DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Dredging Best Practice Environmental Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for Dredging Best Practice Environmental Management BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR DREDGING BEST PRACTICE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR DREDGING Environment Protection Authority 40 City Road, Southbank Victoria 3006 AUSTRALIA © Environment Protection Authority, October 2001 Publication 691 ISBN 0 7306 7578 5 Printed on recycled paper FOREWORD Dredging is necessary to create and maintain shipping and boating channels so that we can continue to engage in international trade and to enjoy safe fishing and recreational boating. However, dredging has the potential for significant environmental impact. These guidelines identify such impacts and suggest measures that may be taken to minimise them. They have been developed in consultation with organisations that undertake dredging, dredging contractors and conservation interests. In many cases impacts are minimal, but any impacts can cause considerable public concern. For example, discharge of black anaerobic sand onto sandy beaches looks and smells unpleasant, but the environmental impacts are minimal, and a typical sand colour returns after a few days exposure to air. Where the impacts of dredging are poorly known these are identified in the guidelines and addressed through monitoring or targeted research where this is considered more appropriate. A new mandatory process for consideration of dredging proposals is outlined. This represents a new step towards better control of the impacts of dredging that started when EPA developed the Trial Dredge Protocol in 1992. It involves a cooperative approach between Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, and the issuing of a Coastal Management Act 1995 consent for dredging works. Further advances in dredging technology and in our understanding of the major impacts will, in time, lead to further improvements to these guidelines. Finally, I thank members of the Dredge Protocol Management Committee for their contribution to the development of these guidelines. The technical appendices were written by Greg Parry, Sue Bextream (appendix 6), Gus Fabris (MAFRI, appendix 3) and Andrew Longmore (MAFRI, appendix 4). BRIAN ROBINSON CHAIRMAN i CONTENTS FOREWORD .....................................................................................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives and Scope.........................................................................................................................2 1.2 Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM) ...............................................................................3 1.3 Using these Guidelines .......................................................................................................................3 1.4 How to Apply for Dredging Permits.......................................................................................................4 2. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................................7 2.1 History of Controls on Dredging ...........................................................................................................7 2.2 Legislation that Affects Dredging Proposals .........................................................................................7 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS ................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Minimise the Need for Dredging and Spoil Disposal............................................................................ 10 3.2 Minimise Physical Effects of Spoil Disposal ........................................................................................ 12 3.3 Minimise Effects of Contaminated Sediments..................................................................................... 15 3.4 Minimise Effects on Water Quality...................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Optimise Dredging and Disposal Methods .........................................................................................23 3.6 Control of Noise................................................................................................................................28 3.7 Control of Odour ...............................................................................................................................29 3.8 Establish Appropriate Monitoring Programs .......................................................................................30 4. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................ 35 4.1 Environmental Improvement Plans.....................................................................................................36 APPENDIX 1: APPLICATION FORM FOR SECTION 40 (COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT 1995) CONSENT FOR A DREDGING PROPOSAL...........................................................................................................38 APPENDIX 2: DREDGING OPERATIONS AND IMPACTS........................................................................................43 APPENDIX 3: TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF DREDGED SEDIMENTS.............................