DOCSLIB.ORG

Novel Methods for Managing Freshwater Refuges Against Climate Change in Southern Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Novel Methods for Managing Freshwater Refuges Against Climate Change in Southern Australia Novel methods for managing freshwater refuges against climate change in southern Australia Final Report Belinda J. Robson, Edwin T. Chester, Mark Allen, Stephen Beatty, Jane M. Chambers, Paul Close, Barbara Cook, Courtney R. Cummings, Peter M. Davies, Rebecca E. Lester, Alan Lymbery, Ty G. Matthews, David Morgan and Melanie Stock NOVEL METHODS FOR MANAGING FRESHWATER REFUGES AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE IN SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA Murdoch University AUTHORS Belinda J Robson (Murdoch University) Edwin T Chester (Murdoch University) Mark Allen (Murdoch University) Stephen Beatty (Murdoch University) Jane M Chambers (Murdoch University) Paul Close (University of Western Australia) Barbara Cook (University of Western Australia) Courtney R Cummings (Flinders University) Peter M Davies (University of Western Australia) Rebecca Lester (Deakin University) Alan Lymbery (Murdoch University) Ty G Matthews (Deakin University) David Morgan (Murdoch University) Melanie Stock (University of Western Australia) Published by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility 2013 ISBN: 978-1-925039-50-4 NCCARF Publication 79/13 Australian copyright law applies. For permission to reproduce any part of this document, please approach the authors. Please cite this report as: Robson, BJ, Chester, ET, Allen, M, Beatty, S, Chambers, JM, Close, P, Cook, B, Cummings, CR, Davies, PM, Lester, RE, Lymbery, A, Matthews, TG, Morgan, D & Stock M, 2013, Novel methods for managing freshwater refuges against climate change in southern Australia. Final Report, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, 59 pp. Acknowledgement This work was carried out with financial support from the Australian Government (through the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the National Water Commission) and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF). The role of NCCARF is to lead the research community in a national interdisciplinary effort to generate the information needed by decision-makers in government, business and in vulnerable sectors and communities to manage the risk of climate change impacts. Disclaimer The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of the Commonwealth or NCCARF, and neither the Commonwealth nor NCCARF accept responsibility for information or advice contained herein. Cover image: Wetlands © 2007 Alexander Fortin, made available under an Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license Table of contents ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 2 1. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................. 6 1.1 Sub-project 1 – Evaluating the utility of cold-water releases (shandying) for enhancing the resilience of riverine species ....................................................... 9 1.2 Sub-project 2 – Riparian replanting for temperature control in streams. ............ 9 1.3 Sub-project 3 – Can anthropogenic refuges enhance the survival of freshwater refuges? .............................................................................................................. 9 1.4 Sub-project 4 – Modifying small barriers to improve connectivity in rivers. ...... 10 2. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND METHODS ..................................................... 12 2.1 Sub-project 1 - Evaluating the utility of cold-water releases (shandying) for enhancing the resilience of riverine species. .................................................... 12 2.2 Sub-project 2 – Riparian replanting for temperature control in streams. .......... 12 2.3 Sub-project 3 – Can anthropogenic refuges enhance the survival of freshwater refuges? ............................................................................................................ 13 2.4 Sub-project 4 – Modifying small barriers to improve connectivity in rivers. ...... 14 3. RESULTS AND OUTPUTS .............................................................................. 15 3.1 Objectives for refuge management ................................................................... 15 3.2 Application of the approaches for refuge management .................................... 15 3.2.1 Application of cold-water releases .................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Application of riparian replanting....................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Application of anthropogenic habitat as refuges ............................................... 19 3.2.4 Application of the barrier removal process ........................................................ 25 3.3 Assessment of the present feasibility of the four approaches to refuge management ..................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 Cold-water releases .......................................................................................... 31 3.3.2 Riparian revegetation ........................................................................................ 32 3.3.3 Anthropogenic refuges ...................................................................................... 33 3.3.4 Barrier removal ................................................................................................. 33 4. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Climate change adaptation: the utility of these four approaches to refuge management ..................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Ecosystem services, benefits and synergies in the restoration of whole catchments ....................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1 Ecosystem services and human services ......................................................... 35 4.2.2 Synergies in catchment restoration................................................................... 36 4.3 Investing now to assist ecosystems to adapt to future climate ......................... 