision support tool willassist Australian irrigation industries to quantify,prioritise, address and manage ecological risks.

Principal researcher Professor Barry Hartsays risk management is not new for the agricul-tural community, but that this project willprovide a structured and rigorous methodology.The project will involve extensive stakeholderconsultation to identify all the relevant issues andenable those issues to be assessed and prioritised.Case study projects that will inform the devel-opment of the decision-support tool areunderway or already complete in the Goulburn-Broken (Victoria), Ord (Western Australia) andFitzroy (Queensland) catchments.

The overarching project is also working with Murray Irrigation Ltd and the New SouthWales Environmental Protection Agency as apilot study for the consultation process and thedecision framework. The project has beenconducted in three phases. The final phase ofdeveloping ecological risk assessment protocolswill be completed later this year.

A detailed factsheet on this project can befound on the National Program for SustainableIrrigation website at www.npsi.gov.au.

For further informationProfessor Barry Hart Water Studies Centre Monash UniversityTel: 03 9905 4070Email: Barry.Hart@

sci.monash.edu.au

LWA Board Director Tim Fisher onprotecting riversIn my ten years or more of involvement inwater, I’ve seen an explosion of public interestin both river health and water resource policy.

When I think about the reasons for thisgrowing interest it’s hard to pin down to a single factor. A range of drivers are at work, including microeconomic reform; growingpublic environmental concerns; the Murray Darling ‘Cap’; long-termdrought; and increasing conflict over access to water resources.

Sustainability concerns around water and rivers has gained farmore prominence now than ever before.

In the process, the profile of science in rivers and water resourceshas risen dramatically. The Wentworth Group of concerned scien-tists, for example, achieved unparalleled prominence for science inthe water policy debate. Meanwhile we’ve seen a backlash in somequarters against the legitimacy of science — and scientists — onwater policy in particular.

Whether it is new irrigated agriculture, growing cities, or newurban and coastal development, demand for water resourcescontinues to grow. In contrast, climate change is likely to reducewater resource availability and increase climate variability. Water inAustralia is getting scarcer and scarcer.

If we’re going to manage these tensions and tradeoffs success-fully, the role of science will be crucial.

In conservation terms, we know far more about protecting terres-trial ecosystems than we do about protecting aquatic ecosystems. Incollaboration with the Department of Environment and Heritage,Land & Water Australia has commissioned research on designing abroad national framework for protecting aquatic ecosystems withhigh conservation values.

Obviously science has a role in informing how we strike asustainable balance in the more developed parts of Australia whereissues such as environmental flows, water quality, and in-stream andriparian habitat are at stake. In the Murray Darling Basin, forinstance, this is a huge long-term challenge.

We also need to ensure that we don’t make the same mistakeselsewhere. It is far easier to protect the environmental values in riversnow than it is to restore them later. And with pressure mounting todevelop the water resources of northern Australia, earning aboutthese northern tropical rivers, wetlands, estuaries and aquifers is amajor challenge for Land & Water Australia over coming years.

Tim FisherCo-ordinator, Land & Water Ecosystems ProgramAustralian Conservation Foundation


Extensive networks of drains and modifiedwatercourses have been constructed on easternAustralia’s coastal floodplains. These drainsusually have floodgates located at their conflu-ence with the river. Floodgates allow outflow, butprevent tidal ingress, thus promoting a stagnant,poorly flushed aquatic environment. Whiledrainage was intended to mitigate the effects offloods and aid the establishment of rural settle-ments and industries, it has also caused largechanges to floodplain watertables, vegetation andacid sulfate soils (ASS). This has led to adverseimpacts on fish habitat and estuarine waterquality, particularly from acid sulfate soils.

Concern about these impacts from commu-nities on the NSW north coast led to the estab-lishment of the Clarence Floodplain Project(CFP). The CFP was coordinated through asteering committee of the Clarence RiverCounty Council, the local organisation respon-sible for the operation of the drainage system.The CFP aimed to reduce the adverse environ-mental effects of coastal floodplain drainage bypromoting management changes. Managementchanges include a) opening floodgates to allowboth tidal exchange with estuarine water and fishpassage b) retaining more water within the drainor backswamp and c) shallowing, in-filling andre-design of drainage systems.Works conductedthrough the CFP provided opportunities toresearch the effectiveness and risks associatedwith the above management changes.

Research approachThe research conducted by NSW Agriculturequantified changes in drainage water quality andthe amount of acidity carried by the drainagewaters before and after management changes.It also evaluated risks from introducing tidalflows of saline water into drainage systems andassessed vegetation changes in backswamps.Thestudy focussed on former wetlands with shallowASS. The project was coordinated with a

Fisheries Research & Development Corporation/NSW Fisheries project that focussed on fishmovement and habitat characteristics. Theresearch projects shared field sites, data,conducted joint presentations and publishedjoint extension material.

Key findings and management implicationsField studies demonstrated that floodgateopening and exchange with river water canimprove drain water quality, raising pH andincreasing / stabilising dissolved oxygen levels.However, once floodgates are closed again there is often a rapid reversion in water quality(Figure 1). Small, frequent openings are better at maintaining stable improvements than large,infrequent openings. Automatic floodgateopening devices are preferred as they allow someexchange on each tidal cycle and also providegood water level control, thus preventingovertopping of low agricultural land.

It’s a RAPw News from around Australia’s States and Territories

ew outh ales by Scott Johnston and Peter SlavichS WNManaging floodgates and drainage systems on coastal floodplains for improved water quality

Days

Drain

wate

r pH

Drain

wate

r leve

l (m

AHD)

14.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

–0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2

Drain water level

Drain pH (near floodgates)

Drain pH (2 km from floodgates)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Floodgates open

Floodgates open

Figure 1: This chart shows a short term improvement in drain water pH in response to several days of floodgateopening. pH values begin decreasing again as soon as floodgates are closed.


An important discovery was that some back-swamps contain ASS with very high (>100 m/day)hydraulic conductivity (K). Such high values hadnot been previously reported in Australian ASSand were associated with macropores (Figure 2).Drains which intercept such highly permeablesoil horizons can receive substantial acid ground-water seepage.This seepage is driven by ground-water gradients which are modulated by tidaldraw down of adjacent drain water levels.Reducing hydraulic gradients by retaining drainwater was shown to be a highly effective meansof reducing acid export at sites where main acid export pathway is groundwater seepage(Figure 3).

