DOCSLIB.ORG

Main Roads Western Australia Cheynes Beach East Environmental Impact Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Main Roads Western Australia Cheynes Beach East Environmental Impact Assessment Main Roads Western Australia Cheynes Beach East Environmental Impact Assessment January 2015 Executive summary Main Roads Western Australia (Main Roads) is planning to upgrade sections of the South Coast Highway, to improve the level of service and safety of the road. This report relates to the section of the South Coast Highway between straight line kilometre (SLK) 44.5 and 46.3, referred to as Cheynes Section East (the Project). The proposed works will include the construction of approximately 1.8 kilometres (km) of new road and decommissioning of approximately 0.9 km of existing highway. The Project is located within the Shire of Albany and situated approximately 45 kilometres (km) north-east of Albany and 420 km south of Perth. The Project is partly located within Hassel National Park, and will require the excision of 6.11 ha from this Park. This Park is vested with the Conservation Commission of Western Australia. Main Roads commissioned GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and high level Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Project. This report presents the output of this work and will be used to identify, assess and manage the anticipated environmental impacts associated with the Project. This report is subject to, and must be read in conjunction with, the limitations set out in Section 1.6 and the assumptions and qualifications contained throughout the report. Key environmental aspects and impacts The environmental assessment considered that many of the environmental aspects are low risk and can be appropriately managed through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to prevent/minimise environmental harm. The key environmental aspects that have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts (medium and high risk aspects) are: y Dieback: Potential to significantly impact adjacent bushland, including national parks, if not managed appropriately during the construction phase. y Aboriginal Heritage: Require management and ongoing liaison indigenous groups during the construction phase to avoid impacts to the known Christmas tree site and other (unknown) sites if uncovered. y Hassell National Park: the Project requires the excision of 6.11 ha of Hassell National Park. This will result in a 0.5% reduction in the size of the Park. y Vegetation: The project will result in the permanent loss of native vegetation (4.67 ha), including the Federal Kwongkan1 (kwongan) Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) (4.49 ha) and priority flora species. y Fauna: The Project will result in the permanent loss of habitat fauna, including foraging habitat for the conservation significant Black Cockatoo species (4.27 ha). It is considered that the Project will require environmental offsets to address residual environmental impacts on vegetation and fauna. Assuming the implementation of suitable offsets combined with the management recommendations identified in this report, the Project is unlikely to result in long-term significant impacts to the environment. 1 Kwongkan / kwongan – a type of heathland found in Western Australia. The name is derived from the language of the Nyungar / Noongar people. Kwongkan is used in this document to be consistent with DotE 2014b. GHD | Report for Main Roads Western Australia - Cheynes Beach East, 61/31004 | i Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this report ...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of works ................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Project definitions ............................................................................................................ 1 1.5 Relevant legislative requirements .................................................................................... 2 1.6 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 3 2. Description of the Project .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project location ................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Project description ........................................................................................................... 4 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Desktop assessment ....................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Flora and fauna field survey............................................................................................. 5 4. Assessment of Aspects and Impacts ......................................................................................... 7 4.1 Hassell National Park ...................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Physical environment ...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Surrounding land-use .................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Vegetation and Flora ..................................................................................................... 11 4.5 Fauna............................................................................................................................ 16 4.6 Dieback ......................................................................................................................... 18 4.7 Air quality and noise ...................................................................................................... 18 4.8 Contaminated sites........................................................................................................ 18 4.9 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.10 Heritage (non-indigenous) ............................................................................................. 21 4.11 Aboriginal heritage ........................................................................................................ 21 4.12 Construction Phase Potential Impacts ........................................................................... 23 5. Environmental Management .................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Key environmental factors ............................................................................................. 25 5.2 Design environmental management............................................................................... 25 5.3 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) ................................................ 26 5.4 Revegetation Management Plan .................................................................................... 29 5.5 Dieback Management Plan ............................................................................................ 30 5.6 Indigenous heritage management .................................................................................. 