Namoi Catchment Action Plan 2010–2020

Transcription

Supplementary
Document 1
Namoi Catchment
Action Plan
2010–2020
The first step – preliminary
resilience assessment
of the Namoi Catchment
Namoi Catchment
Action Plan
2010–2020
Supplementary document 1
The first step – preliminary resilience assessment
2013 Update
NAMOI CATCHMENT ACTION PLAN 2010–2020, SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENT 1
Acknowledgements
Many people from the Catchment Community, Local Government, Government Agencies, Research Institutions, Industry
Organisations, Namoi CMA Board and Namoi CMA staff have contributed time and effort in helping to develop and
subsequently update the Namoi Catchment Action Plan (CAP). Their ongoing contribution is not only appreciated but
essential to the successful development, implementation and adaptive management of the Namoi CAP.
Namoi CMA would like to acknowledge and thank the following people in particular for their assistance in developing
this resilience assessment through their participation in the initial 2010 series of workshops, which initiated the process
of developing the Namoi CAP.
Thinking about
resilience thinking
Brian Walker
Bruce Brown
Graham Marshall
Jeffrey Bell
Mary-Denese Holmes
Paul Ryan
Sally Egan
Thinking about
resilience in
biodiversity
Anna Cronin
Bronwyn Cameron
Corie Taylor
David Ward
Francesca Andreoni
James Hutchinson-Smith
Julian Wall
Nathan Penny
Peter Christie
Peter Dawson
Robert Taylor
Sally Egan
Tony Townsend
Warren Martin
Thinking about
resilience in land
Thinking about
resilience in water
Thinking about
resilience in people
Adam Downey
Angela Baker
Bronwyn Cameron
Dennis Boschma
Francesca Andreoni
George Truman
Glenn Bailey
Greg Chapman
Ian Daniels
Jeffrey Bell
Lester Thearle
Pam Welsh
Sally Egan
Scott Stanton
Shane Adams
Simon Turpin
Andrew Falkenmire
Andrew Scott
Bronwyn Cameron
Bruce Brown
Cate Barrett
David Ward
Francesca Andreoni
Jane McFarlane
Jim McDonald
Ken Crawford
Michael Healy
Nathan Penny
Nick Cooke
Peter Christmas
Sally Egan
Stephanie McCaffrey
Tony Townsend
Warwick Marwhinney
Anne Ferguson
Bronwyn Cameron
Colin Easton
Corie Taylor
David Thompson
Don Tydd
Francesca Andreoni
Gina Davis
Helen Andreoni
Judith McNeill
Mary-Denese Holmes
Pam Welsh
Peter Dawson
Richard Staynor
Rob Harrison
Sally Egan
Shannon Taylor
Simon Taylor
Namoi Catchment Action Plan (2010-2020)
Supplementary document 1
Version 3.2
September 2013
2
NAMOI CATCHMENT ACTION PLAN 2010–2020
Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................... 2
4.5 Water asset – surface water availability –
environment . ...................................................76
4.6 Water asset – surface water available to people76
4.7 Water asset – floodplain flows . ........................77
4.9 Water asset – local flows . ................................79
4.10 Water asset – hydrological connectivity . .........79
4.11 Water asset – river geomorphology ................. 81
4.12 Water asset – aquatic species .........................83 .
4.13 Water asset – riparian buffers .........................84
4.14 Water asset – riparian vegetation ....................85
4.15 Water asset – optimal level of surface
water quality ...................................................86
4.16 Climate change as a driver ............................. 88
4.17 What does all this mean? ............................... 88
4.18 References ......................................................89
1 Introduction . .......................................................... 5
1.1 Resilience in a nutshell......................................5
1.2 Key principles of resilience thinking ..................6
1.3 Critical thresholds identified for
the Namoi Catchment . ......................................7 .
1.4
Integrated analysis of catchment-scale
thresholds .........................................................8
2 Biodiversity . ..........................................................10
2.1 Biodiversity asset – local-scale connectivity ... 11
2.2 Biodiversity asset – regional landscape
connectivity .................................................... 17
2.3 Biodiversity asset – total native woody
vegetation cover............................................. 20
2.4 Biodiversity asset – species populations . ........26
2.5 Biodiversity asset – large areas of
conserved habitat . ..........................................29
2.6 Biodiversity asset – intact native vegetation
communities . ..................................................29
2.7 Biodiversity asset – waterways . ......................39
2.8 Biodiversity asset – groundwater-dependent
ecosystems . ....................................................42
2.9 Climate change as a driver ..............................45
2.10 What does all this mean?................................45
2.11 References ......................................................46
5 People ....................................................................96
5.1 People asset – human capital. .........................97
5.2 People asset – social capital ......................... 101
5.3 People asset – manufactured capital ............104
5.4 People asset – financial capital ..................... 107
5.5 People asset – relationship to
natural resources ..........................................109
5.6 What does all this mean? . ..............................111
5.7 Sub-regional resilience assessment .............. 112
5.8 General resilience – socio-economic analysis 116
5.9 References .................................................... 116
Appendices ..............................................................120
Appendix A: Introduction – critical thresholds identified
in the 2010 resilience assessment
of the Namoi Catchment ...........................................120
Appendix B: Biodiversity – background information
on the species and ecological communities of the
Namoi Catchment .....................................................120
Appendix C: Biodiversity – background information
on threatening processes in the Namoi Catchment ... 126
Appendix D: Biodiversity – further reading . .............. 149
Appendix E: Biodiversity – results from 2010 expert
workshops ................................................................163
Appendix F: Land – results from 2010
expert workshops .....................................................168
Appendix G: Land – description of
Namoi Catchment LMUs ........................................... 177
Appendix H: Land – further reading . ..........................182
Appendix I: Water – further reading . ..........................183
Appendix J: Water – results from 2010
expert workshops ..................................................... 192
Appendix K: People – results from 2010
expert workshops . ....................................................198
Appendix L: People – further reading .........................204
3 Land........................................................................54
3.1 Soils asset – Liverpool Plains Red Earths ........55
3.2 Soils asset – Duri Hills ....................................56
3.3 Soils asset – Recent Western Floodplains .......56
3.4 Soils asset – High Western Floodplains . ..........57
3.5 Soils asset – Central Black Earth Floodplains ..58
3.6 Soils asset – Colluvial Black Earths .................58
3.7 Soils asset – Central Mixed Soil Floodplains ... 59
3.8 Soils asset – Flat Pilliga Outwash . ...................59
3.9 Soils asset – Sedimentary hilltops and slopes .60
3.10 Soils asset – Peel Floodplain . .......................... 61
3.11 Soils asset – Riparian Corridor......................... 61
3.12 Soils asset – Upland bogs and swamps . .......... 61
3.13 Soils asset – Basaltic Slopes and Hills . ...........62
3.14 Soils asset – Steep Basaltic Hills . ....................62
3.15 Soils asset – Other soils, general .....................63
3.16 Climate change as a driver ..............................63
3.17 What does all this mean? ................................64
3.18 References ......................................................65
4 Water ...................................................................... 67
4.1 Water asset – groundwater availability ............68
4.2 Water asset – groundwater recharge . ..............72
4.3 Water asset – optimal level of
groundwater quality . .......................................73
4.4 Water asset – surface water quantity . .............74
List of figures . ........................................................ 210
List of Tables ............................................................ 212
3
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
This resilience assessment was initially completed in
2010 as a requirement of the Catchment Action Plan
(CAP) Review pilot process instigated by the New South
Wales (NSW) Natural Resources Commission (NRC). The
NRC had set an objective for CAPs to focus on building
resilience to future change. The NRC took this position
on the grounds that recent experiences with prolonged
droughts, declining water availability and extreme weather
events, in association with the uncertainty around future
climate, demonstrated that we were (and indeed still are)
in a time of rapid change and high uncertainty. The resilience thinking conceptual framework is considered an
appropriate tool for managing systems in the face of high
uncertainty, because it assumes that the context for the
system will be constantly changing.
Some revisions have also been made to this catchmentwide assessment of specified resilience, and these are
noted throughout the document. Also, some additional
sections have been added to include some of the work
undertaken to assess resilience at the finer sub-regional
scale, building on the catchment-scale preliminary
assessment that was undertaken initially.
1.1 Resilience in a nutshell
Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to
absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and
structure.
Resilience thinking has arisen because current
approaches to sustainable natural resource management
(NRM) are failing to deliver on expectations, because
they rely on modelling of average conditions and ignore
the impacts of major disturbances; they fail to recognise
secondary effects and feedbacks that affect the bigger
system; and they fail to recognise that the world as a
whole is changing and we need to be in a position to work
with change, rather than being vulnerable to it.
Namoi Catchment Management Authority (CMA)
presented the initial resilience assessment in 2010 as the
first step in the process of understanding the complexity
and resilience of our systems. The time available for this
process was very short; thus, Namoi CMA was unable
to delve too deeply into the function and controlling
variables for much of the catchment. This assessment
was developed to inform the strategic directions of the
CAP as far as possible, given the available time. At the
time, we acknowledged that some of the thresholds we
had identified in this document and the resulting CAP
might prove to be incorrect. However, we noted that
– provided we acknowledged the ‘unknowns’ and had an
adaptive management process in place to review system
trends, changes, drivers, thresholds and intervention
activity – the resilience thinking approach should put us
in a place where we understand what is critical to the
catchment’s function and exactly where we are in relation
to relevant thresholds. This resilience assessment underpinned the development of the Namoi Catchment Action
Plan (2010 – 2020).
Resilience thinking identifies social-ecological systems.
It assumes that we all live and operate in social systems
that are acting on and underpinned by ecological
systems; that is, it assumes that people, wherever they
live, are dependent on ecosystems. Social-ecological
systems are complex adaptive systems that change in
ways that may not be predictable, linear or incremental.
These systems can also change state in response to
either a shock or a slow pattern of change. The point at
which a system will change into a different state is called
a threshold. The attribute of resilience, therefore, refers
to the capacity of a social-ecological system to absorb
shocks and disturbances without crossing a threshold.
Social-ecological systems are complex and are controlled
by multiple variables; however, it is usually only a handful
of variables that are the critical drivers of change in a
system. Within each of these variables there could be
a threshold that, if crossed, means that the system will
behave in a different way; once a threshold has been
crossed, it is usually very difficult to get back to the
previous state. When managing for resilience, it can be
considered that we are attempting to create or maintain
distance between where the system is now and where the
thresholds might be.
As part of ongoing adaptive management, this document
is an update of the resilience assessment that reflects 2
years of further analysis, review and evidence; similarly,
there has been an update of the Namoi CAP that is based
on this assessment. Two additional resilience assessments have also been undertaken:
• one looking at specified resilience of the socialecological systems (the Tablelands, Slopes and Plains
sub-regions) of the Namoi Catchment, with particular
emphasis on socio-economics
• one taking an initial look at general resilience of
the Namoi Catchment, based on socio-economic
variables.
5
1. Inroduction
1.2 Key principles of resilience
thinking
Resilience thinking looks at two different parts of
resilience. The first is specified resilience, which is the
system’s resilience to specific changes are known about
and can be measured. The second is general resilience,
which looks at how resilient the system might be to
changes and shocks that cannot be predicted.
What does resilience mean?
The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise so as to retain essentially the same function,
structure and feedbacks1 – to have the same identity.
Attributes that contribute to general resilience include
diversity, ecological variability, modularity (i.e. not everything is connected to everything else), acknowledgement
of slow variables, tight feedbacks, social capital,
innovation, overlapping governance, and an acknowledgement and appropriate pricing of ecosystem services.
Resilience thinking accepts
People are a part of the natural system and are underpinned by natural resources.
Therefore, social-ecological systems are defined, rather
than just ecological systems.
A better understanding of general resilience has also now
been developed, as part of the 2013 update to the Namoi
CAP, based on research and analysis completed as part
of the update, together with previous work completed
by Namoi CMA and other organisations that includes
scenario planning, regional economic development strategies, and social and economic data.
Things are changing (and always have).
Therefore, rivers of change and potential shocks are
identified.
Trying to hold natural systems in place or return them to
previous states may not be possible.
Therefore, trends, drivers, variables and conceptual
models of how the system works are needed.
Resilience thinking tells us
We must know what we need to do to establish the resilience of natural assets so that we can continue to rely on
them despite changes and shocks.
Therefore, implications of continued trends and shocks on
the asset are identified.
There are often limits to how far a system can be pushed
before it changes to a different and undesirable state.
Therefore, possible undesirable states should be
identified.
Resilience thinking relies on
A focus on thresholds (‘tipping points’) between alternative
states (or ‘regimes’) of a system.
Therefore, thresholds are identified where possible.
1
Walker & Salt 2006
6
1.3 Critical thresholds identified
for the Namoi Catchment
1. Inroduction
strongly suspected or possible) has been drawn from the
information documented in this resilience assessment. A
general indication of the confidence rating (high, medium
or low) is also provided, based on the strength of evidence
for the threshold identified through research completed
to date and documented in the Namoi CMA CAP evidence
library. Where relevant, notes have been added to give
context to the confidence rating.
Table 1 provides an updated list of the critical thresholds
for the Namoi Catchment based on the 2013 revisions
undertaken as part of the adaptive management process.
There has been a change to one threshold in the water
theme, and the rephrasing of another in the biodiversity
theme. The original set of critical thresholds identified for
the Namoi Catchment, based on the first iteration of this
resilience assessment, are given in Appendix A.
Further detail for each asset is available in the relevant
chapter in this report. This is a first step, and it is intended
to produce a detailed rating of the strength of each
individual item of evidence underpinning the Namoi CAP
and the associated thresholds (documented in the Namoi
CAP evidence library) in the future.
Table 1 also provides an assessment of the strength of
evidence and a confidence rating for each threshold. The
evidence for each threshold resulting from the resilience
assessment (resilience assessment outcome: known,
Table 1 Critical thresholds identified for the Namoi Catchment
Theme
Threshold
Biodiversity
Woody vegetation cover (% remaining of original extent) – 30%.
Woody vegetation cover (% remaining of original extent) – 70%.
Regional vegetation communities maintain over 30% extent.2
Population size of individual species (generic – not specified for each
species currently).
Habitat area for individual species or populations (generic – not
specified for each species currently).
Area of endangered or vulnerable community (generic – not specified
for each species currently).
Presence of individual invasive species (i.e. Presence/absence is the
threshold).
Population extent of individual invasive species.
Groundcover is at least 70%.
Surface water flow quantity is at 66% of natural (pre-development)
condition, with a sensitivity to natural frequency and duration.
River geomorphic condition is good (against benchmark condition).
Recruitment of riparian vegetation is higher than attrition of individual
trees.
Agricultural and urban supply aquifers do not cross into lower levels of
beneficial use.
Alluvial aquifers are not drawn down below historical maximum
drawdown levels.
Groundwater levels do not drop below the rooting depth of
groundwater-dependent vegetation ecosystems.8
Wetlands are not drained, dammed or otherwise physically modified.
No overarching thresholds identified at this stage. Instead a general
focus on the key areas of wellbeing and adaptive capacity.
Land
Water
People
2
Resilience
assessment outcome
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
Overall Confidence
rating
High
High
High
Medium3
Strongly suspected
Medium4
Strongly suspected
Medium5
Strongly suspected
High
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
Medium6
Medium7
High
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
High
High
Strongly suspected
High
Strongly suspected
High
Strongly suspected
Medium9
Strongly suspected
N/A
High
Medium10
The wording of this threshold has, for clarity, been changed as part of the 2013 update.
The threshold is not specific to any one individual species. Further work is required to understand the specific thresholds pertaining to individual species.
4
The threshold is not specific to any one individual species. Further work is required to understand the specific thresholds pertaining to individual species
– as per CAP Action No. 16
5
The threshold is not specific to any one endangered or vulnerable ecological community. Further work is required to understand the specific thresholds
pertaining to individual species – as per CAP Action No. 16.
6
The threshold is not specific to any one individual invasive species. Further work is required to understand the specific thresholds in relation to emerging
invasive species in the Namoi Catchment.
7
It is considered likely that a higher threshold may be appropriate in the eastern parts of the sub-catchment. Further analysis and investigation is required
to ascertain if this is the case.
8
This threshold has been changed as part of the 2013 update. Namoi CMA Board has made this change to the threshold following analysis and review,
based on the variability in groundwater-dependent ecosystems throughout the Namoi Catchment and their water access requirements. One threshold
based on one fixed depth to the water table is considered overly simplistic, and the available information is indicative based on other regions and not
definitive. More localised and up-to-date information is required, and will be sought as part of ongoing adaptive management.
9
This is generic, and further work is required to ascertain the specific depth required for each individual regional vegetation community in the catchment
that is groundwater-dependent. Further investigation and analysis is required.
10
Evidence is emerging that there may be some stronger evidence for thresholds around wellbeing. Further investigation and analysis is required.
3
7
1.4 Integrated analysis of
catchment-scale thresholds
bution of critical thresholds identified at the catchment
scale to catchment function as a whole across all four
CAP themes.
This matrix demonstrates the relationships and contri
CAP threshold
1. Inroduction
Threshold contribution across all four CAP themes
Biodiversity
Water
High
High
Critical biodiversity
Important for
threshold
hydrological balance
Regional vegetation
community 30%
extent
High
Critical biodiversity
threshold
Low
Some water quality and
hydrology impact
Land
Low
Some contribution to
soil health from woody
vegetation
Low
Some groundcover
impacts
Threatened species
thresholds (grouped)
Medium
Apart from loss of
individual species – flowon effects variable
High
Major impact on
biodiversity
High
Major role in biodiversity
Nil
No evidence of reliance
Nil
Medium
If impacting groundcover
or aquatic species
High
Major role in water
quality and quantity
High
Critical water threshold
Medium
If impacting on soil
health
High
Critical land threshold
Woody vegetation
extent (30% and 70%)
Invasive species
thresholds (grouped)
Groundcover (70%)
Surface water flow
(66% natural flow)
High
Major role in aquatic and
floodplain biodiversity
Geomorphic condition
(high)
High
Major impact on
aquatic biodiversity,
floodplain function and
groundwater recharge
High
Major impact on
biodiversity
Medium
Potential to impact on
groundwater-dependent
vegetation
High
Medium
vegetation
High
vegetation
High
Major impact on aquatic
biodiversity
Medium
Indirect link to more
tolerance for biodiversity
conservation and
maintain governance to
support delivery
Medium
Able to adjust to shocks
and change and modify
practices
High
Riparian vegetation
recruitment (more
than rate of attrition)
Aquifer quality (no
drop in beneficial use)
Aquifer drawdown
(does not exceed
historical maximum)
Groundwater for
groundwaterdependent
ecosystems
Wetlands (not
dammed or removed)
Social wellbeing11
Adaptive capacity12
Medium
Apart from erosion
context and floodplain
soil health
Nil
except immediate
erosion implications
People
High
Important for
groundwater tables and
biodiversity
Low
Impact on landscape
diversity and sense of
place and wellbeing
Low
Some impacts from loss
of iconic species
Medium
If impacting on
productivity or health
High
Major productivity
implications
High
Availability of surface
flow for domestic and
commercial use
High
Due to critical impact on
groundwater recharge
High
Water-quality impacts
Nil
Nil
High
High
Highly dependent
on good-quality
groundwater
Medium
Medium
Potential to impact
on soil health if poorquality water is used for
irrigation purposes
Low
Some impacts from
changed land use if
water availability lessens
Nil
High
Nil
Low
Medium
Better able to manage
water sources
sustainably and support
governance to deliver
Medium
Better able to manage
land for groundcover
retention and support
governance to deliver
High
Critical element of
people system
Medium
practices
Medium
practices
High
Critical element of
people system
11
High
Highly dependent
on good-quality
groundwater
Nil
The relationships between social wellbeing and the land, water and biodiversity thresholds as a contribution to critical catchment function have been
reviewed in light of analysis completed in 2012–2013. The contribution of these two factors to biodiversity, land and water has as a result been changed
from the original ‘low’ to ‘medium’. Further information is available in Chapter 5.
12
The relationships between social wellbeing and the land, water and biodiversity thresholds as a contribution to critical catchment function have been
reviewed in light of analysis completed in 2012–2013. The contribution of these two factors to biodiversity, land and water has as a result been changed
from the original ‘low’ to ‘medium’. Further information is available in Chapter 5.
8
2. Biodiversity
2. Biodiversity
Biodiversity is defined as the ‘variety of all life forms:
different plants, animals, the genes they contain and
the ecosystems in which they live’. In this document,
‘biodiversity’ refers to ‘terrestrial biodiversity’.
connected waterways and regional landscape connectivity.
Further monitoring, evidence and analysis have been
undertaken since 2010, when this assessment was first
completed. The 2013 update includes the results of
further literature reviews, consultation with experts and
the catchment community, and research specifically
commissioned to inform this assessment as prioritised
in the Namoi CAP, or as part of ongoing monitoring and
evaluation undertaken.
A series of two expert workshops were run in 2010 with a
range of biodiversity experts, to identify assets within the
biodiversity theme, any known thresholds, and the drivers
considered relevant from a resilience perspective.
A conceptual model was drafted by the authors as a
starting point for discussion around the critical assets
underpinning biodiversity in the Namoi Catchment. This
model suggested that total woody vegetation cover and
intact native vegetation communities are the most critical
assets, followed by large areas of conserved habitat,
Figure 1: Conceptual model of how biodiversity assets
interact to provide ‘biodiversity’ in the catchment.; an
‘arrow to’ represents a contribution from an ‘arrow from’
asset
10
2.1 Biodiversity asset –
local-scale connectivity
2. Biodiversity
be limited due to stresses associated with fragmentation
(loss of connectivity). The influence of trees and small
remnants on soil service properties at a site scale is also
significant.
Definition
Drivers and threats
Local-scale connectivity has been defined as the connectivity provided by small remnants and paddock trees.
Current estimates for the rate of tree decline range from
1% to 5% per annum. Overall impacts of clearing and
removal of vegetation, and thus loss of connectivity, are
greatest in those landscapes with highly productive soil
types.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
Conceptual model
Paddock trees are dying. Many small remnants are
not viable in the long term without intervention due to
impacts such as edge effects, patch size and climate
change trends.
A range of conceptual models available in the literature
are presented below. These models illustrate both the role
and the ecological function of isolated trees and small
remnants, as well as some of the processes underlying
their current decline in the catchment. (See Figures 2–12)
Thresholds known or suspected
Impacts of continuing trend
Small remnants and paddock trees provide important
habitat connectivity for a range of native species. Some
of the key tree species affected in the Namoi Valley
include poplar box (Eucalyptus populnea), river red gum
(E. camaldulensis), yellow box (E. melliodora) and roughbarked apple (Angophora floribunda). More recently,
there has also been concern about dieback of river
oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) in parts of the Namoi
Catchment.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Mortality among established trees kept below 0.5%
per year, recruitment of new trees at a rate higher
than the number of existing trees, and recruit new
trees at a frequency in years equivalent to around
15% of the maximum life expectancy of the tree
species in question.
2) A minimum of 400–500 mature trees required to
maintain genetic diversity of a patch in Eucalypt
woodlands.
3) Fertiliser application.
These small remnants and paddock trees are also often
the last bastion in terms of seed banks and regenerative
capacity for ecosystem types with high levels of modification and removal due to clearing and development
associated with agriculture, urban expansion and
extractive industries. Regenerative capacity can, however,
Figure 2: Conceptual model describing the process of tree loss
Source: Namoi CMA Expert Workshops 2010
11
2. Biodiversity
Figure 3: Ecological function of scattered trees
Precise thresholds regarding particular stresses such
as defoliation levels, damage by livestock, impacts from
cropping practices, lack of regeneration and water stress
specifically relating to rates of tree decline were not
identifiable for the catchment. The general threshold for
these effects is however the point at which the individual
tree is unable to recover.
Controlling variables
Rates of recruitment and rates of tree mortality are the
most critical controlling variables for this asset.
Previous research suggests that the loss of scattered
mature trees is most sensitive to tree mortality, stand
age, number of recruits and frequency of recruitment.
Source: Extract from Manning et al (2006)
Figure 4: Conceptual model of the processes
underlying rural dieback
Source: Landsberg (1995)
12
Figure 5: Conceptual model of the development of rural dieback
Key: Blacked-in pathways are based on the results of research.
Uncoloured pathways are more speculative.
Broken lines indicate positive feedback pathways
Source: Landsberg (1995)
Figure 6: Effect of drought water stress on trees
Extract from Reid et al (2007)
13
2. Biodiversity
Figure 7: Effect of falling water-table water stress on trees
Figure 8: Effect of lack of river flooding water stress on trees
14
2. Biodiversity
Figure 9: Effect of prolonged inundation water stress
on trees
Figure 10: Effect of dryland salinity on trees
15
2. Biodiversity
Figure 11: Effect of insect damage (New England type
dieback) on trees
Figure 12: Effect of insect attack and noisy miner
dominance on trees
16
2. Biodiversity
2.2 Biodiversity asset – regional
landscape connectivity
2. Biodiversity
are presented below from a number of sources. They
illustrate evolutionary processes that operate at this
catchment or bioregion scale, and illustrate the effects of
fragmentation at a range of scales. (See Figures 13–18)
Definition
Regional landscape connectivity refers to how connectivity occurs across the Namoi Catchment itself, and
across into neighbouring catchments
Known
Nil.
Trend in condition
Strongly suspected
Declining.
1) Mortality among established trees kept below 0.5%
per year, recruitment of new trees at a rate higher
than the number of existing trees, and recruitment
of new trees at a frequency in years equivalent to
around 15% of the maximum life expectancy of the
tree species in question.
2) A minimum of 400–500 trees required to maintain
genetic diversity of a patch in eucalypt woodlands.
3) Gaps more than 106 m – many species will not
cross.
4) Patches more than 1100 m apart – reduces species
dispersal.
5) Corridors more than 350 m wide.
6) Gap distance less than 75 m where gliding
marsupials occur.
Notes on trend
In some parts of the catchment, regional landscape
connectivity is very poor and continuing to decline, and in
other areas it is stable.
There is a high possibility of species loss and local or
global extinctions due to the ongoing loss of regional
landscape connectivity. Also, loss of connectivity reduces
the viability of those remnant patches that do remain.
Total vegetation cover can be impacted by reduced
connectivity.
Drivers and threats
Current estimates for the rate of tree decline range from
1% to 5% per annum. The impacts are biased towards
those landscapes with highly productive soil types.
Rates of recruitment, rates of patch decline and net loss
of native vegetation overall are the controlling variables
for this asset.
Conceptual model
A range of conceptual models available in the literature
Figure 13: Significant ecological and evolutionary processes in relation to geographical and temporal scale
Source: Mackay et al (2010)
17
Figure 14: Relationship between habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation and habitat quality within an area
Source: Franklin et al (2002)
Figure 15: Flow diagram differentiating between
landscapes experiencing habitat loss, habitat
fragmentation and changes in habitat quality
Figure 16: Schematic representation of changes in the
extent of fragmentation over time (typical pattern for
inland catchments of NSW, including the Namoi)
18
2. Biodiversity
Figure 17: Generalised model of the relationship
between microclimate and the distance from the edge
of a forest
2. Biodiversity
Figure 19: Detail of the Western Woodlands Way
proposal showing options for connectivity
maintenance and restoration across and beyond the
Namoi Catchment
Source: Lovett and Price (2007)
Figure 18: Role of functional connectivity
Source: Fuller et al (2011)
Figure 20: Detail of the Namoi Catchment Biodiversity
Conservation Plan showing options for connectivity
maintenance and restoration within and beyond the
Namoi Catchment
Source: Hodgson et al (2009)
Source: Taylor et al (2012)
19
2.3 Biodiversity asset – total
native woody vegetation cover
2. Biodiversity
• remoteness from water (grazing impacts) – more or
less than 5% of area is more than 3 km from a water
point
• fragility of land system – vulnerable or not to invasive
species (now or in the future)
• rareness and irreplaceability – found in only one
place within the region or not
• size of land system (total area) – more or less than 20
km2 in area
• isolation of land system – nearest similar land system
or habitat more or less than 30 km away
Definition
Total woody vegetation cover is expressed as a
percentage of the catchment or sub-catchments that have
woody vegetation cover.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
For terrestrial biodiversity conservation to be most
effective in landscapes with 30–70% native vegetation
cover, the following thresholds are suggested (see Figure
25):
In some parts of the catchment, total native woody
vegetation is very poor and continuing to decline, whereas
in other areas it is stable. An updated analysis of woody
vegetation cover for the Namoi Catchment completed in
2012 has resulted in a revision of the vegetation extent
from 50% to 45% remaining.
• water tables – threatened by rising water tables or not
• amount of clearing – less than 30%, 30–70%, or more
than 70%
• total extent of vegetation community or species range
(area) – more or less than 20 km2 in area
• fragility of land system to degradation – vulnerable to
invasive species or not (now or in the future).
There is a very high possibility of species loss and local
or global extinctions. Land degradation will continue
and possibly accelerate, particularly in relation to
salinity and erosion. Water quality will continue to
degrade. Productivity of existing agricultural systems
will continue to decline. Scenic amenity will be reduced
and the ecosystem services of seed production, honey
production, timber production, climate regulation,
supporting hydrological equilibrium and supporting air
quality will be negatively affected.
effective in landscapes with 10–30% native vegetation
cover, the following thresholds are suggested (see Figures
26–30):
Drivers and threats
• water tables – threatened by rising water tables or not
• amount of clearing – less than 30%, 30–70%, or more
than 70%
• total extent of vegetation community or species range
(area) – more or less than 20 km2 in area
• fragility of land system to degradation – vulnerable to
invasive species or not (now or in the future)
• degree of isolation – more or less than 10 km to the
nearest identical land system.
Utility clearing, mining and development, agricultural
practices, disturbance events (e.g. flood, fire and
drought), approved clearing, natural attrition, illegal
clearing, climate change. Estimates for rate of net loss
of cover in the catchment range from 1% to 5% per
annum. Impacts are biased towards those landscapes
with highly productive soil types. Vegetation is one of the
critical aspects to the management and maintenance of
soils. Greater vegetation cover results in reduced run-off
erosion.
Conceptual model
Figure 29 shows priority sub-catchments based on
proximity to thresholds, based on 2012 mapping undertaken for the purpose of catchment and sub-catchmentscale planning.
The relationship between species and habitat area,
and in particular woody vegetation as habitat, has been
well established both internationally and within the
Australian environment (particularly within temperate
woodland environments such as those found in the Namoi
Catchment). According to the species-area curve, the
extent of habitat is a dominant influence on the occurrence of single species or the richness of assemblages
defined by habitat type. (See Figures 21–23)
Dark green represents a priority for maintenance and
restoration because the sub-catchment is close to the
30% extent remaining threshold (i.e. 25–35% original
extent of woody vegetation, or tree cover, remaining),
and light green represents a priority for maintenance
because the sub-catchment is above the 70% extent
remaining threshold. The other areas either have less than
25% original woody vegetation extent remaining, or have
between 36% and 64% original woody vegetation extent
remaining.
effective in landscapes with over 70% native vegetation
cover (i.e. relatively intact), the following thresholds are
suggested (see Figure 24):
20
The woody vegetation extent data underlying the priorities outlined in Figure 29 are presented below in Table 2.
2. Biodiversity
Figure 21: Woodland bird richness as it relates to
tree cover
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) 30% woody vegetation cover loss and 70% woody
vegetation cover loss.
2) 30–35% minimum of native vegetation cover.
3) Less than 10% habitat cover at the landscape scale
leads to a sharp decline in species richness.
4) A maximum threshold of 30% intensive land use on
properties, a minimum of 30% woodland cover, 10%
of a property to be managed for wildlife, 30–40%
maximum bare ground, 60–70% minimum tussock
grass dominance, and 5–10 ha minimum size of
woodland patches.
Extract from Radford et al (2005) illustrati
Figure 22: Key interactions between ecological and
hydrological processes
Percentage native woody vegetation cover.
Extract from Ludwig et al (2005)
21
2. Biodiversity
Figure 23: Decision tree for assigning priorities to each
biodiversity attribute for landscapes with more than
70% native vegetation cover
Figure 24: Decision tree for assigning priorities to each
biodiversity attribute for landscapes with 30–70% native
vegetation cover
Source: James and Saunders (2001)
22
2. Biodiversity
Figure 25: Decision tree for assigning priorities to each biodiversity attribute for landscapes with 10–30% native
vegetation cover
Figure 26: Diagnosis of landscapes as classified in the framework outlined in Figures 23–25
23
Figure 27: Conceptual illustration of the relationship
between extinction of species and native vegetation
cover
2. Biodiversity
Figure 29: Percentage of remaining woody native
vegetation by grid cells
Figure 30: Priority sub-catchments for woody vegetation
extent maintenance or improvement
Figure 28: A series of species-area curves in relation to
per cent native vegetation remaining
Source: Gibbons (2009)
24
2. Biodiversity
Table 2 Data showing per cent remaining for woody vegetation extent by sub-catchment
Sub-catchment
name
Pre-European woody
vegetation extent (ha)
Current woody
vegetation extent (ha)
% Original extent
cleared
% Original extent
remaining
Bluevale
124275.9481
22663.815
81.8
18.2
Upper Macdonald
84687.75826
16334.10305
80.7
19.3
Upper Pian
102664.4297
20607.44937
79.9
20.1
Keepit
60460.90749
13143.29282
78.3
21.7
Goonoo Goonoo
66509.06894
14839.61131
77.7
22.3
Bugilbone
219249.9465
49809.296
77.3
22.7
Lower Peel
160085.3197
36908.71081
76.9
23.1
Carroll
18683.44225
4316.291855
76.9
23.1
Mooki
50563.75052
12347.98451
75.6
24.4
Rangira
32058.63134
8125.364253
74.7
25.3
Gunidgera
95783.05974
25368.84586
73.5
26.5
Cox’s Creek
126614.4125
33903.78895
73.2
26.8
Bobbiwaa
44507.17861
13129.79889
70.5
29.5
Warrah
130014.3625
38654.12483
70.3
29.7
Spring Creek
26021.58611
8083.529008
68.9
31.1
Lower Pian
221470.1402
72580.23433
67.2
32.8
Box Creek
168485.391
55753.51537
66.9
33.1
141170.29
47596.84283
66.3
33.7
Bundock
54711.27496
18692.62231
65.8
34.2
Werris Creek
91730.49326
33509.91756
63.5
36.5
Chaffey
42156.13223
15580.23531
63.0
37.0
Mid Macdonald
91538.57612
36421.26092
60.2
39.8
Quirindi
81275.52143
32655.18386
59.8
40.2
Split Rock
25437.04949
10341.32078
59.3
40.7
Bundella Creek
235275.1009
95921.3194
59.2
40.8
Phillips
45662.41395
18775.1653
58.9
41.1
Lower Manilla
43022.549
18126.53912
57.9
42.1
Upper Manilla
138841.9553
60263.57596
56.6
43.4
Eulah Creek
156940.3214
72822.36278
53.6
46.4
Upper Peel River
85938.76494
42594.07726
50.4
49.6
Brigalow
32331.61946
16659.0069
48.5
51.5
Cockburn River
113016.6229
60888.95054
46.1
53.9
130696.7056
72160.52979
44.8
55.2
Maules
115067.6202
66074.90646
42.6
57.4
Baradine
177966.5819
127783.6497
28.2
71.8
Talluba
68639.64847
49405.34229
28.0
72.0
Etoo
102122.1989
81345.63843
20.3
79.7
Bohena
83140.10176
70133.31512
15.6
84.4
Borah
139523.1948
123913.5308
11.2
88.8
Coghill
79202.09668
75585.83598
4.6
95.4
Lake Goran
Upper Namoi
25
species populations
2. Biodiversity
Definition
Critical controlling variables include the habitat area
available, population size and recruitment rates. These
will vary, however, according to the species or community
in question.
Trend in condition
Figure 31: Vulnerability of various sectors in Australia
to climate change (note the high level of vulnerability of
natural ecosystems)
Declining or at high risk from system changes (e.g.
climate change).
Declining or stable, but high risk.
Notes on trend
Trend in threatened species – declining (i.e. there is
an ever-growing list of threatened species, versus a
very small number of species populations or ecological
communities being recovered and coming off the
threatened species list). Some species are on the
increase, because they take advantage of modifications to
the landscape that they are well suited to; however, these
are in the minority. Key threatening processes to biodiversity are continuing to increase, and most are yet to
be successfully abated. Overall, biodiversity is in decline
and predicted climate change impacts are expected to
exacerbate this trend. (See Figures 31–37)
Source: Steffen et al (2009)
High possibility of local or global species extinctions.
Secondary wave of extinction possible due to complexity
of poorly understood inter-species interactions. Flow-on
effects will include potential loss of face of the community
in regard to biodiversity conservation, reduced funding
and investment in catchment-wide NRM, public sadness
and reduced connection with place and landscape.
Species loss is particularly significant to Aboriginal
communities, which value each species intrinsically.
Figure 32: Traits of species that will be more or less
resilient to climate change impacts
Drivers and threats
Habitat disturbance, habitat loss, feral animals, invasive
weeds, climate change.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 35–39)
Figure 33: Outline of priority threatened species for
investment in site management
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Population size.
2) Habitat area available.
Further background information on the species and
ecological communities is provided in this document,
in Appendix B. Information on threatened species and
key threatening processes in the Namoi Catchment is
also provided, in Appendix C. For further details on biodiversity, threatened species, and appropriate fire regime
thresholds for different vegetation communities, please
refer to the Namoi Catchment Conservation Strategy.
26
Figure 34: Map of priority threatened species for
investment in site management
2. Biodiversity
Figure 36: Effects of climate change and how individuals
and communities may respond
Figure 35: Conceptual illustrations of extinction
thresholds for species in relation to habitat amount and
of the ‘threshold zone’ for ecological function where a
non-linear relationship exists
Figure 37: Relationship between species richness and
ecosystem function, highlighting the significance of
the greater loss of biodiversity from richer and more
productive soil types and ecosystems where the greatest
levels of development and modification have occurred
Source: Sala et al (1996)
Source: Hugget (2005)
27
Figure 38: A range of thresholds identified for percentage
decline in distribution of species or communities
2. Biodiversity
Figure 39: A range of thresholds identified in relation to
area of occupancy and extent of occurrence
Source: Nicholson et al (2009)
28
2. Biodiversity
2.5 Biodiversity asset – large
areas of conserved habitat
2.6 Biodiversity asset – intact
native vegetation communities
Definition
Definition
Trend in condition
Trend in condition
Notes on trend
Notes on trend
Large areas of conserved habitat includes wilderness,
national park, reserves and other areas managed for
conservation.
Defined as the condition and arrangement of vegetation and
habitat, and is based on the variety of regional vegetation
communities (RVCs) occurring in the catchment.
Stable, and possibly increasing in area.
Declining or very poor and stable.
The overall area of land reserved in public protected areas
has increased. (See Figures 40 and 41)
As this asset is increasing, no action is required.
The Namoi CMA has undertaken mapping and assessment
of all RVCs for the Namoi Catchment, outlining current
extent, former extent, percentage reserved, drivers
of change, potential climate change vulnerability and
management recommendations for each RVC occurring in
the catchment. The table shown in Figure 44 provides the
information that was used in the development of the Namoi
Conservation Strategy and informed analysis in 2010.
Figure 40: Map of NSW showing the percentage of each
bioregion protected in reserves
The RVC mapping has since been updated, and the
updated figures are provided in Figure 42 below. The table
in Figure 42 provides the results of the latest mapping and
analysis of RVCs in the Namoi Catchment, based on work
completed in 2013. In several instances, the original RVC
mapping overestimated the amount remaining, because
the mapping was based on various datasets and remotesensed images that did not take into account more recent
clearing events. Thus, the updated mapping provides
more accurate figures and in some cases has resulted
in a downward revision of the extent remaining for RVCs
across the Namoi Catchment.
The previous RVC statistics, as provided in the 2008
Namoi Conservation Strategy, are presented in Figure 44,
for comparison.
Source: DECCW (2009)
Figure 41: Percentage reservation of each of the NSW
bioregions
Based on the revised classification and mapping of
RVCs for the Namoi, there are now 70 true RVCs, and
three derived RVCs listed as occurring across the Namoi
Catchment. The derived RVCs are three types of modified
woodlands communities that are now grasslands
(resulting from the tree and shrub cover being removed,
such that a modified grassland community remains).
The total area of ‘true’ RVCs covers just over 40% of the
catchment. The other 60% consists of derived native
grasslands (thus, a modified native vegetation community
with the tree and shrub cover removed), or has been
cleared of native vegetation.
For further details please refer to the RVC fact sheets
available on the Namoi CMA website13. Latest figures
broken down by sub-catchment are also available from
Namoi CMA on request.
13
Source: DECCW (2009)
29
www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au
2. Biodiversity
below in Figure 47. These weeds are targeted where they
are affecting an important biodiversity asset, and where
control measures are feasible.
High possibility of local or global species and ecosystem
extinctions. Secondary wave of extinction possible due
to complexity of poorly understood interspecies interactions. Flow-on effects will include potential loss of face
of the community in regard to biodiversity conservation,
reduced funding and investment into catchment-wide
NRM, public sadness and reduced connection with place
and landscape. Species loss is particularly significant to
Aboriginal communities, which value each species intrinsically.
Priority established invasive animal species in the Namoi
Catchment are presented in Figure 48.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 51 and 52)
Known
Drivers and threats
Nil
Habitat disturbance, invasive species (weeds and vertebrates), fragmentation.
Strongly suspected
1) While specific thresholds have not been identified,
the critical threshold for intact vegetation
communities (both in terms of condition and
arrangement) is regenerative potential.
2) Presence or absence of introduced grazing species.
3) Presence or absence of introduced weed species.
(See Figure 53)
Investigations of invasive species threats in the Namoi
Catchment were completed in 2012. Priority weed species
for exclusion from the Namoi Catchment are outlined in
Figure 44.
Priority invasive animal species for exclusion from the
Namoi Catchment are outlined in Figure 45.
Priority emerging weed species in the Namoi Catchment
are outlined in the table presented in Figure 46 below.
High-priority widespread weeds in the Namoi Catchment
and their status under the NSW legislation are outlined
Degree of fragmentation, patch size, condition score,
frequency and intensity of grazing or cropping, nutrient
cycle status.
30
Figure 42: Status and extent of regional vegetation
communities
31
2. Biodiversity
32
2. Biodiversity
Source: 2013 updated regional vegetation community mapping
33
2. Biodiversity
Figure 43: Status and extent of regional vegetation
communities
34
2. Biodiversity
35
2. Biodiversity
Source: Namoi Conservation Strategy
36
2. Biodiversity
Figure 44: Priority invasive plant species for exclusion
from the Namoi Catchment
2. Biodiversity
Figure 45: Priority invasive animal species for exclusion
from the Namoi Catchment
Source: ELA (2012)
Figure 46: Priority emerging invasive plant species in
the Namoi Catchment
Source: ELA (2012)
Source: ELA (2012)
37
Figure 47: Priority widespread invasive plant species in
the Namoi Catchment
2. Biodiversity
Figure 49: Priorities for investment in conservation and
improvement of extant vegetation
Figure 50: Priorities for investment in native vegetation
according to state-wide native vegetation management
priorities
Source: ELA (2012)
Figure 48: Priority widespread invasive animal species
in the Namoi Catchment
Source: OEH (2012)
Figure 51: Conceptual model of the thresholds that
can be applied to intact or degraded vegetation
communities
Source: King and Hobbs (2007)
38
2. Biodiversity
Figure 52: Threshold effect regarding weed invasion
Water-quality trend is downwards and continues to
worsen, with species loss including iconic fish species
such as eel-tailed catfish, loss of aquatic habitat, impacts
on terrestrial species due to declining drought refugia,
reduced recreation possibility, declining access to clean
drinking water, rising costs in water filtration, breakdown
of biodiversity function at a landscape scale, economic
downturn as a result of reduced fresh water, failure of
infrastructure, and changed wetting and drying regimes
as a result of river incision.
Drivers and threats
Climate change, water regulation, grazing, vegetation
removal, weeds, introduced fish species, intensification of
agriculture and urban development.
Source: NSW DPI and OEH (2011)
Figure 53: A range of thresholds associated with intact
woodland communities (including coolibah – black box
woodland, which is an important vegetation type in the
Namoi Catchment)
Conceptual model
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Research to date suggests that, to maintain a river in a
healthy state, the flow regime must be at least two thirds
of the natural level.
Geomorphology and surface-water quantity.
Figure 54: Key environmental components of a river
ecosystem
waterways
2.7.1 Waterways – connected
Definition
Expressed as percentage intact rivers and streams and
connected wetlands, lakes.
Trend in condition
Declining or stable but poor.
Notes on trend
Refer to water assets section for more information on
trends associated with connected waterways.
Source: MDBC (2008)
39
Figure 55: Components of a best practice framework for
managing resilience in river ecosystems
2. Biodiversity
Figure 57: River condition across Australia, 2001
Source: Parsons et al (2009)
Figure 56: Role of riparian vegetation as a habitat
network and potential movement corridor
Source: Norris et al (2001)
2.7.2 Waterways – unconnected
Definition
Expressed as percentage intact of swamps, bogs, nonfloodplain wetlands and other less connected systems.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
The condition of these unconnected or less connected
waterways, such as perched wetlands for example, is
poor.
Water-quality trend is downwards and continues to
worsen, species loss, loss of aquatic habitat, impacts on
terrestrial species due to declining drought refugia.
Drivers and threats
Climate change, draining, grazing, vegetation removal,
weeds, intensification of agriculture and urban development.
Source: Lovett and Price (2007)
Conceptual model
(See Figure 58)
Known
Nil.
40
Strongly suspected
1) Physical integrity of wetlands remains (intact
geomorphology).
2) Draining.
3) Cropping (species loss and changes in species
composition as well as changed morphology and
water regime).
Land-use regime (draining, cropping and grazing),
geomorphology, local flows and surface-water quantity.
Figure 58: Interactions between living and non-living
parts of a wetland ecosystem
Soure: Water and Rivers Commission (2001)
41
2. Biodiversity
2.8 Biodiversity asset
– groundwater-dependent
ecosystems
2. Biodiversity
is expected that, in parts of the catchment, the decline
will continue due to ongoing depletion of groundwater
systems. Where groundwater remains available to groundwater-dependent vegetation communities, these are
expected to show greater resilience to climate change
impacts because they are not solely reliant on surfacewater availability.
Definition
Expressed as percentage intact of ecosystems that are
dependent on groundwater.
Drivers and threats
Climate change, groundwater extraction rates, decline in
groundwater quality, grazing, vegetation removal, weeds,
intensification of agriculture and urban development.
Trend in condition
Unknown or declining.
Notes on trend
Conceptual model
The condition of groundwater dependent ecosystems
(GDEs) is thought to be poor in many parts of the
catchment.
Rooting depth of Australian vegetation species
(See Figure 65)
Of the seven types of GDEs listed within Serov et al.
2012 there are six types identified within the Namoi
CMA area. These include (and are listed in order of
occurrence and an estimated percentage):
Work currently underway by the NSW Office of Water
(in prep) has found that groundwater within 1–8 m for
groundwater-dependent woody ecosystems identifies
highly likely GDEs where there is a depth to groundwater
in the range of 0–8 m, and a frequency of use of 9–10
years out of 10.
• Phreatophytes – groundwater-dependent
terrestrial ecosystems supporting terrestrial
vegetation and associated terrestrial vertebrates
and invertebrate (Common, >50%);
• Subsurface phreatic aquifer ecosystems
supporting stygofauna (Common, >50%);
• Base-flow streams (surface water ecosystems)
supporting aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrates) (Sparse, 10–20%);
• Base-flow stream (hyporheic or subsurface
water ecosystems) supporting hyporheic fauna,
stygofauna and riparian vegetation (Sparse,
<10%);
• Groundwater-dependent wetlands supporting
surface aquatic vegetation, aquatic vertebrates
and invertebrates (Rare, <5%);
• Karst and caves supporting both aquatic
stygofauna and terrestrial Troglofauna
(Rare, <1%).
Recent analysis undertaken by Serov (2013) has shown
that a 10 m depth to groundwater threshold is more
appropriate for the Namoi Catchment’s woody groundwater-dependent ecosystems, based on rooting depths of
plants and mapping of vegetation communities.
This builds on a literature review (Environmental Evidence
Australia 2012) and a range of discussions with local
experts and communities, which also suggested that
the range of rooting depths of plant communities in the
Namoi Catchment meant that a 30 m depth to groundwater threshold for GDEs as initially proposed in 2010 was
not appropriate for the catchment.
Extract from Serov 2013.
Known
Groundwater levels do not fall below the level that can be
reached based on rooting depth of plants and capillary
action in the soil.
The most important GDEs for the Namoi as a functioning
social-ecological system, based on the conceptual model
of system function and the predominance of GDE type,
are therefore the woody vegetation phreatophytes.
Strongly suspected
1) Groundwater levels do not drop below the rooting
depth of groundwater-dependent vegetation
ecosystems.
2) Groundwater within 10 m of soil surface where
terrestrial groundwater-dependent woody vegetation
communities occur (i.e. within rooting depth of the
critical species such as red gum and coolibah).
3) Groundwater within 1 m of soil surface where
wetland groundwater dependent ecosystems occur
(based on rooting depth of wetland plant species).
Recent work underway by the NSW Office of Water (in
prep) confirms that 1–8 m depth to groundwater is
the most important threshold for woody groundwaterdependent ecosystems. Further details are given below.
Possibility of species and ecosystem extinctions.
Secondary wave of extinctions possible due to complexity
of interspecies interactions being poorly understood. It
42
4) Groundwater within 3 m of groundwater-dependent
riparian vegetation communities (i.e. within the
rooting depth of critical riparian species such as
casuarina).
5) Value of 0–8 m the highest priority range for depth
to groundwater for groundwater-dependent woody
vegetation communities
2. Biodiversity
Figure 61: Conceptual model of lower River Murray
deep-soil water-recharge mechanisms that are
important for floodplain vegetation
Groundwater extraction, groundwater recharge rates,
changes to the hydrology, groundwater quality.
Figure 59: Illustration of how subsurface groundwaterdependent ecosystems (SCDEs) are linked through
ecotones (seen as the shaded areas) to other
ecosystems
Source: Holland et al (2006)
Figure 62: Common river base-flow system in a typical
catchment
Source: Tomlinson and Boulton (2008)
Source: Boulton and Hancock (2006)
Figure 60: Groundwater-dependent ecosystems in a
hypothetical region
Source: Murray et al (2006)
43
Figure 63: Relationship between vegetation and
groundwater
2. Biodiversity
Figure 64: Rooting depth of Australian vegetation species
Source: Serov (2013)
Figure 65: Conceptual model from showing the factors
influencing the biotic composition of subsurface
groundwater-dependent ecosystems
Source: Tomlinson and Boulton (2008)
Source: Hatton and Evans (1998)
44
2.9 Climate change as a driver
2. Biodiversity
Further work is currently underway to review the latest
data and modelling with regard to predicted impacts
of climate change, along with potential mitigation and
adaptation options to inform the next iteration of natural
resource plans for the region.
The NSW Government Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water has recently compiled more
detailed projections of the impacts and hazards of climate
change on a regional basis.
2.10 What does all this mean?
Projections for impacts on biodiversity assets are
sobering. Generally, it can be expected that higher
altitude forests such as those found at Mt Kaputar and on
the Liverpool Ranges are likely to contract significantly.
Climate change will increase the pressure on species and
ecosystems that are already stressed due to fragmentation. Heat and dryness will impact on species and
lead to structure and species changes in ecosystems.
Increased fire frequencies will also lead to changes in the
structure and species found in ecosystems.
Biodiversity plays a critical function within the catchment,
providing the productivity that agriculture depends
on, clean air, clean water, tourism opportunity and an
important sense of place and wellbeing to people. Some
asset types are able to be assessed to determine status,
thresholds and trends, whereas others are more difficult
to assess, because information is not readily available.
On the basis of the resilience assessment undertaken,
it would appear that total woody vegetation cover and
intact native vegetation communities are the most
critical assets for biodiversity, followed by large areas of
conserved habitat, connected waterways and regional
landscape connectivity, as shown by the conceptual
model presented in Figure 1.
The highly fragmented grasslands and grassy woodlands
on the western slopes are considered to be particularly
vulnerable to increased degradation due to changed
rainfall patterns and increases in temperature. Many
species will disappear from these ecosystems, leaving
them much simplified.
Evidence strongly suggests that preventing a trajectory
in woody vegetation loss from crossing the 70% cleared
threshold as critical to maintaining biodiversity assets
in the catchment. Species loss occurs as the vegetation
cover is reduced from 100% to 30%, but the rate of loss
increases exponentially after woody vegetation cover
reduces below the 70% and 30% thresholds. Thus, a
threshold that maintains 30% of woody vegetation cover is
important for more cleared areas in order to avoid further
loss of biodiversity. A threshold that maintains those
areas that retain 70% or more of their woody vegetation
cover is also considered important, because these areas
are likely to maintain most of their biodiversity.
As previously mentioned, higher altitude forests are likely
to be particularly sensitive to increases in temperature
and the associated changes in available moisture. A
radical change in the species composition of these areas
is probably causing a marked reduction in the range limits
of the original ecosystem.
Wetlands are also likely to be heavily affected by
increased temperature, increased fire frequency and
changes in water regimes. Fauna species such as koalas,
flying foxes and cave-dwelling bats are likely to be
affected by high temperature extremes, resulting in heat
stress and deaths of individual animals and in some cases
whole colonies.
A third critical threshold has been defined as a
percentage of ecosystem types at or above 30% of their
original extent. This threshold is an attempt to capture the
diversity of ecosystem type rather than just the amount
of woody vegetation. No information was available in the
scientific literature that helped to establish the number or
percentage of ecosystems that need to remain intact for
overall maintenance of biodiversity. Therefore, a preliminary figure of 61% of ecosystem types at 30% original
extent was carried forward into the Namoi CAP. This is
because, based on the 2010 mapping, 61% of RVCs found
in the Namoi have not yet crossed below the 30% extent
remaining threshold. RVCs include both woody and nonwoody vegetation types (e.g. grasslands and wetlands).
As part of the 2013 update of the Namoi CAP, this
threshold has been retained, but for clarity re-expressed
as ‘regional vegetation communities maintain over 30%
extent remaining’.
In the western parts of the catchment, the combination
of increased temperatures, greater extremes, improved
conditions for pests and weeds, and large wildfires are
expected to affect ecosystems to the point where some
species are likely to be lost from the region altogether.
Species likely to face increased extinction risks include
bats and koalas, due to their vulnerability to heat stress
and death over long hot spells. A dramatic decline is likely
in some places.
GDEs are considered to be critical for biodiversity,
because vegetation communities with access to groundwater are considered to be more resilient in the face of
climate change impacts. This also has implications for
ongoing vegetation management and restoration, for
both biodiversity conservation and for climate change
mitigation through bio-sequestration activities.
Native vegetation extent, condition and configuration
are all important in relation to maintaining biodiversity.
Based on the resilience assessment undertaken, and
45
the available research, extent has by far the greatest
influence, with condition and configuration reliant on
having native vegetation present in the landscape in the
first place. Thus, the critical threshold of extent is carried
forward as a target in the CAP. Condition is also seen as
important in relation to biodiversity, and is thus identified
as part of the actions involving maintenance of all RVCs
under several targets.
2. Biodiversity
Beeton R.J.S., Buckley K.I., Jones G.J., Morgan D.,
Reichelt R.E. and Trewin D. (2006). Australian State of the
Environment Committee (2006). Independent report to
the Australian Government Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, Canberra. Available at <http://www.
environment.gov.au/soe/index.html>.
Bennett A.F., Radford J.Q. and Haslem A. (2006).
Properties of land mosaics: Implications for nature
conservation in agricultural environments. Biological
Conservation, 133, 250–264.
Thresholds for threatened species, populations and
communities will need to be identified for each individual
entity, and will most probably relate to the population size
or extent of a species, population or community, and the
habitat area for a species or population.
Botanical Gardens NSW (2009). Ecosystem
Characteristics – Liverpool Plains Grasslands. Report
prepared for Namoi Catchment Management Authority.
Botanical Gardens NSW, Sydney
Invasive species are an important driver of change to
biodiversity assets, and thresholds have been identified
that relate to the presence of individual invasive species
and population extent of invasive species. Thus, the
priorities in the CAP are based on preventing incursions of
new species into the Namoi Catchment, and eradicating
newly established or emerging invasive species before
they become established. These are the key priorities
in relation to invasive species. Targeting established or
widespread invasive species is only considered a priority
where they are the critical threat to an important biodiversity asset (e.g. a threatened species or endangered
ecological community) and control is feasible.
Boulton A.J. and Hancock P.J. (2006). Rivers as groundwater dependent ecosystems: a review of degrees of
dependency, riverine processes and management implications. Australian Journal of Botany, 54, 133–144.
Brownlow M.D., Sparrow A.D. and Ganf G.G. (1994).
Classification of water regime in systems of fluctuating
water level. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, 45, 1375–1385.
Burgess S., Pate J.S., Adams M.A. and Dawson T.E. (2000).
Seasonal water acquisition and redistribution in the
Australian woody phreatophyte, Banksia prionotes. Annals
of Botany, 85, 215–224.
Burrows G.E. (2000). Seed production in woodland
and isolated trees of Eucalyptus melliodora (yellow box,
Myrtaceae) in the south western slopes of New South
Wales. Australian Journal of Botany, 48, 681–685.
2.11 References
Adiku S.G.K., Rose C.W., Braddock R.D. and OzierLafontaine H. (2000). On the simulation of root water
extraction: examination of a minimum energy hypothesis.
Soil Science, 165, 226–236.
Cannadell J., Jackson R.B., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A.,
Sala O.E. and Schulze E.D. (1996). Maximum rooting
depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia,
108, 583–595.
Allen C. and Benson J. (2012). Floristic composition of
the Liverpool Plains grasslands, NSW. Report prepared for
Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Royal Botanic
Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney.
Cramer V.A. and Hobbs R.J. (2002). Ecological consequences of altered hydrological regimes in fragmented
ecosystems in southern Australia: impacts and possible
management responses. Austral Ecology 27(5), 546–564.
Allison G.B., Cook P.G., Barnett S.R., Walker G.R., Jolly I.D.
and Hughes M.W. (1990). Land clearance and river salinisation in the Western Murray Basin, Australia. Journal of
Hydrology, 119, 1–20.
Cramer V.A., Thorburn P.J. and Fraser G.W. (1999).
Transpiration and groundwater uptake from farm forest
plots of Casuarina glauca and Eucalyptus camaldulensis
in saline areas of southeast Queensland, Australia.
Agricultural Water Management, 39, 187–204.
Australian Government (2008). Box Gum grassy
woodland. Field & training manual. Caring for our country –
Environmental Stewardship 2008. Australian Government,
Canberra.
Dawson T.E. and Pate J.S. (1996). Seasonal water uptake
and movement in root systems of Australian phraeatophytic plants of dimorphic root morphology: a stable
isotope investigation. Oecologia 107, 13–20.
Baird K.J., Stromberg J.C. and Maddock T. (2005). Linking
riparian dynamics and groundwater: An ecohydrologic approach to modeling groundwater and riparian
vegetation. Environmental Management, 36, 551–564.
Dell B., Bartle J. and Tacey W. (1983). Root occupation and
root channels of Jarrah forest subsoils. Australian Journal
of Botany, 31, 615–627.
Bedward M., Sivertsen D., Metcalfe L., Cox S. and
Simpson C. (2001). Monitoring the rate of native woody
vegetation change in the NSW wheatbelt, Final project
report to the Natural Heritage Trust/Environment
Australia. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Sydney.
46
2. Biodiversity
Eco logical Australia (2008). Namoi wetland assessment
and prioritisation project. Report prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. Eco logical Australia.
DECCW (2008). Summary of climate change impacts.
Western region. NSW Climate Change Action Plan.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water,
Sydney. Available at <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.
au/resources/climatechange/08518Westerm.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2008). Pre-European vegetation
mapping. Prepared for Namoi Catchment Management
Authority. Eco logical Australia.
DECCW (2008). Summary of climate change impacts.
New England/north west NSW region. NSW Climate
Change Action Plan. Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water, Sydney. Available at <http://www.
environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/climatechange/
08500NENWRegionSummary.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2009). Upland wetlands of the
Namoi Catchment. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Eco logical Australia.
Eco logical Australia (2010). Regional vegetation
community profiles. Report prepared for Namoi
Available at <www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au>.
DECCW (2009). State of the environment report.
Sydney. Available at <http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/
index.htm>.
Eco logical Australia (2012). Assessing the cumulative
risk of mining scenrios on bioregional assets in the Namoi
catchment: development and trial of GIS Tool – NCRAT
Version 1. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
DECCW (2010) Draft state of the catchment report
– Namoi Catchment. DECCW, Sydney.
Dillon P., Kumar A., Kookana R., Leijs R., Reed D., Parsons
S. and Ingerson G. (2009). Managed aquifer recharge
– risks to groundwater dependent ecosystems – a review.
Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report to Land &
Water Australia. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.
Eco logical Australia (2012). Threatened plant species in
the Namoi catchment, NSW. Report prepared for Namoi
Eco logical Australia (2013). Prioritisation of invasive
species in the Namoi Catchment. Report prepared for
Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Eco logical
Australia.
Doerr V.A.J., Doerr E.D. and Davies M.J. (2010).
Does structural connectivity facilitate dispersal of
native species in Australia’s fragmented terrestrial
landscapes? Systematic Review No. 44, Collaboration for
Environmental Evidence. Canberra. Available at <http://
www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/SummarySR44.pdf>. Management guidelines based on the review
also available at: <http://www.environmentalevidence.
org/Documents/ManagementguidelinesSR44.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2013). Refinement of vegetation
mapping in the Namoi catchment – extant and preEuropean. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Eco logical Australia (2013). Refinement of vegetation
mapping in the Namoi catchment – capture of additional
benchmark data. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Doherty M., Kearns A., Barett G., Sarre A., Hochuli
D., Gibb H. and Dickman C. (2000). The interactions
between habitat conditions, ecosystem processes and
terrestrial biodiversity – a review. Australia: State of the
Environment. Technical Paper Series No. 2. Australian
Government, Canberra.
Eco logical Australia (2007). A vegetation map for the
Namoi CMA. Prepared for Namoi Catchment Management
Authority. Eco logical Australia.
EA Systems (2006). Roadside environment mapping.
Mapping high quality roadside vegetation sites and
developing management plans for councils. EA Systems,
Armidale.
Environmental Evidence Australia (2012). Investigation
of ‘depth to groundwater’ for groundwater dependent
ecosystems in the Namoi region. Report prepared for
Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Environmental
Evidence Australia, Green Hills.
EA Systems (2008). Namoi nature conservation strategy.
Report prepared for Namoi Catchment Management
Authority. EA Systems, Armidale.
Fischer J., Sherren K., Stott J., Zerger A., Warren G. and
Stein J. (2010). Toward landscape-wide conservation
outcomes in Australia’s temperate grazing region.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(2), 69–74.
Eamus D. and Froend R. (2006). Groundwater-dependent
ecosystems: the where, what and why of GDEs. Australian
Journal of Botany, 54, 91–96. Available at <www.publish.
csiro.au/journals/ajb>.
Fischer J., Stott J. and Law B.S. (2010). The disproportionate value of scattered trees. Biological Conservation,
143, 1564–1567.
Eamus D., Froend R., Loomes R., Murray B.R. and Hose
G.S. (2006). A functional methodology for determining
the groundwater regime needed to maintain health of
groundwater dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal
of Botany, 54, 97–114. Available at <www.publish.csiro.
au/journals/ajb>.
Franklin A.B., Noon B.R., and George L.T. (2002). What
is habitat fragmentation? Studies in Avian Biology, 25,
20–29.
47
Froend R. and Loomes R. (2006). Determination of
ecological water requirements for groundwater dependent
ecosystems – southern Blackwood and eastern Scott
Coastal Plain. Report for the Department of Water. Edith
Cowan University, Perth.
2. Biodiversity
Griffith S.J. and Wilson R. (2007). Wallum on the Nabiac
Pleistocene barriers, lower north coast of New South
Wales. Cunninghamia, 10, 93–111.
Groom P.K. (2004). Rooting depth and plant water
relations explain species distribution patterns within
a sandplain landscape. Functional Plant Biology, 31(5),
423–428.
Froend R. and Zencich S. (2001). Phreatophytic vegetation
and groundwater study: phase 1. A report to the Water
Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission. ECU,
Centre for Ecosystem Management, Joondalup, WA.
Groom P.K., Froend R.H. and Mattiske E.M. (2000a).
Impact of groundwater abstraction on Banksia woodland,
Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 1, 117–124.
Froend R.H., Farrell R.C.C., Wilkins C.F., Wilson C.C.
and McComb, A.J. (1993). Wetlands of the Swan coastal
plain, volume 4: the effect of altered water regimes on
wetland plants. Water Authority/Environmental Protection
Authority, Perth.
Groom P.K., Froend R.H., Mattiske E.M. and Koch B.L.
(2000b). Myrtaceous shrub species respond to long-term
decreasing groundwater levels on the Gnangara groundwater mound, northern Swan Coastal Plain. Journal of the
Royal Society of Western Australia, 83, 75.
Froend R., Loomes R., Horwitz P., Bertuch M., Storey
A. and Bamford, M. (2004). Study of ecological water
requirements on the Gnangara and Jandakot mounds under
Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act. Task 2:
determination of ecological water requirements. A report
to the Water and Rivers Commission. ECU, Centre for
Ecosystems Management, Joondalup, WA.
Hacke U.G, Sperry J.S, Ewers B.E, Ellsworth D.S, Schafer
K.V.R and Oren,R. (2000). Influence of soil porosity on
water use in Pinus taeda. Oecologia 124, 495–505. doi:
10.1007/PL00008875.
Hatton T.J. and Evans R. (1998). Dependance of
ecosystems on groundwater and its significance to
Australia. LWRRDC Occasional Paper No. 12/98.
LWRRDC, Canberra.
Froend R. and Loomes, R. (2005). South west Yarragadee
vegetation susceptibility assessment. South west
Yarragadee assessment of vegetation susceptibility and
possible response to drawdown. Prepared for Water
Corporation. Prepared by Bowen & Associates May 2005.
Available at <http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/swy/
ERMP_SWYarragadee_App30.pdf>.
Hodgson J.A., Thomas C.D., Wintle B.A. and Moilanen A.
(2009). Climate change, connectivity and conservation
decision making: back to basics. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 46, 964–969.
Fuller R.A., Drielsma M.J., Watson J.E.M., Taylor R.,
Sushinskly J., Smith J. and Possingham H.P. (2011).
Western woodlands way. Volume 1: priorities for ecological
restoration. Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, and the Landscape Modelling and
Decision Support Section, NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage, Dubbo.
Holland K.L., Tyerman S.D., Mensforth L.J. and Walker G.R.
(2006). Tree water sources of shallow, saline groundwater
in the lower River Murray, south-eastern Australia: implications for groundwater recharge mechanisms. Australian
Journal of Botany, 54,193–205.
Howe P., O’Grady A.P., Cook P.G., Knapton A., Duguid A.
and Fass T. (2007). A framework for assessing the environmental water requirements of groundwater dependent
ecosystems. Land and Water Australia, Adelaide.
Gibbons P. (2009). Where would you put your conservation dollar? Decision Point, 30, 8–9.
Gibbons P. and Boak M. (2002). The value of paddock
trees for regional conservation in an agricultural
landscape. Ecological Management and Restoration, 3,
205–210.
Howe P., Cooling M., Mcllwee A. and Martin R. (2005).
A review of the environmental water requirements of the
GDEs of the south east prescribed wells areas. Stage
1 report. Prepared for South East Catchment Water
Management Board, Mount Gambier, South Australia.
Gibbons P., Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J., Manning A.D.,
Weinberg A., Seddon J., Ryans P. and Barrett G. (2008).
The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes.
Conservation Biology, 22(5), 1309–1319.
Huggett A.J. (2005). The concept and utility of ‘ecological
thresholds’ in biodiversity conservation. Biological
Good M., Price J., Clarke P. and Reid N. (2011). Densely
regenerating coolibah (Eucalyptus coolabah) woodlands
are more species-rich than surrounding derived grasslands in flooplains of eastern Australia. Australian Journal
of Botany, 59, 468–479.
Hunter J. and Copeland S. (2006). Field survey of western
granite threatened flora species, identified as priority
by Namoi CMA. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Namoi CMA, Gunnedah.
Jackson R.B., Canadell J., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A.,
Sala O.E. and Schulze E.D. (1996). A global analysis of
root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108,
389–411.
Graham S., Wilson B.R. and Reid N. (2004). Scattered
paddock trees, litter chemistry and surface soil properties
in pastures of the New England tablelands, NSW.
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 42, 905–912.
48
James C.D. and Saunders D.A. (2001). A framework
for terrestrial biodiversity targets in the Murray-Darling
basin. Sustainable Ecosystems and Murray-Darling Basin
Commission, Canberra.
2. Biodiversity
Lunney D., Parnaby H., Redpath P., Crowther M. and
Shannon I. (2009). Bat conservation and management
in the Namoi Catchment Management Area, New
South Wales. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Department of Environment and
Climate Change (NSW). Sydney.
Jobbágy, E.G. and Jackson, R.B. (2001). The distribution of
soil nutrients with depth: global patterns and the imprint
of plants. Biogeochemistry, 53, 51–77.
Mackey B., Watson J. and Worboys G.L. (2010).
Connectivity conservation and the Great Eastern Ranges
corridor, an independent report to the Interstate
Agency Working Group (Alps to Atherton Connectivity
Conservation Working Group) convened under the
Environment, Heritage and Protection Council/Natural
Resource Management Ministerial Council.
Johns G.G., Tongway D.J. and Pickup G. (1984). Land and
water processes. In: Harrington G.N., Wilson A.D. and
Young M.D. (Eds) Management of Australia’s Rangelands,
pp. 25–40. CSIRO, East Melbourne.
Key Threatening Process listing (Aquatic). Various dates.
For a complete listing of the Key Threatening Processes
under the NSW Fisheries Management Act go to <http://
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/
conservation/what-current>.
Manning A.D., Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B. (2006).
Scattered trees are keystone structures – implications for
conservation. Biological Conservation, 132, 311–321.
Morris J. (1999). Salt accumulation beneath plantations
using saline groundwater: Lessons from the Kyabram
plantation study, In: Thorburn, P.J. (Ed). Agro-forestry over
shallow water tables: The impact of salinity on sustainability. Water and Salinity Issues in Agro Forestry Series,
Report Number 4, RIRDC Publication No. 99/36. Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation,
Canberra, Australia.
Key Threatening Process listing (Terrestrial). Various
dates. For a complete listing of the Key Threatening
Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation
Act NSW go to <http://www.threatenedspecies.
environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/home_threats.aspx>.
King E.G. and Hobbs R.J. (2006). Identifying linkages
amongst conceptual models of ecosystem degradation
and restoration: towards an integrative framework.
Restoration Ecology, 14(3), 369–378.
Murray B.R., Hose G.C., Eamus D. and Licari D. (2006).
Valuation of groundwater-dependent ecosystems:
a functional methodology incorporating ecosystem
services. Australian Journal of Botany, 54, 221–229.
Landsberg J. (1995). After dieback? In: Kater A.E. (Ed.)
Redressing rural tree decline in NSW. Proceedings of
the ‘After Dieback’ conference, Orange, NSW. Greening
Australia, Sydney.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2008). Murray-Darling
basin rivers, ecosystem health check, 2004–2007. A
Summary Report based on the Independent Sustainable
Rivers Audit Group’s SRA Report 1: A report on the
ecological health of rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin,
2004–2007, Submitted to the Murray-Darling Basin
Ministerial Council in May 2008. MDBC, Canberra.
Le Maitre D.C., Scott D.F. and Colvin C. (1999). A review
of information on interactions between vegetation and
groundwater. Water SA, 25(2). Available at <http://www.
wrc.org.za>.
Lovett S. and Price P. (Eds) (2007). Principles for riparian
lands management. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
Naiman R.J., Décamps H. and McClain M.E. (2005).
Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of
streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press,
California.
Ludwig J.A., Wilcox B.P., Breshears D.B., Tongway D.J.
and Imeson A.C. (2005). Vegetation patches and runofferosion as interacting ecohydrological processes in
semiarid landscapes. Ecology, 86(2), 288–297.
Namoi CMA and Hyder Consulting (2008). Namoi regional
state of the environment report 2007–2008. Hyder
Consulting, Sydney.
Lumsden L.F. and Bennett A.F. (2005). Scattered trees in
rural landscapes: foraging habitat for insectivorous bats
in south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation, 122,
205–222.
Namoi CMA (2001). A supporting document to the Namoi
Catchment Board’s blueprint for the Namoi Draft. Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. Available from Namoi
CMA on request.
Lunney D., Parnaby H., Crowther M. and Shannon I.
(2009). A survey of the distribution of the threatened Bush
Stonecurlew,Barking Owl, Grey-headed Flying-fox and
Spotted-tailed Quoll in the Namoi CMA. Report prepared
for Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Department
of Environment and Climate ChangeDECC (NSW), Sydney.
National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). NSW biodiversity strategy. NPWS, Sydney.
Natural Resources Commission (2010). Progress towards
healthy resilient landscapes. Implementing the standards,
targets and Catchment Action Plans. Natural Resources
Commission, Sydney.
Lunney D., Parnaby H., Crowther M. and Shannon I.
(2009). Assessment of status and recovery planning for
Koala populations in the Namoi CMA. Report prepared for
Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Department of
Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Sydney.
49
Naumburg E., Mata-Gonzalez R., Hunter R.G., Mclendon
T. and Martin D.W. (2005). Phreatophytic vegetation and
groundwater fluctuations: a review of current research
and application of ecosystem-response modelling with
an emphasis on Great Basin vegetation, Environmental
Management, 35, pp. 726–740.
2. Biodiversity
Waterlines Report. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Poot P. and Lambers H. (2008). Shallow-soil endemics:
adaptive advantages and constraints of specialized rootsystem morphology. New Phytologist, 178, 371–381.
Pressey R.L. and Taffs K.H. (2001). Sampling of land
types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales. Biological
Nicholson E., Keith D.A. and Wilcoe D.D. (2009).
Assessing the threat status of ecological communities.
Conservation Biology, 23(2), 259–274.
NIWAC (2004). Namoi Environmental Weeds. Identification
and prioritisation of top 20 Environmental Weeds. Report
Northern Inland Weeds Advisory Committee, Armidale.
Pressey R.L. and Taffs K.H. (2001). Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in
western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and
vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation,
100, 355–376.
Norris R.H., Prosser I., Young B., Liston P., Bauer N., Davis
N., Dyer F., Linke S. and Thoms M. (2001). The assessment
of river condition (ARC) – An audit of the ecological
condition of Australian rivers. Final Report submitted to
the National Land and Water Resources Audit Officers.
ANRA, Canberra.
Pressey R.L., Hager T.C., Ryan K.M., Schwarz J., Wall S.,
Ferrier S. and Creaser P.M. (2000). Using abiotic data
for conservation assessments over extensive regions:
quantitative methods applied across New South Wales,
Australia. Biological Conservation, 96, 55–82.
Radford J.Q., Bennett A.F. and Cheers G.J. (2005).
Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodlanddependent birds. Biological Conservation, 124, 317–337.
Northwest Ecological Services (2009). Review of the
conservation status of the Booroolong Frog (Litoria
booroolongensis) within the Namoi River Catchment.
Authority. Northwest Ecological Services, Nundle.
Radford J., Bennett A. and MacRaild L. (2004). How much
habitat is enough? Planning for wildlife conservation in rural
landscapes. Deakin University, Melbourne
Nulsen R.A., Bligh K.J., Baxter I.N., Solin E.J. and Imrie D.H.
(1986). The fate of rainfall in a Mallee and heath vegetated
catchment in southern WA. Australian Journal of Ecology,
11, 361–371.
Reid N., Nadolny C., Banks V., O’Shea G. and Jenkins
B. (2007). Causes of eucalypt tree decline in the Namoi
Valley, NSW. Final report to Land and Water Australia on
Project UNE 42. University of New England, Armidale,
NSW.
Office of Environment and Heritage (2012). Investing in
Native Vegetation Management and Threatened Species
Programs in NSW. Guide note for NSW catchment
management authorities. Office of Environment and
Heritage, Sydney.
Renard K.G., Foster G.R., Weesies G.A. and Porter J.P.
(1991). RUSLE Revised universal soil loss equation.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(1), 30–33.
O’Grady A., Carter J. and Holland K. (2010). Review of
Australian groundwater discharge studies of terrestrial
systems. Water for a Healthy Country National Research
Flagship. CSIRO, Canberra.
Richardson D.M., Holmes P.M., Esler K.J., Galatowitsch
S.M., Stromberg J.C., Kirkman S.P., Pysek P. and Hobbs
R.J. (2007). Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien
plant invasions, and restoration projects. Diversity and
Distributions, 13, 126–139.
O’Grady A.P., Eamus D., Cook P.G. and Lamontagne S.
(2006a). Groundwater use by riparian vegetation in the
wet–dry tropics of northern Australia. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54, 145–154.
Roberts J., Young B. and Marston F. (2000). Estimating
the water requirements for plant of floodplain wetlands: a
guide. Occasional paper 04/00. Land & Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
O’Grady A.P., Cook P.G., Howe P. and Werren G. (2006b).
Groundwater use by dominant tree species in tropical
remnant vegetation communities. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54, 155–171.
Sala O.E., Lauenroth W.K., McNaughton S.J., Rusch G. and
Zhang X. (1996). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning
in Grasslands. I In: Mooney H. A (Ed). Functional Roles of
Biodiversity: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
New York.
Ogyris P/L (2002). Identifying groundwater impacts on
low-lying ecosystems in the Mallee dryland. Draft Report
for the Mallee CMA. Ogyris P/L, Birdwoodton, Victoria.
Scheiner S.M. (2003). Six types of species-area curves.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12, 441–447.
Ozolins A., Brack C., and Freudenberger D. (2001).
Abundance and decline of isolated trees in the agricultural landscapes of central New South Wales, Australia
Pacific Conservation Biology, 7(3), 195–203.
Schenk H.J. and Jackson R.B. (2002). Rooting depths,
lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground
allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal
of Ecology, 90, 480–494.
Parsons M., Thoms M., Capon T., Capon S. and Reid M.
(2009). Resilience and thresholds in river ecosystems.
50
2. Biodiversity
Serov P., Kuginis L. and Williams J.P (2012). Risk
assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent
ecosystems, volume 1: the conceptual framework. NSW
Office of Water (Department of Primary Industries) and
Office of Environment and Heritage (Department of
Premiers and Cabinet), Sydney.
Steffen W., Burbridge A.A., Hughes L., Kitching R.,
Lindenmayer D., Musgrave W., Smith M.S. and Werner
P.A. (2009). Australia’s biodiversity and climate change.
Summary for policy makers 2009. Summary of a report
to the Natural Resouce Management Ministerial Council
commissioned by the Australian Government, Canberra.
Silberstein R.P., Vertessy R.A., Morris J. and Feikema P.M.
(1999). Modelling the effects of soil moisture and solute
conditions on long-term tree growth and water use: a
case study from the Shepparton irrigation area, Australia.
Agricultural Water Management, 39(2–3), 283–315.
Taylor R., and Drielsma M.J. (2012). Western woodlands
way. Volume 2: priorities for investment in remnant
vegetation and connectivity. NSW Office of Environment
and Heritage, Dubbo.
Taylor R., Christian N., Drielsma M., Mazzer L. and Bollard
K. (2012). Biodiversity conservation plan for Namoi
catchment. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage, Dubbo.
SKM (2001). Environmental water requirements to maintain
groundwater dependent ecosystems. Environmental Flow
Initiatives. Technical Report Number 2. Sinclair Knight
Merz Pty Ltd. Environment Australia, Commonwealth of
Australia.
Thorburn P.J., Walker G.R., Jolly I.D. (1995). Uptake of
saline groundwater by plants: An analytical model for
semi-arid and arid areas. Plant and Soil, 175, 1–11.
Smith P.L. and Sivertsen D. (2000). Draft background
paper. Part A: Landscape composition for the maintenance
of biodiversity values in production-orientated landscapes.
Centre for Natural Resources, Department of Land and
Water Conservation, Sydney.
Thorburn P.J. and Walker G.R. (1994). Variations in stream
water uptake by Eucalyptus camaldulensis with differing
access to stream water. Oecologia, 100, 293–301.
Smith P.L., Wilson B., Nadolny C. and Lang D. (1999). The
Ecological Role of the Native Vegetation of New South
Wales, Background paper no.2. Native Vegetation Advisory
Council of NSW, Sydney.
Thorburn P.J., Mensforth L.J. and Walker G.R. (1994a).
Reliance of creek-side River Red Gums on creek water.
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45,
1439–1443.
Smith P.L., Williams R.M., Hamilton S. and Shaik
M. (2006). A risk-based approach to groundwater
management for terrestrial groundwater dependent
ecosystems, 10th Murray Darling Basin Groundwater
Workshop, 2006.
Thorburn P.J., Mensforth L.J. and Walker G.R. (1994b).
Uptake of groundwater by creek-side river red gums. In:
Proceedings (Volume 1) of Water Down Under 1994International Groundwater and Hydrology Conference,
Adelaide. The Institution of Engineers, Australia National
Conference Publication No. 94/10, pp. 613–616.
Smith M.J., Schreiber S.E., Kohout G., Ough M., Lennie
K., Turnbull R., Jin D. and Clancy C. (2007). Wetlands as
landscape units: spatial patterns in salinity and water
chemistry. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 15, 95–
103. DOI 10.1007/s11273–006–9015–5.
Tierney, D & Watson (2009). Fire and vegetation for the
Namoi Catchment. Literature review prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority Hotspots program.
Nature Conservation Council, Sydney.
Spark P. (2008). Review of the distribution and conservation status of the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby. Report
North West Ecological Services.
Van der Ree R., Bennett A.F. and Gilmore D.C. (2003).
Gap-crossing by gliding marsupials: thresholds for use of
isolated woodland patches in an agricultural landscape.
Biological Conservation, 115, 241–249.
Spark P. (2010). Survey of the habitat requirements and
conservation status of the Pink-tailed Worm Lizard within
the Namoi River catchment. Report prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. North West Ecological
Services.
Veneklaas E.J. and Poot P. (2003). Seasonal patterns in
water use and leaf turnover of different pant functional
types in a speciesrich woodland, south-western Australia.
Plant and Soil, 257, 295–304.
Water and Rivers Commission (2001) Living Wetlands: An
introduction to wetlands. Water Facts No. 16.
Spark P. (2010). Survey of the habitat requirements and
review of the conservation status of the Five-clawed Worm
Skink within the Namoi River Catchment. Report prepared
for Namoi Catchment Management Authority. North West
Ecological Services.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2010).
Sustainable diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. An
analysis of the options for achieving sustainable diversion
limits in the Murray-Darling Basin. Wentworth Group,
Sydney. Available at <http://www.wentworthgroup.org/
uploads/Sustainable Diversions in the Murray-Darling
Basin.pdf>.
State of the Environment 2011 Committee (2011).
Australian state of the environment 2011. Independent
report to the Australian Government Minister for
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Community. DSEWPaC, Canberra.
51
2. Biodiversity
Wilson B.R., Growns I. and Lemon J. (2007). Scattered
native trees and soil patterns in grazing lands of the
Northern Tablelands of NSW, Australia. Australian Journal
of Soil Research, 45(3), 199–205.
Yates C. and Hobbs R. (1997). Temperate eucalypt
woodlands: a review of their status, processes threatening their persistence and techniques for restoration.
Australian Journal of Botany, 45, 949–973.
Xu G.-Q. and Li Y. (2008). Rooting depth and leaf hydraulic
conductance in the xeric tree Haloxyolon ammodendron
growing at sites of contrasting soil texture. Functional
Plant Biology, 35, 1234–1242.
Zencich S.J., Froend R.H., Turner J.T. and Gailitis V. (2002).
Influence of groundwater depth on the seasonal sources
of water accessed by Banksia tree species on a shallow,
sandy coastal aquifer. Oecologia, 131, 8–19.
52
3. Land
3. Land
Land is defined as ‘healthy soils and functional
landscapes that are managed in a way that maintains
optimal choices for future generations’.
Figure 66: Functions of healthy soils
An expert workshop was run in 2010 with a mixture
of soils science, biodiversity, salinity and agricultural
expertise. It was decided that land management units
(LMUs; based on soils, topography and some hydrogeology) were an appropriate scale and asset for consideration in a resilience assessment, as LMUs allow the
application of appropriate management options at both
property and landscape scales to deliver catchment
outcomes.
Given there is no conceptual model that can meaningfully
consider (without going to geological time scales) how
LMUs interact with one another, the conceptual models
presented here show the underpinning nature of soils in
the catchment and how the interactions of soil functions
contribute to healthy soils, which are considered the
overall asset in this theme.
Nutrient & food
availability for
plants and fauna
Source: DPI Victoria http://www.dpi.vic.gov/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/
pages/soilhealth_what_is
Figure 67: Conceptual model – contribution of soil
elements to overall health; an arrow means that the
‘arrow from’ asset contributes to the ‘arrow to’ asset
