South East Wetlands: Climate Change Risks and Opportunities for Mitigation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation Michelle Denny, Darren Herpich, Lydia Cetin and Graham Green Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources June, 2015 DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources GPO Box 1047, Adelaide SA 5001 Telephone National (08) 8463 6946 International +61 8 8463 6946 Fax National (08) 8463 6999 International +61 8 8463 6999 Website www.environment.sa.gov.au Disclaimer The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. © Crown in right of the State of South Australia, through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources 2015 ISBN 978-1-922255-00-7 Preferred way to cite this publication Denny M, Herpich D, Cetin L, and Green G, 2015, South East wetlands: climate change risks and opportunities for mitigation, DEWNR Technical report 2015/18, Government of South Australia, through Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide Download this document at: http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 i Foreword The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) is responsible for the management of the State’s natural resources, ranging from policy leadership to on-ground delivery in consultation with government, industry and communities. High-quality science and effective monitoring provides the foundation for the successful management of our environment and natural resources. This is achieved through undertaking appropriate research, investigations, assessments, monitoring and evaluation. DEWNR’s strong partnerships with educational and research institutions, industries, government agencies, Natural Resources Management Boards and the community ensures that there is continual capacity building across the sector, and that the best skills and expertise are used to inform decision making. Sandy Pitcher CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 ii Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Michelle Denny (Australian Water Environments Pty.), Lydia Cetin (Jacobs SKM Pty.), Darren Herpich and Graham Green of the Science, Monitoring and Knowledge Branch of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. The project team would like to acknowledge and thank the South East region staff of DEWNR, Natural Resources, South East and the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board, including Claire Harding, Daniela Conesa, David Williamson, Jennifer Schilling, Mark de Jong, Melissa Herpich, and Saad Mustafa, for data contributions and feedback. In particular, thanks are due to Mark de Jong for supplying drainage information on surface water quality, information pertaining to regulators and ad hoc questions, and to Claire Harding for explaining and making available her extensive previous work in the area. DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 iii Contents Foreword ii Acknowledgements iii Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Aims and objectives 3 1.3 Overview of approach 3 2. Wetland prioritisation 4 2.1 Wetland prioritisation methods 4 2.1.1 Information Sources 4 2.2 Model for prioritisation method 4 2.2.1 Risk indication 5 2.3 Data used for the wetland prioritisation risk score 5 2.3.1 Climate change hazard 5 2.3.2 Vulnerability of wetlands 6 2.3.3 Wetland value 8 2.4 Method of combining risk component scores 9 2.4.1 Hazard and vulnerability scores 9 2.4.2 Value scores 10 2.5 Wetland prioritisation results 11 3. Feasibility assessment 15 3.1 Acceptable salinity envelopes 15 3.1.1 Salinity targets for surface watering – output 16 3.1.2 Feasibility assessment– geospatial analyses 18 3.1.3 Data review 19 3.1.3.1 Drains spatial data 19 3.1.3.2 Drains and wetland connectivity 19 3.2 Methodology for spatial analysis 24 3.2.1 ArcHydro tools 24 3.2.1.1 Digital elevation model (DEM) 24 3.2.2 Fill 24 3.2.2.1 Flow direction 24 3.2.3 Wetland volume 24 3.2.4 Wetland elevation 24 3.2.5 Drain elevation 24 3.2.6 Nearest drain to high priority wetlands 24 3.2.7 Surface water quality 25 3.2.8 Groundwater quality 25 3.3 Results and analysis 25 3.3.1 Preliminary analysis 25 DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 iv 3.3.1.1 Volume 26 3.3.1.2 Surface water quality 26 3.3.2 Final combination of feasibility and prioritisation 28 3.3.2.1 Wetlands and water quality criteria 28 3.3.2.2 