30 6. Residual Environmental Impacts and Offsets ........................................................................... 32 6.1 Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 32 6.2 Residual Environmental Impacts.................................................................................... 33 6.3 Offsets .......................................................................................................................... 33 7. Project Approvals ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ii | GHD | Report for Main Roads Western Australia - Cheynes Beach East, 61/31004 8. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 34 9. References ............................................................................................................................. 35 Table index Table 1 Key Environmental Legislation Relevant to the Project ..................................................... 2 Table 2 Information Sources ........................................................................................................ 5 Table 3 Soil-landscapes within the Project Area (After: DAFWA 2014b) ....................................... 9 Table 4 DPaW managed reserves within 10 km of the Project Area ............................................ 10 Table 5 Vegetation clearing ........................................................................................................ 15 Table 6 Conservation significant flora loss .................................................................................. 15 Table 7 Wetlands within 10 km of the Project Area ..................................................................... 19 Table 8 Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Genus Egernia (Lacertilia, Scincidae) in Western Australia
    Rec. West. Aust. Mus., 1978,6 (2) THE GENUS EGERNIA (LACERTILIA, SCINCIDAE) IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA G.M. STORR* [Received 27 October 1976. Accepted 5 May 1977. Published 30 June 1978.] ABSTRACT The 17 species and subspecies of Egernia occurring in Western Australia are described and keyed, viz. E. depressa (Giinther), E. stokesii stokesii (Gray), E. stokesii aethiops nov., E. stokesii badia nov., E. kingii (Gray) [syn. E. nitida (Gray)], E. napoleonis (Gray) [E. nitida of authors, not Gray], E. carinata H.M. Smith, E. formosa Fry, E. douglasi Glauert, E. luctuosa (Peters) [syn. E. lauta DeVis], E. pilbarensis nov., E. pulchrapulchra Werner, E. pulchra longicauda Ford, E. multiscutata bos Storr, E. inornata Rosen, E. striata Sternfeld, E. kintorei Stirling & Zietz. A lectotype is designated for Tropidolopisma dumerilii Dumeril & Bibron [= E. kingii]. The Victorian representative of E. luctuosa is described as a new species, E. coventryi. INTRODUCTION This paper brings up to date an earlier revision of the Egernia whitii group (Storr, 1968) and deals for the first time since Mitchell (1950) with the other western members of the genus. It is based on specimens in the Western Australian Museum (registered numbers cited without prefix). I have also used some specimens in the National Museum of Victoria (numbers prefixed with NMV), Australian Museum (AM), Queensland Museum (QM), collec­ tion of the British Joint Services Expedition to Central Australia (JSE), and British Museum (Natural History), for the loan of which I am indebted to Mr A.J. Coventry, Dr H.G. Cogger, Miss J. Covacevich, Lt-Cdr A.Y. Norris and Mr A.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Westralunio Carteri Iredale 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the South Coast of Southwestern Australia, Including New Records of the Species
    Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 95: 77–81, 2012 Distribution of Westralunio carteri Iredale 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the south coast of southwestern Australia, including new records of the species M W KLUNZINGER 1*, S J BEATTY 1, D L MORGAN 1, A J LYMBERY 1, A M PINDER 2 & D J CALE 2 1 Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. 2 Science Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Woodvale, WA 6026, Australia. * Corresponding author ! [email protected] Westralunio carteri Iredale 1934 is the only hyriid in southwestern Australia. The species was listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the IUCN, due to population decline from dryland salinity, although the listing was recently changed to ‘Least Concern’. The Department of Environment and Conservation lists the species as ‘Priority 4’, yet it lacks special protection under federal or state legislation. Accuracy in species accounts is an important driver in determining conservation status of threatened species. In this regard, discrepancies in locality names and vagary in museum records necessitated the eastern distributional bounds of W. carteri to be clarified. Here we present an updated account of the species’ distribution and describe two previously unknown populations of W. carteri in the Moates Lake catchment and Waychinicup River, resulting in an eastern range extension of 96–118 km from the Kent River, formerly the easternmost river where W. carteri was known. For mussel identification, samples (n = 31) were collected and transported live to the laboratory for examination and internal shell morphology confirmed that the species was W.
    [Show full text]
  • Albany Coast Draft Management Plan 2016
    Albany coast draft management plan 2016 Albany coast draft management plan 2016 Conservation Commission of Western Australia Department of Parks and Wildlife Department of Parks and Wildlife 17 Dick Perry Avenue KENSINGTON WA 6151 Phone: (08) 9219 9000 Fax: (08) 9334 0498 www.dpaw.wa.gov.au © State of Western Australia 2016 May 2016 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Department of Parks and Wildlife. ISBN 978-1-921703-67-6 (print) ISBN 978-1-921703-68-3 (online) This management plan was prepared by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia through the agency of the Department of Parks and Wildlife. Questions regarding this management plan should be directed to: Planning Branch Department of Parks and Wildlife Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983 Phone: (08) 9219 9000 The recommended reference for this publication is: Department of Parks and Wildlife (2016) Albany coast draft management plan 2016. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth. This document is available in alternative formats on request. Please note: URLs in this document which conclude a sentence are followed by a full point. If copying the URL please do not include the full point. Front cover photos Main The new recreation facilities at The Gap in Torndirrup National Park. Photo – Parks and Wildlife Top left Gilbert’s potoroo or ngilgyte (Potorous gilberti).