37 4.4 The need to fill key knowledge gaps to improve the utility of the approaches .. 40 4.5 The need to overcome institutional barriers to implementation ........................ 40 4.6 The opportunity to prepare ecosystems for future climate ................................ 41 5. GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ........................................... 42 5.1 Key knowledge gaps ......................................................................................... 42 5.1.1 Knowledge gaps particular to sub-project 1 – cold water releases. .................. 42 5.1.2 Knowledge gaps particular to sub-project 2 – riparian replanting ..................... 44 5.1.3 Knowledge gaps particular to sub-project 3 – anthropogenic refuges .............. 45 5.1.4 Knowledge gaps particular to sub-project 4 – barrier removal .......................... 45 5.2 Future research priorities .................................................................................. 50 Novel methods for managing freshwater refuges iii 5.2.1 Research priorities for cold-water releases ....................................................... 50 5.2.2 Research priorities for riparian replanting ......................................................... 51 5.2.3 Research priorities for anthropogenic refuges .................................................. 51 5.2.4 Research priorities for barrier removal .............................................................. 52 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 53 List of tables Table 1: Potential targets for refuge management using the four approaches investigated in this research project .............................................................................. 15 Table 2 Mean upper thermal tolerance levels (UTT) as determined in a review of laboratory experiments using either lethal temperature (LT) or critical thermal maximum (CTM) approaches for selected macroinvertebrate groups. ......................................... 17 Table 3 Feasibility of implementation of these four approaches to refuge management at the present time. ....................................................................................................... 29 Table 4: Feasibility of four approaches to refuge management for future climate. ....... 38 Table 5: Key knowledge gaps and research priorities .................................................. 47 List of figures Figure 1: Four methods of enhancing the resilience and function of refuges for freshwater biodiversity .................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2: Maximum Field Distribution temperatures for a) 8 insect orders and b) 7 mollusc families present in south-western Australia. .................................................... 19 Figure 3: The process for identifying and prioritising instream barriers for removal and mitigation in southern Australia. .................................................................................... 27 iv Novel methods for managing freshwater refuges ABSTRACT Southern Australia is becoming warmer and drier as climate change progresses, creating serious threats to freshwater ecosystems that are dependent on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sacramento River Ecological Flows Study: State of the System Report
    Sacramento River Ecological Flows Study: State of the System Report Public Review Draft Prepared for The Nature Conservancy 500 Main Street Chico, CA 95928 by Stillwater Sciences 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400 Berkeley, CA 94705 Funded by CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program November 2006 Suggested Citation: Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Sacramento River ecological flows study: State of the system report. Public Review draft. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley for The Nature Conservancy, California. Public Review Draft Sacramento River Ecological Flows Study State of the System Report Executive Summary This State of the System (SOS) Report is part of the Sacramento River Ecological Flows Study (the “Study”) initiated by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in collaboration with ESSA Technologies, Stillwater Sciences, UC Davis, and UC Berkeley. The study area focuses on the mainstem Sacramento River corridor between Keswick Dam (RM 302) and Colusa (RM 143), including the channel, adjacent floodplain and riparian habitats, and off-channel water bodies. The overarching goal of the Study is to define how flow characteristics (e.g., the magnitude, timing, duration, and frequency) and associated management actions (such as gravel augmentation and changes in bank armoring) influence the creation and maintenance of habitats for a number of native species that occur in the Sacramento River corridor. This SOS Report is designed to provide resource managers and stakeholders with information and tools that will allow them to explore how changes in the pattern of flow releases can affect habitats in the Sacramento River. In this way, the SOS Report should provide useful information for water operations planning, restoration planning, species recovery planning, and storage investigations (e.g., for Shasta Dam enlargement and the Sites Reservoir construction) that focus on the Sacramento River.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic and Riparian Resources