Soil organic
matter
absorbs
moisture
Water
holding
capacity
Allows water
infiltration
Plants & micro-fauna
activity
Organic
matter
Decreases
bulk density &
increases
aggregate
stability
Ability to
produce
biomass
Biological processes
require water
Nutrients
released
Increases
soil organic
matter
Porosity &
Aggregate stability
Clays &
Soil organic matter
Biological
function
Availability of
air & water
Soil
structure
Soil
type
Nutrient
cycling
Structure for storage
& basis of carbon
Improved plant
Improves
growth increases
structure
soil organic matter
Stability for
porosity
Nutrient
availability
Structure for storage
& ability to create
soil organic matter
Ability to develop
& maintain porosity
Increases
soil organic
matter
Increased
availability of
water & air
Decomposition
releases significant
nutrients
Carbon
storage
Increase air &
water enhances plant
growth
Permeability
54
Increases plant
growth &
soil organic
matter
Increases
nutrient
availability
Porosity, water &
root infiltration
increase
Structure &
nutrient
Increased plant
availabiltiy
growth increases
soil organic
matter
Disperson &
slaking
properties
Increases plant
Growth & cycling of
nutrients
Increases
water
infiltration
3. Land
change and, consequently, thresholds. These soils are
important contributors to the functions of the catchment
by providing the ecosystem services as illustrated in
Figure 67. For full detailed descriptions of each LMU see
Appendix G.
Figure 68: Median groundcover levels across the Namoi
Catchment in 2011
Figure 68 above presents the median results of the
catchment and sub-catchment-scale monitoring of
groundcover levels across the Namoi Catchment over the
course of a full year. This shows the median groundcover
levels across the catchment, based on data gathered
remotely for each season of the year and aggregated
into an annual figure. It should be noted that 2011 was
a particularly wet year, so the groundcover levels were
higher than had been observed during previous, drier,
years as a result
Further monitoring, evidence and analysis has been
further literature review, consultation with experts, and
research specifically to inform this assessment, as prioritised in the Namoi CAP or as part of ongoing monitoring
and evaluation undertaken.
A detailed breakdown of groundcover percentages by
LMU and by sub-catchment for 2011 is available from
Namoi CMA on request.
3.1 Soils asset – Liverpool
Plains Red Earths
This conceptual model, presented in Figure 67 above,
has been drafted by the authors, and as such should
not be considered a position of certainty. It is intended
to start the debate about how healthy soils ‘work’ in
the catchment. This model suggests that soil type, soil
structure and organic matter are the key contributors to
soil health. As soil type is a given in most instances, soil
structure and organic matter are the key underpinning
functions that are subject to intervention. It should be
noted that thinking about critical function leads to a
slightly different focus than the commonly held views
about soil value to agriculture, which focus on soil type,
depth and water-holding capacity. Thus, retaining and
managing groundcover is a critical issue for sustaining
soils and landscapes given the impact groundcover has
on soil organic matter, soil carbon, soil structure, soil
water-holding capacity, soil permeability and nutrient
cycling.
Definition
This asset was defined by the expert workshops as
Liverpool Plains Red Earths, and consists of red and
brown kandosols, chromosols and dermosols. A more
thorough description is available from the Namoi CMA
description of LMUs (Appendix G). This description is as
follows:
Sedimentary Footslopes (C) – Sedimentary slopes and
colluvial fans of generally 2–8% occur as the transition
zone from the hills to the floodplain. This LMU has a land
capability classification of 4–6, and land use is predominantly pasture or improved pasture with up to 15% of the
unit still used for dryland cropping. Forestry and nature
reserves occupy a large amount of this LMU. The soils
are predominantly deep red earths, red-brown earths
and solodic soils. They are generally of moderate fertility,
low to moderate water-holding capacity, and moderately to highly erodible. Shallow water tables (>5m) can
occur, particularly in the Liverpool Plains, but have also
been recorded in the Maules Creek, Narrabri and Upper
Manilla districts. Salinity varies with location.
The first part of this assessment relies on information
from the chapter on soil condition generated by the
in the draft NSW State of the Catchment Report. This
approach was agreed to by the expert workshop participants in 2010.
Trend in condition
Current state is good, with a slight loss of soil function.
Trend is stable in relation to sheet erosion, declining in
organic carbon and structure.
Those LMUs not covered by the DECCW Soil Condition
Monitoring Process have less concise information
regarding trends, drivers and thresholds. For this reason,
those that have a particular importance from a functional
perspective have been identified and discussed in brief.
The remainder have been clumped together as a category
termed ‘Other soils, general’. This is not intended to
disregard the importance of these soil types, but is an
indication of the paucity of empirical evidence that can
be given regarding trends in conditions and drivers of
Notes on trend
Erosion trend has stopped due to changed land
management practice. Much of the land has returned to
grazing rather than cropping, as it proved less productive
than the adjacent black soils. These shifts in land
management occurred during the 1960s.
55
3. Land
Notes on trend
Not relevant – trend is mostly stable.
Trend information from the State of the Catchment
Report is more positive about current condition than the
description in Namoi CMA LMU descriptions.
Drivers and threats
Historical sheet erosion – significant loss of soils function
– considerable deterioration against reference condition.
Highest current pressure is organic carbon and structural
decline. A lot of area grazed beyond its current capability.
Primary threat remains as sheet erosion.
Not relevant if trend is stable.
Drivers and threats
Sheet erosion primary threat.
Conceptual model
Conceptual model
Nil relevant at this scale.
Nil relevant to this scale.
Known
Known
Nil.
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Strongly suspected
1) 70% groundcover.
2) Rainfall intensity exceeds soil infiltration capacity.
3) Rainfall amount exceeds soil storage capacity.
1) 70% groundcover.
Percentage groundcover, rainfall, run-off amount and
velocity.
Percentage groundcover, rainfall, run-off amount and
velocity.
3.2 Soils asset – Duri Hills
3.3 Soils asset – Recent
Western Floodplains
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as consisting of red
chromosols, cropping and grazing. Defined by Namoi
CMA LMUs thus:
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as Doreen Plain,
consistent with information presented in the Soil
Condition section of the Draft State of the Catchments
Report (DECCW in prep), and consisting of brown
and grey vertosols. Described by Namoi CMA Land
Management Unit Descriptions thus:
Duri Hills (M) – The Duri Hills form the generally low
undulating hills between the New England Tablelands and
the Liverpool Plains sections of the Namoi Catchment.
Soil type is generally red-brown earths or non-calcic
brown soils, with minor euchrozems and solodic soils.
This LMU is thought to have been stripped of soil several
times during its formation and, as such, soil depth is
generally less than 1.5 m. The limitation of soil depth
and soil type has resulted in a low capacity for moisture
storage within the soils for cropping. Land capability
within this LMU is generally 4–6. The area is dominated
by a mosaic of winter cereal cropping and grazing on
both native and improved pastures. The northern parts
of this LMU have been cropped intensively in the past
and are characterised by extensive sheet, rill and gully
erosion, with minor wind erosion. The exposed subsoils
that are common in the northern parts of this LMU are
often mildly to moderately sodic, and difficult to reestablish pastures on.
Recent Western Floodplains (E1) – This LMU includes
the recent floodplains along the current course of the
Namoi River and Pian Creek within the Darling Riverine
Plains section of the catchment west of Narrabri. The
LMU consists of modern inset meander plains and
backplains and is generally dominated by very deep grey
clays and minor black earths, with relatively low stored
salt content. These soils represent the most productive
soils for agriculture in the Darling Riverine Plains section
of the Namoi Catchment. High quality groundwater is
common under this landscape in deep gravels. Land use
includes grazing on native or improved pastures within
the high flood areas, but is dominated by broad acre
dryland and irrigated cropping systems. Flooding is a
common feature of this LMU, and the low elevation areas
of the unit are limited for agriculture by frequency of
inundation. Land capability ranges from 2–5, depending
on flood frequency.
Trend in condition
Condition is reported as good, with a slight loss of soil
function, and stable.
56
This LMU is highly productive in its association with high
quality water resources for irrigation, and is likely to be a
key contributor to economic function in the catchment.
3. Land
brown clays. Subsoil salt contents are relatively high,
which can cause problems when crops forage into the
subsoil. Dryland and irrigated cropping are the main land
uses of this LMU, although there is a higher proportion
of grazing than with LMU E1. Groundwater access is
less frequent in this LMU and, as a result, opportunities
have been lower to develop groundwater for irrigation,
although surface water is available in proximity to the
Namoi River and Pian Creek.
Trend in condition
Condition is reported in the Draft State of the Catchments
Report as good, with only a slight loss in soil function. The
trend is reportedly up, with soil condition improving.
Notes on trend
Trend in condition
It should be noted that there was a low level of confidence in trend results.
Not relevant, as trending upwards.
Condition is reported in the State of the Catchments
Report (NSW Gov 2010) as good, with only a slight loss
of soil function. The trend is reportedly up, with soil
condition improving or stable.
Drivers and threats
Notes on trend
Major continuing threat is that of wind erosion.
It should be noted that there is a low level of confidence
in trend information.
Conceptual model
None relevant at this scale.
Not relevant, as trend is reported as upwards or stable.
Drivers and threats
Known
Wind erosion is considered an ongoing threat to the
Cryon Plain. Threats to the Come-by-Chance Plain are
organic carbon decline and soil structural decline.
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Conceptual model
1) 70% groundcover.
2) Soil particle size <0.9mm.
Percentage groundcover, wind.
Known
3.4 Soils asset – High Western
Floodplains
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) 70% groundcover.
2) Soil particle size <0.9mm.
3) Organic carbon 0.6% or better. At 0.6% the lack of
carbon begins to limit the function of soils aggregate
stability (structure), buffering capacity and waterholding capacity.
4) Bulk density thresholds depend on texture, but 1.4t/
m3 is considered an average value that is acceptable.
5) Exchangeable sodium percentage at 3% means
there is no limitation on soil health associated with
sodicity. Above 3%, sodicity begins to affect plant
growth and management. This is potentially a linear
non-return change rather than a threshold, however.
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as Cryon Plain and
Come-by-Chance Plain, consistent with information
presented in the Soil Condition section of the State of
the Catchments Report (NSW Gov 2010). The Cryon Plain
consists of crusty grey and brown vertosols, and the
Come-by-Chance Plain of brown chromosols and yellow
sodosols. Described by Namoi CMA Land Management
Unit Descriptions thus:
High Western Floodplains (E2) – This LMU is characterised by a much lower flood frequency than the Recent
Western Floodplains (LUM E1) within the Darling Riverine
Plains section of the Namoi Catchment west of Narrabri.
The High Western Floodplains are generally dominated
by backplains which are an admixture of older alluvium
and modern alluvium from infrequent flooding. This LMU
is dominated by grey clays, with minor occurrences of
Percentage groundcover, wind, biomass per cent, soil
carbon per cent, rainfall, soil moisture, evapotranspiration,
run-off amount and velocity.
57
3.5 Soils asset – Central Black
Earth Floodplains
3. Land
Known
Nil.
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as Liverpool Black
Plains, consistent with information presented in the Soil
Report and consisting of self-mulching black vertosols.
Described by Namoi CMA Land Management Unit
Descriptions thus:
Strongly suspected
1) ECe in soil at 4–8 dS/m moderately saline – at this
level, crop production in sensitive species is affected
and crop options may be reduced.
Rainfall, soil moisture, evapotranspiration.
Central Black Earth Floodplains (E) – Black Earth
Floodplains exist in association with the major rivers and
creeks in the central part of the catchment (Liverpool
Plains to Narrabri). This land management unit (LMU E)
has a land capability classification of 2, 7 or 8. Floodways
are where a channel may leave the river, meander,
and rejoin steams. The floodplain is that area with a
slope of generally <2%, is dominated by very extensive
backplains, with minor swamp and outwash areas. Soils
include deep black earths, brown or grey clays and some
earthy sands. Some floodways are farmed, others are
managed as pasture and some retain native vegetation
of grasses, understorey, River Red Gum, Myall and Grey,
Yellow or Bimble Box. The floodplain is intensively farmed
and largely cleared of vegetation. This LMU is a dynamic
environment and subject to inundation and severe
erosion. Shallow saline groundwaters can be locally
extensive in this LMU, particularly in the Goran Basin
and at the LMU’s upper reaches. Deep fresh irrigation
aquifers are found beneath this LMU where the alluvium
sits on a coarse gravel fill over basement material.
Most of this LMU is used for cropping (with significant
irrigation areas), with a minor portion used for grazing on
native and improved pastures.
3.6 Soils asset – Colluvial
Black Earths
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as Liverpool Black
Footslopes, consistent with information presented
in the Soil Condition section of the Draft State of the
Catchments Report, and consisting of black vertosols.
Descriptions thus:
Colluvial Black Earths (G) – A dominant feature of the
central part of the Namoi Catchment is the alluvial plains
and slopes between 2–8% that have been predominantly
derived from volcanic geological material. This land
management unit (LMU G) has a land capability classification of 2–4 and the soils are predominantly black
earths with >200cm depth and reducing in depth as the
slope increases. There is a range of other alluvial soils
present, depending on the parent material contributing
to the outwash plains. Land use is mainly summer and
winter annual cropping on land up to 5% slope with
increasing grazing on lands above 5%. Some localised
low slope areas are irrigated for cropping. The long slope
areas in this LMU are subject to severe erosion by runoff from above. Shallow saline water tables occur on the
lower slopes approaching the footslope plain junction,
and in some areas where underlying rock benches push
localised groundwater to the surface.
quality water resources for irrigation, and likely to be a key
contributor to economic function in the catchment.
Trend in condition
Condition is reported in the State of the Catchments
Report as good, with only a slight loss of soil function. The
Trend in condition
Notes on trend
It should be noted that confidence in trend data is low.
Report as good, with only a slight loss of soil function. The
Notes on trend
Not relevant, as trend is reported as upwards.
Drivers and threats
Soil salinity from hyperwetting of soils under irrigation
regimes and shallow saline groundwaters.
Not relevant, as trend is reported as upwards.
Drivers and threats
Conceptual model
Soil salinity from shallow saline groundwaters as stated in
the Land Management Unit Description. Sheet erosion.
58
Conceptual model
3. Land
quality water resources for irrigation and likely to be a key
contributor to economic function in the catchment.
Trend in condition
Known
Condition of Burbagate Alluvials is reported in the Draft
State of the Catchments Report as good, with only a slight
loss of soil function. The trend is reportedly up, with soil
condition improving.
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) ECe in soil at 4–8 dS/m moderately saline – at this
level crop production in sensitive species is affected
and crop options may be reduced.
2) 70% groundcover.
Condition of the Maules Creek Valley Floor is reported as
being only fair with a noticeable loss of soil function. The
trend is considered to be stable.
Notes on trend
Rainfall, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, per cent
groundcover, run-off amount and velocity.
3.7 Soils asset – Central Mixed
Soil Floodplains
Drivers and threats
Definition
Conceptual model
Not relevant, as trend is reported as stable or upwards.
Burbagate Alluvials – organic carbon decline; Maules
Creek Valley Floor – sheet erosion.
Defined by the expert workshop as Burbagate Alluvials
and Maules Creek Valley Floor, consistent with information presented in the Soil Condition section of the
Draft State of the Catchments Report. Burbagate Alluvials
consist of brown vertosols and brown chromosols. It
should be noted that the Burbagate Alluvials description
also applies to part of the Central Black Earth Floodplains
already discussed previously. The Maules Creek Valley
Floor consists of tenosols, chromosols and sodosols.
Descriptions thus:
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Organic carbon 0.6% or better. At 0.6%, the lack of
carbon begins to limit the function of soils aggregate
stability (structure), buffering capacity and waterholding capacity.
2) 70% groundcover.
Central Mixed Soil Floodplains (F) – There are also
substantial plain areas of the central catchment (from
the Liverpool Plains to Narrabri) that are of very low
slope (0–2%), which are dominated by a mixture of
alluvial soils. This LMU is dominated by very extensive
meander plains (which are generally slightly higher in
the plain landscape). This land management unit (LMU
F) has a land capability classification range of 2–7 and
the soils are highly variable with black earths, brown and
grey clays, and red-brown earths with minor chernozems
and hard-setting duplex soils, depending on the parent
material contributing to the alluvium. Localised extensive
shallow saline groundwater is generally not a feature
of this LMU, however deep fresh irrigation aquifers are
found beneath this LMU where the alluvium sits on a
coarse gravel fill over basement material. Recharge is
generally thought to be from surface streams that have
gravel beds and are well connected to the underlying
aquifers. Land use is a mosaic of cropping and grazing
on native or improved pastures, which is largely determined by the fertility and tilth of the soil.
Biomass percentage, groundcover, soil carbon
percentage, rainfall, soil moisture, evapotranspiration,
run-off amount and velocity.
3.8 Soils asset – Flat Pilliga
Outwash
Definition
Defined by the expert workshop as Pilliga Outwash,
consistent with information presented in the Soil
Report, and consisting of sodosols. Described by Namoi
CMA Land Management Unit Descriptions thus:
59
3. Land
3.9 Soils asset – Sedimentary
hilltops and slopes
Flat Pilliga Outwash (F2) – This LMU dominates the
central and north western sections of the Pilliga
Outwash. The area is dominated by deep solodic soils
with sandy to loamy sand topsoils, earthy sands, and
siliceous sands. Hard-setting, saline and often highly
sodic clay soils (grey, brown and red clays) occur at the
terminal northern end of the Pilliga Outwash, where it
meets the Darling Riverine Plains. Red earths and redbrown earths are common along the western margin
of this LMU. These northern areas tend to be prone to
severe scalding and sheet erosion. Land capability is
generally greater than 5, though some isolated areas
with higher rainfall occur in the western margins of this
unit where the land is Class 4. Land use is diverse, but is
dominated by forestry and nature reserves, with grazing
the most common use of cleared lands. Some winter
cereal cropping occurs in the western portions of this
LMU on the red earths.
Definition
Descriptions thus:
Sedimentary Hilltops and Slopes (A): These are generally
sandstone or metamorphic rock based on, or in some
cases with a thin capping of, basalt. This grouping includes
some small areas of acid volcanics. This land management
unit (LMU A) has a land capability classification of 4 or
5 on the hill tops and 6, 7 or 8 on slopes depending on
steepness and soil depth. Sedimentary slopes of greater
than 15% occur around the perimeter of the catchment
and in the central parts. The soils are shallow lithosols
and skeletal red-brown earths, plus some rocky outcrops
or cliffs. The soils generally have high infiltration with low
water holding capabilities, except for some better textured
soils derived from the basalt occurrences. There are no
watertable problems and salinity is only a problem where
marine sediments occur within the bedrock. While the
topography of the hilltops can be flat to gently undulating,
physical access to these areas (through the steep slopes)
and lack of water limit the grazing potential.
Trend in condition
Report as fair, with noticeable loss of soil function. The
trend is reportedly stable.
Notes on trend
Expert workshop also believed the trend to be stable.
Not relevant, as trend is reported as stable.
With high infiltration and low water-holding capacity, this
LMU may be important to groundwater recharge.
Drivers and threats
Trend in condition
Soil structural decline.
No trend noted.
Conceptual model
Notes on trend
Nil.
Nil.
Known
Drivers and threats
Nil.
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Conceptual model
growth and management. It is potentially a linear
non-return change, rather than a threshold, however.
3) Soil organic carbon at 0.6% or better is sufficient to
ensure that soil structure is not affected.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
growth and management. This is potentially a linear
Biomass per cent, groundcover, soil carbon per cent.
60
3. Land
Strongly suspected
These thresholds are those most likely to impact on soil
permeability and water infiltration, therefore compromising the LMU’s potential function as a recharge area.
Nil.
Nil.
3.11 Soils asset – Riparian
Corridor
3.10 Soils asset – Peel
Floodplain
Definition
Definition
Descriptions thus:
Descriptions thus:
The Riparian Corridor land management unit (LMU D) is
generally defined as a 20 metres wide buffer from each
stream bank and has a land capability classification
of 7. This LMU transects most other LMUs depending
on watercourse location and activity throughout the
catchment. Soil types vary depending on the base
geology of the area and local sedimentation to include
brown or grey clays, black earths, red-brown earths
and earthy sands. The Riparian Corridor is dynamic
with many geomorphological zones, such as terraces
and steep banks interacting with frequent flooding and
water level changes. It can also be undulating, with
unstable soils and a predominance of River Red Gum
communities, many of which are mature, and some
Belah communities. Stability of this region is important
for water quality and biodiversity. In the upper areas of
the catchment (and some lower areas), clearing of this
LMU has occurred for cropping and improved pasture
with most of the native pasture or forested streambanks
being in steeper regions of sub-catchments.
The Peel Floodplain forms the main drainage for the
Duri Hills, in the eastern and central Tamworth Fold
Belt section of the Namoi Catchment. This confined
LMU is dominated by very high quality chernozems,
which are highly utilised for cropping, intensive pasture
production, and a range of horticultural and grazing
enterprises, including dairying. High quality groundwater
is common within this LMU, but the resource is thought
to be highly stressed, owing to over allocation of the
resource and the increasing demands placed on it by the
city of Tamworth. Land Capability is generally Class 1
or 2, which makes this the highest value LMU within the
Namoi Catchment.
Although this is the highest value LMU within the
catchment, it is only present in a confined area. It is
likely to be an important economic contributor to the
catchment with its association with high quality groundwater. It is also important from a social and economic
perspective as it provides high quality feed to the
Tamworth equine industry, which is currently being
promoted as a source of economic and industry diversification within the Tamworth area.
This LMU is important to water quality and biodiversity.
Thresholds and condition information can be sourced in
the water assets section.
Trend in condition
3.12 Soils asset – Upland bogs
and swamps
No trend noted.
Notes on trend
Definition
Nil.
Descriptions thus:
Nil.
This peaty LMU occurs generally as small valley fills
in both the New England Tablelands and the Liverpool
Range sections of the Namoi Catchment. Minor
occurrences are also found in the higher parts of the
Nandewar and Warrumbungle Ranges. The unit is
much more extensive than could be represented on
the catchment maps, mostly due to their confined and
narrow, linear nature. These areas are highly significant
in that they hold large amounts of water, and gradually
release it into the upper reaches of streams and rivers
of the catchment. Land use is generally light grazing or
nature reserve, although many of the Tablelands swamps
Drivers and threats
Nil.
Conceptual model
Known
Nil.
61
3. Land
have been drained for grazing purposes. Once drained,
this LMU ceases to function as a long-term water supply
to downstream drainage lines.
Known
Nil.
Upland bogs and swamps are very significant to hydrological balance in the catchment due to their waterholding capacity and contribution to the base flow of
rivers and streams.
Strongly suspected
Thresholds and condition information can be sourced in
the Water Assets section of this document, but it should
be noted that two thresholds apply.
1) Drainage.
2) Cutting-out or eroding, so that water-holding
capacity is destroyed.
permeability and water infiltration, therefore compromising the LMUs function as a recharge area.
3.13 Soils asset – Basaltic
Slopes and Hills
Definition
Descriptions thus:
3.14 Soils asset – Steep
Basaltic Hills
Basalt Slopes (8–20%) occur flanking the southern edge
of the Liverpool Plains Sub-Catchment with some occurrences associated with the Garrawilla, Warrumbungle and
Nandewar basalts. This land management unit (LMU H) has
a land capability classification of 4, 5 or 6. The soils range
from black earths and prairie to brown clays, red-brown
earths, with soil depth decreasing with increasing slope.
Grazing is the dominant land use, but there are some areas
of cropping on the lower slopes with deeper soils. This LMU
is a major source of recharge into groundwater systems.
Shallow water tables and salinity are a very minor problem,
usually in association with basalt flow edges.
Definition
Descriptions as
Basalt Hills with slopes 20% occur flanking the southern
edge of the Liverpool Plains Sub-Catchment with some
occurrences associated with the Garrawilla, Warrumbungle
and Nandewar basalts. This land management unit (LMU
I) has a land capability classification of 6–8. The soils are
usually shallow and range from black earths and prairie to
brown clays, red-brown earths to lithosols on upper slopes
and skeletal areas. There is some grazing on the lesser
slopes with deeper soils in valleys or hilltops. This LMU is a
source of recharge into groundwater systems.
This LMU is very significant to hydrological balance in the
catchment and a major source of recharge into groundwater systems.
Trend in condition
Basalt Hills are very significant to the hydrological
balance in the catchment and a major source of recharge
into groundwater systems.
No trend noted.
Notes on trend
Trend in condition
Nil.
No trend noted.
Notes on trend
Nil.
Nil.
Drivers and threats
Nil.
Nil.
Conceptual model
Drivers and threats
Nil.
62
Conceptual model
3. Land
Strongly suspected
1) Soils compaction threshold in red earths
– compaction reaches a point where no water can
infiltrate, which reduces opportunity for plant growth,
which further exacerbates compaction.
2) Topsoil loss threshold – once topsoils are gone, so
is any opportunity to return to the previous state, as
seeds, eggs, spores etc. are also lost.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Bulk density thresholds depend on texture, but 1.4 t/
Biomass per cent, groundcover per cent, soil carbon per
cent, bulk density, rainfall, run-off velocity and amount.
The Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water has recently compiled more detailed projections of
the impacts and hazards of climate change on a regional
basis.
permeability and water infiltration, therefore compromising the LMU’s function as a recharge area.
The projections for land assets are generally not good for
the majority of the Namoi Catchment Area. Generally,
it can be expected that the catchment will experience
reduced vegetation cover caused by poorer growing
conditions (drier soils), thus significantly exacerbating
erosion risk. This risk is likely to be worsened by an
increase in heavy sporadic rainfall typified by intense
storm activity. Particularly vulnerable areas include the
slopes and plains. The New England Tablelands may be an
exception in this instance, as increased plant growth in
summer is likely to alleviate the problem in some areas.
3.15 Soils asset – Other soils,
general
Definition
Described by the expert workshops as the remainder
of the LMUs not described and discussed so far.
Descriptions of these LMUs are available in Appendix G:
Land Management Units in the Namoi Catchment.
Sodic soils are considered to be of particular concern,
as they are already subject to an increased erosion
risk because of their sodic nature. Sodic soils require
vegetation cover to maintain and develop soils structure,
and as soils dry, vegetation cover will be more difficult to
maintain. Sodicity will also be exacerbated by increases
in summer rainfall and the intensity of storms.
Trend in condition
Considered poor and trending down.
Notes on trend
Gully erosion is also projected to increase on the slopes
and plains because of the increase in incidence of heavy
downpours. Gully erosion may be less active in parts of
the New England Tablelands due to reduced through-flow,
seepage flow and deep drainage in winter.
Expert opinion.
Impacts on productivity and profitability of agriculture,
negative impact on biodiversity, water quality and
quantity.
Wind erosion is likely to increase on the plains.
Drivers and threats
Salinity is likely to remain an issue, with projections
suggesting that wetter summers and drier winters will
more likely than not increase the risk of dryland salinity.
Summer rainfall events will have the potential to mobilise
salts, and dry winter conditions will concentrate salts.
The actual effect will depend on the characteristics of
particular locations.
Wetting and drying cycles changing due to climate
change, inappropriate land use and invasive species.
Conceptual model
Acidification is likely to be reduced where it is a result of
leaching. Land management will remain the key determinate in soil acidification.
Known
Nil.
63
Further work is currently underway to review latest data
and modelling with regard to predicted impacts of climate
change, along with potential mitigation and adaptation
options to inform the next iteration of natural resource
plans for the region.
3. Land
The specifics of how climate change is likely to play out
across the catchment suggest the improvement and
maintenance of groundcover is even more important, but
may be more difficult to establish or maintain. Significant
buffering established now may be critical to the future
function of the catchment; therefore a focus on establishing and improving 70% or better groundcover across
the entirety of the catchment is most probably the issue
of overwhelming importance to the landscape function of
the catchment.
See also Figure 68, above.
Figure 69: Priority land management units based on soil
sodicity in light of climate change impacts
It is possible to increase or decrease groundcover and
organic matter in soils readily most of the time. A wide
range of land management practices and ensuring that
land is being managed within its capability can influence
this. Any decrease in groundcover means that it is more
likely that a threshold will be crossed that can impact on
soil sodicity, soil structure, permeability or water-holding
capacity. This may mean that a return to the previous
state becomes impossible due to the effects on plant
growth and soil biological function.
For this reason, the threshold of groundcover at, or better
than, 70% will be carried forward into the Catchment Area
Plan, and interventions will be focused on maintenance or
improvement at this level, including bringing as much of
the catchment area up to at least this level.
Soils play a critical role in the function of landscapes, and
they underpin social activity (places to live), economic
activity (providing a resource base) and environmental
services such as water quantity and quality, nutrient
cycling, storage of organic matter and in particular carbon,
and a physical substrate for plant growth. There is no
asset in the Namoi Catchment that can be considered to
be independent of the benefits of healthy soils.
Groundcover levels across all seasons were assessed
in 2011. The research shows that based on the median
groundcover levels through a whole year, for non-crop
areas the total median groundcover was above 80%;
for crop areas it was between 73% and 78%. It should
be noted that 2011 was a particularly good season, so
groundcover levels overall were relatively high as a result.
There was significant seasonal and site scale variation,
with the lowest levels occurring during winter on cropped
country.
Detailed information on soil type, condition and
thresholds seems to support the conceptual model result
in Figure 67, in that it is soil structure and organic matter
that play a critical role in underpinning soil health in the
catchment. Overwhelming evidence seems to point to
maintenance or improvement of groundcover as being
an intervention that would have significant outputs in
relation to soil organic matter, soil carbon, soil structure,
soil water-holding capacity, soil permeability and nutrient
cycling. Groundcover is taken to mean anything that
covers the ground, not just living plants. Rocks, gravel,
leaf litter, logs etc. can contribute many of the same
functions as living plants in relation to soil health.
The big sleeper in terms of issues that may rear their
heads and act as a major shock to the system of the
catchment, is how salinity plays out in the context
of climate change. Projections on salinity are highly
uncertain, and range from not needing to worry necessarily due to reductions in rainfall, to a worsening scenario
due to increased movement and subsequent isolation
of salt. For this reason, a key priority in the catchment is
to maintain engagement and knowledge regarding soil
salinity within vulnerable land systems.
64
3.18 References
3. Land
Mapwell (2006). Salinity outbreak mapping. Prepared for
Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Mapwell.
CSIRO (2008). Why Soil Organic Matter Matters. Fact
sheet. CSIRO. Available at <http://www.csiro.au/
resources/soil-organic-matter.html>.
Namoi ROC (2008). Regional landscape resources map
for the Namoi Catchment. Namoi ROC.
targets and catchment action plans. Natural Resources
Commission, Sydney.
Danaher T., Horn G., Burley H., Higgins D. and Sparke
G. (2012). Namoi catchment ground cover assessment
– determining groundcover at the catchment and subcatchment scale. Remote Sensing and Land Assessment
Section, Officer of Environment and Heritage, Department
of Premier and Cabinet.
Resilience Alliance (2007). Assessing and managing
resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioner’s
workbook. Version 1.0. Available at <http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php>.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water (2008). Monitoring, evaluation and reporting
of soil condition in New South Wales. Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.
Soil Futures (2008). Maps and reports of soils landscapes
at 1:100 000, maps of Land management units and
management recommendations. Prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. Soil Futures.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
(2009). Land management within capability – a NSW
monitoring, evaluation and reporting project. Department
of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.
Australian state of the environment 2011. Independent
(2010). Considering climate change in the review of
the CAP – presentation to Namoi CMA. Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.
Stocking M. (2007). A global systems approach for healthy
soils. In: Bigas H., Gudbrandsson G.I., Montanarella L.
and Arnalds A. (Eds), Paper to the Soils, Proceedings of
the International Forum Celebrating the Centenary of
Conservation and Restoration of Soil and Vegetation in
Iceland. 31 August – 4 September 2007, Selfoss, Iceland.
European Union, Italy.
(2010). NSW climate impact profile: the impacts of climate
change on the biophysical environment of New South
Wales. Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water, Sydney.
(2010). State of the catchment report – soil condition in
the Namoi region. Draft report available DECCW, Sydney
NSW.
Walker B.H., Abel N., Anderies J.M. and Ryan P. (2009).
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in the
Goulburn-Broken catchment, Australia. Ecology and
Society, 14(1), 12.
DECCW (in prep). Draft state of the catchment report
– Namoi Catchment. Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water, Sydney.
Walker B. and Meyers J.A. (2004). Thresholds in ecological
and social-ecological systems: a developing database.
Ecology and Society, 9(2), 3.
Department of Primary Industries Victoria (2010). What is
soil health (website). Available at http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.
au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_home.
Wolfenden J., Evans M., Essaw D., Johnson F., Sanderson
A., Starkey G. and Wilkinson B. (2007). Resilience
management – a guide for irrigated regions, communities and enterprises. Cooperative Research Centre for
Irrigation Futures. Available at <http://www.une.edu.
au/aglaw/research/CRCIF-TR0107.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2010). Namoi Catchment land
use mapping project. Prepared for Namoi Catchment
Kirchhof G., (2002). Ed Proceedings Soil Health Seminar
– keeping our soils alive. NSW Agriculture (Now Industry &
Investment NSW), Sydney.
65
4. Water
4. Water
Water is defined as surface water and groundwater
systems that comprise the riverine zone (made up
of stream bed and banks, wetlands and floodplains),
together with aquifers, both confined and unconfined.
It also includes riparian vegetation, aquatic biota and
water quality, and covers access to water, both for
people and environmental values.
undertaken since 2010 when this assessment was first
research specifically to inform this assessment as prioritised in the Namoi CAP or as part of ongoing monitoring
A series of two expert workshops were run in 2010 with a
range of groundwater, surface water, riparian vegetation
and biodiversity expertise to identify assets within the
water theme and any known thresholds and drivers
considered relevant from a resilience perspective.
This conceptual model has been drafted by the authors as
a starting point for discussion around the critical assets
underpinning water in the Namoi Catchment. This model
suggests that surface water quality and geomorphology
are the most critical assets.
Figure 70: Conceptual model – contribution of water
assets to the water theme; an arrow means that the
‘arrow from’ asset contributes to the ‘arrow to’ asset
Reduces
river incision
promoting
bankfull flows
Floodplain
flows
Hydrological
connectivity
Stable
bed & banks
increase
connectivity
Floodplan
Management
enhances
Poor quality
floodplain flows
limit use
Low sediment
load promotes
connectivity
High sediment
can reduce
recharge
Riparian
vegetation
Enhance
Bed & bank
stability
Floodplan
Management
reduces damage
Promotes
healthy
vegetation
Groundwater
recharge
River
geomorphology
Crtical mass &
recruitment
Promotes
stability
through
vegetation
health
Promotes
naturalised
flows
Filtering &
stability
Increases
Create
mass
recruitment
events
In-stream
flows
System
flush
Surface water
quality
Quantity to
flush system
Better quality
water provides
increased uses
Promotes
Poor quality
potential
instream flows Link with linkages
limit use &
local
degrade
aquifers
Water for
vegetation
recruitment &
growth
Habitat &
resources
Groundwater
availabiltiy
Increase
uses
Riparian
buffers
Provides
stable
structure
for habitat
Reduces
risk of saline
aquifer intrusion
Enhances
functionality
Species
Local flows
Groundwater
quality
67
Habitat
provided
Filtering &
stability
Optimal level of
surface water quality
Sustainable
usage
Provides
Environmental
services
Habitat &
resource for aquatic &
terrestrial species
Water for the
environment
Reduces
risk of saline
aquifer intrusion
Stable
bed & banks
increase
quality
Better quality
water provides
increased uses
Increase
Species
use
Increase
use
Water for the
people
4.1 Water asset – groundwater
availability
4. Water
of the catchment is considered to be in transition or
disconnected due to the large stresses and long-term
decline occurring. Downstream of the confluence of
Cox’s Creek (transition) and the Namoi River, there are
few areas of connection. Major areas of disconnect are
observable around Zone 3 and 8 of the Upper Namoi
Alluvium and at depth north of the Namoi River from
Narrabri to Wee Waa in the Lower Namoi Alluvium.
Definition
The amount of groundwater available to people and the
environment.
Trend in condition
(Badenhope et al 2012, p. 23)
Declining.
Notes on trend
There is some uncertainty as to whether monitoring
locations are appropriate. Another issue is the impact of
policy changes already made but yet to play out in full.
Potential aquifer collapse and reduced availability of water
(including due to management response).
According to a recent study commissioned by Namoi
CMA:
Extraction levels, recharge rates, policy, climate change
impacts.
Drivers and threats
Conceptual model
[M]uch of the catchment is shown to be in either a
state of transition or disconnection from significant
recharge. The impact of higher rainfall in 2010 is seen
in reduced pumping drawdown and stable or increasing
recovery levels throughout most of the Upper and Lower
Namoi. However, groundwater levels across much of the
catchment still exhibit long-term decline.
Groundwater levels have recovered or are stable in Zones
1, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Long-term decline evident in all of the
other zones of the Upper Namoi has been arrested in
recent years, with the exception of Zone 12. There is
risk of compaction, loss of storage and further decline
throughout Zones 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 should pumping rates
increase again during future dry periods. In the Lower
Namoi, large drawdowns and areas of greatest recoverydecline are found between Narrabri and Burren Junction
north of the Namoi River and Pian Creek. Decline has
stabilised in most pipes in recent wet years with some
recovery occurring in the west of the catchment.
(See Figures 63 and 71–82)
Summaries of hydrograph analysis presented by Timms et
al (2010) for the Upper and Lower Namoi Alluvium indicate
that most zones in the Upper Namoi show poor recovery,
decline of water levels, increased drawdown and in some
cases increased leakage, with a significant recharge event
required. In the Lower Namoi, there are large drawdowns,
with the areas of greatest decline between Narrabri and
Wee Waa to the north of the Namoi River. Groundwater
levels in most bores are in decline. Bore level monitoring
data shows a decline of recovered levels indicating
possible risk of consolidation (ranging from -10 m to -14m
decline of recovered levels over two decades, or -20 m
over three decades).
Calf (1978) found that through tritium and radiocarbon
studies, water in the upper aquifers (less than 25m) was
relatively young, in the middle aquifers (50–75m) it is
about 600 years old, and some water is ‘fossil’ water, older
than 35,000 years.
Mapping of maximum drawdowns across the catchment
highlights drawdown hotspots in Zone 3 near Curlewis
on the Breeza Plain and in Zone 2 on Cox’s Creek.
Drawdowns in the Lower Namoi are greatest to the
north-east and east of Wee Waa, far north of Wee Waa,
with a hotspot between Burren Junction and Walgett.
Significant work was completed during the Upper and
Lower Namoi Groundwater Sources Water Sharing Plan
process to establish recharge rates and, in concert with
the Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements
(ASGE) program, adjust groundwater use to align with
potential recharge rates. Estimated recharge rates are
available for each zone in the Water Sharing Plan area.
Considerable variation is shown for possible recharge in
a year. Recharge for allocation purposes has been set on
the high side of the possible variation. Repeated requests
were made by the Groundwater Task Force operating
at the time to establish actual safe operating limits for
alluvial aquifers. As far as could be established in 2010,
most of this work remained to be done.
Using the method of clustering, the Namoi alluvium
was divided into 23 clusters. These were divided into
areas of connected, transition and disconnected, based
on decision matrices incorporating the parameters of
maximum drawdowns, long-term decline and streamflow
correlation. The major areas of connection are around
the recharge zone at the top of the catchment, along the
Peel River and between Gunnedah and Boggabri. Shallow
groundwater is connected to recharge between Narrabri
and Burren Junction in the Lower Namoi Alluvium. Much
68
4. Water
Recent analysis completed in 2012 by Badenhope et al
(2012) has shown that much of the catchment is in either
a state of transition or disconnection from significant
recharge. The impact of higher rainfall in 2010 resulted
in reduced pumping drawdown and stable or increasing
recovery levels throughout most of the Upper and Lower
Namoi. Groundwater levels across much of the catchment
are still showing long-term declines, however.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Aquifer drawdown below greater than maximum
historical drawdown levels will result in further
aquifer compaction in alluvial aquifers.
2) Quality declines such that a water resource is
nominated a lesser type of beneficial use (e.g.
declines from good quality drinking water to only
being suitable for salt-tolerant crops).
3) Groundwater levels do not drop below the rooting
depth of groundwater-dependent vegetation
ecosystems.
4) Groundwater within 10 metres of soil surface where
woody vegetation-based GDEs occur.
5) Drawdown occurs faster than recharge can occur.
Work currently underway by the NSW Office of Water
(in prep) has found that groundwater within 1 to 8 m for
groundwater-dependent woody ecosystems identifies
highly likely GDEs where there is a depth to groundwater
in the range 0–8 m, and a frequency of use of 9–10 years
out of 10.
Recent analysis undertaken by Serov (2013) has shown
that a 10 m depth to groundwater threshold is more
appropriate for the Namoi Catchment’s woody groundwater-dependent ecosystems based on rooting depths of
plants and mapping of vegetation communities.
Recharge rate (as affected by both rainfall and land use),
although it is clear that recharge has multiple types and
inter-relationships that are currently poorly understood.
Extraction rates.
This builds on a literature review (Environmental Evidence
Australia 2012) and a range of discussions with local
experts and communities that also suggested that the
range of rooting depths of plant communities in the
Namoi Catchment meant a 30 m depth to groundwater for
groundwater-dependent ecosystems threshold as initially
proposed in 2010 was not appropriate for the catchment.
Figure 71: The water cycle
Source: DLWC (1997)
69
Figure 72: Relationships between components of a
groundwater system
4. Water
Figure 74: Water-balance summary diagram for the
Namoi River – regulated water management area 2004–
2005
Source: http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/resources/
students/students_groundwater.html
Figure 73: The hydrologic cycle, including its effect on a
catchment
Source: Sophocleous (2002), based on Freeze (1974)
Source: Australian Water Resources (2005)
Figure 75: Hudson footslope – recharge through
weathered basalt hill slopes near the Liverpool Ranges
Source: Timms et al (2006)
70
Figure 76: Flow chart of the hydrological sub-processes
in the water-balance model.
4. Water
Figure 78: Maximum historical drawdown pre 2011,
maximum drawdown at each bore, Upper Namoi Alluvium
Source: Badenhope et al (2012)
maximum drawdown at each bore, Lower Namoi
Alluvium
Source: Bari & Smettem (2006)
maximum drawdown at each bore, Namoi Alluvium
Figure 80: Idealised drawdown for an aquifer system
with multiple pumping bores
Source: Kelly et al (in prep)
71
4. Water
Figure 81: Histogram of change in groundwater levels in
the Namoi Catchment between 1998 and 2008
If the trend is down, impacts will include aquifer collapse
and reduced availability of water with a range of other
unknown potential impacts, given that we do not currently
understand the complexity of the system and its many
interactions.
Drivers and threats
Land use, climate change (reduced water inputs), changed
hydrology.
Conceptual model
Young et al (2002) posed that recharge in the Namoi was
declining naturally due the formation of the modern clays
of the Marra Creek Formation, reducing the infiltration
possible from large floods. Only the sandy channels and
palaeochannels provide opportunities for surface run-off
to infiltrate.
Figure 82: Median annual change in groundwater levels
in Namoi Catchment 1978–2008
No thresholds are identifiable at this stage.
Recharge rates (extraction and rainfall). Water levels
within aquifers. Integrity of structural connections
between aquifers and with recharge zones.
Linkages and feedback to other themes
Links to groundwater and surface water assets, but there
is little information regarding how these connections
operate.
Figure 83: Illustration of the anatomy of an aquifer
system
4.2 Water asset – groundwater
recharge
Definition
The ability of water to infiltrate and move through the
landscape and therefore recharge aquifers.
Trend in condition
Declining or stable.
Notes on trend
It remains challenging to assess exactly how much
recharge is coming from various sources across the
catchment, including slope, floodplain, and deep
drainage recharge. Recent analysis completed in 2012
by Badenhope et al (2012) has shown that much of the
catchment is in either a state of transition or disconnection from significant recharge. The impact of higher
rainfall in 2010 resulted in reduced pumping drawdown
and stable or increasing recovery levels throughout
most of the Upper and Lower Namoi. Groundwater levels
across much of the catchment are still showing long-term
declines overall, however.
Source: http://www.johnston-independent.com/groundwater_
recharge.html
72
Figure 84: Effects and manifestations of gravity-driven
flow in a regionally unconfined drainage basin
4. Water
Figure 87: Illustration of how water moves from
groundwater, streams and soil to the atmosphere
Source: Nevill (2009), originally from LWA (2007)
4.3 Water asset – optimal level
of groundwater quality
Definition
Source: Sophocleous (2002), (adapted from Tóth 1999)
The freshness and usability of aquifers for use by people
and the environment.
Figure 85: Illustration of confined, unconfined and
perched aquifer systems
Trend in condition
Variable and down.
Notes on trend
There are not enough datasets to allow us to be
conclusive regarding trends in relation to groundwater
quality, but condition is variable across the catchment,
and the trend is generally down, with Atrazine contamination picked up in some sources.
Bores retired from production, drinking water, stock water
and irrigation water supplies affected, GDEs adversely
affected, soil degradation impacts from the use of poor
quality water.
Drivers and threats
Extraction rates, recharge rates, climate change impacts,
and bed and bank incision, resulting in reduced recharge,
reduced water quality, and pollution from chemicals and
salt.
recharge.html
Figure 86: Recharge from streambeds (a) with no
hydraulic connection, and (b) with hydraulic connection
Source: Sophocleous (2002)
73
4. Water
4.4 Water asset – surface
water quantity
Conceptual model
Definition
Known
The amount of surface water in the catchment.
1) >1490 µS/cm – unacceptable for drinking water.
2) 5970 µS/cm – unsuitable for poultry.
3) 10450 µS/cm – unsuitable for dairy cattle or horses.
4) 14920 µS/cm – unsuitable for beef cattle.
5) 19400 µS/cm – unsuitable for sheep.
6) 1500 µS/cm – will impact on productivity of cotton.
7) 5500 µS/cm – unsuitable for sunflowers.
8) 6000 µS/cm – unsuitable for wheat.
9) 7700 µS/cm – unsuitable for cotton.
10) 8000uS/cm – unsuitable for barley.
Trend in condition
Poor, and declining.
Notes on trend
Predicted long-term trend is down – policy shocks and
drying environment.
Reduced water availability for use, increased pressure on
groundwater systems, aquatic health declines, reduction
to habitat quality, changes to geomorphology.
Strongly suspected
1) Extraction reaches a level that causes drawdown of
shallow salted aquifers.
2) Extraction reaches a level that causes lateral
movement of salts from other parts of the aquifer.
Drivers and threats
Extraction (including population growth, industry and
agriculture), climate change (reduced rainfall), changes
in rainfall pattern, afforestation, land-use change, urbanisation (stormwater).
Extraction rates, because these can draw salty or contaminated water from shallow aquifers into deeper ones.
Distance from cropping activity, recharge rates, type of
rock water is travelling through.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 73, 76 and 90–94)
River reaches in red in Figure 92 are considered to be
under the 66% natural flow threshold, based on available
flow and extraction data. These areas therefore are a
priority for future water planning. It is important to note,
as outlined in the report that accompanied this mapping,
that the hydrologic stress is underestimated, due to the
available data and the way it is analysed.
Links to riparian condition, water quality, water quantity
and hydrological equilibrium.
Figure 88: How contamination occurs within aquifers
A drawback to this type of indicator is that if an
ecologically important part of the hydrograph is highly
impacted (e.g. zero flow periods are more frequent,
or small freshes are lost), it may not be reflected in
an annual flow metric. This is because annual flows
maybe significantly larger than the volumes in the part
of the hydrograph being altered. For example the annual
indicator is much more likely to highlight impacts like the
loss of large volumes from high flows, but not pick up on
increases in the number of zero flow days, because the
volumes of water extracted are smaller, yet the degree of
impact on the ecology may be just as great (NOW 2012).
recharge.html
Figure 89: Illustration of how polluted groundwater
affects a surface water stream
It is for this reason that the mapping products used by
the Namoi CMA to illustrate the 66% threshold appear to
‘underestimate’ hydrologic stress compared to the risk
from extraction maps prepared by the Office of Water.
Additionally, the 66% approach does not consider the instream ‘value’ of the reach under stress.
Updated mapping of risk to in-stream values from
extraction is presented below (See Figure 93) to provide
this context.
Source: DLWC (1997)
74
4. Water
Figure 91: Monthly flow duration curve for the Namoi
River at Narrabri
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Water entering the system is reduced to a level that
changes in-stream flows from current regime.
2) 66% of the flow regime of the river remains natural
(including frequency, duration and timing).
3) Human need, agricultural need and industry demand
remain within one third of flow regime.
Rainfall, extraction, losses.
See also Figures 73 and 76, above.
Source: DLWC (2000)
Figure 90: Summer and winter river flows in the Namoi
Figure 92: Stream valley interactions and impacts of
modifications
Source: Thoms et al (1999)
Source: Poff et al (1997)
75
4. Water
4.5 Water asset – surface water
availability – environment
Figure 93: Surface water flow in the Namoi Catchment
relative to threshold
Definition
The amount of surface water available to the environment.
Trend in condition
Stable, and possibly increasing given increases in environmental allocations.
Notes on trend
The trend may be improving because of environmental
water allocations and purchases in recent years; however,
it remains to be seen whether the flows allocated will
provide enough water in time to offset the overall general
drying of the environment and ongoing water use. Overall
water availability in general is expected to be reduced by
5% by 2030 given climate change.
Figure 94: Degree of risk to in-stream values for the
Namoi Catchment
No action required at this time.
4.6 Water asset – surface
water available to people
Definition
The amount of surface water available to people.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
Decreasing due to the drying environment and policy
decisions promoting higher level of priority to environmental watering. Overall water availability in general is
expected to be reduced by 5% by 2030 given climate
change. It should be noted that environmental water is
available to people through the ecosystem services it
promotes if not directly available for extraction.
Figure 95: Relative level of water use for Murray-Darling
Basin regions
Source: CSIRO (2008)
76
4. Water
Decreased drinking, stock and irrigation water, industry
water, towns, recreation.
Known
Nil.
Drivers and threats
Strongly suspected
Climate change, policy, declines in quality, changed land
management, extraction rates.
1) Geomorphological threshold exists whereby river
channels can be incised to the point that only major
flooding events breach the boundaries of the rivers.
2) A density of 100–1000 cladocerans L-1 within three
weeks of floodplain inundation – will meet prey requirements of larval fish, and can be used as a surrogate for
ecological condition.
3) Flooding within 10–20 years – maintenance of viable
egg and seed banks.
4) Flooded every 2–3 years – aquatic fauna breeding.
Conceptual model
Current work involves development of Integrated Quantity
Quality Model (IQQM) models, and sustainable yield
models such as those developed by CSIRO.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Extraction, rainfall, diversion, losses, river geomorphology.
1) Minimum flow for population size.
2) Minimum flow for sustainable agriculture.
3) Minimum flow to support an economy that meets the
needs of catchment population.
Links back to the intactness of vegetation communities
and groundwater quantity and quality.
Figure 96: River and floodplain interactions
Rainfall, allocation, extraction limits – competition for use,
price.
4.7 Water asset – floodplain
flows
Definition
Subcomponent of surface water availability that has
strong influences on things such as ground hydrology and
wetland health, within river flows that break out and local
overland flows.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
Figure 97: Confined, partly confined and lateral
unconfined valley settings and their impact on river
morphology
Incidence of flash flooding may increase. Incidence of
riverine flooding is likely to increase.
Reductions in groundwater recharge, floodplain wetlands
condition and extent reduced, floodplain health overall
reduced, health of floodplain vegetation communities
reduced, and reductions in fish breeding events.
Drivers and threats
Extraction (including population growth, industry and
agriculture), climate change (reduced rainfall), changes in
rainfall pattern, afforestation, land-use change, urbanisation (stormwater), development of infrastructure,
changes to river geomorphology.
Source: Jain et al (2008)
Conceptual model
77
4. Water
Figure 98: Geomorphic and ecological functions at
different flow levels
Links back to the intactness of vegetation communities,
groundwater, economics and people.
Figure 99: Processes within upland rivers
Source: Poff et al (1997) 4.8 Water asset – in-stream flows
Definition
Surface water flows that stay within bed and bank.
Trend in condition
Figure 100: Conceptual models of large river ecosystem
function
Declining.
Notes on trend
This trend is based largely on reduction in water entering
the system, particularly due to a drying environment and
continued extraction.
Continued water quality and quantity decline, degraded
geomorphology, declining riparian vegetation, biodiversity
loss.
Drivers and threats
Water extraction (including due to population growth,
industry and agriculture), climate change effects
(particularly through reduced rainfall), changes in rainfall
patterns, afforestation, land-use change, urbanisation
(stormwater).
Conceptual model
(See Figures 55 and 99–101)
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Water entering the system is reduced to a level that
changes in-stream flows from current regime.
2) Two thirds of the flow regime of the river remains
natural (including frequency, duration and timing).
Source: Lovett & Price (2007)
Magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, rate of change.
78
4. Water
Figure 101: Relationship between flow regime and
ecological integrity
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Physical integrity of wetlands remains.
Physical intactness, rainfall.
4.10 Water asset – hydrological
connectivity
Definition
The degree to which surface and groundwater (and
groundwater and groundwater sources) are connected.
Trend in condition
Variable for different areas, but probably overall
downwards.
Notes on trend
Studies in the Maules Creek Catchment area in the Namoi
have shown that groundwater extraction seems to cause
long-term decreasing water levels in the aquifer. They
have also found that groundwater extraction appears to
enhance recharge from rivers and streams and that the
location of exchange is largely controlled by variations in
the geology and the location of extraction. Furthermore, it
is concluded that changes in flow regimes from gaining to
losing may have impacts on water quality and in turn on
streambed ecology.
Source: Poff et al (1997)
4.9 Water asset – local flows
Definition
Water independent of the floodplain and the river such as
perched wetlands.
Significant impacts on groundwater recharge, potential for
streams to lose more to base flow, thus reducing surface
water availability.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Drivers and threats
Notes on trend
This is based largely on reduction in water entering
the system, through both a drying environment and an
increase in farm dams.
Incision of streams, downwards trends in rainfall, changed
flow regimes – quicker overland flows, aquifer drawdown
resulting in disconnections with connected aquifers,
extraction rates.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 59, 73, 86 and 102–111)
Reductions in groundwater recharge, decline in aquatic
biodiversity.
Drivers and threats
Known
Draining, grazing, damming, extraction, drying environment.
Nil.
Conceptual model
Nil available.
79
Strongly suspected
4. Water
Figure104: Gaining stream; high groundwater levels
(winter) and/or low stream flow
1) Connection is maintained between surface and groundwater – once disconnection occurs it can take a long time
for connection to be re-established, if ever.
2) Connection is maintained between groundwater and
groundwater sources – it is possible to draw an aquifer
down so that it is below a bench of impermeable bedrock
– associated with aquifer compaction, the two aquifers
may never reconnect, impacting on lateral flow of groundwater through the catchment.
Permeability, amount of water.
Source: Anderson (2008), based on Winter et al (1998)
Figure 105: Groundwater extraction
See also Figures 59, 73 and 86, above.
Figure 102: Interactions between surface water and
groundwater. Schematic illustration of the interaction
between surface water and groundwater: (a) neutral
reach, (b) disconnected reach, (c) losing reach and (d)
gaining reach
Figure 106: Losing stream; high stream flow due to
flooding or dam releases
Source: http://www.connectedwaters.unsw.edu.au/downloads/
CWI_Flagship_Project_1.pdf; modified from Winter et al (1998)
Figure103: For a losing stream, flow is from the surface
into the underlying sediments; the inset shows the
pathways of heat transfer into the sediments by
conduction (grey) and convection (black)
Figure 107: Disconnected stream; potential implications
for streamflow
Source: Rau et al (2008)
80
Figure 108: Water availability in the Namoi
4. Water
Figure 111: NSW river reaches and groundwater
management areas
Source: SKM (2006), from NSW Department of Land and Water
Conservation data. Extract from Nevill (2009)
4.11 Water asset – river
geomorphology
Figure 109: Illustration of groundwater use and resultant
impact on river over time
Definition
Stable and functioning geomorphology in the catchment.
Trend in condition
Declining.
Notes on trend
NSW Office of Water has mapped recovery potential and
fragility.
Incision of streams, turbidity and water quality declining,
reduced aquifer recharge, reduced floodplain wetting,
wetland health declines, in-stream habitat destruction,
reduced recovery potential of the system.
Figure 110: Illustration of surface-groundwater
connectivity in the Namoi
Drivers and threats
Changed flow regime – both in regulated and unregulated
systems, increase rate of run-off and floods, removal of instream structures, reduced riparian vegetation (cropping,
clearing, grazing, tree death), gravel/sand extraction.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 112–114, Box 1 and Table 3)
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Stream bank slope >15–20% – plants unable to
recruit.
2) Geomorphology good by reference to natural
condition of each river style. (Good means close to
natural condition.)
3) Presence of dams or weirs.
4) Recovery potential exists.
81
A river style is a length of river with a characteristic
degree of valley confinement, a certain channel planiform
and a particular suite of geomorphic units and be
materials.
4. Water
Box 1 NSW Office of Water Recovery
potential and fragility mapping
The following is an extract from the NSW Office of
Water Briefing Note on Risk Assessment Methodology
(no date), which outlines the way in which river
reaches are assessed and risk is defined based on
recovery potential based on condition and fragility
based on riverstyles mapping.
The channel cross-sectional areas below the weirs in the
lower River Murray show three basic responses in river
systems in terms of geomorphology: stabilising, eroding,
or fluctuating.
The definition of recovery potential is that it is a
measure of the capacity of a reach to return to good
condition or to a realistic rehabilitated condition,
given the limiting controls of the reach. These
controls are based on the physics of hydraulics and
the ability of vegetation and sediment to facilitate
geomorphic evolution. These principles are well
documented within the current literature. For
example, Petts & Gurnell (2005) states that fluvial
geomorphology is responsible for maintaining the
structural features essential for a healthy riverine
ecosystem.
Water quantity, flow rates and timing, presence of riparian
vegetation, bank slope, bed and bank materials.
Figure 112: Illustration of the relationships between
degradation, connectivity and flow in rivers
Therefore, recovery potential is a measure of threat
and pressure as it uses observable features such
as the condition, ecological processes (e.g. weed
succession), water extraction (e.g. irrigation), land
use (e.g. livestock grazing and trampling impacts)
and infrastructure (e.g. dams and the rate/degree
of physical pressures acting on these reaches over
time and space which influence a streams recovery
potential.
The fragility classification was developed as part of
the Hunter River Styles report and was based on the
adjustment potential of three main characteristics of
each river style.
Stream fragility was defined as the susceptibility/
sensitivity of certain geomorphic categories to
physically adjust/change when subjected to degradation or certain threatening activities. Significant
adjustment is sometimes seen in-stream types that
have higher levels of fragility (i.e. streams that are
not robust or have lower resilience). This significant
adjustment can also result in certain geomorphic
categories changing to another one when a certain
threshold (level of disturbance) of a damaging impact
is exceeded.
Three categories were then derived based on this
definition:
Low fragility
Resilient (‘unbreakable’). Minimal or no adjustment
potential. Only minor changes occur such as bed form
alteration and the category or sub-category never
changes to another one regardless of the level of
damaging impact.
82
4. Water
Figure 114: Geomorphic condition mapping across the
Namoi Catchment (2010)
Medium fragility
Local adjustment potential. It may adjust over
short sections within the vicinity of the threatening
process. Major character changes can occur or the
category or sub-category can change to another – but
only when a high threshold of damaging impact is
exceeded. For example, it may require a catastrophic
flood, sediment slug or clearing of all vegetation from
bed, banks and floodplain.
High fragility
Significant adjustment potential. Sensitive. It may
alter / degrade dramatically and over long reaches.
Major character changes can occur or the category
or sub-category can change to another one when a
low threshold of damaging impact is exceeded (e.g.
clearing of bank toe vegetation alone).
4.12 Water asset – aquatic
species
In this approach, the likelihood (or resilience) is
considered to be the vulnerability or susceptibility
(stream fragility) to a threat (recovery potential).
Thus, the method calculates the likelihood as:
Definition
Likelihood = fragility x recovery potential
Trend in condition
Native fish (number of species and number of each
species), invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, aquatic vertebrate fauna (non-fish).
Declining.
Notes on trend
Fish and macro-invertebrate condition is generally poor
and continuing to decline (many fish stocks at 10%
of natural population densities). Fish populations are
declining in general across the Murray-Darling Basin.
Some frog populations (such as the Booroolong Frog)
have undergone severe declines.
Table 3. River likelihood classifications as determined by
the river styles framework.
Species extinctions, especially fish (projected down to 5%
in 40–50 years) as the pinnacle species in many aquatic
systems, reduced genetic stock, knock-on effects to
ecosystems.
Drivers and threats
Regulation, pollution, temperature changes, riparian
degradation, erosion, de-snagging, introduced invasive
species, barriers to species movements.
Figure 113: Updated risk to in-stream value mapping for
the Namoi Catchment (2013)
Conceptual model
(See Figure 54)
Known
Nil.
83
Strongly suspected
4. Water
1) A threshold has been identified in research to date
showing that a shift in riverine sites from good to
moderate condition results in a marked difference in
macrophyte and macro-invertebrate assemblages.
Thus it would seem they are sensitive to this
threshold (from good to moderate condition), but a
shift in sites from moderate to poor condition results
in little additional impact on biodiversity.
2) Cease to flow – a major threshold in how rivers
function, but not necessarily a result of intervention
by people.
3) Availability of refugia from natural disturbances
(flood and drought for example). Refugia include
perennial pools, cold-water refuges and flow velocity
refuges.
4) Degree of lateral connectivity.
5) Degree of longitudinal connectivity.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Vegetation present.
2) Width of buffer.
3) Recruitment rates exceed attrition rates.
Research carried out on river red gum communities on
the Lower Murrumbidgee Floodplain found that they
require periodic inundation (3–5 years) for up to 64 days
to be in moderate to good condition.
Vegetation loss, vegetation recruitment, stream bank
slope.
Figure 115. Direct and diffuse inputs into waterways in
areas of pasture, with and without riparian vegetation
Water temperatures exceed tolerances of aquatic fauna.
There are quality thresholds for native fish, temperature
and biological oxygen demand (BOD) thresholds,
salinity thresholds, breeding triggers, migration triggers,
thresholds applicable to macro-invertebrate availability
and fish larval stages; but these thresholds need to be
explored at the species and population scale.
Water availability, frequency and timing of flows, geomorphology and habitat variability, refugia, temperature,
quality, connectivity.
4.13 Water asset – riparian
buffers
Definition
Vegetation alongside waterways including grasslands etc.
that filter and buffer water from land-use impacts.
Trend in condition
Poor overall, but better in cropping areas and probably
stable.
Notes on trend
Nil.
Source: Parkyn (2004)
Decline in water quality, loss of biodiversity, erosion,
decline in geomorphology.
Drivers and threats
Clearing, invasive species, degradation of geomorphology,
change in hydrological regime (through drying climate),
climate change.
Conceptual model
84
4. Water
Figure116: Illustration of the function of riparian buffer
zones
Further fragmentation of landscape corridors and connectivity, loss of native woody vegetation cover, reduction in
water quality, loss of ecosystems and RVCs, fish species
extinctions, river geomorphology further degraded.
Drivers and threats
Water regulation, age of vegetation, poor quality of
vegetation, lack of recruitment, loss of geomorphological
integrity.
Conceptual model
(See Figures 56, 117 and 118)
Source: Parkyn (2004)
Please refer to Section 2.1 (Biodiversity asset – local-scale
connectivity) for models of vegetation response to water
deprivation extracted from Reid et al (2007).
4.14 Water asset – riparian
vegetation
Definition
Nil.
Known
Healthy, persistent riparian vegetation.
Strongly suspected
Trend in condition
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Declining.
Notes on trend
Recent assessment and mapping completed by Eco
Logical Australia for Namoi CMA and Cotton Catchment
Communities Co-operative Research Centre (CRC) shows
that most of the riparian area is in poor to moderate
condition. Condition appeared to be better in cropping
zones than it was in grazing zones.
Vegetation present.
Width of vegetation.
Recruitment rates exceed attrition rates.
Continuity of vegetation cover.
Presence of invasive weeds – lippia.
Presence of grazing livestock.
Access to base flow maintained.
Grazing level, clearing, flow, invasive species.
Linked to geomorphology, buffering, biodiversity,
vegetation communities.
85
4. Water
Notes on trend
Figure 117: Riparian vegetation
While there have been some recent reductions in
chemical contamination, salinity continues to fluctuate up
and down (driven in particular by the climate). Turbidity is
very poor, but stable.
Continued water quality decline and subsequent available
fresh water impacts.
Drivers and threats
Land-use change, agricultural practices leading to diffuse
source pollution, point source pollution, in-stream
erosion, salty landscapes.
Source: Price and Lovett (2002)
Conceptual model
Figure 118: Conceptual diagram of the effect of riparian
vegetation on discharge
(See Figures 89, 119 and 120)
Known
1) >1490 µS/cm – unacceptable for drinking water.
2) 5970 µS/cm – unsuitable for poultry.
3) 10450 µS/cm – unsuitable for dairy cattle or horses.
4) 14920 µS/cm – unsuitable for beef cattle.
5) 19400 µS/cm – unsuitable for sheep.
6) 1500 µS/cm – will impact on productivity of cotton.
7) 5500 µS/cm – unsuitable for sunflowers.
8) 6000 µS/cm – unsuitable for wheat.
9) 7700 µS/cm – unsuitable of cotton.
10) 8000 µS/cm – unsuitable for barley.
Strongly suspected
1) Aquatic biota will be adversely affected as salinity
exceeds 1000 mg L-1 (1500 EC).
2) Blue-green algal level of 15000 cells/mL is reached.
3) Flows reduced (increasing concentration of
pollutants).
Salt, turbidity, nitrogen, phosphorous, pesticide levels.
Figure 119: Desirable and undesirable states in relation
to rivers
Source: Price and Lovett (2002)
4.15 Water asset – optimal
level of surface water quality
Definition
As expected by natural conditions (according to benchmarked/reference sites).
Trend in condition
Declining.
Source: DECC (2008)
86
4. Water
Figure 120: Factors that drive water quality and what CMAs can do about them
Source: DECC (2008)
87
4. Water
presence and absence of weed species, such as lippia;
where lippia is present, it means that this threshold has
been crossed.
The Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water has recently compiled more detailed projections of
the impacts and hazards of climate change on a regional
basis.
The threshold of surface water flow at two thirds of
natural state was sourced from the literature, and has
implications for most of the water assets identified. For
this reason it has been carried forward into the CAP.
Similarly, the threshold of geomorphic condition being
good (in comparison to a benchmark condition) is also
underpinning most assets and will be carried forward into
the CAP.
Projections for impacts on water assets are generally
towards a hotter, drier climate with associated increases
in evapotranspiration that will result in drier soil conditions.
Substantial increases in run-off depths and the magnitude
of high flows are very likely in summer months. Run-off
depth and magnitude of high flows is likely to decrease in
winter and spring. This will be due to increased variability,
and there will be more intense storm events as a result.
Thresholds regarding riparian vegetation will also be
considered in the CAP due to the relationships between
riparian vegetation, riparian buffering, water quality,
geomorphic condition, water quality and aquatic species.
Short-term hydrological droughts are projected to
become more severe in the east of the catchment and
remain the same in the west. Changes in flood behaviour
are also expected, but models are not specific enough to
make a comment on how that may play out.
Groundwater thresholds were as difficult to find as
surface water thresholds. An overriding threshold in
relation to groundwater is whether an aquifer maintains
its integrity, particularly where they are a critical resource
to either people or agriculture. This threshold can be
achieved in the Namoi alluvial aquifers by ensuring that
they are not drawn down past their historical maximum
drawdown. There are thresholds that relate to connectivity of groundwater to other groundwater resources and
surface water, but these are poorly understood and no
quantitative threshold can be proposed at this time. A
second relevant threshold that will be carried forward for
groundwater is that a water resource should become a
lesser category of beneficial use. For example, an aquifer
(or part thereof) should not move from being suitable for
good quality drinking water to agricultural use only.
Further work is currently underway to review latest data
and modelling with regard to predicted impacts of climate
change, along with potential mitigation and adaptation
options to inform the next iteration of natural resource
plans for the region.
Water appears to be one of the most poorly understood
biophysical assets in the Namoi Catchment, despite the
fact that the catchment is one of those more studied and
better understood across Australia.
Water plays a critical role in the function of landscapes as
they underpin social activity (recreation, human needs)
and economic activity (provide resource base), and
support biodiversity.
Wetlands were not specifically identified as an asset in
the water theme. However, wetlands could be considered
in a similar light to threatened species in the biodiversity
theme. That is, if all other water assets – local flows and
floodplain flows in particular – are working as they should,
then wetlands should continue to function and persist in
the landscape. There is one threshold that needs to be
mentioned for wetlands not connected to hydrological
function at the catchment scale, however, and this is the
threshold of physical disturbance, particularly damming or
drainage.
It was not possible to source detailed information that
would clearly and unequivocally support the findings of
the conceptual model relating to the critical functions of
water. Thresholds were highly variable, and only very few
of them were sourced from the literature; most have been
developed by the authors thinking about drivers of change
and asset function to propose assets. It should also
be noted that many thresholds relating to water assets
have been crossed already. For example, a threshold has
been associated with a weir or dam being built on a river.
The Namoi and Peel Rivers both have major dams and
many weirs along their length. Another threshold is the
Water is a point of vulnerability in the Namoi Catchment,
with much of the economy and wellbeing of people
directly related to the availability of water and continued
access to it for irrigation and human needs. There is
likely to be a series of shocks to the water system in
the catchment. These include reductions in supply from
policy change (e.g. the Murray-Darling Basin Plan), reductions in availability at times due to climate variability/
change (for example, extended hydrological droughts),
land-use change (for example extractive industry use
of water). This may be further exacerbated by a greater
need for water for agriculture, industry and people due to
It was a struggle to find conceptual models that helped
to explain how the basics of water quantity and quality
function for people and ecosystem outcomes. Thresholds
were difficult to source, and most have been proposed by
the authors.
88
increasing evapotranspiration rates brought about by a
warmer climate.
4. Water
Bond N.R., Lake P.S. and Arthington A.H. (2008). The
impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: an
Australian perspective. Hydrobiologia, 600, 3–16.
Due to the reliance of the Namoi Catchment on its water
resources, the exceeding of critical thresholds for water
assets has the potential to cause significant changes right
across the entire catchment. Unfortunately, solid and
quantitative information regarding thresholds for water
assets in the catchment proved difficult to source from
the currently available information. A major focus for the
future is to establish where the thresholds might lie in
relation to using both ground and surface water such that
these systems are not pushed into undesirable states.
Boys C., Rourke M., Robinson W., Gilligan D and Thiebaud
I. (2011). Status of freshwater catfish populations and
their habitat within the Cockburn River. Report prepared
for Namoi Catchment Management Authority. NSW DPI,
Nelson Bay.
Brookes J.D., Alridge K., Wallace T., Linden L. and
Ganf G.G. (2005). Multiple interception pathways for
resource utilisation and increased ecosystem resilience.
Hydrobiologia, 652, 135–146.
Brownlow M.D., Sparrow A.D. and Ganf G.G. (1994).
Classification of water regime in systems of fluctuating
water level. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, 45, 1375–1385.
4.18 References
ACIL Consulting (2002). Economic impacts of the draft
water sharing plans. An independent Assessment for the
NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. ACIL
Consulting, Sydney.
Burgess S., Pate J.S., Adams M.A. and Dawson T.E.,
(2000). Seasonal water acquisition and redistribution in
the australian woody phreatophyte, Banksia prionotes.
Annals of Botany, 85, 215–224.
Adiku S.G.K., Rose C.W., Braddock R.D. and OzierLafontaine H. (2000). On the simulation of root water
extraction: examination of a minimum energy hypothesis.
Soil Science, 165, 226–236.
Calf G.E. (1978). An investigation of recharge to the Namoi
Valley aquifers using environmental isotopes. Australian
Journal of Soil Research, 16, 197–207.
Allison G.B., Cook P.G., Barnett S.R., Walker G.R., Jolly I.D.
and Hughes M.W. (1990). Land clearance and river salinisation in the Western Murray Basin, Australia. Journal of
Hydrology, 119, 1–20.
Cannadell J., Jackson R.B., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A.,
Sala O.E., Schulze E.D. (1996). Maximum rooting depth
of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia, 108,
583–595.
Anderson M.S. (2008). Investigation of surface water
groundwater exchange in the Maules Creek catchment.
UNSW & Cotton CRC, Narrabri.
Chessman B.C., Fryirs K.A. and Brierley G.J. (2000).
Linking geomorphic character, behaviour and condition
to fluvial biodiversity: implications for river management.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
16, 267–288.
Australian Water Resources (2005). Regional water
resource assessment – SWMA Namoi River – Regulated.
Available at <http://www.water.gov.au/regionalwaterresourcesassessments/specificgeographicregion/
TabbedReports.aspx?PID=NSW_SW_419R>.
Cotton CRC (2009). Commence to fill requirements Namoi
River. Cotton CRC, Narrabri.
Cramer V.A. and Hobbs R.J. (2002). Ecological consequences of altered hydrological regimes in fragmented
ecosystems in southern Australia: impacts and possible
management responses. Austral Ecology 27(5), 546–564.
Badenhope A., Wasko C. and Timms W. (2012). Namoi
Groundwater Mapping and Transition Zones. WRL Technical
Report 2012/01. University of New South Wales.
Baird K.J., Stromberg J.C. and Maddock T. (2005).
Linking riparian dynamics and groundwater: an ecohydrologic approach to modeling groundwater and riparian
vegetation . Environmental Management, 36, 551–564.
Cramer V.A., Thorburn P.J. and Fraser G.W. (1999).
Transpiration and groundwater uptake from farm forest
plots of Casuarina glauca and Eucalyptus camaldulensis
in saline areas of southeast Queensland, Australia.
Agricultural Water Management, 39, 187–204.
Bari M.A. and Smettem K.R.J. (2006). A conceptual model
of daily water balance following partial clearing from
forest to pasture. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
10,321–337.
CSIRO (2007). Water availability in the Namoi – summary
of a report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO
Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO,
Australia.
Beeton R.J.S., Buckley K.I., Jones G.J., Morgan D.,
Reichelt R.E. and Trewin D. (2006 Australia State of the
Environment Committee) (2006). Australia state of the
environment 2006. Independent report to the Australian
Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage,
Canberra. Available at <http://www.environment.gov.
au/soe/index.html>.
CSIRO (2008). Water availability in the Murray-Darling
Basin. A report to the Australian Government from the
CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
CSIRO, Australia.
89
4. Water
Department of Land and Water Conservation (2000).
Namoi state of the rivers report – Barwon Region. NSW
Government, Tamworth.
CSIRO/NSW Government (2006). Climate change in the
Namoi Catchment. Prepared for the New South Wales
Government by CSIRO. Available at <http://www.
Namoifullbrochure.pdf>.
S. and Ingerson G. (2009). Managed aquifer recharge
Water Australia, 2009.
Cullen P. (2002). Water: the key to sustainability in a dry
land. Edited and updated version of paper presented
at the Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy.
Canberra.
DIPNR (2003). Groundwater flow systems of the Barwon
Darling. Department of Infrastructure Planning and
Natural Resources, Sydney.
Davies P.M. (2010). Climate change implications for river
restoration in global biodiversity hotspots. Restoration
Ecology, 18(3), 261–268.
Dawson T.E. and Pate J.S. (1996). Seasonal water uptake
and movement in root systems of Australian phraeatophytic plants of dimorphic root morphology: a stable
isotope investigation Oecologia, 107, 13–20.
DNR (2004). Namoi River styles report. Indicative
geomorphic condition & geomorphic priorities for river
conservation & rehabilitation in the Namoi Catchment
north west NSW. Department of Natural Resources,
Sydney.
Dell B., Bartle J. and Tacey W. (1983). Root occupation and
root channels of Jarrah forest subsoils. Australian Journal
of Botany, 31, 615–627.
DPI (2006). The assessment & modification of barriers
to fish passage in the Namoi Catchment. Department of
Primary Industries, Sydney.
Department of Conservation (2008). Investing in our
catchments: Water quality and its role in river health. NSW
DEC, Sydney.
EA Systems (2008). Namoi Catchment conservation
strategy 2008. Report for Namoi Catchment Management
Authority. EA Systems, Armidale.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008).
Summary of climate change impacts. Western region. NSW
Climate Change Action Plan. DECCW, Sydney. Available
at <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/
climatechange/08518Westerm.pdf>.
ecosystems: the where, what and why of GDEs. Australian
Journal of Botany, 54, 91–96. Available at <www.publish.
csiro.au/journals/ajb>.
Eamus D., Froend R., Loomes R., Murray B.R. and Hose
G.S. (2006). A functional methodology for determining
the groundwater regime needed to maintain health of
groundwater dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal
of Botany, 54, 97–114. Available at <www.publish.csiro.
au/journals/ajb>.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008).
Summary of climate change impacts. New England/
north west NSW region. NSW Climate Change Action
Plan. DECCW, Sydney. Available at <http://www.
08500NENWRegionSummary.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2008). Namoi wetland assessment
and prioritisation project. Report prepared for Namoi
(2010). Impacts of climate change on natural hazards
profile. New England/North West region. DECCW, Sydney.
Eco logical Australia (2008). Upland wetlands of the
Namoi Catchment. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
(2010). Impacts of climate change on natural hazards
profile. Western region. DECCW, Sydney.
Eco logical Australia (2009). Riverine vegetation in the
Namoi Catchment. An assessment of type and condition.
Final report prepared for Cotton Catchment Communities
CRC and Namoi Catchment Management Authority.
Eco logical Australia. Available from Namoi Catchment
Management Authority <http://www.namoi.cma.nsw.
gov.au>.
NSW (2009). State of the Environment report. DECCW,
Sydney. Available at <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.
au/soe/index.htm>.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (1997). NSW
state groundwater policy framework. Department of Land
and Water Conservation, Sydney. Available at <http://
www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-Management/Law-andPolicy/Key-policies/default.aspx>.
Eco logical Australia (2010). Regional vegetation class
profiles. Report prepared for the Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Eco logical Australia. Available
from Namoi Catchment Management Authority <http://
www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au>.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (1997). NSW
state groundwater quality policy. Department of Land and
Water Conservation, Sydney. Available at <http://www.
dwe.nsw.gov.au/water/pdf/nsw_state_groundwater_
quality_policy.pdf>.
Eco logical Australia (2010). Understanding wetland habitats
at reach to catchment scale. Report prepared for Namoi
90
4. Water
Hose G.C. and Wilson S.P. (2005). Toxicity of endosulfan
to Paratya australiensis Kemp (DecapodaL Atyidae) and
Jappa kutera Harker (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) in
field-based tests. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, 75, 882–889.
Flavel N. and Bari M. (2010). Economic assessment of
proposed Goonoo Goonoo Creek alluvial groundwater
access rules. NSW Office of Water, Sydney.
Froend R. and Loomes R. (2006). Determination of
ecological water requirements for groundwater dependent
ecosystems – southern Blackwood and eastern Scott
Coastal Plain. Report for the Department of Water. Edith
Cowan University, Perth.
Howe P., O’Grady A.P., Cook P.G., Knapton A., Duguid A.
and Fass T. (2007). A framework for assessing the environmental water requirements of groundwater dependent
ecosystems. Land and Water Australia, Adelaide.
Froend R. and Zencich S. (2001). Phreatophytic vegetation
and groundwater study: phase 1. A report to the Water
Corporation and the Water and Rivers Commission. ECU,
Centre for Ecosystem Management, Joondalup, WA.
Howe P., Cooling M., Mcllwee A. and Martin R. (2005).
A review of the environmental water requirements of the
GDEs of the south east prescribed wells areas. Stage
1 report. Prepared for South East Catchment Water
Management Board, Mount Gambier, South Australia.
Available at <http://www.lhccrems.nsw.gov.au/biodiversity/mu38_41.html#mu38>.
Froend R.H., Farrell R.C.C., Wilkins C.F., Wilson C.C.
and McComb, A.J. (1993). Wetlands of the Swan coastal
plain, volume 4: the effect of altered water regimes on
wetland plants. Water Authority/Environmental Protection
Authority, Perth.
Humphries P. and Baldwin D.D. (2003). Drought and
aquatic ecosystems: an introduction. Freshwater Biology,
48, 1141–1146.
Froend R., Loomes R., Horwitz P., Bertuch M., Storey
A. and Bamford, M. (2004). Study of ecological water
requirements on the Gnangara and Jandakot mounds under
Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act. Task 2:
determination of ecological water requirements. A report
to the Water and Rivers Commission. ECU, Centre for
Ecosystems Management, Joondalup, WA.
Jackson R.B., Canadell J., Ehleringer J.R., Mooney H.A.,
Sala O.E. and Schulze E.D. (1996). A global analysis of
root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108,
389–411.
Jain V., Fryirs K. and Brierley G. (2008). Where do floodplains begin? The role of total stream power and longitudinal profile form on floodplain initiation processes.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 120(1/2), 127–141.
Froend R. and Loomes, R. (2005). South west Yarragadee
vegetation susceptibility assessment. South west
Yarragadee assessment of vegetation susceptibility and
possible response to drawdown. Prepared for Water
Corporation. Prepared by Bowen & Associates May 2005.
Available at <http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/swy/
ERMP_SWYarragadee_App30.pdf>.
Jenkins K.M. and Boulton A.J. (2007). Detecting impacts
and setting restoration targets in arid-zone rivers: aquatic
micro-invertebrate responses to reduced floodplain
inundation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 823–832.
Griffith S.J. and Wilson R. (2007). Wallum on the Nabiac
Pleistocene barriers, lower north coast of New South
Wales. Cunninghamia, 10, 93–111.
Jobbágy, E.G. and Jackson, R.B. (2001). The distribution of
soil nutrients with depth: global patterns and the imprint
of plants. Biogeochemistry, 53, 51–77.
Groom P.K. (2004). Rooting depth and plant water relations
explain species distribution patterns within a sandplain
landscape. Functional Plant Biology, 31(5), 423–428.
Johns G.G., Tongway D.J. and Pickup G. (1984). Land and
water processes. In: Harrington G.N., Wilson A.D. and
Young M.D. (Eds), Management of Australia’s Rangelands,
pp. 25–40. CSIRO, East Melbourne.
Groom P.K., Froend R.H. and Mattiske E.M. (2000a).
Impact of groundwater abstraction on Banksia woodland,
Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 1, 117–124.
Karr J.R. (1991). Biological integrity: a long-neglected
aspect of water-resource management. Ecological
Applications, 1, 66–84.
Kelly B., Merrick N., Dent B., Milne-Home W. and Yates D.
(2007). Groundwater knowledge and gaps in the Namoi
Catchment management area. Report prepared by the
National Centre for Groundwater Management, Sydney.
Groom P.K., Froend R.H., Mattiske E.M. and Koch B.L.
(2000b). Myrtaceous shrub species respond to long-term
decreasing groundwater levels on the Gnangara groundwater mound, northern Swan Coastal Plain. Journal of the
Royal Society of Western Australia, 83, 75.
Kelly B., Timms W., Andersen S., McCallum A., Blakers R,
Smith R., Badenhope A., Ludowici K. and Acworth R. (in
prep). Groundwater resources: dynamic knowledge, hydrological conditions and societal goals – Namoi Catchment
case study. Crop & Pasture Science.
Hacke U.G, Sperry J.S, Ewers B.E, Ellsworth D.S, Schafer
K.V.R and Oren,R. (2000). Influence of soil porosity on
water use in Pinus taeda. Oecologia 124, 495–505. doi:
10.1007/PL00008875.
Key Threatening Process listing (Aquatic). Various dates.
For a complete listing of the Key Threatening Processes
under the NSW Fisheries Management Act go to <http://
www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/
conservation/what-current>.
Hatton T.J. and Evans R. (1998). Dependance of
ecosystems on groundwater and its significance to
Australia. LWRRDC Occasional Paper No. 12/98.
LWRRDC, Canberra.
91
Key Threatening Process listing (Terrestrial). Various
dates. For a complete listing of the Key Threatening
Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation
Act NSW go to <http://www.threatenedspecies.
environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/home_threats.aspx>.
4. Water
Naiman R.J., Décamps H. and McClain M.E. (2005).
Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of
streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press,
California.
Namoi Catchment Management Authority (2001). A
supporting document to the Namoi Catchment Board’s
Blueprint for the Namoi Draft. Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Available from Namoi Catchment
Management Authority on request.
KLC Environmental (2010). Gins Leap Gap project. Report
KLC Environmental.
Lake P.S., Bond N. and Reich P. (2007). Linking ecological
theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biology, 52,
597–615.
Namoi Catchment Management Authority (2007). Namoi
Catchment action plan. Namoi Catchment Management
Authority, Gunnedah.
Land and Water Australia (2007). The impact of groundwater use on Australia’s rivers: exploring technical,
management and policy challenges. LWA, Canberra.
Namoi Catchment Management Authority and
Hyder Consulting (2008). Namoi regional state of the
environment report 2007–2008. Hyder Consulting,
Sydney.
Le Maitre D.C., Scott D.F. and Colvin C. (1999). A review
of information on interactions between vegetation and
groundwater. Water SA, 25(2). Available at <http://www.
wrc.org.za>.
Namoi Catchment Management Authority (2010). Expert
workshops for water (18 March 2010 and 29 April 2010),
Tamworth.
Lien L.S., Davis J.A., Chambers J.M. and Strehlow K.
(2006). What evidence exists for alternative ecological
regimes in salinising westlands? Freshwater Biology, 51,
1229–1248.
Namoi Groundwater Taskforce (2000). Final Report,
October 2000. Namoi Groundwater Taskforce.
National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999). NSW biodiversity strategy. NPWS, Sydney.
Lovett S. and Price P. (Eds) (2007). Principles for riparian
lands management. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
targets and Catchment Action Plans. Natural Resources
Commission, Sydney.
Molino Stewart (2007). Namoi Catchment point source
pollution project. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Molino Stewart.
Molino Stewart (2008). Sources of Pollution in the Namoi
CMA Area. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. Molino Stewart.
Naumburg E., Mata-Gonzalez R., Hunter R.G., Mclendon
T. and Martin D.W. (2005). Phreatophytic vegetation and
groundwater fluctuations: a review of current research
and application of ecosystem-response modelling with
an emphasis on Great Basin vegetation, Environmental
Management, 35, pp. 726–740.
Morris J. (1999). Salt accumulation beneath plantations
using saline groundwater: Lessons from the Kyabram
plantation study, In: Thorburn, P.J. (Ed), Agro-forestry over
shallow water tables: The impact of salinity on sustainability. Water and Salinity Issues in Agro forestry Series,
Report Number 4, RIRDC Publication No. 99/36. Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation,
Canberra, Australia.
Nevill J. (2009). Managing cumulative impacts: groundwater reform in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water
Resources Management, 23(13), 2605–2631.
Nielsen D.L., Brock M.A., Rees G.N. and Baldwin D.S.
(2003). Effects of increasing sallinity on freshwater
ecosystems in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany, 51,
655–665.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2004). Native Fish
Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin 2003–2013. MDBC
Publication No. 25/04. MDBC, Canberra.
Northwest Ecological Services (2009). Review of the
conservation status of the Booroolong Frog (Litoria
booroolongensis) within the Namoi River Catchment.
Authority by Northwest Ecological Services, Nundle.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2008). Murray-Darling
basin rivers, ecosystem health check, 2004–2007. A
Summary Report based on the Independent Sustainable
Rivers Audit Group’s SRA Report 1: A report on the
ecological health of rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin,
2004–2007, Submitted to the Murray-Darling Basin
Ministerial Council in May 2008. MDBC, Canberra.
NSW Office of Water (2009). Namoi water quality project
2002–2007. Final report. DECCW, Sydney.
NSW Office of Water (2012). Characterisation of direct
hydrologic pressure in the Namoi River System. Report
Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2008). Sustainable
rivers audit. Murray-Darling basin rivers: ecosystem
health check, 2004–2007. MDBC, Canberra.
92
Nulsen R.A., Bligh K.J., Baxter I.N., Solin E.J. and Imrie D.H.
(1986). The fate of rainfall in a Mallee and heath vegetated
catchment in southern WA. Australian Journal of Ecology,
11, 361–371.
4. Water
Reiter M.A., Saintil M., Yang Z. and Pokrajac D. (2009).
Derivation of a GIS-based watershed-scale conceptial
model for the St. Jones River Delaware form habitat-scale
conceptual models. Journal of Environmental Management,
90, 3253–3265.
Flagship, CSIRO, Canberra.
Ringrose-Voase A. and Nadelko A. (2011). Quantifying deep
drainage in an irrigated cotton landscape. CSIRO National
research flagships Sustainable Agriculture. CSIRO.
O’Grady A.P., Eamus D., Cook P.G. and Lamontagne S.
(2006a). Groundwater use by riparian vegetation in the
wet–dry tropics of northern Australia. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54, 145–154.
Roberts J., Young B. and Marston F. (2000). Estimating
the water requirements for plant of floodplain wetlands: a
guide. Occasional paper 04/00. Land & Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
O’Grady A.P., Cook P.G., Howe P. and Werren G. (2006b).
Groundwater use by dominant tree species in tropical
remnant vegetation communities. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54, 155–171.
Schenk H.J. and Jackson R.B. (2002). Rooting depths,
lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground
allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal
of Ecology, 90, 480–494.
O’Keefe J. and Wilson G. (2007). Water Quality and aquatic
biodiversity in the Namoi Catchment. University of New
England, Armidale.
Serov P., Kuginis L. and Williams J.P (2012). Risk
assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent
ecosystems, volume 1: the conceptual framework. NSW
Office of Water (Department of Primary Industries) and
Office of Environment and Heritage (Department of
Premiers and Cabinet).
Ogyris P/L (2002). Identifying groundwater impacts on
low-lying ecosystems in the Mallee dryland. Draft Report
for the Mallee CMA. Ogyris P/L, Birdwoodton, Victoria.
Silberstein R.P., Vertessy R.A., Morris J. and Feikema P.M.
(1999). Modelling the effects of soil moisture and solute
conditions on long-term tree growth and water use: a
case study from the Shepparton irrigation area, Australia.
Agricultural Water Management, 39(2–3), 283–315.
Parkyn S. (2004). Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness. Ministry of Agriculture Paper No. 2004/05. MAF,
Wellington.
Parsons M., Thoms M., Capon T., Capon S. and Reid M.
(2009). Resilience and thresholds in river ecosystems.
Waterlines Report, National Water Commission, Canberra.
SKM (2001). Environmental water requirements to maintain
groundwater dependent ecosystems. Environmental Flow
Initiatives. Technical Report Number 2. Sinclair Knight
Merz Pty Ltd. Environment Australia, Commonwealth of
Australia.
Pells S., Bacon P., Miller B. and Timms W. (2011).
Assessment of stream restoration and aquifer management
options for Boramibil Creek. WRL Technical Report
2011/15. Water Research Laboratory, University of NSW.
Sinclair Knight Mertz (2003). Projections of groundwater
extraction rates and implications for future demand and
competition for surface water. Murray-Darling Basin
Poff N.L., Allan J.D., Bain M.B., Karr J.R., Prestegaard K.L.,
Richter B.D., Sparks R.E. and Stromberg J.C. (1997). The
natural flow regime. BioScience, 47(11), 769–784.
Poot P. and Lambers H. (2008). Shallow-soil endemics:
adaptive advantages and constraints of specialized rootsystem morphology. New Phytologist, 178, 371–381.
Smith P.L., Williams R.M., Hamilton S. and Shaik
M. (2006). A risk-based approach to groundwater
management for terrestrial groundwater dependent
ecosystems, 10th Murray Darling Basin Groundwater
Workshop, 2006.
Price P. and Lovett S. (2002). Riparian habitat for wildlife.
Fact sheet no. 5. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
Smith M.J., Schreiber S.E., Kohout G., Ough M., Lennie
K., Turnbull R., Jin D. and Clancy C. (2007). Wetlands as
landscape units: spatial patterns in salinity and water
chemistry. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 15, 95–
103. doi 10.1007/s11273–006–9015–5.
Rau G., McCallum A., Andersen M.S. and Acworth R.I.
(2008). The use of natural heat as a tracer to quantify
surface water and groundwater interactions: Maules Creek,
New South Wales, Australia. UNSW Connected Waters
Initiative.
Sophocleous M.A. (2002). Groundwater recharge. In:
Silveira L. (ed). Encyclopedia of life support systems.
EOLSS, Oxford.
Reid N., Nadolny C., Banks V., O’Shea G. and Jenkins
B. (2007). Causes of eucalypt tree decline in the Namoi
Valley, NSW. Final report to Land and Water Australia on
Project UNE 42. University of New England, Armidale,
NSW.
Australian State of the Environment 2011. Independent
93
Steffen W., Burbridge A.A., Hughes L., Kitching R.,
Lindenmayer D., Musgrave W., Smith M.S. and Werner
P.A. (2009). Australia’s biodiversity and climate change.
Summary for policy makers 2009. Summary of a report
to the Natural Resouce Management Ministerial Council
commissioned by the Australian Government, Canberra.
4. Water
URS (2007). Scoping study – towards a peel river sharing
plan. oportunities & constraints.Prepared by URS for
Namoi CMA, Gunnedah.
URS (2008). Securing Tamworths water supply – a scoping
study. URS.
Vaze J., Teng J., Post D., Chiew F., Perraud J-M. and Kirono
D. (2008). Future climate and runoff projections (~2030)
for New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory. NSW
Department of Water and Energy, Sydney.
Thoms M., Norris R., Harris J., Williams D. and
Cottingham P. (1999). Environmental scan of the Namoi
River Valley. Prepared for the Department of Land and
Water Conservation and the Namoi River Management
Committee. CRC for Freshwater Ecology and DLWC.
Veneklaas E.J. and Poot P. (2003). Seasonal patterns in
water use and leaf turnover of different pant functional
types in a speciesrich woodland, south-western Australia.
Plant and Soil, 257, 295–304.
Thorburn P.J., Walker G.R., Jolly I.D. (1995). Uptake of
saline groundwater by plants: An analytical model for
semi-arid and arid areas. Plant and Soil, 175, 1–11.
Wen L., Ling J., Saintilan N. and Rogers K. (2009). An
investigation of the hydrological requirements of River
Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forest, using classification and regression tree modelling. Ecohydrology, 2,
143–155.
Thorburn P.J. and Walker G.R. (1994). Variations in stream
water uptake by Eucalyptus camaldulensis with differing
access to stream water. Oecologia, 100, 293–301.
Thorburn P.J., Mensforth L.J. and Walker G.R. (1994a).
Reliance of creek-side River Red Gums on creek water.
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45,
1439–1443.
Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2010).
Sustainable Diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. An
analysis of the options for achieving sustainable diversion
limits in the Murray-Darling Basin. June 2010. Available at
<http://www.wentworthgroup.org/uploads/Sustainable
%20Diversions%20in%20the%20 murray-Darling%20Basin.
pdf>.
Thorburn P.J., Mensforth L.J. and Walker G.R. (1994b).
Uptake of groundwater by creek-side river red gums. In:
Proceedings (Volume 1) of Water Down Under 1994International Groundwater and Hydrology Conference,
Adelaide. The Institution of Engineers, Australia National
Conference Publication No. 94/10, pp. 613–616.
Xu G.-Q. and Li Y. (2008). Rooting depth and leaf hydraulic
conductance in the xeric tree Haloxyolon ammodendron
growing at sites of contrasting soil texture. Functional
Plant Biology, 35, 1234–1242.
Timms W.A., Badenhope A.M., Rayner D.S. and Mehrabi
S.M. (2010). Groundwater monitoring, evaluation and
grower survey. Namoi Catchment. Report No. 2. Part A:
Results of 2009 groundwater monitoring and recommendations for future best practice monitoring framework. Part B:
Groundwater user survey. Technical report 2009/25, April
2010. University of New South Wales Water Research
Laboratory.
Young R.W., Young A.R.M., Price D.M. and Wray R.A.L.
(2002). Geomorphology of the Namoi alluvial plain, northwestern New South Wales. Australian Journal of Earth
Sciences, 49, 509–523.
Zencich S.J., Froend R.H., Turner J.T. and Gailitis V. (2002).
Influence of groundwater depth on the seasonal sources
of water accessed by Banksia tree species on a shallow,
sandy coastal aquifer. Oecologia, 131, 8–19, France.
Timms W., Acworth I. and Johnston G. (2006). Aquifers
and aquitard below the Liverpool Plains. Plains Talk.
LPLMC Newsletter No. 33. LPLMC.
UNSW (2008). Interconnectivity between surface and
groundwater in Maules Creek. University of New South
Wales.
94
5. People
5. People
This theme relates particularly to for of those capitals:
social, human, manufactured and financial, in the context
of their relevance to natural resource management.
People are defined as ‘the social and economic
elements of the catchment in relation to how they
are underpinned by natural resources, an asset for
increasing resilience and a driver of system changes’.
Human capital can be defined as the value of people’s
knowledge, skills, motivations and health. Human
capital attempts to capture the skills and assets that an
individual can contribute to the catchment.
An expert workshop was undertaken in 2010 with a
mixture of economic, social and human perspectives
to identify assets within the people theme that could
potentially have thresholds and drivers relevant to a resilience perspective. Many and varied assets were defined,
and are available in Appendix K: Results from expert
workshops.
Social capital is defined as the value of how people
interact with one another, whether in a community sense
or within the institutional arrangements and governance
of the catchment.
research specifically to inform this assessment as prioritised in the Namoi CAP or as part of ongoing monitoring
Manufactured capital refers to the infrastructure and
built assets of the catchment including roads, buildings,
and the infrastructure of cities, but less the people and
their relationships.
Financial capital refers to the money/economic
functions of the catchment. It is important to note that it
has no real value in itself, but is a driver and a reflection of
human, social and manufactured capitals.
Due to the variation and complexity of assets, the group
discussed allocating each of the assets to one of the
capitals as presented in the Five Capitals Model as
produced by the Forum for the Future organisation14
(http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/the-fivecapitals). There was some disagreement on this approach,
so this analysis uses the Five Capitals Model to organise
the assets defined by the expert workshop.
Table 4 allocates assets as defined by the expert
workshops into the four capitals used in this theme. Many
of the assets defined by the expert workshops can be
described as more than one capital, and a primary and
secondary allocation has been made.
Figure 121: The Five Capitals – a conceptual model of
the five types of capital from which we derive the goods
and services we need to improve the quality of our lives
Source: Forum for the Future – www.forumforthefuture.org/project/
five-capitals/overview)
96
5.1 People asset – human
capital
Table 4: Assets defined by expert workshops, and how
they may fit into ‘capitals’
Asset as defined by
expert workshop
Primary capital Secondary
capitals
Major centres
Manufactured
Social, financial
Villages
Social
Manufactured
Infrastructure
Manufactured
Soft infrastructure – services
Manufacture
Human, social
Lifestyle amenity
Manufactured
Natural
(underpinned by
resources)
Imported capital
Financial
Economic diversity
Financial
Industries
Social
Financial
Distribution of wealth
Financial
Social
Intellectual capital
Human
Experience
Human
Leadership
Human
Skills
Human
Capacity to imagine a
different future
Human
Knowledge and data
Human
Cultural diversity
Human
Social
Sense of belonging
Human
Social
Self-knowledge
Human
Health
Human
Proximity to other places
Social
Shared purpose
Social
Shared history
Social
Complexity of communities
Social
Mixture of ages, sexes
Social
Human
Social cohesion
Social
Human
Equity
Social
Social networks
Social
Migration
Social
5. People
Definition
Human capital has been defined by the Forum for the
Future organisation as ‘consisting of people’s health,
knowledge, skills and motivation’ (http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/the-five-capitals).
Assets defined by the expert workshop participants that
fit into this category are:
• Intellectual capital – a combination of ‘smartness’ and
education level – not necessarily well represented by
levels of tertiary education. The Namoi Catchment
enjoys higher than state average levels of certificate
level education, and lower than state average levels of
tertiary education.
• Experience – including experience of different events,
circumstances and eras within the catchment,
but also of other places, cultures and societies. It
is important to note that experiences of the same
event will be different, depending on the cultural and
personal attributes of each person. Lifelong residents
of the Namoi Catchment potentially hold a detailed
specific knowledge of life in the catchment, while
there are many residents who have come to the
catchment and bring with them experiences of other
places and people, both nationally and internationally.
• Leadership – the capacity of a person to take
responsibility for outcomes within a community and
operate at multiple levels to carry the needs and
wants of a community forward in times of stress or
into ongoing policy and planning debates. Leadership
varies across the catchment, with some communities
and industries having the benefit of very strong
leadership captured in a few key people.
• Skills – the ability of people to carry out tasks. Skill
sets existing in the catchment are relevant to the way
the catchment is today; however some skill shortages
have occurred in recent history and demand for skills
continues to grow. It is unknown what currently
unused skill sets people have that will help in times of
shock or crisis within the catchment or how relevant
current skill sets might be to the catchment of the
future.
• Capacity to imagine a different future – an important
contributor to adaptive capacity, in that if an
individual cannot imagine a different way of being
in the world, it makes it very hard to build multiple
skills and knowledge and to prepare for change, let
alone be accepting of the need for it. It is unknown
to what level the residents of the Namoi Catchment
can imagine different futures for themselves or the
catchment.
Human
97
• Knowledge and data – including the amount of
information and data that is available to people
and the access to knowledge and data. Knowledge
and data about the Namoi Catchment is good and
improving steadily, particularly in relation to the
natural resource base of the catchment. Research
and development activity in the catchment has
been high, based on the requirements of the major
agricultural activities that occur here. Furthermore,
access to knowledge and data by an individual is
increasingly easy due to the internet and to increased
efforts from custodians to ensure that information
moves readily through communities. It is unknown
whether there is an increased readiness to accept
knowledge and data and make changes based on
increased understanding.
• Cultural diversity – the diversity of language,
nationality and beliefs (either secular or religious)
within the community. Cultural diversity is an
attribute found within a person, but requires the
appreciation of a community before it can become
an asset. Cultural diversity will improve access to
different responses in times of stress and shock.
The Namoi Catchment has some cultural diversity as
evidenced by a strongly identified Aboriginal nation in
the Gamilaraay nation, religious and secular diversity,
and highly variable positioning on moral and ethical
debates.
5. People
• Sense of belonging – meaning a strong sense of place
within landscape and community. It is unknown how
many people would express a sense of belonging
within the catchment and to what degree. It is also
unknown whether people feel more connected to the
people within the catchment or to places within the
catchment.
• Self-knowledge – describing the ability of a person
to know their own strengths and weakness, to know
what they know and are capable of and be able to
reflect on how they might cope given sudden change
or a different future. There is no measure of selfknowledge applicable to the Namoi Catchment at this
time.
• Health – both physical and mental and important to
the capacity of people to move, change, learn new
skills, take on new challenges and be independent.
Health across the catchment is perceived to be on
par with state averages. Aboriginal people experience
poorer health outcomes, with resultant shorter than
average life expectancies.
Trend in condition
The following trends were identified by the expert
workshop participants, and have been substantiated via
a literature review. Those assets where information was
not available have been noted, and this analysis will rely
on the opinion of the expert workshop. Where a trend was
not identified, this has also been noted.
Asset
Trend
Notes on trend
Reference
Up
Improved access to knowledge – internet
etc
Draft Namoi 2030 Report
Experience
No trend noted
If age-dependent and we have an ageing
population – could be up
No reference
Leadership
No trend noted
Differing viewpoints about whether it is
improving or decreasing
No reference
Skills
Up
Demand is also increasing, and some skills
are disappearing (e.g. preserving food)
No reference
different future
No trend noted
If age-dependent and we have an ageing
population – could be down
No reference exactly but Scenario Planning
Environmental Scan (Delaney and Cork
2006) place Australia generally high in
‘future thinking’.
Knowledge and data
Up
Improved information and improved access
to information
Cultural diversity
increasing
Up according to data sources – both in
Aboriginal community and people who have
English as a second language
General Resilience Assessment 2013
Sense of belonging
No trend noted
High in Traditional owner groups, but no
trend info provided
2010 Social Survey of Namoi CMA
Stakeholders (Ipsos-Eureka 2010)
Self-knowledge
Down
Locus of control moving to governments
more and more – people do not reflect as
much on self
No reference
Health
Down
May reflect rates of diagnosis instead of real No reference
change in health status
98
5. People
Impacts of continuing trends are viewed in light of how
the trend might affect or lessen the catchment’s capacity
to adapt to change. ‘Adaptive capacity’ in this context
is defined as a process, action or outcome in a system
(household, community, group, sector, region, country) in
order for the system to better cope with, manage or adjust
to some changing condition, stress, hazard, risk or opportunity (Smit and Wandel 2006).
Results are as follows:
Asset
Trend
Impact on adaptive capacity
Up
Positive – more informed, know about risks, build relationships with change and
uncertainty, and can sift through information and contextual risks and possible responses
from a personal perspective. Also contributes to leadership capacity.
Experience
No trend noted
If up – positive – maximises the tool kit available for responding. Seen many scenarios,
many responses and can therefore reflect on what might or might not work from a
personal perspective. Can also be shared to improve decision-making of others. If down
– negative due to reduced understanding of tried and true responses. High risk of making
mistakes that have been made before.
Leadership
No trend noted
If up – improved – maximises the ability of individuals to become involved in adaptations
at the social and economic levels. If down – negative impact via the reduced capacity for
individuals to become involved in adaptation and building solutions from the bottom up.
Skills
Up
Positive – individuals have greater skill base therefore more work choices if forced to
move, or change jobs. Skill based needs to be distributed across the community, however,
and not be all seated in a minority of individuals.
different future
No trend noted
If up – positive as it provides people with the awareness and impetus required to build
in buffers in terms of skill sets, financial capital and lifestyle choices. If down – negative
as the inability to imagine a different future means people are less likely to prepare for
different futures.
Knowledge and data
Up
Positive – individuals are more likely to understand how their system works and what is
required for good outcomes environmentally, socially and economically. Also more likely to
perceive risks as real and be prepared for change or shocks.
Cultural diversity
Increasing
Positive – greater variation in responses to problems, more diversity in experience. The
trend is not uniform, so where it is down – negative – reduced variation in responses and
narrower perspectives in experience.
Sense of belonging
No trend noted
Unclear. A sense of belonging may inhibit the capacity to imagine different futures and
make people resistant to change or movement. Alternatively it might improve a person’s
commitment to finding solutions to problems while staying where they are and is thought
to contribute to social cohesion, an important part of a society’s ability to adapt.
Self-knowledge
Down
Negative – people are more inclined to feel that they cannot act on problems and will sit
and wait to be ‘saved’ by governments and institutions. Also people become distanced
from their knowledge and experience and feel like they are not ‘expert’ enough to act.
Health
Down
Negative – reduced health either mental or physical reduced capacity to act independently
of support systems.
Drivers and threats
It is difficult to establish clear drivers of change in people
systems due to the highly complex nature of individuals.
An individual adapts constantly to different stimuli to
achieve particular outcomes and it is almost impossible
to tease out what the cause of a change may have been.
An individual may be unable to establish what made
them change let alone be able to explain it to others. To
attempt to collect this information at a catchment scale in
a meaningful way is almost impossible. However, for the
purposes of this exercise, generalised drivers of change to
each asset have been proposed.
99
5. People
Asset
Trend
Drivers of change
Up
Levels of access to education, motivation to train, health and lifestyles leading to
intellectual capacity, migration of bright and/or educated people into or out of the
catchment.
Experience
No trend noted
Time and opportunity to experience different things, deaths of elders, older people
become irrelevant and cannot impart benefits of experience, increased mobility of
populations that means people do not stay long enough to build up a body of knowledge
regarding a particular location, people moving to cities and coastal locations as lifestyle
choices.
Leadership
No trend noted
Numbers of people seeing the need for local leadership, levels of optimism in whether
people can make a difference, levels of support for the development of leadership skills.
Skills
Up
Access to education, training and skills development. Migration of skilled people into or
out of the catchment.
different future
No trend noted
Knowledge and data
Up
Increased spending on knowledge and data development, increased commitment to
sharing knowledge and data with communities.
Cultural diversity
Increasing
Levels of support for maintaining cultural integrity of different groups, policy and
institutional pressures towards assimilation, migration from and into the catchment.
Sense of belonging
No trend noted
Self-knowledge
Down
Cultural and policy positioning that impact (either positively or negatively) on a person’s
sense of themselves as having power over outcomes in their own lives.
Health
Down
Diseases, age, health care.
Figure 122: Conceptual model of the interaction between identified assets in human capital. An arrow from an asset
illustrates a contribution to the ‘arrow to’ asset. A dotted line indicates a tenuous link. This conceptual model is
proposed as a ‘conversation starter’ rather than a position of certainty
Capacity to imagine a different future
Leadership
Sense of belonging
Cultural diversity
health
Self knowledge
skills
Knowledge and data
100
experience
Thresholds known, suspected or possible
There is very little information available regarding
thresholds in human capital. Most work has focused on
demographics and numbers, with population growth or
decline most often used as an indicator of social and
economic sustainability. Obviously, the numbers of
people are important and there can be no human capital
without them. It may prove to be important to look deeper
in regard to human capital, however. Central to any
discussion about human capital and its workings is that
the critical information about it is vested in the idiosyncrasies of individuals and the communities and societies
with which they interact.
4) Heat Stress Threshold (Mella and Madill 2007). Heat
stress thresholds have been developed around the
world in relation to human population’s tolerance for
extreme heat. This information is not available for
NSW currently, but there may be a threshold crossed
that results in deaths and causes communities to
become unviable.
Possible
1) Leadership capacity falls below a critical mass.
Leadership in the Namoi is currently provided
by a few key nodes, either individual people or
organisations that have a key role in the planning
and development of the catchment. There is a
possible threshold in the numbers of these nodes
that can drop out before the system ceases to
function as it has, and a new regime develops.
2) In-migration of high human capital falls below a
critical mass, or out-migration exceeds a critical
mass. In-migration is considered an important
contributor to human capital. As areas decline,
they reach a point where they can no longer attract
human capital and the area may become locked into
a spiral of decline. A similar effect can be caused by
levels of out-migration of human capital exceeding
in-migration.
The thresholds listed here include those that have been
posited by other authors in the literature, but not always
in terms of them being a threshold. They are mostly
the result of these authors reviewing the literature and
thinking about the nature of the catchment and drawing
conclusions regarding those parameters discussed by
other bodies of work that could act like thresholds. They
are proposed as a starting point for discussions about
thresholds relating to the Namoi Catchment’s human
capital, and not a positive position of certainty.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Balance among values held (Walker et al 2009).
This threshold was initially identified in the paper
‘Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in the
Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia’ as relating
to the value of the environment as compared to
economic and social activities. We suspect the same
threshold occurs in the Namoi Catchment, but with
the additional complexity of balance in values in a
climate change context. We believe that as climate
change occurs, so thresholds regarding concern and
the need for action will be crossed.
2) Population pressure above resource capability
(Smit and Wandel 2006). Population pressure above
resource capability is a threshold that applies to any
species. Human populations are often an exception
due to the capacity to transport resources from
other places.
3) Degree of dependence on a vulnerable resource
(Marshall 2005). Dependence on a vulnerable
resource depends on variables like capacity to
imagine alternative futures, age and education level.
If highly dependent on a resource that collapses
either through biophysical or policy means, crisis
is a likely outcome. The Namoi Catchment is highly
dependent on vulnerable water resources, and is also
highly dependent on agriculture, which is vulnerable
to commodity shocks and a drying environment.
5. People
5.2 People asset – social
capital
Definition
Social capital can be defined as the relationships,
links and institutional arrangements that support and
maintain people. Examples include families, communities,
businesses, trade unions, schools and voluntary organisations (http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/thefive-capitals). Assets defined by the expert workshop
participants that fit into this category are:
101
• Proximity to other places – reflecting that
relationships that are relevant to the people in the
catchment have a much wider scope than just the
catchment. An important part of why people live
and work in the catchment can be because of its
proximity to places or to people who are important
but not within the catchment boundary. There is no
measure of how proximity to other places affects the
social capital of the catchment at this time.
• Shared purpose – an important contributor to
social cohesion and indicates a collective view of
how the catchment should be managed. It should
be noted that it is unlikely that shared purpose will
be experienced across communities and between
communities to an all-inclusive extent. An individual
will most likely share a purpose with others on some
things, but not on all things, and can agree with a
direction today and change their mind tomorrow.
• Shared history – collective experience of events in
the catchment. Important to social cohesion, and
often associated with response and recovery of a
community after disaster. Can also be associated
with a reluctance to change and adapt. There is
no measure of shared history available for the
catchment; however, as there are many people who
have lived most or all of their lives in the area, it can
be assumed to be high. It must also be noted that
whether shared history is positive or negative to an
individual will depend on the outcomes of events
for that person (e.g. farmers see the history of the
catchment as settlement; Aboriginal communities
see it as invasion).
• Complexity of communities – defined as the richness
and difference exhibited by those within a community
as well as the differences between communities. No
two communities are the same, and no two people
within a community are the same. This definition also
refers to the fact that dealing with communities from
within is complex, and moving powerbases, practices
of exclusion and politics all play a role in who is
thought of as ‘community’. Engagement with the
community needs to take this into account.
• Mixture of ages, sexes – a rudimentary measure of
diversity based on simple demographics. The median
age of the catchment population is approximately
40 years. The Namoi region has more people than
state averages in the 0–19 year age bracket, but
significantly fewer 20–34 year olds. A higher than
average number of people who are between 45 and
49 years old live in the catchment.
• Social cohesion – there is a common vision and a
sense of belonging for all; the diversity in people’s
backgrounds and circumstances is appreciated and
positively valued; those from different backgrounds
have similar life opportunities; and strong and
5. People
positive relationships are being developed between
people from different backgrounds in the workplace,
in schools and within neighbourhoods (http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/
cmselect/cmodpm/45/45.pdf). Little is known
about social cohesion in the Namoi Catchment at this
time.
• Equity – the state, quality, or ideal of being just,
impartial and fair. A lack of equity, or even a
perception of a lack of equity, impedes engagement
with activities or adaptive changes (‘Why should
I … ?’). There has been no formal analysis of equity in
the Namoi Catchment.
• Social networks – social structures made up of
individuals (or organisations), called ‘nodes’, which
are tied (connected) by one or more specific types
of interdependency, such as friendship, kinship,
common interest, financial exchange, dislike, or
sexual relationships, or relationships of beliefs,
knowledge or prestige. A social network analysis of
the Namoi Catchment has not been completed.
• Industries – collections of production and/or
manufacturing businesses that have some collective
interest, markets and accepted standards of practice.
Several industries operate within the catchment;
major examples are the cotton industry and the
beef industry, poultry-related industries, the food
manufacturing industry, extractive industries and a
wool and sheep meat industry.
Trend in condition
workshop participants and have been substantiated via
not available have been noted, and this analysis will rely
Asset
Trend
Notes on trend
Reference
Proximity to other
places
Stable
Proximity cannot be changed.
No reference
Shared history
Down
Older people are dying, younger people moving away. No reference
Shared purpose
No trend noted
Location sensitive and scale sensitive. Some parts of No reference
the community can act collectively when required.
Complexity of
communities
No trend noted
No reference
Down
Ageing population, mixture of sexes still pretty even.
Social cohesion
Down
Societies becoming more individualistic.
Equity
No trend noted
Social networks
No clear trend
Some evidence that some traditional social networks Social isolation reported as increasing
such as churches and some sporting clubs are
due to sustained drought (Alston and
declining but total number of organised groups and
Kent 2004)
networks is stable or increasing. Communication
networks in particular have increased.
Industries
Up
Scale issues – strong industry components driving
employment and migration but agriculture shedding
labour.
Migration
No trend noted
Draft Namoi 2030 Report – GRP up 33%,
export up 34%, average earnings up 43%
No reference
102
5. People
Asset
Trend
Proximity to other
places
Stable
Good proximity to multiple centres can mean better servicing, greater connection with
family and friends, increased adaptive opportunity, in that employment and lifestyle
opportunities are likely to be more varied.
Shared history
Down
Shared history can be a positive and is often associated with quick and effective response
and recovery of a community after a disaster. It can also impede adaptive capacity,
however, as it can be associated with a reluctance to change and adapt.
Shared purpose
No trend noted
Similar in effect to shared history.
Complexity of
communities
No trend noted
Big impact on how communities respond. Greater complexity might mean a more diverse
range of responses is possible, however, and may also lead to the ‘fracturing’ of any
response.
Down
Improved diversity can lead to an increase in diversity of responses. A large number of
the very old or very young with possibly high levels of dependency on others may mean
certain responses are not possible.
Social cohesion
Down
Levels of social cohesion are tightly linked to the likelihood of communities doing well
after catastrophic events. However, social cohesion is also often used to ‘manage’ people,
and therefore may also be a predictor of reduced response diversity and poorer selfknowledge in an individual.
Equity
No trend noted
A lack of equity will express itself in the failure of some parts of the social network failing
to engage with responses or adaptation. In particular it is likely to impede how much
responsibility an individual will take for the wellbeing of others.
Social networks
No clear trend
Reflection of cohesion and could reflect some of the same effects on adaptive capacity.
Reductions in social networks can lead to the ‘stretching’ of some social nodes resulting
from a lack of succession planning and leadership development.
Industries
Up
Some industries are very important to the social structure of the catchment, and
significant restructure resulting will be a driver for the need for adaptive capacity;
however, this will also impact on adaptive capacity by reducing options, impacting on
cohesion, shared purpose etc.
Migration
No trend noted
In-migration can have the impact of reducing social cohesion and shared purpose,
therefore reducing adaptive capacity. However, it can also lead to increased human
capital and therefore improve adaptive capacity.
Drivers and threats
It is even more difficult to establish clear drivers of
change in social systems than it is to tease them out for
an individual. It is well accepted that the processes that
lead a society to take action and respond in particular
ways are not well understood and are highly particularised to how events unfold and who was there on
the day. However, for the purposes of this exercise,
generalised drivers of change for each asset have been
proposed.
103
5. People
Conceptual model
Figure 123: Conceptual model of social capital assets showing general loose and interconnected relationships
between assets; assets identified contribute to the complexity of communities (another asset)
COMPLEXITY OF COMMUNITIES
Social cohesion
Social networks
Migration
Industries
Equity
Proximity to other
places
Shared history
Shared purpose
Possible
As is the case for human capital, there is very little information available regarding thresholds in social capital,
and similar sensitivity to the particularities of communities and societies is required.
In-migration or out-migration exceeds a critical mass.
This is a similar threshold to the one proposed for human
capital, but actually means something quite different
in the context of social capital. This threshold suggests
that there is an identifiable amount of in-migration that
a society can absorb before the social cohesion and
networks struggle to maintain themselves under the
pressure of large numbers of new people and cultures.
The other part of this threshold relating to out-migration is
similar to that proposed in the human capital thresholds,
in that it refers to a certain number of people being able
to leave an area before the social cohesion and networks
break down due to the lack of people.
Again, the thresholds listed here include those that have
been posited by other authors in the literature, but not
always in terms of them being a threshold. They are also
mostly the ideas of these authors and are proposed as a
starting point for discussions about thresholds relating to
the Namoi Catchment’s social capital and rather than a
position of certainty.
Known
5.3 People asset –
manufactured capital
Nil.
Strongly suspected
Mixture of ages and
sexes
1) Population pressure above resource capability is
a threshold that applies to any species. Human
populations are often an exception, however, due
to the capacity to transport resources from other
places. This threshold in regard to social capital
relates to the things that happen to social cohesion
and networks when resources become scarce.
There is a suspected threshold that when crossed
impacts on trust, partnerships, communication and
relationships, with the potential for conflict and
complete collapse of a society.
2) Industry expansion beyond infrastructure capability.
There is a level of industry that current infrastructure
can support (including water infrastructure). A
suspected threshold occurs in the critical mass of
industry exceeding infrastructure capacity with the
potential to collapse themselves, infrastructure or
other industries.
Definition
Manufactured capital is made up of the infrastructure
and assets that contribute to the production processes,
employment, lifestyle amenity and servicing that support
and maintain human and social capital. Examples include
roads, buildings and machines (http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/the-five-capitals). Assets defined
by the expert workshop participants that fit into this
category are:
104
• Major centres – defined as cities and major
influences on financial, human and social capitals
in the catchment. Population is over 10,000 people.
Tamworth is the major centre in the catchment.
• Towns were not identified by expert workshops as
being separated out of major centres and villages.
However, identifiable trend information can be found
for ‘towns’ as separate from major centres or villages,
therefore they have been added as an asset. Towns
are those centres that have shops and banks, and act
as a centre for commerce to some degree; however,
influence is more local in context than that of a major
centre. Population is over 1000 people but less than
10,000. Towns in the catchment have been identified
as Barraba, Quirindi, Gunnedah, Werris Creek,
Narrabri, Wee Waa, Manilla and Walgett.
• Villages – defined as small centres of less than 1000
people that have variable levels of servicing and
commerce. Some villages have just a post office or a
hotel or a single shop.
• Infrastructure – roads, rail, gas, electricity, public
transport, urban services such as water and sewerage
reticulation. Infrastructure is only considered to
be of a fair level across the catchment, with issues
associated with road and rail, public transport and
water supplies being experienced.
• Soft infrastructure – health, education, policing and
social services, including recreational facilities and
institutions such as local governments. Services are
assumed to be adequate for the main towns and the
major centre of Tamworth; however, smaller centres
are poorly serviced, with distance to services being a
5. People
major issue.
• Lifestyle amenity – defined as the scenic amenity,
opportunities for recreational activity, social
opportunities, sense of safety and choice regarding
lifestyle. Lifestyle amenity associated with familiarity
is probably quite high given the longevity of many
people’s relationship with the catchment. Many
people are used to, and find appealing, the highly
agriculturalised nature of the catchment. Reduced
recreational opportunity is evident due to the
decline in the health and naturalness of many areas,
particularly rivers and streams. People can still
choose to live rural, semi-rural or urbanised lifestyles,
and areas of natural beauty and opportunities to
‘tree-change’ exist.
Trend in condition
not available have been noted and this analysis will rely
Asset
Trend
Notes on trend
Reference
Major centres
Up
Tamworth continuing to grow.
Namoi 2030 Draft Report
Towns
Down
Not identified as an asset by expert
workshops; however, Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) data interrogation shows
a decrease in population towns. 4 of the 7
identified towns declined in population as
differing from major centres and villages.
Villages
Up
Down according to expert workshops,
but results for villages from ABS data
interrogation shows an increase in
population in almost half of the 18 villages.
Infrastructure
No trend noted
No trend noted by expert workshop but
literature shows that it is location sensitive
but generally stable to up.
Lifestyle amenity
No trend noted
Highly dependent on location and individual No reference
wants and needs.
105
5. People
Impacts of continuing trends
Asset
Trend
Major centres
Up
Major centres provide servicing and nodes of expertise and intellectual capacity that can
assist in adaptation. Alternatively they can draw resources away from smaller centres,
leaving those areas less able to cope with change and shocks.
Towns
Down
Variable impacts, as they do provide a node of servicing and intellectual capacity and
social cohesion. They tend to develop strong cultural identities over time that can impede
willingness to engage with change and alternative futures.
Villages
Up
As villages tend to be more vulnerable to change and shocks, it could be argued that they
should be less resilient. However, villages are often well practised at surviving under less
than ideal circumstances and can show greater adaptive capacity than larger centres.
Infrastructure
No trend noted
Infrastructure is essential to adaptive capacity, particularly infrastructure that provides
movement and communication certainty.
Lifestyle amenity
No trend noted
If people are happy with where they live, they are more likely to solve problems where
they live. Valued aspects of lifestyle amenity can inhibit willingness to accept change,
particularly in relation to new industries that cause growth and impact on natural features.
Drivers and threats
The elements that lead to changes in the sizes and
cultures of cities, towns and villages are a science in
themselves. The difference between a major centre and
a town is often historical, based on opportunities being
exploited or missed, and sometimes dependent on the
decision of a particular person involved in the planning
or development of a centre, infrastructure or industry.
However, for the purposes of this exercise, generalised
drivers of change to each asset have been proposed.
Asset
Trend
Drivers of change
Major centres
Up
Migration, infrastructure, industry, soft infrastructure, water supply, available land
area, proximity to other places, lifestyle amenity, imported capital, economic diversity,
intellectual capital, leadership.
Towns
Down
Migration, infrastructure, industry, soft infrastructure, water supply, available land area,
proximity to other places, lifestyle amenity, sense of belonging, imported capital, economic
diversity, intellectual capital, leadership.
Villages
Up
Migration, infrastructure, water supply, available land area, proximity to other places,
lifestyle amenity, sense of belonging, intellectual capital, leadership, social cohesion,
shared purpose, mixture of ages and sexes. .
Infrastructure
No trend noted
Economic activity, funding, population size, disasters.
Lifestyle amenity
No trend noted
Development, economic activity, industry, population size, economic diversity, available
land area, water supply, soft infrastructure.
106
Conceptual model
Nil.
There is very little information available regarding the
thresholds that apply to manufactured capital. It is likely,
however, that thresholds regarding manufactured capital
will be easier to quantify than those that may exist in
relation to human and social capital.
Again the thresholds listed here include those that have
mostly the ideas of these authors; they are proposed as
a starting point for discussions about thresholds relating
to the Namoi Catchment’s manufactured capital and
are not a positive position of certainty. The thresholds in
this section relate mainly to system collapse rather than
perhaps reaching an alternative regime.
5. People
5.4 People asset – financial
capital
Definition
Financial capital is money in its simplest terms, including
cash, equity and investment. Examples include shares,
bonds or banknotes. Financial capital is extremely
important in enabling other types of capital to be owned
and traded, but has no real value in itself (http://www.
forumforthefuture.org/projects/the-five-capitals). Assets
defined by the expert workshop participants that fit into
this category are:
• Imported capital – the money that can be imported
into the catchment by attracting investor dollars.
There is no measure of imported capital available at
this time.
• Economic diversity – the diversity of sources that
contribute to the catchment economy as whole,
generally measured by industry. Economic diversity is
low, with a high dependency on dryland and irrigated
agriculture. Close to 50% of the economy is directly
or indirectly supported by agriculture.
• Distribution of wealth – referring to how equitable
the distribution of wealth is across the catchment
or whether there is a ‘rich getting richer and poor
getting poorer’ divide operating. No data is available
regarding the distribution of wealth across the
catchment, however, as 71% of all income in the
catchment derives from wages, with only 14% of all
income attributed to owner business and investment.
Therefore it may be argued that wealth has a fairly
even distribution.
It must be noted that the Aboriginal community
experiences a high degree of injustice and is poorer,
less healthy and less able to take up economic
opportunities than the rest of the population. Also
important is that many farming and grazing families
live well below the poverty line in times of drought or
low commodity prices.
• Available money – not identified by expert
workshops, but an important asset to provide
possibilities for human and social assets to adapt. The
gap between the estimated payments to households
and their expenditure has become much larger than it
was prior to 2005.
• Transferability of wealth – not identified by expert
workshops, but an important asset to the ability of
people to move or change. For example, while a farm
may be a form of wealth it is not readily transferable.
For a farm to be realised as available money, it either
has to be sold or recognised as being of worth by
a lending institution. Currently, property values are
high, so farm asset transferability is also high. No
measure is available for transferability of wealth for
average householders or industries.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Industry or population expansion beyond
infrastructure capability. There is a level of
population and industry that current infrastructure
can support (including water infrastructure). A
suspected threshold occurs in the critical mass
of population or industry exceeding infrastructure
capacity, with the potential to collapse themselves,
infrastructure or other industries.
2) Major centre expansion beyond water availability.
This is a strongly suspected threshold in the
Namoi, as Tamworth already needs to consider
its development and growth in regard to water
availability. There will be a critical level of expansion
available to Tamworth that risks crossing a threshold
in relation to water availability and security. It is
unlikely that crossing this threshold will result in
system collapse, but it will certainly impact on the
way that water is used and the lifestyle amenity of
the population of the city in a way that will not easily
be reversed.
3) Population declines below a critical mass. This
threshold supposes that there are a critical number
of people that are needed to keep a village, town or
major centre operating as it currently does.
Possible
Development exceeds levels associated with lifestyle
amenity. This threshold proposes that there is a threshold
in development that means a certain amount can occur
before the lifestyle amenity of those living and working
in the catchment is compromised to a degree that they
are likely to either leave the catchment or lose touch with
their sense of belonging.
107
5. People
Trend in condition
not available have been noted and this analysis will rely
Asset
Trend
Notes on trend
Reference
Imported capital
Up
Wealthy people buying land in the
catchment.
No reference available
Economic diversity
Up
Particularly around Tamworth. Data sources Draft Namoi 2030 Report
report low and stable economic diversity.
Up
More disparity in distribution of wealth but
everybody better off overall.
No reference for disparity but Draft Namoi
2030 Report confirms that most are better
off
Available money
No trend noted – not
identified by expert
workshops
If everybody is better off, it could be
assumed that they have more available
money. Counter to this, levels of household
debt are very high...
Draft Namoi 2030 Report – bigger gap
between the estimated payments to
households and their expenditure. Also
increases in household debt
Transferability of
wealth
No trend noted – not
identified by expert
workshops
Probably no change as wealth is still
traditionally tied up in farms and property
which are not readily transferable in time
of crisis.
No reference
Asset
Trend
Imported capital
Up
Provides funding and economic impetus for improvements in manufactured capital. May
have a negative effect on social cohesion, shared history and shared purpose.
Economic diversity
Up
Positive, in that it provides options in times of stress. Not all eggs are in one basket, so if
one industry collapses there may be an opportunity to expand in other areas. Economic
diversity that is too high can lead to a fracturing of the economy such that no one industry
can achieve critical mass and therefore sustain itself.
Up
Tied closely to equity and self-knowledge, in that fairness and an understanding of own
capacity will assist in engagement with change.
Available money
No trend noted
Purely logistical and positive influence as it means people have choices and can self-fund
adaptation.
Transferability of
wealth
No trend noted
Positive to a degree, as it provides people with access to available money; however, if
taken to the extreme would result in ‘nomadic’ communities that have no ownership or
investment in the catchment.
Drivers and threats
Drivers and threats to economic structures and personal
wealth are well documented in many economic studies.
However, for the purposes of this exercise, generalised
drivers of change to each asset have been proposed.
108
5. People
Asset
Trend
Drivers of change
Imported capital
Up
Investment opportunity.
Economic diversity
Up
Number of industries, natural resources, intellectual capacity, skills, knowledge and data.
Up
Policy, industry, equity.
Available money
No trend noted
Available income, employment, debt levels, commodity prices, subsidies and grants.
Transferability of
wealth
No trend noted
Levels of investment in fixed assets, wealth and income.
Conceptual model
3) Level of dependence on a vulnerable resource
(Marshall 2005). This threshold refers to the degree
to which communities in the Namoi Catchment are
dependent on agriculture, which is vulnerable to
climate change as a slow driver, and to shocks from
commodity prices and policy decisions.
Nil.
There is very little information available regarding the
thresholds that apply to financial capital. It is likely,
however, that thresholds regarding financial capital will be
easier to quantify than those that may exist in relation to
human and social capital.
Possible
1) Skewed distribution of wealth such that a ‘second
class’ of citizen is established.
2) Household income to debt level. This threshold
refers to the recent experience in the United States
where household equity and inability to service debt
led to people walking away from their houses. While
it is a doom and gloom threshold, it should be noted
that this has happened in Australia’s history.
3 Property value (either farm or house) declines
below equity levels. This is similar to the household
income to debt level thresholds, but referring to
farm equity. ‘Walking off’ land because land values
and commodity prices have slumped completely has
occurred in Australia’s history.
4) Length and frequency of shock/crisis. This threshold
supposes that there is a threshold nature in the
drivers and shocks themselves. If sustained or
frequent shocks or crises occur, it can be assumed
that available resources including energy and human
capital will be used up, leaving the system more
vulnerable to the next hit.
Again, the thresholds listed here include those that have
mostly the ideas of these authors; they are proposed as
a starting point for discussions about thresholds relating
to the Namoi Catchment’s financial capital and are not a
positive position of certainty.
Known
Nil.
Strongly suspected
1) Farm income to debt ratios (Walker et al 2009). This
threshold was initially proposed in relation to the
Goulburn-Broken Catchment in Victoria as relating
to the proportion of a farm that becomes salinised,
the costs of capital and inputs and product prices.
For the Namoi Catchment, farm income and debt
ratio thresholds are likely to be dependent on water
availability and pricing, costs of capital and product
prices.
2) State of infrastructure (Walker et al 2009). This
threshold was initially proposed in relation to the
Goulburn-Broken Catchment in Victoria as relating
to the state of irrigation infrastructure and the need
to reinvest. In the Namoi Catchment, the threshold
does not apply to irrigation infrastructure, as
most irrigators pump from the river, meaning that
irrigation infrastructure is a private investment. The
threshold in this instance relates to infrastructure
more generally (road, rail, water supply, sewerage
etc.). There is a threshold in condition and population
dynamics that suggests that infrastructure can reach
a point where it is extremely expensive to bring back
up to standard, effectively crossing a threshold and
forcing infrastructure into a new regime which may
have significant impacts on imported capital and
economic diversity.
5.5 People asset – relationship
to natural resources
Expert workshop participants in 2010 were also asked
to consider how the natural resource base underpinned
people, industries and communities. The group also
considered how the trends in natural resources would
impact on people. The key points are drawn out here,
but the full report of workshop outcomes is available in
Appendix K: Results from expert workshops.
It was agreed that declines in ecosystem connectivity,
woody vegetation cover, wetlands, species populations
and intact native vegetation communities would have the
result of:
109
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
reducing farm profitability
impacting on aesthetics
creating greater regulatory pressure
greater peer pressure
threatening the identity of both Aboriginal
communities and everybody else
reducing options or choices of future generations
reducing tourism opportunities
impacting on spirituality
a general decline in social and emotional wellbeing.
5. People
Health services, education services and community social
life respectively are identified as the key drivers underpinning the decision to stay within rural communities.
Analysis has shown that there is a possible threshold
effect in relation to wellbeing and adaptive capacity
which warrants further investigation. Importantly it has
also shown that individual levels of adaptive capacity
and wellbeing are good predictors for community-level
adaptive capacity and wellbeing.
Key findings emerging from the survey of the Namoi
Catchment community (when compared to other regional
areas) are as follows:
It was also noted that the degree to which any one of
these outcomes was realised would depend on the
particularities of farming and grazing systems and an
individual’s sensitivity to loss.
The Catchment Community of the Namoi is more likely
(of several regions studied), to be satisfied about their
future security, and feel that they have a strong and viable
future ahead. The Namoi Community was, however, less
likely to agree that their community has all the expertise
that it needs. Water was an important theme, which
reflects the role water plays in the Namoi Catchment. In
particular, people felt that community and industry rely on
access to groundwater and that the quality and quantity
of groundwater available is sufficient for their own needs.
Furthermore it emerged that people feel that water for the
environment is just as important as provision of water for
agriculture, towns and industry, and that water allocation
should change so enough water is available for the natural
environment.
The general downward trend in surface and groundwater
assets was a cause of concern, and it was agreed that it
would ultimately result in:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
no drinking water
no irrigation
loss of tourism
loss of recreation opportunity
reduced habitation possibilities
towns and cities collapsing due to no water
reduced economic activity
no water for industry
social cohesion collapse as water becomes a scarce
resource
• loss of identity
• impact on spirituality
• a general decline in social and emotional wellbeing.
There was also strong support for protecting and
managing the remaining wetlands in the region. In
particular:
Health and wellbeing
It was noted that people may become paralysed when
confronted by significant numbers of downward-pointing
trend arrows relating to critically underpinning resources
such as water. The group expressed its belief that
maintaining capacity and engagement in this situation is
extremely important.
• More likely to be satisfied about their future security
(53%)
Community efficacy
• More likely to agree that water allocation should
change so enough water is available for the natural
environment (52% strongly agree/agree) and less
likely to agree that their community has all the
expertise that it needs (56% strongly disagree/
disagree).
Soils were considered by the group to be generally underpinning of all activity in the catchment. Because soils
information was presented based on soil type that relates
to productivity, the workshop agreed that the community
and sectoral implications could be quite tightly and
quantitatively tied to trend information. It should also be
noted that most soils trends presented to the group were
stable or up.
Wellbeing and community connectedness
• More likely to agree that if unable to drive they would
be able to get to the nearest regional centre using
other means (42% agree) and that Coal Seam Gas
exploration and extraction is increasing the likelihood
that an individual would leave their community (14%
strongly agree)
Adaptive capacity and wellbeing
Assessment and benchmarking of social wellbeing and
adaptive capacity for the Namoi undertaken in 2012 found
the following that members of the Namoi Community
perceive themselves as having high levels of adaptive
capacity, social capital and wellbeing. There was less
agreement regarding the adequacy of local leadership.
Future security of the community
110
• More likely to agree that community has a strong and
viable future ahead (77% strongly agree/agree)
5. People
Environment
Figure 124: Relationship between stress and subjective
wellbeing
• More likely than total average to agree that it is
important to protect and manage the remaining
wetlands in the region (76% agree), the quality and
quantity of groundwater available is sufficient for
their needs (71% agree), provision of water for the
environment is just as important as provision of
water for agriculture, towns and industry (68% agree),
and the community and industry rely on access to
groundwater (67% agree).
The extent to which adaptive capacity and wellbeing were
related can be analysed by looking at factors known to
impact on wellbeing, such as gender, age, existing health
status and income along with feeling safe and supported
and by the ability to work with others, taking into account
the perceived efficacy of community leaders.
The following variables are considered important:
•
•
•
•
•
•
gender and age
income
self-assessed health
financial and emotional impact of major weather
events
cumulative life stressors
individual adaptive capacity
social support
feeling safe
collective adaptive capacity
community leadership.
Source: Cummins (2010)
Figure 125: Examining relationship between adaptive
capacity, wellbeing and ability to work together
1,600
1,400
1,200
No of respondents
•
•
•
•
800
600
400
According to surveys and analysis undertaken, individual
adaptive capacity (23%) would appear to be predictive of
subjective wellbeing, followed by feeling safe (19%), age
(15%), the ability to work together (14%) and social support
(13%).
Whether or not thresholds in adaptive capacity and
wellbeing can be identified remains a challenge.
According to Cummins’ theorised model (see below) there
is a relationship between stress and subjective wellbeing.
1,000
200
1
2
3
4
5
1 = High 5 = Low
Wellbeing
Individual adap�ve capacity
Ability to work together
Source: Hogan et al (in prep)
The results that emerged through surveys in 2012 support
the thesis that a possible threshold effect exists in
relationship to wellbeing and adaptive capacity, and that
this relationship warrants further examination.
It can be concluded that information regarding the status
and trend of key people assets across the catchment is
not readily available.
Some very clear issues have, however, emerged as a
result of the expert workshop processes and literature
review. These are:
• People of the catchment are significantly underpinned
by their natural resources for economic activity,
wellbeing and social cohesion.
111
• Most of the natural resources are trending down in
condition and availability, indicating key sources of
vulnerability across the catchment.
• People asset trends are variable, and particularities
are important to how the people system functions. A
detailed systems model of the people system is likely
to be so complex that it is meaningless or almost
immediately out of date on completion.
• No single people asset stands out as being critically
underpinning and sustaining of the majority of assets.
However, an obvious observation is that there need
to be people to sustain the people system, and the
presence or absence of people is tightly linked in
dually sustaining relationships with economies and
natural resources.
• Dependence on agriculture within the catchment
is very high. Agriculture is vulnerable to declines in
soil health and water quality and availability, as well
as commodity price and policy shocks. There are
likely to be changes in soil health and water quality
and availability related to the slow driver of climate
change. Consequently, a focus on adaptive capacity
in agriculture and related industries will serve the
catchment well.
• An overwhelming take-home message from the
literature reviewed was the importance of a ‘sense of
place’ to people and societies.
• There is no clearly defined and meaningful threshold
relating to the people assets. Rather, a focus on
the generalities of building adaptive capacity and
sustaining wellbeing will be carried forward into the
Namoi Catchment Action Plan.
5. People
Figure 127: Social-ecological sub-regions identified for
all NSW catchments
Source: NSW Natural Resources Commission
For each sub-region, a conceptual model of the socialecological system is presented, based on the template
outlined below in Figure 128.
Figure 128: Template for sub-region social-ecological
system conceptual models
5.7 Sub-regional resilience
assessment
The Namoi Catchment has within it three socialecological sub-regions. Figure 126 below shows the distribution of these across the Namoi Catchment. Figure 127
shows how these align with the social-ecological systems
identified for other neighbouring catchments.
Figure 126: Social-ecological sub-regions of the Namoi
Catchment
The following pages provide a brief summary of some of
the main socio-economic trends for each of the socialecological systems identified for the Namoi Catchment
(i.e. the Tablelands, Slopes and Plains sub-regions).
For a detailed analysis of the resilience of the socialecological sub-regions identified for the Namoi
Catchment, please refer to Namoi CAP Supplementary
Document 2 – Namoi Catchment Sub-regional Resilience
Assessment.
112
5. People
Tablelands – conceptual model
Figure 129: Conceptual model of the Tablelands social-ecological system
Tablelands – main socio-economic
trends
related industries. The level of employment in agriculture
is similar to that in the other catchment areas (except
Tamworth), as is the proportion of over-55 year olds who
work in agriculture. In terms of other industry types,
the Tablelands has seen growth in employment across
most areas since 2001, indicating diversification away
from agriculture. The number of people in the Tablelands
sub-region with a tertiary qualification is higher than the
catchment average.
The Tablelands sub-region has the smallest population
of the three sub-regions in the Namoi Catchment. In
addition, the population has remained static since 2001,
has a relatively low proportion of Aboriginal people, and
has a higher proportion of people of working age. The
population is also the most ethnically diverse (based
on the number of people with at least one parent born
overseas) in the Namoi Catchment.
In terms of employment, the Tablelands sub-region is
reliant on agriculture as its main industry. However, unlike
the other sub-regions, much of the agricultural activity in
the Tablelands sub-region is associated with livestock and
Finally, the unemployment rate in the Tablelands subregion in December 2012 was 4.45%, the lowest in the
catchment and below the NSW average for the same time
period. Despite this, the proportion of unemployed under25 year olds in the Tablelands is similar to the rest of the
catchment.
113
5. People
Slopes – conceptual model
Figure 130: Conceptual model of the Slopes social-ecological system.
Slopes – main socio-economic trends
The population of the Slopes sub-region has grown in
the decade between 2001 and 2011. In the same time
period, the Aboriginal population has grown, but is less in
Tamworth than it is in the other areas. In addition, ethnic
diversity is similar to the rest of the catchment and well
below the NSW average. The population is also ageing,
but there are far fewer dependent people in Tamworth
than in the rest of the Slopes sub-region, which has a
dependency ratio above the Namoi Catchment average.
The Slopes sub-region has a high proportion of
employment in agriculture in areas outside of Tamworth.
In contrast, Tamworth has a much more diverse economy,
reflecting its role as a major regional centre. Because of
this, employment in most industries has increased since
2001 in the Slopes sub-region as a whole. Tamworth
also has a more educated population than other areas
of Slopes sub-region, and the overall proportion of those
with tertiary qualifications has been increasing.
Finally, the unemployment rate in the Slopes sub-region
was just over 6%, which is the second highest in the
Namoi Catchment (behind Plains sub-region).
114
5. People
Plains – conceptual model
Figure 131: Conceptual model of the Plains social-ecological system
Plains – main socio-economic trends
The Plains sub-region has a declining, ageing population.
It has a much higher proportion of Aboriginal people than
the rest of the catchment, and this proportion has been
growing since 2001. In terms of other ethnic diversity,
the Plains sub-region is the least diverse of the Namoi
Catchment, and is far less diverse when compared to
NSW as a whole. Finally, the population appears to be
becoming more diverse in its age distribution, but this
may be due to the increase in older people with a corresponding decrease in people of working age (as indicated
by the high dependency ratio).
The most important industry in the Plains is agriculture,
and it has the most diverse agricultural base in the
catchment. Despite this, employment in agriculture
has decreased since 2001. While the proportion of
people with tertiary qualifications has been growing, the
unemployment rate is also the highest of all sub-regions
in the Namoi Catchment.
115
5.8 General resilience – socioeconomic analysis
The following pages provide a brief summary of some of
the main socio-economic trends identified for the Namoi
Catchment based on attributes of general resilience.
For a detailed analysis of the general resilience of the
Namoi Catchment based on socio-economic indicators,
please refer to Namoi CAP Supplementary Document 3
– General Resilience Assessment.
The resilience indicator data for the Namoi is summarised
in the table below. It is compared with equivalent data
(where available) for NSW as a whole.
Table 5 below provides a consolidated baseline of socioeconomic resilience indicator levels in the Namoi at the
time of the 2011 Census.
Table 5 Summary levels of socio-economic indices for
general resilience in the Namoi Catchment
Resilience Indicator
Namoi
Catchment
NSW
Namoi
indicator
ranking
relative to
NSW
5. People
5.9 References
Abel T. (2003). Understanding complex human
ecosystems: the case of ecotourism on Bonaire.
Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 10.
Agbola F.W. (2003). Regional hidden unemployment
disparity and persistence in Australia. The Full Employment
Imperative – 5th Path to Full Employment Conference
and 10th National Conference on Unemployment. The
University of Newcastle, Newcastle.
Alston M. and Kent J. (2004). Coping with a crisis: human
services in times of drought. Rural Society, 14(3), 214–
227.
Anderies J.M., Walker B.H. and Kinzig A.P. (2006). Fifteen
weddings and funeral: case studies and resilience-based
management. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 21.
Broderick K. (2007). Getting a handle on social-ecological
systems in catchments: the nature and importance of
environmental perception. Australian Geographer, 38(3),
297–308.
CARE (2006). Socio-economic assessment of namoi
catchment action plan and summary report. Report
CARE.
Centre for Environmental Research and Training (no date).
Predicting thresholds of social behavioural responses to
rapid climate change. Centre for Environmental Research
and Training, University of Birmingham, UK.
Employment diversity
28.79
26.86
Lower
Age diversity
24.47
24.68
Similar
Ethnic diversity
12.8%
44.7%
Lower
2.2
4.3
Lower
62.3%
51.5%
Higher
Child bearing
propensity
1.2
0.93
Higher
Volunteering
23.6%
16.9%
Higher
Personal wellbeing
(satisfied with future
security)
54.6%
?
?
Mortgage debt
32.3%
40.3%
Lower
?
$595 686
(wheatsheep zone)
?
Cork S.J., Peterson G.D., Bennett E.M., Petschel-Held G.
and Zurek M. (2006). Synthesis of the storylines. Ecology
and Society, 11(2), 11.
$14,189
$1,681
Higher
CSIRO (2009). CSIRO climate adaptation flagship working
paper 2. CSIRO, Canberra.
36% of
change due
to local
factors
31% due
of change
due to local
factors
Moderate
outside
influence
17%
33%
Lower
17.8%
13.3%
Higher
Flow-on/NRB
employment
Age dependency ratio
Farm debt
Value of agricultural
production per
resident
Shift share in
agricultural
employment
Tertiary education
Managers
Centre for International Economics (2007). State of
landcare groups in the Namoi Catchment. Report prepared
for Namoi Catchment Management Authority. Centre for
International Economics.
Chapman M. (1998). Making government assistance
responsive to community need. Namoi floods, NSW, 1998.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Autumn,
2000.
Cork S.J. (2009). Brighter prospects: enhancing the resilience of Australia. Australia 21. University of Melbourne
and Australian National University, Melbourne, Canberra.
Curtis Y. (2009). Climate change and migration, Future
Times, 4. Available at <http://www.futurestrust.org.nz>.
Delaney & Associates (2008). Scenario planning for
sustainable landuse in the Namoi Catchment: Part A Main
Report and Part B Appendices. Report prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. Delaney & Associates.
116
EcoInsights (2011). Defining social wellbeing & developing indicators for social wellbeing & adaptive capacity
for the Namoi: Part A main report and Part B annotated
bibliography. Report prepared for Namoi Catchment
Management Authority. EcoInshights.
IPSOS (2013). Namoi Catchment Management Authority
stakeholder survey 2013. Report prepared for Namoi
Catchment Management Authority. IPSOS.
Ecosystem Services Research Group (2010). Social
– ecological resilience of cultural landscapes. International
Workshop 15–15 June 2010 – Book of Abstracts. Available
at <http://www.ecosystemservices.de>.
Eversole R. (2003). Value-adding community? Community
economic development in theory and practice. Rural
Society 13(1), 72–86.
Fabricius C., Folke C., Cundill G. and Schultz L. (2007).
Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive comanagers: a synthesis of the role of communities in
ecosystem management. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 29.
Fitzsimons J.A. and Wescott G. (2007). Perceptions
and attitudes of land managers in multi-tenure reserve
networks and the implications for conservation. Journal of
Environmental Management, 84, 38–48.
Gallopin G.C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability,
resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental
Change, 16, 293–303.
Goldstein B.E. (2009). Resilience to surprises through
communicative planning. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 33.
Griffith R., Mitchell M., Brown V., Walker B., Walkerden
G. and Curtis A. (2010). Transformation for resilient
landscapes and communities in the Wakool Shire.
Milestone Report 1. Institute for Land Water and Society ,
Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW.
Gunnedah Shire Council (2009). Namoi 2030 regional
resource strategy (draft), Edge Planning, CARE and
Parsons Brinkerhoff, Report to Gunnedah Shire Council.
Available from Gunnedah Shire Council, Gunnedah, NSW.
Haberl H., Winiwarter V., Andersson K., Ayres R.U.,
Boone C., Castillo A., Cunfer G., Fischer-Kowalski M.,
Fruedenburg W.R., Furman E., Kaufmann R., Krausmann
F., Langthaler E., Lotze-Campen H., Mirtl M., Redman
C.L., Reenberg A., Wardell A., Warr B. and Zechmeister
H. (2006). From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualising the
socioeconomic dimension of long-term socioecological
research. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 13.
Hanna K.S., Dale A. and Ling C. (2009). Social capital and
quality of place: reflections on growth and change in a
small town. Local Environment, 14(1), 31–44.
Heemskerk M., Wilson K. and Pavao-Zuckerman M.
(2003). Conceptual models as tools for communication
across disciplines. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 8.
Homer-Dixon T. (1995). Strategies for studying causation
in complex ecological political systems. Occasional Paper,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
and the University of Toronto. Available at <http://www.
library.utoronto.ca/pcs/eps/method/methods1.htm>.
5. People
Kelly G.J., Blackstock K.L. and Horsey B.L. (2007). Limits
to learning for developing a sustainable region: lessons
for north-east Queensland. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 14, 231–242.
Longstaff P.H. and Yang S. (2008). Communication
management and trust: their role in building resilience to
“surprises” such as natural disasters, pandemic flu, and
terrorism. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 3.
Marschke M.J. and Berkes F. (2006). Exploring strategies
that build livelihood resilience: a case from Cambodia.
Marshall N.A. (2005). A conceptual and operational understanding of social resilience in a primary resource industry.
Thesis submitted to James Cook University, Townsville.
Marshall N.A. and Marshall P.A. (2007). Conceptualising
and operationalising social resilience within commercial
fisheries in northern Australia. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 1.
Masten A.S. and Obradovic J. (2008). Disaster preparation
and recovery: lessons from research on resilience in
human development. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 9.
McLoughlin L. and Young G. (2005). The Role of Social
Research in Effective Social Change Programs. Australian
Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 57–70.
Mella S. and Madill P. (2007). Climate changes, heat
illness and adaptation in NSW. Environmental Health, 7(3),
xxx–xxx.
Miles R.L., Greer L., Kraatz D. and Kinnear S. (2008).
Measuring community wellbeing: a central Queensland
case study. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 14(1)
73–93.
Namoi CMA (2009). State of the environment report
2008–2009 – Namoi Region. Report prepared by Hyder
Consulting. Available from Namoi CMA, Tamworth, NSW.
Namoi CMA (2010). 2010 Social Survey of Namoi CMA
Stakeholders. Prepared for Namoi CMA. Ipsos-Eureka
Social Research Institute. Available from Namoi CMA,
Tamworth, NSW.
Namoi CMA (2013). 2013 Social Survey of Namoi CMA
Stakeholders. Prepared for Namoi CMA by Ipsos. Available
from Namoi CMA, Tamworth, NSW.
Namoi CMA (2013). Namoi Catchment Action Plan
Supplementary document 2: Sub-regional resilience
assessment of the Namoi Catchment. Namoi CMA,
Tamworth, NSW.
Namoi CMA (2013). Namoi Catchment Action Plan
Supplementary document 3: General resilience
assessment of the Namoi Catchment. Namoi CMA,
Tamworth, NSW.
117
5. People
Australian State of the Environment 2011. Independent
targets and catchment action plans. Natural Resources
Commission, Sydney.
NATSEM (2009). Report from Scoping study for a microsimulation model to estimate the social impact of water
reform policies. Prepared for Namoi CMA. NATSEM.
Stepp J.R. (2003). Remarkable properties of human
ecosystems. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 11.
Noya A. and Clarence E. (2009). Community capacity
building: fostering economic and social resilience – Project
outline and proposed methodology. Working document.
CFE/LEED OECD.
Stimson R., Baum S. and Gellecum Y. (2004). A typology
of economic and human capital performance across
Australia’s large and medium sized regional towns.
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 10(3), 367–382.
NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs (2010). Two ways
together – report on indicators 2007. NSW Department of
Aboriginal Affairs, Surry Hills, NSW.
Strategic Economic Solutions and Bugseye (2013). Namoi
Catchment Socio-Economic Indicators. Report prepared
for Namoi CMA by Strategic Economic Solutions and
Bugseye.
Office of Environment and Heritage (2013). Who cares
about the environment in 2012. OEH, Sydney.
Strategic Economic Solutions and Bugseye (2013). Namoi
Catchment Generalised Resilience Attributes. Report
prepared for Namoi CMA by Strategic Economic Solutions
and Bugseye.
Peterson G. (2009). Transition towns and resilience thinking. Available at <http://rs.resalliance.
org/2009/11/09/transition-towns-and-resiliencethinking/>.
Pettengell C. (2010). Climate change adaptation – enabling
people living in poverty to adapt. Oxfam Research Report.
Oxfam International. Available at <http://www.oxfam.
org>.
Robins G. and Pattison P. (2007). Social networks and
social space: topologies, structures and models. In:
Mitchell B., Baum S., O’Neill P. and McGuirk, P (Eds).
Proceedings of the ARCRNSISS Methodology, Tools and
Techniques and Spatial Theory Paradigm Forums Workshop,
Univeristy of Newcastle. RMIT Publishing.
Robins L. (2009). Insiders versus outsiders: perspectives
on capacity issues to inform policy and programmes.
Local Environment, 14(1), 45–59.
Simister N. and Smith R. (2010). Monitoring and Evaluating
Capacity Building: Is it really that difficult. International
NGO Training and Research Centre.
Smit B. and Wandel J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive
capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change,
16, 282–292.
Smith C. (2004). For richer or poorer: recent trends in
Australia’s regional income dynamics. Australasian Journal
of Regional Studies, 10(2), 195–223.
Stuart N. (2007). Technology and epistemology: environmental mentalities and urban water usage. Environmental
Values, 16, 417–431.
Stutz J. (2006). The role of well-being in a great transition.
GTI Paper Series, Frontiers of a Great Transition 10, Tellus
Institute, Boston.
TRC (Urbis) (2009) Urban sustainability plan. Plan of
action for urban sustainability and joint indicators for SOE
reports. Report prepared for Namoi CMA & Namoi Local
Government Group, Gunnedah.
Trendle B. and Pears W. (2004). The role of education in
regional income determination – a cross sectional study
of small areas in Queensland. Australasian Journal of
Regional Studies, 10(3), 383–398.
Resilience, adaptability and transformability in the
Goulburn-Broken catchment, Australia. Ecology and
Society, 14(1), 12.
Walker B. and Meyers J.A. (2004). Thresholds in ecological
and social-ecological systems: a developing database.
Weber M., Krogman N and Antoniuk T (2012). Cumulative
effects assessment: Linking social, ecological, and
governance dimensions. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 22.
118
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Introduction –
critical thresholds identified in
the 2010 resilience assessment
Appendix B: Biodiversity
– background information on
the species and ecological
communities of the Namoi
Catchment
Biodiversity
• Woody vegetation cover (% remaining of original
extent) – 30%.
• Woody vegetation cover (% remaining of original
extent) – 70%.
• 69% of regional vegetation communities maintain 30%
extent (i.e. No further vegetation communities drop
below the 30% threshold).
• Population size of individual species (generic – not
specified for each species currently).
• Habitat area for individual species or populations
(generic – not specified for each species currently).
• Area of endangered or vulnerable community (generic
– not specified for each species currently).
• Presence of individual invasive species (i.e.
Presence/absence is the threshold).
• Population extent of individual invasive species.
Land
• Groundcover is at least 70%
Water
• Surface water flow quantity is at 66% of natural (predevelopment) condition with a sensitivity to natural
frequency and duration.
• River geomorphic condition is good (against
benchmark condition).
• Recruitment of riparian vegetation is higher than
attrition of individual trees.
• Agricultural and urban supply aquifers do not cross
into lower levels of beneficial use.
• Alluvial aquifers are not drawn down below historical
maximum drawdown levels.
• Groundwater is within 30 m of surface where there
are identified GDEs.
• Wetlands are not drained, dammed or otherwise
physically modified.
People
• Assets in the people theme were highly variable and
interrelated with each other to such a high degree
that no ‘underpinning’ assets stood out. As such we
could not identify thresholds that had an overarching
effect on all people assets.
Literature does support a general focus on the key areas
of wellbeing and adaptive capacity
The following is an extract from the Namoi Conservation
Strategy 2008. The references, appendices and maps
referred to are available on request from Namoi CMA.
Biodiversity of Vegetation
Communities and Flora
The variety of landscapes, soil types and altitude found
throughout the Namoi region results in a great diversity
of flora. There are 1,878 species of native plants known
to occur in the Namoi (Appendix C; Map 11), 36 of which
are listed as threatened in NSW (Threatened Species
Conservation (TSC) Act) and 50 listed as regionally rare
(ROTAP; Table 1). The 497 exotic species of plants in the
Namoi comprise 21% of the total number of flora species,
subspecies, or varieties (Appendix C).
As a consequence of the large variation in altitude,
rainfall, climate, rock types and soils, there is a wide
range of vegetation types throughout the catchment.
In the simplest terms structurally, the vegetation in
the western part of the catchment is primarily open
woodland, shrubland and grassland. In the central and
eastern parts, there are grasslands and open woodlands
on the plains and lower slopes, with heaths, woodlands
and forest communities on the hill slopes and ranges
that form the margins of the catchment. Dominant
features of the landscape are the large floodplain areas,
particularly towards the north west and west and within
the Gunnedah Basin, the massive sandstone plateaus
and escarpments of the northern Warrumbungles, the
Pilliga and parts of the southern flanks of Mt Kaputar,
the volcanic landscapes of the Liverpool Range and Mt
Kaputar areas, the granites associated with the Moonbi
and parts of the Nandewars and the serpentine belt.
The Pilliga sandstones further influence large expanses
of lands surrounding the central plateaus where erosion
of the sands has caused large outwash areas that have
mixed with the floodplains that further caused variation in
the communities found.
Riparian zones along major rivers and creeks are often
dominated by River Red Gum, River Oak and Black Teatree. Several types of rainforests occur including vine
thickets, dry rainforest in gorges and rocky slopes,
ancient Ooline communities and, in areas of higher
rainfall, subtropical and cool temperate rainforests can
be found. At the highest altitudes to the east and on the
top of Mt Kaputar, subalpine communities can be found,
120
dominated by snow gums, manna gums and peppermints.
A variety of wetlands are found due to this diversity of
landscapes, which include upland lagoons and peatlands
and lowland ephemeral lakes and oxbow systems of the
Namoi, or internal drainage lakes such as Lake Goran. On
shallow soils associated with sandstone and acid volcanic
rock, platforms or granite outcrops and shrublands and
heaths are found often comprised of highly restricted or
unusually distributed species.
Appendices
Table 1. Threatened (TSC Act) and rare (ROTAP) species
and subspecies of flora that occur in the Namoi. (V:
vulnerable; E: endangered, E** previously thought
extinct)
In the west, the landscape is comparatively flat. Flooding
exerts a significant influence on the distribution of
vegetation. Some communities, such as Coolabah, River
Red Gum, Myall, Brigalow, Belah, Lignum and Black Box,
depend on flooding for regeneration, whereas others,
such as Mitchell and Bluegrass dominated grasslands, are
killed by sustained inundation. Further east, geology, soils
and microclimate are the major influences on the distribution of vegetation communities. Fire is also of importance in structuring the types of species and communities
that are found. While fires are less important and less
frequent in many of the floodplain areas they can play an
important role in some shrubby and grassy woodlands
and forests.
TSC Act Threatened Taxa
Acacia flocktoniae
Acacia pubifolia
Asterolasia sp.
Bertya sp.
Boronia ruppii
Cadellia pentastylis
Chiloglottis playptera
Cyperus conicus
Dichanthium setosum
Digitaria porrecta
Diuris pedunculata
Diurus tricolor
Eucalyptus mckieana
Eucalyptus nicholii
Eucalyptus oresbia
Euphrasia arguta
Euphrasia rupture
Hakea pulvinifera
Haloragis exalata subsp.
veluntina
Homoranthus
bornhardtiensis
Homoranthus prolixus
Lepidium aschersonii
Monotaxis macophylla
Philotheca ericifolia
Polyala linariifolia
Pomaderris
queenslandica
Pterostylis cobarensis
Rulingia procumbens
Rulingia prostrata
Sida rohlenae
Stenopetalus velutinum
Swainsona murrayana
Tasmannia glaucifolia
Tasmannia purpurascens
Thesium australe
Tylophora linearis
Status
V
E
E
V
E
V
V
E
V
E
E
V
V
V
V
E **
Extinct
E
V
ROTAP Listed Taxa
Acacia tessellata
Acacia williamsiana
Amphibromus whitei
Asperula charophyton
Asperula charophyton
Asterolasia hexapetala
Bothriochloa biloba
Caladenia subtilis
Callistemon flavovirens
Callistemon pungens
Chiloglottis palachila
Cryptocarya dorrigoensis
Derwentia arenaria
Discaria pubescens
Dodonaea hirsuta
Dodonaea rhombifolia
Eleocharis blakeana
Eucalyptus elliptica
Eucalyptus malacoxylon
E
Eucalyptus nandewarica
V
V
E
Eucalyptus quinniorum
Eucalyptus youmanii
V
E
E
V
V
E
E
Extinct
V
V
V
V
E
Euphrasia orthocheila
subsp. orthocheila
Goodenia macbarronii
Goodenia pusilliflora
Grevillea granulifera
Hibbertia kaputarensis
Isotropis foliosa
Leionema viridiflorum
Leptospermum
argenteum
Lomandra patens
Macrozamia diplomera
Macrozamia stenomera
Persoonia cuspidifera
Picris barbarorum
Picris eichleri
Pimelea ciliolaris
Plectranthus suaveolens
Prasophyllum campestre
Prostanthera cruciflora
Pterostylis woollsii
Pultenaea setulosa
Rulingia hermanniifolia
Sauropus ramosissimus
Schoenus centralis
Senecio macranthus
Thelionema grande
Vittadinia cervicularis
var. occidentalis
Westringia sericea
Zieria odorifera
121
Biodiversity of Fauna
Appendices
due to its aggressive nature. It is highly likely that this
species will continue to increase both its range and
abundance throughout the urban and rural areas of the
region (Andren 2004). The Eurasian blackbird is also likely
to increase in range and abundance in urban and rural
areas (Andren 2004).
The variety of habitat types found throughout the Namoi
region lends itself to a wide diversity of fauna. There are
482 species of native terrestrial vertebrates known to
occur in the Namoi, including 28 species of amphibians,
284 species of birds, 68 species of native mammals and
102 species of reptiles (Appendix D; Map 12). Seventeen
introduced species occur, including six species of birds
and 11 species of mammals.
Nine species of nocturnal birds occur in the Namoi.
The most common species were the tawny frogmouth
(Podargus strigoides), Australian owlet-nightjar
(Aegotheles cristatus) and the southern boobook owl
(Ninox novaeseelandiae). The vulnerable barking owl
(Ninox connivens) is likely represented in a greater
numbers than normally encountered due to regular
surveys being conducted throughout the Pilliga and
southern Namoi region.
Biodiversity estimates for the Namoi were compiled from
records found in the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (Department
of Environment and Climate Change) and the Birds
Australia Atlas (Appendix D). Any analysis of diversity
and abundance of fauna must take into account the
shortcomings of available data. Conspicuous and iconic
species will always appear more abundant than cryptic
species, and species which occur in close proximity
to human population centres and in National Parks or
reserves will be recorded more frequently than those in
remote regions. Furthermore, rare or endangered species
for which surveys are regularly conducted (e.g. regent
honeyeater) appear proportionally more frequently in the
data. Some threatened species that are known to occur
in the Namoi have not been recorded in the Atlas of NSW
Wildlife, presumably due to their rarity (e.g. tusked frog
population in the Nandewar and New England Tablelands
Bioregions – listed as endangered).
The seven most common species of amphibian
recorded in the Namoi are the ornate burrowing frog
(Limnodynastes ornatus), green tree frog (Litoria caerulea),
eastern banjo frog (Limnodynastes dumerilii), spotted
grass frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), broad-palmed
frog (Litoria latopalmata), Peron’s tree frog (Litoria peronii),
and the common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera).
Two hundred and seventy-five (275) native and six
introduced species of diurnal birds occur in the Namoi
(Appendix D). The most common species encompassed
those found in high numbers throughout Australia and
which do well in anthropogenically influenced habitats
(Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen), galah (Cacatua
roseicapilla), and Willie wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys)).
The noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), which occurs
as a pest species in many remnant urban and suburban
habitat (see section 6.2.15), is the sixth most common
diurnal bird in the Namoi.
The six introduced bird species are, in order of decreasing
