DOCSLIB.ORG

South-East Queensland Water Supply Strategy Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South-East Queensland Water Supply Strategy Environmental South-east Queensland Water Supply Strategy Environmental Assessment of Logan/Albert and Mary Catchment Development Scenarios FINAL DRAFT Study Team Dr Sandra Brizga, S. Brizga & Associates Pty Ltd (Study Coordinator) Professor Angela Arthington, Griffith University Mr Pat Condina, Pat Condina and Associates Ms Marilyn Connell, Tiaro Plants Associate Professor Rod Connolly, Griffith University Mr Neil Craigie, Neil M. Craigie Pty Ltd Dr Mark Kennard, Griffith University Mr Robert Kenyon, CSIRO Mr Stephen Mackay, Griffith University Mr Robert McCosker, Landmax Pty Ltd Ms Vivienne McNeil, Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Water Logan/Albert and Mary Catchment Scenarios Environmental Assessments Table of Contents Table of Contents...........................................................................................................2 List of Figures................................................................................................................3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................6 Scope and Objectives.................................................................................................6 General Overview of Key Issues and Mitigation Options.........................................6 Logan/Albert Catchment Development Scenarios.....................................................7 Mary Catchment Development Scenarios .................................................................9 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................11 1.1 Background, Scope and Objectives .............................................................11 1.2 Methodology................................................................................................16 1.2.1 Study Process.......................................................................................16 1.2.2 Ecological Conservation Values (ECVs) of Proposed Dam Pondages16 1.2.3 Scenario Assessment Methodology .....................................................16 1.2.4 Condition Rating Methodology ...........................................................18 1.2.5 Identification of Mitigation Measures .................................................19 1.3 Report Outline..............................................................................................20 2 General Overview of Issues and Mitigation Options...........................................21 3 Logan/Albert Catchment Development Scenarios...............................................60 3.1 Large Tilleys Dam .......................................................................................68 3.1.1 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects .......................................68 3.1.2 Downstream Effects on Non-Tidal Reaches........................................79 3.1.3 Downstream Effects on Estuarine Reaches .........................................84 3.2 Small Tilleys Dam + Wyaralong Dam.........................................................89 3.2.1 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects – Small Tilleys Dam.....89 3.2.2 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects – Wyaralong Dam ......89 3.2.3 Downstream Effects on Non-Tidal Reaches........................................96 3.2.4 Downstream Effects on Estuarine Reaches .........................................98 3.3 Wyaralong Dam + Glendower Dam ............................................................99 3.3.1 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects – Wyaralong Dam .......99 3.3.2 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects – Glendower Dam .......99 3.3.3 Downstream Effects on Non-Tidal Reaches......................................105 3.3.4 Downstream Effects on Estuarine Reaches and Receiving Waters...108 3.3.5 Mitigation Options for Downstream Effects on the Logan/Albert Estuary 111 4 Mary Catchment Scenarios................................................................................114 4.1 Traveston Dam...........................................................................................122 4.1.1 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects .....................................122 4.1.2 Downstream Effects on Non-tidal Reaches .......................................141 4.1.3 Downstream Effects on Estuarine Reaches and the Great Sandy Strait 152 4.2 Mary catchment – Cambroon, Kidaman, Amamoor and Borumba (Raising) Dams Scenario .......................................................................................................157 4.2.1 Dam Pondage and Upstream Barrier Effects – Implications for Condition and Values.........................................................................................157 Final Draft Report_NRW_2.0_rev Page 2 Logan/Albert and Mary Catchment Scenarios Environmental Assessments 4.2.2 Mitigation Options for New/Raised Dams ........................................171 4.2.3 Downstream Effects on Non-tidal Reaches .......................................174 4.2.4 Mitigation Options for Downstream Impacts of Dams......................191 4.2.5 Downstream Effects on Estuarine Reaches and the Great Sandy Strait 194 References..................................................................................................................195 Abbreviations.............................................................................................................198 Appendix A – Storage Curves Appendix B – Further Information on Vallisneria nana Appendix C – Freshwater Fish Species Relevant to the Logan/Albert and Mary Catchment Development Scenarios Appendix D – Further Information on Key Fauna Species of Conservation Significance Appendix E – Regional