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX 4: ESTIMATED NUTRIENT RELEASE BY DREDGING .............................................................................76 APPENDIX 5: ESTIMATED MAXIMUM SUSTAINED TURBIDITY TO MAINTAIN SEAGRASS HEALTH ............................79 APPENDIX 6: IMPLICATIONS OF FISH LIFE HISTORIES FOR DREDGING PRACTICES IN PORT PHILLIP BAY .................83 APPENDIX 7: CHECKLIST OF ISSUES REQUIRING CONSIDERATION FOR LAND DISPOSAL.......................................95 APPENDIX 8: FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING DATA TO EPA .........................................97 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................99 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 102 Tables Table 1: Average sediment volumes (m3) dredged per annum to maintain channels in Victorian coastal regions..2 Table 2: Typical number sediment cores to be sampled for dredging proposals removing different volumes of material (summarised from appendix 3)........................................................................................................ 14 Table 3: Months in which the eggs (E), larvae (L), juveniles (J), and adults (A) of marine and estuarine fish in Victoria may be vulnerable to dredging impacts. Months in which a life-history phase of a species is sufficiently aggregated that its vulnerability to dredging should be considered when determining the timing of dredging are shown in bold (see appendix 6 for details) ....................................................................................................24 Table 4: Examples of typical noise limits for various types of land use, based on (1) Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise in Country Victoria, and (2) SEPP No. N-1...........................................................................................30 Table 5: Guidance on selection of appropriate dredges for maintenance dredging (from Bray et al. 1997).......... 47 Table 6: Guidance on selection of appropriate dredges for capital dredging (from Bray et al. 1997) ..................48 Table 7: Typical number of sediment cores to be sampled for dredging proposals removing different volumes of material.......................................................................................................................................................59 Table 8: Sample collection methods, storage conditions and holding times for the various analyses (from USEPA 1991, ANZECC 1998).....................................................................................................................................62 Table 9: Recommended quantities of sediment or water required for various analyses (USEPA 1991; ANZECC 1998).........................................................................................................................63 Table 10: Classification of grain size of sediments based on the Udden-Wentworth grain size scale (Lewis 1984) ........................................................................................................................64 Table 11: Desirable detection for contaminants in sediment and elutriate samples, based on ANZECC (1992b) ......................................................................................................................................68 Table 12: Minimum and maximum screening levels for contaminants for sediments (ANZECC 1998, ANZECC - ARMCANZ, 2001) and twice background levels for selected contaminants in Port Phillip Bay. Water-quality guidelines for elutriate solutions are also shown. Consult the responsible authority for contaminants not listed 73 Table 13: Nutrient concentrations in pore water (mmol.L-1) from different regions of Port Phillip Bay, representative values from Nicholson et al. 1996 ...........................................................................................76
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Full Article 1.0MB .Pdf File
    Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 57( I): 143-165 ( 1998) 1 May 1998 https://doi.org/10.24199/j.mmv.1998.57.08 FISHES OF WILSONS PROMONTORY AND CORNER INLET, VICTORIA: COMPOSITION AND BIOGEOGRAPHIC AFFINITIES M. L. TURNER' AND M. D. NORMAN2 'Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379,Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia ([email protected]) 1Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia (corresponding author: [email protected]) Abstract Turner, M.L. and Norman, M.D., 1998. Fishes of Wilsons Promontory and Comer Inlet. Victoria: composition and biogeographic affinities. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 57: 143-165. A diving survey of shallow-water marine fishes, primarily benthic reef fishes, was under­ taken around Wilsons Promontory and in Comer Inlet in 1987 and 1988. Shallow subtidal reefs in these regions are dominated by labrids, particularly Bluethroat Wrasse (Notolabrus tet­ ricus) and Saddled Wrasse (Notolabrus fucicola), the odacid Herring Cale (Odax cyanomelas), the serranid Barber Perch (Caesioperca rasor) and two scorpidid species, Sea Sweep (Scorpis aequipinnis) and Silver Sweep (Scorpis lineolata). Distributions and relative abundances (qualitative) are presented for 76 species at 26 sites in the region. The findings of this survey were supplemented with data from other surveys and sources to generate a checklist for fishes in the coastal waters of Wilsons Promontory and Comer Inlet. 23 I fishspecies of 92 families were identified to species level. An additional four species were only identified to higher taxonomic levels. These fishes were recorded from a range of habitat types, from freshwater streams to marine habitats (to 50 m deep).