frequency, the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house
sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove (Columba livia),
spotted turtle-dove (Streptopelia chinensis), common
myna (Acridotheres tristis), and Eurasian or common
blackbird (Turdus merula). All are species of disturbed
environments and most are well-established, although
the Eurasian blackbird was found in low numbers in the
Namoi. Of these species, it is the common myna that is
most likely to have detrimental effects on native species
Ten species of arboreal marsupial occur in the Namoi,
with the most common recorded being the koala
(Phascolarctos cinereus) and the common brushtail
possum (Trichosurus vulpecular). Vulnerable listed koalas
are present throughout the region, with a large population
found around the town of Gunnedah (Map 14). The occurrence of koalas near human populations likely results
in it being recorded in the Atlas of NSW Wildlife more
frequently than other arboreal mammals. The common
brushtail possum occurs in large numbers throughout
most of eastern Australia, however, its numbers are
recorded as regionally declining in the Brigalow Belt
bioregion (Pennay et al. 2002).
The most common of the 15 species of native small
ground mammals in the Namoi is the yellow-footed
antechinus (Antechinus flavipes), with other species
recorded rarely. The Pilliga mouse (Pseudomys pilligaensis) is almost endemic to the Namoi, found only
in the Pilliga forests and a few small remnants to the
south. The introduced black rat (Rattus rattus) and the
house mouse (Mus musculus) are found in relatively large
numbers.
Sixteen native medium-to-large mammals occur in the
Namoi with the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus
aculeatus), eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus),
black-striped wallaby (Macropus dorsalis), common
wombat (Vombatus ursinus), and the swamp wallaby
(Wallabia bicolour) recorded in the greatest numbers.
Significant populations of two endangered wallabies occur
in the Namoi. A large population of black-striped wallabies
is located north of the Pilliga and a large community of
brush-tailed rock wallabies (Petrogale penicillata) can be
found in Warrumbungle National Park.
Introduced species comprise a large number of the large
mammal records. The fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the most
common species of large mammal in the Namoi (native or
introduced). The cat (Felis catus) and the dingo/domestic
dog (Canis lupus) represent other introduced predators
in the Namoi. Introduced herbivores include the brown
122
Appendices
hare (Lepus capensis), goat (Capra hircus), horse (Equus
caballus), pig (Equus caballus), deer (Cervus sp.) and the
rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).
Biodiversity Surrogates Vertebrate Fauna (Andren 2004),
and the Vertebrate Fauna Survey for Brigalow Belt South
(Pennay et al. 2002).
Of the 27 species of bats recorded, the little forest bat
(Vespadelus vulturnus), Gould’s wattled bat (Chalinolobus
gouldii), and the lesser long-eared bat (Nyctophilus
geoffroyi) are the most common. Microbat taxonomy is
still evolving and many species are still undescribed or
unnamed. It is probably that several more species will be
added to this list in the future. Flying foxes, including the
little red flying-fox (Pteropus scapulatus) and the greyheaded flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) are recorded
infrequently in the Namoi.
Eighty-six (86) regionally significant species of flora
(including 36 threatened species (TSC Act) and 50 rare
species (ROTAP)), comprise 4.6% of the 1878 native
species or subspecies of flora recorded in the Namoi
(Table 2, Appendix E). There are four endangered plant
species that only occur in the Namoi Catchment. One of
these, Hakea pulvinifera, is only known from a single stand
on a hill near the Namoi River. This species appears to be
a relict population from pre-historic times when southeastern Australia was much drier. The closest relatives
of the species today are all confined to the arid zone.
Another species, Boronia ruppii, is confined to serpentinite near Woodsreef. Worldwide, serpentinite outcrops
are recognised by their often endemic floras. Rupp’s
Boronia is a valuable local example of this tendency.
The new species Bertya sp. found in the Moonbi ranges
and at Ironbark Nature Reserve is also endemic to the
Namoi and is currently listed as Vulnerable. There are
13 other species of endangered flora, 20 species listed
as vulnerable and three species that were previously
thought to be extinct but have recently been rediscovered
(Euphrasia arguta, Euphrasia ruptuara, and Stenopetalum
velutinum).
Only two native species of turtles, Bell’s turtle (Elseya
belli) and the eastern snake-necked turtle (Chelodina
longicollis) are recorded in the Namoi. The low number of
records (4 and 38 respectively) for these species may be
due more to their cryptic nature rather than small populations, although Bell’s turtle is listed as vulnerable. Turtle
records would need to be obtained from targeted surveys
of rivers, creeks and dams and would be missed in regular
surveys of woodlands and forests.
Seventy-two species of lizards have been recorded in
the Namoi. The most common species are the tree skink
(Egernia striolata), south-eastern morethia skink (Morethia
boulengeri), two-clawed worm skink (Anomalopus
leuckartii), nobbi (Amphibolurus nobbi), Bynoe’s gecko
(Heteronotia binoei) and the robust ctenotus (Ctenotus
robustus). The only endemic species of fauna in the
Namoi is the Mount Kaputar rock-skink (Ergenia sp.).
Snakes are recorded infrequently in the Namoi, likely
due to their cryptic nature, however, it is also likely that
many snakes are rare in the region (Andren 2004). Of
the 28 species of snakes recorded, the red-bellied black
snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus), red-naped snake (Furina
diadema), and the eastern brown snake (Pseudonaja
textilis) are the most common.
A large proportion of the native fauna biodiversity can
be found in the Pilliga State Forest, Mount Kaputar
National Park and along the New England Tablelands near
Warrabah National Park. Fauna biodiversity has been
incorporated into the Conservation Map Layer.
Regionally Significant and Threatened
Species
Threatened Species, Populations and Communities
are those listed under the NSW Threatened Species
Conservation (TSC) Act 1995, the NSW Fisheries
Management Act 1994, and the Federal Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act
1999. Regionally significant species and species that
are rare or in decline have been identified from Rare or
Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP), the Nandewar
There are 145 regionally significant or threatened species
of fauna, comprising 30.1% of all terrestrial vertebrates
(482 species) in the Namoi catchment (Appendix F).
Nineteen (19) species of fauna found in the Namoi are
listed as endangered under the TSC. A further 69 species
are listed as Vulnerable, 46 are described as regionally
significant (RS), eight are described as highly regionally
significant (HRS), three species are regionally rare, and
three species are described as regionally in decline
(Appendix F). Two endangered populations in the Namoi
are the tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) population in the
Nandewar and New England Bioregions and the Australian
brush turkey (Alectura lathami) population in the
Nandewar and Brigalow Belt South bioregions. The only
animal endemic to the Namoi is the regionally significant
Mount Kaputar rock-skink (Egernia sp.).
Significant fauna populations in the catchment include
brush-tailed rock wallabies (Petrogale penicillata) in the
Warrumbungle and Kaputar ranges, a large population of
barking owls (Ninox connivens) in the Pilliga forest, blackstriped wallabies (Macropus dorsalis) in remnant Brigalow
west of Narrabri, and the Pilliga mouse (Pseudomys pilligaensis), a pseudo-endemic species confined to the Pilliga
Forests and a couple of reserves to the south (Map 13).
The rare and endangered regent honeyeater (Xanthomyza
phrygia) is at high risk due to loss of habitat and should
be considered a high priority species in the Namoi. The
endangered Mallee fowl (Leipoa ocellata) and an endangered population of brush turkey (Alectura lathami) have
concentrated populations in the Pilliga forests and Mount
123
Kaputar NP respectively. Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus)
are an iconic threatened species listed as vulnerable in
NSW (TSC Act 1995) that are abundant in some parts of
the catchment. In particular, high densities of koalas are
present around Gunnedah (Map 14).
Appendices
Table 3. Summary of interim regional vegetation class
(RVC) threat categories.
The far greater percentage of threatened animals in
comparison to plants emphasises the greater need for
animals to occupy habitats in good condition, as their
resource requirements are greater. This leads us to
question the traditional method of protecting the biodiversity of vegetation and assuming that animals will be
protected as a result. Clearing addressing the threatening processes impacting fauna specifically is a crucial
process in preserving biodiversity.
There are 16 endangered ecological communities (EECs)
known or predicted to occur in the Catchment (Appendix
I), some of which are particularly significant. Native
Vegetation on Cracking Clay Soils on the Liverpool
Plains, although not reflected in the title, is essentially
targeted at ensuring the persistence of Plains Grass
on the Liverpool Plains. The conservation status of this
community has been recognised since 1984 and recently
reviewed by Lang (2008). Other EECs that are biologically highly significant are Ooline and Semi-Evergreen
Vine Thicket. These communities are related, sharing a
number of species, and are the most southerly expression
of “Softwood Scrub” vegetation types that extend well
into Queensland. The largest single block of Ooline
remaining in NSW occurs near Maules Creek in the Namoi
Catchment.
Regional Vegetation Classes have been prioritised with
respect to their threat categories (sensu, Benson 2006).
Interim Regional Threat Categories (sensu Benson, 2006)
were assigned for each Namoi RVC (Table 3). All six
of Benson’s criteria were taken into account (Table 3,
Appendix O).
Criteria for geographical distribution and area of
occupancy were assessed against data on % RVC in
overcleared Mitchell Landscapes and % in National
Parks Estate. Expert opinion was sought from Dr. John
Hunter to assess criteria for community degradation,
rate of decline, risk of extinction and risk of decline of
functionally important species likely to play a major role in
the vegetation communities.
124
Threat Category
Regional Vegetation Class RVC
least concern
Black Cypress Pine – Orange Gum
– Tumbledown Red Gum shrubby woodland,
Nandewar and western New England Tablelands
least concern
Black Cypress Pine shrubby woodland, Brigalow
Belt South
least concern
Box- White Cypress Pine grassy woodland In
the Pilliga area and Liverpool Range, Brigalow
Belt South
least concern
Broombush shrubland of the Pilliga region,
Brigalow Belt South
least concern
Ironbark – Brown Bloodwood – Black Cypress
Pine heathy woodland, Brigalow Belt South
least concern
Ironbark shrubby woodland, Brigalow Belt
South
least concern
Narrow-leaved Ironbark – pine woodland and
open forest, Nandewar and Brigalow Belt South
least concern
New England Blackbutt – stringybark open
forest, Nandewar and western New England
Tablelands
least concern
Stringybark open forest, Brigalow Belt South,
Nandewar and western New England Tablelands
least concern
White Box – pine – Silver-leaved Ironbark
shrubby open forest, Nandewar
least concern
White Box – stringybark shrubby woodlands,
Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar
least concern
White Cypress Pine – Silver-leaved Ironbark
grassy woodland, Nandewar
least concern
White Cypress Pine woodland on sandy loam,
Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt South
near threatened
Bendemeer White Gum – stringybark grassy
open forest, Nandewar and New England
Tablelands
near threatened
Manna Gum ferny open forest in the Kaputar
area, Nandewar
near threatened
Messmate moist forest of the escarpment
ranges, New England Tablelands
near threatened
Nandewar Box – stringybark open forest in the
Kaputar area, Nandewar
near threatened
New England Blackbutt grassy open forest,
eastern New England Tablelands
near threatened
Pilliga Box – ironbark shrubby open forest on
sandy loams, Brigalow Belt South
near threatened
Poplar Box – White Cypress Pine shrubby
woodland, Darline Riverine Plains and Brigalow
Belt South
near threatened
Rough-barked Apple – Blakely’s Red Gum
riparian grassy woodland, Nandewar
near threatened
Shrubby woodland or Mallee on stoney soils,
Appendices
Threat Category
Threat Category
near threatened
Sydney Blue Gum – Tallowwood tall moist
shrubby forest of the escarpment ranges, New
England Tablelends
endangered
Leopardwood woodland of alluvial plains,
Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt South
endangered
near threatened
Tea-tree shrubland in drainage lines, Nandewar
and New England Tablelands
Lignum – River Coobah shrubland on
floodplains, Darling Riverine Plains and
Brigalow Belt South
vulnerable
Bracteate Honey Myrtle riparian shrubland,
Brigalow Belt South
endangered
Mountain Gum – Snow Gum open forest,
Nandewar and New England Tablelands
vulnerable
Mugga Ironbark shrubby open forest, Nandewar
endangered
vulnerable
New England Blackbutt – stringybark heathy
open forest on granite, eastern New England
Tablelands
Narrow-leaved Peppermint – Wattle-leaved
Peppermint open forest, eastern New England
Tablelands
endangered
New England Blackbutt – Round-leaved Gum
open forest of the escarpment ranges, New
England Tablelands
endangered
New England Peppermint grassy woodland,
New England Tablelands
endangered
Ooline forest, Brigalow Belt South and
Nandewar
endangered
Plains Grass grassland, Brigalow Belt South and
Nandewar
endangered
Poplar Box – Belah woodland, Darling Riverine
Plains and Brigalow Belt South
endangered
Poplar Box grassy woodland on alluvial clay
soils, Brigalow Belt South
endangered
River Red Gum riverine woodlands and forests,
Darling Riverine Plains, Brigalow Belt South and
Nandewar
vulnerable
River Oak riparian woodland, Brigalow Belt
South and Nandewar
vulnerable
Shrublands of rocky areas, Nandewar and
western New England Tablelands
vulnerable
Stringybark – Blakely’s Red Gum – Roughbarked Apple open forest, Nandewar and
western New England Tablelands
vulnerable
Stringybark – spinifex woodland, Nandewar
endangered
Black Box woodland on floodplains, Darling
Riverine Plains
endangered
Box – gum grassy woodland, Nandewar
endangered
Box – gum grassy woodland, New England
Tablelands
endangered
Brigalow – Belah woodland on alluvial clay soil,
Brigalow Belt South
endangered
endangered
Brown Barrel tall moist forest of the
escarpment ranges, New England Tablelands
Semi-evergreen vine thicket, Brigalow Belt
South and Nandewar
endangered
endangered
Coolibah – Poplar Box – Belah woodland
on floodplains, Darling Riverine Plains and
Brigalow Belt South
Snow Gum – Black Sallee grassy woodland,
endangered
Spinifex – Bulloak hummock grassland/
woodland, Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow
Belt South
endangered
Dirty Gum – pine – Smooth-barked Apple
open forest, northern Brigalow Belt South and
Nandewar
Stringybark – Blakely’s Red Gum open forest,
endangered
Stringybark – gum – peppermint open forest of
the eastern New England Tablelands
endangered
Dry rainforest of rocky areas, Nandewar
endangered
endangered
Dry rainforest of the Liverpool Range, southern
Tall rushland, reedland or sedgeland of inland
rivers, Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt
South
endangered
Eurah shrubland of inland floodplains, Darling
Riverine Plains
endangered
Weeping Myall open woodland, Darling Riverine
Plains, Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar
endangered
Fens and wet heaths, Nandewar and New
England Tablelands
endangered
White Box grassy woodland, Brigalow Belt
South and Nandewar
endangered
Grey Box open forest, northern Nandewar and
endangered
Wilga – Western Rosewood shrubland, Darling
Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt South
endangered
Inland Grey Box grassy woodland, Brigalow Belt
South and Nandewar
endangered
Yellow Box woodland on alluvial plains, Darling
Riverine Plains
endangered
Inland wetlands and marshes, Darling Riverine
Plains and Brigalow Belt South
endangered
endangered
Coolibah woodland of frequently flooded
channels, Darling Riverine Plains
125
Appendix C: Biodiversity
– background information on
threatening processes in the
Namoi Catchment
The following is an extract from the Namoi Conservation
Strategy. The references, appendices and maps referred
to are available on request from Namoi CMA.
Seventeen key threatening processes listed in either
the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC) or the NSW state
Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) (TSC)
potentially impact threatened fauna, flora or vegetation
communities in the Namoi Catchment (Table 4). The two
key threatening processes to impact the greatest number
of flora and fauna species are land clearance/clearance
of native vegetation (19.5% (95 species) fauna, 1.5% (29
species) flora) and inappropriate fire regimes (10.9%
fauna, 1.0% flora).
Modification of groundcover through fire and grazing
has long been known to be one of the most important
factors determining the decline and loss of substantial
proportions of the Australian arid and semi-arid mammal
species (Burbridge and McKenzie 1989; Morton 1990).
Other key processes that impact heavily on native fauna
are predation by feral cats and foxes (8.6%), removal of
hollow trees (4.9%), removal of fallen timber (6.2%), and
Appendices
alternation to stream flow and quality (4.7%). There exists
497 species of exotic flora in the Namoi Catchment.
Invasive weeds have a significant impact on flora (0.8%)
and fauna (6.0%), impacting 15 and 29 species respectively.
Several threatening factors were sourced from the
threatened species literature that are not listed under the
EPBC or TSC Act as key threatening processes, however,
appear to have a significant impact on many threatened
species and communities. Modification of habitat and
loss or food resources through trampling and grazing by
domestic stock affects 51 species of fauna and 20 species
of flora. Likewise, primary poisoning of animals through
the use of herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals
and secondary poisoning through mouse, rabbit and
fox baiting presents a significant threat to 21% of the
threatened fauna (30 species). Illegal trapping, nestrobbing, and hunting of animals poses a threat to a further
21 species. Collisions with vehicles, fences and windows
(12 species), cave damage through mining (4 species),
and predation or disturbance from aggressive pest
species (typically found in habitats modified by humans;
30 species) pose threats to fewer species, but still have
the potential to lead to extinctions. These threats, and
in some cases suggestions for threat abatement, are
discussed in detail below with respect to the threatened
or regionally significant species found in the Namoi
Catchment.
126
Appendices
Table 4. Threatening processes impacting threatened Australian flora and fauna in the Namoi Catchment
Number of Regionally Significant or Threatened Species
Threatening Process
Amphibians
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Fish/
Inverts
Total
Fauna
Flora
Land Clearance
9
47
34
5
0
95
29
Remove Hollow Trees
0
11
12
1
0
24
Removal of Fallen Wood
0
14
11
5
0
30
Mining/Cave Damage
0
0
4
0
0
4
Fire Regimes
0
34
15
4
0
53
18
Overgrazing/Trampling
2
38
8
3
0
51
21
Bushrock Removal
0
0
1
3
0
4
Invasive Weeds
8
16
2
3
0
29
15
Feral Goats
0
1
3
0
0
4
6
Introduced Rabbits
0
1
5
0
0
6
6
Honey Bees
0
4
5
0
0
9
Feral Pigs
0
3
2
0
0
5
Predation by Cats & Foxes
0
14
25
3
0
42
Aggressive Pest Species
0
5
0
0
0
5
Poisoning (secondary)
3
9
15
1
2
30
Alternation to Stream Flow or Quality
11
8
1
1
2
23
Chytrid Fungus
4
0
0
0
0
4
Psittacine circovial
0
2
0
0
0
2
Climate Change
2
6
1
0
0
9
Illegal Killing/Trapping
0
15
5
1
0
21
Collisions
0
5
7
0
0
12
Total Reg. Sig. Species
12
67
43
20
2
145
Clearing and fragmentation of native
vegetation
“Land clearance” is listed as a key threatening process
of the EPBC Act 1999 [4 April 2001] and is the primary
threatening process affecting flora, fauna and communities in the Namoi Catchment. Land clearance involves
the “clearing of native vegetation”, which is listed as a key
threatening process Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [21
September 2001]. This process includes the clearing and
fragmentation of native vegetation for agriculture, development, mining, and roadworks.
There is a high correlation between native vegetation
clearance, habitat loss and fragmentation, and biodiversity decline. The impact of clearing on biodiversity is
greatest in areas where ecosystems contain a relatively
high diversity of habitats and high numbers of endemic
species with restricted ranges, especially those that are
already considered to be threatened (Biodiversity Unit
1995). The immediate effect of clearance can be signif-
6
33
icant. It is estimated that for every 100 ha of woodland
cleared, 1000 to 2000 birds permanently lose their
habitat (Bennett 1993). Clearing of Mallee for wheat is
estimated to kill 85% of the resident reptiles, more than
200 individuals per hectare. Land clearance and the loss
of or fragmentation of native vegetation is affecting 67%
of the threatened fauna (95 species), 88% of threatened
flora (29 species), and 93% of the EECs (16) in the Namoi
(Appendices G to I).
Land clearing consists of the destruction of the aboveground biomass of native vegetation and its substantial
replacement by non-local species or by human developments (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2007b).
Native vegetation is defined as vegetation in which native
species constitute more than 70% of the plant cover,
or other vegetation containing populations of species
listed under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientific
Committee 2007b). Substantial replacement is defined
as having >70% of the vegetation replaced by non-local
species or human development.
127
Land clearing includes clearance of native vegetation for
crops, improved pasture, plantations, gardens, houses,
mines, buildings and roads. It also includes infilling
of wetlands or dumping material on dry land native
vegetation, and the drowning of vegetation through
the construction of impoundments. We have also
included damage to flora through logging, foot traffic
(bushwalkers), and erosion. The definition of the process
does not include silvicultural operations in native forests
and manipulation of native vegetation composition and
structure by grazing, burning or other means. These
processes are discussed in detail below.
Appendices
improved, environmental outcomes under this legislation.
Even small-scale clearing in areas with EECs or threatened
species should be avoided wherever possible.
Loss of Hollow-Bearing Trees
Loss of hollow-bearing trees is listed as a key threatening
process Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995.
There are numerous impacts as a result of clearing native
vegetation, including:
a) destruction of habitat causing a loss of biological
diversity, and may result in total extinction of species
or loss of local genotypes;
b) fragmentation of populations resulting in limited
gene flow between small isolated populations due
to the creation of barriers (Saunders 1989), reduced
potential to adapt to environmental change and loss
or severe modification of the interactions between
species (limited gene flow and low genetic diversity
due to small isolated populations effects 39% of the
threatened flora species in the Namoi);
c) fragmented patches are more susceptible to
threatening processes such as invasion by weeds
or feral animals from the surrounding cleared land
(Biodiversity Unit 1995);
d) fragmentation creates ‘edge’ effects leading to
increased exposure to sun and wind, changes in
water cycle and local air temperatures (Saunders
1989);
e) ‘edge’ effects created by fragmentation may also
lead to increased predation on native fauna and
cause native birds to be excluded from habitats by
aggressive pest species (e.g. noisy miner; Piper and
Catterall 2003);
f) riparian zone degradation, such as bank erosion
leading to sedimentation that affects aquatic
communities (this process puts 14% of threatened
fauna in the Namoi at risk including nine species of
amphibian, five birds, one fish, one mammal and one
reptile);
g) disturbed habitat which may permit the
establishment and spread of exotic species which
may displace native species (invasive vegetation
effects 61% of the threatened flora in the Namoi, see
below); and
h) loss of leaf litter removes habitat for a wide variety
of vertebrates and invertebrates (has the greatest
impact on amphibian and reptile populations using
riparian vegetation).
The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NVA) was introduced with
a clear objective to prevent further broad-scale clearing.
In the Namoi, broad-scale clearing will only be permitted
where it can be demonstrated to maintain, or result in
Hollow cavities are characteristic of older, mature to overmature trees either living or dead and may develop in the
trunk and branches of trees as a result of wind breakage,
lighting strikes, fire and/or following the consumption
and decay of internal heartwood by fungi and invertebrates, primarily termites. Hollows occur primarily in old
eucalyptus trees. The presence, abundance and size of
hollows are positively correlated with tree trunk diameter,
which is an index of age. Hollows with large internal
dimensions are the rarest and occur predominantly in
large old trees >220 years old. Larger, older trees also
provide a greater density of hollows per tree. As such,
large old hollow-bearing trees are more valuable to
hollow-using fauna than younger hollow-bearing trees,
which are important as a future resource (Department of
the Environment and Climate Change 2005d).
Mature and old hollow-bearing trees offer other valuable
resources. Mature trees provide more flowers, nectar,
fruit and seeds than younger trees, and a complex
substrate that supplies diverse habitats for invertebrate
populations. When hollow-bearing trees collapse or
shed limbs they also provide hollow logs that serve as
important foraging substrates and shelter sites.
The distribution of hollow-bearing trees depends on tree
species composition, site conditions, competition, tree
health and past management activities. Hollows occur
at varying densities; undisturbed woodlands typically
contain 7–17 hollow-bearing trees ha -1 and undisturbed
temperate forests 13–27 ha -1. On a landscape basis,
dead trees often account for 20–50% of the total number
of hollow-bearing trees. These are far more prone to
collapse or incineration than live trees and are selectively
harvested for firewood.
Occupancy of hollow-bearing trees is also related to their
position in the landscape. Some species prefer hollows
near riparian habitat or foraging areas, although more
mobile species may travel long distances from their
roost or den. Birds that roost colonially (e.g. glossy black
-cockatoo) require a local abundance of hollow-bearing
trees, while strongly territorial species (e.g. Australian
owlet-nightjar) may only require one or a few hollows over
a large area (Doucette Submitted-a).
Vertebrates are known to select hollows with specific
characteristics (Doucette Submitted-b), thus a variety
of hollows must be available in a given areas to support
biodiversity. Preference is typically shown for entrance
dimensions that approximate body size, presumably to
128
exclude larger competitors and predators (Gibbons and
Lindenmayer 2002). Small animals that roost communally
or raise large litters require hollows with small entrances
but large internal dimensions. The use of hollows with
suboptimal characteristics can adversely affect survival
and reproductive success (Doucette Submitted-b).
The density of hollow-bearing trees required to sustain
viable populations of vertebrates is controlled by the
diversity of competing fauna species at a site, population
densities, number of hollows required by each individual
over the long-term, and the number of hollows with
suitable characteristics. The presence, abundance and
species richness of hollow-using fauna are correlated with
the density of hollow-bearing trees; suggesting that the
availability of hollows is often a limiting environmental
factor. In some instances, a threatened carnivore may be
negatively impacted by loss of hollow-bearing trees if its
primary prey species requires hollows for roosts or dens.
For example, low densities of the common ringtail possum
(Pseudocheirus peregrinus) due to a limitation of suitable
hollows may hinder recovery efforts for the powerful owl
(Ninox strenua).
The distribution and abundance of hollow-bearing
trees in NSW has been reduced and fragmented by
extensive clearing of native vegetation during the past
two centuries, primarily for agriculture. For example, it
has been estimated that approximately 70% of native
vegetation has been cleared from the NSW wheat-sheep
belt, the tablelands of the Great Divide and the coastal
plain. Clearing in NSW has continued since 1995 at an
estimated rate of over 30 000 ha per annum. Clearing has
occurred at a greater intensity on flatter and more fertile
landscapes, which typically support the highest densities
of hollow-using fauna.
In agricultural landscapes, hollow-bearing trees typically
persist as isolated mature individuals in cleared paddocks
or in small fragmented vegetation remnants. Such trees
frequently suffer from poor health (e.g. ‘dieback’) and
have a shorter lifespan than in forested landscapes.
Eventual loss of current hollow-bearing trees, and a lack
of recruitment of younger trees to replace them, will
result in a large decrease in the hollow resource over the
wide geographic area covered by agricultural landscapes.
Road reserves and Travelling Stock Reserves (TSRs)
provide hollow-bearing trees within cleared agricultural
landscapes. However, due to the fragmented nature of the
habitat, competition among hollow-dependent species is
high.
Clearing of vegetation for urban expansion and other
development, including the creation of asset protection
zones against wildfire, contributes significantly to the
ongoing loss of hollow-bearing trees. In forests managed
Appendices
for timber and firewood production, silvicultural practices
have greatly reduced the density of hollow-bearing
trees, especially where repeated harvesting events
have occurred. In some forest types there has been a
gradual shift in the relative composition of tree species
toward those desired for timber. Among trees grown
for silvicultural purposes, current rotation intervals
between harvesting events, typically 30 to 90 years, are
insufficient to allow for hollow development. Even when
trees are retained during harvest they are susceptible
to damage from logging operations and post-harvest
burning, or can suffer poor health owing to changes in
abiotic conditions. Consequently, retained trees are prone
to early mortality, especially with repeated exposure to
harvesting events over their lifespan. In addition, the
average age of hollow-bearing trees in harvested areas
will continue to decrease as the few remaining very old
trees die.
The density of hollow-bearing trees in conservation
reserves that have previously been logged should
gradually increase until reaching equilibrium of
recruitment and loss, albeit with a long time lag in some
areas. Wildfire may temporarily disrupt the age structure
of these forests but in the long term can also promote
hollow formation in standing trees. Wildfire is a particular
threat at sites where the hollow resource is restricted to
large, senescent hollow-bearing trees that are susceptible
to incineration. A focus must be placed on the use of
appropriate fire regimes with particular regard to hollowbearing trees.
Where feral species and unusually abundant native
species (e.g. Galah) occur, competition for hollows limits
their availability to other species. This is more common
in smaller reserves. One widespread competitor is the
introduced honeybee Apis mellifera, which typically builds
hives in large cavities with small entrances (see below).
In the Namoi, 11 species of birds, 12 species of mammals,
and one reptile are directly threatened through the loss of
hollow-bearing trees (Appendix H). As discussed above,
predators of these species could also become threatened
should populations of their hollow-reliant prey become
extinct.
To maintain an ongoing supply of large hollow-bearing
trees old growth forests should be left intact and
dead trees, stags and stumps should be left standing
whenever possible. High intensity fire should be avoided
in vegetation communities where hollow-bearing
trees are essential to threatened wildlife. Landowners
should be educated on the importance of large hollowbearing trees and encouraged to maintain them on their
properties where feasible. Control of feral species that
utilise hollows, particularly the introduced honeybee is
necessary, particularly near reserves and National Parks.
129
Appendices
Removal of Dead Wood and Dead Trees
Inappropriate fire regimes
Removal of dead wood and dead trees is listed as a key
threatening process Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [12
December 2003]. This threatening process includes the
removal of forest and woodland waste left after timber
harvesting, collecting fallen timber for firewood, burning
on site, mulching on site, the removal of fallen branches
and litter as general tidying up, and the removal of
standing dead trees.
High-frequency fire resulting in the disruption of life cycle
processes in plants and animals and loss of vegetation
structure and composition is listed as a Key Threatening
Process on Schedule 3 of the Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995 [24 March 2000].
Fire management potentially affects more flora and fauna
than any other management practice (Biodiversity Unit
1994). Implementation of a best practice fire regime is
desirable to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity, age
structure, productivity and fauna habitat (Attiwill and
Wilson 2006). A conference organised by the Biodiversity
Unit, Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) in 1996 on the topic of “Fire and
Biodiversity” concluded that with the lack of knowledge
of the response of many flora and fauna groups, variation
in fire frequency, intensity, patch size and burn season
within the known tolerances of particular habitats will
help to maximise biodiversity retention. Yet a decade
later, little is known about optimum fire regimes for
protection of flora and fauna. The recommendations
emphasised the need for flexibility so that burning plans
can vary in accordance with changing circumstances or
climatic variations, rather than conducted according to
rigid schedules for season and frequency. Rigid prescriptions for fires will lead to the development of vegetation
communities adapted to an inflexible fire regime with the
consequent loss of many plant species, and subsequently
dependent fauna (Biodiversity Unit 1994).
Dead wood and dead trees provide essential habitat for
a wide variety of native animals and are important to the
functioning of many ecosystems. The removal of dead
wood (either as standing trees or on the ground) can
have a range of environmental consequences, such as
habitat loss for species reliant on hollows and decaying
wood (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2002), and disruption of
ecosystem process and soil erosion.
The forests and woodlands of the Western Slopes and
Tablelands found within the Namoi are the ecological
communities most threatened by dead wood removal
because they contain popular firewood species.
This region of NSW has been extensively cleared for
agriculture and remnant patches of woodland are
severely impacted by dead wood removal (Wall and Reid
1993). Removal of dead wood may also affect other
forest communities, including wet sclerophyll forests and
rainforests, particularly in small and easily accessible
areas.
The removal of dead wood and dead trees is listed as a
threatening process for 14 species of threatened birds
(10% of threatened birds), 11 species of threatened
mammals (8%) and five species of threatened reptiles in
the Namoi (4%) (Appendix H).
Proposed threat abatement measures focus on
prevention and reduction of the removal of dead
wood and dead trees for firewood (Department of
the Environment and Climate Change 2005e). The
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC)
has highlighted the need to develop community education
and awareness material on impacts of removal of dead
wood and dead trees focused on the need for sustainable
firewood collection. Improving the efficiency of firewood
use in wood heaters may also lead to a decreased
demand for firewood. Other priorities to decrease
firewood collection are:
1) to promote and support an industry-based scheme
certifying compliance by firewood suppliers to the
Voluntary Code of Practice;
2) to finalise the policy on firewood collection on land
reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act
1974; and
3) to investigate the practicality of promoting
commercial firewood collection from post-harvest
woody debris in State Forest and private plantations.
Many species of flora and fauna are intertwined in
their dependence on fire regimes. Thus, if an animal is
dependent on a vegetation community that is sensitive to
fire, then that species of animal may be considered fire
sensitive (Gill and Bradstock 1995). However, a species of
animal whose range encompasses a variety of ecological
communities may show variation in fire sensitivity
amongst populations, depending upon the vegetation type
it inhabits. For example, the survival of ground parrots
(Pezoporus wallicus) in the Victorian heathlands required
fire intervals less than 20 years, but greater than six years
(Meredith et al. 1984). However, in the Victorian sedgelands, where fires are described as uncommon, habitats
remained suitable for ground parrots irrespective of time
since fire (Meredith et al. 1984). The explanation for the
differences in the fire intervals for the success of the
ground parrots seems to lie with the behaviour of shrubs
in relation to that of the graminoid sedges. In the sedgelands, fires are not necessary to enhance the ground
parrot habitat (Gill 1994).
130
Threatened Fauna
Fire frequencies of at least 10 years are recommended
to maintain heathland bird populations (Wilson 1996). In
Mallee woodland communities there is a rapid increase
in both bird numbers and species numbers between 0
and 15 years post-fire, after which density decreases but
species richness continues to increase (Meredith 1984).
The peak in density (15 years) corresponds to a high
level of productivity. Management should focus on fire
regimes to maintain appropriate vegetation communities
and enhanced productivity and food resources for the
respective bird populations.
The effects of fire on fauna vary depending on the fire
regime, including the intensity and frequency of fire
and the season of occurrence (Wilson 1996). High
intensity wildfire may result in the incineration of many
animals and decimation of fauna populations, with only
small pockets of unburnt vegetation acting as refuges
for fauna. Low-intensity fires may leave to 40% of an
area unburnt resulting in the survival of many animals
that are able to move into unburnt refuges or shelter in
burrows, under rocks, or in tree hollows (Wilson 1996).
Fire itself is unlikely to be a major mortality factor for
small mammals when at low intensities, yet low-intensity
fires may not result in the required regeneration of biodiversity of vegetative communities (Carling et al. 1982).
Many mammals and birds that escape fires may not be
able to persist in the long term if habitat resources are
reduced (Attiwill and Wilson 2006). The frequency of
fire will affect the re-establishment of populations and
several short inter-fire periods may substantially reduce
population numbers. The season in which a fire occurs
affects the intensity of the fire and has variable effects on
populations, potentially interrupting breeding or nesting
activities of some species. Fire will also affect the food
resources of many fauna, potentially leading to prolonged
periods of starvation and eventually death if alternative
food sources/locations are not available.
Mammals
Inappropriate fire regimes in the form of too low- or highfrequency fires is listed as a threatening process for 53
of the 145 species (37%) of fauna listed as threatened
or regionally significant in the Namoi catchment. This
includes detrimental effects to 34 species of birds,
15 species of mammals, and four species of reptiles
(Appendix H). Few data exist for species-specific
responses of fauna to fire regimes. Table 5 lists recommended fire regimes for threatened fauna in the Namoi for
which data was available.
Birds
Low-intensity fires generally result in low bird mortality
rates, especially when structural changes to vegetation
are minimal (Cowley 1974). Birds most affected are those
occupying the habitat levels affected by the fire (i.e.
understorey birds, Christensen and Kimber 1975). After
a low-intensity fire where vegetation structure re-establishes rapidly, there is an initial decrease in both number
and species of birds followed by a substantial increase
within one to two years (Wilson 1996). High intensity
fires can cause substantial bird mortality and have major
affects on structural attributes of vegetation and consequently bird numbers as cover and food resources are
reduced (Recher et al. 1985). Frequent fires which inhibit
vegetation attaining mature structural features would
result in loss of species dependent on large hollowbearing trees (Meredith 1984).
Appendices
Small mammal species exhibit varied responses to
wildfire and thus, few data exist for species-specific fire
regimes (Table 5). After low-intensity burns responses of
mammalian species are usually closely related to their
shelter, food and breeding requirements (Friend 1993).
The different recolonisation responses of species to fire
are closely related to the post-fire successional changes
of the vegetation (Wilson 1996). For example, species
such as the New Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) that prefers open, floristically-rich vegetation
recolonises early in the post-fire recovery period (5–7
years, Cockburn 1978), while the dusky antechinus
(Antechinus swainsonii), a species that requires dense
groundcover, exhibits low population numbers up to
six years after fire (Newsome et al. 1975). For grounddwelling mammals, fire management should be directed
towards preservation of appropriate vegetative communities and habitats (Cockburn 1978; Wilson 1996).
Information on the effects of fire on arboreal mammals
and bats is lacking, although too frequent or intense fires
may detrimentally affect the number of suitable large
hollow-bearing den trees (Gibbons and Lindenmayer
2002; Wilson 1996). High intensity fires are known to kill
common ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus)
(Newsome et al. 1975), with survivors of this and other
species (such as the greater glider, (Petauroides volans)
and the yellow-bellied glider (P. australis) seeking refuge
in unburnt creeks and wet gullies (Wilson 1996). In this
respect, seasonality of burns is very important for fauna
survival. If low open forest is burnt in autumn (the usual
prescription) when it is drier, the moist gully vegetation
may be burnt (Attiwill and Wilson 2006). If the forest
is burnt is spring the mesic vegetation will typically
only burn every third fire rotation. The feathertail glider
(Acrobates pygmaeus) may benefit from frequent fires as
they appear to favour early successional stages following
fire (Braithwaite 1983).
Reptiles
Most data on reptiles and fire has been from studies in
Mallee woodlands, heathlands, and northern Australian
savannah forests where reptilian diversity is high (Wilson
1996 and references therein). Few studies have been
131
undertaken in southern temperate areas. Detrimental
effects of fire are primarily related to the intensity of heat
from the fire, especially for species that may burrow or
find shelter under rocks, and the effect of fire on fallen
logs and branches (Humphries 1992).
Appendices
foraging requirements of species and their abundance
in successional ages (Friend 1993), fire is acknowledged
as a major threat to endangered reptiles that inhabit
predominantly grassland communities (Coulson 1990).
While some individuals may survive by burrowing, the loss
of vegetative cover may threaten any survivors due to
heat stress or vulnerability to predators.
It appears that reptiles recover quickly in arid to semiarid communities. Cooger (1964) found that the Mallee
dragon (Ctenophorus fordi) was at a higher density in 10
year post-fire regrowth than in unburnt areas. Caughley
(1985) found similar reptile species numbers at Mallee
sites aged 4, 7, 25 and 60 years since a burn, although
population densities differed. After finding no relationship
amongst total reptile species, number of captures and
time after fire in heathland and woodland habitats in
Western Australia, Bamford (1986) concluded that the
effect of fire on reptiles overall was negligible. However,
as there is a strong relationship between shelter and
Three of the reptile species listed as threatened by inappropriate fire regimes in the Namoi (border thick-tailed gecko
Underwoodisaurus sphyrurus; pink-tailed worm lizard
Aprasia parapulchella; little whip snake Suta flagellum)
favour rocky outcrops in eucalypt woodlands where they
would be able to seek protection under boulders or rock
slabs during fire (Appendix H). The third species (paleheaded snake Hoplocephalus bitorquatus) shelters during
the day under loose bark or in hollows which may provide
adequate protection from low-intensity fires.
Table 5. Recommendations of fire frequency for
threatened species of fauna in the Namoi
Class
Species
NSW
Status
EPBC
Act
Amphibian
Booroolong Frog
Litoria booroolongensis
E
E
Bird
Australasian Bittern
Botaurua poiciloptilus
V
No fire.
Bird
Barking Owl
Ninox connivens
V
No burning around known nesting sites at anytime.
Bird
Bush Stone-curlew
Burhinus grallarius
E
No burning from 1 August to 31 Mar, and no more than once
every 2 years. Retain logs on ground.
Bird
Crested Shrike-tit
Falcunculus frontatus
Bird
Glossy Black Cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus lathami
V
Bird
Hooded Robin
Melanodryas cucullata cucullata
V
Bird
Malleefowl
Leipoa ocellata
E
Bird
Masked Owl
Tyto novaehollandiae
V
Bird
Red-tailed Black Cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus banksii
V
Bird
Sooty Owl
Tyto tenebricosa
V
No burning around known nesting sites at any time.
Bird
Superb Parrot
Polytelis swainsonii
V
Only use low-intensity fire between May and end of July. Avoid
burning River Red Gum and Callitris, and protect hollow-bearing
trees.
Mammal
Black-striped Wallaby
Macropus dorsalis
E
No fire more than once every 10 years.
Mammal
Eastern False Pipistrelle
Falsistrellus tasmaniensis
V
Protect hollows.
Mammal
Grey-headed Flying-fox
Pteropus poliocephalus
V
NS
Species-Specific Conditions Relating to the Use of Fire
No burning within 100 m of streams.
Fine-scale mosaic of fire-ages across the landscape, with 10–
30% of landscape burnt each year1. Occasional hot burns1.
E
No burning of allocasuarina thickets. Mosaic of fire-ages across
the landscape with a bias towards retention of older fire ages1.
Fine-scale mosaic of fire-ages across the landscape, with 10–
30% of landscape burnt each year1. Occasional hot burns1.
V
No fire or a mosaic of areas of different fire-ages with a bias
towards retention of older fire-ages. Fire frequency at most
every 40 years in any particular area1.
No burning around known nesting sites at anytime. Throughout
the range a mosaic of fire-ages across the landscape with a
bias towards retention of older fire-ages should be used1.
E
V
Data Source: NSW Rural Fire Service (2006) unless otherwise stated.
1
Data from Olsen and Weston (2005), Birds Australia
132
Mosaic of fire-ages across the landscape with a bias towards
retention of older fire ages1.
Avoid known roost sites.
Threatened Flora
The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) have
defined a list of “acceptable” fire intervals consistent
with the maintenance of existing plant species for broad
vegetation types (Table 6). As vegetation communities
generally have a different flammability and different fire
regime requirements to maintain biodiversity (Williams
et al. 1994), a strategic mosaic based upon vegetation
communities is feasible and desirable. At the landscape
level there will be a variety of fire interval combinations
and it is the proportion of the landscape that is within
the acceptable fire domain that is the main concern for
biodiversity conservation. If the fire history of a reserve
is such that over 50% of any one vegetation community
falls outside of the appropriate guideline parameters
serious conservation consequences are predicted (NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service 2002) (NPWS 2000).
At a landscape level the majority of the community should
fall somewhere between the minimum and maximum
intervals.
Appendices
The maximum interval indicates the time since fire at
which it may be expected that species may be lost from
the community due to senescence (NSW NPWS 2000).
Any areas that exceed this maximum interval should be
thoroughly examined for species diversity, abundance and
health before assuming that any ecological burning procedures be instigated. In some communities long-unburnt
areas are very rare and afford excellent opportunities for
research into the processes of senescence, recruitment
and habitat utilisation. Such opportunities for research
would greatly improve scientists’ ability to predict appropriate figures for maximum fire intervals.
Fire intensity is an important consideration for species
that require a heat-cue for germination and show
minimal recruitment after low-intensity fires (Lord 1996).
Repetition of low-intensity fires leaves these species at
risk of decline and local extinction (Auld and O’Connell
1991). As with fire frequency, it is important that variation
exits in the intensity and seasonal occurrence of fires.
Inappropriate fire regimes are listed as a threatening
process for 18 of the 33 species (50%) of flora listed as
threatened in the Namoi Catchment (Appendix G). A list
of recommendations for the frequency of fire regimes for
threatened species of flora in NSW is provided in Table 7.
The minimal interval defined in Table 7 is based on the
minimum maturity requirements of species sensitive
to extinction under frequent fire regimes and is the
length of inter-fire interval that should avoid any local
species extinction (NSW NPWS 2000). This is an extreme
minimum value, as it is based on primary juvenile
periods, and does not include time to replenish seedbank
reserves. Fires at shorter intervals than the minimum
interval (especially if the short fire intervals are repeated)
may result in a significant reduction of biodiversity and
possibly local extinctions.
Endangered Ecological Communities
A community should not be burnt repeatedly at this
minimum interval. To allow for seed production and the
building of seedbank reserves a period of three reproductive years (Keith et al. 2002) should be added to
the minimum fire interval for all communities. The NSW
NPWS (2000) strongly recommends that short inter-fire
intervals be followed by a longer interval with at least this
additional period. Inter-fire intervals experienced at a site
should be variable to maintain greatest species diversity
(Morrison et al. 1995). Successive short intervals will
lead to critical decline in the species sensitive to frequent
disturbance and repeated long intervals will do likewise
for species sensitive to infrequent fire (Lord 1996).
Inappropriate fire regimes are listed as a threatening
process for seven of the 16 (44%) EECs in the Namoi
Catchment (Appendix I). Specific recommendations for
fire frequency in 14 of the EECs are provided in Table 9.
Recommended management guidelines for fire regimes in
the Namoi are:
Another reason to avoid too frequent burning is that
it may lead to the introduction of exotic grasses and
weeds into areas where native species are temporarily
absent post-fire (Fisher 1996). Weeds may choke out the
seedlings of other plants and eventually form monocultures. The weeds may dominate to such an extent that
there is little or no diversity in terms of types of plants and
the structure of the vegetation. Minimising biodiversity
of vegetation will affect fauna food resources and consequentially animal diversity.
133
a) The effects of fuel reduction burning regime should
be monitored so detrimental changes to flora and
fauna populations can be identified (Wilson 1996);
b) Long-term monitoring of sites is essential to allow
examination of the impact of different fire regimes
(Wilson 1996);
c) Collate fire records, verbal reports, and evidence
from aerial photographs;
d) Accurate boundary maps of the extent of fires should
be made when they occur including accurate groundtruthing;
e) Fire regimes must be implemented at the local
level and be specific to the different landscapes
(Biodiversity Unit 1994).
Appendices
Table 6. Fire interval guidelines for broad vegetation type (BVT)
Broad Vegetation Type
Minimum
Interval
Maximum
Interval
NA
NA
Fire should be avoided.
Freshwater wetland
6
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary.
Forested wetland
7
35
Fire should be avoided in River Red Gum woodlands.
Rainforest
NA
NA
Alpine complex
NA
NA
Heathland
7
30
Rocky outcrops
15
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary.
Grasslands
2
10
Insufficient data to give a definite maximum interval; available evidence indicates
maximum intervals should be approximately 10 years. Some intervals greater than
7 years should be included in Coastal areas.
Grassy woodlands
5
40
Minimum interval of 10 years should woodland apply in the Southern Tablelands
Region.
Arid shrubland (Acacia
subformation)
6
40
A minimum of 10–15 years should apply to communities containing Callitris. Fire
should be avoided in Chenopod shrublands.
Semi-arid woodland
(shrubby subformation)
6*
40*
*Insufficient data to give definite intervals. Available data indicates minimum
intervals should be at least 5–10 years, and maximum intervals approximately 40
years. No fire necessary for communities of subtropical and tropical origin (e.g.
rosewoods, wilga).
Semi-arid woodland
(grassy subformation)
6*
40*
*Insufficient data to give definite intervals. Available data indicates minimum
intervals should be at least 5–10 years, and maximum intervals approximately 40
years.
Dry sclerophyll
forest (shrub/grass
subformation)
5
50
Wet sclerophyll forest
(shrubby formation)
25
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary. Crown fires should be avoided in the lower
end of the internal range.
Wet sclerophyll forest
(grassy formation)
10
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary. Crown fires should be avoided in the lower
end of the internal range.
Saline wetland
Notes
134
Appendices
Table 7. Recommendations for the frequency of fire regimes for threatened species of flora in the Namoi
(data from the Rural Fire Service, 2006)
Species
Acacia flocktoniae
Flockton Wattle
Acacia pubifolia
Velvet Wattle
Asterolasia sp.
Dungowan Starbush
Bertya sp.
Coolibah Bertya
Boronia ruppii
Rupp’s Boronia
Cadellia pentastylis
Ooline
Chiloglottis platyptera
Barrington Tops Ant Orchid
Cyperus conicus
Dichanthium setosum
Bluegrass
Digitaria porrecta
Finger Panic Grass
Diuris pedunculata
Small Snake Orchid
Diuris tricolor
Pine Donkey Orchid
Eucalyptus mckieana
McKie’s Stringybark
Eucalyptus nicholii
Narrow-leaved Black Peppermint
Eucalyptus oresbia
Small fruited Mountain Gum
Hakea pulvinifera
Lake Keepit Hakea
Haloragis Exalatal subsp. veluntina
Tall Velvet Sea Berry
Homoranthus bornhardtiensis
Barraba Homoranthus
Homoranthus prolixus
Granite Homoranthus
Lepidium aschersonii
Spiny Peppercress
Lysimackia vulgaris va. davurica
Monotaxis macophylla
Large-leafed Monotaxis
Philotheca ericifolia
Polygala linariifolia
Native Milkwort
Pomaderris queenslandica
Scant Pomaderris
Pterostylis cobarensis
Greenhood Orchid
Rulingia procumbens
Sida rohlenae
Swainsona murrayana
Slender Darling Pea
Tasmannia glaucifolia
Fragment Pepperbush
Tasmannia purpurascens
Broad-leaved Pepperbush
Thesium australe
Austral Toadflax
Tylophora linearis
TSC
Act
V
EPBC
Act
V
E
V
E
Recommendation of Species-Specific Fire Frequency
No fire more than once every 7 years
No fire or no fire more than once every 7 years
V
V
E
E
No fire
V
V
No fire
V
No fire
E
V
V
E
E
E
E
No fire more than once every 10 years and no fire in Spring or Autumn
V
V
No fire
V
V
V
V
V
E
E
V
3V
E
No fire
V
V
V
V
No fire
V
E
V
No fire
V
E
V
E
V
V
No fire
V
E
V
V
V
V
V
No fire
V
V
No fire.
V
V
E
E
135
Appendices
Table 8. Recommendations for the use of fire in 15 EECs in the Namoi
Endangered Ecological Community (EEC)
Minimum Maximum Notes
Interval
interval
Brigalow Community within the Brigalow Belt South,
Nandewar and Darling Riverine Plains bioregions
NA
NA
Cadellia pentastylis (Ooline) community in the Nandewar
and Brigalow Belt South bioregions
NA
NA
Carbeen Open Forest community in the Darling Riverine
Plains and Brigalow Belt South Bioregions
5
50
Coolibah-Black Box woodland of the northern riverine
plains in the Darling Riverine Plains and Brigalow Belt
South bioregions
5
50
fires are not required for floodplain communities, which
are replenished by flooding not fire.
Fuzzy Box on alluvials of South West Slopes, Darling
Riverine Plains & the Brigalow Belt South
6
NA
fires are not required for floodplain communities, which
are replenished by flooding not fire.
Howell Shrublands in the Northern Tablelands and
Nandewar Bioregions
15
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary
Inland Grey Box Woodland in the Riverina, NSW
SouthWestern Slopes, Cobar Peneplain, Nandewar and
Brigalow Belt South Bioregions
5
50
Montane Peatlands and Swamps of the New England
Tableland, NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, South East
Corner, South-Eastern Highlands and Australian Alps
NA
NA
No fires – Fires are detrimental to the hydrosphere that
maintains the integrity of the wetland system. Repeated
fires will destroy the community.
Myall Woodland in the Darling Riverine Plains, Brigalow
Belt South, Cobar Peneplain, Murray-Darling Depression,
Riverina and NSW South western Slopes bioregions
6
NA
No maximum interval. Fire unnecessary and likely
detrimental.
Native Vegetation on Cracking Clay Soils of the Liverpool
Plains
5
40
Too frequent fires will cause Popular Box to overtake
Belah.
New England Peppermint (Eucalyptus nova-anglica)
Woodland on Basalts and Sediments in the New England
Tableland Bioregion
15
50+
Most of the reserves containing this community have
been unburnt for 70+ years with no loss of integrity
Ribbon Gum, Mountain Gum, Snow Gum Grassy Forest/
Woodland of the New England Tableland Bioregion
7
60
Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket in the Brigalow Belt South
and Nandewar Bioregions
NA
NA
Fire should be avoided
5
40
Fire interval 5–40 years. No fire more than once every 5
years. Slashing but no trittering or tree removal.
White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland
136
Overgrazing
Appendices
once the herbage layer is gone and are replaced by
shorter-lived species, often other chenopods or grasses.
These species offer less soil protection in poor seasons
(Graetz and Wilson 1984). In some woodlands, particularly
Rosewoood/Belah and Mallee, consumption of seedling
trees and shrubs by livestock may suppress recruitment
and lead to a longer term loss of dominant woody species
(Chesterfield and Parsons 1985). Patches of bare ground
created by overgrazed grasslands may also leave opportunities for weeds to temporarily or permanently invade
(Renne and Tracey 2007).
Although not listed as a key threatening process under
the EPBC Act or 1999 or TSC Act 1995, overgrazing or
poor management of grazing property is one of the main
threats to native biodiversity. Improper management of
grazing lands can result in the modification of habitat
and loss of food resources (and food resources of prey
species of carnivores) from trampling (and resulting soil
compaction) and overgrazing by domestic stock. This
includes loss of grasslands and leaf litter in forests and
woodland as a result of trampling leading to significant
habitat degradation.
Overgrazing may have severe impacts on the ecology
of an area in poor years. During drought, livestock will
consume all edible vegetation before they perish. This
may lead to almost complete removal of vegetation from
heavily grazed areas. Ultimately, over-grazing may lead
to desertification of the landscape as site degradation
removes the soil’s capacity to capture and store water
and the loss or organic matter in the soil (Pando-Moreno
et al. 2004).
In the Namoi, 51 species of fauna, including two species
of amphibians, 38 bird species, eight mammal species,
three species of reptile, and 21 species of plants are
threatened through overgrazing or trampling (Appendix
G, Appendix H). Some species (e.g. the population of
Lysimackia vulgaris va. davurica near Aberbaldie) have
been completed eradicated due to overgrazing.
Sheep and cattle have a direct impact on native vegetation
through herbivory and trampling which causes soil
compaction, alteration of the soil structure and disruption
of the soil crust (Hobbs and Hopkins 1990). Grazing can
affect biota directly or indirectly through reducing the
productive potential of the soil (Friedel and James 1995).
Heavy grazing will remove vegetation and trampling will
create stock paths that channel water into drainage lines
and increase erosion (Friedel and James 1995). Once
vegetation becomes starved of resources, regeneration
will fail and the vegetation will gradually die out. Once the
vegetation has disappeared, the fauna will follow.
Grazing intensity tends to be greatest around watering
points, diminishing with distance. Landsberg et al.
(1997) measured vegetation in several Australian rangelands along 10 km gradients between water points and
areas remote from water. Grazing intensity increased
as distance from water decreased. In semiarid country
sheep graze intensively within 1.5 km of water but will
graze up to 5 km away when conditions are dry (Wilson
and Harrington 1984). Cattle will stay within 3 km of
water when forage supply is good, and move to 6 km
water vegetation is reduced (Wilson and Harrington
1984). The greater the number of watering points the
greater the impact on native fauna as intensive grazing
can occur over large areas. Twenty percent of the native
species of plants in the rangelands are only found near
water (Landsberg et al. 1997). Thus, these species are the
most likely to be heavily impacted by overgrazing. In areas
where water points are in close proximity, overgrazing is
likely to completely exclude sensitive species from large
areas of land. Leigh and Briggs (1992) estimated that
of the 83 extinct species of plants in Australia, 33 were
caused by grazing and 44 by other agricultural activities.
As fauna also requires a reliable supply of water, these
species will be forced out of large areas as remnants of
native vegetation become scarce.
Where grazing has caused extensive changes in soils and
hydrological processes it may be impossible for the land
to recover. Nutrients are concentrated in the top layers
of soils, so the loss of a few centimetres would seriously
deplete the nutrient capital (Tongway and Ludwig 1990).
Restoration depends on entrapment or mechanical
treatment of soil to replace organic matter, water and
seeds (Cunningham 1987). Once soil condition is improved
and vegetation is restored, faunal species could reappear
unaided if the habitat is not too fragmented. However, it is
more likely that the loss of shelters and breeding sites, and
the increased presence of predators and competitors, may
prevent the reintroduction of native fauna.
Grazing by livestock may also cause a change in the
vegetation communities present in a variety of habitats.
Grazing in semi-arid areas leads to a shift from an open
grassy state to one dominated by unpalatable shrubs
(Friedel and James 1995). The reduced cover and competition of perennial grasses allows seedlings of woody
species to readily establish. Without the protective mantle
of grass the soil is easily damaged by trampling and is
increasingly susceptible to erosion (Friedel and James
1995). In chenopod shrublands, saltbush (Atriplex spp.)
and bluebush (Maireanan spp.) are eaten by livestock
Riparian zones within rangelands are important ecologically as they:
137
1) create well-defined habitat zones within the much
drier surrounding areas;
2) make up a minor proportion of the overall area;
3) are generally more productive in terms of biomass
(plant and animal) than the remainder of the area;
and
4) are a critical source of diversity within rangelands
(Thomas et al. 1979).
Both density and diversity of species tend to be higher at
land/water ecotones than in adjacent areas, especially
where regional climates are characterised by dry periods
(Odum 1978). Cattle are attracted to riparian areas due
to the availability of water, shade, thermal cover, and
the quality and variety of forage (Ames 1977). Livestock
grazing can change, reduce or eliminate vegetation
bordering a stream, change channel morphology, increase
water temperatures, nutrients, suspended sediments, and
bacterial counts, and degrade spawning areas in-stream
(Ames 1977).
These factors lead to a decrease of in-stream and terrestrial wildlife and vegetation richness and numbers (Ames
1977), and have deleterious effects on the quality of
water available to downstream users (Jansen et al. 2007).
Grazing pressure on riparian vegetation can also lead to
invasion by exotic weeds (Jansen et al. 2007). Excluding
stock from riparian land may lead to regeneration of
native vegetation; however, in some cases fencing has
resulted in riparian areas becoming overrun with woody
weeds or a complete lack of vegetation recovery (Jansen
et al. 2007). Past land-use history, present practice,
availability of propagules, regeneration characteristics
of the vegetation, and the composition of the vegetation
(introduced versus native) will all influence the process
of regeneration (Jansen et al. 2007). Lower stocking rates
have also been shown to result in more native vegetation
in riparian areas (Jansen et al. 2007).
Appendices
Bushrock removal and ploughing
“Bushrock Removal” is listed as a key threatening process
on Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [5 November 1999].
Bushrock removal constitutes the removal of natural
surface deposits of rock from rock outcrops or from
areas of native vegetation. Bushrock provides habitat for
many plants and animals. Many animals use rocks and
rock environments for shelter, to hide from predators,
find food, avoid extreme weather conditions and escape
bushfires. Bushrock is also known to provide egg-laying
sites for reptiles. The Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys
oralis), pink-tailed worm lizard (Aprasia parapulchella),
border thick-tailed gecko (Underwoodisaurus sphyrurus)
and little whip snake (Suta flagellum) depend on
bushrocks for survival.
Threat abatement measures for bushrock removal in NSW
include plans to deliver a targeted education campaign
explaining the biodiversity impacts of bushrock removal in
an effort to encourage the development of alternatives to
the use of bushrock in landscaping.
Invasion by Exotic Vegetation
Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial
grasses [12 September 2003] and Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers are both listed as
a key threatening process on Schedule 3 of the TSC Act
1995. The NSW Wildlife Atlas lists 575 species of exotic
flora in the Namoi Catchment. Fifteen species of flora
(42% of the threatened species) in the Namoi Catchment
are potentially affected by invasive exotic vegetation
(Appendix G). Twenty-nine species of fauna (20% of
threatened species) list invasive weeds as a threatening
process, including eight species of frogs, 16 species of
birds, two mammals and three reptiles (Appendix H).
Eight EECs in the Namoi (50%) are threatened by weed
invasion (Appendix I).
Integrating conservation with sustainable grazing
of native pastures is essential for the protection of
biodiversity. Conservation of biodiversity cannot be
achieved by reserves alone. Managing grazing lands for
conservation means that basic ecological processes
are maintained so that soils remain in good health and
seed-bearing plants within dispersal range are available
to restore the complement of flora species (Friedel and
James 1995). This could be achieved with low stocking
rates that allow perennial foliage to regenerate and
persist. The goal should be to maintain grazing areas in
a condition that the ecosystem could return to normal if
grazing is removed (Enyedi et al. 2008).
Exotic Perennial Grasses
Although land management practices have improved
substantially over recent years, much still needs to be
done to decrease the impact of overgrazing and trampling
on native flora and fauna. A few people operating in an
irresponsible fashion can do substantial damage to very
large areas. Serious, long-term environmental impacts
will persist in agricultural landscapes as long as economic
factors play a major role in environmental management
(Burgmann and Lindenmayer 1998). Certainly, it is
economic considerations with respect to agriculture
that has led to the absence of the listing of overgrazing
and trampling as a key threatening process in NSW and
Australia.
Exotic perennial grasses are those that are not native
to NSW and have a life-span of more than one growing
season. More than a hundred species of exotic perennial
grasses occur in New South Wales. A relatively small
number of these perennial grasses threaten native
plant communities, and it is these species which are of
concern.
Exotic perennial grasses of special concern in the Namoi
include Coolatai grass (Hyparrhenia hirta), Espartillo
(Acnantherum caudate), Chilean needlegrass (Nassella
neesiana), and serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma)
(Mawhinney 2004).
The listing of Invasion of native plant communities by
exotic perennial grasses as a key threatening process has
been made in recognition of the increasing evidence that
some perennial grass species have significant adverse
138
impacts on biodiversity. A few examples of impacts
caused by invasive plant species (Department of the
Environment and Climate Change 2005c) are:
now widespread, and locally abundant, especially in the
eastern part of the state. The majority of these vines and
scramblers were originally introduced for horticultural
purposes and have now escaped.
f) Coolatai grass tolerates drought, heavy grazing and
many herbicides and has invaded large areas of
grassy woodlands and native pastures in north-west
NSW and is spreading rapidly in other regions. The
White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum woodland
EEC is currently threatened by Coolatai grass.
Coolatai grass grows vigorously forming an almost
complete monoculture replacing native grass and
wildflower species. It has dominated large areas
of pasture, roadsides, TSRs and areas of remnant
vegetation in the North Western Slopes, especially in
the Manilla area north of Tamworth, and its range is
rapidly expanding.
g) Chilean needlegrass has several features which
give it a competitive advantage over many native
species, such as its ability to produce a large, longliving seed bank, high survival of seedlings, tolerance
to drought and effective animal-borne and waterborne dispersal mechanisms for seeds. This allows
it to take over large areas of land and it can be very
difficult to exterminate.
h) Serrated tussock infests more than a million
hectares in southern Australia, but has the potential
to spread over a much larger area. It invades native
grasslands, grassy woodlands, dry forests and rocky
shrublands. Serrated tussock forms large tussocks
with individual plants capable of producing more
than 10,000 seeds annually. Some seeds remain
viable in the soil for more than 10 years. Mature
plants droop across the ground smothering other
species.
i) Perennial grasses, such as Coolatai grass and buffel
grass, produce large amounts of plant matter which
dries quickly and causes fuel loads to increase. This
fuel results in fire regimes that favour the spread of
these perennial grasses. Hotter and more frequent
fires may lead to changes in the structure of the
vegetation and in some cases to local extinctions of
some plant and animal species.
j) Threat abatement measures for control of exotic
perennial grasses in NSW include plans to:
a. undertake a community education and awareness
program to increase understanding of the
environmental impacts of perennial grasses and
the need for their control;
b. to undertake research on ecology and control of
Coolatai grass specifically; and
c. to map distribution and abundance of priority
exotic perennial grasses.
Exotic Vines and Scramblers
A large number of exotic vines and scramblers have
become established in New South Wales. Many are
Appendices
Vines and scramblers (climbers/creepers) of special
concern in the Namoi include Madeira Vine (Anredera
cordifolia), Bridal Veil Creeper (Asparagus asparadoides),
Balloon Vine (Cardiospermem grandiflorum), Cat’s Claw
Creeper (Macfadyena unguis-cati), and Blue Periwinkle
(Vinca major) (Mawhinney 2004).
Exotic vines and scramblers have significant adverse
effects on biodiversity. They typically smother native
vegetation and seedlings as well as prevent recruitment,
especially in riparian areas (Department of the
Environment and Climate Change 2005b). In addition,
some vine species are capable of killing mature trees
(e.g. Cat’s Claw Creeper). Many of these vines and scramblers co-occur in the same locations and thus compound
their impact to biodiversity. The speed at which many of
these species have spread in NSWs has contributed to
their potential impact to biodiversity (Department of the
Environment and Climate Change 2005b).
Threat abatement measures for control of exotic vines
and scramblers in NSW include plans to raise awareness
of vine impacts on biodiversity with the general public
and the nursery industry. Relatively little is known of the
actual distribution of vines is NSW making it difficult to
determine priority sites for control. Once these sites are
determined there is a plan to investigate effective control
methods and develop and implement vine monitoring
programs at priority sites.
Competition and Land Degradation by
Feral Goats
“Competition and land degradation by feral goats Capra
hircus Linnaeus 1758” is listed as a key threatening
process of the EPBC Act 1999 [16 July 2000] and the
under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [12 November
2004]. A detailed Threat Abatement Plan for this
process has been developed by the (Biodiversity Group
Environment Australia 1999a) and excerpts from it are
provided below.
The feral goat in Australia has been derived from a variety
of domestic goat breeds that were introduced to provide
meat, milk and fibre. Feral goats are defined as those
animals which have escaped the ownership, management
and control of people and are living and reproducing in
the wild (Parks et al. 1996). Feral populations were established when domestic herds were deliberately released
or animals escaped (McKnight 1976). These populations
survived and proliferated in many environments for
reasons such as high levels of fecundity, lack of predators,
freedom from disease, high mobility, and diverse diet
(Henzell 1992).
139
Some of the highest densities of feral goats (Capra
hircus) in Australia are in the arid and semi-arid pastoral
regions of New South Wales (Parks et al. 1996). Southwell
et. al. (1993) estimated that nearly one million feral
goats exist in eastern Australia. Feral goat populations
are capable of increasing by up to 50% each year under
favourable environmental conditions (Mahood 1985;
Parks et al. 1996). Predation from dingoes and feral
dogs are believed to limit their populations in areas
where these predators occur (Parks et al. 1996). At least
20 goat-sized herbivores per km2 can be supported in
rangelands with annual rainfall of 240 mm. Estimates
of goat densities range from 2 to 5 per km2. At these
densities feral goats would be contributing 10 to 25% of
the total sustainable grazing pressure (Parks et al. 1996).
Management of feral goats will need to be integrated
with the management of other large herbivores to ensure
that the total impact of grazing on the vegetation is
maintained within ecologically sustainable limits.
Feral goats are a generalist herbivore (Coblentz 1977)
and can occupy a great variety of habitats. In the arid and
semi-arid regions of Australia they tend to be primarily
browsers switching to grass and forbs when these are
green (Harrington 1986; Wilson et al. 1975). Their feeding
habits in more temperate regions tend to be seasonal
(O’Brien 1984). The feral goat is reported as responsible
for a variety of impacts on native flora and fauna. These
include competing with native fauna for food, water and
shelter (Lim et al. 1992) and threatening the survival of
native flora through their feeding habits. Destruction of
vegetation is also thought to cause soil erosion (Yocom
1967), leading to land degradation. Goats are known to
persist longer than sheep or kangaroos during drought
conditions and this is likely to exacerbate their contribution to land degradation.
Appendices
nil or very close to it, all animals must be accessible and
at risk during the control operation and animals must be
killed at a rate higher than their ability to replace losses
through breeding. Maintaining an area free from feral
goats requires a sustained control operation to prevent
reinvasion from surrounding feral goat infested areas or
the use of exclusion fences. As a strategy, local eradication is applicable to isolated small populations that are
surrounded by feral goat exclusion fences. Intermittent
control may be useful as a temporary seasonal measure
at sites where competition is a seasonal threat (for
example with annual plants) or where the threat is most
pronounced during adverse seasonal conditions such as
drought. Parkes et al (1996) reviewed current knowledge
on techniques for suppressing feral goat populations
concluded that a lack of resolve on the part of landowners
and land managers is the single greatest obstacle to
effective management of feral goats. Currently, there are
no plans to implement new control measures for feral
goats in NSW. DECC plans to continue existing control
programs until the evidence of impacts is reviewed.
Direct competition by goats has been identified as a
known threat for the Mallee fowl (Leipoa ocellata) only,
but is listed as a perceived threat of the black-striped
wallaby (Macropus dorsalis) and the brush-tailed rockwallaby (Petrogale penicillata) found in the Namoi
(Appendix H). Grazing by goats has reduced the survival
and recruitment of several species of threatened plants,
including Bertya sp., Boronia ruppii, Diuris tricolor,
Polygala linariifolia, Pterostylis cobarensis, and Swainsona
murrayana. Grazing by goats has marked effects on the
structure and composition of the Candellia pentastylis
(ooline) EEC.
Competition and Land Degradation by
European Rabbits
As goats are generalist herbivores they can affect a
wide range of plant species including grasses, forbs,
herbs and perennial shrubs and trees. Parkes et al
(1996) noted that the contribution of feral goats to total
grazing pressure could be assessed by estimating the
net annual above-ground productivity of vegetation
eaten. Using this method, Parkes et al illustrate that
goats at average densities of 2 per km2 consume 0.73
tonnes of dry matter per year, an order of magnitude less
than average densities of rabbits (~300 per km2) that
consume 10 tonnes of dry matter per year. Although this
comparative figure may suggest that feral goats are only
a minor contributor to land degradation, the fact that
goats can survive on a wide range of plants means that
their impacts may be greater than other herbivores during
periods of drought.
Complete removal of feral goats from Australia is
well beyond the capacity of available techniques and
resources because the species is well established across
a vast area. Local eradication is an option for areas which
meet strict criteria, but the chances of reinvasion must be
“Competition and land degradation by the feral European
rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus (L.)” is listed as a key threatening process of the EPBC Act 1999 [16 July 2000] and
the under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [10 May 2001].
A detailed Threat Abatement Plan for this process has
been developed by the Biodiversity Group Environment
Australia (1999a) and excerpts from it are provided below:
The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) was released
on the Australian mainland in the second half of the 19th
century (Stodart and Parer 1988). Wild rabbit populations
are now distributed over a large part of the Australian
mainland, in Tasmania and on many offshore islands
(Flux and Fullagar 1992). It is estimated that rabbits
now inhabit an area of some 4.5 million km2 (Myers et
al. 1989) or about 60% of Australia (Biodiversity Group
Environment Australia 1999b). The distribution of rabbits
may be restricted by soil type. Parer and Libke (1985)
found that rabbits avoid habitats where soil depth is less
than 75 cm, compacted soils such as cracking clays and
hard-setting clay subsoils, and deep sand soils as warren
construction is impeded.
140
Appendices
The rabbit’s success in Australia can be attributed to a
number of factors. These include small body size, which
allows selection of high quality feed under favourable
conditions (Myers and Bults 1977) and the use of warrens,
which offer protection from predators and climatic
extremes (Hall and Myers 1978; Parer and Libke 1985).
The species also has high fecundity (Gilbert et al. 1987)
and is able to colonise modified habitats.
native ecosystems, flora and fauna due to the presence of
feral pigs, their movement, rooting, wallowing, trampling,
tusking or rubbing trees, and consumption of water,
animals, plants and soil organisms. Feral pigs provide
reservoirs for endemic diseases, can be vectors of exotic
diseases, spread the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora
cinnamomi), and physically damage plants, providing
entry points for infection.
The decline and extinction of many of Australia’s terrestrial mammals that weigh between 35 and 5500 g,
particularly in the arid and semi-arid zones, is associated
with the rabbit’s introduction (Calaby 1969). It has been
shown that rabbits inhibit the regeneration of native
vegetation (Cooke 1987; Crisp 1978; Lange and Graham
1983); compete with native fauna for food (Dawson
and Ellis 1979) and shelter (Martin and Sobey 1983),
support populations of introduced canids and felids
(Catling 1988), and cause soil erosion (Norman 1988).
(Biodiversity Group Environment Australia 1999b).
Threatened species that suffer in dietary competition with
rabbits include the brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale
penicillata), rufous bettong (Aepyprymnus refuscens),
black-striped wallaby (Macropus dorsalis), and the
common (coarse-haired) wombat (Vombatus ursinus).
Mallee fowl (Leipoa ocellata) are adversely affected by
rabbits through competition for food and/or by alteration
and reduction of suitable habitat.
Feral pigs present a significant threat to native species
and ecological communities as a result of their behaviour
and feeding habits. Wallowing and rooting by pigs in the
soil causes direct disturbance to habitats (Hone 2002).
Further, disturbance of habitats by feral pigs may also
facilitate the invasion and spread of weeds, and thus,
affect the composition of plant communities. Feral pigs
are active predators of native birds, reptiles, (including
their eggs), frogs and soil invertebrates such as earthworms as well as the underground storage organs of
plants and the fruiting bodies of fungi. Predation by the
feral pig was implicated as a major cause of decline in
several bird species and direct predation by feral pigs
may have contributed to declines in populations of some
species of frogs (Campbell 1999).
Grazing by rabbits has reduced the survival and
recruitment of several species of threatened plants. These
include Cyperus conicus, Diuris tricolor, Homoranthus
bornhardtiensis, Homoranthus prolixus, Polygala linariifolia,
Swainsona murrayana and Thesium australe. Grazing by
rabbits has marked effects on the structure and composition of the Inland Grey Box Woodland EEC.
Threat abatement measures for control of rabbits in
NSW by DECC include plans to develop and implement
a program for new control techniques (i.e. RHD virus/
baits), develop and implement rabbit monitoring program
at priority sites, survey the distribution and abundance
of rabbits, and to continue to implement current control
programs on DECC lands until evidence of impacts is
reviewed.
Several species of birds in the Namoi are threatened by
egg loss or nest mound disturbance by feral pigs including
the brolga (Grus rubicunda), emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) and the Australian brush turkey (Alectura lathami).
The rufous bettong (Aepyprymnus refuscens) and the silky
mouse (Pseudomys apodemoides) species of mammal
are threatened through habitat degradation from feral
pigs. Likewise, the plant species Chiloglottis platyptera
(Barrington tops ant orchid) are threatened by trampling
caused by the presence of feral pigs. The following EECs
can be heavily impacted by feral pig movement, rooting,
wallowing and tree rubbing: Artesian Springs Ecological
Community, Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket in the Brigalow
Belt South and Nandewar Bioregions, and White Box Yellow
Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland.
Threat abatement measures for control of feral pigs in
NSW by DECC include plans to:
a) Increase community awareness of the environmental
impacts of feral pigs and the need for pig control.
b) Develop best practice guidelines for the
management of feral pigs.
c) Develop pig control programs on private lands
at priority sites in collaboration with Catchment
Management Authorities Develop and implement
feral pig monitoring programs at priority sites.
d) Identify priority areas for feral pig control based on
evidence of the impacts.
e) Conduct research on the use of 1080 pig baits.
f) Survey the distribution and abundance of feral pigs.
g) Continue current feral pig control programs until
evidence of impacts is reviewed and control
programs are prioritised.
Habitat Degradation by Feral Pigs
“Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease
Transmission by Feral Pigs Sus scrofa Linnaeus 1758” is
listed as a key threatening process of the EPBC Act 1999
[6 August 2001] and under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act
1995 [27 August 2004].
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are found across continental
Australia with the highest densities in NSW, Qld and
through northern Australia to the Kimberley region.
Feral pigs are predominantly found in association with
wetlands and riparian ecosystems. In 2002, feral pigs
were estimated to inhabit 61% of the area of NSW and the
ACT. This threatening process includes the impacts on
141
Competition from Feral Honey Bees
debilitated. There is clear evidence that feral cats have
caused the decline and extinction of small to medium-sized
ground-dwelling native mammals and ground-nesting birds
in Australia through predation (Copley 1991; van Rensburg
and Bester 1988). Dramatic recoveries of species on
islands after the removal of feral cats is evidence of their
impact (Dickman 1996). Feral cats continue to threaten
the survival of native species that currently persist in low
numbers. In the Namoi predation by feral cats is a key
threatening process for 14 species of birds, 23 species of
mammals and three species of reptiles (Appendix H).
“Competition from feral honey bees, Apis mellifera L” is
listed as a key threatening process under Schedule 3 of
the TSC Act 1995 [29 November 2002].
Feral honeybees are introduced bees which originally
escaped from hives and have subsequently established
in the wild, usually in tree hollows, reducing the number
of hollows available for native animals to breed and
shelter. This is of particular concern for species which
are threatened (Ambrose 1982). In one study on sugar
gliders the researchers found that 30 of the 59 artificial
nest boxes they erected were occupied by honeybees
(Suckling and Goldstraw 1989). Honeybees also compete
with native fauna for floral resources, such as pollen and
nectar. Nectar and pollen are an important food resource
for thousands of native animals including birds, arboreal
marsupials, and many invertebrates, including more than
2000 species of native bees (Pyke 1990).
DECC is still working to develop best practice guidelines
for managing feral cats. There are plans to develop and
trial a cat-specific bait that will ensure non-target species
are not impacted and to develop cost-effective methods
for broad-scale control of feral cats.
Predation by the European Red Fox
“Predation the European red fox Vulpes vulpes (Linnaeus,
1758)” is listed as a key threatening process of the EPBC
Act 1999 [16 July 2000] and the under Schedule 3 of
the TSC Act 1995 [20 March 1998]. A detailed Threat
Abatement Plan for this process has been developed by
the (Biodiversity Group Environment Australia 1999c) and
excerpts from it are provided below.
While it is now impossible to control feral populations
of honeybees, the regulation of hives kept by apiarists,
especially in National Parks and nature reserves, may
serve to reduce the number of bees competing with
native wildlife. Careful consideration should be given to
the size and placement of managed hives. Managers have
recommended that bees not be banned completely from
National Parks due to the role they play in pollination, but
the size of the hives should be minimal to retain nectar
and pollen for native animals.
Foxes were introduced to Australia by English settlers
in the 19th century (Rolls 1984), and has become well
established over most of the southern half of mainland
Australia (Strahan 1995). With our present knowledge of
control methods and ecology, eradication of foxes on the
mainland is not possible. However, there are effective
methods for reducing fox numbers and predation on
wildlife in significant areas. A total of 74 priority sites
for fox control have been established in NSW, providing
recovery actions for 34 threatened species (11 mammals,
15 birds and eight reptiles). Undertaking high-frequency
broad-area fox control across all land tenures at these
priority sites is the central action of the Fox Threat
Abatement Plan for NSW (Biodiversity Group Environment
Australia 1999c). In addition, the plan establishes
monitoring programs to measure the response of priority
threatened species to fox control.
In the Namoi, competition from honey bees is listed as
a threatening process for the swift parrot (Lathamus
discolor), brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa),
squirrel glider (Petaurus norflocencis), yellow-bellied
glider (Petaurus australis), pink (Major Mitchell’s)
cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri), glossy black cockatoo
(Calyptorhynchus lathami), and the superb parrot (Polytlis
swainsonii). Regionally significant populations that
may become threatened include the common brushtail
possum (Trichosurus vulpecular) and the greater glider
(Petauroides volans).
Predation by Feral Cats
“Predation by feral cats Felis catus (Linnaeus, 1758)” is
listed as a key threatening process of the EPBC Act 1999
[16 July 2000] and the under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act
1995 [24 March 2000].
Cats were deliberately released into the wild in Australia
during the 19th century to control rabbits and mice (Rolls
1984) and feral cats are now found in all habitats, except
some of the wettest rainforests. The main determinants of
local population size appear to be the availability of food
and shelters.
All species of wild cats prefer live prey and will rarely
consume carrion except during droughts or when they are
Appendices
There is abundant anecdotal, circumstantial and experimental evidence that fox predation is a major threat to
the survival of native Australian fauna (Saunders et al.
1995). Terrestrial mammals that weigh between 35 and
5500 grams (small to medium-sized), ground-nesting
birds, many of which are endangered or vulnerable, and
freshwater turtles are at the greatest risk from foxes.
Foxes do not appear to favour any particular habitat and
the main determinants of their population size and distribution appear to be food supply, disturbance of natural
habitats and refuge availability. In the Namoi, predation
by foxes is a key threatening process for 14 species
of birds, 22 species of mammals and three species of
reptiles (Appendix H).
142
Currently, there are large-scale plans by DECC to
measure changes and the response of a large number of
threatened populations to fox control measures and to
undertake fox control (baiting) for specific populations
throughout NSW.
aquatic fauna, habitat and ecosystems. It is less clear
what the impacts of carp are on native fish populations,
many of which were in decline before carp became
widespread. Carp carry a number of disease organisms.
Some of these, such as the Asian fish tapeworm
(Bothriocephalus acheilognathi) now occur in Australia,
and may pose a serious risk to native fish.
Predation by Introduced Fish
“Predation by Gambusia holbrokki Girard, 1859” is listed
as a key threatening process under Schedule 3 of the TSC
Act 1995 [29 January 1999]. Several species of introduced
fish can threaten native species of fish and amphibians
through competition and predation on individuals or their
eggs. Known problematic introduced fish include the
plague minnow or mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrokki) and
carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Gambusia holbrooki (the Plague Minnow or Mosquito
Fish) is a small freshwater fish originally introduced
into Australia in the 1920s. The fish was imported as an
aquarium fish but some were released into creeks around
Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Gambusia holbrooki
is now widespread in NSW and is an aggressive and
voracious predator of native fauna, particularly threatened
frogs. There are also potential effects of predation by the
plague minnow on non-threatened frog species, freshwater fishes and other aquatic organisms such as macroinvertebrates.
Carp were released into the wild in Australia on a number
of occasions in the 1800s and 1900s, but did not become
widespread until a release of ‘Boolara’ strain of carp from
a fish farm into the Murray River near Mildura in 1964.
The spread of carp throughout the Murray-Darling Basin
coincided with widespread flooding in the early 1970s,
but carp were also introduced to new localities, possibly
through their use as bait. Introduced carp are now the
most abundant large freshwater fish in the Murray-Darling
Basin and are the dominant species in many fish communities in south-eastern Australia. A recent NSW Rivers
Survey found that carp represent more than 90% of fish
biomass in some rivers and have reached densities of
up to one fish per square metre of water surface. They
also occur in Western Australia and Tasmania and have
the potential to spread through many more of Australia’s
water systems. Carp could eventually become widespread
throughout the country. Carp have benefited from modification of river systems, including construction of dams
and other barriers to fish movement, reduced river flows
and inundation of floodplains, changes which have had
major detrimental impacts on native fish.
The biology and ecology of carp are two of the major
reasons why they are such an important and successful
vertebrate pest in Australia. Carp have broad environmental tolerances and thrive in habitats disturbed and
modified by humans such as where flows are altered,
nutrients are enriched and streamside vegetation is
cleared. Carp cause significant damage to aquatic plants
and increase water turbidity, negatively impacting native
Appendices
Scientists are investigating several ways that carp might
be controlled in Australia, including direct assaults on
carp through fishing and biological control, and indirect
assault through river restoration. Environmental rehabilitation is seen as a way of improving habitat quality to
favour native fish. Potential molecular approaches include
immuno-contraception to reduce carp fertility, ‘daughterless technology’ in which modification of a sex-determination gene results in production of male offspring only,
and the introduction of a fatality gene to kill individuals at
a later date.
In the Namoi, introduced fish significantly impact
the Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis), tusked
frog (Adelotus brevis), and the silver perch (Bidyanus
bidyanus).
Competition from Native Pest Species
Competition between native species of birds, which
become over-abundant, and those that are less common,
particularly in anthropogenically impacted environments,
may lead to the local extinction of the rarer species. In
urban, suburban or fragmented rural habitats, certain
native species, such as the noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus), rainbow
lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus) and the pied butcherbird (Cracticus nigrogularis) can occur in large numbers
and monopolize food resources and nest sites. The
aggressive habits of these species may have detrimental
effects on other species of native birds. Noisy miners,