Wetlands, water quality & distance 28 3.4 Summary of spatial feasibility analyses 42 4. Drain L climate change case study 43 4.1 Background 43 4.2 Aims and objectives of the case study 43 4.3 Climate projection scenarios 44 4.3.1 Climate data 44 4.3.1.1 Climate futures framework for the South East region 44 4.3.2 Climate Change Scenarios 47 4.3.3 Scenario analysis framework 47 4.4 Results 51 4.4.1 Impacts on annual inflows to Lake Hawdon 51 4.4.2 Impacts on summer inflows to Lake Hawdon 53 4.4.3 Impacts on the frequency of flows draining to Lake Hawdon 55 4.5 Summary of Drain L climate change case study 60 5. Discussion 61 6. Conclusions 63 6.1 Recommendations for progression of climate change mitigation assessment 64 6.2 Recommendations for data improvement 65 7. Appendices 66 A. Surface water latest results TDS (used for interpolation) 61 B. Wetlands that are lower in landscape than nearest drain elevation 71 C. Wetlands that have drains in proximity (which are higher in the landscape and have water quality equal or below that required) 73 D. Wetlands of very high priority that do not intersect drains 75 E. Very high priority wetlands (98) which intersect drains but have no regulator infrastructure in place to regulate flow 81 F. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of USE regulators (28) 84 G. Very high priority wetlands with drain connectivity that are within 500 m of LSE regulators (20) 84 8. Units of measurement 85 8.1 Units of measurement commonly used (SI and non-SI Australian legal) 85 8.2 Shortened forms 85 9. Glossary 86 References 88 DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 v List of figures Figure 1: Levels of risk assessment (after Deere and Davison, 2005) 5 Figure 2: Summary of prioritisation processing 12 Figure 3: Wetland prioritisation 14 Figure 4: Wetlands of social/cultural value, shown according to climate change risk indication (not including sites with EVA scores) 15 Figure 5: Preliminary salinity targets 19 Figure 6: Wetlands with and without drain connectivity 22 Figure 7: IDW interpolation of latest salinity readings for surface water quality (data supplied by Mark de Jong) 26 Figure 8: Very high (priority 1) wetlands that meet elevation and water quality criteria 28 Figure 9: Wetlands meeting elevation and water quality criteria having drainswithin 1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1 and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3) 29 Figure 10: Example of exploded view of classified wetlands draped over a hillshade having drains that are within 1km (ELWQDI_1), between 1 and 5 km (ELWQDI_2), and between 5 and 20 km (ELWQDI_3) 32 Figure 11: Example of short local drain segments around Bool Lagoon 33 Figure 12: Very high /Priority 1 wetlands that do and do not have a regulator within 500m 35 Figure 13: Very high / Priority 1 wetlands which are connected to drains, have no regulator infrastructure and are within 500 m of a permanent pool 36 Figure 14: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, low emissions 40 Figure 15: GCM projections for Climate Futures for Robe for 2050, high emissions 41 Figure 16: Geographic model view of the Drain L catchment and the three drainage points into Lake Hawdon 43 Figure 17: Conceptual representation of climate scenario analysis framework 43 Figure 18: Comparisons of historical inflow volumes derived by SILO and GCM climate projection realisations of rainfall and PET 45 Figure 19: Change in median annual inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM climate projections and high and low RCP emission cases 47 Figure 20: Change in median summer (Nov-Apr) inflows to Lake Hawdon from 1990 baseline under different GCM climate projections and high and low RCP emission cases 49 Figure 21: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under CSIROmk3.6 GCM climate projections 52 Figure 22: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under IPSLcm5alr GCM climate projections 53 Figure 23: Number of days per year where annual median inflows to Lake Hawdon are greater than 100 ML/day under noresm1m GCM climate projections 54 DEWNR Technical report 2015/18 vi List of tables Table 1: Climate change potential impacts scoring 6 Table 2: SAAE typology vulnerability score 8 Table 3: Groundwater extractive demand vulnerability score 8 Table 4: Ecological value score 9 Table 5: Risk score classification 10