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Heritage Places - Assessment Documentation
    REGISTER OF HERITAGE PLACES - ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 11. ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE The criteria adopted by the Heritage Council in September, 1991 have been used to determine the cultural heritage significance of the place. 11. 1 AESTHETIC VALUE Sealers' Oven has aesthetic value in that is contributes to the quality of the landscape at Waychinicup Inlet. While obviously being man-made, the fact that Sealers' Oven consists solely of mud and unworked stones give it a natural aesthetic entirely complimentary to Waychinicup Inlet. (Criterion 1.3) 11. 2. HISTORIC VALUE Sealers' Oven demonstrates the way of life during a phase of commercial seal hunting on the southern coast prior to the European colonisation of Western Australia. (Criterion 2.2) 11. 3. SCIENTIFIC VALUE Sealers' Oven provides information about its builders, who were among the first non-Aboriginals to visit this region and as such it has scientific value. (Criterion 3.2 ) 11. 4. SOCIAL VALUE Sealers' Oven is highly valued by the community for its association with the activities and way of life of early sealers. As an important relic within the Waychinicup National Park, it is a feature of interest to campers and other park visitors. (Criterion 4.1) Register of Heritage Places - Assessment Doc'n Sealers' Oven1 09/05/1997 12. DEGREE OF SIGNIFICANCE 12. 1. RARITY Sealers' Ovens are extremely rare. Sealers' Oven at Waychinicup Inlet is thus highly significant. (Criterion 5.1) 12. 2 REPRESENTATIVENESS It is representative of a way of life that would rarely be lived today. (Criterion 6.2) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework for Prioritisation of Waterways for Management In
    Framework for prioritising waterways for management in Western Australia Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management University of Western Australia May 2011 Report no. CENRM120 Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management University of Western Australia Unit 1, Foreshore House, Proudlove Parade Albany Western Australia 6332 Telephone +61 8 9842 0837 Facsimile +61 8 9842 8499 www.cenrm.uwa.edu.au This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the University of Western Australia. Reference: Macgregor, C., Cook, B., Farrell, C. and Mazzella, L. 2011. Assessment framework for prioritising waterways for management in Western Australia, Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of Western Australia, Albany. ISBN: 978-1-74052-236-6 Front cover credit: Bremer River, Eastern South Coast bioregion in May 2006, looking downstream by Geraldine Janicke. Disclaimer This document has been prepared by the Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of Western Australia for the Department of Water, Western Australian. Any representation, statement, opinion or advice expressed or implied in this publication is made in good faith and on the basis that the Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management and its employees are not liable for any damage or loss whatsoever which may occur as a result of action taken or not taken, as the case may be in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Plan for the Western Ground Parrot, Western Widpbird and Western Bristlebird
    RESEARCH PLAN FOR THE WESTERN GROUND PARROT, WESTERN WIDPBIRD AND WESTERN BRISTLEBIRD by Peter G. Cale1 and Allan H. Burbidge2 1 260 Selby Street, Floreat Park WA 6014 2 Department of Conservation and Land Management Western Australian Wildlife Research Centre PO Box 51 Wanneroo WA 6065 Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis nigrogularis Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service ANPWS Endangered Species Program Project No. 228 March 1993 Copyright of this document vests jointly in the Chief Executive Officer, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the Executive Director, Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service or of the Department of Conservation and Land Management. l I 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD SUMMARY WESTERN GROUND PARROT 1. Introduction 1.1 Taxonomy and Status 1. 2 Distribution and Abundance Historical Current 1. 3 Breeding Biology 1. 4 Dispersal 1.5 Habitat 1.6 Diet 1. 7 Potential Causes of Decline Response to Fire Predation Influence of Dieback Disease (Phytophthora) 1. 8 Existing Conservation Measures 1. 9 Research/Management 2. Research Objective and Criteria 2.1 Objective 2.2 Criteria 3. Research Actions 3. 1 Population Survey 3 .1.1 Determination of Sub-population Boundaries 3 .1. 2 Determination of Relative Density for Sub-populations 3. 2 Interim Recovery Plan 3. 3 Response to Fire 3.3.1 Monitor Changes in Relative Density with Changing Post-fire Age 3. 4 Predation by Introduced Predators 3.5 Micro-habitat Requirements and Population Dynamics 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuaries Shire of Albany