especially, form complex colonies which aggressively
defend their communal territory from all other species of
birds (Clarke et al. 2006). The bell miner (M. melanophyrs)
and the yellow-throated miner (M. flavigula) have also
been implicated in significant changes to bird communities and habitats through Australia. The noisy miners
increasing domination of remnant vegetation within the
species range is of major concern (Clarke et al. 2006).
Some species, like the endangered regent honeyeater
(Xanthomyza phrygia) are left few places to forage
unmolested. Piper and Catterall (2003) recorded that bird
diversity was reduced by half in areas within the range
of noisy miner colonies. Bird species smaller than noisy
miners were 20–25 more abundant, and their species
richness 10-fold greater, outside of miner colonies than
within them (Piper and Catterall 2003).
Widespread removal of noisy miners from the landscape
is not feasible. However, an understanding of what makes
a site attractive to a noisy miner colony may allow us
to avoid creating habitat that suits them. Noisy miner
143
colonies favour edges and will commonly dominate
fragmented woodlands, penetrating as much as 150300 m from the remnant’s edge (Piper and Catterall
2003). This means that remnants must be >36 ha and
habitat corridors need to be at least > 600 m wide to
prevent the incursion of noisy miners (Clarke et al 2006).
The influence of noisy miner colonies on other species
of woodland birds can be diminished by preventing or
reducing habitat fragmentation across the landscape.
While corridor linkages may mitigate the decline of certain
species of wildlife, they would have no benefit to species
impacted by the noisy miner edge effect (Piper and
Catterall 2003).
Other species may negatively impact threatened native
species simply by their copious numbers. For example,
the galah (Cacatua roseicapilla) impinges on the breeding
success of less common, local species and often
damages native vegetation remaining in agricultural areas
(Burbridge and Wallace 1995). Likewise, kangaroos can
significantly damage native vegetation if present in large
numbers. Native pest species not only cause damage to
threatened species and community but they also cause
social damage by generating negative feelings from the
public towards wildlife (Burbridge and Wallace 1995). Pest
species need to be controlled at the local level and developing sustainable use of problem indigenous species is
recommended (Burbridge and Wallace 1995).
Exclusion from foraging habitat and nest predation by
pest species threaten five species of vulnerable or endangered birds in the Namoi, including the black-chinned
honeyeater (vulnerable), regent honeyeater (endangered),
red-lored whistler (endangered), grey-crowned babbler
(vulnerable) and the diamond firetail (vulnerable).
nised as a major factor contributing to loss of biological
diversity and ecological function in aquatic ecosystems,
including floodplains. These alterations could cause
a large number of species, populations or ecological
communities that rely on river flows for their short-term
and long-term survival to become threatened. Impacts
associated with altering natural flow regimes, include:
a) extraction of water which reduces flows, leading
to a lower distribution of organic matter on which
invertebrates and vertebrates depend on;
b) the permanent flooding of wetlands which kills
vegetation depending on intermittent flooding,
decreasing habitat for invertebrates and waterbirds
as a result;
c) riparian zone degradation where changes to flows
increases erosion, leading to sedimentation impacts
upon aquatic communities;
d) deeper and more permanent standing water which
permits the establishment and spread of exotic
species; and
e) changes to the physical, chemical and biological
conditions of rivers and streams which alters biota.
Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and
streams and their floodplains and wetlands has been
identified as a threat to a number of threatened species
and communities. Habitat loss through altered hydrology
patterns in rivers and wetlands in the Namoi has been
identified as a threat for four species of amphibians, nine
species of (wetland) birds, one species of fish, one invertebrate, one mammal and one reptile (Appendix H).
A related process, “The installation and operation of instream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural
flow regimes of rivers and streams”, is listed as a key
threatening process under the Fisheries Management Act
1994.
Alteration to the natural flow regimes
of rivers, streams, floodplains &
wetlands
“Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and
streams and their floodplains and wetlands” is listed as a
key threatening process under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act
1995 [31 May 2002].
Alteration to natural flow regimes refers to reducing or
increasing flows, altering seasonality of flows, changing the
frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, predictability and
variability of flow events, altering surface and subsurface
water levels and changing the rate of rise or fall of water
levels (Department of the Environment and Climate Change
2005a). Three human processes have predominantly
altered flows in streams, rivers and their floodplains, and
wetlands in NSW, these are: building of dams, diversion of
flows by structures or extraction, and alteration of flows on
floodplains with levees and structures.
Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and
streams and their floodplains and wetlands is recog-
Appendices
DECC currently has plans to survey and map structures
altering water regimes with respect to affected threatened
species and communities as the location of many of these
structures throughout NSW is unknown. DECC plans to
review NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee determination
for installation and operation of in-stream structures that
modify flow and NSW Weirs Policy for consideration of the
preparation of a joint Threat Abatement Program with DPI
(Fisheries). Potential actions to mitigate changes in flow
of rivers in streams may include a weirs removal program,
causeway and culvert modification, habitat rehabilitation,
and adjustments to irrigation quotas.
Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid
Fungus
“Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in
chytridiomycosis” is listed as a key threatening process of
the EPBC Act 1999 [23 July 2002] and under Schedule 3
of the TSC Act 1995 [22 August 2003].
144
fungus zoospores are contracted through contact with
water when released from infected frogs. There is no
known treatment once the fungus is contracted. However,
as residual populations are increasing in some areas after
significant declines, even though chytrids are still present
(Berger et al. 1998), it appears that some members of
the populations are resistant. Interaction between the
fungus and environmental factors, such as temperature
and stress, do vary the impact of the disease (Threatened
Species Scientific Committee 2007a). However, it
appears that in areas where the disease has been for
more than five years a balance between Batrachochytrium
and the frogs may be developing. Although the disease
still occurs, it does not devastate the population (Berger
et al. 1999). The long-term prognosis may be good for
species which have survived and are recovering as long
as remaining habitats are protected to allow damaged
populations to re-establish.
Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is a
highly virulent fungal pathogen of amphibians capable of
causing sporadic deaths in some populations and 100%
mortality in others. Chytridiomycosis is potentially fatal
to all native species of amphibian. Surviving individuals
are believed to be carriers. Some species appear highly
susceptible to developing the disease, progressing to
death, while other species appear less susceptible to
disease manifestations (Threatened Species Scientific
Committee 2007a). This may be due to innate characteristics of the species and/or environmental factors.
Predicting which species are vulnerable to severe impacts
is difficult. Reports indicate stream-associated species
in high elevations (>400 m) appear most susceptible,
however, the disease also occurs in arid-zone amphibians
and across a wide range of other habitats (Threatened
Species Scientific Committee 2007a). Stream-associated
frog species are more likely to be infected because the
pathogen is waterborne (Berger et al. 1999). Fifty species
of Australian frogs have been found infected with chytrid
fungus since its identification in 1998. In NSW, 22 species,
more than one quarter of the total NSW amphibian fauna,
have been diagnosed with the disease. In the Namoi, the
Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis), Davies tree frog
(Litori daviesae), glandular frog (Litoria sublandulosa), and
the endangered tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) population in
the Nandewar and New England Tablelands bioregions are
threatened by chytrid fungus. The tusked frog has declined
over much of its range and the listed population has been
reduced to a critical level, if it is not already extinct. In
addition to chytrid fungus, potential causes of decline of
tusked frogs include clearing, habitat modification and
predation by introduced fish.
Experts identified that a threat abatement plan should
have as its aims/priorities to (Threatened Species
Scientific Committee 2007a):
a) reduce further spread and ensure chytrid-free
populations remain so;
b) manage the disease in populations where the fungus
is known to occur;
c) prevent exposure of populations to new strains;
d) prioritise and investigate the incidence, impact and
possible management responses;
e) initiate captive husbandry for highly susceptible
species, to ensure at least captive populations;
f) re-stock threatened populations; and
g) develop a cure.
Forty-eight percent of the threatened frog species are
known to have infected populations, whilst only 15% of
non-listed native frog species have been found infected.
This may be due to search effort, however, it may also
suggest a relationship between disease occurrence and
population vulnerability. Characteristics of threatened
species that could make them more vulnerable to greater
impacts are low fecundity and remnant populations.
Remnant populations could be made extinct by arrival of
the disease in previously chytrid-free areas. It appears
that environmental degradation is not the key problem
in triggering chytrid fungus. If a degraded habitat were
the key, researchers would expect the reproductive and
nutritional status of frogs to be affected before fatal
immuno-suppression occurs (Berger et al 1999). However,
moribund frogs have been found which were gravid
(Mahoney 1996) and with adequate fat reserves (Berger et
al. 1999), suggesting frogs were otherwise healthy before
the onset of the infection.
Many attributes of the fungus and the disease in the
wild are unknown, including reasons for death of hosts,
survival of the fungus in the absence of amphibian
populations, and place/s and time of origin. It appears
Appendices
Infection by Psittacine circovial (beak
and feather) Disease
“Psittacine cicoviral (beak and feather) disease affecting
endangered psittacine species and populations” is listed
as a key threatening process of the EPBC Act 1999 [04
April 2001] and under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act 1995 [6
December 2002].
Psittacine Circoviral Disease (PCD) affects parrots and
associated species (psittacines birds), and is often fatal.
It is caused by a virus that infects and kills the cells of
the feather and beak, as well as cells of the immune
system, leaving birds vulnerable to bacterial and other
infections. PCD has been identified in more than 38
species of captive and wild indigenous psittacine birds in
Australia, however all psittacine species are considered
susceptible to infection. The disease is widespread in
wild parrots, including many common Australian species
(e.g. Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, Galah). It is often fatal to
birds that contract it, and most species do not respond to
treatment. The PCD virus is one of the smallest and most
resistant viruses capable of causing disease, and remains
viable for many years in nest boxes and hollows.
145
There exists an acute and chronic form of PCD. In the
acute form, diarrhoea and feather abnormalities are
symptoms, and death may occur suddenly within 1–2
weeks of developing clinical signs. The chronic form
results in feather, beak and skin abnormalities, with most
birds eventually dying. Complete or partial recovery from
acute PCD has been recorded in some species (budgerigars, rainbow lorikeet, lovebird, king parrot and eclectus
parrot), perhaps related to antibodies in the blood. The
majority of psittacine species with chronic PCD do not
have antibodies, do not recover, and do not respond to
treatment.
Appendices
limit greenhouse gas emissions. The National Greenhouse
Strategy (NGS) for Australia has the goals: “to limit net
greenhouse gas emissions, in particular to meet our international commitments; to foster knowledge and understanding of greenhouse issues; and to lay the foundation
for adaptation to climate change”.
Species with small populations, relatively few breeding
birds and few subpopulations are at the greatest
risk of becoming endangered through PCD. In the
Namoi, the vulnerable listed (TSC) gang gang cockatoo
(Callocephalon fimbriatum) is at risk from PCD. The swift
parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) is also considered to have a
high potential for being adversely impacted by the disease
(Garnett and Crowley 2000).
A vaccine has been developed which induces immunity
in vaccinated birds. Vaccine use is a feasible method of
threat abatement for captive bred birds and in regularly
captured small populations of wild birds. Thus, small
subpopulations of highly endangered species could be
targeted with the vaccine. However, reservations have
been expressed concerning the value of any vaccine
for wild flocks, and there is a need for studies of the
effectiveness of any vaccine for treatment of different
psittacine species.
The NGS actions include development of a “framework for
progressing adaptation planning for biodiversity conservation”, including endangered and vulnerable species and
communities; assessment of the capacity of protected
areas to sustain their biodiversity in the event of climate
change; identification of altitudinal and latitudinal buffers;
adaptation requirements of species and communities that
are likely to be subject to a change in conservation status
as a result of climate change; and options for addressing
the secondary effects of climate change on biodiversity,
such as altered fire regimes. The risk of fire may increase
in some areas as the climate changes and decrease in
others, with consequent changes to the species composition and structure of ecological communities (Mackey et
al 2002).
Certain ecosystems may be more affected by climate
change including: alpine habitats; coral reefs; wetlands
and coastal ecosystems; polar communities; tropical
forests; temperate forests; and arid and semi-arid
environments. In the Namoi, species and communities
most likely to be affected include those found in the most
arid regions and those with small ranges limited to high
altitude ranges, such as the regionally significant Mount
Kaputar rock-skink (Egernia sp.).
Climate Change
“Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases” is listed as a key threatening process of the EPBC Act 1999 [04 April 2001] and
“Anthropogenic Climate Change” is listed under Schedule
3 of the TSC Act 1995 [3 November 2000].
This threat imposed by climate change consists of “reductions in the bioclimatic range within which a given species
or ecological community exists due to changes in the
climatic habitat as a result of anthropogenic climate
change”. The categories of human-induced activities are:
energy; industrial processes; solvent and other product
use; agriculture; land-use change and forestry; and
waste. Anthropogenic effects mean that climate change
is occurring at a faster rate than previously occurred
naturally, leading to continental temperature rise, changes
in rainfall patterns, changes to the El Nino Southern
Oscillation, and sea level rise.
A reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases requires
an internationally-coordinated effort. As part of this
process Australia should be making every effort to significantly reduce its contribution of greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere. Australia is a signatory to the relevant
international agreements, and has made a commitment to
The distribution of most species, populations and
communities is determined, at least at some spatial
scale, by climate and many species would be adversely
affected unless populations were able to move across the
landscape. Species at risk include those with long generations, poor mobility, narrow ranges, specific host relationships, isolated and specialised species and those with
large home ranges (Hughes and Westoby 1994). Examples
of species which would be at risk in the Namoi include
Sloan’s froglet, tusked frog, gang gang cockatoo, Mallee
fowl, plains-wanderer, sooty owl, red-tailed black-cockatoo,
red-lored whistler, platypus, and the Mount Kaputar rockskink (Appendix H).
The present protected area network was not designed
specifically to accommodate climate change, and the
current biodiversity may not all survive under different
climatic conditions (Pouliquen-Young 1999). Conservation
planning at the landscape scale could provide opportunities for species to respond to future climate change
and address modifications to the present protected area
network to account for climate change.
Primary and Secondary Poisoning
Twenty-one percent of threatened fauna in the Namoi
are at risk due to either primary poisoning from the use
146
of herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals and/or
secondary poisoning through the use of rodenticides to
control mouse populations and 1080 in rabbit and fox
bates. Herbicides and pesticides pose a great risk to
insectivorous bats as the chemicals used to control insect
populations become concentrated in their bodies as they
feed. The use of pesticides should be avoided in locations
where there is a large population of threatened bats, such
as near maternity caves.
Wetland wildlife, including frogs, turtles, and wetland birds
are also at risk from the use of herbicides and pesticides
as these chemicals become concentrated in downstream
wetlands. The use of these chemicals should be avoided
near riparian or wetland areas to avoid run-off into riverine
systems. The use of rodenticides place several species of
raptor at risk as they feed on the poisoned prey, including
the grey falcon (Falco hypoleucos), masked owl (Tyto
novaehollandiae), sooty owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and the
grass owl (Tyto capensis). The use of rodenticides should
be avoided and replaced with trapping whenever feasible,
especially in areas within the range of a known raptor pair
.
In June 2008, the NSW Scientific Committee, established
by the Threatened Species Conservation Act made a Final
Determination to reject a proposal to list “1080 poison
baiting used for the control of vertebrate pest animals” as
a key threatening process in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act
(NSW Scientific Committee 2008).
Poison baiting for the control of vertebrates using 1080
toxin (sodium fluoroacetate) has occurred in Australia
since the 1950s. Carnivores such as foxes and wild dogs
are typically targeted with meat baits injected with 1080
or manufactured baits which are a composite of grain,
meat-meal and various attractants. Herbivores and
omnivores, such as rabbits and pigs, are targeted with a
wide variety of baits ranging from grain and fresh produce
to manufactured baits (NSW Scientific Committee 2008).
Because 1080 is a slow-acting toxin (>30 min), direct
measurement of field mortality is difficult for both target
and non-target fauna. Many factors influence whether
bait consumption is fatal including 1080 concentration,
body mass of the individual, and sensitivity to 1080, which
varies among species and geographically (e.g. many
species in Western Australia are far less sensitive to 1080
than their eastern counterparts). Sub-lethal doses may
hinder reproduction or debilitate animals, making them
vulnerable to predation (McIlroy 1981).
Secondary poisoning is possible through consumption
of undigested bait in the stomach of a poisoned animal.
Target species sometimes vomit stomach contents
containing high concentrations of 1080, which is then
potentially eaten by non-target fauna. Maggots in meat
baits can accumulate enough toxin to kill a vertebrate
(e.g. insectivorous bird) that picks multiple maggots from
the bait. Secondary poisoning has been demonstrated to
kill individual non-target animals but no data are available
Appendices
demonstrating that such poisoning can cause significant
reduction in the population sizes of native species in NSW
(Glen et al 2007).
In NSW, particular concern has been raised for populations of a non-target carnivore, the spotted-tailed quoll
(Dasyurus maculates), which could be affected by baiting
for wild dogs and foxes. Recent studies suggest that the
risk posed to quolls by 1080 baits may be much less than
previously thought (Körtner and Watson 2005). Although
some individuals died from consuming 1080 baits during
multiple field trials, there is no evidence that the viability
of each population of quolls was significantly affected by
these losses.
Evidence for the impact of 1080 baiting on non-target
populations is largely anecdotal, and refers to individuals
rather than population effects. Although risk of 1080 baits
to non-target fauna is potentially great and mortality of
individuals has been recorded, the available research
has provided no convincing data that show significant
declines at a population level (APVMA 2005; NZERMA
2007). Nonetheless, localised impacts on some nontarget vertebrate populations are possible (Mcilroy 1982),
which suggests careful program design and monitoring
are essential, especially where less conservative baiting
protocols are employed.
The Scientific Committee determined that “1080 poison
baiting used for the control of vertebrate pest animals” is
not eligible to be listed as a Key Threatening Process in
Schedule 3 of the TSC Act as there was not substantive
evidence in NSW that it adversely affects threatened
species, populations or ecological communities, or could
cause species, populations or ecological communities
that are not threatened to become threatened.
Illegal Trapping, Nest-Robbing and
Hunting
Nine species of birds, including several species of
parrots and raptors, are at risk from illegal trapping and
nest-robbing of eggs and young for the pet or falconry
market (Appendix H). Most of these individuals would be
exported as the price they fetch overseas is far greater
than prices in Australia. For example, red-tailed black
cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus banksii) and the gang gang
cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) are priced at $1750
and $500, respectively, in Australia, yet will fetch a price
of ~$9000 overseas. Likewise, common Australian
species of parrots such as the sulphur-crested cockatoo
(Cacatua galerita) and the galah (Cacatua roseicapilla) are
only worth $30-$60 in Australia, but they will bring a price
~$2000 overseas (RIRDC 1997).
Under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and
Imports) Act 1982 it is illegal to export live native birds
without a permit. As permits can only be issued to
approved institutions or to approved zoological organisa-
147
tions for legitimate zoological and scientific purposes,
the commercial exports of birds is prohibited, yet nestrobbing and smuggling of birds remains an issue. One
species of reptile, the pale-headed snake (Hoplocephalus
bitorquatus) is also at risk from the pet trade. Smuggling
has a significant detrimental impact because it removes
many more animals from the wild than the market
requires because of the high in-transit mortality rate. It
also results in the destruction of nesting sites and other
damage to habitat.
Three species of birds and five species of mammals are
threatened through persecution by property owners
through illegal poisoning and shooting as they are
perceived to feed on crops or threaten livestock. Until
recently and potentially still ongoing in some areas,
brolgas were poisoned and shot because of their feeding
incursions into crops following drainage of swamps.
More commonly, wedge tailed eagles and dingos are
persecuted as they are a perceived threat to lambs. Other
species including the Australian bustard, blue-billed duck
and freckled duck are hunted illegally (Appendix H).
The only abatement measures possible to stem illegal
trapping, poisoning and hunting is to increase the level of
enforcement of current laws and to increase the public
education of the detrimental effects these acts have on
biodiversity.
Collisions with Vehicles, Fences and
Windows
It is unlikely that collisions alone have a significant impact
on most threatened species. However, too frequent collisions or roadkills can lead to reduced breeding populations augmenting the impact of other threats. Some of
these deaths can be easily prevented. For example, collisions with windows are listed as a threatening process
affecting the endangered swift parrot and the vulnerable
superb parrot. Many of these collisions can be prevented
by homeowners near populations of these birds making
windows more visible, such as by placing decals on their
windows.
Barbed wire fences are responsible for the deaths of many
birds, flying foxes and gliders. The thousands of animals
rescued from barbs each year represent only a minuscule
proportion of those caught as most fences are in isolated
areas and not checked by humans (Booth 2007). The
tentative estimate is that 100,000 to 1 million animals
a year are killed in barbed wire based on the extent of
barbed wire in the country (Booth 2007). The last census
in the 1890s recorded 1.6 million kilometres of fencing in
NSW alone, 78% of which was barbed (Booth 2007).
Barbed wire fences are considered a significant conservation threat to large bats, including flying foxes, and
are considered to be one of the reasons for the loss
of ghost bats (Macroderma gigas) in most regions of
Appendices
Australia (Booth 2007). Barbed wire is a significant cause
of mortality for gliders, including the vulnerable squirrel
glider and regionally significant greater glider in the Namoi
Catchment. Birds that fall victim to barbed wire include
large waterbirds such as the vulnerable brolga and endangered black-necked stork and terrestrial birds such as
the regionally significant emu in the Namoi Catchment.
In NSW, dozens of raptors are rescued each year from
fences and barbed wire may be a threat to some of
the rarer species of owls (Booth 2007). Replacing the
top couple of strands with plain wire would save many
individuals and there is currently are drive to reduce
the use of barbed wire in NSW. Removing barbed wire
from fences in ‘hotspots’ around wetlands, creeks, food
trees and the tops of ridges is a priority (Booth 2007).
The use of highly tensioned plain wire can withstand high
loads and is recommended as an alternative to barbed
wire fencing (Casey 1994). In Europe many local and
country governments have already banned barbed wire
fencing due to its impact on wildlife and there are moves
within the European Union animal welfare sector to have
it banned Europe-wide (Booth 2007). In Australia, the
Wildlife Friendly Fencing project (www.wildlifefriendlyfencing.com) with funding from the Threatened Species
Network (WWF) is working with landholders to identify
and promote alternative approaches to fencing. Efforts
to make fences more visible using flagging tape, old CDs,
and aluminium tags are also encouraged.
Collisions with vehicles, or roadkill, pose a substantial
threat to threatened Mallee fowl, powerful owls, masked
owls, common ringtail possum, common wombats and
koalas. In the case of koalas, males are particularly prone
to vehicular collisions during the mating period (Canfield
1991). The frequency of roadkills is greater in areas with
pasture growth along the road verge and areas of dense
shrub lining the road. Wider shoulders covered with
bitumen or gravel on road verges and the provision of
under- or over-passes for wildlife may help to decrease
the road toll.
Cave Damage through Mining
Damage to roosting and maternity sites from mining
operations and recreational activities such as caving is
listed as a threatening process for four threatened species
of cave-roosting bats in the Namoi. In addition to direct
disturbance, bats may be threatened as the modification
to the cave entrances for recreational or tourism activities
affects the thermal microclimate of the cave (Richter et
al 1992) and the ability of the bats to use torpor (daily
hibernation). The recreational and tourism usage of caves
should be avoided or carefully monitored by the relevant
authorities to ensure that maternity caves or caves that
shelter large number of insectivorous bats do not become
unusable and/or inaccessible to these threatened
species.
148
Appendix D: Biodiversity –
further reading
The general references were originally provided as further
reading in the first edition of this assessment produced
in 2010. Updated references are provided under the
sub-headings below. For references on groundwaterdependent ecosystems, see Appendix I.
General
Barrett G.W., Ford H.A. and Recher H.F. (1994).
Conservation of woodland birds in a fragmented rural
landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology, 1, 245–256.
Broughton A. (1994). Upper Eastern Mooki River catchment
hydrogeological investigation and dryland salinity studies,
Volumes one and two. Department of Water Resources
Technical Services Division, Liverpool Plains, NSW.
Department of Water Resources (1995). Hydrological
study of Lake Goran. Bewscher Consulting Pty Ltd.
Dorrough J., Stol J. and McIntyre S. (2008). Biodiversity
in the paddock, a land managers guide. Future Farm
Industries CRC.
Appendices
Sattler P.S. and Taylor M.F.J. (2008). Building nature’s
safety net, progress on the directions for the national
reserve system, WWF-Australia Report. WWF-Australia,
Sydney.
Science Direct (2005). An Introduction to ecological
thresholds, Biological Conservation, 124, 299–300.
Secretariat to the Native Vegetation Review Task Group
(2010). Australia’s native vegetation framework, consultation draft. Native Vegetation Framework Review Task
Group, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra.
Soule M.E., Mackey B.G., Recher H.F., Williams J.E.,
Woinarski J.C.Z., Driscoll D., Dennison W.C. and Jones
M.E. (2004). The role of connectivity in Australian conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology, 10, 266–279.
Thackway R. and Lesslie R. (2008). Describing and
mapping human-induced vegetation change in the
Australian landscape. Environmental Management, 42,
572–590.
Thomas M.C., Sheldon F., Roberts J., Harris J. and Hillman
T.J. (1996). Scientific panel assessment of environmental flows for the Barwon-Darling River, a report to
the Technical Services Division of the New South Wales
Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. and Manning A.D. (2006).
Biodiversity, ecosystem function and resilience, ten
guiding principles for commodity production landscapes.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(2), 80–86.
Van Teeffelen A.J.A., Cabeza M., Poyry J., Raatikainen
K. and Kuussaari M. (2008). Maximizing conservation benefit for grassland species with a contrasting
management requirements. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45,
1401–1409.
Folke C., Carpenter S., Walker B., Scheffer M., Elmqvist
T., Gunderson L. and Holling C.S. (2004). Regime shifts,
resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem management.
Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 35, 557–581.
Watson E.M., Whittaker R.J. and Freudenberger D. (2005).
Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation,
how consistent are they across landscapes. Journal of
Biogeography, 32, 1353–1370.
Gillespie R. (2000). Economic values of the native
vegetation of New South Wales. Native Vegetation
Advisory Council.
Huggett A. (2003). Conference report, a symposium
on ecological thresholds in biodiversity conservation.
Paper presented at the December 2003 meeting of the
Ecological Society of Australia held at the University of
New England, NSW.
With K.A. and Crist T.O. (1995). Critical thresholds in
species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology, 76(8),
2446–2459.
Lindenmayer D.B., Fischer J. and Cunningham R.B. (2005).
Native vegetation cover thresholds associated with
species responses. Biological Conservation 124, 311–316.
Archibald R.D., Craig M.D., Bialkowski K., Howe C.,
Burgess T.I. and Hardy G.E.St.J. (2011). Managing small
remnants of native forest to increase biodiversity within
plantation landscapes in the south west of Western
Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(7), 1254–
1264. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.004.
Lindenmayer D.B. and Luck G. (2005). Synthesis,
thresholds in conservation and management. Biological
Nix H.A. and Mackey B.G. (no date). Conservation
principles and criteria for the Brigalow Belt South Bioregion
in NSW. Anutech Pty Ltd, Canberra.
O’Keefe J. and Wilson G. (2007). Water quality and aquatic
biodiversity in the Namoi Catchment. University of New
England, Armidale.
Oliver I., Kristiansen P. and Silberbauer L. (2003). ESA
2003 Conference, Abstracts. University of New England,
Armidale.
Intact native vegetation communities
Bekessy S.A., Wintle B.A., Lindenmayer D.B., Mccarthy
M.A., Colyvan M., Burgman M.A. and Possingham H.P.
(2010). The biodiversity bank cannot be a lending bank.
Conservation Letters, 3(3), 151–158.
Bennett A.F. and Saunders D.A. (2010). Chapter 5 –
Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change. In: Sodhi
and Ehrlich (Eds) Conservation Biology for All, 19. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
Bradshaw C.J.A. (2012). Little left to lose, deforestation
and forest degradation in Australia since European coloni-
149
Lentini, P.E., Fischer J., Gibbons P., Hanspach J. and Martin
T.G. (2011). Value of large-scale linear networks for bird
conservation, a case study from travelling stock routes,
Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 141(3),
302–309.
zation. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5(1), 109–120.
Brahic E. (2010). Which instruments to preserve forest
biodiversity? Studies and Syntheses. 10–02, LAMETA,
University of Montpellier
Breed M.F., Ottewell K.M., Gardner M.G. and Lowe A.J.
(2011). Clarifying climate change adaptation responses
for scattered trees in modified landscapes. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 48(3), 637–641. doi:10.1111/j.1365–
2664.2011.01969.x.
Lentini P.E., Martin T.G., Gibbons P., Fischer J. and
Cunningham S.A. (2012). Supporting wild pollinators in a
temperate agricultural landscape, maintaining mosaics of
natural features and production. Biological Conservation,
149(1), 84–92.
Callow J.N. (2011). Understanding patterns of vegetation
degradation at meaningful scales within saline
landscapes. Ecohydrology, 4(6), 841–854.
Clemens J., Swaffield S.R. and Wilson J. (2010). Landscape
and Associated Environmental Values in the Roadside
Corridor, a Selected Literature Review. Lincoln University,
LEaP. Available at: <http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/
dspace/handle/10182/3927>.
Cunningham S., Young A. and Lindenmayer D. (2012).
Land use intensification, effects on agriculture, biodiversity
and ecological processes. CSIRO Publishing.
Doerr V.A.J., Doerr E.D. and Davies M.J. (2011). Dispersal
behaviour of brown treecreepers predicts functional
connectivity for several other woodland birds. Emu, 111(1),
71–83.
Doerr V.A.J., Barrett T. and Doerr E.D. (2011). Connectivity,
dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate
change, a response to Hodgson et al. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(1), 143–147.
Ford H.A. (2011). The causes of decline of birds of
eucalypt woodlands, advances in our knowledge over the
last 10 years. Emu 111(1), 1–9.
Freeman A.N.D., Freeman A.B. and Burchill S. (2010).
Bird use of revegetated sites along a creek connecting
rainforest remnants. Emu, 109(4), 331–338.
Hsu T., French K. and Major R. (2010). Avian assemblages
in eucalypt forests, plantations and pastures in northern
NSW, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 260(6),
1036–1046.
Koch A.J., Chuter A. and Munks S.A. (2011). Developing a
framework for the conservation of habitat of RFA priority
species–background report 1. A review of approaches
to the conservation of forest biodiversity across the
landscape in Australia and overseas. Forest Practices
Authority Scientific Report 7. Report to DSEWPAC,
Hobart.
Lethbridge M.R., Westphal M.I., Possingham H.P., Harper
M.L., Souter N.J. and Anderson N. (2010). Optimal restoration of altered habitats. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 25(6), 737–746.
Lindenmayer D., Hobbs R. and Bennett A. (2010).
Temperate woodland conservation and management.
CSIRO Publishing.
Lindenmayer D., Archer S., Barton P., Bond S. and Crane
M. (2011). What makes a good farm for wildlife? CSIRO
Publishing.
Lindenmayer D., Cunningham S. and Young A. (2012).
Didham R.K. (2010). Ecological consequences of habitat
fragmentation. eLS. Available at <http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021904/
full>.
Dwyer J.M., Fensham R.J. and Buckley Y.M. (2010).
Agricultural legacy, climate and soil influence the
restoration and carbon potential of woody regrowth in
Australia. Ecological Applications, 20(7), 1838–1850.
Appendices
Lockie, S. and Tennent R. (2010). Market instruments
and collective obligations for on-farm biodiversity
conservation. In: Lockie and Carpenter (Eds), Agriculture,
Biodiversity and Markets, Livelihoods and Agroecology in
Comparative Perspective. Earthscan, London. 287–301.
Majer J.D., Recher H.F. and Lyons A. (2010). The wheatbelt
woodlands of Western Australia, lessons from the invertebrates. In: xxx (Eds), Temperate Woodland Conservation
and Management. CSIRO Publishing, 73.
Major R. (2010). Fragmentation responses of birds,
insects, spiders and genes, diverse lessons for woodland
conservation. In: xxx (Eds), Temperate Woodland
Conservation and Management. CSIRO Publishing, 199–
207.
Manning, A.D. and J. Fischer. (2010). Scattered paddock
trees, the living dead or lifeline to the future? In: xxx (Eds),
Temperate Woodland Conservation and Management.
CSIRO Publishing, 33.
McConkey K.R., Prasad S., Corlett R.T., Campos-Arceiz
A., Brodie J.F., Rogers H. and Santamaria L. (2012). Seed
dispersal in changing landscapes. Biological Conservation,
146(1), 1–13.
Michaels K., Norton T., Lacey M. and Williams J. (2010).
Spatial analysis of Tasmania’s native vegetation cover
and potential implications for biodiversity conservation.
Ecological Management & Restoration, 11(3), 194–200.
Moxham C. and Turner V. (2011). The effect of fragmentation on the threatened plant community coastal
Moonah woodland in Victoria, Australia. Urban
Ecosystems, 14(4), 569–583. doi:10.1007/s11252–011–
0171-x.
150
Threlfall C.G., Law B. and Banks P.B. (2011). Sensitivity
of insectivorous bats to urbanization, implications for
suburban conservation planning. Biological Conservation,
Available at <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0006320711004459>.
Munro N. and Lindenmayer D. (2011). Planting for wildlife,
a practical guide to restoring native woodlands. CSIRO
Publishing.
Munro N.T., Fischer J., Wood J. and Lindenmayer
D.B. (2012). Assessing ecosystem function of restoration plantings in south-eastern Australia. Forest
Ecology and Management, 282, 36–45. doi:10.1016/
j.foreco.2012.06.048.
Threlfall C., Law B., Penman T. and Banks P.B. (2011).
Ecological processes in urban landscapes, mechanisms
influencing the distribution and activity of insectivorous
bats. Ecography, 34(5), 814–826.
Parris, H., Whitten S.M., Wyborn C., Hill R. and
Freudenberger D. (2011). An overview of key socioeconomic factors, principles and guidelines in wildlife
‘corridor’ planning and implementation. CSIRO Report to
the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water and
Population, Canberra.
Tozer M.G., Turner K., Keith D.A., Tindall D., Pennay C.,
Simpson C., MacKenzie B., Beukers P. and Cox S. (2010).
Native vegetation of southeast NSW, a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands.
Cunninghamia, , 11(3), 359–406.
Van der Ree R. (2012). Ecology of arboreal marsupials in a
network of remnant linear habitats. Deakin University.
Perovi D.J., Gurr G.M., Raman A. and Nicol H.I. (2010).
Effect of landscape composition and arrangement on
biological control agents in a simplified agricultural
system, a cost–distance approach. Biological Control,
52(3), 263–270.
Werner P. and Zahner R. (2010). Urban patterns and
biological diversity, a review. Urban Biodiversity and
Design, 7, 145.
Radford, J. (2012). Conservation ecology and breeding
biology of the white-browed treecreeper, Climacteris
affinis. Deakin University.
White B. and Sadler R. (2012). Optimal conservation
investment for a biodiversity-rich agricultural landscape.
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
56(1), 1–21.
Reardon-Smith, K.M. (2011). Disturbance and resilience in riparian woodlands on the highly modified
Upper Condamine floodplain. University of Southern
Queensland.
Whitten S.M., Freudenberger D., Wyborn C., Doerr V. and
Doerr E. (2011). A compendium of existing and planned
Australian wildlife corridor projects and initiatives and case
study analysis of operational experience. Population and
Communities, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.
Reeson A., Williams K. and Whitten S. (2011). Targeting
enhanced spatial configuration in biodiversity conservation incentive payment programs. In: 13th BIOECON
Annual Conference, Resource Economics, Biodiversity
Conservation and Development, Geneve, Switzerland.
11–13.
Williams J.R., Driscoll D.O.N.A. and Bull C.M. (2011).
Roadside connectivity does not increase reptile
abundance or richness in a fragmented Mallee landscape.
Austral Ecology, 37(3), 383–391.
Renton M., Shackelford N. and Standish R.J. (2012).
Habitat restoration will help some functional plant types
persist under climate change in fragmented landscapes.
Global Change Biology, 18(6), 2057–2070.
Williams, K.J., Reeson A.F., Drielsma M.J. and Love J.
(2012). Optimised whole-landscape ecological metrics
for effective delivery of connectivity-focused conservation incentive payments. Ecological Economics,
81(September), 48–59.
Seddon J., Bathgate A., Briggs S., Davies M., Doyle S.,
Drielsma M., Zerger A., Gibbons P. and Hacker R. (2011).
Comparing regional biodiversity benefits of investment
strategies for land-use change. Geographical Research,
49(2), 132–152.
Willis X. (2012). Evaluating the long-term success of native
revegetation in the Southern Tablelands, NSW. University
of Wollongong, Wollongong. Available at <http://ro.uow.
edu.au/thsci/24/>.
Stagoll K., Manning A.D., Knight E., Fischer J. and
Lindenmayer D.B. (2010). Using bird–habitat relationships
to inform urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning,
98(1), 13–25.
Taylor A.C., Walker F.M., Goldingay R.L., Ball T. and Van der
Ree R. (2011). Degree of landscape fragmentation influences genetic isolation among populations of a gliding
mammal. PloS One, 6(10), e26651.
Thomson L.J., McKenzie J., Sharley D.J., Nash M.A.,
Tsitsilas A. and Hoffmann A.A. (2010). Effect of woody
vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance
of natural enemies in Australian vineyards. Biological
Control, 54(3), 248–254.
Appendices
Wilson K.A., Lulow M., Burger J., Fang Y.C., Andersen C.,
Olson D., O’Connell M. and McBride M.F. (2011). Optimal
restoration, accounting for space, time and uncertainty.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 715–725.
Regional landscape connectivity
Bennett, A.F., and D.A. Saunders. (2010). Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Conservation Biology for All,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK 93: 1544–1550.
Benson J. (2010). Knowledge, Regulation and Incentives
in Protecting Temperate Grassy Woodlands: Six
Lessons from New South Wales. Temperate Woodland
Conservation and Management: 343–351.
151
Boer M., Johnston M.P. and Sadler R.J. (2011).
Neighbourhood Rules Make or Break Spatial Scale
Invariance in a Classic Model of Contagious Disturbance.
Ecological Complexity 8 (4): 347–356.
Appendices
Gámez-Virués S., Jonsson M. and Ekbom B. (2012). The
ecology and utility of local and landscape scale effects in
pest management. In: Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. & Snyder,
W.E. (eds.) Biodiversity and insect pests: key issues for
sustainable management. Wiley Blackwell. 360pp. ISBN:
978–0-470–65686–0.
Carrasco L.R., Mumford J.D., MacLeod A., Harwood T.,
Grabenweger G., Leach A.W., Knight J.D. and Baker R.H.A.
(2010). Unveiling Human-assisted Dispersal Mechanisms
in Invasive Alien Insects: Integration of Spatial Stochastic
Simulation and Phenology Models. Ecological Modelling
221 (17): 2068–2075.
Gillies C.S., Beyer H.L. and St. Clair C.C. (2011). Finescale movement decisions of tropical forest birds in a
fragmented landscape. Ecological Applications, 21(3),
944–954.
Cesarini S., van der Ree R., Sunnucks P., Moore J. and
Taylor A. (2010). Large gaps in canopy reduce road
crossing by a gliding mammal. Ecology and Society, 15,
35. [online] Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol15/iss4/art35/.
Gosper C.R., Yates C.J., Prober S.M. and Parsons B.C.
(2012). Contrasting changes in vegetation structure
and diversity with time since fire in two Australian
Mediterranean-climate plant communities. Austral
Ecology, 37(2), 164–174.
Chessman B.C. (2012). Declines of freshwater turtles
associated with climatic drying in Australia. Wildlife
Research, 38(8), 664–671.
Grice A.C., Clarkson J.R. and Calvert M. (2011).
Geographic differentiation of management objectives for
invasive species: a case study of Hymenachne amplexicaulis in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(8),
986–997.
Crispo E., Moore J.S., Lee-Yaw J.A., Gray S.M. and Haller
B.C. (2011). Broken barriers: human-induced changes to
gene flow and introgression in animals. BioEssays, 33(7),
508–518.
Harrisson K.A., Pavlova A., Amos J.N., Takeuchi N., Lill A.,
Radford J.Q. and Sunnucks P. (2012). Fine-scale effects of
habitat loss and fragmentation despite large-scale gene
flow for some regionally declining woodland bird species.
Landscape Ecology, 27(6) 1–15.
Darby S.E. (2010). Reappraising the geomorphologyecology link. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,
35(3), 368–371.
Kirkpatrick J.B. (2011). The political ecology of soil and
species conservation in a ‘Big Australia’. Geographical
Research, 49(3), 276–285.
DellaSala D.A., Alaback P., Craighead L., Goward T.,
H\aakon H., Kirkpatrick J., Krestov P.V., et al. (2011).
Crosscutting issues and conservation strategies. In:
Temperate and Boreal Rainforests of the World: Ecology
and Conservation, 243–259.
Lindell C.A. and Maurer B.A. (2010). Patch quality and
landscape connectivity effects on patch population size:
implications for metapopulation sizes and studies of
landscape value. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 12(2),
249.
Deter J., Charbonnel N. and Cosson J. F. (2010).
Evolutionary landscape epidemiology. The Biogeography
of Host–Parasite Interactions, Cristian Tanta, 173.
Lindenmayer D.B. and S.A. Cunningham. (2012). Six
principles for managing forests as ecologically sustainable
ecosystems. Landscape Ecology, 28 1–12.
change, a response to Hodgson et al. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(1), 143–147.
Driscoll D.A., Whitehead C.A. and Lazzari J. (2012). Spatial
dynamics of the Knob-tailed Gecko Nephrurus stellatus in
a fragmented agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology,
27(6), 1–13.
Lindenmayer D., Cunningham S. and Young A. (2012).
Etherington T.R. (2010). Python based GIS tools for
landscape genetics: visualising genetic relatedness and
measuring landscape connectivity. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution, 2(1), 52–55.
Galpern P., Manseau M. and Fall A. (2011). Patch-based
graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction,
analysis and application for conservation. Biological
Conservation, 144(1), 44–55.
Game E.T., Lipsett-Moore G., Saxon E., Peterson N.
and Sheppard S. (2011). Incorporating climate change
adaptation into national conservation assessments.
Global Change Biology, 17(10), 3150–3160.
Lindenmayer D., Crane M., Michael D., Montague-Drake
R. and MacGregor C. (2010). Conservation of woodland
vertebrate biota in the temperate woodlands of southern
NSW. In: Temperate Woodland Conservation and
Management, 175.
Lookingbill T.R., Elmore A.J., Engelhardt K.A.M., Churchill
J.B., Edward Gates J. and Johnson J.B. (2010). Influence
of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use
landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(4), 974–983.
Michael D.R., Lindenmayer D.B. and Cunningham R.B.
(2010). Managing rock outcrops to improve biodiversity
conservation in Australian agricultural landscapes.
152
Michaels K., Norton T., Lacey M. and Williams J. (2010).
Spatial analysis of Tasmania’s native vegetation cover
and potential implications for biodiversity conservation.
Schirmer J., Dovers S. and Clayton H. (2012). Informing
conservation policy design through an examination of
landholder preferences: a case study of scattered tree
conservation in Australia. Biological Conservation, 153,
51–63.
Moreno-de las Heras M., Saco P.M., Willgoose G.R. and
Tongway D.J. (2012). Variations in hydrological connectivity of Australian semiarid landscapes indicate abrupt
changes in rainfall-use efficiency of vegetation. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 117(G3), G03009.
Scoble J. and Lowe A.J. (2010). A case for incorporating
phylogeography and landscape genetics into species
distribution modelling approaches to improve climate
adaptation and conservation planning. Diversity and
Distributions, 16(3), 343–353.
Munro N. and Lindenmayer D. (2011). Planting for wildlife,
a practical guide to restoring native woodlands. CSIRO
Publishing.
Shanahan D.F., Miller C., Possingham H.P. and Fuller
R.A. (2011). The influence of patch area and connectivity
on avian communities in urban revegetation. Biological
O’Donnell A.J., Boer M.M., McCaw W.L. and Grierson P.F.
(2010). Vegetation and landscape connectivity control
wildfire intervals in unmanaged semi-arid shrublands and
woodlands in Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 38(1),
112–124.
Shanahan D.F., Possingham H.P. and Martin T.G. (2011).
Foraging height and landscape context predict the
relative abundance of bird species in urban vegetation
patches. Austral Ecology, 36(8), 944–953.
O’Farrell P.J. and Anderson P.M.L. (2010). Sustainable
multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1),
59–65.
Smith F.P., Prober S.M., House A.P.N. and McIntyre S.
(2012). Maximizing retention of native biodiversity in
Australian agricultural landscapes—the 10: 20: 40: 30
Guidelines. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
article/pii/S0167880912000291>.
Pavlacky Jr D.C., Possingham H.P., Lowe A.J., Prentis
P.J., Green D.J. and Goldizen A.W. (2012). Anthropogenic
landscape change promotes asymmetric dispersal and
limits regional patch occupancy in a spatially structured
bird population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 81(5):940–52.
Stagoll K., Manning A.D., Knight E., Fischer J. and
Lindenmayer D.B. (2010). Using bird–habitat relationships
to inform urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning,
98(1), 13–25.
Perovi� D.J., Gurr G.M., Raman A. and Nicol H.I. (2010).
Effect of landscape composition and arrangement on
biological control agents in a simplified agricultural
system, a cost–distance approach. Biological Control,
52(3), 263–270.
Stephens H.C., Baker S.C., Potts B.M., Munks S.A.,
Stephens D. and O’Reilly-Wapstra J.M. (2012). Short-term
responses of native rodents to aggregated retention in
old growth wet Eucalyptus forests. Forest Ecology and
Management, 267, 18–27.
Radford J. and Bennett A. (2012). Factors affecting patch
occupancy by the white-browed treecreeper climacteris
affinis in an agricultural landscape in north-west Victoria,
Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology, 12(3), 195–206.
Steward A.L., von Schiller D., Tockner K., Marshall J.C. and
Bunn S.E. (2012). When the river runs dry: human and
ecological values of dry riverbeds. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 10(4), 202–209.
Renton M., Childs S., Standish R. and Shackelford N.
(2012). Plant migration and persistence under climate
change in fragmented landscapes: does it depend on the
key point of vulnerability within the lifecycle? Ecological
Modelling, 249. 50–58.
Roger E., Laffan S.W. and Ramp D. (2011). Road impacts
a tipping point for wildlife populations in threatened
landscapes. Population Ecology, 53(1), 215–227.
Scherr S., Milder J. and Shames S. (2010). Paying for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. In: Lockie
and Carpenter (Eds), Agriculture, Biodiversity and Markets:
Livelihoods and Agroecology in Comparative Perspective.
Earthscan, London, 229–252.
Schirmer J., Clayton H. and Sherren K. (2012). Reversing
scattered tree decline on farms: implications of
landholder perceptions and practice in the Lachlan
Catchment, New South Wales. Australasian Journal of
Environmental Management, 19(2), 91–107.
Appendices
Taylor B.D. and Goldingay R.L. (2010). Roads and
wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife
management in Australia. Wildlife Research, 37(4), 320–
331.
Taylor B.D. and Goldingay R.L. (2012). Restoring connectivity in landscapes fragmented by major roads: a case
study using wooden poles as ‘stepping stones’ for gliding
mammals. Restoration Ecology, 20(6). 671–678
Thompson I.D., Okabe K., Tylianakis J.M., Kumar P.,
Brockerhoff E.G., Schellhorn N.A., Parrotta J.A. and Nasi R.
(2011). Forest biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem
goods and services: translating science into policy.
BioScience, 61(12), 972–981.
153
Threlfall C.G., Law B. and Banks P.B. (2011). Sensitivity
of insectivorous bats to urbanization, implications for
suburban conservation planning. Biological Conservation,
article/pii/S0006320711004459>.
Appendices
Williams J.R., Driscoll D.O.N.A. and Bull C.M. (2011).
Roadside connectivity does not increase reptile
abundance or richness in a fragmented Mallee landscape.
Austral Ecology, 37(3), 383–391.
Williams, K.J., Reeson A.F., Drielsma M.J. and Love J.
(2012). Optimised whole-landscape ecological metrics
for effective delivery of connectivity-focused conservation incentive payments. Ecological Economics,
81(September), 48–59.
Van der Ree R., Cesarini S., Sunnucks P., Moore J.L.
and Taylor A. (2010). Large gaps in canopy reduce road
crossing by a gliding mammal. Ecology and Society, 15(4),
35.
Watson J.E.M., Cross M., Rowland E., Joseph L.N., Rao M.
and Seimon A. (2011). Planning for species conservation
in a time of climate change. Climate Change, 3, 379–402.
Worboys G.L. and Pulsford I. (2011). Connectivity conservation in Australian Landscapes. Report Prepared for
the Australian Government Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities on Behalf
of the State of the Environment. DSEWPAC, Canberra.
Watson S.J., Taylor R.S., Nimmo D.G., Kelly L.T., Clarke
M.F. and Bennett A.F. (2012). The influence of unburnt
patches and distance from refuges on post-fire bird
communities. Animal Conservation . 15(5). 499–507.
Whitten S.M., Freudenberger D., Wyborn C., Doerr V. and
Doerr E. (2011). A compendium of existing and planned
Australian wildlife corridor projects and initiatives and case
study analysis of operational experience. Population and
Communities, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.
Yates M.L., Gibb H. and Andrew N.R. (2012). Habitat
characteristics may override climatic influences on ant
assemblage composition: a study using a 300-km climatic
gradient. Australian Journal of Zoology, 59(5), 332–338.
154
Species populations
Appendices
Carter O. (2010a). National recovery plan for the Lowan
Phebalium Phebalium lowanense. Victorian Government
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE),
Melbourne.
Allentoft M.E. and J. O’Brien. (2010). Global amphibian
declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: a review.
Diversity, 2(1), 47–71.
Carter O. (2010b). National recovery plan for the Trailing
Hop-bush Dodonaea procumbens. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Ashcroft M.B. (2010). Identifying Refugia from Climate
Change. Journal of Biogeography 37(8), 1407–1413.
Benjamin L., Peter J.S., Hayward M., Lee R., Richard
M., Ballard G. and Luke K-P. (2012). Top-predators as
biodiversity regulators: contemporary issues affecting
knowledge and management of dingoes in Australia. In:
Gbolagade Akeem Lameed (Ed.). Biodiversity Enrichment
in a Diverse World. InTech.
Carter O. (2011). National recovery plan for the Hairypod Wattle Acacia glandulicarpa. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Bianchi C.A. (2010). Rapid endangered species
assessment: a novel approach to improve extinction
risk assessments in poorly known species. Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Carter O. (2010). National recovery plan for the Spiny
Peppercress, Lepidium aschersonii. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Bode M. and Brennan K.E.C. (2011). Using population
viability analysis to guide research and conservation
actions for Australia’s threatened Malleefowl Leipoa
ocellata. Oryx, 45(4), 513–521.
Carter O. and Walsh N. (2010a). National recovery
plan for the Dwarf Kerrawang Rulingia prostrata.
Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE), Melbourne.
Brearley G., McAlpine C., Bell S. and Bradley A. (2011).
Squirrel glider home ranges near urban edges in eastern
Australia. Journal of Zoology, 285(4), 256–265.
Carter O. and Walsh N. (2010b). National recovery
plan for the Genoa River Correa Correa lawrenceana
var. Genoensis. Victorian Government Department of
Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Melbourne.
Bromham L., Lanfear R., Cassey P., Gibb G. and Cardillo M.
(2012). Reconstructing past species assemblages reveals
the changing patterns and drivers of extinction through
time. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 279(1744), 4024–4032.
Buckley Y.M., Ramula S., Blomberg S.P., Burns J.H., Crone
E.E., Ehrlén J., Knight T.M., Pichancourt J.B., Quested H.
and Wardle G.M. (2010). Causes and consequences of
variation in plant population growth rate: a synthesis
of matrix population models in a phylogenetic context.
Ecology Letters, 13(9), 1182–1197.
Ceballos G., García A. and P.R. Ehrlich. (2010). The sixth
extinction crisis loss of animal populations and species.
Journal of Cosmology, 8, 1821–1831.
Chauvenet A.L.M., Baxter P.W.J., McDonald-Madden E.
and Possingham H.P. (2010). Optimal allocation of conservation effort among subpopulations of a threatened
species: how important is patch quality? Ecological
Applications, 20(3), 789–797.
Clements G.R., Bradshaw C.J.A., Brook B.W. and Laurance
W.F. (2011). The SAFE Index: using a threshold population
target to measure relative species threat. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 9(9), 521–525.
Burgman M., Franklin J., Hayes K.R., Hosack G.R., Peters
G.W. and Sisson S.A. (2012). Modeling extreme risks in
ecology. Risk Analysis, 32(11). 1956–66.
Collier N., Gardner M., Adams M., McMahon C.R.,
Benkendorff K. and Mackay D.A. (2010). Contemporary
habitat loss reduces genetic diversity in an ecologically
specialized butterfly. Journal of Biogeography, 37(7),
1277–1287.
Cardillo M. and Meijaard E. (2011a). Are comparative
studies of extinction risk useful for conservation? Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 27: 167–171.
Carter O. (2010a). National recovery plan for the Downy
Star-bush Asterolasia phebalioides. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Collins J.P. and others. (2010). Amphibian Decline and
Extinction: What We Know and What We Need to Learn.
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 92(2–3), 93–99.
Carter O. (2010b). National recovery plan for the Matted
Flax-lily Dianella amoena. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Carter O. (2011). National recovery plan for the Bead
Glasswort Tecticornia flabelliformis. Victorian Government
Melbourne.
Cristescu R., Cahill V., Sherwin W.B., Handasyde K.,
Carlyon K., Whisson D., Herbert C.A., Carlsson B.L.J.,
Wilton A.N. and Cooper D.W. (2012). Corrigendum to:
inbreeding and testicular abnormalities in a bottlenecked
population of Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). Wildlife
Research, 39(4), 374–374.
Davis R.A. and Roberts J.D. (2011). Survival and population
size of the frog Heleioporus albopunctatus in a highly
modified, agricultural landscape. Copeia, 2011(3), 423–429.
155
Di Minin E. and Griffiths R.A. (2010). Viability analysis of
a threatened amphibian population: modelling the past,
present and future. Ecography, 34(1), 162–169.
Appendices
Felinks B., Pardini R., Dixo M., Follner K., Metzger J.P. and
Henle K. (2011). Effects of species turnover on reserve
site selection in a fragmented landscape. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 20(5), 1057–1072.
Dimond W.J. (2010). Population decline in the endangered
Grassland Earless Dragon in Australia: identification, causes
and management. University of Canberra, Canberra.
Fielder D.P. (2010). Population ecology, ecophysiology,
phylogenetics and taxonomy of the threatened Western
Sawshelled Turtle, Myuchelys bellii, from the MurrayDarling Basin of Australia. PhD dissertation, University of
New England, Armidale.
Dimond W.J., Osborne W.S., Evans M.C., Gruber B.
and Sarre S.D. (2012). Back to the brink: population
decline of the endangered Grassland Earless Dragon
(Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) following its rediscovery.
Herptological Conservation and Biology, 7(2), 132–149.
Flather C.H., Hayward G.D., Beissinger S.R. and Stephens
P.A. (2011). Minimum viable populations: is there a ‘magic
number’for conservation practitioners? Trends in Ecology
& Evolution, 26(6), 307–316.
change: a response to Hodgson et al. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(1), 143–147.
Fordham D.A., Resit Accakaya H., Araújo M.B., Elith
J., Keith D.A., Pearson R., Auld T.D., et al. (2012). Plant
extinction risk under climate change: are forecast range
shifts alone a good indicator of species vulnerability to
global warming? Global Change Biology, 18, 1357–1371.
Driscoll D.A. (2010). Woodland biodiversity conservation:
basket-case or battleground? Insights from the Mallee.
Temperate Woodland Conservation and Management,
191–197.
Fordham D.A., Watts M.J., Delean S., Brook B.W., Heard
L. and Bull C.M. (2012). Managed relocation as an
adaptation strategy for mitigating climate change threats
to the persistence of an endangered lizard. Global Change
Biology, 18, 273–2755.
Driscoll D.A. and Lindenmayer D.B. (2012). Framework to
improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecological Monographs, 82(1), 129–147.
Driscoll D.A., Lindenmayer D.B., Bennett A.F., Bode M.,
Bradstock R.A., Cary G.J., Clarke M.F., et al. (2010). Fire
management for biodiversity conservation: key research
questions and our capacity to answer them. Biological
Conservation, 143(9), 1928–1939.
Frankham, R. (2010). Where are we in conservation
genetics and where do we need to go? Conservation
Genetics, 11(2), 661–663.
Dubey S. and Shine R. (2011). Predicting the effects of
climate change on reproductive fitness of an endangered
montane lizard, Eulamprus leuraensis (Scincidae). Climatic
Change, 107(3), 531–547.
Duncan M. (2010a). National recovery plan for the Baldtip Beard Orchid Calochilus richiae. Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Mellbourne.
Franklin J. (2010). Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography.
Diversity and Distributions, 16(3), 321–330.
Garnett S., Szabo J., Dutson G. et al. (2011). Action plan for
Australian Birds (2010). CSIRO. Available at <http://www.
publish.csiro.au/nid/21/pid/6781.htm>.
Gillespie G.R., Scroggie M.P., Roberts J.D., Cogger H.G.,
Mahony M.J. and McDonald K.R. (2011). The influence
of uncertainty on conservation assessments: Australian
frogs as a case study. Biological Conservation, 144(5),
1516–1525.
Duncan M. (2010b). National recovery plan for the Thicklip Spider-orchid Caladenia tessellata. Department of
Gilroy J.J., Virzi T., Boulton R.L. and Lockwood J.L.
(2012). Too few data and not enough time: approaches
to detecting allee effects in threatened species.
Conservation Letters, 5(4) 313–322.
Duncan M. (2010a). National recovery plan for the Dense
Leek-orchid, Prasophyllum spicatum. Department of
Duncan M. (2010b). National recovery plan for the
Desert Greenhood, Pterostylis Xerophila. Department of
Groom, C. (2010). Justification for continued conservation
efforts following the delisting of a threatened species:
a case study of the Woylie, Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi
(Marsupialia: Potoroidae). Wildlife Research, 37(3), 183–
193.
Duncan M. (2010c). National recovery plan for the Maroon
Leek Orchid Prasophyllum Frenchii. Department of
Haby N.A., Foulkes J. and Brook B.W. (2012). Ecosystem
dynamics, evolution and dependency of higher trophic
organisms on resource gradients. Resources, Data
Resolution and Small Mammal Range Dynamics, 69.
Duncan M. (2010d). National recovery plan for the
Spiral Sun Orchid, Thelymitra Matthewsii. Department of
Elliott C.P., Lindenmayer D.B., Cunningham S.A. and Young
A.G. (2012). Landscape context affects honeyeater communities and their foraging behaviour in Australia: implications
for plant pollination. Landscape Ecology,27(3) 393–404.
Hanski I. (2012). Eco-evolutionary dynamics in a changing
world. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249,
1–17.
156
Harris B.C., Fordham D.A., Mooney P.A., Pedler L.P., Araújo
M.B., Paton D.C., Stead M.G., et al. (2012). Managing the
long-term persistence of a rare Cockatoo under climate
change. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(4) 785–794.
He T. and Lamont B.B. (2010). High microsatellite genetic
diversity fails to predict greater population resistance to
extreme drought. Conservation Genetics, 11(4), 1445–1451.
Hodgson J.A., A. Moilanen, B.A. Wintle and C. D. Thomas.
(2011). Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking
the balance for efficient conservation. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(1), 148–152.
McDonald-Madden E., Baxter P.W.J. and Possingham
H.P. (2011). Robust conservation decision-making.
In Proceedings of the ICVRAM 2011 and ISUMA 2011
Conferences on Vulnerability, Uncertainty, and Risk:
Analysis, Modeling, and Management, Maryland.
McDonald-Madden E., Probert W.J.M., Hauser C.E., Runge
M.C., Possingham H.P., Jones M.E., Moore J.L., Rout T.M.,
Vesk P.A. and Wintle B.A. (2010). Active adaptive conservation of threatened species in the face of uncertainty.
Ecological Applications, 20(5), 1476–1489.
Hutchings J.A., Myers R.A., García V.B., Lucifora L.O. and
Kuparinen A. (2012). Life-history correlates of extinction
risk and recovery potential. Ecological Applications, 22(4),
1061–1067.
Menkhorst P. and Hynes E. (2010). National recovery plan
for the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, East
Melbourne.
Ingram B.A., Hayes B. and Rourke M.L. (2011). Impacts of
stock enhancement strategies on the effective population
size of Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii, a threatened
Australian fish. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 18(6):
467–481.
Menkhorst P. and Hynes E. (2011). National recovery plan
for the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata.
Department of Sustainability and Environment, East
Melbourne.
Kendall B.E., Fox G.A., Fujiwara M. and Nogeire T.M.
(2011). Demographic heterogeneity, cohort selection and
population growth. Ecology, 92(10), 1985–1993.
O’Donnell J., Gallagher R.V., Wilson P.D., Downey P.O.,
Hughes L. and Leishman M.R. (2012). Invasion hotspots
for non-native plants in Australia under current and future
climates. Global Change Biology, 18: 617–629.
Koehn J.D. and Todd C.R. (2012). Balancing conservation
and recreational fishery objectives for a threatened fish
species, the Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii. Fisheries
Management and Ecology, 19(5): 410–425.
Osunkoya O.O., Perrett C., Fernando C. and others.
(2010). Population viability analysis models for Lantana
camara L. (Verbenaceae): a weed of national significance.
In: 17th Australasian Weeds Conference. New Frontiers
in New Zealand: Together We Can Beat the Weeds.
Christchurch, New Zealand, 26–30 September, 99–102.
Lee K.E., Seddon J.M., Corley S.W., Ellis W.A.H., Johnston
S.D., de Villiers D.L., Preece H.J. and Carrick F.N. (2010).
Genetic variation and structuring in the threatened Koala
populations of southeast Queensland. Conservation
Genetics, 11(6), 2091–2103.
Pavlacky Jr D.C., Possingham H.P., Lowe A.J., Prentis
P.J., Green D.J. and Goldizen A.W. (2012). Anthropogenic
landscape change promotes asymmetric dispersal and
limits regional patch occupancy in a spatially structured
bird population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 81(5):940–52.
Lennon M.J., Taggart D.A., Temple-Smith P.D. and Eldridge
M.D.B. (2011). The impact of isolation and bottlenecks on
genetic diversity in the Pearson Island population of the
Black-footed Rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis pearsoni;
Marsupialia: Macropodidae). Australian Mammalogy,
33(2), 152–161.
Levin K. and Petersen B. (2011). Tradeoffs in the policy
process in advancing climate change adaptation: the case
of Australia’s Great Eastern Ranges initiative. Journal of
Natural Resources Policy Research, 3(2), 145–162.
Mace G.M., Collen B., Fuller R.A., Boakes E.H., Mace G.M.,
Collen B., Fuller R.A. and Boakes E.H. (2010). Population
and geographic range dynamics: implications for conservation planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1558), 3743–3751.
McCarthy M.A. (2011). Breathing some air into the singlespecies vacuum: multi-species responses to environmental change. Journal of Animal Ecology, 80(1), 1–3.
McDonald-Madden E., Chadès I., McCarthy M.A., Linkie
M. and Possingham H.P. (2011). Allocating conservation
resources between areas where persistence of a species
is uncertain. Ecological Applications, 21(3), 844–858.
Hutchings J.A., Butchart S.H.M., Collen B., Schwartz M.K.
and Waples R.S. (2012). Red flags: correlates of impaired
species recovery. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27:
542–546.
Long K. and Nelson J. (2010). National recovery plan for
the Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. Department
of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Appendices
Pulsford I., Worboys G., Howling G. and Barrett T. (2012).
Great Eastern Ranges, Australia. In: Hilty J.A., Chester C.C.
and Cross M.S. (Eds), Climate and Conservation, 202–216.
Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.
Radford J., Haseler M., Gilmore S., Sanders A., Kerezsy
A., Tischler M. and Appleby M. (2012). Monitoring for
improved biodiversity outcomes in the private conservation estate: perspective from bush heritage Australia.
From Lindenmayer and Gibbons (Eds) Biodiversity
Monitoring in Australia, 111.
Ramp D. (2010). Roads as drivers of change for macropodids. Macropods: The Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies
and Rat-kangaroos, 279–291.
157
Appendices
Ranius T. and Roberge J.M. (2011). Effects of intensified
forestry on the landscape-scale extinction risk of dead
wood dependent species. Biodiversity and Conservation,
20(13), 2867–2882.
Regan H.M., Keith D.A., Regan T.J., Tozer M.G. and
Tootell N. (2011). Fire management to combat disease:
turning interactions between threats into conservation
management. Oecologia, 167(3), 873–882.
Taylor B.D. and Goldingay R.L. (2010). Roads and
wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife
management in Australia. Wildlife Research, 37(4), 320–
331.
Roger E., Laffan S.W. and Ramp D. (2011). Road impacts
a tipping point for wildlife populations in threatened
landscapes. Population Ecology, 53(1), 215–227.
Taylor M.F.J., Sattler P.S., Evans M., Fuller R.A., Watson
J.E.M. and Possingham H.P. (2011). What works for
threatened species recovery? An empirical evaluation for
Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(4), 767–777.
Russell T.C., Herbert C.A. and Kohen J.L. (2010). High
possum mortality on urban roads: implications for the
population viability of the Common Brushtail and the
Common Ringtail Possum. Australian Journal of Zoology,
57(6), 391–397.
Thomas C.D. (2012). First estimates of extinction risk
from climate change. In: Hannah (Eds), Saving a Million
Species, 11–27. Island Press, Washington
Tonkinson D. and G. Robertson. (2010). National recovery
plan for the Red Swainson-pea Swainsona plagiotropis.
Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE), Melbourne.
Salice C.J., Rowe C.L., Pechmann J.H.K. and Hopkins
W.A. (2011). Multiple stressors and complex life cycles:
insights from a population-level assessment of breeding
site contamination and terrestrial habitat loss in an
amphibian. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
30(12): 2874–2882.
Tonkinson D., Robertson G. (2010). National recovery
plan for the Yellow Swainson-pea, Swainsona Pyrophila.
Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne.
Scott J.M., Garton E.O., Dennis B., Horne J.S., Goble D.,
Strickler K.M., Kauffman M., Mills L.S. and Hartway C.
(2011). Linking conservation actions with population
viability models: reducing uncertainty to better predict
management effects on viability. DTIC Document.
Traill L. W., Brook B.W., Frankham R.R. and Bradshaw
C.J.A. (2010). Pragmatic population viability targets in a
rapidly changing world. Biological Conservation, 143(1),
28–34.
Seabrook L., McAlpine C., Baxter G., Rhodes J., Bradley A.
and Lunney D. (2011). Drought-driven change in wildlife
distribution and numbers: a case study of Koalas in south
west Queensland. Wildlife Research, 38(6), 509–524.
Tuomainen U. and Candolin U. (2011). behavioural
responses to human-induced environmental change.
Biological Reviews, 86(3), 640–657.
Shapcott A. and Powell M. (2011). Demographic structure,
genetic diversity and habitat distribution of the endangered, Australian rainforest tree Macadamia jansenii help
facilitate an introduction program. Australian Journal of
Botany, 59(3), 215–225.
Sharpe D.J. and Goldingay R.L. (2010). Population ecology
of the Nectar-feeding Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) in remnant forest in subtropical Australia. Wildlife
Research, 37(2), 77–88.
Sinclair S.J (2010). National recovery plan for the Largefruit Groundsel, Senecio macrocarpus. Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Swab R.M., Regan H.M., Keith D.A., Regan T.J. and Ooi
M.K.J. (2012). Niche models tell half the story: spatial
context and life-history traits influence species responses
to global change. Journal of Biogeography.
Szabo J.K., Butchart S.H.M., Possingham H.P. and Garnett
S.T. (2012). Adapting global biodiversity indicators to
the national scale: a red list index for Australian birds.
Biological Conservation, 148: 61–68.
Ujvari B., Shine R. and Madsen T. (2011). How well do
predators adjust to climate-mediated shifts in prey distribution? A study on Australian water pythons. Ecology,
92(3), 777–783.
Van de Pol M., Vindenes Y., Sæther B.E., Engen S., Ens
B.J., Oosterbeek K., Tinbergen J.M., et al. (2011). Poor
environmental tracking can make extinction risk insensitive to the colour of environmental noise. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1725),
3713–3722.
Van der Ree R., Cesarini S., Sunnucks P., Moore J.L.
and Taylor A. (2010). Large gaps in canopy reduce road
crossing by a gliding mammal. Ecology and Society, 15(4),
35.
Van Teeffelen A.J.A., Vos C.C. and Opdam P. (2012).
Species in a dynamic world: consequences of habitat
network dynamics on conservation planning. Biological
Walck J.L., Hidayati S.N., Dixon K.W., Thompson K.E.N. and
Poschlod P. (2011). Climate change and plant regeneration from seed. Global Change Biology, 17(6), 2145–2161.
158
Walsh J.C., Wilson K.A., Benshemesh J. and Possingham
H.P. (2012). Integrating research, monitoring and
management into an adaptive management framework
to achieve effective conservation outcomes. Animal
Appendices
Bradley M., House A., Robertson M. and Wild C. (2010).
Vegetation succession and recovery of ecological values
in the southern Queensland Brigalow belt. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 11(2), 113–118.
Bradshaw C.J.A. (2012). Little left to lose, deforestation
and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5(1), 109–120.
Watson J.E.M., Bottrill M.C., Walsh J.C., Joseph L.N. and
Possingham H.P. (2010). Evaluating threatened species
recovery planning in Australia. Prepared on Behalf of the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts by the Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
Bradstock R.A. (2010). A biogeographic model of fire
regimes in Australia: current and future implications.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(2), 145–158.
Bridle K. and Bonney L. (2010). Food for thought: biodiversity management on farms-links to demand-driven
value chains. Social Alternatives, 29(3), 31.
Wilson H.B., Kendall B.E. and Possingham H.P. (2011).
Variability in population abundance and the classification
of extinction risk. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 747–757.
Brown G.W. (2010). Tipping the scales: thoughts on
improving management for woodland reptiles. Temperate
Woodland Conservation and Management, pp 127–133
In: Lindenmayer, D., Bennett, A. and Hobbs, R. (Eds.)
Temperate woodland conservation and management,
CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC.
Yates C.J. and Ladd P.G. (2010a). Using population
viability analysis to predict the effect of fire on the
extinction risk of an endangered shrub Verticordia fimbrilepis subsp. fimbrilepis in a fragmented landscape. Plant
Ecology, 211(2), 305–319.
Young A.G., Broadhurst L.M. and Thrall P.H. (2012). Nonadditive effects of pollen limitation and self-incompatibility reduce plant reproductive success and population
viability. Annals of Botany, 109(3), 643–653.
Brown G.W., Dorrough J.W. and Ramsey D.S.L. (2011).
Landscape and local influences on patterns of reptile
occurrence in grazed temperate woodlands of southern
Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning , 103: 277–288.
Carter J.O., Bruget D., Henry B., Hassett R., Stone G.,
Day K., Flood N. and McKeon G. (2010). Modeling
vegetation, carbon and nutrient dynamics in the savanna
woodlands of Australia with the AussieGRASS model. In:
Hill and Hanan (Eds), Ecosystem Function in Savannas:
Measurement and Modeling at Landscape to Global Scales,
CRC Press.
Total native woody vegetation cover
Apan A., Baral G., Dunwoody E., Richardson L. and
McDougall K. (2011). Evaluation of photo imaging
methods for vegetation condition assessment. In:
Proceedings of the (2011) Surveying and Spatial Sciences
Conference: Innovation in Action: Working Smarter (SSSC
2011), 243–258. Available at <http://eprints.usq.edu.
au/21053>.
Catford J.A., Downes B.J., Gippel C.J. and Vesk P.A. (2011).
Flow regulation reduces native plant cover and facilitates
exotic invasion in riparian wetlands. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 48(2), 432–442.
Archibald R.D., Craig M.D., Bialkowski K., Howe C.,
Burgess T.I. and Hardy G.E.St.J. (2011). Managing small
remnants of native forest to increase biodiversity within
plantation landscapes in the south west of Western
Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(7), 1254–
1264. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.01.004.
Collard, S.J., Le Brocque A.F. and Zammit C. (2011).
Effects of local-scale management on herbaceous plant
communities in Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) agroecosystems of southern Queensland, Australia. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 142(3), 176–183.
Bailey T.G. (2012). Eucalypt regeneration and ecological
restoration of remnant woodlands in Tasmania, Australia.
University of Tasmania, Hobart. Available at <http://
eprints.utas.edu.au/14728/2/Bailey_front.pdf>.
Baker A.C. and Murray B.R. (2012). Seasonal intrusion of
litterfall from non-native pine plantations into surrounding
native woodland: implications for management of
an invasive plantation species. Forest Ecology and
Management, 277, 25–37.
Allan C., Jakeman A., McKee J. and Lefroy T. (2012).
Landscape logic: integrating science for landscape
management. CSIRO Publishing.
Dalal R.C., Cowie B.A., Allen D.E. and Yo S.A. (2011).
Assessing carbon lability of particulate organic matter from
�13C changes following land-use change from C3 native
vegetation to C4 pasture. Soil Research, 49(1), 98–103.
Nisha B., Lechner A., Fletcher A., Erskine P., Mulligan
D. and Bai Z. (2012). Spotting long-term changes in
vegetation over short-term variability. International Journal
of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1–23.
Danaher T., Scarth P., Armston J., Collett L., Kitchen
J., Gillingham S., Hill M. and Hanan N. (2010). Remote
sensing of tree-grass systems—the eastern Australian
woodlands. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Becerra P.I. and Montenegro G. (2012). The widely
invasive tree Pinus radiata facilitates regeneration of
native woody species in a semi-arid ecosystem. Applied
Vegetation Science 16(2): 173–183.
Daryanto S. and Eldridge D.J. (2010). Plant and soil
surface responses to a combination of shrub removal
and grazing in a shrub-encroached woodland. Journal of
159
Appendices
Davis N.E., Forsyth D.M. and Coulson G. (2010).
Facilitative interactions between an exotic mammal and
native and exotic plants: Hog Deer (Axis porcinus) as seed
dispersers in south-eastern Australia. Biological Invasions,
12(5), 1079–1092.
Geddes L.S., Lunt I.D., Smallbone L.T. and Morgan J.W.
(2011). Old field colonization by native trees and shrubs
following land use change: could this be Victoria’s largest
example of landscape recovery? Ecological Management &
Restoration, 12(1), 31–36.
Deo R.C. (2011). Links between native forest and climate
in Australia. Weather, 66(3), 64–69.
Gollan J.R., Reid C.A.M., Barnes P.B. and Wilkie L. (2011).
The ratio of exotic-to-native dung beetles can indicate
habitat quality in riparian restoration. Insect Conservation
and Diversity, 4(2), 123–131.
Dillon M., McNellie M. and Oliver I. (2011). Assessing
the extent and condition of native vegetation in NSW.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program, Technical
report series, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.
Available at <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soc/
socTechReports.htm>.
Doody T.M., Nagler P.L., Glenn E.P., Moore G.W., Morino K.,
Hultine K.R. and Benyon R.G. (2011). Potential for water
salvage by removal of non-native woody vegetation from
dryland river systems. Hydrological Processes,25(26):
4117–4131.
Dorrough J., McIntyre S., Brown G., Stol J., Barrett G. and
Brown A. (2012). Differential responses of plants, reptiles
and birds to grazing management, fertilizer and tree
clearing. Austral Ecology, 37(5): 569–582.
Good M.K., Price J.N., Clarke P.J. and Reid N. (2012).
Dense regeneration of floodplain Eucalyptus coolabah:
invasive scrub or passive restoration of an endangered
woodland community? The Rangeland Journal, 34(2),
219–230.
Good M.K., Price J.N., Clarke P. and Reid N. (2011).
Densely regenerating Coolibah (Eucalyptus coolabah)
woodlands are more species-rich than surrounding
derived grasslands in floodplains of eastern Australia.
Australian Journal of Botany, 59(5), 468–479.
Greet J., Cousens R.D. and Webb J.A. (2012). More exotic
and fewer native plant species: riverine vegetation
patterns associated with altered seasonal flow patterns.
River Research and Applications, 29(6):686–706.
Duncan D.H., Kyle G. and Race D. (2010). Combining
facilitated dialogue and spatial data analysis to compile
landscape history. Environmental Conservation, 37(4),
432–441.
Harris C.J., Leishman M.R., Fryirs K. and Kyle G. (2011).
How does restoration of native canopy affect understory
vegetation composition? Evidence from riparian communities of the Hunter Valley Australia. Restoration Ecology,
20(5): 584–592.
Dwyer J.M., Fensham R.J. and Buckley Y.M. (2010).
Agricultural legacy, climate and soil influence the
restoration and carbon potential of woody regrowth in
Australia. Ecological Applications, 20(7), 1838–1850.
Hsu T., French K. and Major R. (2010). Avian assemblages
in eucalypt forests, plantations and pastures in Northern
NSW, Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 260(6),
1036–1046.
Farmer E.K., Reinke J. and Jones S.D. (2011). A current
perspective on australian woody vegetation maps and
implications for small remnant patches. Journal of Spatial
Science, 56(2), 223–240.
Kelly A.L., Franks A.J. and Eyre T.J. (2011). Assessing The
Assessors: Quantifying Observer Variation In Vegetation
And Habitat Assessment. Ecological Management &
Restoration, 12(2), 144–148.
Fensham R.J., Dwyer J.M., Eyre T.J., Fairfax R.J. and Wang
J. (2011). The effect of clearing on plant composition
in Mulga (Acacia aneura) dry forest, Australia. Austral
Ecology, 37(2), 183–192.
Kutt A. S. and Martin T.G. (2010). Bird foraging height
predicts bird species response to woody vegetation
change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(8), 2247–2262.
Fensham R.J., Fairfax R.J. and Dwyer J.M. (2012). Potential
aboveground biomass in drought-prone forest used for
rangeland pastoralism. Ecological Applications, 22(3),
894–908.
Kyle G. and Duncan D.H. (2012). Arresting the rate of land
clearing: change in woody native vegetation cover in a
changing agricultural landscape. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 106. 165–173.
Fensham R.J., Powell O. and Horne J. (2011). Rail survey
plans to remote sensing: vegetation change in the Mulga
lands of eastern Australia and Its Implications for land
use. The Rangeland Journal, 33(3), 229–238.
Garden J.G., McAlpine C.A. and Possingham H.P. (2010).
Multi-scaled habitat considerations for conserving
urban biodiversity: native reptiles and small mammals in
Brisbane, Australia. Landscape Ecology, 25(7), 1013–1028.
Law R. and Garnett S.T. (2011). Mapping carbon in
tropical Australia: estimates of carbon stocks and
fluxes in the Northern Territory using the National
Carbon Accounting Toolbox. Ecological Management &
Restoration, 12(1), 61–68.
Lehmann E.A., Wallace J.F., Caccetta P.A., Furby S.L. and
Zdunic K. (2012). Forest cover trends from time series
Landsat data for the Australian continent. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation,
article/pii/S030324341200133X>.
160
Lentini P.E., Fischer J., Gibbons P., Hanspach J. and Martin
T.G. (2011). Value of large-scale linear networks for bird
conservation: a case study from travelling stock routes,
Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 141(3),
302–309.
Lesslie R., Thackway R. and Smith J. (2010). A nationallevel vegetation assets, states and transitions (VAST)
dataset for Australia (version 2.0). Bureau of Rural
Sciences, Canberra.
Lewis T. and Debuse V.J. (2012). Resilience of a eucalypt
forest woody understorey to long-term (34–55 years)
repeated burning in subtropical Australia. International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(8): 980–991.
Lucas R., Armston J., Fairfax R., Fensham R., Accad A.,
Carreiras J., Kelley J., et al. (2010). An evaluation of the
alos palsar l-band backscatter—above ground biomass
relationship Queensland, Australia: impacts of surface
moisture condition and vegetation structure. IEEE Journal
of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and
Remote Sensing, 3(4), 576–593.
Lunt I.D., Winsemius L.M., McDonald S.P., Morgan J.W.
and Dehaan R.L. (2010). How widespread is woody
plant encroachment in temperate Australia? Changes in
woody vegetation cover in lowland woodland and coastal
ecosystems in Victoria from 1989 to 2005. Journal of
Biogeography, 37(4), 722–732.
Macintosh A. (2012). The Australia clause and REDD: a
cautionary tale. Climatic Change, 112(2), 169–188.
Mandle L., Bufford J.L., Schmidt I.B. and Daehler C.C.
(2011). Woody exotic plant invasions and fire: reciprocal impacts and consequences for native ecosystems.
Biological Invasions, 13(8), 1815–1827.
Maron M., Bowen M., Fuller R.A., Smith G.C., Eyre T.J.,
Mathieson M., Watson J.E.M. and McAlpine C.A. (2011).
Spurious thresholds in the relationship between species
richness and vegetation cover. Global Ecology and
McAlpine C.A., Bowen M.E. and Rhodes J.R. (2010).
Landscape and regional perspectives from eastern
Australia. Temperate Woodland Conservation and
Management, pp 231–240 in D. Lindenmayer, A. Bennett,
and R. Hobbs, editors. Temperate Woodland Conservation
and Management. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Australia.
Michael D.R., Cunningham R.B. and Lindenmayer D.B.
(2011). Regrowth and revegetation in temperate Australia
presents a conservation challenge for reptile fauna in
agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation, 144(1),
407–415.
Miller G., Friedel M., Adam P. and Chewings V. (2010).
Ecological impacts of Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.)
invasion in Central Australia–does field evidence support
a fire-invasion feedback? The Rangeland Journal, 32(4),
353–365.
Appendices
Moore G.W. and Heilman J.L. (2011). Proposed principles
governing how vegetation changes affect transpiration.
Ecohydrology, 4(3), 351–358. doi:10.1002/eco.232.
Mortenson S.G. and Weisberg P.J. (2010). Does river
regulation increase the dominance of invasive woody
species in riparian landscapes? Global Ecology and
Muñoz-Robles C., Reid N., Frazier P., Tighe M., Briggs S.V.
and Wilson B. (2010). Factors related to gully erosion in
woody encroachment in south-eastern Australia. Catena,
83(2), 148–157.
Muñoz-Robles C., Reid N., Tighe M., Briggs S.V. and Wilson
B. (2011a). Soil hydrological and erosional responses in
areas of woody encroachment, pasture and woodland in
semi-arid Australia. Journal of Arid Environments, 75(10),
936–945.
Muñoz-Robles C., Reid N., Tighe M., Briggs S.V. and Wilson
B. (2011b). Soil hydrological and erosional responses in
patches and inter-patches in vegetation states in semiarid Australia. Geoderma, 160(3), 524–534.
Muñoz-Robles A C. (2010). Hydrological and erosional
responses in woody plant encroachment areas of semiarid south–eastern Australia. In: Proceedings of the
19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for
a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 August 2010,
85–88.
Munro N.T., Fischer J., Barrett G., Wood J., Leavesley A.
and Lindenmayer D.B. (2011). Bird’s response to revegetation of different structure and floristics—are ‘restoration plantings’ restoring bird communities? Restoration
Ecology, 19(201), 223–235.
Ngugi M.R., Johnson R.W. and W.J.F. McDonald. (2011).
Restoration of ecosystems for biodiversity and carbon
sequestration: simulating growth dynamics of Brigalow
vegetation communities in Australia. Ecological Modelling,
222(3), 785–794.
Osunkoya Olusegun O., Bayliss D., Panetta F.D. and
Vivian-Smith G. (2010). Leaf trait co-ordination in
relation to construction cost, carbon gain and resourceuse efficiency in exotic invasive and native woody vine
species. Annals of Botany, 106(2)(August 1), 371–380.
doi:10.1093/aob/mcq119.
Pickup M., Wilson S., Freudenberger D., Nicholls N., Gould
L., Hnatiuk S. and Delandre J. (2012). Post-fire recovery
of revegetated woodland communities in south-eastern
Australia. Austral Ecology, 38(3): 300–312.
Priday S.D. (2010). Beyond The ‘woody remnant’paradigm
in conservation of woodland birds: habitat requirements
of the Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata).
Emu, 110(2), 118–124.
Ravi S., Breshears D.D., Huxman T.E. and D’Odorico P.
(2010). Land degradation in drylands: interactions among
hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics.
Geomorphology, 116(3), 236–245.
161
Appendices
Reynolds L.V. and Cooper D.J. (2011). Ecosystem
response to removal of exotic riparian shrubs and a
transition to upland vegetation. Plant Ecology, 212(8),
1243–1261.
Van Soest J., Lockhart C., Smith J. and Fuller S. (2011).
Importance of soil ecology in vegetation rehabilitation on
a North Stradbroke Island sand mine. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of Queensland, 117,391–404.
Ross K.A., Lunt I.D., Bradstock R.A., Bedward M. and Ellis
M.V. (2012). Did historical tree removal promote woody
plant encroachment in Australian woodlands? Journal of
Vegetation Science, 23(2):304–312.
Webb N., Stokes C. and Scanlan J. (2012). Interacting
effects of vegetation, soils and management on the sensitivity of Australian savanna rangelands to climate change.
Climatic Change, 112(3), 925–943. doi:10.1007/s10584–
011–0236–0.
Schultz N.L., Morgan J.W. and Lunt I.D. (2011). Effects
of grazing exclusion on plant species richness and
phytomass accumulation vary across a regional productivity gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(1),
130–142.
Weinberg A., Gibbons P., Briggs S.V. and Bonser S.P.
(2011). The extent and pattern of Eucalyptus regeneration
in an agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation,
144(1)(January), 227–233.
Sharp E.A., Spooner P.G., Millar J. and Briggs S.V. (2011).
Can’t see the grass for the trees? Community values and
perceptions of tree and shrub encroachment in southeastern Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 140.
260–269.
Yapp G., Walker J. and Thackway R. (2010). Linking
vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and
services. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 292–301.
Yunusa I.A.M., Zolfaghar S., Zeppel M.J.B., Li Z., Palmer A.R.
and Eamus D. (2012). Fine root biomass and its relationship
to evapotranspiration in woody and grassy vegetation covers
for ecological restoration of waste storage and mining
landscapes. Ecosystems, 15(1): 113–127.
Sherren K., Fischer J., Clayton H., Schirmer J. and Dovers
S. (2010). Integration by case, place and process:
transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the
Lachlan River Catchment, Australia. Landscape Ecology,
25(8), 1219–1230.
Zerger A., Mcintyre S., Gobbett D. and Stol J. (2011).
Remote detection of grassland nutrient status for
assessing ground layer vegetation condition and restoration potential of Eucalypt grassy woodlands. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 102(4), 226–233.
Skaer M.J., Graydon D.J. and Cushman J. (2012).
Community-level consequences of cattle grazing for
an invaded grassland: variable responses of native and
exotic vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science, 24(2):
332–343.
Waterways – connected
Blanch, S. et al (2010). Conservation of aquatic
ecosystems. In: Likens (Eds), Lake Ecosystem Ecology: A
Global Perspective, Elsevier, San Diego.
Smith F.P., Prober S.M., House A.P.N. and McIntyre S.
(2012). Maximizing retention of native biodiversity in
Australian agricultural landscapes—the 10: 20: 40: 30
Guidelines. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
article/pii/S0167880912000291>.
Kinal J. and Stoneman G.L. (2012). Disconnection of
groundwater from surface water causes a fundamental
change in hydrology in a forested catchment in southwestern Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 472–473, 14–24.
Smith R. (2010). Biodiversity and ecosystem services
associated with remnant native vegetation in an agricultural floodplain landscape. PhD Thesis, University of New
England.
Thackway R., Wilson P., Hnatiuk R., Bordas V. and Dawson
S. (2010). Establishing an interim national baseline 2004 to
assess change in native vegetation extent. Bureau of Rural
Sciences.
Thomson J.R., Bond N.R., Cunningham S.C., Metzeling L.,
Reich P., Thompson R.M. and Mac Nally R. (2012). The
influences of climatic variation and vegetation on stream
biota: lessons from the Big Dry in southeastern Australia.
Global Change Biology, 18, 1582–1596.
Lamontagne S., Taylor A.R., Cook P.G., Gardner W.P. and
O’Rourke M. (2011). Interconnection of surface and groundwater systems–river losses from losing/disconnected
streams. Border Rivers Site Report. CSIRO, Adelaide.
McGinness H.M., Arthur A.D., Davies M. and McIntyre
S. (2012). Floodplain woodland structure and condition:
The relative influence of flood history and surrounding
irrigation land use intensity in contrasting regions of a
dryland river. Ecohydrology, 6(2):201–213.
Romanowski, N. (2010). Wetland habitats: A practical
guide to restoration and management. CSIRO Publishing.
Steinfeld, C.M.M. and Kingsford R.T. (2011). Disconnecting
the floodplain: Earthworks and their ecological effect on a
dryland floodplain in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia.
River Research and Applications,. 29(2): 206–218.
Thomson L.J. and Hoffmann A.A. (2010). Natural
enemy responses and pest control: importance of local
vegetation. Biological Control, 52(2), 160–166.
Tighe M., Muñoz-Robles C., Reid N., Wilson B. and Briggs S.V.
(2012). Hydrological thresholds of soil surface properties
identified using conditional inference tree analysis. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 37. 620–632
Timms W.A., Young R.R. and Huth N. (2012). Implications
of deep drainage through saline clay for groundwater
recharge and sustainable cropping in a semi-arid catchment,
Australia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(4), 1203.
162
Lower reach of
the Namoi River
% remaining of
pre-European
woody vegetation
cover
Total woody
vegetation cover
Floodplain
wetlands
Description
Asset
Sub-regions
regional veg
classes impacts
on ecological
communities
(check scale
of applicability
of threshold)
– analysis may
need to occur
at sub-regional
scale
Focal scale