Agricultural industries were concerned thatopening floodgates could contaminate adjacentgroundwater with marine salts. Most coastalfloodplain soils have relatively low K and thelong term balance between rainfall and evapo-transpiration favours net discharge. Thus, therisk of saline drain water seeping very far intoshallow groundwater is limited at most sites;a point confirmed by field studies. However,at sites with very high K soils, saline drain watercan rapidly seep into adjacent shallow ground-water. Given the risk this poses to agriculture,assessment of soil K is important prior toopening floodgates, particularly in ASSbackswamp environments.

Large floods in northern NSW during 2001were followed by extreme deoxygenation inseveral estuaries (Figure 4). Data capturedduring this event demonstrated that drainage of ASS backswamps increased the severity andduration of estuarine deoxygenation in theClarence River (Johnston et al. 2003a).Anaerobicsurface waters occurring in the backswamps afterflooding were strongly influenced by iron andsulfur biogeochemistry. Changing drainage tomimic natural surface water residence times andre-establishing flood tolerant native vegetationspecies in backswamps could help reduce themagnitude and duration of such events.

Figure 3: These diagrams demonstrate the principle of reducing groundwater gradients by keeping drain water levelshigh and stable using a retention structure. This helps contain acid groundwater in the landscape and reduce acid exportto rivers. Diagrams Scott Johnston

Figure 2: Acid groundwater flowing through soil macropores rapidly filling an excavated pit. Even though this acidsulfate soil has a clay texture, it has high hydraulic conductivity and rapid lateral movement of groundwater due to thenetwork of interconnected pores and cracks. Photo Thor Aaso.

K = hydraulic conductivity. The permeabilityof soil.

Macropores = large, water conducting poresin the soil.

ew outh ales continuedN S W

Unmodified drain = high groundwater gradient

Water level in drain varies. Large groundwater gradient can develop during ebb tide.

High acid groundwater seepage

Low acid groundwater seepage

Retention structure

Water level in drain high and stable.Small groundwater gradient

After installation of retention structure = low groundwater gradient

Water table higher than drain water level

Water table same level as drain

Acid sulfate soil — acid groundwater

Acid sulfate soil — acid groundwater


This project also found that encroachmentof Melaleuca quinquenervia (broad leaf paper-bark) in an ASS backswamp had substantiallyaltered sediment and groundwater geochemistry(Johnston et al. 2003b). Large increases in theacidity of groundwater and soil were occurringand this had not been documented before. Thishas potential to enhance acid flux loads fromdrains which bisect such areas. This researchraises many interesting questions aboutgeochemical processes occuring in the root zonein ASS backswamps and the long term effects ofchanging vegetation communities and hydrology.

The project demonstrated that the chemicalcharacteristics of surface water, groundwaterand drainage water in ASS backswamps areinfluenced by many complex interactionsbetween the soils, hydrology, vegetation andaltered drainage. An important overall conclu-sion of the research was that there is no ‘one sizefits all’ management approach for floodplaindrainage systems. The dynamic and diversenature of coastal floodplain environments meansthat each drainage system has unique charac-teristics. Effective management needs to beadaptive and based on an understanding ofthese site specific characteristics. This means

that thorough site assessment is a very impor-tant precursor to making management changes.

For further informationA major extension output from the project was a set of guidelines for management floodgate and drainage systems on coastal floodplains. Itprovides guidance on assessing drainage systemsand outlines the benefits and risks associatedwith various management options. A copy ofthese guidelines can be downloaded fromwww.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/floodgate-guidelines.

Contacts

Scott Johnston Dr Peter SlavichNSW Agriculture NSW AgricultureTel: 02 6640 1681 Tel: 02 6626 [email protected] [email protected]

ReferencesJohnston, S.G., Slavich, P., Sullivan, L.A. & Hirst, P. 2003a, ‘Artificial drainage

of floodwaters from sulfidic backswamps: effects on deoxygenation in anAustralian estuary’, Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 54, pp. 781–795.

Johnston, S.G., Slavich, P.G. & Hirst, P. 2003b, ‘Alteration of groundwater and sediment geochemistry in a sulfidic backswamp due to Melaleucaquinquenervia encroachment’, Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 41,pp. 1343–1367.

Figure 4: ‘Black’ deoxygenated water draining from areas of acid sulfate soils into brown river water after flooding. Large ‘black’ water events can deoxygenateentire estuaries. Photos Mitch Tulau.

ew outh ales continuedN S W


The second benchmark of stream condition at3000 sites in Victoria is under way using theIndex of Stream Condition (ISC). Since its first application in 1999, the ISC has under-gone a major review to incorporate recentadvances in scientific knowledge.The ISC is anintegrated measure of stream health incorpo-rating five major areas (sub-indices) namely:hydrology, aquatic life, physical form, stream-side zone and water quality. Developmentssince 1999 in any of these areas were plannedto be incorporated into future analysis. In thissecond benchmarking exercise, the streamsidezone (or riparian zone) component has beensignificantly altered.

There has been a strong push withinVictoria’s Department of Sustainability andEnvironment (DSE) to ensure that all vegeta-tion across the state is assessed in a consistentway.The standard method for assessing vegeta-tion health in Victoria is the Habitat Hectaresapproach. This standard approach has beenmodified by DSE’s River Health Program tomake it applicable to narrow riparian corridorsand increase its practicality to allow CatchmentManagement Authority staff to undertake thedata collection. These modifications includereducing the number of life forms to beassessed from 21 to 16, and modifying identifi-cation needs so that native and exotic areseparated (but not between native andendemic), but not down to the level ofindividual identification of species.