    Aquatic and Riparian Resources AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES Abstract: Waters originating on the Forest provide for many, and often conflicting uses. Many people depend on the Forest to supply water for municipal use and irrigation. Streams and riparian areas provide favored recreation sites for anglers, campers, rafters, and other recreationists. The same streams and riparian areas also provide habitat for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. There are 1,937 miles of perennial streams and 476 lakes on the Forest. These vary from nearly pristine water bodies in wilderness areas to streams that have been heavily impacted by human activities including timber harvest, grazing, road construction, and mining. Native fish populations have been affected by habitat modification and by the introduction of nonnative fish. Seven species of fish have been identified as management indicators for the Forests and Grassland. A revised watershed condition assessment conducted for the FEIS assessment indicates that of the 177 watersheds on the Forest, 41 were rated as functional, 87 were rated at risk, and 19 were rated nonfunctional. Thirty watersheds with less than 10 percent NFS lands were not rated. Ln addition, 12 stream segments are listed by the State of Colorado as having impairment of designated uses. Watershed conservation practices and Forest Plan standards and guidelines prescribe extensive measures to protect aquatic and riparian resources. If all applicable measures are implemented and if they are effective, adverse effects from any of the alternatives should be minimized. However, as levels of activity increase, the risk that conservation practices will not be properly implemented or will not be entirely effective increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Water Levels on Ecosystems: an Annotated Bibliography
    Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Technical Report 96-T007 Effects of Water Levels on Ecosystems: An Annotated Bibliography This PDF file may appear different from the printed report because of slight variations incurred by electronic transmission. The substance of the report remains unchanged. December 1996 LTRMP Technical Reports provide Long Term Resource Monitoring Program partners with scientific and technical support. This report did not receive anonymous peer review. Environmental Management Technical Center CENTER DIRECTOR Robert L. Delaney MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS AND INTEGRATION DIRECTOR Kenneth Lubinski INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SERVICES DIRECTOR Norman W. Hildrum Cover graphic by Mi Ae Lipe-Butterbrodt Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. Report production support provided by Information and Technology Services Division Printed on recycled paper Effects of Water Levels on Ecosystems: An Annotated Bibliography by Joseph H. Wlosinski and Eden R. Koljord U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Management Technical Center 575 Lester Avenue Onalaska, Wisconsin 54650 December 1996 Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). This report may be cited: Wlosinski, J. H., and E. R. Koljord. 1996. Effects of water levels on ecosystems: An annotated bibliography. U.S. Geological
    [Show full text]
  • Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-Arid American Southwest
    The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest R E S E A R C H A N D D E V E L O P M E N T EPA/600/R-08/134 ARS/233046 November 2008 www.epa.gov The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-arid American Southwest by Lainie R. Levick, David C. Goodrich, Mariano Hernandez USDA-ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center Tucson, Arizona Julia Fonseca Pima County Office of Conservation Science and Environmental Policy Tucson, Arizona Darius J. Semmens USGS – Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center Denver, Colorado Juliet Stromberg, Melanie Tluczek Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Robert A. Leidy, Melissa Scianni USEPA, Office of Water, Region IX San Francisco, California D. Phillip Guertin University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona William G. Kepner USEPA, ORD, NERL Las Vegas, Nevada The information in this report has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under an interagency assistance agreement (DW12922094) to the USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Southwest Watershed Research Center. It has been subjected to both agencies peer and administrative review processes and has been approved for publication. Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development i Washington, DC 20460 5765leb08 Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the following people for their valuable comments and review that significantly improved the quality, value, and accuracy of this document: Dave Bertelsen (University of Arizona Herbarium), Trevor Hare (Sky Island Alliance), Jim Leenhouts (USGS), Kathleen Lohse (University of Arizona), Waite Osterkamp (USGS), Sam Rector (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality), Phil Rosen (University of Arizona), Marty Tuegel (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaibab National Forest: an Evaluation of Water Resource Characteristics, and Their Contribution in Ecosystem Diversity and Ecological Sustainability
    Kaibab National Forest: An Evaluation of Water Resource Characteristics, and their Contribution in Ecosystem Diversity and Ecological Sustainability Ver.1.00 October 06, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... i Introduction-Background............................................................................................................................ 1 A. Purpose and Objective of Analysis................................................................................................. 1 Scales and Data Used In the Analysis..................................................................................................... 1 Current, Historic Condition and Niche by Resource .................................................................................. 2 A. Watershed Extent, and Perennial Streams ......................................................................................2 Current Conditions:............................................................................................................................. 2 Watershed Extent and Perennial Streams: .......................................................................................... 5 B. Water Yield (Surface, Groundwater and Instream Flow Water Rights)....................................... 13 Current Conditions:..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]