Trend in condition
Area is
decreasing,
condition is
decreasing
SLATS data
will give rate of
change of veg
cover over last
10 years – 25%
woody veg cover
currently
Notes on trend
Flooding regimes,
condition of river
system (channel
incision),
inappropriate
water allocations,
weed invasion,
structure change
of wetland
vegetation, length
of time between
waterings,
grazing, cropping,
climate change
utility clearing,
mining and
development,
agricultural
practice,
disturbance
events, (fire/
flood/drought),
approved
clearing, natural
attrition, illegal
clearing, climate
change
Drivers and
threats
Namoi Wetland
Study has
information
on wetting
frequency,
significance of
wetlands etc.
Changed wetting
and drying
regimes
species-area
curve, soil loss
equation, tree
regen./decline
models, dieback
Conceptual
model
Controlling
variables
Biodiversity loss,
how much cover
of floodplain
wetlands can
we lose without
crippling
biodiversity
loss. Adequate
flooding regime
to maintain
structure and
function - geomorphology
threshold –
means that water
can no longer
be delivered
to wetlands.
Weed threshold?
Salinity
threshold?
Rainfall/water
delivery/water
management
(groundwater)
Possible
% woody native
threshold
vegetation cover
– biodiversity
loss accelerates
around 30% and
plummets at 70%
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
linkages to
species diversity,
riparian health,
water quality,
connectivity in
system,
linked back
to riparian
condition, linked
to declining
species,
ecosystem
diversity,
connectivity,
water quality
and quantity,
hydrological
equilibrium
Appendix E: Biodiversity – results from 2010 expert workshops
Biodiversity loss,
land degradation
– erosion, salinity,
degrading water
quality, climate
change, change in
rainfall patterns,
declining
productivity
of existing
agricultural
systems,
scenic amenity,
ecosystem
services – seed,
honey, timber
etc declining, air
quality declines
Impacts of
continued trend
163
Appendices
164
% intact of
swamps, bogs,
wetlands and
less connected
systems
Waterways
specific to asset
type and each
asset in some
cases
% intact (need
Poor?
better term) of
ecosystems that
are dependent on
groundwater
cliffs, rocky
outcrops, caves,
karst, springs
Sensitive nonbiotic habitat
elements
To be resolved
Focal scale
GDEs
declining or high
risk
Description
Species
populations
Asset
Poor