The Habitat Hectares methodology dividesthe State into 27 bio-regions. Within each bio-region Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs)have been identified along with their ‘bench-mark’. An EVC is defined by a combination offloristics, life forms and position in thelandscape; whilst the make up of a mature andlong-undisturbed EVC is known as its bench-mark. There are around 1000 such benchmarksfor Victoria.These bio-regional benchmarks havebeen generated from information about existingnative vegetation.The information is a combina-tion of quadrat analyses held within DSE florainformation systems, bio-regional mapping

units, expert input from botanists, as well aslimited field testing within sites that are known to be undisturbed for particular habitat compo-nents. Where this has not been possible, due tothe poor condition of all remaining examples of a vegetation type, the benchmark values are devised to represent the presumed long-undisturbed condition. This is done with refer-ence to historical information and to knowledgeof how similar vegetation types have beenaffected by disturbance.

At each of the 3000 ISC sites it is necessaryto confirm the EVC on site and this is done bytrained field operators. The vegetation data thatis collected covers:~ Width of streamside zone and width of the

neighbouring EVC.~ Large trees — number and health. The

benchmark gives the number of large trees(specified by a particular diameter at breastheight). Large trees are a difficult habitatfeature to replace once lost. For this reason,and because of their critical importance ashabitat for fauna and their impact on thelocal environment, it is important to knowhow many large trees remain. The assess-ment notes that while large trees in declining

Streamside zone indicators for the index of stream condition 2004 —Using the Habitat Hectares approach to riparian corridors in Victoria

ictoria by Paul WilsonV

Murray River, upstream of the Hume Dam, Victoria. Photo Frances Marston


Red gum, Barmah Forest, Victoria. Photo Frances Marston

health (including dead trees) still have valueas fauna habitat (notably hollows), theyprovide reduced function in terms of anectar source and their impact on the rootzone. A measure of the future viability ofthese trees in the landscape is also under-taken as part of the assessment, and this canhighlight the presence of existing threats thatmay need attention.

~ Canopy — cover and health. Includes allnative trees that range from 5 metres tall to80% of the benchmark height.

~ Weeds of high impact (as defined in thebenchmark) and Catchment ManagementAuthority top 10 riparian weeds. In somecases the high impact weed list is extensiveand requires detailed botanical knowledge.Toovercome this, each Catchment ManagementAuthority developed a top 10 list of theirriparian weeds.

ictoria continuedV~ Organic litter — cover and quality (native or

exotic).Too much litter is penalised as it canimpede regeneration.

~ Logs — total length and number of largelogs (which is defined in the Benchmark —large tree diameter at breast height).

~ Understorey life forms — presence andwhether they are substantially modified.Thelife form is defined as the three-dimensionalstructure of the plant (height and shape).The ISC uses 16 life forms ranging fromimmature trees, tall shrubs, small shrubs,large herbs, large tufted graminoids,small non-tufted graminoids, ferns etc. Thiscomponent assess if the life form is present(requires a benchmark cover of <10% and atleast one reproductively mature individualpresent) or if it is substantially modified(defined as the current cover being less than50% of the benchmark cover).

~ Recent recruitment — immature numberscompared with mature numbers. For recruit-ment to be present the immature numbersmust be at least 10% of the mature numberspresent. Numbers are for the different lifeforms present and not the individual species.

~ Longitudinal continuity (percentage ofstream bank vegetated).

For many field assessors the above changes are anew way of looking at the streamside zone, anda two-day training session has been provided toassist them with the transition to using the newmethod. Once assessors got over the shock of allthe new ‘rules’, the Habitat Hectares method issurprisingly straightforward and shows very littlevariation in measurements between differentfield assessors.

The ISC Reference Committee (which is a panel of well respected experts covering all five ISC sub-indices) is still to decide on how to combine these vegetation metrics into thestreamside zone sub-index (a score from 0–10).The results from the current round of ISC datacollection will be available by the end of 2004.

For further information

Paul Wilson River Health Program Department of Sustainability and EnvironmentTel: 03 9412 4324Email: [email protected]

Graminoids are grasses or grass like plants —usually distinguished bylong strap like leaves e.g. reeds and rushes


Tropical rivers are a hot topic! There is agrowing appreciation of the social, cultural andeconomic values of tropical rivers and estuaries,but at the same time there is increasing interestfrom southern Australia in what appear to bevast and untapped water resources to the north.In response to the increasing social, political and business interest in the water resources ofnorthern Australia, a forum was convened inrecognition of the need to be proactive inproviding the scientific knowledge that is criticalto guide current and future policy and decision-making on the use of these rivers. The forum was supported by Land & Water Australia,CSIRO Land and Water, the Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, CharlesDarwin University and by residual funds fromthe National Conference on Sustaining OurEnvironments held in Townsville in 2001.

The objectives of the forum were toassemble and synthesise existing scientificknowledge of Australia’s tropical river systems,

and to identify critical knowledge gaps to providea launch pad for future research needs. Theapproach adopted for the forum was to build awhole-of-river system analysis, examining thefunctioning of tropical rivers, their floodplains,wetlands and riparian zones, estuaries and near-shore environments, as well as the impacts ofland-use, water use and other activities. Thegeographic scope of the forum spanned tropicalAustralia from Broome to Rockhampton.

The forum received outstanding supportfrom a broad spectrum of scientific, government,industry, community, indigenous and conserva-tion interests, with 117 registered participantsfrom 42 organisations, reflecting the high level of interest in tropical river issues. AssociateProfessor Stephen Hamilton, from the KelloggBiological Station of Michigan State Universityattended as keynote speaker and provided aglobal context by drawing on his research andmanagement experiences of tropical riversystems in South America.

orthern erritory by Peter Gehrke and Michael DouglasN TForum on Sustainable Futures for Australia’s Tropical RiversCharles Darwin University, Darwin, 1–3 February 2004

Baines River


The following is a brief summary of themain points that emerged from the forum.

National context and relative significanceAustralia’s tropical rivers include some of thecountry’s most pristine river systems, as well assome that have been significantly modified bywater resource development. Tropical riversystems, their wetlands and estuaries, are impor-tant for their biodiversity and cultural signifi-cance, especially among indigenous people.Tropical rivers also have high economic value to industries associated with the Great BarrierReef and fisheries such as the Northern PrawnFishery. The interactions between catchmentchanges, river flow cycles and water quality,estuarine and coastal productivity need to bebetter understood to allow responsible manage-ment of the environmental, social and economicassets of tropical Australia.

