burnett mary nrm region’s state of the estuarine environment report
DESCRIPTION
Burnett Mary NRM Region’s State of the Estuarine Environment report. David Scheltinga, Andrew Moss, Sue Sargent, Jenna Hill, Derani Sullivan, EPA techs, Plus many more. Stressor based approach. Stressors : Aquatic sediments Bacteria/pathogens Biota removal/disturbance - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Burnett Mary NRM Region’s Burnett Mary NRM Region’s State of the Estuarine State of the Estuarine Environment reportEnvironment report
David Scheltinga, Andrew Moss, Sue Sargent, Jenna Hill, Derani Sullivan, EPA techs, Plus
many more
Stressor based approachStressors:
Aquatic sedimentsBacteria/pathogens Biota removal/disturbanceFreshwater flow regimeHabitat removal/disturbanceHydrodynamicsLitterNutrientsOrganic matterPest (plant, animal) speciespHToxicants
What are key stressors impacting on estuaries?
Habitat removal/disturbanceHabitat removal/disturbance
Biota removal/disturbanceBiota removal/disturbance
LitterLitter
PestsPestsSteve Posselt
Human activityHuman activity
% ground cover% ground cover
Direct pressureDirect pressure
Sediment loadSediment load
Phys-chem statePhys-chem state
TurbidityTurbidity
Biological impactBiological impact
% cover seagrass% cover seagrass
Pressure mediating factors – e.g. Farm BMP, zero till, trash blanketing
Estuary’s ‘intrinsic’ mediating factors – e.g. its length and
tidal range
Framework logic – Cause and EffectFramework logic – Cause and Effecte.g. Stressor ‘sediments’e.g. Stressor ‘sediments’
Conceptual models to support indicators
Examples of indicators Stressor Human activity pressure
indicatorsDirect pressure indicators
Phys-chem state indicators
Biological impact indicators
Aquatic sediments
Catchment land-use% of catchment cleared% length of river system with no riparian vegetationPresence of point sourcesBoating activity
Monitored or modelled sediment loads entering the estuary (total diffuse and point sources)
Secchi depthTurbidity
Change in seagrass extent% cover of seagrassChange in mangrove extent
Bacteria/ pathogens
Sewage treatment plant dischargeSewage overflow events% catchment under intensive animal productionNumber of septics within catchment
Intestinal enterococci counts
Number of mass mortality events caused by pathogens
Biota removal/ disturbance
Commercial bait collectionCommercial trawler usageBoats mooringsBoating activityRecreational usage indexEstuary population sizeRecreational fishers usage
Fish, crab and prawn abundance
Assessment and Scoring
Condition indicator 2 score
Condition indicator 1 score
Comparison against thresholds
Raw data
Score boost
Indicator weighting
Comparison against thresholds
Overall estuary health score
Stressor 1 Condition score
Stressor 2Condition score
Score adjustedStressor ranking
Comparison against thresholds
Raw data
Overall estuary risk score
Stressor Risk score
Pressure indicator score
Vulnerability score X
Benefits of the framework• Numerous benefits for decision support• Allows the identification of the key pressures
in the area– which can help identify what the key condition
indicators to monitor are (i.e. only monitor relevant indicators)
– which can then be the targets of management actions
• Allows justification for why and where did management work
Benefits of the framework• Is relatively cheap and easy to perform ‘risk’
analysis• Pressure indicators will respond to
management action much earlier than condition indicators
• Identify the causes and effects, making it easier to identify appropriate management actions
• Can be used for various reporting needs• Report on dependability and confidence
Sites
9 new estuaries monitored by BMRG10 additional sites monitored by EPA and funded by BMRG
What is being monitored• 37 condition, 51 pressure and 7 vulnerability
indicators• Started April 2007• Currently have information on about 75%• Finish May 2008 and report soon after
catchment land-use
stormwater
pest species in adjoining areas
commercial and recreational fisher usage
port/harbour/marina and boating activity
Unsealed road density Photo NRW
impoundment density
Tidal barrage; estuary loss
Riparian vegetation
Photo SEQ Catchments
Google Earth
Clear runoff Turbid runoffPhoto NRW
Experiment at Mt Mort near IpswichResults from a 54mm storm
Treatment 87% cover 69% cover 6% coverTotal runoff from storm (mm)
1.5 14 38
% rain that runoff 3 26 70
Soil loss (t/ha) 0.03 0.3 22
Depth soil lost (mm)
0.002 0.02 1.7
Sediment concentration (g/L)
1.5 1.9 63
N loss (kg/ha) 0.14 1.9 15.3
P loss (kg/ha) 0.02 0.26 4.3
Matching stocking rates to pasture availability is the key to effective management in grazing lands
Finlayson and Silburn, 1996
Photo ACTFR
saltmarsh extent
mangrove extent
seagrass extent, % cover and
% epiphytic growth
Google Earth
toxicants in sediments toxicants in water
bacteria counts
pH, DO, turbiditychlorophyll-a and nutrients
Accumulation rate of litter
Presence of litter
red-spot diseasemass mortality events
Photo QASSIT, NRW
Neuse River, USA - http://switchstudio.com/waterkeeper/issues/Spring%2007/neuse.html
Example – vulnerability• natural water clarity• flushing rate• presence of conservation areas• tidal range• resuspension rate
Kauri CreekMary River
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
Summary• A way forward is being developed (slowly) for
integrating agency, local authority and community monitoring data
• Advantages to all parties by working cooperatively – sharing resources, knowledge, methods, QA, etc.
• Both able to make good use of the data (provided that the quality is good)– to compare with guidelines– data used to establish a baseline for estuaries
• QA important if data is to be of real use – the direct involvement of the EPA helps to ensure this
• Get outcomes that are useful to all (improved health)
• Provided that all parties do their bit properly and comprehensively
ContactDavid [email protected](07) 3896 9242