Trend in condition
Notes on trend
draining and
grazing
groundwater
extraction,
changed
recharge (rainfall
and flooding
changes),
contamination
– salinisation
grazing,
mining, urban
development,
stream
pollution, visitor
disturbance
Drivers and
threats
Charles Sturt Uni
grazing/wetland
stuff, MER Theme
team for wetlands
– conceptual
models
work up a draft
vague possibly
quite wrong and
inappropriate
model
Conceptual
model
draining (may be
an irreversible
threshold),
cropping
(irreversible),
% structural
decline?
water level
thresholds
– terrestrial
veg – below
30 m forget
it, salinisation
thresholds,
toxicity
thresholds
grazing
thresholds, %
remaining cover
around bat
habitat cave,
social thresholds
around visitation
intensity
Threshold
– known or
suspected
drained, cropped,
grazing regime
water availability
humidity and
temperature in
cave (bats), each
type (and each
one) will have
its own specific
controlling
variable
Controlling
variables
Impacts of
continued trend
connected to
rising/lowering
water tables, loss
of large areas
of vegetation,
connected to
salinity
loss of GDEs and
native vegetation
(if proportions are
as high as report
states)
bat habitat caves loss of species
need water in
some cases
– linked back to
water availability,
habitat and veg
cover linkages,
structural
changes because
of land use
e.g. stalactite
reduction due
to change
temperature
regimes (calcium
reduction rather
than deposition)
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
Local Landscape
Connectivity
Ecosystem
diversity
Asset
Connectivity
provided by small
remants and
paddock trees on
private land
77 Regional
Vegetation
Classes
Description
Mid and lower
catchment
excluding
rangelands
Focal scale
Notes on trend
Declining –
estimates for
rate of tree
decline range
from 1–5% per
annum. Impact is
biased towards
vegetation types
that occur on
productive soil
types/arable
country
16 endangered total extent, %
over 50% critically on reserve, % on
endangered at private land,
the catchment
scale –
Trend in condition
Conceptual
model
165
Mortality of
existing trees
(compaction,
increased
nutrients,
defoliation,
clearing,
damage by
stock, cropping
practices). Lack
of regen (grazing,
cultivation)
State and
transition model
of tree decline
that incorporates
loss of existing
trees and lack
of recruitment
from regen. This
needs to be put
in context of
landscape cover/
connectivity
Utility clearing,
as above
mining and
development,
agricultural
practice,
disturbance
events, (fire/
flood/drought),
approved
clearing, natural
attrition, illegal
clearing, climate
change, grazing
and cropping
of non-woody
classes, invasive
perennial species,
inappropriate
fire regimes,
controlled traffic,
loss of paddock
trees, changes
to public land
management
Drivers and
threats
as above
Controlling
variables
Connectivity
Recruitment. Tree
thresholds (could mortality
be species
specific e.g.
Squirrel gliders
isolated by >50
m gaps between
trees) or other
focal groups (e.g.
decliner species
or woodlanddependent
species).
Tree mortality
thresholds.
Policy thresholds
(i.e. regrowth
becoming native
vegetation after
10 years??)
as above
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Links to
threatened and
declining species.
Landscape theme
and implications/
impacts from
cropping
practices. Links
to waterways
and riparian
health in terms
of connectivity
along water ways
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Biodiversity loss,
land degradation
– erosion, salinity,
degrading water
quality, climate
change, change in
rainfall patterns,
declining
productivity
of existing
agricultural
systems,
scenic amenity,
ecosystem
services – seed,
honey, timber
etc declining, air
quality declines
Impacts of
continued trend
Appendices
Description
including
wilderness, NP,
reserves, areas
managed for
conservation
% intact rivers
and streams
and connected
wetlands, lakes
Asset
Large areas
of conserved
habitat
Waterways
Focal scale
Poor 
Insufficient
Trend in condition
Look at area of
reserves from
1990 – 2010
Notes on trend
declining
water quality,
species loss,
loss of aquatic
habitat, impacts
on lifestyle,
recreation,
access to
drinking water,
increased cost
to filter water,
breakdown of
biodiversity
function at the
wider scale,
economic
impacts of
reduced
freshwater
availability, failure
of infrastructure,
changed wetting
and drying
regimes
Drivers and
threats
climate change,
water regulation,
grazing,
vegetation
removal, weeds,
introduced
fish species,
intensification
of agriculture
and urban
development,
Conceptual
model
NOW looking
at vulnerability
and fragility
thresholds
based on
geomorphology
and water quality
indicators.
Thresholds in
wetting and
drying regimes?
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Controlling
variables
vegetation
extent, regional
connectivity, local
connectivity,
ecosystem
diversity, species
diversity, riparian
health
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Impacts of
continued trend
166
Appendices
Description
Intact native
vegetation
communities
condition and
arrangement
of vegetation,
habitat
Catchment-scale How connectivity
Connectivity
occurs across the
catchment and
into other regions
Asset
Focal scale
varying states
ranging from
good to very
poor 
poor and
declining
Trend in condition
Notes on trend
loss of veg and
loss of species,
secondary
extinctions,
generational
recruitment
Regional and
catchment level
connectivity is
not considered at
site scales
Drivers and
threats
relictual,
fragmented,
structure, species
richness, cover,
weediness,
growth stage
(condition score)
Conceptual
model
noisy minor
threshold,
grazing threshold
– regeneration,
increased
weediness –
moderate or high
being appropriate
for investment
– factors
contributing to
poor condition
are therefore a
threshold.
Threshold
– known or
suspected
fragmentation,
patch size,
condition score,
frequency and
intensity of
grazing/cropping,
nutrient cycle
status
Controlling
variables
local connectivity,
landscape
connectivity,
species diversity,
ecosystem
diversity, riparian
health
riparian
condition, large
conservation
reserves,
vegetation extent,
ecosystem
diversity, species
diversity,
landscape
function,
sensitive nonbiotic habitats,
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Impacts of
continued trend
167
Appendices
Description
Liverpool plain red and brown
kandosols,
red earths
chomosols and
demosols,
Asset/
attribute
grazing, mining
Versatility in
uses
LMU
Focal scale
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
Current state
stable in
relation to
sheet erosion.
Declining in
organic carbon
and structural
decline
Trend in
condition
erosion trend
has stopped
due to
changed land
management
practice – land
has returned to
grazing rather
than cropping
as it proved
less productive
than black soils.
Shift in land
management
occurred in the
1960s
historical sheet
erosion –
significant loss
of soil function
– considerable
deterioration
against
reference
condition.
Highest current
pressure is
organic carbon
and structural
decline. A
lot of area
grazed beyond
its current
capability
Notes on trend Drivers and
threats
more stuff
being removed
from the
landscape
than returning,
carbon not
being returned
back into the
soil, cropping
and grazing
– plants not
established
enough to put
carbon back
in. Structural
decline from
over tillage,
compaction
from heavy
grazing.
Conceptual
models
available for
each of these
Conceptual
model
Controlling
variables
Soil compaction perennial cover
thresholds
in red earths
– no water
infiltration, no
opportunity for
plant growth.
Topsoil loss
threshold
– once topsoil
gone so are
most of the
seeds, eggs,
spores etc
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Appendix F: Land – results from 2010 expert workshops
links back
to run-off
variables,
surface water
quality and
quantity,
biodiversity,
channel
incision, soil
permeability
and recharge of
aquifers
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
168
Appendices
red chromosols cropping and
grazing
Duri Hills
Versatility in
uses
Description
Asset/
attribute
LMU
Focal scale
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
Current state
stable
Trend in
condition
sheet erosion –
significant loss
of soil function
– considerable
deterioration
against
reference
condition
threats
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for sheet
erosion
Conceptual
model
bulk density
thresholds
depend on
texture but
1.4 t/m3 is
considered
an average
value that is
acceptable.
ESP <3% no
limitation
associate with
sodicity. ESP
3 to 8% under
raindrop impact
sodicity begins
to affect plant
growth and
management.
ESP 8 to 15%
under raindrop
impact sodicity
moderate
to severe
limitations. ESP
>15% under
raindrop impact
sodicity severe
limitations.
SOC <0.6% soil
carbon levels
sufficiently low
to affect soil
structure
Threshold
– known or
suspected
% groundcover/
rainfall/run-off
– amount and
velocity
Controlling
variables
Links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
169
Appendices
self-mulching
black vertosols
cropping
crusty grey and cropping
brown vertosols
Cryon Plain
Liverpool
Black Plains
brown and grey Cropping
vertosols
Doreen Plain
Versatility in
uses
Description
Asset/
attribute
LMU
LMU
LMU
Focal scale
170
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
Current state
Up
Up
Up
Trend in
condition
soil condition Soil Salinity
is improving
– low levels of
confidence in
trend data
soil condition wind erosion
is improving
– low levels of
confidence in
trend data
soil condition wind erosion
is improving
– low levels of
confidence in
trend data
threats
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for soil
salinity
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for sheet
erosion
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for wind
erosion
Conceptual
model
ECe in soil:
<2 dS/m nonsaline
2–4 dS/m
slightly saline
4–8 dS/m
moderately
saline
8–16 dS/m
very saline
>16 dS/m
highly saline
70%
groundcover –
can be difficult
to maintain in
drought. soil
particles <0.9
mm can be
moved by wind
70%
groundcover –
can be difficult
to maintain in
drought. soil
particles <0.9
mm can be
moved by wind
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Rainfall/soil
moisture/
links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
% groundcover/ links to
wind
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
% groundcover/ links to
wind
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Controlling
variables
Appendices
brown vertosols grazing and
and brown
cropping
chomosols
Burbugate
alluvials/
central
mixed soil
floodplains
cropping
black vertosols
Liverpool
Black
Footslopes
Versatility in
uses
Description
Asset/
attribute
LMU
LMU
Focal scale
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
Current state
Up
Up
Trend in
condition
soil condition organic carbon
is improving decline
– low levels of
confidence in
trend data
soil condition Sheet erosion
is improving
– low levels of
confidence in
trend data
threats
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for
organic carbon
decline
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for sheet
erosion
Conceptual
model
% groundcover/
rainfall/run-off
– amount and
velocity
Controlling
variables
OC < 0.6%
biomass, %
beginning
groundcover, %
to limit the
soil carbon
functions of
soil – aggregate
stability,
buffering
capacity, CEC
etc. OC > 3.0%
soils have
increasing
aggregate
stability, higher
buffering
capacity, higher
CEC and higher
water holding
capacity. OC
> 8.7% soils
becoming peat
70%
groundcover.
rainfall intensity
exceeds soil
infiltration.
rainfall amount
exceeds
soil storage
capacity
Threshold
– known or
suspected
links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
171
Appendices
Focal scale
LMU
Woodlands and LMU
grazing
Versatility in
uses
tenosols,
grazing and
chromosols and cropping
sodosols
sodosols
Pilliga
outwash
Maules Creek
valley floor
Description
Asset/
attribute
fair – Noticeable
loss of soil
function,
noticeable
deterioration
against soil
reference
condition
fair – Noticeable
loss of soil
function,
noticeable
deterioration
against soil
reference
condition
Current state
stable
stable
Trend in
condition
soil condition sheet erosion
remains steady
Soil condition soil structural
remains steady decline
threats
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in NSW
2008 program
Conceptual
model for sheet
erosion
See Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for sheet
erosion
Conceptual
model
Controlling
variables
172
70%
groundcover.
rainfall intensity
exceeds soil
infiltration.
rainfall amount
exceeds
soil storage
capacity
% groundcover/
rainfall/run-off
– amount and
velocity
bulk density
biomass, %
thresholds
groundcover, %
depend on
soil carbon
texture but
1.4 t/m3 is
considered
an average
value that is
acceptable.
ESP <3% no
limitation
associate with
sodicity. ESP
3 to 8% under
raindrop impact
sodicity begins
to affect plant
growth and
management.
ESP 8 to 15%
under raindrop
impact sodicity
moderate
to severe
limitations. ESP
>15% under
raindrop impact
sodicity severe
limitations.
SOC <0.6% soil
carbon levels
sufficiently low
to affect soil
structure
Threshold
– known or
suspected
links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
brown
grazing and
chromosols and cropping
Yellow sodosols
Come-byChance Plain
Versatility in
uses
Description
Asset/
attribute
LMU
Focal scale
good – slight
loss of soil
function,
noticeable for
not significant
deterioration
against
reference
condition
Current state
stable
Trend in
condition
fair
organic carbon
– soil condition decline, soil
remains steady structural
decline
threats
see Monitoring,
Evaluation and
Reporting of
Soil Condition
in New South
Wales
2008 program
Conceptual
model for
organic carbon
decline and
soil structural
decline
Conceptual
model
Controlling
variables
OC < 0.6% bebiomass, %
ginning to limit
groundcover, %
the functions of soil carbon
soil – aggregate
stability, buffering capacity,
CEC etc. OC
> 3.0% soils
have increasing
aggregate
stability, higher
buffering capacity, higher CEC
and higher water
holding capacity.
OC > 8.7% soils
becoming peat.
bulk density
thresholds
depend on
texture but 1.4 t/
m3 is considered
an average
value that is
acceptable. ESP
<3% no limitation
associate with
sodicity. ESP
3 to 8% under
raindrop impact
sodicity begins
to affect plant
growth and
management.
ESP 8 to 15%
under raindrop
impact sodicity
moderate to
severe limitations. ESP >15%
under raindrop
impact sodicity
severe limitations. SOC <0.6%
soil carbon levels
sufficiently low
to affect soil
structure
Threshold
– known or
suspected
links to
biodiversity/
vegetation, soil
quality, quantity,
economic
and social
implications
of reduced
productivity
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
173
Appendices
Description
LMUs/Soil
Monitoring
Units
Asset/
attribute
Other soils
general
Focal scale
variable but
LMU
generally poorer
versatility as
soil moisture
holding capacity
and depth
decreases
Versatility in
uses
poor
Current state
�
Trend in
condition
wetting and
drying cycles
changing, land
use, invasive
species
increasing
threats
????
Conceptual
model
Controlling
variables
soils
perennial cover,
compaction
rainfall
thresholds
in red earths
– no water
infiltration and
no opportunity
for plant
growth. Top soil
loss thresholds
– once topsoil
gone so are
most of the
seeds, eggs,
spores etc
and limited
opportunity
to track back
down path of
degradation
Threshold
– known or
suspected
profitability/
productivity,
biodiversity
– soil and
soil biota,
groundcover,
veg structure,
changes in
hydrology,
aquatic
ecosystem instream stuff,
water quality,
quantity,
recharge of
aquifers, runoff intensity
and frequency,
salinisation
of waterways,
nutrients off
site as inputs
increase,
threatened
species
linked to soil
types, weeds
associated with
particular soil
types/areas,
GDE linkages
to soil types,
damage to
infrastructure,
profitability
impacts on
capacity to
manage for
sustainability
and innovate,
educate etc.
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
174
Appendices
Description
sandstone and
metamorphic
rock outcrops
eastern edge
and central
parts of the
catchment
– rudosols,
chromosols,
vertosols and
kandosols. Land
slope above
15%
mid-slope land
8–15% fringing
the footslopes,
black, grey,
red and brown
vertosols, redbrown and gla,
dermosols,
red-brown and
yellow kurosols,
chromosols,
ferrosols,
sodosols
gentler
slopes 2–8%.
Kandosols,
chromosols,
sodosols,
dermosols
Asset/
attribute
Steep
Sedimentary
Hills
Sedimentary
Hill slopes
Sedimentary
footslopes
Focal scale
175
grazing on
native or
improved
pastures
– areas of
cropping being
converted back
to grazing
soils good
enough to
support
improved
pastures and
grazing
LMU
native forest,
LMU
grazing limited
by steepness of
slopes and lack
of water
Versatility in
uses
shallow water
tables, salinity
levels vary, soils
can be relatively
shallow with
low to moderate
fertility, low to
moderate water
holding capacity,
reasonable
infiltration and
can set hard
and be prone to
wind erosion,
Soils are highly
erodible and
easily degraded.
Run-off can be
high when soils
are degraded
soils are highly
erodible,
high water
infiltration, low
to moderate
water holding
capacity, low
to moderate
fertility
shallow soils,
low water
holding
capacity, low
fertility, erosion
wide spread,
salinity present
in some areas
Current state
gully erosion,
acidity,
sodicity and
biodiversity
loss.
possible
downwards,
look at going
back to Rob
Banks data to
establish
Trend in
condition
fire – hot
intense burns
removing
groundcover
and organic
matter
– increases
sheet erosion
and run-off,
Total grazing
pressure
– goats as feral
animals
threats
Conceptual
model
70%
groundcover.
rainfall intensity
exceeds soil
infiltration.
rainfall amount
exceeds
soil storage
capacity
Threshold
– known or
suspected
% groundcover/
rainfall/run-off
– amount and
velocity
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
176
central black
earths
highly
productive
agricultural
lands
associated with
floodplains
in the central
part of the
catchment
– less than 2%
gentle
sedimentary
slopes and
colluvial fans
2–8% slope
sandy Pilliga
footslopes
riparian corridor
Description
Asset/
attribute
broad acre
and irrigated
cropping,
pasture,
grazing, mining,
grazing with
forestry and
nature reserves,
being removed
from crop
production
Versatility in
uses
Focal scale
deep with good
soil structure,
self-mulching,
highly fertile in
the past but now
require high inputs to maintain
production, high
initial water infiltration rates
followed by slow
infiltration once
soils are wet, runoff high when
soils wet, high
water holding
capacity, deep
drainage can be
an issues, difficult
to manage when
wet
shallow water
tables, acid at
depth, shallow
soils with
low fertility,
poor soil
structure, low
water holding
capacity,
reasonable
infiltration
rates, soils can
set hard and
can be prone to
wind erosion,
run-off high
when soils
are degraded,
highly erodible
and easily
degraded
Current state
erosion, salinity,
flooding and
biodiversity
loss – biggest
issues is salinity
– hyperwetting
of soils and
drawing up
of naturally
salt in soils.
Some irrigation
related salinity
as well. Soil
structure
decline being
addressed
by controlled
traffic, soils
difficult to
damage.
Trend in
condition
climate change,
high rainfall
causing salinity
threats
Conceptual
model
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix G: Land – description of Namoi Catchment LMUs
A Sedimentary Hill Tops and Steep
Slopes (Generally >15%). 396 023 Ha
B Sedimentary Slopes
(Generally 8 - 15%). 442 300 Ha
Sedimentary hilltops are generally sandstone or
metamorphic rock based or in some cases with a thin
capping of basalt and occur in the catchment. This
grouping includes some small areas of acid volcanics.
This land management unit (LMU A) has a land capability
classification of 4 or 5 on the hill tops and 6, 7 or 8
on slopes depending on steepness and soil depth.
Sedimentary slopes of greater than 15% occur around the
perimeter of the catchment and in the central parts. The
soils are shallow lithosols and skeletal red - brown earths
plus some rocky outcrops or cliffs. The soils generally
have high infiltration with low water holding capabilities,
except for some better - textured soils derived from the
basalt occurrences. There are no watertable problems
and salinity is only a problem where marine sediments
occur within the bedrock. While the topography of the
hilltops can be flat to gently undulating, physical access to
these areas (through the steep slopes) and lack of water
limit the grazing potential. The vegetation comprises
natural pasture with Ironbark, White Cypress, Hill Red
Gum and White Box as scattered timber or as dense tree
stands where not cleared on the hilltops. There can be
a shrub layer that includes Rosewood, Wilga, Wild Olives
and Wattles.
Sedimentary slopes of generally 8 - 15% occur often
below LMU A as a midslope which fringes most of the
plains and footslopes of the Liverpool Plains, Duri Hills,
and East Pilliga hills. A minor occurrence of this LMU
is found near Bugilbone, in the Darling Riverine Plains
section of the catchment, where Cretaceous sandstones
outcrop through the alluvium. This unit also includes
areas with slopes of less than 8%, but which have very
shallow soils and therefore have limited capability.
Management unit (LMU B) is characterised by moderately
shallow soils (lithosols and skeletal red - brown earths)
and rocky outcrops with minor steep slopes and low, cliff
- like benches. There are only minor watertable problems
on some of the lower slopes, usually where an impermeable layer of rock interrupts the slope. Land capability
is classified as 4 or 5 depending on slope and soil depth.
Vegetation communities include natural pasture with
Ironbark, White Cypress, Hill Red Gum, Bimble Box,
Kurrajong and White Box as scattered timber or as dense
tree stands where not cleared. There can be a shrub layer
that includes Rosewood, Wilga, Wild Olives and Wattles.
Land use is predominantly pasture and some native
timber with a minor amount of dryland cropping.
177
C Sedimentary Footslopes
(Generally 2 - 8%). 329 621 Ha.
Appendices
local sedimentation to include brown or grey clays, black
earths, red - brown earths and earthy sands. The riparian
corridor is dynamic with many geomorphological zones
such as terraces and steep banks interacting with frequent
flooding and water level changes. It can also be undulating,
with unstable soils and a predominance of River Red
Gum communities, many of which are mature, and some
Belah communities. Stability of this region is important
for water quality and biodiversity. In the upper areas of the
catchment (and some lower areas) clearing of this LMU
has occurred for cropping and improved pasture with most
of the native pasture or forested streambanks being in
steeper regions of subcatchments.
Sedimentary slopes and colluvial fans of generally 2 - 8%
occur as the transition zone from the hills to the floodplain. This land management unit (LMU C) has a land
capability classification of 4 - 6 and land use is predominantly pasture or improved pasture with up to 15% of
the unit still used for dryland cropping, with forestry and
nature reserves occupying a large amount of this LMU.
The soils are predominantly deep red earths, red - brown
earths and solodic soils. They are generally of moderate
fertility, low to moderate water holding capacity and
moderate to highly erodible. Shallow watertables (<5m)
can occur particularly in the Liverpool Plains, but has also
been recorded in the Maules Creek, Narrabri, and Upper
Manilla River Districts. Salinities vary with location. Tree
vegetation is mainly a mixture of Box (Bimble, Yellow,
White and Grey) Casuarina, White Cypress, Kurrajong and
Hill Red Gum. There is also a shrub layer that includes
rosewood, wilga, wild olives and wattles where this has
not been cleared. The area of native pasture is increasing
as land is removed from crop production.
D1 Upland Bogs and Swamps.
2 881 Ha.
This peaty land management unit occurs generally as
small valley fills in both the New England Tablelands and
the Liverpool Range sections of the Namoi catchment.
Minor occurrences are also found in the higher parts
of the Nandewar and Warrumbungle Ranges. The unit
is much more extensive than could be represented on
the catchment maps, mostly due to their confined and
narrow, linear nature. These areas are highly significant
in that they hold large amounts of water, and gradually
release it into the upper reaches of streams and rivers
of the catchment. Landuse is generally light grazing or
nature reserve, although many of the tablelands swamps
have been drained for grazing purposes. Once drained,
this LMU ceases to function as a long term water supply
to downstream drainage lines.
C1 Sandy Pilliga Footslopes (Generally
<8%). 226 292 Ha.
Sandy Pilliga footslopes and colluvial fans of generally 2
- 8% slope occur as the transition zone from the hills to
the floodplain associated with the Jurasic and Cretaceous
Pilliga Sandstones. This land management unit (LMU
C1) has a land capability classification of 5 - 6 and land
use is predominantly pasture or improved pasture with a
minor portion of the unit still used for dryland cropping or
specialty horticulture, with forestry and nature reserves
occupying a large amount of this LMU. The soils are
predominantly deep Solodic Soils and Earthy Sands
with very sandy to sandy loam topsoil. They are generally
of low inherent fertility, low to moderate water holding
capacity and are highly erodible. Shallow watertables
(<5m) can occur particularly in the Liverpool Plains, and
there is often shallow water or varying quality associated
where this landscape meets the plains below. Salinities
vary with location. Tree vegetation is mainly a mixture of
White Cypress and Ironbark, with Bull Oak, and minor Box
(Bimble, Yellow, White and Grey) Casuarina, , Kurrajong
and Hill Red Gum. There is also a shrub layer that is
dominated by a huge variety of wattles, but can include
rosewood, wilga, wild olives where this has not been
cleared. The area of improved pasture is increasing as
land is removed from poorly managed native pasture
production or minor crop production.
E Central Black Earth Floodplains.
347 380 Ha.
D Riparian Corridor. 93 827 Ha
The riparian corridor land management unit (LMU D) is
generally defined as a 20 metres wide buffer from each
streambank and has a land capability classification of 7.
This LMU transects most other LMU’s depending on watercourse location and activity throughout the catchment. Soil
types vary depending on the base geology of the area and
Black Earth Floodplains exist in association with
the major rivers and creeks in the central part of the
catchment (Liverpool Plains to Narrabri). This land
management unit (LMU E) has a land capability classification of 2, 7 or 8. Floodways are where a channel may
leave the river, meander, and rejoin steams. The floodplain is that area with a slope of generally <2% slope,
is dominated by very extensive backplains, with minor
swamp and outwash areas. Soils include deep Black
Earths, Brown or Grey clays and some Earthy Sands.
Some floodways are farmed, others are managed as
pasture and some retain native vegetation of grasses,
understorey, River Red Gum, Myall and Grey, Yellow or
Bimble Box. The floodplain is intensively farmed and
largely cleared of vegetation. This land management
unit is a dynamic environment and subject to inundation
and severe erosion. Shallow saline groundwaters can be
locally extensive in this LMU, particularly in the Goran
Basin and at the LMU’s upper reaches. Deep fresh
irrigation aquifers are found beneath this LMU where
the alluvium sits on a coarse gravel fill over basement
material. Most of this LMU is used for cropping (with
significant irrigation areas, with a minor portion used for
grazing on native and improved pastures.
178
Appendices
E1 Recent Western Floodplains 165
420 Ha
E3 Dry Western Floodplains.
286 682 Ha
This land management unit includes the recent floodplains along the current course of the Namoi River and
Pian Creek within the Darling Riverine Plains section of
the catchment west of Narrabri. The LMU consists of
modern inset meander plains and backplains and are
generally dominated by very deep Grey Clays and minor
Black Earths with relatively low stored salt content.
These soils represent the most productive soils for
agriculture in the Darling Riverine plains section of the
Namoi Catchment. High quality groundwater is common
under this landscape in deep gravels. Land use includes
grazing on native or improved pastures within the high
flood areas, but is dominated by broad acre dryland
and irrigated cropping systems. Flooding is a common
feature of this LMU, and the low elevation areas of the
unit are limited for agriculture by frequency of inundation.
Land capability ranges from 2 – 5, depending on flood
frequency. Vegetation is largely cleared except for the
high flood frequency areas, which tend to have River Red
Gum, and Coolibah communities, with River Coobah and
Myall scattered through this land management unit.
This land management unit is characterised by a general
absence of major flooding and is dominated by the oldest
clay backplains of a former path of the Namoi River
within the Darling Riverine Plains section of the Namoi
catchment. Localised flooding is common during high
rainfall events, but is mostly caused by internal surface
drainage. This LMU is dominated by a mixture of Grey
Clays and Brown Clays. Subsoil sodicity and salt contents
are generally very high. Grazing on Native pastures is
the dominant landuse very localised dryland and very
minor irrigated cropping. Groundwater access is almost
absent from the landscape thought there is some surface
water access. Rainfall is generally less reliable in this land
management unit, and wind erosion is a common feature
during dry periods. Coolibah communities, with River
Coobah and Myall are common in this land management
unit, and low saltbush species and Mitchell Grass forms a
common understorey.
E2 High Western Floodplains.
178 030 Ha
There are also substantial plain areas of the central
catchment (from the Liverpool Plains to Narrabri) that
are of very low slope (0 - 2%) which are dominated by a
mixture of alluvial soils. This LMU is dominated by very
extensive meander plains (which are generally slightly
higher in the plain landscape. This land management
unit (LMU F) has a land capability classification range
of 2 - 7 and the soils are highly variable with Black
Earths, Brown and Grey Clays, Red - brown Earths and
with minor Chernozems and hardsetting duplex soils
depending on the parent material contributing to the
alluvium. Localised extensive shallow saline groundwater
is generally not a feature of this LMU, however deep fresh
irrigation aquifers are found beneath this LMU where
the alluvium sits on a coarse gravel fill over basement
material. Recharge is generally thought to be from
surface streams which have gravel beds that are well
connected to the underlying aquifers. Landuse more of
a mosaic of cropping and grazing on native or improved
pastures, which is largely determined by the fertility
and tilth of the soil. Timber generally occurs is isolated
or scattered trees, with occasional open woodlands.
Native vegetation is mainly Bimble Box, White Box, Rough
- barked Apple, River Red Gum and Myall with localised
treeless plains dominated by Plains Grass.
F Central Mixed Soil Floodplains
(0 - 2%). 224 822 Ha.
This land management unit is characterised by a
much lower flood frequency than the Recent Western
Floodplains (LUM E1) within the Darling Riverine Plains
section of the Namoi catchment west of Narrabri. The
High Western Floodplains are generally dominated by
backplains which are an admixture of older alluvium and
modern alluvium from infrequent flooding. This LMU
is dominated by Grey Clays, with minor occurrences of
Brown Clays. Subsoil salt contents are relatively high,
which can cause problems when crops forage into the
subsoil. Dryland and irrigated cropping are the main
landuse of this LMU although, there is a higher proportion
of grazing than with LMU E1. Groundwater access is less
frequent in this LMU and as a result, opportunities have
been lower to develop groundwater for irrigation, although
surface water is available in proximity to the Namoi River
and Pian Creek. This land management unit is largely
cleared for cultivation, although Coolibah communities,
with River Coobah and Myall are scattered through this
land management unit. Mitchell Grasses form a common
groundcover in this land management unit
F1 Western Hardsetting Floodplains.
115 058 Ha.
This land management unit is generally associated with
the Bugwah Formation, which is a series of course and
sandier sediments than the surrounding clays, and was
generally deposited around the last glacial period (12
– 25, 000 year BP) when the Namoi River had a due
north westerly course from Narrabri. Soil types vary
179
a lot often over short distances, with Solodic Soils and
very sodic Grey and Brown Clays common. A common
feature of this LMU is scalding, as near surface subsoils
are highly sodic and often very saline. Land use is
almost solely grazing on native pastures. Land capability
ranges from 6 upwards, due to the soil constraints in
this unit. Vegetation is diverse and related to soil type,
but includes Bimble Box, Grey Box, Black Box, Coolibah,
Belah, Bull Oak, Wilga, Warrior Bush, Leopardwood and
Buddah. Various Acacia species occur as an understorey
in this unit, along with a variety of saltbush species.
Groundcover includes Mitchell Grasses and Spear
grasses.
F2 Flat Pilliga Outwash. 441 308 Ha.
This Land Management Unit dominates the central
and north western sections of the Pilliga outwash. The
area is dominated by deep Solodic Soils with sandy to
loamy sand topsoils, Earthy Sands, Siliceous Sands.
Hardsetting, saline and often highly sodic clay soils (Grey,
Brown and Red Clays) occur at the terminal northern
end of the Pilliga Outwash, where it meets the Darling
Riverine plains. Red Earths and Red-brown Earth are
common along the western margin of this LMU. These
northern areas tend to be prone to severe scalding and
sheet erosion. Land capability is generally greater than
5, though some isolated areas with higher rainfall occur
in the western margins of this unit where the land is class
4. Land use is diverse but is dominated by Forestry and
nature Reserves, with grazing the most common use
of cleared lands. Some winter cereal cropping occurs
in the western portions of this LMU on the Red Earths.
Vegetation is highly diverse, and related to soil type,
ranging from low heaths, to open forest and woodlands.
Appendices
H Basaltic Slopes and Hills
(Generally 8 - 20%). 153 396 Ha.
Basalt Slopes (8 - 20%) occur flanking the southern edge
of the Liverpool Plains sub catchment with some occurrences associated with the Garrawilla, Warrumbungle and
Nandewar basalts. This land management unit (LMU H)
has a land capability classification of 4,5 or 6. The soils
range from Black Earths and Prairie to Brown Clays, Red brown Earths, with soil depth decreasing with increasing
slope. Grazing is the dominant landuse but there are
some areas of cropping on the lower slopes with deeper
soils. Vegetation is usually scattered timber consisting of
White and Yellow Box, Myall and Rough barked Apple with
some Red Gum in the watercourses and stringybark in
higher areas. This LMU is a major source of recharge into
groundwater systems. Shallow watertables and salinity
are a very minor problem, usually in association with
basalt flow edges.
H1 High Fertility Basalt Uplands.
43 413 Ha
High Fertility Basalt Uplands are a feature of the crest of
the Liverpool Ranges and the southern parts of the New
England Tablelands part of the Namoi Catchment. Soil
types are include both Krasnozems, with Black Earths
and Chocolate Soils common in lower rainfall areas. This
land management unit (LMU H1) has a land capability
classification range of 3 - 6. Land use is dominated by
Forestry and Nature Reserves, with the remainder of the
lands largely cleared for grazing. Induced soil acidity
is a common feature of this Land Management Unit.
Vegetation is generally tall open-forest, grading into a low
alpine woodland at elevations above 1100 m.
G Colluvial Black Earths
(Generally 2 - 8%). 229 887 Ha.
I
A dominant feature of the central part of the Namoi
catchment is the alluvial plains and slopes between 2
- 8% that have been predominantly derived from volcanic
geological material. This land management unit (LMU G)
has a land capability classification of 2 - 4 and the soils
are predominantly Black Earths with >200cm depth and
reducing in depth as the slope increases. There is a range
of other alluvial soils present depending on the parent
material contributing to the outwash plains. Land use is
mainly summer and winter annual cropping on land up
to 5% slope with increasing grazing on lands above 5%.
Some localised low slope areas are irrigated for cropping.
Most of the native vegetation of Plains Grass has been
removed through cultivation. On slope >4% some Box
(White, Yellow and Bimble) and other trees remain in
isolated remnant woodland arrangements. The long slope
areas in this LMU are subject to severe erosion by runoff
from above. Shallow saline watertables occur on the
lower slopes approaching the footslope – plain junction,
and in some areas where underlying rock benches push
localised groundwater to the surface
Basalt Hills with slopes 20% occur flanking the southern
edge of the Liverpool Plains sub catchment with
some occurrences associated with the Garrawilla,
Warrumbungle and Nandewar basalts. This land
management unit (LMU I) has a land capability classification of 6 - 8. The soils are usually shallow and range
from Black Earths and Prairie to Brown Clays, Red - brown
Earths to Lithosols on upper slopes and skeletal areas.
There is some grazing on the lesser slopes with deeper
soils in valleys or hilltops. Vegetation is usually uncleared
timber consisting of White and Yellow Box, Myall and
Rough barked Apple with some Red Gum in the watercourses and stringybark in higher areas. This LMU is a
source of recharge into groundwater systems.
J
Steep Basaltic Hills
(Generally >20%). 103 987 Ha.
Tablelands Granites. 193 445 Ha.
Tablelands Granites are a feature of the northern New
England Tablelands part of the Namoi Catchment. Soil
types are include Earthy and Siliceous Sands, as well as
Soloths and Solodic Soils in lower sloping areas. This
Land Management Unit includes a very large slope range
180
and associated landform elements which should be
considered when developing Best Management Practice
(BMP). This land management unit (LMU J) has a land
capability classification range of generally greater than 5.
Land use is dominated by grazing on improved pastures,
with some minor Forestry areas and Nature Reserves.
Some minor cereal cropping and horticulture is carried
out within LMU J. Induced soil acidity is a common
feature of this Land Management Unit, with some areas of
salinity occurring in over cleared drier areas. Vegetation
is generally a low woodland, with minor areas of open
forest occurring in higher rainfall areas.
K Tablelands Sedimentary Hills.
67 960 Ha.
Tablelands Sediments are a feature of the central
parts of the New England Tablelands within the Namoi
Catchment. Soil types are generally dominated by silty
duplex soils including Solodic Soils and Soloths. This land
management unit (LMU K) has a land capability classification range of 4 and above as it includes a range of
landforms ranging from footslopes up to steep hills, which
should be considered when developing Best Management
Practice (BMP). Land use is dominated by grazing on
improved pastures, with some minor Forestry areas.
Some minor cereal cropping and horticulture is carried
out within LMU K. Induced soil acidity is a common
feature of this Land Management Unit, with some areas of
salinity occurring in over cleared drier areas. Vegetation
is generally tall open forest, with some areas of a low
woodland, grading into a low alpine woodland at elevations above 1100 m.
L Peel Floodplain. 10 487 Ha.
The Peel Floodplain forms the main drainage for the
Duri Hills, in the eastern and central Tamworth Fold Belt
section of the Namoi Catchment. This confined Land
Management Unit is dominated by very high quality
Chernozems, which are highly utilized for cropping,
intensive pasture production, and a range of horticultural
and grazing enterprises, including dairying. High quality
groundwater is common within this LMU, but the resource
is thought to be highly stressed, owing to over allocation
of the resource and the increasing demands placed on
it by the city of Tamworth. Land Capability is generally
Appendices
Class 1 or 2 which makes this Land Management Unit
this highest value LMU within the Namoi Catchment.
Vegetation is largely cleared, but isolated remnant River
Red Gum, Yellow Box and Rough-barked Apple can be
found. Broad scale flooding is a feature of this landscape.
M Duri Hills. 144 827 Ha.
The Duri Hills form the generally low undulating hills
between the New England Tablelands and the Liverpool
Plains sections of the Namoi Catchment. Soil type is
generally Red-brown Earths or Non-calcic Brown Soils,
with minor Euchrozems and Solodic Soils. This Land
Management Unit is thought to have been stripped of soil
several times during its formation, and as such, soil depth
is generally less than 1.5 m. The limitation of soil depth
and soil type has resulted in a low capacity for moisture
storage within the soils for cropping. Land capability
within this LMU is generally 4 -6. The area is dominated
by a mosaic of winter cereal cropping and grazing on both
native and improved pastures. The northern parts of this
LMU have been cropped intensively in the past and are
characterised by extensive sheet, rill and gully erosion,
with minor wind erosion. The exposed subsoils which are
common in the northern parts of LMU M are often mildly
to moderately sodic, and difficult to re-establish pastures
on. The vegetation has largely been cleared but remnant
open-woodlands dominated by both White Box and Grey
Box occur.
O Disturbed Land. 2 519 Ha
Disturbed lands occur throughout the Namoi Catchment
and are generally small road base quarry sites or land
fills, however, several large mining areas make up the
most of the area of this LMU. Of note is the Woods Reef
Asbestos mine site east of Barraba, and the rehabilitated
coal mine sites of the Liverpool Plains. As various mining
activities continue to expand within the catchment, this
LMU will expand over time. Poorly protected disturbed
sites form significant sediment sources within the Namoi
Catchment, as well as a potential source of pollutants.
The land capability of this LMU varies enormously and any
Best Management Practice Developed for it would have
to be very site specific, taking into consideration the local
characteristics of the site.
181
Appendix H: Land – further
reading
Aber J.S. (2012). Wetland Environments: A Global
Perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Adam P. (2010). Wetlands and wetland boundaries:
problems, expectations, perceptions and reality. Wetlands
(Australia), 11(2), 60–67.
Bracken L.J. (2010). Overland Flow and Soil Erosion. In
Sediment Cascades: An Integrated Approach, 1st ed.,
181–216. Wiley�Blackwell.
Appendices
Neary D.G., P.J. Smethurst, B.R. Baillie, K. C. Petrone, W. E.
Cotching and C.C. Baillie. (2010). Does Tree Harvesting in
Streamside Management Zones Adversely Affect Stream
Turbidity?—preliminary Observations from an Australian
Case Study. Journal of Soils and Sediments 10(4), 652–
670.
Nie Z. N. and Zollinger R.P. (2012). Impact of deferred
grazing and fertilizer on plant population density, ground
cover and soil moisture of native pastures in steep hill
country of southern Australia. Grass and Forage Science,
67(2), 231–242.
Page K.L. and Dalal R.C. (2011). Contribution of natural
and drained wetland systems to carbon stocks, CO2, N2O
and CH4 fluxes: an Australian perspective. Soil Research,
49(5), 377–388.
Callow J.N. (2011a). Potential for vegetation-based
river management in dryland, saline catchments. River
Research and Applications, 28(8):1072–1092.
Claus S., Imgraben S., Brennan K., Carthey A., Daly B.,
Blakey R., Turak E. and Saintilan N. (2011). Assessing the
extent and condition of wetlands in NSW: Project Report.
Reicosky D.C., Sauer T.J. and Hatfield J.L. (2011).
Challenging balance between productivity and environmental quality: tillage impacts. In: Hatfield and Sauer
(Eds), Soil Management: Building a Stable Base for
Agriculture. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Harms T.K. and Grimm N.B. (2010). Influence of the
hydrologic regime on resource availability in a semi-arid
stream-riparian corridor. Ecohydrology, 3(3), 349–359.
Roering J.J., Marshall J., Booth A.M., Mort M. and Jin Q.
(2010). Evidence for biotic controls on topography and
soil production. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
298(1), 183–190.
Hart M.R. and Cornish P.S. (2010). Soil sample depth in
pasture soils for environmental soil phosphorus testing.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 42(1),
100–110.
Hurst M.D., Mudd S.M., Walcott R., Attal M. and Yoo K.
(2012). Using hilltop curvature to derive the spatial distribution of erosion rates. Journal of Geophysical Research,
117(F2), F02017.
Rogers K. and Ralph T.J. (2010). Impacts of hydrological
changes on floodplain wetland biota. In: Rogers and Ralph
(Eds), Floodplain Wetland Biota in the Murray-Darling
Basin: Water and Habitat Requirements, 311–325. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
Keith D.A., Rodorea S. and Bedward M. (2010). Decadal
change in wetland–woodland boundaries during the late
20th century reflects climatic trends. Global Change
Biology, 16(8), 2300–2306.
Selle B., Thayalakumaran T. and Morris M. (2010).
Understanding salt mobilization from an irrigated
catchment in south-eastern Australia. Hydrological
Processes, 24(23), 3307–3321.
Leigh C., Sheldon F., Kingsford R.T. and Arthington A.H.
(2010). Sequential floods drive ’booms’ and wetland
persistence in dryland rivers: a synthesis. Marine and
Freshwater Research, 61(8), 896–908.
England.
Mac Nally R., Cunningham S.C., Baker P.J., Horner G.J.
and Thomson J.R. (2011). Dynamics of Murray-Darling
floodplain forests under multiple stressors: the past,
present and future of an australian icon. Water Resources
Research, 47(12), W00G05.
Thomas I., Cullen P. and Fletcher M.S. (2010). Ecological
drift or stable fire cycles in Tasmania: a resolution. Terra
Australis, 32, 341–352.
Thoms M. and Parsons M. (2011). Patterns of vegetation
community distribution in a large, semi-arid floodplain
landscape. River Systems, 19(3), 271–282.
Martinez C., Hancock G.R. and Kalma J.D. (2010).
Relationships between 137Cs and soil organic carbon
(SOC) in cultivated and never-cultivated soils: an
Australian example. Geoderma, 158(3), 137–147.
Middleton B.A. and T. Kleinebecker. (2012). The Effects
of Climate-Change-Induced Drought and Freshwater
Wetlands. Global Change and the Function and Distribution
of Wetlands, 117–147.
Tong Y., Deng Z. and Gang D.D. (2011). Nonpoint source
pollution. Water Environment Research 83(10), 1683–
1703.
Vanwalleghem T., Poesen J., McBratney A. and Deckers J.
(2010). Spatial variability of soil horizon depth in natural
loess-derived soils. Geoderma, 157(1), 37–45.
Whalen J.K. and Sampedro L. (2010). Soil Ecology and
Management. CABI Publishing.
182
Appendix I: Water – further
reading
The general references were originally provided as further
reading in the first edition of this assessment, produced
in 2010. Updated references are provided under the subheadings below.
General
Bari M.A. and Smettem K.R.J. (2005). A daily salt balance
model for representing stram salinity generation process
following land use change. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences Discussions, 2, 1147–1183.
Appendices
Department of Primary Industries (2008). Identification
of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems in the
northern Murray-Darling Basin – Pilot project – Namoi Peel
results. Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Comission.
NSW Department of Primary Industries (Aquatic habitat
rehabilitation), Port Stephens.
Sinclair Knigh Mertz (2010). Water issues in jurisdictional planning for mining: an overview of current
practice. Waterlines report series No. 29. National Water
Bewsher Consulting (1995). Hydrological study of Lake
Goran. Report No. TS95.052. Prepared for the NSW
Department of Water Resources.
Thoms M.C., Sheldon F., Roberts J., Harris J. and Hillman
T.J. (1996). Scientific panel assessment of environmental flows for the Barwon-Darling River. A report to
the Technical Services Division of the New South Wales
Department of Land and Water Conservation. NSW
Department of Land and Water Conservation.
Bish S (1993). Groundwater reconnaissance survey.
Gunnedah-Narrabri-Coonabarabran area, New South
Wales. Report No. TS93.034. Department of Water
Resources Technical Services Division.
Townsend C.R., Uhlmann S.S. and Matthaei C.D. (2008).
Individual and combined responses of stream ecosystems
to multiple stressors. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45,
1810–1819.
Brock M.A. Nielsen D.L. Shiel R.J. Green J.D. and Langley
J.D. (2003). Drought and aquatic community resilience:
the role of eggs and seeds in sediments of temporary
wetlands. Freshwater Biology 48, 1207–1218.
Resilience, adaptability, and transformability in the
Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. Ecology and
Society, 14(1), 12.
Brock M.A. (2003). Australian wetland plants and
wetlands in the landscape: Conservation of diversity
and future management. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and
Management, 6(1), 29–40.
Groundwater-dependent ecosystems
Broughton A. (1994). Upper eastern Mooki River catchment
hydrogeological investigation and dryland salinity studies.
Liverpool Plains, NSW. Volume 1- Report & Volume 2
– Appendices. Report No. TS94.013. Department of Water
Resoueces Technical Services Division.
Growns I., Astles K. and Gehrke P. (2006). Multiscale
spatial and smalle-scale temporal variation in the
composition of riverine fish communities. Environmental
monitoring and assessment, 114, 553–571.
Banks E.W., Simmons C.T., Love A.J. and P Shand. (2011).
Assessing spatial and temporal connectivity between
surface water and groundwater in a regional catchment:
Implications for regional scale water quantity and quality.
Journal of Hydrology, 404(1–2)(June 29), 30–49.
Barrett C. (2010). Upper Namoi groundwater sources:
Resource condition assessment report – 2010. Office of
Water (NSW), Sydney.
Boulton A.J. (2000). River ecosystem health down under:
Assessing ecological condition in riverine groundwater
zones in Australia. Ecosystem Health, 6(2), 108–118.
Hamilton S. (1992). Lake Goran Catchment Groundwater
Study. Report No. TS92.009. Department of Water
Resources Technical Services Division.
Boulton A.J. and Hancock P.J. (2006). Rivers as groundwater-dependent ecosystems: a review of degrees of
dependency, riverine processes and management implications. Australian Journal of Botany, 54(2), 133–144.
Lintermans M. (2007). Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin:
An introductory guide. MDBC Publication No. 10/07.
MDBC, Canberra.
Brownbill R.J., Lamontagne S., Williams R.M., Cook P.G.
and Simmons C. T. (2011). Interconnection of surface and
groundwater systems – river losses from losing-disconnected streams. Technical final report. NSW Office of
Water, Sydney.
Ludwig J.A., Wilcox B.P., Breshears D.B., Tongway D.J.
and Imeson A.C. (2005). Vegetation patches and runofferosion as interacting ecohydrolocial processes in
semiarid landscapes. Ecology, 86(2), 288–297.
Department of Land and Water Conservation (1998).
Namoi Valley water users profiles. DLWC, Tamworth.
Department of Primary Industries (2006). The assessment
and modification of barriers to fish passage in the Namoi
Catchment. Report to the Namoi Catchment Management
Authority. NSW Department of Primary Industries,
Tamworth.
Croke B.F.W., Letcher R.A. and Jakeman A.J. (2006).
Development of a distributed flow model for underpinning
assessment of water allocation options in the Namoi River
Basin, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 319(1–4), 51–71.
183
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities. (2012). The Community
of Native Species Dependent on Natural Discharge of
Groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin. Community
and Species Profile and Threats Database. DSEWPAC,
Canberra.
Appendices
Humphreys W.F. (2006). Aquifers: the ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54(2), 115–132.
Lewis J. (2011). The application of ecohydrological groundwater indicators to hydrogeological conceptual models.
Ground Water, 50(5) 679–689.
S. and Ingerson G.(2009). Managed aquifer recharge
Water Australia. CSIRO.
Mitchell M., Curtis A., Sharp E. and Mendham E. (2011).
Social research to improve groundwater governance: a
literature review. ILWS Report 66. Institute for Land, Water
and Society, Albury, NSW.
Doble R., Simmons C., Jolly I. and Walker G. (2006). Spatial
relationships between vegetation cover and irrigationinduced groundwater discharge on a semi-arid floodplain,
Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 329(1–2), 75–97.
Murray B.R., Hose G.C., Eamus D. and Licari D. (2006).
Valuation of groundwater-dependent ecosystems:
a functional methodology incorporating ecosystem
services. Australian Journal of Botany, 54(2), 221–229.
Murray B.R., Zeppel M.J.B., Hose G.C. and Eamus D.
(2003). Groundwater-dependent ecosystems in Australia:
it’s more than just water for rivers. Ecological Management
& Restoration, 4(2), 110–113.
Eamus D. (2009). Identifying groundwater dependent
ecosystems: a guide for land and water managers.
Research report 1 of 6. Land and Water Australia,
Braddon, ACT.
ecosystems: The where, what and why of GDEs. Australian
Journal of Botany, 54(2), 91–96.
Nevill J. (2008). Comment on recent progress in waterbalance planning and the supply of environmental flows
to ground water-dependent ecosystems. Ecological
Management & Restoration, 9(2), 145–150.
Eamus D., Froend R., Loomes R., Hose G. and Murray B.
(2006). A functional methodology for determining the
groundwater regime needed to maintain the health of
groundwater-dependent vegetation. Australian Journal of
Botany, 54(2), 97–114.
NSW Office of Water (2011). Environmental flow response
and socio-economic monitoring Namoi Valley – progress
report 2009. Progress report. Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water (NSW), Sydney.
Evans R. (2007). The impact of groundwater use on
Australia’s rivers. Technical report. Land & Water Australia,
Braddon, ACT.
NWC (2006). Level of groundwater extractions relative to
sustainable yield July 2004 – June 2005. Australian Water
Resources 2005. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Richardson S., Ervine E., Froend R., Boon P., Barber S. and
Bonneville B. (2011). Australian groundwater-dependent
ecosystems toolbox Part 1: Assessment Framework.
Waterlines report 69. National Water Commission,
Canberra.
Fawcett J., Harty J., Hulbert S. and Chaplin H. (2010).
Mapping groundwater dependent ecosystems of the
Namoi Catchment: Application of SEBAL remotely sensed
evapotranspiration measurement. Namoi Catchment
Management Authority, Tamworth, NSW.
Froend R. and Sommer B. (2010). Phreatophytic
vegetation response to climatic and abstractioninduced groundwater drawdown: examples of long-term
spatial and temporal variability in community response.
Ecological Engineering, 36(9), 1191–1200.
Richardson S., Irvine E., Froend R., Boon P., Barber S. and
Bonneville B. (2011). Australian groundwater-dependent
ecosystems toolbox Part 2: Assessment Tools. Report
prepared by Sinclair Knight Merz on behalf of the National
Water Commission 70. Waterlines Report Series. National
Water Commission, Canberra.
Gilfedder M., Rassam D.W., Stenson M.P., Jolly I.D., Walker
G.R. and Littleboy M. (2012). Incorporating land-use
changes and surface–groundwater interactions in a simple
catchment water yield model. Environmental Modelling &
Software 38, 62–73.
Sinclair Knight Merz. (2001). Environmental water requirements to maintain groundwater dependent ecosystems.
2. Environmental Flows Initiative Technical Report.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Hatton T. and Evans R. (1998). Dependence of ecosystems
on groundwater and its significance to Australia. Land &
Water Resources Research & Development Corporation,
Canberra.
Howe P., Pritchard J., Cook P., Evans R., Clifton C. and
Cooling M. (2007). A framework for assessing the environmental water requirements of groundwater dependent
ecosystems. Report 3 – Implementation. Prepared for
Land and Water Australia.
Sundaram B., Feitz A., de Caritat P., Plazinska A., Brodie R.,
Coram J. and Ransley T. (2009). Groundwater sampling and
analysis – a field guide. Geoscience Australia, Canberra.
Thurtell L. and Wettin P. (2012). Environmental water
delivery: Namoi River. Report for Commonwealth
Environmental Water, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities v. 1.0.
Barma Water Resources, Canberra.
184
Appendices
Floodplain flows
Tomlinson M. (2011). Ecological water requirements of
groundwater systems: a knowledge and policy review. 68.
Waterlines Report Series. National Water Commission,
Canberra.
Tomlinson M. and Boulton A. (2008). Subsurface groundwater dependent ecosystems: a review of their biodiversity,
ecological processes and ecosystem services. Waterlines
Occasional Paper 8. University of New England, Canberra.
Ralph T.J. and Hesse P.P. (2010). Downstream hydrogeomorphic changes along the Macquarie River, southeastern
Australia, leading to channel breakdown and floodplain
wetlands. Geomorphology, 118(1–2)(May 15), 48–64.
Saintilan N. and Overton I. (2010). Ecosystem Response
Modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Publishing.
Groundwater availability
Aquatic species
Hamilton S. and Smithson A. (2010). Addressing the
challenges of groundwater trading in NSW. NSW Office of
Water, Dubbo, NSW.
Aldous A., Fitzsimons J., Richter B. and Bach L. (2011).
Droughts, floods and freshwater ecosystems: evaluating
climate change impacts and developing adaptation strategies. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(3), 223–231.
Bower D.S., Hutchinson M. and Georges A. (2012).
Movement and habitat use of Australia’s largest snakenecked turtle: implications for water management. Journal
of Zoology, 287(1), 76–80.
Casanova M.T. (2012). Does cereal crop agriculture in
dry swamps damage aquatic plant communities? Aquatic
Botany, 103, 54–59.
Lee L.Y., Ancev T. and Vervoort W. (2012). Evaluation of
environmental policies targeting irrigated agriculture: The
case of the Mooki catchment, Australia. Agricultural Water
Management, 109(June), 107–116.
Marsh N. (2010). Hydrological indicators of water stress.
Report prepared for the Bureau of Meteorology for the
National Water Commission, Canberra.
Colloff M.J. and Baldwin D.S. (2010). Resilience of
floodplain ecosystems in a semi-arid environment. The
Rangeland Journal, 32(3), 305–314.
Mac Nally R., Cunningham S.C., Baker P.J., Horner G.J.
and Thomson J.R. (2011). Dynamics of Murray-Darling
floodplain forests under multiple stressors: the past,
present and future of an australian icon. Water Resources
Research, 47(12), W00G05.
Huynh H.P.V. and Nugegoda D. (2012). Effects of chlorpyrifos exposure on growth and food utilization in Australian
Catfish, Tandanus tandanus. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 88(1), 1–5.
Flagship. CSIRO, Canberra.
Morrongiello J.R., Crook D.A., King A.J., Ramsey D.S.L. and
Brown P. (2010). Impacts of drought and predicted effects
of climate change on fish growth in temperate Australian
lakes. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 745–755.
Pool D.R. and Eychaner J.H. (1995). Measurements of
aquifer-storage change and specific yield using gravity
surveys. Ground Water, 33(3)(May), 425–432.
Napier G.M., Fairweather P.G. and Scott A.C. (2010).
Records of fish kills in inland waters of NSW and
Queensland in Relation to Cotton Pesticides. Wetlands
(Australia), 17 (2), 60–71.
Raffensperger J.F. (2011). Matching users’ rights to
available groundwater. Ecological Economics, 70(6)(April
15), 1041–1050.
Quinn L.D., Schooler S.S. and Van Klinken R.D. (2011).
Effects of land use and environment on alien and native
Macrophytes: Lessons from a large-scale survey of
Australian rivers. Diversity and Distributions, 17(1), 132–
143.
Richardson B.A. and Pollard D.A. (2010). Summary of
potential greenhouse effects on fish habitats and fisheries
resources in New South Wales. Wetlands (Australia), 10(1),
48–51.
Roberts J. and Marston F. (2011). Water regime for wetland
and floodplain plants: a source book for the Murray-Darling
Basin. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Turak E., Marchant R., Barmuta L.A., Davis J., Choy S. and
Metzeling L. (2011). River conservation in a changing
world, invertebrate diversity and spatial prioritisation in
south-eastern coastal Australia. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 62(3), 300–311.
Quiggin, J., Chambers S. and Mallawaarachchi T. (2012).
Water policy reform: Lessons in Sustainability from the
Murray Darling Basin. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ranatunga K. (2011). Estimating water yield response
to land use in the Namoi Catchment of the MurrayDarling Basin, Australia. International Journal of Water,
6(1)(January 1), 43–56.
Ross A. and Martinez-Santos P. (2009). The challenge of
groundwater governance: Case studies from Spain and
Australia. Regional Environmental Change, 10(4) (March
14), 299–310.
Treidel H., Martin-Bordes J.L. and Gurdak J.J. (2011).
Climate Change Effects on Groundwater Resources: A
Global Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations. CRC
Press.
185
Appendices
Giambastiani B.M.S., McCallum A.M., M.S. Andersen,
B.F.J. Kelly and R.I. Acworth. (2012). Understanding
groundwater processes by representing aquifer heterogeneity in the Maules Creek Catchment, Namoi Valley
(New South Wales, Australia). Hydrogeology Journal, 20(6),
1027–1044.
Wheater H.S., Mathias S.A. and Li X. (2010). Groundwater
Modelling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. Cambridge
University Press.
Groundwater recharge
Ali R., McFarlane D., Varma S., Dawes W., Emelyanova I.
and Hodgson G. (2012). Potential climate change impacts
on the water balance of regional unconfined aquifer
systems in south-western Australia. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences Discussions 9, 6367–6408.
Githui F., Selle B. and Thayalakumaran T. (2011). Recharge
estimation using remotely sensed evapotranspiration
in an irrigated catchment in southeast Australia.
Hydrological Processes, 26(9), 1379–1389.
Barron O., Crosbie R., Dawes W.R.J., Pollock D.W., Charles
S., Mpelasoka F., Aryal S., Donn M. and Wurcker B. (2010).
The Impact of Climate Change on Groundwater Resources:
The Climate Sensitivity of Groundwater Recharge in
Australia. CSIRO Water for a Health Country.
Lester R.E., Webster I.T., Fairweather P.G. and Young W.J.
(2011). Linking water-resource models to ecosystemresponse models to guide water-resource planning–an
example from the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Marine
and Freshwater Research, 62(3), 279–289.
Barron O., Silberstein R., Ali R., Donohue R., McFarlane
D.J., Davies P., Hodgson G., Smart N. and Donn M. (2012).
Climate change effects on water-dependent ecosystems
in south-western Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 475:
441–455.
Leterme B. and Mallants D. (2012). Estimation of future
groundwater recharge using climatic analogues and
HYDRUS-1D. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Discussions, 9, 1389–1410.
Benyon R.G., Lane P.N.J., Theiveyanathan S., Doody T.M.
and Mitchell P.J. (2011). Spatial variability in forest water
use from three contrasting regions of south-eastern
Australia. In: VIII International Symposium on Sap Flow,
951, 233–240.
Beverly C., Roberts A., Hocking M., Pannell D. and Dyson
P. (2011). Using linked surface–groundwater catchment
modelling to assess protection options for environmental
assets threatened by dryland salinity in southern-eastern
Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 4100(1), 13–30.
Crosbie R., Jolly I.D., Leaney F.W.J., Petheram C. and
Wohling D. (2010). Review of Australian Groundwater
Recharge Studies. CSIRO.
Crosbie R.S., McCallum J.L., Walker G.R. and Chiew F.H.S.
(2010). Modelling climate-change impacts on groundwater recharge in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia.
Hydrogeology Journal, 18(7), 1639–1656.
Crosbie R.S., McCallum J.L., Walker G.R. and Chiew F.H.S.
(2012). Episodic recharge and climate change in the
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeology Journal,
20(2), 1–17.
Crosbie R.S., McCallum J. and Walker G.R. (2011). The
Impact of Climate Change on Dryland Diffuse Groundwater
Recharge in the Murray-Darling Basin. National Water
Commission.
Finlayson J., Bathgate A., Nordblom T., Theiveyanathan
T., Farquharson B., Crosbie R., Mitchell D. and Hoque Z.
(2010). Balancing land use to manage river volume and
salinity: economic and hydrological consequences for the
Little River catchment in central west New South Wales,
Australia. Agricultural Systems, 103(3), 161–170.
Lobo Ferreira J.P., Oliveira L. and Diamantino C. (2011).
Groundwater artificial recharge solutions for integrated
management of watersheds and aquifer systems under
extreme drought scenarios. In Jones (Ed) Sustaining
Groundwater Resources 87–206.
MacEwan R., Dahlhaus P. and Fawcett J. (2012).
Hydropedology, Geomorphology, and Groundwater
Processes in Land Degradation: Case Studies in South
West Victoria, Australia. In: Lin (Eds), Hydropedology:
Synergistic Integration of Soil Science and Hydrology, 449.
Academic Press Inc,.
McCallum J.L., Crosbie R.S., Walker G.R. and Dawes W.R.
(2010). Impacts of climate change on groundwater in
Australia: a sensitivity analysis of recharge. Hydrogeology
Journal, 18(7), 1625–1638.
Ranatunga K. (2011). Estimating water yield response to
land use in the Namoi Catchment of the Murray-Darling
Basin, Australia. International Journal of Water, 6(1),
43–56.
Rolfe J. (2010). Valuing reductions in water extractions
from groundwater basins with benefit transfer: The Great
Artesian Basin in Australia. Water Resources Research,
46(6), W06301.
Selle B., Thayalakumaran T. and Morris M. (2010).
Understanding salt mobilization from an irrigated
catchment in south-eastern Australia. Hydrological
Processes, 24(23), 3307–3321.
Smerdon B.D. (2011). Estimating groundwater
recharge. Vadose Zone Journal, 10(2) (May 1), 767–768.
doi:10.2136/vzj (2011).0023br.
Sommer B. and Froend R. (2011). Resilience of phreatophytic vegetation to groundwater drawdown: is recovery
possible under a drying climate? Ecohydrology, 4(1),
67–82.
186
Timms W.A., Young R.R. and Huth N. (2011). Implications
recharge and sustainable cropping in a semi-arid
catchment, Australia. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences Discussions, 8, 10053–10093.
Appendices
Leigh C., Stewart-Koster B., Sheldon F. and Burford M.A.
(2012). Understanding multiple ecological responses
to anthropogenic disturbance: rivers and potential flow
regime change. Ecological Applications, 22(1), 250–263.
Timms W.A., R.R. Young and N. Huth. (2012). Implications
recharge and sustainable cropping in a semi-arid
catchment, Australia. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 16(4), 1203.
Moreno-de las Heras M., Saco P.M., Willgoose G.R. and
Tongway D.J. (2012). Variations in hydrological connectivity of Australian semiarid landscapes indicate abrupt
changes in rainfall-use efficiency of vegetation. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 117(G3), G03009.
Tomlinson M. and Boulton A.J. (2010). Ecology and
management of subsurface groundwater dependent
ecosystems in Australia–a Review. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 61(8), 936–949.
Morrongiello J.R., Crook D.A., King A.J., Ramsey D.S.L. and
Brown P. (2010). Impacts of drought and predicted effects
of climate change on fish growth in temperate Australian
lakes. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 745–755.
Woodforth A., Triantafilis J., Cupitt J., Malik R.S.,
Subasinghe R., Ahmed M.F., Huckel A.I. and Geering H.
(2012). Mapping estimated deep drainage in the lower
Namoi Valley using a chloride mass balance model and
EM34 Data. Geophysics, 77(4), WB245–WB256.
Racchetti E., Bartoli M., Soana E., Longhi D., R.R.
Christian, Pinardi M. and Viaroli P. (2011). Influence of
hydrological connectivity of riverine wetlands on nitrogen
removal via denitrification. Biogeochemistry, 103(1),
335–354.
Hydrological connectivity
Bates B.C., Walker K., Beare S. and Page S. (2010).
Incorporating climate change in water allocation planning.
Brunner P., P.G. Cook and C.T. Simmons. (2011).
Disconnected surface water and groundwater: from
theory to practice. Ground Water, 49(4), 460–467.
Casaril C., Ekström M. and Grigg N.J. (2012). Hydroclimate knowledge needs for climate change adaptation:
freshwater ecosystems and water resources applications.
CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia.
CSIRO.
Colin F., Moussa R. and Louchart X. (2012). Impact of
the spatial arrangement of land management practices
on surface runoff for small catchments. Hydrological
Processes, 26(2), 255–271.
Davies P.E., Harris J.H., Hillman T.J. and Walker K.F. (2010).
The sustainable rivers audit: assessing river ecosystem
health in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and
Kingsford R.T., Brandis K.J., Jenkins K.M., Nairn L.C. and
Rayner T.S. (2010). Measuring ecosystem responses to
flow across temporal and spatial scales. In Roger and
Ralph (Eds) Ecosystem Response Modelling in the MurrayDarling Basin, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Korbel K.L. and Hose G.C. (2011). A tiered framework for
assessing groundwater ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia,
661(1), 329–349.
Schirmer M., Davis G.B., Hoehn E. and Vogt T. (2012).
GQ10 Groundwater Quality Management in a Rapidly
Changing World. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
127(January 1), 1–2.
Stokes K., Ward K. and Colloff M. (2010). Alterations
in flood frequency increase exotic and native species
richness of understorey vegetation in a temperate floodplain eucalypt forest. Plant Ecology, 211(2), 219–233.
In-stream flows
Arthur A.D., Reid J.R.W., Kingsford R.T., McGinness
H.M., Ward K.A. and Harper M.J. (2012). Breeding flow
thresholds of colonial breeding waterbirds in the MurrayDarling Basin, Australia. Wetlands, 32, 257–265.
Lee L.Y., Ancev T. and Vervoort W. (2012). Evaluation of
environmental policies targeting irrigated agriculture: The
case of the Mooki catchment, Australia. Agricultural Water
Management, 109(June), 107–116.
Loch A., Bjornlund H. and McIver R. (2011). Achieving
targeted environmental flows: alternative allocation and
trading models under scarce supply lessons from the
Australian reform process. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 29, 745–760.
Olmstead S.M. (2010). The economics of managing scarce
water resources. Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, 4(2), 179–198.
Reinfelds I.V., Walsh C.T., Meulen D.E., Growns I.O. and
Gray C.A. (2011). Magnitude, frequency and duration of
in-stream flows to stimulate and facilitate catadromous
fish migrations: Australian Bass (Macquaria novemaculeata perciformes, Percichthyidae). River Research and
Applications.
187
Silberstein R.P., Aryal S.K., Durrant J., Pearcey M., Braccia
M., Charles S.P., Boniecka L., et al. (2012). Climate
Change and Runoff in South-western Australia. Journal of
Hydrology, 475, 441–455.
Sun S., Deng Z. and Gang D.D. (2010). Nonpoint source
pollution. Water Environment Research, 82(10), 1875–
1894.
Riparian buffers
Sundareshan P. (2010). Using the transfer of water rights
as a climate change adaptation strategy: comparing
the United States and Australia. Arizona Journal of
International and Comparative Law, 27, 911.
Tisdell J.G. (2010). Impact of environmental traders on
water markets: an experimental analysis. Water Resources
Research, 46(3)(March 24), W03529.
Local flows
Brunner P., Cook P.G. and Simmons C.T. (2011).
Disconnected surface water and groundwater: from
theory to practice. Ground Water, 49(4), 460–467.
Saintilan, Neil and Ian Overton. (2010). Ecosystem
Response Modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO
Publishing.
Smith A.J. and Pollock D.W. (2012). Assessment of
managed aquifer recharge potential using ensembles of
local models. Ground Water, 50(1), 133–143. doi:10.1111/
j.1745–6584. (2011).00808.x.
Thurtell L. and Wettin P. (2012). Environmental water
delivery: Namoi River. Report for Commonwealth
Environmental Water, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Barma
Water Resources, Canberra.
Optimal level of surface water quality
Buda A.R., Koopmans G.F., Bryant R.B., Chardon W.J.
and others. (2012). Emerging technologies for removing
nonpoint phosphorus from surface water and groundwater: introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality,
41(3), 621–627.
Dotto C.B.S., Kleidorfer M., Deletic A., Fletcher T.D.,
McCarthy D.T. and Rauch W. (2010). Stormwater quality
models: performance and sensitivity analysis. Water
Science and Technology, 62(4), 837.
Field R., Struck S., Rowney A.C. and Tafuri A.N. (2011).
Innovative approaches for urban watershed wet-weather
flow management and control. Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, 2011(5), 229–252.
Moody P.W. (2011). Environmental risk indicators for soil
phosphorus status. Soil Research, 49(3), 247–252.
Olmstead S.M. (2010). The economics of water quality.
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(1),
44–62.
Parker G.T., Droste R.L. and Rennie C.D. (2012). Coupling
model uncertainty for coupled rainfall/runoff and surface
water quality models in river problems. Ecohydrology,
10.1002.
Appendices
Dosskey M.G., Vidon P., Gurwick N.P., Allan C.J., Duval T.P.
and Lowrance R. (2010). The role of riparian vegetation
in protecting and improving chemical water quality
in streams 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 46(2), 261–277.
Hansen B., Reich P., Lake P.S. and Cavagnaro T. (2010).
Minimum width requirements for riparian zones to protect
flowing waters and to conserve biodiversity: a review
and recommendations. with applications to the state of
Victoria. Report to the Office of Water, Department of
Sustainability and Environment. Monash University,
Melbourne.
Neary D.G., Smethurst P.J., Baillie B.R., Petrone K.C.,
Cotching W.E. and Baillie C.C. (2010). Does tree
harvesting in streamside management zones adversely
affect stream turbidity?—preliminary observations from
an Australian case study. Journal of Soils and Sediments,
10(4)(April 23), 652–670.
Pavanelli D. and Cavazza C. (2010). River suspended
sediment control through riparian vegetation: a method
to detect the functionality of riparian vegetation. CLEAN
– Soil, Air, Water, 38(11), 1039–1046.
Wang L., Duggin J.A. and Nie D. (2012). Nitrate–nitrogen
reduction by established tree and pasture buffer strips
associated with a cattle feedlot effluent disposal area
near Armidale, NSW Australia. Journal of Environmental
Management, 99(May 30), 1–9. doi:10.1016/
j.jenvman.(2012).01.008.
Riparian vegetation
Arnaiz, O.L., Wilson A.L., Watts R.J. and Stevens M.M.
(2011). Influence of riparian condition on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in an agricultural catchment
in south-eastern Australia. Ecological Research, 26(1),
123–131.
Chessman B.C. and Royal M.J. (2010). Complex environmental gradients predict distributions of river-dependent
plants in eastern Australia. Aquatic Sciences-Research
Across Boundaries, 72(4), 431–441.
Cooper D.J. and Andersen D.C. (2010). Novel plant
communities limit the effects of a managed flood to
restore riparian forests along a large regulated river. River
Research and Applications, 28(2), 204–215.
Fernandes M.R., Aguiar F.C. and Ferreira M.T. (2011).
Assessing riparian vegetation structure and the influence
of land use using landscape metrics and geostatistical
tools. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2), 166–177.
188
Appendices
Greet J., Webb J.A. and Cousens R.D. (2011). The importance of seasonal flow timing for riparian vegetation
dynamics: a systematic review using causal criteria
analysis. Freshwater Biology, 56(7), 1231–1247.
River geomorphology
Harris C.J., Leishman M.R., Fryirs K. and Kyle G. (2011).
How does restoration of native canopy affect understory
vegetation composition? Evidence from riparian communities of the Hunter Valley Australia. Restoration Ecology.
Bui E.N., Hancock G.J. and S.N. Wilkinson. (2011).
‘Tolerable’ hillslope soil erosion rates in Australia:
Linking science and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 144(1), 136–149.
Hickford M.J.H. and Schiel D.R. (2011). Population sinks
resulting from degraded habitats of an obligate life-history
pathway. Oecologia, 166(1), 131–140.
Bush R.T., Cheetham M.D., Keene A., Chalmers A. and
Erskine W.D. (2012). Influence of riparian vegetation on
channel widening and subsequent contraction on a sandbed stream since european settlement: Widden Brook,
Australia. Geomorphology, 47, 102.
Bishop P. and Pillans B. (2010). Introduction: Australian
geomorphology, into the 21st century. Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, 346(1), 1–6.
Hughes L. (2011). Climate change and Australia: key
vulnerable regions. Regional Environmental Change, 11,
189–195.
McGinness H.M., Arthur A.D. and Reid J.R.W. (2010).
Woodland bird declines in the Murray–Darling Basin: are
there links with floodplain change? The Rangeland Journal,
32(3), 315–327.
Munro N.T., Fischer J., Wood J. and Lindenmayer
D.B. (2012). Assessing ecosystem function of restoration plantings in south-eastern Australia. Forest
Ecology and Management, 282, 36–45. doi:10.1016/
j.foreco.2012.06.048.
Pittock J. and Finlayson C.M. (2011). Australia’s Murray–
Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options
in an era of climate change. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 62(3), 232–243.
Smith H.G., Sheridan G.J., Lane P.N.J. and Sherwin C.B.
(2010). Paired eucalyptus forest catchment study of
prescribed fire effects on suspended sediment and
nutrient exports in south-eastern Australia. International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 19(5), 624–636.
Chalmers A.C., Erskine W.D., Keene A.F. and Bush R.T.
(2011). Relationship between vegetation, hydrology and
fluvial landforms on an unregulated sand-bed stream
in the Hunter Valley, Australia. Austral Ecology, 37(2),
193–203.
Curran J.C. (2010). Mobility of large woody debris (LWD)
jams in a low gradient channel. Geomorphology, 116(3),
320–329.
Palmer G.C. (2012). Ecological value of riparian zones to
birds in forest landscapes. Deakin University, Melbourne.
Sheldon F., Bunn S.E., Hughes J.M., Arthington A.H.,
Balcombe S.R. and Fellows C.S. (2010). Ecological roles
and threats to aquatic refugia in arid landscapes: dryland
river waterholes. Marine and Freshwater Research, 61(8),
885–895.
Callow J.N. (2011). Potential for vegetation-based river
management in dryland, saline catchments. River
Research and Applications, 28(8), 1072–1092.
Czarnomski N.M. (2010). Influence of Vegetation on
Streambank Hydraulics.
Darby S.E. and Carling P.A. (2010). A physically based
model to predict hydraulic erosion of fine-grained riverbanks: the role of form roughness in limiting erosion.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, F04003–20pp.
Elosegi A. and Sabater S. (2012). Effects of hydromorphological impacts on river ecosystem functioning: a
review and suggestions for assessing ecological impacts.
Hydrobiologia, 1–15.
Erskine W.D., Saynor M.J., Chalmers A. and Riley S.J.
(2012). Water, wind, wood and trees, interactions, spatial
variations, temporal dynamics and their potential role in
river rehabilitation. Geographical Research, 50(1), 60–74.
England.
Erskine W., Keene A., Bush R., Cheetham M. and Chalmers
A. (2012). Influence of riparian vegetation on channel
widening and subsequent contraction on a sand-bed
stream since European settlement: Widden Brook,
Australia. Geomorphology, 147, 102–114.
Watson D.M. (2011). A productivity-based explanation for
woodland bird declines: poorer soils yield less food. Emu,
111(1), 10–18.
Fryirs K.A. (2013). Geomorphic Analysis of River Systems:
An Approach to Reading the Landscape. John Wiley &
Sons.
Webb M., Reid M. and Thoms M. (2011). The influence of
hydrology and physical habitat character on fish assemblages at different temporal scales. River Systems, 19(3),
283–299.
Grove J.R., Webb J.A., Marren P.M., Stewardson M.J. and
Wealands S.R. (2012). High and dry: comparing literature
review approaches to reveal the data that informs the
geomorphic management of regulated river floodplains.
Wetlands, 32, 215–224.
189
Gurnell A.M., Bertoldi W. and Corenblit D. (2011).
Changing river channels: the roles of hydrological
processes, plants and pioneer fluvial landforms in humid
temperate, mixed load, gravel bed rivers. Earth-Science
Reviews, 111(1–2), 129–141.
Appendices
White A., Rayburg S. and Neave M. (2011). The Influence
of physical factors on channel morphology and
geomorphic diversity. In: Proceedings of the 34th World
Congress of the International Association for HydroEnvironment Research and Engineering: 33rd Hydrology
and Water Resources Symposium and 10th Conference on
Hydraulics in Water Engineering, 3153.
Hancock G.R. and Coulthard T.J. (2011). Channel
movement and erosion response to rainfall variability
in southeast Australia. Hydrological Processes, 26(5),
663–673.
Zavadil E.A., Stewardson M.J., Turner M.E. and Ladson
A.R. (2011). An evaluation of surface flow types
as a rapid measure of channel morphology for the
geomorphic component of river condition assessments.
Geomorphology, 139–140:303–312.
Hubble T.C.T., Docker B.B. and Rutherfurd I.D. (2010). The
role of riparian trees in maintaining riverbank stability: A
review of Australian experience and practice. Ecological
Engineering, 36(3), 292–304.
Surface water availability – environment
Kelly B.F., Larsen J., Giambastiani B.M., Ralph T.J. and
Baker A. (2011). Neogene climate change and the impact
on the hydrostatigraphy of the lower Namoi Catchment,
Australia. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, 1 (December), 0791.
Asghar M.N., Khan M.A., Lashbrook B., Zumkley T. and
Lawson S. (2011). Hotspots assessment of spatial water
losses in the off-farm open channels irrigation supply
system. Water Resources Management, 25(5), 1281–1297.
Kemp J. (2010). Downstream channel changes on a
contracting, Anabranching River: The Lachlan, southeastern Australia. Geomorphology, 121(3), 231–244.
Waterlines Report, National Water Commission, Canberra.
Kobayashi, T., Ryder D.S., Ralph T.J., Mazumder D.,
Saintilan N., Iles J., Knowles L., Thomas R. and Hunter S.
(2010). Longitudinal spatial variation in ecological conditions in an in-channel floodplain river system during flow
pulses. River Research and Applications, 27(4), 461–472.
Grafton R.Q. (2010). How to increase the cost-effectiveness of water reform and environmental flows in the
Murray-Darling Basin. Agenda, 17(2), 17–40.
Pittock J. and Connell D. (2010). Australia demonstrates
the planet’s future: water and climate in the Murray–
Darling Basin. Water Resources Development, 26(4),
561–578.
Pittock J. and Finlayson C.M. (2011a). 2. Freshwater
Ecosystem Conservation: Principles Versus Policy. In:
Connell and Grafton (Eds), Basin Futures, 39. ANU Press,
Canberra.
Phillips J.D. (2011). Emergence and pseudo-equilibrium in
geomorphology. Geomorphology, 132(3), 319–326.
Ralph T.J. and Rogers K. (2011). Floodplain wetlands of
the Murray-Darling Basin and their freshwater biota. In:
Ralph and Rogers (Eds) Floodplain Wetland Biota in the
Murray–Darling Basin: Water and Habitat Requirements,
14–28. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Pittock J. and Finlayson C.M. (2011b). Australia’s Murray–
Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options
in an era of climate change. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 62(3), 232–243.
Sattar F., Wasson R., Pearson D., Boggs G., Ahmad W.
and Nawaz M. (2010). the development of geoinformatics based framework to quantify gully erosion. In:
International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo-Conference &
Expo.
Stromsoe N. and Callow J.N. (2012). The role of vegetation
in mitigating the effects of landscape clearing upon
dryland stream response trajectory and restoration
potential. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37(2),
180–192.
Tooth S. (2012). Arid geomorphology, changing perspectives on timescales of change. Progress in Physical
Geography, 36(2), 262–284.
Roson R. and Mensbrugghe D.V. (2012). Climate change
and economic growth: impacts and interactions.
International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 4(3), 270–
285.
Swainson B., de Loë R. and Kreutzwiser R. (2011).
Sharing water with nature: insights on environmental
water allocation from a case study of the Murrumbidgee
Catchment, Australia. Water Alternatives, 4(1), 15–34.
Surface water availability – people
Axelrod J. (2012). Water crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin:
Australia attempts to balance agricultural need with
environmental reality. Sustainable Development Law &
Policy, 12(1), 13.
190
Connell D. and Grafton R.Q. (2011). Basin Futures: Water
Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. ANU E Press.
Foster S., van Steenbergen F., Zuleta J. and Garduño H.
(2010). Conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water.
Appendices
Tan P.L., Bowmer K.H. and Baldwin C. (2012). Continued
challenges in the policy and legal framework for
collaborative water planning. Journal of Hydrology, doi:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.021.
Grafton R.Q. (2010). How to increase the cost-effectiveness of water reform and environmental flows in the
Murray-Darling Basin. Agenda, 17(2), 17–40.
Wei Y., Langford J., Willett I.R., Barlow S. and Lyle C.
(2011). Is irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin
well prepared to deal with reductions in water availability?
Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 906–916.
Hone S., Foster A., Hafi A., Goesch T., Sanders O.,
Mackinnon D. and Dyack B. (2010). Assessing the Future
Impact of the Australian Government Environmental Water
Purchase Program. ABARE.
Surface water quantity
Leblanc M., Tweed S., Van Dijk A. and Timbal B. (2011). A
review of historic and future hydrological changes in the
Murray-Darling Basin. Global and Planetary Change.
Grafton, R.Q. and Jiang Q. (2011). Economic effects of
water recovery on irrigated agriculture in the MurrayDarling basin. Australian Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, 55(4), 487–499.
Connell D. and Grafton R.Q. (2011). Basin Futures: Water
Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. ANU E Press.
Crossman N.D., Connor J.D., Bryan B.A., Summers
D.M. and Ginnivan. (2010). Reconfiguring an Irrigation
Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services.
Ecological Economics, 69(5)(March 15), 1031–1042.
191
The amount of
groundwater
available to
people and the
environment
The ability
of water to
infiltrate and
move through
the landscape
and therefore
recharge
aquifers
The freshness
and usability of
aquifers for use
by people and
the environment
Groundwater
recharge
optimal level
of groundwater
quality
Description
Groundwater
availability
Asset
192
Groundwater
management
zone, aquifer,
catchment?
Groundwater
management
zone, aquifer,
catchment?
Groundwater
management
zone, aquifer,
catchment?
Focal scale
Variable
Unknown
Adequate
Current state