Outlook for development and community needsProjections for economic expansion in the nearterm are low across most of the region,constrained in part by remoteness, a lack ofsupporting infrastructure, and the large propor-tion of land held by Aboriginal Title. Estimatesof sustainable water yields are unreliable in mostcatchments making it difficult to develop respon-sible water plans. Local communities want moreinput into management decisions concerningthese systems to protect their interests, and thisrequires effective engagement with scienceplanning, environmental management anddecision-making processes over large distances.

The combination of the desire for localcommunity involvement in decision making, andnew legislation empowering aboriginal landmanagement, means that successful conservationand natural resource management programs will require the support and involvement of local communities in the future.This will requirea long-term commitment by those wishing towork on tropical rivers, as building relationshipstakes time and cultural differences need to berespected.

Identification of knowledge needsImproving the gauge network is a necessaryinvestment to develop the long-term hydrologicaldata sets essential to underpin resource manage-

ment decisions and policy under the NationalWater Initiative. Basic information needs includeflow in tidal estuarine reaches, estimation offloodplain flows, stage — discharge relationshipsat lowest and highest flows linked with floodforecasting and rainfall patterns. Greater integra-tion is needed to manage surface waters andground water from freshwater to marineenvironments, and to develop balanced wateraccounting systems.

Baseline data exists for many ecologicalsystem components, but spatial and temporalcoverage is patchy and ecosystems have beenchanging, presenting difficulties when inter-polating available data. Greater use of innovativedata sources, such as remote sensing andautomated monitoring systems, is required toimprove data coverage. Beyond descriptiveinventory data sets, little information is availableon ecosystem processes and services. Methodsfor assessing ecological condition in tropicalrivers require more development to deliverrobust and sensitive indicators that can beapplied across regions.

There is a need to understand ecologicallinkages among hydrologic subsystems, throughinteractions between ground water and surfacewater; river and floodplain habitats; freshwater,estuarine and marine coastal systems. The foodresources for economically important food webs,supporting species such as prawns, barramundiand crocodiles, and their links to river flow arepoorly understood, so that there is insufficientknowledge about the resources that need to beprotected to sustain these key resources.

National goals and how science can contributeScience has played a key role to date in decision-making and policy development with regard to tropical rivers, but mostly in reaction toperceived problems (e.g. mining, ocean pollu-tion) as opposed to a proactive role in supportingconservation and management, or in devisingsustainable options for economic and socialdevelopment.There is an acknowledged need tobuild local capacity to conduct, interpret, and use research.This need must be balanced againstthe reality that much of the national researchcapacity is located elsewhere, dictating thatresearch will need to be done by externalresearch providers in close consultation withlocal community representatives.

orthern erritory continuedN T


Landscape analysis and systematic conser-vation planning are underway at scales fromcatchment to nationwide. Coordination of theseactivities for maximum efficiency relies onsharing of data among organisations. Whilstsome organisations have intentionally openaccess policies on data availability, others haveissues with confidentiality and cost recovery thatprohibit open, free exchange of data.

Any preferred vision for the future may needto balance ecosystem services against biodiver-sity values to develop conservation priorities andpolicies. As Commonwealth initiatives progresstoward National Framework approaches toachieve consistent policy implementation, activ-ities within tropical catchments will be requiredto demonstrate consistency with national policyto achieve local-scale priority objectives.

For further information

A more detailed document containing theproceedings and recommendations for futureresearch in Tropical Rivers is available fromLand & Water Australia. This document willform the basis upon which a Tropical RiversProgram Plan will be developed and released forcomment and involvement of agencies interestedin funding a new initiative in Australia’s north.If you would like more information:

ContactBrendan EdgarLand & Water AustraliaTel: 02 6263 6000Email: [email protected]

th AUS RALIANStream ManagementConferenceLinking Rivers to Landscapes19–22 October 2004Country Club Resort, Prospect Vale, Launceston, Tasmania

Important datesDraft abstracts due: Friday 28 May 2004Authors notified, abstracts accepted and full draft papers requested: Wednesday 30 June 2004Final draft papers required: Friday 30 July 2004Presenter registration / Early bird registration: Friday 27 August 2004Complete abstracts and full paper: Friday 3 September 2004All papers will be peer reviewed

Registration feesEarly bird: $480Full registration: $525Students: $350Late registration: $575 (after 4 October 2004)Day registration: $200

Conference SecretariatConference Design Pty Ltd Tel: 03 6224 3773 Fax: 03 6224 3774 Email: [email protected]

4 t

www.cdesign.com.au/stream

INTER ATIONALRiver Restoration SurveyResults and further information related to the International River Restoration Survey originallylaunched in November 2003 are now available in a variety of formats on the survey website:www.geog.soton.ac.uk/users/WheatonJ/RestorationSurvey_Cover.aspThe survey will continue to run indefinitely and the results are automatically updated to thewebsite.Thank you to the over 480 respondents from 36 countries who have already responded! If you have not already taken the survey why not share your views and experience with theinternational river restoration community?

nMore informationJoseph M. WheatonUniversity of SouthamptonSchool of GeographyEmail:[email protected]

FROM

NAT

IONA

L TO

INTE

RNAT

IONA

L


The Tasmanian Water Assessment and PlanningBranch in Department of Planning Infra-structure, Water and Environment’s (DPIWE)Water Resources Division is currently runningthree major projects funded under the NationalAction Plan for Salinity and Water Quality(NAP).

Collectively, these projects are aimed atincreasing knowledge of water quality, hydrologyand river health in catchments across the NAPregion (Figure 1). Two projects have strongcommunity capacity building components aimed at developing skills within the regionalcommunities to carry out ongoing water qualitymonitoring and biological river health assess-ments. Community groups will be provided withtools to access Tasmania’s baseline water qualitymonitoring network.This accessibility will enableregional groups to provide input into naturalresource management planning into the future.

1. Water Quality Linkages and Baseline Data ProjectThis project will expand the current baselinemonitoring network in the NAP Region andallow a collaborative approach to water qualitymonitoring between state, local and regionalstakeholders via partnerships. It will act as a pilotproject for the remainder of the State to illustratehow water quality monitoring can effectivelycombine scientific credibility and value, withcommunity input and ownership.

