1 / 36

Burnett Mary NRM Region’s State of the Estuarine Environment report

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

seth-hughes
Download Presentation

Burnett Mary NRM Region’s State of the Estuarine Environment report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Stressor based approach Stressors: Aquatic sediments Bacteria/pathogens Biota removal/disturbance Freshwater flow regime Habitat removal/disturbance Hydrodynamics Litter Nutrients Organic matter Pest (plant, animal) species pH Toxicants What are key stressors impacting on estuaries?

  3. Habitat removal/disturbance

  4. Biota removal/disturbance

  5. Litter

  6. Steve Posselt Pests

  7. Human activity Direct pressure Pressure mediating factors – e.g. Farm BMP, zero till, trash blanketing % ground cover Sediment load Phys-chem state Biological impact Estuary’s ‘intrinsic’ mediating factors – e.g. its length and tidal range Turbidity % cover seagrass Framework logic – Cause and Effect e.g. Stressor ‘sediments’

  8. Conceptual models to support indicators

  9. Examples of indicators

  10. Vulnerability score Pressure indicator score X Overall estuary risk score Overall estuary health score Comparison against thresholds Stressor Risk score Stressor 1 Condition score Score adjusted Stressor 2 Condition score Stressor ranking Condition indicator 1 score Condition indicator 2 score Comparison against thresholds Score boost Indicator weighting Raw data Raw data Comparison against thresholds Assessment and Scoring

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 9 new estuaries monitored by BMRG 10 additional sites monitored by EPA and funded by BMRG Sites

  14. 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

  15. catchment land-use

  16. pest species in adjoining areas stormwater

  17. commercial and recreational fisher usage port/harbour/marina and boating activity

  18. Photo NRW Unsealed road density

  19. Google Earth Riparian vegetation Tidal barrage; estuary loss Photo SEQ Catchments impoundment density

  20. Clear runoff Turbid runoff Photo NRW

  21. Experiment at Mt Mort near Ipswich Results from a 54mm storm Matching stocking rates to pasture availability is the key to effective management in grazing lands Finlayson and Silburn, 1996

  22. Photo ACTFR

  23. mangrove extent Google Earth seagrass extent, % cover and % epiphytic growth saltmarsh extent

  24. bacteria counts toxicants in sediments toxicants in water

  25. chlorophyll-a and nutrients pH, DO, turbidity

  26. Presence of litter Accumulation rate of litter

  27. Neuse River, USA - http://switchstudio.com/waterkeeper/issues/Spring%2007/neuse.html mass mortality events red-spot disease Photo QASSIT, NRW

  28. Example – vulnerability • natural water clarity • flushing rate • presence of conservation areas • tidal range • resuspension rate

  29. Mary River Kauri Creek

  30. DRAFT

  31. DRAFT

  32. DRAFT

  33. DRAFT

  34. 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

  35. Contact David Scheltinga EPA david.scheltinga@epa.qld.gov.au (07) 3896 9242

More Related