    [Show full text]
  • 3966 Tour Op 4Col
    The Tasmanian Advantage natural and cultural features of Tasmania a resource manual aimed at developing knowledge and interpretive skills specific to Tasmania Contents 1 INTRODUCTION The aim of the manual Notesheets & how to use them Interpretation tips & useful references Minimal impact tourism 2 TASMANIA IN BRIEF Location Size Climate Population National parks Tasmania’s Wilderness World Heritage Area (WHA) Marine reserves Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) 4 INTERPRETATION AND TIPS Background What is interpretation? What is the aim of your operation? Principles of interpretation Planning to interpret Conducting your tour Research your content Manage the potential risks Evaluate your tour Commercial operators information 5 NATURAL ADVANTAGE Antarctic connection Geodiversity Marine environment Plant communities Threatened fauna species Mammals Birds Reptiles Freshwater fishes Invertebrates Fire Threats 6 HERITAGE Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage European history Convicts Whaling Pining Mining Coastal fishing Inland fishing History of the parks service History of forestry History of hydro electric power Gordon below Franklin dam controversy 6 WHAT AND WHERE: EAST & NORTHEAST National parks Reserved areas Great short walks Tasmanian trail Snippets of history What’s in a name? 7 WHAT AND WHERE: SOUTH & CENTRAL PLATEAU 8 WHAT AND WHERE: WEST & NORTHWEST 9 REFERENCES Useful references List of notesheets 10 NOTESHEETS: FAUNA Wildlife, Living with wildlife, Caring for nature, Threatened species, Threats 11 NOTESHEETS: PARKS & PLACES Parks & places,
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of the Phylogeny, Biogeography and Taxonomy of Galaxioid Fishes
    Aspects of the phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomy of galaxioid fishes Jonathan Michael Waters, BSc. (Hons.) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, / 2- Oo ( 01 f University of Tasmania (August, 1996) Paragalaxias dissim1/is (Regan); illustrated by David Crook Statements I declare that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published o:r written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text. This thesis is not to be made available for loan or copying for two years following the date this statement is signed. Following that time the thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Signed Summary This study used two distinct methods to infer phylogenetic relationships of members of the Galaxioidea. The first approach involved direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA to produce a molecular phylogeny. Secondly, a thorough osteological study of the galaxiines was the basis of a cladistic analysis to produce a morphological phylogeny. Phylogenetic analysis of 303 base pairs of mitochondrial cytochrome b _supported the monophyly of Neochanna, Paragalaxias and Galaxiella. This gene also reinforced recognised groups such as Galaxias truttaceus-G. auratus and G. fasciatus-G. argenteus. In a previously unrecognised grouping, Galaxias olidus and G. parvus were united as a sister clade to Paragalaxias. In addition, Nesogalaxias neocaledonicus and G. paucispondylus were included in a clade containing G.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar Site Ecological Character Description
    Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar Site Ecological Character Description March 2012 Citation: Newall, P.R. and Lloyd, L.N. 2012. Ecological Character Description for the Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar Site. Lloyd Environmental Pty Ltd Report (Project No: LE0944) to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC), Australian Government. Lloyd Environmental, Syndal, Victoria, 2nd March 2012. Copyright © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2012. The Ecological Character Description for the Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar site is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons By Attribution 3.0 Australia licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ This report should be attributed as ‘Ecological Character Description for the Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River Ramsar site, Commonwealth of Australia 2012’. The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’. Acknowledgements: • Chris Bobbi, Senior Water Environment Officer, Water Assessment Branch, Water Resources Division, Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) • Sally Bryant, Manager Threatened Species Section, Biodiversity Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Aire River Estuary Management Plan
    SCOPING STUDY: Aire River estuary management plan August 2009 Document history Revision: Revision no. 02 Author/s M. Stacey R. Hardie S. Tilleard Checked R. Hardie Approved R. Hardie Distribution: Revision no. 01 Issue date 28 May 2009 Issued to Simone Wilkie (CCMA) Description: Draft for comment Revision no. 02 Issue date 26 August 2009 Issued to Simone Wilkie (CCMA) Description: Final Citation: Please cite this document as: Stacey, M, Hardie, R and Tilleard, S. (2009). Aire River estuary management plan: scoping study. Report P109021R01 by Alluvium for Corangamite CMA, Colac Ref: L:\Projects\2009\021_Aire_River_Mgt_Plan\1_Deliverables\P109021 _R01V02b.docx Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Approach 1 2.1 Site inspection and familiarisation 1 2.2 Literature and legislative review 1 Definition of a watercourse 8 2.3 Review and collation of additional background information 9 Historic ground photography 9 Development of a program logic 9 2.4 Development of a spatial activity plan 9 Public land boundaries 10 Attachment A Spatial activity plan and program logic Attachment B Historic ground photography Attachment C Historic aerial photography comparison Attachment D Tasmanian Mudfish ( Neochanna Cleaveri) information Tables Table 1. Planning and management literature reviewed for the project 2 Table 2. Key legislation reviewed for the project 3 Table 3. Relevant management recommendations identified in the literature reviewed for this project 4 Abbreviations Alluvium Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd CCMA Corangamite Catchment Management Authority CRHS Corangamite river health strategy. DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment MERI Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement Aire River estuary management plan: scoping study i 1 Introduction The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) commissioned Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd (Alluvium) to undertake a scoping study for the Aire River Management Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Mudfish (Neochanna Galaxiidae) Literature Review