Expansion of the State’s network has beenongoing since 2001 as part of the StateGovernment’s Water Infrastructure Program.During 2004, water quality probes will beinstalled throughout the NAP region at severalexisting flow monitoring sites to continuouslymonitor various water quality parameters such astemperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygenand pH. Monthly nutrient sampling will also be undertaken at each site. Collectively, these data form the basis of long term baseline waterquality monitoring in the NAP region.The waterquality information collected is also relevant for core indicators under the Natural ResourcesManagement Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; against which natural resource

management actions will be assessed and regionalwater quality targets set.

The second component of this project is to develop a trial system for the improved coordi-nation of data collection, monitoring, storage and reporting in the NAP region. This will beachieved by providing internet access to the statesbaseline water quality monitoring network andwater information. The project will promote thebaseline system to local councils, communitygroups and industries. By centralising the State’swater information at a single site, DPIWE willfacilitate the coordinated collection and collationof water information onto the Tasmanian waterquality database. Community capacity will bedeveloped through training in water qualitymonitoring and the promotion of access andinput of community water information into acentralised database. This approach will stream-line data collection, reduce duplication andpromote a consolidated approach to the manage-ment and planning of Tasmania’s water resources.

2. Implementation of a NAP Region River Health Monitoring SystemA river health monitoring and reporting programis currently being developed for waterways in the

asmania by Chris ClearyTWater assessment and planning activities underway as part of the National Action Plan

Stream gauging sitesRiver health sites

Figure 1: DPIWE’s streamflow,water quality and river healthmonitoring network (NAP regionshaded pale green)


NAP Region.This program will undertake riverhealth (AusRivAS) bio-assessment to compli-ment the physico-chemical and stream flowmonitoring in the NAP region. Communitycapacity will be developed by training andaccrediting existing community groups in usingAusRivAS rapid assessment methods.

Three training courses have already beenconducted in 2004, and many community groupmembers are currently gaining AusRivASaccreditation to carry out biological assessmentsof river health.The courses cover four AusRivAStraining modules addressing study design andsite selection, habitat assessment, sampling andsample processing, and taxonomy and outputinterpretation. As a sub-project, these results will be used to assess and compare the qualityassurance of non-specialist and specialistpersonnel using the AusRivAS protocols. Thiswill contribute to the development of communitycapacity in river health monitoring by localstakeholders.

3. Development of a Holistic EnvironmentalFlow Methodology for the NAP RegionA third project will develop a methodology forrecommending holistic environmental flowregimes for catchments in the NAP region.This project will conduct a pilot study in theLittle Swanport catchment to investigateEnvironmental Water Requirements (EWRs) byemploying a holistic whole of catchmentapproach. This will involve the investigation ofthe importance of ‘high’ flows and floods toecosystems and physical processes not onlywithin the river channel, but also for the geomor-phology of the catchment, riparian vegetationand the downstream estuarine environments.

The Little Swanport Catchment on the eastcoast of Tasmania drains approximately 600 km2

over 61 km from its source in the midlands ofTasmania. The upper reaches of this systemcomprise upland plateaus and marshes that arepredominantly developed for agriculture. Thelower system is steeper in gradient and comprisedof gorges with nearly pristine riparian vegetationand surrounding open native woodlands. Thelower estuary supports native aquatic species and a productive shellfish aquaculture industry.

The environmental flows project will inves-tigate the impacts of droughts, peak flow events

Water quality sampling. Photo K. Wilson.

as well as the effects of land use practices suchas the cumulative impacts of in-stream storageson water quality, in-stream and estuarineprocesses. Several methods have been used todevelop EWRs for river systems in Tasmania.Most of these methodologies have used minimalEWRs as a critical component of the flow regime in determining availability of aquatichabitat. More recent approaches nationally andoverseas have incorporated other ecosystemcomponents such as geomorphological andestuarine water requirements, as well as consid-ering flow components such as flush and floodevents. The NAP project will investigate theimportance of these components in maintainingecosystem processes in order to develop amethodology that will be applicable to otherTasmanian riverine ecosystems.

In summaryThese projects aim to increase knowledge andinformation of water quality and river healthissues within the Tasmanian NAP region. Theinvestigations of environmental water require-ments in the Little Swanport River will provideimportant knowledge that will be applicable toriver systems throughout the NAP region andthe rest of Tasmania.The river health monitoringand baseline data projects will develop a consol-idated approach that will develop communitycapacity in water quality monitoring and biolog-ical assessment of river health. The collation ofwater information from community, council andindustry groups will assist the TasmanianGovernment to carry out important baselinemonitoring and evaluation of strategies that willaddress water quality and salinity problems inthe NAP Region.

For furtherinformationKatrina WilsonDepartment of PrimaryIndustries Water &EnvironmentTel: 03 6233 3094Email: katrina.wilson@

dpiwe.tas.gov.au


A simple tool to assess the condition of riparianzones has been used widely throughout south-west Western Australia for many years.Developed by the late Dr Luke Pen andMargaret Scott (Pen & Scott 1995) for assess-ment of waterways in farming areas of south westWestern Australia, the foreshore conditionassessment technique is now widely available asa chapter in the Water and Rivers Commission’sRiver Restoration Manual (WRC 1999). Themethodology has also been adapted for use inurban and semi-rural areas (WRC 1999a) and isbeing adapted for use in the Pilbara. While thefocus of each tool is on different waterways andland uses, the key elements remain consistent.

The southwest methodologyThe Foreshore Condition Assessment Form (as provided in WRC 1999 & 1999a) collects the following information:~ general condition of the foreshore area — A,

B, C or D grading;~ fencing status and stock access;~ bank steepness and general soil cohesion;~ major erosion of siltation features; and~ overall stream environmental rating.The foreshore condition survey provides a broadpicture of the condition of a waterway, andenables areas of degradation to be identified andrehabilitation works to be targeted where theywill be most effective. Used properly, the surveymethodology ensures that future surveys willcollect and record data in a consistent manner,so that any number of people can conductsurveys over a period of time. It therefore allowsbaseline information to be recorded so theimpact of project activities can be monitored andevaluated over time. One key aim was to enablecommunity groups and individuals to conductforeshore surveys to increase their under-standing of riparian management issues and toprovide a framework for assessing the success ofriver restoration activities.