    ESTUARIES AND COASTAL LAGOONS OF SOUTH WESTERN AUSTRALIA ESTUARIES OF THE SHIRE OF ALBANY - ···--··· -"*- ......... - Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia Estuarine Studies Series Number 8 November 1990 -------- - ____________,----­ 'A Contribution to the State Conservation Strategy' Other published documents in the Estuarine Studies Series By E.P. Hodgkin and R. Clark Wellstead Estuary No. I Nornalup and Walpole Inlets No. 2 Wilson, Irwin and Parry Inlets No. 3 Beaufort Inlet and Gordon Inlet No. 4 Estuaries of the Shire of Esperance No. 5 Estuaries of the Shire of Manjimup No. 6 Estuaries of the Shire of Ravensthorpe No. 7 ISBN O 7309 3490 X ERRATUM Page 19: phs have been The two photogra reversed. An Inventory of Information on the Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons of South Western Australia ESTUARIES OF THE SHIRE OF ALBANY By Ernest P. Hodgkin and Ruth Clark Oyster Harbour, August 1990. Photo: Alan Murdoch Torbay Inlet, March 1988 (Land Administration, WA) Taylor Inlet, October1978. Photo: Durant Hembree. Environmental Protection Authority Perth, Western Australia Estuarine Studies Series No. 8 November 1990 COMMON ESTUARINE PLANTS AND ANIMALS Approximate sizes in mm. Plants A Rush - Juncus kraussii B Samphire - Sarcocorniaspp. C Paperbark tree - Melaleuca cuticularis D Seagrass - Ruppia megacarpa p E Diatoms 0.01 F Tubeworms - Ficopomatos emgmaticus 20 \1 I '·.. :1 Bivalve molluscs G Estuarine mussel - Xenostrobus securis 30 H Edible mussel Mytilus edulis 100 I Arthritica semen 3 ~ J Sanguinolaria biradiata 50 K Cockle - Kate/ysia 3 spp. 40 L Spisula trigonel/a 20 Gastropod molluscs M Snail - Hydrococcus brazieri 4 Crustacea N Amphipod - Corophium minor 1 5 0 Shrimp - Palaemonetes australis 40 P Copepod - Gladioferens imparipes 2 Q King Prawn • Penaeus latisulcatus 1 00 R Forarninifera 0.02 \ \ 'La ' .
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Westralunio Carteri Iredale 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the South Coast of Southwestern Australia, Including New Records of the Species
    Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 95: 77–81, 2012 Distribution of Westralunio carteri Iredale 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the south coast of southwestern Australia, including new records of the species M W KLUNZINGER 1*, S J BEATTY 1, D L MORGAN 1, A J LYMBERY 1, A M PINDER 2 & D J CALE 2 1 Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. 2 Science Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Woodvale, WA 6026, Australia. * Corresponding author ! [email protected] Westralunio carteri Iredale 1934 is the only hyriid in southwestern Australia. The species was listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the IUCN, due to population decline from dryland salinity, although the listing was recently changed to ‘Least Concern’. The Department of Environment and Conservation lists the species as ‘Priority 4’, yet it lacks special protection under federal or state legislation. Accuracy in species accounts is an important driver in determining conservation status of threatened species. In this regard, discrepancies in locality names and vagary in museum records necessitated the eastern distributional bounds of W. carteri to be clarified. Here we present an updated account of the species’ distribution and describe two previously unknown populations of W. carteri in the Moates Lake catchment and Waychinicup River, resulting in an eastern range extension of 96–118 km from the Kent River, formerly the easternmost river where W. carteri was known. For mussel identification, samples (n = 31) were collected and transported live to the laboratory for examination and internal shell morphology confirmed that the species was W.