    1 0 . 2 C omp E tition and pr E dation Analysis of NZFFD records indicates that Neochanna species occurred in habitats without any other fish species on more than half of the occasions they were recorded (Table 10). Although a wide variety of other fish species may sometimes co-occur with Neochanna species, the incidence of co-occurrence is typically low except for one or two species. It is thought that Neochanna species are generally intolerant of competition because of their small size, general lack of aggression, small mouth and low metabolic rate, all of which may reduce their potential to be dominant competitors (Meredith 1985). While Neochanna are not inherently territorial or aggressive towards con-specifics, Barrier & Hicks (1994) reported that adult N. diversus were aggressive towards G. affinis, and Eldon (1969) found N. apoda were aggressive when outnumbered, or in the presence of a multitude of species in aquaria (Eldon 1969). It has also been suggested (Meredith 1985) that Neochanna species may lack predator-avoidance mechanisms. However, when disturbed suddenly, N. cleaveri can jump to a height of 50–60 mm above the water before immediately diving down to the pool bottom. Fish may repeat this manoeuvre two or three times in quick succession and it is likely used to facilitate their escape from aquatic predators (Andrews 1991). Juvenile N. burrowsius exhibit a similar behaviour when startled, although not jumping as high (L. O’Brien, pers. obs.). The following sections provide further information on commonly occurring inter-specific interactions. 10.2.1 Anguilla species Eels (Anguillidae; Anguilla) prey on Neochanna, including larger (120 mm) individuals (Mitchell 1995; Eldon 1978b, 1979a), and there is a surprisingly low level of co-occurrence between Neochanna species and eels, considering the ubiquitous distribution of Anguilla species (Table 10).
    [Show full text]
  • Neochanna Cleaveri, Australian Mudfish
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ ISSN 2307-8235 (online) IUCN 2019: T122904064A123382186 Scope: Global Language: English Neochanna cleaveri, Australian Mudfish Assessment by: Whiterod, N., Hammer, M., Freeman, R., Raadik, T. & Coleman, R. View on www.iucnredlist.org Citation: Whiterod, N., Hammer, M., Freeman, R., Raadik, T. & Coleman, R. 2019. Neochanna cleaveri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T122904064A123382186. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T122904064A123382186.en Copyright: © 2019 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London. If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ Taxonomy Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Animalia Chordata Actinopterygii Osmeriformes Galaxiidae Taxon Name: Neochanna cleaveri (Scott, 1934) Synonym(s): • Galaxias cleaveri Scott, 1934 • Galaxias upcheri Scott, 1942 • Saxilaga anguilliformis Scott, 1936 Common Name(s): • English: Australian Mudfish Taxonomic Source(s): Eschmeyer, W.N., Fricke, R., and Ven der Laan, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations on the Tasmanian Mudfish, Galax/As Cleaver/ (Pisces: Galaxiidae)
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Tasmania Open Access Repository Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 125, 1991 55 OBSERVATIONS ON THE TASMANIAN MUDFISH, GALAX/AS CLEAVER/ (PISCES: GALAXIIDAE) by A.P. Andrews (with two tables, one text-figure and two plates) ANDREWS, A.P., 1991 (20:xii): Observation on the Tasmanian mudfish, Galaxias cleaveri (Pisces: Galaxiidae). Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasm. 125: 55-59. ISSN 0080-4703. Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 40 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7000. Meristic and morphometric comparisons are made of the three known populations of the Tasmanian mudfish; mainland Tasmania, Flinders Island and Victoria. The results of observations on the ecology and behaviour are reported. Key Words: Tasmanian mudfish, taxonomy, ecology, behaviour. INTRODUCTION a proprietary flake food. This diet was supplemented occasionally with small pieces of finely chopped worms and Most members of the genus Calaxias are small to medium­ crayfish. sized, fast-swimming, mid-water fishes that can be either lacustrine or diadromous (Whitley 1935). However, one species, Calaxias cleaveri Scott 1934, differs so markedly TAXONOMY from typical Tasmanian members of the genus that at one stage it was referred to tpe genus Saxilaga by Scott (1936). The taxonomy of C. cleaveri has been considered (Andrews Meristic and morphometric comparison of the mainland 1976) at both generic and specific levels, and subsequent Tasmanian, Flinders Island and Victorian populations authors, such as McDowall & Frankenberg (1981) and indicate that the three are conspecific. Jackson & Davies (1982), have neither made nor suggested The principal non-taxonomic differences between C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Freshwater Fish Fauna of the Tarkine Region, North-West Tasmania
    Bush Blitz – Tarkine Region North-West Tasmania, 27 January to 6 February 2015 A survey of the freshwater fish fauna of the Tarkine region, north-west Tasmania 27 January – 6 February 2015 Submitted: 26 March 2015 Scott Hardie Page 1 of 29 Bush Blitz – Tarkine Region North-West Tasmania, 27 January to 6 February 2015 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Collection methods .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 General methods .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 8 2.3 Identifying the collections .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Murphys Flat Conservation Area Management Statement 2010 /Parks and Wildlife Service
    MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 2010 Murphys Flat CONSERVATION AREA Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment MMMuuurrrppphhhyyysss FFFlllaaattt CCCooonnnssseeerrrvvvaaatttiiiooonnn AAArrreeeaaa MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt SSStttaaattteeemmmeeennnttt 222000111000 This management statement applies to the Murphys Flat Conservation Area which is managed under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 and is subject to the National Parks and Reserves Regulations 2009. The area known locally as Murphys Flat was acquired on 1 May 2001 with the financial assistance of the Commonwealth and State Governments and Norske Skog Boyer Paper Mills. The development of this management statement is a requirement of the acquisition. A draft management statement was prepared and released for public comment from 29 March 2010 until 24 May 2010. The comments were considered and where appropriate, incorporated into this management statement. The management statement has been prepared with the aim of guiding future management activities and to encourage care and interest in the reserve. It describes the reserve and its values and provides strategies and actions which will guide the conservation of the reserve’s natural diversity and cultural values. The Murphys Flat Conservation Area Management Statement was approved on 21 December 2010. It will be implemented by the Parks and Wildlife Service, Southern Region, subject to limitations of funding, staff and resources. Peter Mooney General Manager Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service NNNaaatttiiiooonnnaaalll LLLiiibbbrrraaarrryyy ooofff AAAuuussstttrrraaallliiiaaa CCCaaatttaaallloooggguuuiiinnnggg­­­iiinnn­­­PPPuuubbbllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnn eeennntttrrryyy Title: Murphys Flat conservation area management statement 2010 /Parks and Wildlife Service. ISBN: 9780724665617 (pbk.) 9780724665624 (PDF) Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Subjects: Natural resources conservation areas­­Tasmania­­Murphys Flat. Conservation Area­­Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Action Plan for South Australian Freshwater Fishes 2009
    Section 2 Species Recovery Outlines A conservation status reflects a level of extinction risk for a species. In this document, extinction risk relates to the continued survival of the species in South Australia. Status is thus assigned independently of social, management and political implications (status can however, influence these and other factors depending on how such a list is used). The current list of threatened freshwater fishes was instigated by a need to raise awareness of the overall plight of freshwater native fish in South Australia and to enable comparisons across vertebrate groups of the State. The list also provides the basis for developing Recovery Outlines for threatened species which document: • Conservation status – includes South Australia Action Plan status (criteria are in brackets and match Appendix 4), Protected species (Fisheries Management Act 2007), and other national and interstate listings. • Taxonomy and identification – includes a description of the species and key characters (see Figure 5) for distinguishing between similar species (as a guide only). • Former distribution – description of historic records (i.e. prior to 1990). Note that the historic and current distribution of many species has not been specifically assessed. • Current distribution – records after 1990 summarising documented declines and also listing any habitats where the species may be expected to occur. • Brief overview of species biology and habitat to outline the level of available information for aspects useful for management. • An assessment of potential reasons for species decline and threats. • Land tenure and conservation. • Recovery objectives. • Details of conservation actions already initiated. • Required conservation actions to help meet recovery objectives. • A list of organisations responsible for conservation of the species.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Database Metadata
    Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) Database - Metadata Contents Abstraction index ........................................................................................................ 1 Acid mine drainage .................................................................................................... 5 Area ........................................................................................................................... 7 Burrowing crayfish regions ......................................................................................... 8 Catchment disturbance .............................................................................................. 9 Conservation Management Priority – Immediate ...................................................... 14 Conservation Management Priority – Potential ......................................................... 17 Crayfish regions ....................................................................................................... 19 Digital elevation model ............................................................................................. 23 Elevation .................................................................................................................. 24 Estuaries .................................................................................................................. 25 Estuaries biophysical classification ........................................................................... 26 Estuaries naturalness ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]