The method consists of grading a section ofriver into one of four broad contiguouscategories — A, B, C and D.This grading reflectsthe typical process of foreshore degradation. ‘Agrade’ is essentially a foreshore that is relativelyunchanged from natural; ‘B grade’ retains bush

but with significant displacement of nativeunderstorey species by weeds and erosion devel-opment; ‘C grade’ is trees over pasture specieswith higher levels of erosion; and ‘D grade’ is aneroding or completely weed infested foreshorethat looks more like a ditch or drain than ahealthy waterway. The categories are illustratedin Figure 1. Surveys can be done at this basiclevel or refined to incorporate three sub-categories for each grade, e.g. B1, B2, B3.

The use of ‘A, B, C and D’ is to create alanguage synonymous with quality or health, asin getting an A for a test or being of A1 health.At the other end of the spectrum is C grade inreferring to a basic pass, and at the extreme end,D grade meaning a fail.These are concepts usedin every day speech and do not require non-experts to learn new jargon.

The simplicity of this methodology enablesits use and comprehension by a broad range ofpeople and makes the collection and interpreta-tion of data a simple and cheap exercise, lendingitself to ground truthing of remote sensing datawhich may assist in covering broader areas.To date, at least 32 foreshore surveys have beenconducted by landowners, community groupsand department staff in the south west ofWestern Australia.

The Pilbara methodology The basics of the methodology used in thesouthwest of WA are now being adapted for use in the north-west of WA, in particular thePilbara.The assessment of the state of waterwaysanywhere in Australia, with the recurring cyclesof flood and drought, is difficult. However, thenorth-west of Australia experiences climaticextremes, accentuated by cyclones, makingassessment particularly complicated. Rivers thatare dry for most of the year can become ragingtorrents in a matter of days, and be dry again inalmost as many days.

Other factors which complicate land assessment in the north-west include the vast size of properties. Consequently, a waterway onone pastoral lease may meander through many land systems, habitats, and different types ofriver banks associated with these landforms.Management of the degradation of waterways is

Tools and techniques for riparian areas — Foreshore Condition Assessment

estern ustralia by Verity Klemm and Beth Hughes and from the writings of the late Dr Luke PenW A


Figure 1: The four grades of riverforeshore condition following thegeneral process of river degradationfrom pristine (A) to ditch (D).Source: Water and RiversCommission 1999.

LUKE PENScholarship Fund


Verity Klemm or Beth HughesDepartment of EnvironmentTel: 08 9278 0524Email: verity.klemm@

environment.wa.gov.au


complicated by the prohibitive costs of fencingoff waterways and the necessity to use rivers forstock watering holes. These are just some of thefactors that complicate any sort of broad-scaleassessment and management of waterways in thenorth-west.

The aim of this project is to develop aforeshore assessment framework that is suitablefor use in Pilbara waterways and can be appliedfor a range of purposes. It is intended that theframework will enable assessment at three levels,depending of the purpose of the assessment andwill consist of a:~ self management/education tool for lease

holders;~ lease management assessment (where leases

on foreshores of rivers, or impoundmentsand corresponds to management actiontargets of NRM framework); and

~ resource condition assessment (for NaturalResources Management (NRM), State ofEnvironment reporting, and correspondingto resource condition targets level of NRMframework).

Summary

These riparian assessment tools enable thecommunity and government to engage inmeaningful discussion of foreshore health andprovide a framework to gain a longer termunderstanding of the effectiveness of riverrestoration activities. Their strength is that theyare designed with the community in mind, andenable people without a scientific background togain an understanding of the condition of theirriver and riparian areas.

ReferencesPen, L.J. & Scott, M. 1995, Stream foreshore assessment in farming areas,

Blackwood Catchment Coordinating Group.Water and Rivers Commission 1999, Planning and Management: Foreshore

condition assessment in farming areas of south-west Western Australia,Water and Rivers Commission River Restoration Report no. RR 3, availableat http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/public/RiverRestoration/index.htm

Water and Rivers Commission 1999a, Planning and Management: Foreshorecondition assessment in urban and semi-rural areas of south-west WesternAustralia, Water and Rivers Commission River Restoration Report no. RR 2,available athttp://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/public/RiverRestoration/index.htm

Water and Rivers Commission, River Restoration: A guide to the nature, protection, rehabilitation and long-term management of waterways in Western Australia, available athttp://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/public/RiverRestoration/index.htm

by Marion Burchell

The Department of Environment’s LukePen Scholarship Fund was established tohonour the life and work of the late DrLuke Pen, and was developed in accor-dance with his wishes. The purpose of theScholarship is to support Honours projectsin the areas identified by Luke as in criticalneed of research to support, understandand assist in waterways management.

The Scholarship encourages youngpeople to be involved in gaining scientificexperience in the characteristics of rivers,build skills and networks, and ensureWestern Australia has a bright future inwaterways management.The Scholarship iscurrently open to honours students, butmay be expanded to include masters andPhD students. Eligible projects include:~ research into wheatbelt valleys and

their river systems,~ the hydrology of south west WA,~ plants that use more water to help

manage changes in hydrology,~ salt tolerant plants for use in saline

landscapes.The Department has allocated a total of$50,000 over a 5-year period for the LukePen Scholarship.

The recipient of this year’s Scholarshipaward was Fiona Gibson from theUniversity of Western Australia, who will beresearching the implications of waterbornepathogens on the management of an oysterfarm in Oyster Harbour, Albany.

estern ustralia continuedW A

Minister Edwards and Fiona Gibson (Scholarship recipient) in centre,surrounded by the Pen family.


Riparian zone condition assessment for works planning in the Mount Lofty RangesOver the last few decades, developments in theavailability, management and presentation ofnatural resource data have enabled more refinedassessments to be undertaken to assist catchmentrehabilitation.The application of catchment andriparian health assessments in the Mount LoftyRanges provides an example of the evolution ofthe survey and prioritisation processes that wecan now use, as well as the challenges facingmanagers to keep up with additional availableinformation whilst maintaining communityenthusiasm to care for their catchments.