Ecosystems within Pondage Areas or Buffer Zones of Proposed Mary Catchment Dams List of Figures Figure 1.1 Condition assessment categories ...............................................................18 List of Tables Table 1.1 Key characteristics of new dams and weirs in the Logan/Albert and Mary catchment development scenarios........................................................................12 Table 1.2 Hydrologic modelling scenarios for the Logan/Albert catchment...............14 Table 1.3 Hydrologic modelling scenarios for the Mary catchment ...........................15 Table 1.4 Definition of condition assessment categories............................................19 Table 2.1 Mitigation and compensation options for geomorphological and ecological changes in and upstream of dam pondage areas ..................................................23 Table 2.2 Mitigation and compensation options for geomorphological and ecological changes downstream of dams (non-tidal reaches) ...............................................42 Table 2.3 Mitigation and compensation options for geomorphological and ecological changes downstream of dams (estuarine reaches) ...............................................57 Table 3.1 Comparison of Logan/Albert catchment development scenarios ................62 Table 3.2 REs of conservation significance recorded or likely to occur within pondage areas or buffer zones of proposed Logan/Albert catchment dams.......................70 Table 3.3 Other vertebrate species of special conservation significance in the Logan/Albert catchment.......................................................................................74 Table 3.4 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to impoundment and barrier effects of Large Tilleys Dam....................................................................77 Table 3.5 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to downstream effects of the Large Tilleys Dam scenario on non-tidal reaches of the Logan River......83 Table 3.6 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to downstream effects of the Large Tilleys Dam scenario on the Logan/Albert estuary.........................88 Final Draft Report_NRW_2.0_rev Page 3 Logan/Albert and Mary Catchment Scenarios Environmental Assessments Table 3.7 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to impoundment and barrier effects of Wyaralong Dam .......................................................................94 Table 3.8 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to downstream effects of the Small Tilleys Dam + Wyaralong Dam scenario on non-tidal reaches of the Logan River and Teviot Brook ............................................................................97 Table 3.9 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to impoundment and barrier effects of Glendower Dam .....................................................................104 Table 3.10 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to downstream effects of the Wyaralong Dam + Glendower Dam scenario on non-tidal reaches of Teviot Brook and the Logan and Albert Rivers.................................................106 Table 3.11 Key mitigation and compensation measures relevant to downstream effects of the Wyaralong Dam + Glendower Dam scenario on the Logan/Albert estuary ............................................................................................................................112 Table 4.1 Comparison of Mary catchment development scenarios...........................117 Table 4.2 REs of conservation significance recorded or likely to occur within pondage areas or buffer zones of proposed Mary catchment dams..................................126
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WQ1251 - Pioneer River and Plane Creek Basins Downs Mine Dam K ! R E Em E ! ! E T
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! %2 ! ! ! ! ! 148°30'E 148°40'E 148°50'E 149°E 149°10'E 149°20'E 149°30'E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ° k k 1 e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! re C 2 se C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! as y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M y k S ! C a ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ° r ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! r Mackay City estuarine 1 %2 Proserpine River Sunset 2 a u ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! g ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e M waters (outside port land) ! m ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bay O k Basin ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! F C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! n Bucasia ! Upper Cattle Creek c Dalr
    [Show full text]
  • Seqwater's 22 October Submission / Response To
    SEQWATER’S 22 OCTOBER SUBMISSION / RESPONSE TO QCA REQUEST OF 12 OCTOBER 12 October 2012 I hereby provide Seqwater with a further information request. Seqwater’s detailed responses to each item would be appreciated by COB 19 October 2012, please. Happy to discuss at any time noting the proposed due date of COB 19 October 2012 From: Colin Nicolson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012 1:10 PM To: Angus MacDonald Cc: George Passmore; Damian Scholz Subject: FW: Information Request 12 October 2012 Hello Angus Here are our responses to the above information request. QCA Question 1 - Cedar Pocket Stakeholders (Issues Arising (IA) Cedar Pocket 2012) submitted that more details were required regarding Seqwater’s proposed renewals expenditure [outlined in the NSP] on “electricity supply assets” in 2025-26 at $30,000. Please provide more details regarding this proposed expenditure. Seqwater Response to Item 1 The Assets in question are a property pole, meter box (excluding the meters), cabling and a distribution board. The renewal is scheduled based on the Seqwater “standard asset life” of 20 years for this type of equipment. It was installed in 2005 and will be 20 years old when the work is scheduled. The cost estimate is drawn from the estimated replacement costs as set out in Section 5.2.2 and Section 9 of the Irrigation Infrastructure Renewal Projections - 2013/14 to 2046/47 Report on Methodology. The renewal timing, will be reviewed on an ongoing basis so that it is only delivered when condition warrants. The scope and cost estimate will be reviewed prior to commencement of work to ensure the delivery is efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission DR130