Unknown

Trend in
condition
Not enough
datasets to be
conclusive but
atrazine has
been picked up
Drivers and
threats
bores retired
from production,
drinking water,
stock water,
irrigation water
supply affected,
GDE’s adversely
affected, soil
degradation
from using poor
quality water
?
extraction,
climate change,
bed and bank
incision,
pollution from
chemicals and
salt
Conceptual
model
biophysical
thresholds –
aquifer integrity.
Access to water
thresholds.
Management
response
threshold
relating to
protecting
aquifers, GDE
water availability
thresholds
Threshold
– known or
suspected
recharge rate
(rainfall and land
use) – recharge
has multiple
types and interrelationships
poorly
understood
– needs work.
Extraction rate
Controlling
variables
Neil Lavitt,
Reductions
extraction (can
Rob Banks,
in types of
draw down
conceptual
use possible,
salty water
models from
contaminated
from shallower
groundwater
base flows, GDE aquifers or parts
studies, 10 years health declining of aquifers),
work on the
(ANZECC
distance
Liverpool Plains guidelines). Crop from crop,
guidelines (plant recharge, type
tolerance stuff of rock water
George T.)
is travelling
through
river incision,
?
vegetation
change
(plantings,
bushfire),
extraction
particularly
in relation to
disconnection or
compaction of
aquifers
aquifer collapse, Extraction,
reduced
policy, climate
availability
change
of water
(management
response)
Consequence
of continuing
trend
don’t really know aquifer collapse,
how much is
reduced
coming from
availability of
slope recharge, water
floodplain
recharge, deep
drainage etc
uncertainty
as to whether
monitoring
locations are
appropriate and
impact of policy
changes already
made but yet to
play out in full
Notes on
trend
Appendix J: Water – results from 2010 expert workshops
links to the
gde issues in
biodiversity
theme
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
193
The amount of
surface water
available to
people
surface water
available to
people
Catchment,
Water sharing
plan area?
The amount of Catchment,
surface water
Water sharing
available to the plan area?
environment
surface water
availability
– environment
Current state
?
poor
water
Poor
sharing plans
– water source,
catchment,
management
zones
Focal scale
The amount
of water in the
catchment
Description
surface water
quantity
Asset



Trend in
condition
Conceptual
model
climate, policy,
declines
in quality,
changed land
management
high degree of
uncertainty in
unreg systems,
IQQM models
available for reg
systems
high degree of
uncertainty in
unreg systems,
IQQM models
available for reg
systems
extraction
flow information
(including
modelled,
population
climate change
growth, industry models, water
and agriculture), sharing plan
climate change models
(reduced
rainfall),
changes in
rainfall pattern,
afforestation,
land-use change,
urbanisation
(stormwater)
Drivers and
threats
improved
climate,
environmental afforestation,
outcomes,
changed land
Decreased water management,
available for
policy
other users
reduced
availability for
use, increased
pressure on
groundwater
systems, aquatic
health declines,
reduction to
habitat quality,
changes to
geomorphology
Consequence
of continuing
trend
decreasing due decreased
to the drying
drinking, stock
environment and and irrigation
policy decisions water, industry
water, towns,
recreation,
GDE’s
trend improving
because of
environmental
water allocation
– remains to be
seen if it will be
offset by general
drying of the
environment
Long-term
predicted trend
is down – drying
environment
Notes on
trend
minimum flow
for population
size, minimum
flow for
sustainable
agriculture
– UNE David
Thompson,
economic
impacts of water
sharing plans
not enough
thresholds to be
able to manage
environmental
variance
captured in
water sharing
plans as a
best guess.
Thresholds at
the farm scale,
minimal viable
availability and
feasibility
Threshold
– known or
suspected
rainfall,
allocation, CAP,
Extraction limits
– competition for
use, price
rainfall,
extraction
(extraction),
losses?
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
194
water
independent of
the floodplain
and the river
– perched
wetlands etc
the degree to
Catchment,
which surface
Water sharing
and groundwater plan area?
(and
groundwater and
groundwater)
sources are
connected
local flows
hydrological
connectivity
Local catchment Variable
Catchment,
Water sharing
plan area?
Poor
Current state
In-stream flows surface water
flows that stay
within bed and
bank
Focal scale
?
Description
floodplain flows subcomponent Catchment,
of surface water Water sharing
availability
plan area?
that has strong
influences
on ground
hydrology,
wetland health
etc. Within river
flows that break
out and local
overland flows
Asset
changing in
different ways
for different
areas but
probably overall
downwards
�
�
�
Trend in
condition
Continued water
quality and
quantity decline,
degraded
geomorphology,
failing riparian
vegetation
reductions in
groundwater
recharge,
floodplain
wetland
condition and
extent declining,
floodplain health
reduced, some
reduction in fish
breeding
Consequence
of continuing
trend
significant
impacts on
groundwater
recharge,
potential for
streams to
lose more to
base flow thus
reducing surface
water availability
based on drying reductions in
climate and farm groundwater
dams
recharge,
floodplain
wetland
condition and
extent declining,
floodplain health
reduced, some
reduction in fish
breeding
based largely
on reductions
in water
entering the
system – drying
environment
Notes on
trend
Conceptual
model
?
?
incision of
?
streams,
downward
trends in rainfall,
changed flow
regimes –
quicker overland
flows
regulation,
drying
environment,
extraction
regulation,
drying
environment,
extraction
?
?
?
extraction
Find conceptual ?
(including
model of
population
floodplain flow
growth, industry function
and agriculture),
climate change
(reduced
rainfall),
changes in
rainfall pattern,
afforestation,
land-use change,
urbanisation
(stormwater)
Drivers and
threats
Threshold
– known or
suspected
?
?
?
?
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
Description
Focal scale
native fish
number of fish Catchment,
species present Water sharing
and number of plan area?
fish present
river
stable and
Catchment,
geomorphology functioning
Water sharing
geomorphology plan area?
in the catchment
Asset
10% or preeuropean levels
bad
Current state


Trend in
condition
NOW has
mapped
recovery
potential and
fragility
Notes on
trend
Fish species
extinct, reduced
genetic stock,
knock on effects
to ecosystems,
populations
down to 5%
within 40–50
years
incision of
streams,
turbidity and
water quality
declining,
reduced aquifer
recharge,
reduced
floodplain
wetting,
wetland health
declines, instream habitat
destruction,
reduced
recovery
potential of the
system,
Consequence
of continuing
trend
Conceptual
model
Threshold
– known or
suspected
regulation,
pollution,
temperature
change, riparian
degradation,
erosion, desnagging,
introduced spp.
Some water
quality
thresholds for
native fish,
temperature and
BOD thresholds,
salinity
thresholds,
breeding
triggers,
migration
triggers,
thresholds
applicable
to macroinvertebrate
availability and
larvae stage
changed flow
NOW – recovery NOW – recovery
regime – both
potential
potential
reg and unreg
and fragility
thresholds
systems,
– combination of
increased rate river styles, veg
of run-off and
condition and
floods, removal water sharing
of in-stream
planning model
structures,
reduced riparian
vegetation
(cropping,
clearing, grazing,
tree death),
gravel/sand
extraction
Drivers and
threats
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
195
Appendices
196
riparian buffers vegetation
including
grasslands etc
that filter and
buffer water
from land-use
impacts
Threatened
water dependent
entities that are ecosystems,
water dependent populations and
species
Aquatic
as above except
vertebrate fauna insert aquatic
(non-fish)
vertebrate fauna
species
Catchment,
Water sharing
plan area?
as above except Catchment,
insert aquatic
Water sharing
vegetation
plan area?
species
Aquatic
vegetation
Focal scale
as above except Catchment,
insert macroWater sharing
invertebrate
plan area?
Description
invertebrate
community
Asset
poor – better in
cotton areas
?
poor
Current state

? Declines
in-stream
species of frog
particularly in
the uplands


Trend in
condition
Consequence
of continuing
trend
need to confirm
with data
Assumptions
would be that it
would be down
based on river
geomorphology
and other
parameters
based on river
geomorphology
declines etc –
check UNE work
for relevance
Fish species
extinct, reduced
genetic stock,
knock on effects
to ecosystems,
populations
down to 5%
within 40–50
years
SRA report, UNE Fish species
extinct, reduced
genetic stock,
knock on effects
to ecosystems,
populations
down to 5%
within 40–50
years
Notes on
trend
regulation,
?
pollution,
temperature
change, riparian
degradation,
introduced spp.
regulation,
?
pollution,
temperature
change, riparian
degradation,
introduced spp.
Drivers and
threats
Conceptual
model
Quality, flow
?
regime, quantity,
triggers,
Quality, flow
?
regime, quantity,
triggers,
Threshold
– known or
suspected
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
Appendices
Focal scale
Current state
poor
Healthy riparian KEY ASSET that poor – less than
vegetation
underpins a lot 10% introduced
of things
vegetation in
the riparian
buffer as defined
by Riparian
vegetation
assessment
Description
optimal level of as expected
Catchment,
water quality
by natural
Water sharing
conditions
plan area?
(benchmarks/
reference sites)
riparian
vegetation
Asset


Trend in
condition
recent
reductions
in chemical
contamination,
salinity up and
down. Turbidity
very bad and
stable
Need to go back
to Ecological
and find out the
details
Notes on
trend
Continued water
quality decline
and subsequent
available fresh
water impacts
further
fragmentation
of landscape
corridor,
reduction
in water
quality, loss of
ecosystems,
fish species
extinctions,
river geomorph
further degraded
Consequence
of continuing
trend
Conceptual
model
Queensland
may have some
models. Land
and Water
Australia, index
of stream
condition, Vera
Banks die back
phd. Grazing
models
Land-use
?
change,
agricultural
practices leading
to diffuse source
pollution, point
source pollution,
in-stream
erosion, salty
landscapes
Regulation, age
of vegetation,
poor quality,
loss of
geomorphology
Drivers and
threats
Controlling
variables
Linkages/
feedbacks to
other assets or
themes
national health ?
and medical
research council
– guidelines for
recreation water
quality
condition
grazing, clearing, linked to
thresholds,
flow, inv spp. In geomorphology,
structure,
some areas
buffering,
recruitment etc,
biodiversity
groundcover,
weediness, lippia
Threshold
– known or
suspected
197
Appendices
lifestyle amenity
Imported capital
Economic diversity Flow – to be
addressed by
general resilience
assessment
combination of all
financial/
social
Financial/
Built
Infrastructure
Built
soft infrastructure
Villages
Built
Flows resulting from
capital
combination of all
Major centres
Asset
Built
Capital
198


?

?


condition
Trend in
50% agriculture, 60% irrigationdependent, whole of catchment
might be upwards particularly
around Tamworth
more options to adapt to change through
the variety of industries and sectors
to access. Also may lead to improved
diversity of response. Can extend too far
and too much economic diversity can
lead to fewer economies of scale.
Land use,
ABS stats
about gross
production etc
improved capital may have positive flow- ?
on effects by drawing human capital due
to the financial resources available, may
cause a breakdown in social cohesion
and fracture responses to change.
Learnings that are brought in from
elsewhere are very important
Councils,
surveys
Council, socioeconomic
reviews, ABS
good infrastructure may result in
Council?
improved diversity of responses to issues
as outlined in major centres
less capacity in terms of just numbers
ABS data
and limitations on diversity of responses,
infrastructure problems, spin off effects
of resource scrabbling in response
to poverty, loss of critical mass and
difficulty in identifying leadership, self
organisation breaks down
highly dependent on location on same as above
richer people buying land in the
catchment – may have down
side of inflating property market
and could cause restructuring of
some communities
How to
measure
discussions about water use are city
ABS data
centric, urbanisation of landscapes,
may have increased diversity which
will potentially improve the diversity
of response, may attract high human
capital by built amenity and services
which will improve diversity of response
Effect on adaptive capacity
some smaller schools may close, supports wellbeing and capacity to
health services poor but stable understand and adapt to change by
direct servicing, also supports human
capital and may lead to more diverse
responses
As agriculture sheds labour
western centres are declining
Notes on trend
Identification of assets and how they impact on adaptive capacity
Can we act on
it – How?
Appendix K: People – results from 2010 expert workshops
Communities do not act
alone but are connected to
other scales of activity…
need to take into account
complexity of institutions/
governance
Notes
Appendices
Knowledge and data
Cultural diversity
sense of belonging
self knowledge
health
proximity to other
places
Human/
built
human/
social
human/social
human/
social
human/
social
natural
leadership
human
capacity to imagine
a different future
Experience
human
human
Human
skills
distribution of
wealth
financial/
social
human
Industries
Asset
Financial/
Built
Capital
capital
Trend in
199



?
?

?

?
?



condition
to higher level services or at
least perception of
May be increased diagnosis
locus of control moving to government etc and away from self
plenty around, may be overload
issues, effective knowledge is
different, but knowledge and
data is generally increasing
but if it is age dependent and
ageing population – then it
should be down too
demand also increasing – some
losses in knowledge – preserve
making etc
different ideas as to whether it
is there or not or improving or
declining
improving access to knowledge
– internet, KPI may not
necessarily be tertiary education
More disparity in distribution
of wealth but everybody overall
better off
scale issues – strong industry
some industries (e.g. irrigation) are
components driving employment very important to the economic and
but agriculture shedding labour social structure of the catchment and
restructure resulting from biophysical
thresholds being crossed will be
costly from an economic and social
perspective.
Notes on trend
Stays the same
– don’t need to
measure change
Councils, ABS
– other reports
etc
?
?
?
Expert opinion
?
ABS – councils?
?
?
?
ABS data
ABS data, gross
productivity
data, Cotton
CRC drought
studies and
work on cotton
catchment
communities
work
How to
measure
Can we act on
it – How?
Notes
Appendices
200
social cohesion
social
Social networks
equity
shared history
social
value/
human/
social
mixture of ages,
sexes
social
migration
complexity of
communities
Social
social/
human/
built/
financial
shared purpose
Asset
Social
Capital
Might be a flow
from various
capitals
capital
Trend in
societies becoming more
individualistic
ageing population – mixes of
sexes pretty even still
location sensitive, scale
sensitive, some segments can
act collectively when required
Notes on trend
?
How to
measure
Lack of equity or perception of lack
impedes engagement in activity…
a predictor of communities doing well
after catastrophic events
Shared history can be a positive and
is often associated with response and
recovery of community. Can also be
bad and associated with reluctance to
change and adapt
Partnerships
project
– other social
connectivity
work? UNE?
?
ABS
measures of
community
groups,
narratives etc
?
ABS
big impact on how communities respond ABS data
– council survey
information,
IPSOS
No clear some evidence that some
reflection of cohesion and could reflect
trend
traditional social networks
some of the same effects on adaptive
such as churches and some
capacity
sporting clubs declining but total
number of organised groups and
networks stable or increasing.
Communication networks and
opportunities have increased
(mobile phones – txting, internet
– facebook, twitter etc) but it is
unclear how these support of
improve social networks.



?
condition
Can we act on
it – How?
smaller regional
communities – a handful of
social nodes are becoming
very stretched – lack of
succession planning and
leadership development.
Need to maximise the
opportunities for access
by community and skills
development.
adaptation might not be in
socially accepted norms or
ecologically favourable
social cohesion can be
used to ‘manage’ people
and diversity
working with people,
along a continuum – most
people stuff can be either
good or bad dependent on
circumstances
disaster literature
Notes
Appendices
Appendices
Results from process of considering trend of natural resources and likely impact on people of continued trend
Asset
Trend
Impact on people
Notes on impact
depends on an individual persons or
groups sensitivity to species loss
Catchment-scale
Connectivity

Farmers – reduced profitability/productivity, changed
aesthetics, greater regulatory pressure, greater peer
pressure, threat to identity. General community
– changed aesthetics, lost lifestyle amenity, lost
development and investment opportunity. Impacts on
spirituality, totem affiliations, impacts on wellbeing, can
no longer use particular species (thresholds already
crossed – access is no longer possible). General decline
in social and emotional wellbeing.
Local Landscape
Connectivity

Total Woody
Vegetation cover

Floodplain
wetlands

Land managers – reduced profitability/productivity,
changed aesthetics, greater regulatory pressure, greater
peer pressure, threat to identity. Catchment Community
– lost lifestyle amenity, lost development and
investment opportunity. Impacts on spirituality, totem
affiliations, impacts on wellbeing, can no longer use
particular species (thresholds already crossed – access
is no longer possible). General decline in social and
emotional wellbeing.
Species
populations

Loss of tourism, loss of identity, sadness, loss of cultural
memory
Large areas of
conserved habitat

Intact native
vegetation
communities

Loss of tourism, scenic amenity, health and wellbeing.
Waterways
– connected

No drinking water, no irrigation, loss of tourism, loss
of recreation opportunity (water sports, fishing) – end
point could be reduced habitation
Waterways
– unconnected

Groundwater dependent towns with no water or no
potable water.
GDEs

Could lead to decline of significant areas of veg
– natural ecosystem and therefore all the veg loss
things apply.
Sensitive nonbiotic habitat
elements

Loss of recreation, tourism, wellbeing
Ecosystem
diversity

Medicine, cultural knowledge of habitat,
critical habitat

Total asset might be improving
however condition of individual pieces
might be declining due to visitor
pressure
201
In general the loss of any of these
things leads to a contraction of
economic activity and diversity
Asset
Trend
Appendices
Impact on people
Notes on impact
drought refugia

TSRs

loss of access to areas of naturalness, recreation,
tourism, wellbeing

towns running out of water, irrigation not possible,
reduced economic activity,
optimal level
of groundwater
quality

Water not drinkable, health implications, water not
usable for industry, agriculture, economic losses
surface water
quantity

Water not drinkable, health implications, water not
usable for industry, agriculture, economic losses
surface water
availability
– environment

Same impacts as for biodiversity – boils down to
quality of life, reduction to choices – social impacts of
fragmentation, blame, loss. Resource shortages do bad
things to societies
sensitivity will vary across individuals
and communities
surface water
available to
people

No drinking water, no irrigation, loss of tourism, loss
of recreation opportunity (water sports, fishing) – end
point could be reduced habitation
Generalised trend of resource decline
leads to economic stagnation – aged
infrastructure etc
floodplain flows

May be an increase in access to floodplains due
to changed flooding pattern, increased cropping
opportunity
In-stream flows

Same as for water availability and biodiversity loss
local flows

as above
Water
Groundwater
availability
Groundwater
recharge
hydrological
connectivity
?
changing in
different ways
for different
areas but
probably overall
downwards
Spiritual impoverishment associated
with degraded environments. Loss of
creative responses to beautiful places
as above
river
geomorphology

native fish

same as for biodiversity – loss of tourism, recreation,
food supply, identity, spiritual connections
invertebrate
community

same as for biodiversity – loss of tourism, recreation,
food supply, identity, spiritual connections
Grief might become a bigger issue as
species are lost and ways of life are no
longer possible – mental health issues
Aquatic
vegetation

?
Self delusion – community delusion as
a coping mechanism
Aquatic
vertebrate fauna
(non-fish)
? Declines instream species of
frog particularly in
the uplands
Threatened things
that are water
dependent
riparian buffers

202
Asset
Trend
Appendices
Impact on people
Notes on impact
riparian
vegetation

cultural, recreational, water quality losses, same
impacts as for biodiversity
optimal level of
water quality

health implications, same as for biodiversity, no drinking
water, reduced use of water, reduced wellbeing. Spin off
in environmental impacts of importing water
As resources decline and people may
be forced to move – knock on impacts
on other communities that are the
receiver of migrants
Landscape
Soils,
geomorphology/
topography

Liverpool plain
red earths
stable in relation
to sheet erosion.
Declining in
organic carbon
and structural
decline.
Duri Hills
stable
Steep
Sedimentary Hills
possible
downwards, look
at going back to
Rob Banks data to
establish
Liverpool black
soil plains
Impacts of resource use conflict
on social cohesion, economies,
individual wellbeing etc – aggression,
disenchantment, disengagement
flow-on effects from impacts on productivity.
Recognisable community and sectoral
impacts that can be addressed in this
structure
Burbugate
Alluvials/central
mixed soil
floodplains
People become paralysed and feel
hopeless – no points of access when
confronted with lots of downward
arrows. Need to maintain capacity to
affect outcomes.
Flat Pilliga
outwash/Pilliga
outwash
Overload of information regarding
the ‘bad news’ in natural resource
management.
Sedimentary Hill
slopes
gully erosion,
acidity, sodicity
and biodiversity
loss.
Sedimentary
footslopes
sandy Pilliga
footslopes
riparian corridor
central black
earths
erosion, salinity,
flooding and
biodiversity
loss – biggest
issues is salinity
– hyperwetting of
soils and drawing
up of naturally
salt in soils. Some
irrigation related
salinity as well.
Soil structure
decline being
addressed by
controlled traffic,
soils difficult to
damage.
flow-on effects from impacts on productivity.
203
Recognisable community and sectoral
impacts that can be addressed in this
structure
Appendix L: People – further
reading
Blair S., Campbell M., Lowe T. and Campbell C. (2011).
Securing the human perimeter: beyond operational
approaches to developing community capacity to live
with fire. Two examples from Victoria, Australia. In:
Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Human
Dimensions of Wildland Fire GTR-NRS-P, 84, 36.
The five ‘capitals’
Adams S. and Simnett R. (2011). Integrated reporting: an
opportunity for Australia’s not-for-profit sector. Australian
Accounting Review, 21(3), 292–301.
Agarwal R. and Green R. (2011). The role of education and
skills in australian management practice and productivity.
Fostering Enterprise: The innovation and skills nexus–
research readings, 79. NCVER, Melbourne.
Allan J., Clifford A., Ball P., Alston M. and Meister P. (2012).
‘You’re less complete if you haven’t got a can in your
hand’: Alcohol consumption and related harmful effects in
rural Australia: the role and influence of cultural capital.
Alcohol and Alcoholism, 47 (5), 624–629.
Alston M. (2011). Gender and climate change in Australia.
Journal of Sociology, 47(1), 53–70.
Alston M. (2012). Synthesis paper on socioeconomic
factors relating to agriculture and community
development. Crop and Pasture Science, 63(3), 232–239.
Anwar McHenry J. (2011). Rural empowerment
through the arts: the role of the arts in civic and social
participation in the Mid West Region of Western Australia.
Journal of Rural Studies, 27(3), 245–253.
Bailey S., Savage S. and O’Connell B. (2011). Volunteering
and social capital in regional Victoria. Australian Journal
on Volunteering, 8(2), 5–12.
Bardsley D.K. and Rogers G.P. (2010). Prioritizing
engagement for sustainable adaptation to climate change:
An example from natural resource management in South
Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 24(1), 1–17.
Bardsley D.K. and Wiseman N.D. (2012). Climate
change vulnerability and social development for remote
indigenous communities of South Australia. Global
Environmental Change, 22: 713–723.
Baum F., Putland C., MacDougall C. and Ziersch A. (2011).
Differing levels of social capital and mental health in
suburban communities in Australia: Did social planning
contribute to the difference? Urban Policy and Research,
29(01), 37–57.
Berry H.L., Butler J.R.A., Burgess C.P., King U.G., Tsey K.,
Cadet-James Y.L., Rigby C.W. and Raphael B. (2010). Mind,
body, spirit: co-benefits for mental health from climate
change adaptation and caring for country in remote
Aboriginal Australian communities. New South Wales
Public Health Bulletin, 21(6), 139–145.
Bihari M. and Ryan R. (2012). Influence of social capital
on community preparedness for wildfires. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 106(3), 253–261.
Appendices
Brown P.R., Jacobs B. and Leith P. (2012). Participatory
monitoring and evaluation to aid investment in natural
resource manager capacity at a range of scales.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 182(12),
7202–7220.
Brown P.R., Nelson R., Jacobs B., Kokic P., Tracey
J., Ahmed M. and DeVoil P. (2010). Enabling natural
resource managers to self-assess their adaptive capacity.
Agricultural Systems, 103(8), 562–568.
Buikstra E., Ross H., King C.A., Baker P.G., Hegney
D., McLachlan K. and Rogers-Clark C. (2010). The
components of resilience—perceptions of an Australian
rural community. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(8),
975–991.
Butler T. and Grace A. (2010). Building and maintaining
human capital with learning management systems.
Strategic Intellectual Capital Management in Multinational
Organizations: Sustainability and Successful Implications,
234. Business Science Reference, PA.
Callander E.J., Schofield D.J. and Shrestha R.N. (2012).
Towards a holistic understanding of poverty: a new
multidimensional measure of poverty for Australia. Health
Sociology Review, 21(2), 141–155.
Cameron R. (2011). Responding to Australia’s regional
skill shortages through regional skilled migration. Journal
of Economic and Social Policy, 14(3), 4.
Carey G. and Riley T. (2012). Fair and just or just
fair? Examining models of government—not-for-profit
engagement under the Australian social inclusion agenda.
Health Education Research, 27(4), 691–703.
Chalkiti K., Wegner A. and Cunningham T. (2011).
Social capital creation in shorter timeframes and its
role in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of
Management and Business. 2(1),82–95.
Charles D. (2011). The role of universities in building
knowledge cities in Australia. Built Environment, 37(3),
281–298.
Chenhall R.H., Hall M. and Smith D. (2010). Social capital
and management control systems: A study of a nongovernment organization. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 35(8), 737–756.
Chia J. (2011). Communicating, connecting and
developing social capital for sustainable organisations
and their communities. Australasian Journal of Regional
Studies, 17(3), 330.
204
Clothier B.E., Hall A.J., Deurer M., Green S.R. and Mackay
A.D. (2011). 9 Soil ecosystem services sustaining returns
on investment into natural capital. In: Sauer, Norman and
Sivakumar (Eds), Sustaining Soil Productivity in Response
to Global Climate Change: Science, Policy and Ethics,
Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Appendices
Farmer J., Prior M. and Taylor J. (2012). A theory of
how rural health services contribute to community
sustainability. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1903–1911.
Compton E. and Beeton R.J.S. (2012). An accidental
outcome: social capital and its implications for landcare
and the ‘status quo’. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 149–160.
Compton E., Shepherd R. and Moss J. (2010). Ecological
and social resilience in western NSW: Insight from seven
years of enterprise based conservation. In: DJ. Eldridge
and C. Waters (Eds) Proceedings of the 16th Biennial
Conference of the Australian Rangeland Society, Bourke,
1–7.
Foster, J. (2010). Productivity, creative destruction and
innovation policy: some implications from the Australian
experience. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice,
12(3), 355–368.
Francis K. (2012). Health and health practice in rural
Australia: where are we, where to from here? Online
Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care, 5(1), 28–36.
Gasper R., Blohm A. and Ruth M. (2011). Social and
economic impacts of climate change on the urban
environment. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 3(3), 150–157.
Gooch M. and Rigano D. (2010). Enhancing communityscale social resilience: what is the connection between
healthy communities and healthy waterways? Australian
Geographer, 41(4), 507–520.
Corcoran J., Faggian A. and McCann P. (2010). Human
capital in remote and rural Australia: The role of graduate
migration. Growth and Change, 41(2), 192–220.
Cork S. (2010). Resilience of social-ecological systems.
Resilience and Transformation: Preparing Australia for
Uncertain Futures, 131–142. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Crimp, S.J., Stokes C.J., Howden S.M., Moore A.D., Jacobs
B., Brown P.R., Ash A.J., Kokic P. and Leith P. (2010).
Managing Murray–Darling Basin livestock systems
in a variable and changing climate: challenges and
opportunities. The Rangeland Journal, 32(3), 293–304.
Curtis A.L. and Lefroy E.C. (2010). Beyond threat- and
asset-based approaches to natural resource management
in Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management, 17(3), 134–141.
Dollery B., Crase L. and Grant B.J. (2011). The local
capacity, local community and local governance
dimensions of sustainability in Australian Local
Government. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance
(8/9).
Hanigan I.C., Butler C.D., Kokic P.N. and Hutchinson
M.F. (2012). Suicide and drought in New South Wales,
Australia, 1970–2007. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(35), 13950–13955.
Hogan A., Bode A. and Berry H. (2011). Farmer health
and adaptive capacity in the face of climate change and
variability. Part 2: Contexts, personal attributes and
behaviors. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 8(10), 4055–4068.
Holland P., Fraser E. and Hecker R. (2010). Managing
talent: exploring human resource strategies in a dynamic
environment. In: 24th ANZAM Conference; Managing for
Unknowable Futures, 1, EJ.
Hugo G. (2011). Geography and population in Australia:
a historical perspective. Geographical Research, 49(3),
242–260.
Keating M. and Smith C. (2011). Critical issues facing
Australia to 2025: Summary of a scenario development
forum. Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia,
Canberra.
Dollery B., Goode S. and Grant B. (2010). Structural
reform of local government in Australia: a sustainable
amalgamation model for country councils. Space and
Polity, 14(3), 289–304.
Kenny S., McNevin A. and Hogan L. (2012). Voluntary
activity and local government: Managing volunteers or
facilitating active citizenship? Social Alternatives, 27(2),
45–49.
Donoghue J. and Tranter B. (2012). Social capital,
interpersonal trust and public housing. Australian Social
Work, 65(3), 413–430.
Drummond A., Halsey R.J. and van Breda M. (2011). The
perceived importance of university presence in rural
Australia. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 1.
Keogh D.U., Apan A., Mushtaq S., King D. and Thomas M.
(2011). Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity of
an Inland Rural Town Prone to Flooding: a Climate Change
Adaptation Case Study of Charleville, Queensland,
Australia. Natural Hazards, 59(2), 699–723.
Dyball R. and Keen M. (2012). Social learning in
environmental management: towards a sustainable future.
Earthscan, Routledge.
Everard M. (2010). Aquatic ecology, economy and society:
The place of aquatic ecology in the sustainabilty agenda.
In: Freshwater Forum. Vol. 13.
Kilpatrick S. and Vanclay F. (2012). Communities of
practice for building social capital in rural Australia: a
case study of ExecutiveLink. In: Dale and Onyx (Eds),
A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable
Community Development, 141–158. UBC Press,
Vancouver.
205
Penman J. and Ellis B. (2010). Adopting a proactive
approach to good health: A way forward for rural
Australians. Rural Society, 20(1), 98–109.
Kolikow S., Kragt M.E., and Mugera A. (2012). An
Interdisciplinary Framework of Limits and Barriers to
Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture.Working Paper
1202, University of Western Australia, Crawley.
Koohafkan P., Altieri M.A. and Gimenez E.H. (2012). Green
agriculture: Foundations for biodiverse, resilient and
productive agricultural systems. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 10(1), 61–75.
Maher A., Hayward-Brown H., Leonard R. and Onyx J.
(2010). Grey nomad volunteering: New partnerships
between grey nomads and rural towns in Australia.
University of Western Sydney, Bankstown.
Potts T. (2010). The natural advantage of regions: linking
sustainability, innovation and regional development in
Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 713–725.
Prior M., Farmer J., Godden D.J. and Taylor J. (2010). More
than health: the added value of health services in remote
Scotland and Australia. Health & Place, 16(6), 1136–1144.
Martinus K. (2010). Planning for production efficiency
in knowledge-based development. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(5), 726–743.
Prout S. (2011). Indigenous wellbeing frameworks in
Australia and the quest for quantification. Social Indicators
Research, 109, 317–336
McIntyre J. (2012). Lifelong learning as a policy process:
A case study from Australia. In: Aspin, Chapman and
Bagnall (Eds), Second International Handbook of Lifelong
Learning, 759–772. Springer.
Reddy V.R., Brown P., Bandi M., Chiranjeevi T., Reddy
D.R. and Roth C. (2010). Adapting to climate variability
in semi-arid regions: a study using sustainable rural
livelihoods framework. Livelihoods and Natural Resource
Management Institute, Hyderabad.
McManus P., Walmsley J., Argent N., Baum S., Bourke
L., Martin J., Pritchard B. and Sorensen T. (2011). Rural
community and rural resilience: What is important to
farmers in keeping their country towns alive? Journal of
Rural Studies, 13(4), 399–420.
Reid J.A., Green B., Cooper M., Hastings W., Lock G. and
White S. (2010). Regenerating rural social space? Teacher
education for rural-regional sustainability. Australian
Journal of Education 54(3), 262–276.
Mohanty I. and Tanton R. (2012). A wellbeing framework
with adaptive capacity. University of Canberra, National
Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, Canberra.
Mohnen S.M., Völker B., Flap H., Subramanian S.V. and
Groenewegen P.P. (2012). You have to be there to enjoy it?
Neighbourhood social capital and health. The European
Journal of Public Health, 8(1):282–8.
Onyx J. and Leonard R. (2010). The conversion of social
capital into community development: An intervention in
Australia’s outback. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 34(2), 381–397.
Paranagamage P., Austin S., Price A. and Khandokar F.
(2010). Social capital in action in urban environments:
An intersection of theory, research and practice
literature. Journal of Urbanism: International Research
on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 3(3), 231–252.
doi:10.1080/17549175.(2010).526374.
Parkinson M. (2011). Sustainable wellbeing—an economic
future for Australia. Economic Roundup (3), 57.
Pickernell D.G., Keast R.L. and Brown K.A. (2010). Social
clubs and social capital: The effect of electronic gaming
machines in disadvantaged regions on the creation
or destruction of community resilience. 14th Annual
Conference of the International Research Society for
Public Management (IRSPMXIV), University of Berne,
Bern, Switzerland, 7–9 April, IRSPM
Portes A. and Vickstrom E. (2011). Diversity, social capital
and cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–479.
Marshall N.A., Gordon I.J. and Ash A.J. (2011). The
reluctance of resource-users to adopt seasonal climate
forecasts to enhance resilience to climate variability on
the rangelands. Climatic Change, 107(3), 511–529.
Nelson R., Kokic P., Crimp S., Martin P., Meinke H.,
Howden S.M., de Voil P. and Nidumolu U. (2010). The
vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate
variability and change: Part II—Integrating impacts with
adaptive capacity. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(1),
18–27.
Appendices
Richards I., Chia J. and Bowd K. (2011). When
communities communicate: rural media and social
capital. Australian Journalism Review, 33(1), 97.
Richter L.M., Victora C.G., Hallal P.C., Adair L.S., Bhargava
S.K., Fall C.H.D., Lee N., et al. (2012). Cohort profile: the
consortium of health-orientated research in transitioning
societies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(3),
621–626.
Rickards L. and Howden S.M. (2012). Transformational
adaptation: agriculture and climate change. Crop and
Pasture Science, 63(3), 240–250.
Ross H. and Carter R.W. (Bill). (2011). Natural disasters
and community resilience. Australasian Journal of
Smith A., Courvisanos J., Tuck J. and McEachern S. (2010).
Building innovation capacity: the role of human capital
formation in enterprises. In: Curtin, Stanwick and Beddie
(Eds), Fostering Enterprise: The innovation and skills
nexus–research readings, 103–115. Australian Vocational
Education and Research Training Association.
Smith J.W., Anderson D.H. and Moore R.L. (2012). Social
capital, place meanings and perceived resilience to
climate change. Rural Sociology, 77(3),380–407.
206
Spiers H.G. (2010). Indigenous participation in health
sciences education: elements of the institutional learning
environment critical for course completion. Charles Darwin
University, Darwin.
Stanley J., Stanley J. and Hensher D. (2012). Mobility,
social capital and sense of community: what value? Urban
Studies, 49(16), 3595–3609.
Steffen W., Sims J., Walcott J. and Laughlin G. (2011).
Australian agriculture: coping with dangerous climate
change. Regional Environmental Change, 11, 205–214.
Appendices
Ward M. (2011). Included by design: a case for
regulation for accessible housing in Australia. n The First
International Postgraduate Conference on Engineering,
Designing and Developing the Built Environment for
Sustainable Wellbeing, 27–29 April 2011, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Qld.
Willis L.D. and Menzie K. (2012). Coteaching social
education: an oasis in changing times. Social Educator,
30(1), 15–22.
Withers G. (2012). The future of population policy.
In: Pincus and Hugo (Eds), A Greater Australia, 224.
Melbourne: CEDA, 224–232.
Stimson R.J. (2011). Differentials in industrial structure
and human capital performance across Australia’s
regions and the settlement system. In: Desai, Nijkamp
and Stough (Eds), New Directions in Regional Economic
Development: The Role of Entrepreneurship Theory and
Methods, Practice and Policy, 76. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham.
Woodhill J. (2010). Sustainability, social learning and
the democratic imperative: lessons from the Australian
landcare movement. In: Blackmore (Eds), Social Learning
Systems and Communities of Practice, 57–72. Springer,
London.
Stimson R.J., Robson A. and Shyy T.K. (2011). Modelling
endogenous regional employment performance in nonmetropolitan Australia: What is the role of human capital,
social capital and creative capital? In: Kourtit, Nijkamp
and Roger (Eds), Drivers of Innovation, Entrepreneurship
and Regional Dynamics, 179–204. Springer, New York.
Zammit C. (2012). Landowners and Conservation Markets:
Social Benefits from Two Australian Government Programs.
Land Use Policy. 29 (2012) 827–836.
Relationship to natural resources
Arnberger A. and Eder R. (2011). The influence of green
space on community attachment of urban and suburban
residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(1) 41–49.
Stimson R.J. (2011). Endogenous factors in regional
performance: a review of research in Australia. In:
Karlsson, Johansson and Stough (Eds), The Regional
Economics of Knowledge and Talent: Local Advantage in a
Global Context, 159. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham.
Ayre M. and Mackenzie J. (2012). ‘Unwritten, unsaid, just
known’: The role of Indigenous knowledge(s) in water
planning in Australia. National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility, Gold Coast.
Sun J., Buys N.J., Tatow D. and Johnson L. (2012). Ongoing
health inequality in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
population in Australia: Stressful event, resilience and
mental health and emotional well-being difficulties.
International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences 2(1): 38–45.
Baldwin C., Tan P.-L., White I., Hoverman S. and Burry K.
(2012). How scientific knowledge informs community
understanding of groundwater. Journal of Hydrology 474
(2012) 74–83.
Taylor M., Wells G., Howell G. and Raphael B. (2012). The
role of social media as psychological first aid as a support
to community resilience building. Australian Journal of
Emergency Management, 27(1), 20.
Thompson S. and Maginn P. (2012). Planning Australia:
An overview of urban and regional planning. Cambridge
University Press, Melbourne.
Biddle N. and Swee H. (2012). The relationship between
wellbeing and Indigenous land, language and culture in
Australia. Australian Geographer, 43(3).
Bowmer K. H. (2011). Water resource protection in
Australia: Links between land use and river health with a
focus on stubble farming systems. Journal of Hydrology,
403(1), 176–185.
Townsend R. (2012). Australian adult education and its
impact on diversity, social inclusion and social capital.
Revista MAGIS Investigación, 1(2), 307–317.
Brown P.R., Nelson R., Jacobs B., Kokic P., Tracey
J., Ahmed M. and DeVoil P. (2010). Enabling natural
resource managers to self-assess their adaptive capacity.
Agricultural Systems, 103(8), 562–568.
Van Beurden E.K., Kia A.M., Hughes D., Fuller J.D.,
Dietrich U., Howton K. and Kavooru S. (2011). Networked
resilience in rural Australia—A role for health promotion in
regional responses to climate change. Health Promotion
Journal of Australia, 22(Special), s54.
Campbell D. (2011). Application of an integrated
multidisciplinary economic welfare approach to improved
wellbeing through Aboriginal caring for country. The
Rangeland Journal, 33(4), 365–372.
Volkoff V. (2012). The contribution of the adult community
education sector in Australia to lifelong learning. In: Aspin,
Chapman, Evans and Bagnall (Eds), Second International
Handbook of Lifelong Learning, 629–647. Springer, London.
Carter A.J., Pisaniello J.D. and Burritt R.L. (2012). Moving
from rhetoric to effective implementation for Australian
Governments’ sustainability policies. Journal of the Asia
Pacific Centre for Environmental Accountability, 18(1),
25–55.
207
Carter J. (2010). Protocols, particularities and
problematising Indigenous ‘engagement’ in communitybased environmental management in settled Australia.
Geographical Journal, 176(3), 199–213.
Appendices
Marshall G.R. (2011). What ‘community’ means for
farmer adoption of conservation practices. In: Pannell
and Vanclay (Eds), Changing Land Management: Adoption
of New Practices by Rural Landholders, 107–127. CSIRO
Publishing, Melbourne.
Day A.M.B., Theurer J.A., Dykstra A.D. and Doyle
P.C. (2012). Nature and the natural environment as
health facilitators: the need to reconceptualize the ICF
environmental factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, May
25), 1–10.
Matarrita-Cascante D., Stedman R. and Luloff A.E.
(2010). Permanent and seasonal residents’ community
attachment in natural amenity-rich areas exploring the
contribution of landscape-related factors. Environment
and Behavior, 42(2)(March 1), 197–220.
Dhakal S.P. (2011). The five capitals framework for
exploring the state of friends’ groups in Perth, Western
Australia: Implications for urban environmental
stewardship. International Journal of Environmental,
Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 7(2), 135–
147.
McAllister R.R.J., Holcombe S., Davies J., Cleary J., Boyle
A., Tremblay P., Stafford Smith D.M., et al. (2011).
Desert networks: a conceptual model for the impact of
scarce, variable and patchy resources. Journal of Arid
Environments, 75(2), 164–173.
Eriksen C., Gill N. and Head L. (2010). The gendered
dimensions of bushfire in changing rural landscapes in
Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 332–342.
Mendham E., Gosnell H. and Curtis A. (2010).
Agricultural land ownership change and natural resource
management: comparing Australian and US case studies.
In: Luck, Race and Black (Eds), Demographic Change in
Australia’s Rural Landscapes, 153–187. CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Fitzhardinge G. (2012). Australia’s rangelands: a future
vision. The Rangeland Journal, 34(1), 33–45.
Franklin J. (2011). The local beneath the national and
global-institutional education, credentialed natural
resource management (NRM) and rural community (UN)
sustainability. Education in Rural Australia, 21(1), 55.
Minato W., Curtis A. and Allan C. (2010). Social norms
and natural resource management in a changing rural
community. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,
12(4), 381–403.
Gibson C. and Wong C. (2011). Greening rural festivals:
ecology, sustainability and human-nature relations. In:
Gibson and Connell (Eds), Festival Places: Revitalising
Rural Australia, 92–105. Channel View Publications,
Bristol.
Moon K. and Cocklin C. (2011). Participation in
biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of
Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(3),
331–342.
Green D., Niall S. and Morrison J. (2012). Bridging the
gap between theory and practice in climate change
vulnerability assessments for remote Indigenous
communities in northern Australia. Local Environment,
17(3), 295–315.
Morgan M. (2011a). Cultural Flows: Asserting Indigenous
Rights and Interests in the Waters of the Murray-Darling
River System, Australia. In: Johnston B.R., Hiwasaki L.,
Klaver I.J., Castillo A.R. and Strang V. (Eds), Water, Cultural
Diversity and Global Environmental Change, 453–466.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Hill R., Grant C., George M., Robinson C.J., Jackson S. and
Abel N. (2012). A typology of Indigenous engagement
in Australian environmental management: implications
for knowledge integration and social-ecological system
sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 23.
Nursey-Bray M. and Hill R. (2010). Australian Indigenous
peoples and biodiversity. Social Alternatives, 29(3), 13–19.
Orsi F. (2010). Restoring forest landscapes for nature
conservation and human well-being: advanced spatial
decision support tools. University of Trento, Trento.
Hillman M. and Instone L. (2010). Legislating nature for
biodiversity offsets in New South Wales, Australia. Social
& Cultural Geography, 11(5), 411–431.
Parrott L., Chion C., Gonzalès R. and Latombe G. (2012).
Agents, individuals and networks: modeling methods
to inform natural resource management in regional
landscapes. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 32.
Leith P., Jacobs B., Brown P.R. and Nelson R. (2012). A
participatory assessment of NRM capacity to inform
policy and practice: cross-scale evaluation of enabling
and constraining factors. Society & Natural Resources,
25(8), 775–793.
Leviston Z., Price J.C. and Bates L.E. (2011). Key influences
on the adoption of improved land management practice in
rural Australia: The role of attitudes, values and situation.
Rural Society, 20(2), 142–159.
Pilgrim S., Samson C. and Pretty J. (2012). Ecocultural
revitalization: replenishing community connections to
the land. In: Pilgrim and Pretty (Eds), Nature and Culture:
Rebuilding Lost Connections, 235. Earthscan, London.
Prager K. and Vanclay F. (2010). Landcare in Australia
and Germany: comparing structures and policies for
community engagement in natural resource management.
208
Appendices
Raymond C.M., Brown G. and Robinson G.M. (2011). The
influence of place attachment and moral and normative
concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a
test of two behavioural models. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31(4), 323–335.
Stain H.J., Kelly B., Carr V.J., Lewin T.J., Fitzgerald M. and
Fragar L. (2011). The psychological impact of chronic
environmental adversity: responding to prolonged
drought. Social Science & Medicine, 73(11) (December),
1593–1599. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.09.016.
Raymond C.M., Brown G. and Weber D. (2010). The
measurement of place attachment: personal, community
and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(4) (December), 422–434.
Stevenson R.B. (2011). Sense of place in Australian
environmental education research: distinctive, missing or
displaced? Australian Journal of Environmental Education,
27(1), 46–55.
Reeson A.F., Rodriguez L.C., Whitten S.M., Williams K.,
Nolles K., Windle J. and Rolfe J. (2011). Adapting auctions
for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape
scale. Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1621–1627.
Stevenson R.B. and Evans N.S. (2011). The distinctive
characteristics of environmental education research
in Australia: An historical and comparative analysis.
Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(01),
24–45.
Robson J.P. and Berkes F. (2012). Sacred nature and
community conserved areas. In: Pilgrim and Pretty (Eds),
Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections, 197.
Earthscan, London.
Rodrigues M. (2012). Australia’s relationship with the
land: reckoning with climate change. In: Bretherton D. and
Balvin N. (Eds), Peace Psychology in Australia, 285–303.
Springer US, Boston.
Schmitz C.L., Matyók T., Sloan L.M. and James C. (2012).
The relationship between social work and environmental
sustainability: implications for interdisciplinary practice.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3) 278–286.
Smyth D. (2011). Indigenous land and sea management–a
case study. Report Prepared for the Australian
Government Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities on Behalf of the
State of the Environment. Available at <http://laptop.
deh.gov.au/soe/2011/report/land/pubs/soe2011supplementary-land-indigenous-land-and-seamanagement-case-study.pdf>.
Tang Z. and Zhao N. (2011). Assessing the principles
of community-based natural resources management
in local environmental conservation plans. Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,
13(03), 405–434.
Valbuena D., Bregt A.K., McAlpine C., Verburg P.H.
and Seabrook L. (2010). An agent-based approach to
explore the effect of voluntary mechanisms on land use
change: a case in rural Queensland, Australia. Journal of
Woodward C., Chang J., Zawadzki A., Shulmeister
J., Haworth R., Collecutt S. and Jacobsen G. (2011).
Evidence against early nineteenth century major European
induced environmental impacts by illegal settlers in
the New England Tablelands, south eastern Australia.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 30 (27), 3743–3747.
209
List of figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figure 25:
Figure 26:
Figure 27:
Figure 28:
Figure 29:
Figure 30:
Figure 31:
Figure 32:
Figure 33:
Figure 34:
Figure 35:
Figure 36:
Figure 37:
Figure 38:
Figure 39:
Figure 40:
Figure 41:
Figure 42:
Figure 43:
Figure 44:
Figure 45:
Conceptual model of how biodiversity assets interact to provide ‘biodiversity’ in the catchment.;
an ‘arrow to’ represents a contribution from an ‘arrow from’ asset ........................................................... 10
Conceptual model describing the process of tree loss ..............................................................................11
Ecological function of scattered trees........................................................................................................12
Conceptual model of the processes underlying rural dieback ....................................................................12
Conceptual model of the development of rural dieback ............................................................................ 13
Effect of drought water stress on trees ..................................................................................................... 13
Effect of falling water-table water stress on trees ..................................................................................... 14
Effect of lack of river flooding water stress on trees .................................................................................. 14
Effect of prolonged inundation water stress on trees ................................................................................ 15
Effect of dryland salinity on trees ............................................................................................................. 15
Effect of insect damage (New England type dieback) on trees .................................................................. 16
Effect of insect attack and noisy miner dominance on trees ..................................................................... 16
Significant ecological and evolutionary processes in relation to geographical and temporal scale ............17
Relationship between habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and habitat quality within an area ................... 18
Flow diagram differentiating between landscapes experiencing habitat loss,
habitat fragmentation and changes in habitat quality ............................................................................... 18
Schematic representation of changes in the extent of fragmentation over time
(typical pattern for inland catchments of NSW, including the Namoi) ........................................................ 18
Generalised model of the relationship between microclimate and the distance from the edge of a forest .19
Role of functional connectivity...................................................................................................................19
Detail of the Western Woodlands Way proposal showing options for connectivity
maintenance and restoration across and beyond the Namoi Catchment ...................................................19
Detail of the Namoi Catchment Biodiversity Conservation Plan showing options for
connectivity maintenance and restoration within and beyond the Namoi Catchment ................................19
Woodland bird richness as it relates to tree cover .....................................................................................21
Key interactions between ecological and hydrological processes ..............................................................21
Decision tree for assigning priorities to each biodiversity attribute for landscapes
with more than 70% native vegetation cover ............................................................................................. 22
with 30–70% native vegetation cover........................................................................................................ 22
with 10–30% native vegetation cover........................................................................................................ 23
Diagnosis of landscapes as classified in the framework outlined in Figures 23–25 ................................... 23
Conceptual illustration of the relationship between extinction of species and native vegetation cover..... 24
A series of species-area curves in relation to per cent native vegetation remaining ................................. 24
Percentage of remaining woody native vegetation by grid cells ................................................................ 24
Priority sub-catchments for woody vegetation extent maintenance or improvement ................................ 24
Vulnerability of various sectors in Australia to climate change
(note the high level of vulnerability of natural ecosystems) ....................................................................... 26
Traits of species that will be more or less resilient to climate change impacts .......................................... 26
Outline of priority threatened species for investment in site management ................................................ 26
Map of priority threatened species for investment in site management .................................................... 27
Conceptual illustrations of extinction thresholds for species in relation to habitat
amount and of the ‘threshold zone’ for ecological function where a non-linear relationship exists ............ 27
Effects of climate change and how individuals and communities may respond ......................................... 27
Relationship between species richness and ecosystem function, highlighting the significance
of the greater loss of biodiversity from richer and more productive soil types and ecosystems
where the greatest levels of development and modification have occurred .............................................. 27
A range of thresholds identified for percentage decline in distribution of species or communities ............ 28
A range of thresholds identified in relation to area of occupancy and extent of occurrence...................... 28
Map of NSW showing the percentage of each bioregion protected in reserves ......................................... 29
Percentage reservation of each of the NSW bioregions ............................................................................ 29
Status and extent of regional vegetation communities ..............................................................................31
Status and extent of regional vegetation communities ............................................................................. 34
Priority invasive plant species for exclusion from the Namoi Catchment .................................................. 37
Priority invasive animal species for exclusion from the Namoi Catchment ................................................ 37
210
Figure 46:
Figure 47:
Figure 48:
Figure 49:
Figure 50:
Figure 51:
Figure 52:
Figure 53:
Figure 54:
Figure 55:
Figure 56:
Figure 57:
Figure 58:
Figure 59:
Figure 60:
Figure 61:
Figure 62:
Figure 63:
Figure 64:
Figure 65:
Figure 66:
Figure 67:
Figure 68:
Figure 69:
Figure 70:
Figure 71:
Figure 72:
Figure 73:
Figure 74:
Figure 75:
Figure 76:
Figure 77:
Figure 78:
Figure 79:
Figure 80:
Figure 81:
Figure 82:
Figure 83:
Figure 84:
Figure 85:
Figure 86:
Figure 87:
Figure 88:
Figure 89:
Figure 90:
Figure 91:
Figure 92:
Figure 93:
Figure 94:
Figure 95:
Figure 96:
Figure 97:
Priority emerging invasive plant species in the Namoi Catchment ............................................................ 37
Priority widespread invasive plant species in the Namoi Catchment ........................................................ 38
Priority widespread invasive animal species in the Namoi Catchment ...................................................... 38
Priorities for investment in conservation and improvement of extant vegetation ...................................... 38
Priorities for investment in native vegetation according to state-wide native vegetation
management priorities.............................................................................................................................. 38
Conceptual model of the thresholds that can be applied to intact or degraded vegetation communities .. 38
Threshold effect regarding weed invasion ................................................................................................ 39
A range of thresholds associated with intact woodland communities
(including coolibah – black box woodland, which is an important vegetation type in the Namoi Catchment)39
Key environmental components of a river ecosystem ............................................................................... 39
Components of a best practice framework for managing resilience in river ecosystems ........................... 40
Role of riparian vegetation as a habitat network and potential movement corridor ................................... 40
River condition across Australia, 2001 ...................................................................................................... 40
Interactions between living and non-living parts of a wetland ecosystem ..................................................41
Illustration of how subsurface groundwater-dependent ecosystems (SCDEs)
are linked through ecotones (seen as the shaded areas) to other ecosystems.......................................... 43
Groundwater-dependent ecosystems in a hypothetical region.................................................................. 43
Conceptual model of lower River Murray deep-soil water-recharge mechanisms
that are important for floodplain vegetation.............................................................................................. 43
Common river base-flow system in a typical catchment ........................................................................... 43
Relationship between vegetation and groundwater................................................................................... 44
Rooting depth of Australian vegetation species ........................................................................................ 44
Conceptual model from showing the factors influencing the biotic composition
of subsurface groundwater-dependent ecosystems.................................................................................. 44
Functions of healthy soils ......................................................................................................................... 54
Conceptual model – contribution of soil elements to overall health;
an arrow means that the ‘arrow from’ asset contributes to the ‘arrow to’ asset ........................................ 54
Median groundcover levels across the Namoi Catchment in 2011 ............................................................ 55
Priority land management units based on soil sodicity in light of climate change impacts ........................ 55
Conceptual model – contribution of water assets to the water theme;
an arrow means that the ‘arrow from’ asset contributes to the ‘arrow to’ asset .........................................67
The water cycle .........
69
Relationships between components of a groundwater system .................................................................. 70
The hydrologic cycle, including its effect on a catchment ......................................................................... 70
Water-balance summary diagram for the Namoi River – regulated water management area 2004–2005.. 70
Hudson footslope – recharge through weathered basalt hill slopes near the Liverpool Ranges................. 70
Flow chart of the hydrological sub-processes in the water-balance model.................................................71
Maximum historical drawdown pre 2011, maximum drawdown at each bore, Namoi Alluvium ...................71
Maximum historical drawdown pre 2011, maximum drawdown at each bore, Upper Namoi Alluvium ........71
Maximum historical drawdown pre 2011, maximum drawdown at each bore, Lower Namoi Alluvium ........71
Idealised drawdown for an aquifer system with multiple pumping bores ....................................................71
Histogram of change in groundwater levels in the Namoi Catchment between 1998 and 2008 ................ 72
Median annual change in groundwater levels in Namoi Catchment 1978–2008........................................ 72
Illustration of the anatomy of an aquifer system ....................................................................................... 72
Effects and manifestations of gravity-driven flow in a regionally unconfined drainage basin ..................... 73
Illustration of confined, unconfined and perched aquifer systems ............................................................. 73
Recharge from streambeds (a) with no hydraulic connection, and (b) with hydraulic connection.............. 73
Illustration of how water moves from groundwater, streams and soil to the atmosphere .......................... 73
How contamination occurs within aquifers ................................................................................................74
Illustration of how polluted groundwater affects a surface water stream ...................................................74
Summer and winter river flows in the Namoi ............................................................................................. 75
Monthly flow duration curve for the Namoi River at Narrabri .................................................................... 75
Stream valley interactions and impacts of modifications .......................................................................... 75
Surface water flow in the Namoi Catchment relative to threshold ............................................................ 76
Degree of risk to in-stream values for the Namoi Catchment .................................................................... 76
Relative level of water use for Murray-Darling Basin regions ..................................................................... 76
River and floodplain interactions............................................................................................................... 77
Confined, partly confined and lateral unconfined valley settings and their impact on river morphology .... 77
211
Figure 98:
Figure 99:
Figure 100:
Figure 101:
Figure 102:
Figure103:
Figure104:
Figure 105:
Figure 106:
Figure 107:
Figure 108:
Figure 109:
Figure 110:
Figure 111:
Figure 112:
Figure 113:
Figure 114:
Figure 115.
Figure116:
Figure 117:
Figure 118:
Figure 119:
Figure 120:
Figure 121:
Figure 122:
Figure 123:
Figure 124:
Figure 125:
Figure 126:
Figure 127:
Figure 128:
Figure 129:
Figure 130:
Figure 131:
Geomorphic and ecological functions at different flow levels ................................................................. 78
Processes within upland rivers ............................................................................................................... 78
Conceptual models of large river ecosystem function............................................................................. 78
Relationship between flow regime and ecological integrity .................................................................... 79
Interactions between surface water and groundwater.
Schematic illustration of the interaction between surface water and groundwater:
(a) neutral reach, (b) disconnected reach, (c) losing reach and (d) gaining reach .................................... 80
For a losing stream, flow is from the surface into the underlying sediments; the inset shows
the pathways of heat transfer into the sediments by conduction (grey) and convection (black).............. 80
Gaining stream; high groundwater levels (winter) and/or low stream flow ............................................. 80
Groundwater extraction .......................................................................................................................... 80
Losing stream; high stream flow due to flooding or dam releases........................................................... 80
Disconnected stream; potential implications for streamflow .................................................................. 80
Water availability in the Namoi ................................................................................................................81
Illustration of groundwater use and resultant impact on river over time ...................................................81
Illustration of surface-groundwater connectivity in the Namoi .................................................................81
NSW river reaches and groundwater management areas .........................................................................81
Illustration of the relationships between degradation, connectivity and flow in rivers ............................ 82
Updated risk to in-stream value mapping for the Namoi Catchment (2013) ............................................ 83
Geomorphic condition mapping across the Namoi Catchment (2010) .................................................... 83
Direct and diffuse inputs into waterways in areas of pasture, with and without riparian vegetation........ 84
Illustration of the function of riparian buffer zones ................................................................................. 85
Riparian vegetation
86
Conceptual diagram of the effect of riparian vegetation on discharge .................................................... 86
Desirable and undesirable states in relation to rivers ............................................................................. 86
Factors that drive water quality and what CMAs can do about them....................................................... 87
The Five Capitals – a conceptual model of the five types of capital from which we
derive the goods and services we need to improve the quality of our lives ............................................. 96
Conceptual model of the interaction between identified assets in human capital.
An arrow from an asset illustrates a contribution to the ‘arrow to’ asset.
A dotted line indicates a tenuous link. This conceptual model is proposed as
a ‘conversation starter’ rather than a position of certainty .................................................................... 100
Conceptual model of social capital assets showing general loose and interconnected relationships
between assets; assets identified contribute to the complexity of communities (another asset) .......... 104
Relationship between stress and subjective wellbeing .......................................................................... 111
Examining relationship between adaptive capacity, wellbeing and ability to work together.................... 111
Social-ecological sub-regions of the Namoi Catchment ......................................................................... 112
Social-ecological sub-regions identified for all NSW catchments ........................................................... 112
Template for sub-region social-ecological system conceptual models ................................................... 112
Conceptual model of the Tablelands social-ecological system ...............................................................113
Conceptual model of the Slopes social-ecological system. ....................................................................114
Conceptual model of the Plains social-ecological system ......................................................................115
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3.
Table 4:
Table 5
Critical thresholds identified for the Namoi Catchment .................................................................................. 7
Data showing per cent remaining for woody vegetation extent by sub-catchment ........................................ 25
River likelihood classifications as determined by the river styles framework. ............................................... 83
Assets defined by expert workshops, and how they may fit into ‘capitals’ .................................................... 97
Summary levels of socio-economic indices for general resilience in the Namoi Catchment ........................116
Namoi Catchment Management Authority
PO Box 546
Gunnedah NSW 2380
Telephone: 02 6742 9220
Fax: 02 6742 4022
www.namoi.cma.nsw.gov.au
212

Namoi Catchment Action Plan 2010–2020

Transcription

Similar documents

Colleen Farrow - All Occasions Management

GREGORY_A2 [Read-Only] - Australian Association for

accuaproject - CREAF

Pitsford Arm of the Brampton Branch

Catchment Area - Cirencester Deer Park School

Presentation of the Sucy-en-Brie case study

How To Determine The Number of Rain Barrels to Install

Poster

Helensvale SHS catchment map