Coordinated riparian zone condition assess-ment and prioritisation for works programmingwere undertaken in the Mount Lofty Ranges inthe mid 1990s.With the assistance of the NaturalHeritage Trust, the then Department of Environ-ment and Natural Resources with the Environ-ment Protection Authority commenced a seriesof riparian zone assessments across the rangesthat were linked to awareness raising campaignsfor landholders. Due to the cost of surveying andprocessing, only third order and greater water-courses were surveyed in that program.

The process involved agency staff walkingthe length of the watercourses and surveying thephysical and biological condition of the riparianzone. Records were taken of issues such asvegetation type, cover and condition (recordedas level of weed invasion into native vegetation),bed and bank stability. The data was thenpresented to landholders from the regionssurveyed at a series of open workshops. At theseworkshop sessions, landholders were given briefintroductions to riparian management and thenthrough a process of voting, established priori-tised works programs for their subcatchments.This process was significant in raising the awareness of communities in the region aboutthe value and importance of riparian zones, andthe actions that are needed to rehabilitate theselargely degraded areas. One drawback, however,was that priorities focussed on in-ground worksin the most visibly degraded areas, largelyoverlooking the importance of protectingremnant environmental values.

Subsequent prioritisation processes havetried to address this problem, by drawing onmore data about riparian condition and using it

to highlight the importance of the relationshipbetween the riparian zone, terrestrial landscapesand other activities occurring in the broadercatchment. In addition, all watercourses(including first and second order streams) arenow included in the process.

The South Australian catchment watermanagement boards took on the responsibility of leading prioritisation processes since theirestablishment in the late 1990s. One of thepartnership projects funded by four of theboards was the Watercourse Survey andPrioritisation Project, which was completed in2003. This project aimed to apply the 12 steps to watercourse rehabilitation outlined in theRehabilitation Manual for Australian Streams(Rutherfurd et al.). The project reviewed avail-able data, developed methods for on ground datacapture and prioritised activities on the basis ofa risk assessment process. Riparian conditionwas assessed using information from streamgeomorphology, vegetation condition, waterquality and hydrology data sources. The Boardsare now using the outputs of the prioritisationproject in the implementation of an auctionbased approach to funding fair and cost effectivebiodiversity and water quality conservationservices provided by landholders. The auctionbased approach is being designed by the Boardsin conjunction with CSIRO as part of the MarketBased Instruments Pilot Program.

Other watercourse assessment and prioritisa-tion processes are currently underway includingthe Land & Water Australia Catchment Assess-ment Techniques Project (see page 12). Thisproject, focusing on catchment processes, such aserosion and sedimentation, as well as vegetationcondition, will add to the existing informationavailable to managing agencies to assist withfocussing their investment in watercourse andriparian protection and rehabilitation.

Land & Water Australia has also providedfunding for the development of a rapid assess-ment method for ephemeral river health whichwhen completed will further add to the riparianmanager’s toolkit. This project is being lead by the CRCs for Freshwater Ecology andCatchment Hydrology and has its field researchareas in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

outh ustralia by Tom Carrangis and Steve GattiS AFor furtherinformation

Steve GattiOnkaparinga Catchment Water Management BoardTel: 08 8374 6017Email:[email protected]


ACT Frogwatch is a community frog monitoringprogram that collects information about frogspecies, their distribution and abundance.Frogwatch volunteers get out to their local water-ways and discover these fascinating amphibiansliving in rivers, streams, lakes, dams and wetlands.The program was initiated in 2000 by theGinninderra Catchment Group, and has sinceexpanded to the ACT and surrounding region.The first ACT and Region National Water WeekCommunity Frogwatch Census was held inOctober 2002, and now includes over 150 partic-ipants, monitoring frogs at almost 120 sites.

Why monitor frogs?Frogs are well known for their sensitivity topollution and habitat degradation, which makesthem ideal indicators of the health of ourenvironment. Monitoring frog populations canallow us to assess the health of our waterways byassuming that healthy habitats provide suitableconditions for diverse and abundant frogpopulations. Unhealthy or degraded habitats,on the other hand, have few or no frogs present.Monitoring frogs is easy because each specieshas a distinctive mating call, so they we can beeasily identified using tape recordings.

The most important part of the Frogwatchprogram are volunteers. Each year hundreds ofvolunteers attend training sessions, where theylearn about the frog species of the ACT, threats to their survival, and how to recognise their particular mating call. Frogwatch participants also learnt about basic safety and site selection

guidelines, procedures for preventing the spreadof potential frog pathogens, frog identificationtechniques and procedures for undertaking andrecording detailed observations about their site,weather, vegetation and other relevant parameters.

The data collected by volunteers contributessignificant information about the types andabundance of frogs found in our region. Itcontributes to an overall wildlife monitoringnetwork that is investigating the impacts ofbushfires and drought on our waterways. InOctober 2003, a total of eight frog species werefound in the region, and sites were identifiedwith the greatest and least diversity of frogspecies. Those with the greatest diversity werehighlighted as priorities for protection in broadercatchment management initiatives. It is envis-aged that as monitoring continues in the longterm, we will be able to identify any changes inthe distribution and abundance of frog species in the region. This information will also help toidentify future community monitoring andaction programs that will create a more frogfriendly Upper Murrumbidgee Catchment.

ustralian apital erritory by Rachelle McConvilleA C TCommunity monitoring through Frogwatch

For furtherinformationRachelle McConvilleWaterwatch Coordinator,Ginninderra Catchment GroupTel: 02 6278 3309 Email:[email protected]

outh ustralia continuedS AThese projects will add to the data available

for prioritising works, with improved access andrelevance of data enabling managing agencies toprioritise the provision of funding assistance for catchment rehabilitation. The challenges forcatchment management agencies is to ensurethat the land owners and managers, who are keypartners in the rehabilitation works, are kept upto date with developments in thinking. This isespecially relevant in many parts of the regionthat are involving landholder managementcommittees or catchment groups directly, to

make investment decisions for the agencies. A key focus of many of theprograms in the region is to inspire all landholders across the catchmentto actively manage the condition of their riparian areas as part of goodproperty management, no matter where they fall in the landscape.