    To: Commissioner Dr Jane Doolan, Associate Commissioner Drew Collins Productivity Commission National Water Reform 2020 Submission by John F Kell BE (SYD), M App Sc (UNSW), MIEAust, MICE Date: 25 March 2021 Revision: 3 Summary of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Current Situation / Problem Solution 3.0 The Solution 4.0 Dam Location 5.0 Water channel design 6.0 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act – Section 100 7.0 Federal and State Responses 8.0 Conclusion 9.0 Acknowledgements Attachments 1 Referenced Data 2A Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 2B Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 3 Effectiveness of Dam Size Design Units L litres KL kilolitres ML Megalitres GL Gigalitres (Sydney Harbour ~ 500GL) GL/a Gigalitres / annum RL Relative Level - above sea level (m) m metre TEL Townsville Enterprise Limited SMEC Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority 1.0 Introduction This submission is to present a practical solution to restore balance in the Murray Daring Basin (MDB) with a significant regular inflow of water from the Burdekin and Herbert Rivers in Queensland. My background is civil/structural engineering (BE Sydney Uni - 1973). As a fresh graduate, I worked in South Africa and UK for ~6 years, including a stint with a water consulting practice in Johannesburg, including relieving Mafeking as a site engineer on a water canal project. Attained the MICE (UK) in Manchester in 1979. In 1980 returning to Sydney, I joined Connell Wagner (now Aurecon), designing large scale industrial projects. Since 1990, I have headed a manufacturing company in the specialised field of investment casting (www.hycast.com.au) at Smithfield, NSW.
    [Show full text]
  • The Burdekin River
    The Burdekin River In March 1846, the Burdekin River was named by German During the wet season there is no shortage of water explorer and scientist, Ludwig Leichhardt after Mrs Thomas or wildlife surrounding the Burdekin River. As the wet Burdekin, who assisted Mr Leichhardt during his expedition. season progresses the native wildlife flourishes and the dry country comes alive with all types of flora and fauna. In 1859, George Dalrymple explored the area in search of good pastoral land. Two years later, in 1861, the land One of the major river systems in Australia, the along the Burdekin River was being settled and cattle Burdekin has a total catchment area of 130,000 sq km, properties and agricultural farms were established. which is similar in size to England or Greece. The Burdekin River is 740km long and the centrepiece to an entire network of rivers. Most of the water that flows through the Burdekin Ludwig River starts its journey slowly flowing through Leichhardt creeks and tributaries picking up more volume as it heads towards the Pacific Ocean. Information and photos courtesy of Lower Burdekin Water, CSIRO, SunWater and Lower Burdekin Historical Society Inc. Burdekin Falls Dam The site chosen for the Dam was the Burdekin Throughout the construction phase the As well as being a fantastic spot for camping, Falls, 159km from the mouth of the river. The weather had been very kind. There had this lake is also popular for fishing with Burdekin Dam required a huge volume of not been a wet season in the 2 ½ years schools of grunter, sleepy cod, silver perch concrete; it took 630,000 cubic metres for it had taken to construct the dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Water for South East Queensland: Planning for Our Future ANNUAL REPORT 2020 This Report Is a Collaborative Effort by the Following Partners
    Water for South East Queensland: Planning for our future ANNUAL REPORT 2020 This report is a collaborative effort by the following partners: CITY OF LOGAN Logo guidelines Logo formats 2.1 LOGO FORMATS 2.1.1 Primary logo Horizontal version The full colour, horizontal version of our logo is the preferred option across all Urban Utilities communications where a white background is used. The horizontal version is the preferred format, however due to design, space and layout restrictions, the vertical version can be used. Our logo needs to be produced from electronic files and should never be altered, redrawn or modified in any way. Clear space guidelines are to be followed at all times. In all cases, our logo needs to appear clearly and consistently. Minimum size 2.1.2 Primary logo minimum size Minimum size specifications ensure the Urban Utilities logo is reproduced effectively at a small size. The minimum size for the logo in a horizontal format is 50mm. Minimum size is defined by the width of our logo and size specifications need to be adhered to at all times. 50mm Urban Utilities Brand Guidelines 5 The SEQ Water Service Provider Partners work together to provide essential water and sewerage services now and into the future. 2 SEQ WATER SERVICE PROVIDERS PARTNERSHIP FOREWORD Water for SEQ – a simple In 2018, the SEQ Water Service Providers made a strategic and ambitious statement that represents decision to set out on a five-year journey to prepare a holistic and integrated a major milestone for the plan for water cycle management in South East Queensland (SEQ) titled “Water region.