    [Show full text]
  • Atrichornis Clamosus
    THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Minister approved this conservation advice and transferred this species from the Vulnerable to the Endangered category, effective from 15/02/2018 Conservation Advice Atrichornis clamosus noisy scrub-bird Taxonomy Conventionally accepted as Atrichornis clamosus (Gould 1844). Summary of assessment Conservation status Endangered: Criterion 1, 2 and 3. The highest category for which Atrichornis clamosus is eligible to be listed is Endangered. Atrichornis clamosus has been found to be eligible for listing under the following categories: Criterion 1: Endangered Criterion 2: Endangered Criterion 3: Endangered Criterion 4: Vulnerable The noisy scrub-bird is listed as Endangered under Western Australian legislation ( Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 ). For information on the listing status of this species under relevant state legislation, see http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl. Reason for conservation assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee The noisy scrub-bird was listed as Vulnerable under the predecessor to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 and transferred to the EPBC Act in July 2000. This advice follows assessment of new information provided to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) to change the listing status of the noisy scrub-bird to Endangered. Public consultation Notice of the proposed amendment and a consultation document was made available for public comment for 30 business days between 4 April and 19 May 2016. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Committee as part of the assessment process.
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Environment
    Water and Environment STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING NETWORK REPORT Prepared for Department of Water Date of Issue 3 August 2009 Our Reference 1045/B1/005e STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING NETWORK REPORT Prepared for Department of Water Date of Issue 3 August 2009 Our Reference 1045/B1/005e STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING NETWORK REPORT Date Revision Description Revision A 28 April 2009 Draft Report for client review Revision B 05 June 2009 Amendments following client review Revision C 19 June 2009 Further amendments following client review Revision D 30 July 2009 Final inclusion of figures and formatting Revision E 3 August 2009 Final for release to client Name Position Signature Date Originator Glen Terlick Senior Hydrographer, 30/07/09 Department of Water Emma Neale Environmental 30/07/09 Consultant Reviewer Vince Piper Principal Civil/ Water 30/07/09 Resources Engineer Leith Bowyer Senior Hydrologist, 30/07/09 Department of Water Location Address Issuing Office Perth Suite 4, 125 Melville Parade, Como WA 6152 Tel: 08 9368 4044 Fax: 08 9368 4055 Our Reference 1045/B1/005e STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING NETWORK REPORT CONTENTS CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................1 1.2 State Water Strategy......................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper
    DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES DISCUSSION PAPER THE TRANSLOCATION OF BROWN TROUT (Salmo trutta) AND RAINBOW TROUT (Oncorhynchus mykiss) INTO AND WITHIN WESTERN AUSTRALIA June 2002 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PAPER No. 156 Fisheries Management Paper No 156 OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT This discussion paper has been prepared to assist in the assessment of the possible impact of the translocation of brown trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), into and within Western Australia, for the purposes of recreational stock enhancement in public waters, non-commercial aquaculture on private properties and commercial aquaculture. In assessing the translocation of any aquatic species, economic and social benefits must be balanced with biological and environmental risks. Comments about this discussion paper are sought from all stakeholders, including industry members, existing and potential trout farmers, relevant community interest groups, government agencies and interested members of the public. In particular, the Department of Fisheries would appreciate your suggestions for the following: • River catchments and drainage basins with high conservation value where trout stocking and aquaculture should be managed or prohibited, identifying the benefits of additional management or prohibitions. • River catchments and drainage basins where trout stocking and aquaculture should be permitted and encouraged, and may already be taking place. This discussion paper and your comments will be used to develop a draft policy on the translocation of brown
    [Show full text]
  • Two Aquatic Bioregions Proposed for the South Coast Region, Western Australia
    Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 92: 277–287, 2009 Two aquatic bioregions proposed for the South Coast Region, Western Australia B A Stewart1 1 Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of Western Australia, PO Box 5771 Albany WA 6332 [email protected] Manuscript received May 2009; accepted October 2009 Abstract A need for the development of a bioregionalisation for Australian rivers using aquatic fauna has been recognised. This study was aimed at delineating and describing interim aquatic bioregions for the South Coast region in Western Australia. Macroinvertebrates were collected from 33 waterways located across the region, and data were analysed using cluster analysis. Two broad aquatic bioregions were identified, the Western South Coast bioregion, consisting of rivers lying from Gardner River in the west to the Bluff River, and the Eastern South Coast bioregion, consisting of the Pallinup River through to the Thomas River in the east. Rivers located in the latter bioregion were significantly more saline, slightly more alkaline, and had higher levels of total nitrogen than those located in the Western South Coast bioregion. Many species proved significant in distinguishing the two bioregions. The successful implementation of a biotic classification method to delineate aquatic bioregions for the South Coast Region indicates that the approach may be easily instituted and adapted for other regions within Western Australia, and could be undertaken using macroinvertebrate data generated by
    [Show full text]