Program managers and extension staff in the region are mindful toenure that their messages to these communities do not lead to a feelingthat careful management is only required for reaches that are considered“priorities”. Rather, they seek to promote a catchment care ethic thatconsiders all activities in the catchment contribute to the condition of theriparian areas. Applying the increasing level of knowledge in a way thatpreserves this ethic, remains the greatest challenge for the managementagencies.


A U N I Q U E E X P E R I E N C E

Riversymposium 2004‘Threats to Sustainable River Systems — beating the odds’

SHERATON BRISBANE HOTEL , 31 AUGUST TO 3 SEPTEMBER

Case studies• Orinoco River,Venezuela• Ishikari River, Japan• Klamath River Basin, USA• Volga River, Russia• Zambezi River, Africa

Keynote speakers• Dr Vandara Shiva — India• Assoc. Prof. Christopher Gordon — Ghana• Richard Caplan — USA• Dr Bryson Bates — Australia

Special sessions• Managing the Peel Harvey Inlet,Western Australia.• International and National Thiess Riverprize finalists• The role of development banks in river management• The Great DebateDelegates are provided with a comprehensive social programlinked to Riverfestival plus pre-Symposium study tours.A Symposium Trade Expo is the perfect vehicle to showcaseproducts and services to delegates: details on request.

Thiess Riverprize 2004The $AUD100,000 International and $AUD25,000 NationalThiess Riverprize for excellence in river management will beawarded to the two outstanding river management projects atRiversymposium 2004. People and organisations engaged in bestpractice river and catchment management from Australia andaround the world enter this prestigious award.

To register, or for more informationContact: [email protected] visit www.riverfestival.com.au/riversymposium

Riverfestival is an initiative of the Brisbane City Council andthe Queensland Government in partnership with Channel Nine

Riversymposium is an integral part of Riverfestival, Brisbane’slargest annual celebratory event, which is underpinned byenvironmental and water awareness messages.The Symposiumattracts around 400 delegates from 30 countries each year.

Who should attend?Riversymposium is of direct benefit to river managers, govern-ment, water utility and natural resource managers, policy andplanning personnel, hydro power and irrigation authorities,plus environmental protection agencies.The Symposium is alsohighly relevant to cultural and special event managers, water-front developers and urban planners, catchment managers,companies engaged in engineering and hydrology, non-govern-ment organisations, universities and research facilities.

2004 ProgramThis will consist of plenary and concurrent sessions for up to160 presentations, interactive session formats including specialworkshops, discussion panels and a debate, plus the work offinalists in the International and National Thiess Riverprize andthe Holden Hypothetical, which is open to the public.

Session themes• Living with floodplain rivers• Climate change — how will we cope with our changing rivers?• Water trading and water privatisation — solutions for the

future?• Agricultural practices towards sustainable rivers and estuaries• River pollutants. Problems for human and ecosystem health• Restoring native fish populations to rivers and estuaries• Damming the rivers — costs and benefits.• Environmental flows for rivers and estuaries• The challenges of keeping riparian zones healthy• Salinity — prevention and mitigation• Community involvement in river management• Celebrating our waterfronts• Waterfront design — attracting people to our rivers.

Clip or copy this coupon ☛and return to

Jennifer Bruce Publications OfficerLand & Water AustraliaGPO Box 2182Canberra ACT 2601Tel: 02 6263 6000 Fax: 02 6263 6099Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer The information in this publication has been publishedby Land & Water Australia toassist public knowledge anddiscussion and help improvethe sustainable managementof land, water and vegetation.Where technical information has been provided by or contributed by authorsexternal to the Corporation,readers should contact theauthor(s) and make their own enquiries before makinguse of that information.

Print Post Approved NumberPP 299436/00235

■■ Would you or a colleague like to be on our mailing list for RipRap or other Land & Water Australia newsletters?

Title: Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr (please circle) First name: ....................................................

Surname: .......................................................................................................................................

Position: .........................................................................................................................................

Organisation: .................................................................................................................................

Postal address: ...............................................................................................................................

........................................................................... State: ................... Postcode: ...................

Tel: ..................................................................... Fax: ...............................................................

Email: ............................................................................................................................................

Suggest a theme for future issues: .................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................

■■ Riparian Management Fact Sheets ☛Also available in pdf format at www.rivers.gov.au

■■ Yes! Please put me on the mailing list for the following Land & Water Australia R&D newsletters:

■■ RipRap — River and Riparian Lands Management

■■ Thinking Bush — Native Vegetation

■■ Focus — Dryland salinity

■■ People make a difference — Social & Institutional Issues

■■ SALT — Dryland salinity

✁

RPR Pi a All editions of RipRap are available at www.rivers.gov.au

Edition 10, 1998: Streambank stability. Edition 11, 1998: Riparian zones: what are they?

Edition 12, 1999: Managing the riparian zone within a total farm system. Edition 13, 1999:

Benefiting from overseas knowledge and experience. Edition 14, 1999: Managing and rehabilitating

riparian vegetation. Edition 15, 1999: Seeing is believing: the value of demonstration sites.

Edition 16, 2000: Managing snags and Large Woody Debris. Edition 17, 2000: Monitoring and

evaluation ★. Edition 18, 2001: Inland rivers and riparian zones ★. Edition 19, 2001: River and

riparian habitat for fish ★. Edition 20, 2001: River contaminants ★. Edition 21, 2002: What are

ecosystem services? ★. Edition 22, 2002: Riparian research ★. Edition 23, 2003: Managing riparian

land to achieve multiple objectives ★. Edition 24, 2003: Building capacity for river and riparian

restoration ★. Edition 25, 2003: Catching up on contaminants ★.

R I V E R A N D R I P A R I A N L A N D S M A N A G E M E N T N E W S L E T T E R

★Hard copies of these editions are available.

Documents

TO LS AND TE HNIQUES c - Queensland Wetlands Information ... · National River Contaminants Program and National Rivers Consortium are now entering their final year of investment,