    [Show full text]
  • Lin-Et-Al-2018.Pdf
    Received: 20 February 2017 Revised: 13 July 2017 Accepted: 17 July 2017 DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2831 RESEARCH ARTICLE Impacts of fishing, river flow and connectivity loss on the conservation of a migratory fish population Hsien‐Yung Lin1 | Christopher J. Brown2 | Ross G. Dwyer3 | Doug J. Harding4 | David T. Roberts5 | Richard A. Fuller1 | Simon Linke2 | Hugh P. Possingham1 1 Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological Sciences, The Abstract University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 1. Migratory species depend on connected habitats and appropriate migratory cues to complete Australia their life cycles. Diadromous fish exemplify species with migratory life cycles by moving 2 The Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith between connected freshwater and saltwater habitats to reproduce. However, migration University, Nathan, QLD, Australia increases the exposure of fish to multiple threats and it is critical that managers integrate hab- 3 School of Biological Sciences, The University itat connectivity into resource management and conservation. of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia 4 Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2. The benefit of alternative management actions was assessed for a diadromous fish, the Landcentre, Woolloongabba, Australia Australian bass Percalates novemaculeata, using a spatio‐temporal population model informed 5 Seqwater, Ipswich, QLD, Australia by individual‐based movement data. The management actions comprise seasonal closures Correspondence during the spawning season, and controlling fishing pressure by limiting catch or effort. Hsien‐Yung Lin, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological 3. The benefits of implementing seasonal closures depend upon interactions among how fishing Sciences, The University of Queensland, St pressure is controlled, the response of anglers to fishery regulations and river flow regimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Burdekin Haughton Water Supply Scheme Resource Operations Licence
    Resource Operations Licence Water Act 2000 Name of licence Burdekin Haughton Water Supply Scheme Resource Operations Licence Holder SunWater Limited Water plan The licence relates to the Water Plan (Burdekin Basin) 2007. Water infrastructure The water infrastructure to which the licence relates is detailed in attachment 1. Authority to interfere with the flow of water The licence holder is authorised to interfere with the flow of water to the extent necessary to operate the water infrastructure to which the licence relates. Authority to use watercourses to distribute water The licence holder is authorised to use the following watercourses for the distribution of supplemented water— Burdekin River, from and including the impounded area of Burdekin Falls Dam (AMTD 159.3 km) downstream to the river mouth (AMTD 6.0 km); Burdekin River Anabranch, from its confluence with the Burdekin River (Burdekin River AMTD 10.0 km) downstream to the anabranch mouth (Burdekin River AMTD 4.0 km); Two Mile Lagoon, Leichhardt Lagoon and Cassidy Creek, from the Elliot Main Channel downstream to the Burdekin River confluence (Burdekin River AMTD 41.2 km); Haughton River, from the supplementation point (AMTD 42.0 km) to Giru Weir (AMTD 15.6 km), which includes the part of the river adjacent to the Giru Benefited Groundwater Area; and Gladys Lagoon, between Haughton Main Channel and Ravenswood Road. Conditions 1. Operating and supply arrangements 1.1. The licence holder must operate the water infrastructure and supply water in accordance with an approved operations manual made under this licence. 2. Environmental management rules 2.1. The licence holder must comply with the requirements as detailed in attachment 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Evidence Report on Citiswich Development by Tony Loveday (Bremer Business Park Masterplan) Prepared For
    A part of BMT in Energy and Environment Response Report to Floods Commission – Review of Evidence Report on Citiswich Development by Tony Loveday (Bremer Business Park Masterplan) prepared for Ipswich City Council R.B18414.005.00.doc November 2011 Response Report to Floods Commission – Review of Evidence Report on Citiswich Development by Tony Loveday (Bremer Business Park Masterplan) prepared for Ipswich City Council November 2011 Offices Brisbane Denver Mackay Melbourne Prepared For: Ipswich City Council Newcastle Perth Sydney Prepared By: BMT WBM Pty Ltd (Member of the BMT group of companies) Vancouver G:\ADMIN\B18414.G.RGS\R.B18414.005.00.DOC CONTENTS I CONTENTS Contents i 1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1-1 2 HISTORY OF THE BREMER BUSINESS PARK AND CITISWICH FLOOD ASSESSMENTS 2-1 3 REVIEW OF FLOOD ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR THE PROJECT INCLUDING CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT AND FLOOD STORAGE 3-1 4 COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANNING SCHEME 4-1 5 LIMITATIONS OF THE REVIEW AND ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY MR LOVEDAY 5-1 6 SPECIFIC REVIEW COMMENTS ON MR LOVEDAY’S REPORT 6-1 7 CONCLUSIONS 7-1 APPENDIX A: FLOOD AND STORMWATER REPORTS – CITISWICH ESTATE A-1 APPENDIX B: BCC FILLING AND EXCAVATION CODE B-1 G:\ADMIN\B18414.G.RGS\R.B18414.005.00.DOC PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1-1 1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT This Report has been prepared by Neil Collins to assist Ipswich City Council with expert advice in relation to flooding in its response to a Report prepared by Mr Loveday for the Queensland Floods Commission dated 7 November 2011, in relation to the Bremer Business Park (Citiswich) Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No
    ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 4, Item 3, Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, 2 February 2016 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Mary River environmental values and water quality objectives Basin No. 138, including all tributaries of the Mary River July 2010 Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 Prepared by: Water Quality & Ecosystem Health Policy Unit Department of Environment and Resource Management © State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2010 This publication is available in alternative formats (including large print and audiotape) on request. Contact (07) 322 48412 or email <[email protected]> July 2010 Document Ref Number Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 Main parts of this document and what they contain • Scope of waters covered Introduction • Key terms / how to use document (section 1) • Links to WQ plan (map) • Mapping / water type information • Further contact details • Amendment provisions • Source of EVs for this document Environmental Values • Table of EVs by waterway (EVs - section 2) - aquatic ecosystem - human use • Any applicable management goals to support EVs • How to establish WQOs to protect Water Quality Objectives all selected EVs (WQOs - section 3) • WQOs in this document, for - aquatic ecosystem EV - human use EVs • List of plans, reports etc containing Ways to improve management actions relevant to the water quality waterways in this area (section 4) • Definitions of key terms including an Dictionary explanation table of all (section 5) environmental values • An accompanying map that shows Accompanying WQ Plan water types, levels of protection and (map) other information contained in this document iii Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Cod (Maccullochella Peelii Peelii)
    Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) Qifeng Ye, G. Keith Jones, and Bryan E. Pierce November 2000 Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA for the Inland Waters Fishery Management Committee South Australian Fisheries Assessment Series 2000/17 Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) Qifeng Ye, G. Keith Jones, and Bryan E. Pierce November 2000 Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA for the Inland Waters Fishery Management Committee South Australian Fisheries Assessment Series 2000/17 Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................II LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. III ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................................... V 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1 2. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. FISHERY ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. History ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives (Plan)
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M A R Y R I V E R , I N C L U D I N G A L L T R I B U T A R I E S O F T H E R I V E! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Basin 138 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 152°E 152°20'E ! 152°40'E 153°E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H E R V E Y B AY ! ! ! B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Grego R ! ! ry i ! ! v u er ! ! ! ! ! ! ! r ! ! ! ! CORDALBA ! n ! ! ! ! ! WALKERS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e ! ! ! POINT ! Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t t ! ! ! o ! ! Users must refer to plans WQ1372 k c ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! k ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e ! y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! r e a and WQ1402 for information on South-east Queensland Map Series ! r ! i d ! ! C v BURRUM
    [Show full text]
  • Land Cover Change in the South East Queensland Catchments Natural Resource Management Region 2010–11
    Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts Land cover change in the South East Queensland Catchments Natural Resource Management region 2010–11 Summary The woody vegetation clearing rate for the SEQ region for 10 2010–11 dropped to 3193 hectares per year (ha/yr). This 9 8 represented a 14 per cent decline from the previous era. ha/year) 7 Clearing rates of remnant woody vegetation decreased in 6 5 2010-11 to 758 ha/yr, 33 per cent lower than the previous era. 4 The replacement land cover class of forestry increased by 3 2 a further 5 per cent over the previous era and represented 1 Clearing Rate (,000 26 per cent of the total woody vegetation 0 clearing rate in the region. Pasture 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 remained the dominant replacement All Woody Clearing Woody Remnant Clearing land cover class at 34 per cent of total clearing. Figure 1. Woody vegetation clearing rates in the South East Queensland Catchments NRM region. Figure 2. Woody vegetation clearing for each change period. Great state. Great opportunity. Woody vegetation clearing by Woody vegetation clearing by remnant status tenure Table 1. Remnant and non-remnant woody vegetation clearing Table 2. Woody vegetation clearing rates in the South East rates in the South East Queensland Catchments NRM region. Queensland Catchments NRM region by tenure. Woody vegetation clearing rate (,000 ha/yr) of Woody vegetation clearing rate (,000 ha/yr) on Non-remnant Remnant
    [Show full text]