Tender for the Programme - South West Catchments Council
Tender for the Programme - South West Catchments Council
Tender for the Programme - South West Catchments Council
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Consultancy Number 201010-001NRMS<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM<br />
Strategy – Ancillary in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
Prepared by:<br />
IDEAS Pty Ltd<br />
PO Box 576, Bridgetown WA 6255<br />
Ph/Fax: (08) 9764 3821<br />
Mobile: 0428 222 405<br />
E-mail: info@leadingideas.com.au<br />
ABN: 96 127 090 859<br />
in<br />
collaboration<br />
with<br />
March 2012<br />
Ecosystem Solutions Pty Ltd<br />
PO Box 685, Dunsborough WA 6281<br />
Ph: (08) 9759 1960<br />
Fax: (08) 9759 1920<br />
Mobile: 0427 591 960<br />
Email: info@ecosystemsolutions.com.au<br />
ABN: 19 115 287 593
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
CONTENTS<br />
1. Project Planning Matrices <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> various <strong>the</strong>me areas .................................... 1<br />
2. Strategy development – <strong>the</strong> process .................................................................. 2<br />
2.1 The principles of developing an effective strategy ...................................................... 2<br />
2.2 How <strong>the</strong> strategy was developed ............................................................................... 4<br />
2.3 Choosing <strong>the</strong> assets requiring management action .................................................... 4<br />
2.4 The need to add landscape-scale NRM ..................................................................... 4<br />
2.5 The Consultation Process .......................................................................................... 5<br />
2.5.1 Stakeholders consulted..................................................................................................... 5<br />
2.6 Participants in Community Workshops ....................................................................... 6<br />
2.6.1 Cape to Capes Catchment Group (CCCG) workshop ...................................................... 6<br />
2.6.2 Leschenault <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> (LCC) workshop .......................................................... 6<br />
2.6.3 GeoCatch workshop ......................................................................................................... 6<br />
2.6.4 Warren Catchment <strong>Council</strong> workshop .............................................................................. 7<br />
2.6.5 Blackwood Basin Group workshops ................................................................................. 7<br />
2.6.6 Peel-Harvey Catchment Group (PHCG) workshop .......................................................... 7<br />
3. SWCC NRM Strategy – List of reviewed documents ......................................... 8<br />
3.1 Key documents .......................................................................................................... 8<br />
3.2 Useful NRM documents ........................................................................................... 20<br />
3.3 O<strong>the</strong>r key documents ............................................................................................... 35<br />
4. Historical perspective ......................................................................................... 40<br />
4.1 Biodiversity .............................................................................................................. 40<br />
4.1.1 Previously identified priority biodiversity assets ............................................................. 40<br />
4.1.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s terrestrial biodiversity ................................. 41<br />
4.2 Water resources ...................................................................................................... 42<br />
4.2.1 Previously identified priority water resources ................................................................. 42<br />
4.2.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s water resources ......................................... 44<br />
4.3 Land resources ........................................................................................................ 44<br />
4.3.1 Previously identified priority land assets ......................................................................... 44<br />
4.3.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s land resources ........................................... 45<br />
4.4 Coasts and <strong>the</strong> marine environment ........................................................................ 46<br />
4.4.1 Previously identified priority coastal assets .................................................................... 46<br />
4.4.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s coastal assets ............................................ 46<br />
4.5 People and Culture of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> ..................................................................... 47<br />
4.5.1 Previously identified priority socio-cultural assets .......................................................... 47<br />
4.5.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s socio-cultural assets .................................. 47<br />
4.6 Air and Climate ........................................................................................................ 47<br />
5. Results of Community Consultation ................................................................. 49<br />
5.1 Potential to refine scores allocated to assets ........................................................... 49<br />
5.1 Workshop with Cape to Capes Catchment Group .................................................... 49<br />
5.1.1 Exceptional Assets .......................................................................................................... 49<br />
5.1.2 Very High Value Assets .................................................................................................. 53<br />
i
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.1.3 High Value Assets ........................................................................................................... 59<br />
5.2 Workshop with Leschenault Catchment Group ........................................................ 63<br />
5.2.1 Exceptional Assets .......................................................................................................... 63<br />
5.2.2 Very High Value Assets .................................................................................................. 72<br />
5.2.3 High Value Assets ........................................................................................................... 77<br />
5.3 Workshop with GeoCatch ........................................................................................ 83<br />
5.3.1 Exceptional Assets .......................................................................................................... 83<br />
5.3.2 Very High Value Assets .................................................................................................. 97<br />
5.3.3 High Value Assets ......................................................................................................... 104<br />
5.4 Workshop with Warren Catchment Group .............................................................. 110<br />
5.4.1 Exceptional Assets ........................................................................................................ 111<br />
5.4.2 Very High Value Assets ................................................................................................ 120<br />
5.4.3 High Value Assets ......................................................................................................... 123<br />
5.5 Workshops with Blackwood Basin Group ............................................................... 126<br />
5.5.1 Exceptional Assets ........................................................................................................ 126<br />
5.5.2 Very High Value Assets ................................................................................................ 142<br />
5.5.3 High Value Assets ......................................................................................................... 145<br />
5.6 Workshop with Peel-Harvey Catchment Group ...................................................... 149<br />
5.6.1 Exceptional Assets ........................................................................................................ 149<br />
5.6.2 Very High Value Assets ................................................................................................ 162<br />
5.6.3 High Value Assets ......................................................................................................... 166<br />
5.7 Individual Submissions .......................................................................................... 169<br />
5.7.1 Exceptional Assets ........................................................................................................ 170<br />
5.7.2 Very High value assets ................................................................................................. 184<br />
5.7.3 High value assets .......................................................................................................... 192<br />
6. The online survey ............................................................................................. 196<br />
6.1 The 7-page online survey ...................................................................................... 196<br />
6.2 Results of <strong>the</strong> online survey ................................................................................... 203<br />
7. Fur<strong>the</strong>r discussion on emerging threats ........................................................ 206<br />
7.1 Human denial of long-term threats ......................................................................... 206<br />
7.2 Decreasing rainfall ................................................................................................. 206<br />
7.3 Tree decline ........................................................................................................... 207<br />
7.4 Emissions trading, carbon tax and related issues ................................................. 208<br />
7.5 Changes in approaches to prioritizing assets and threats ...................................... 211<br />
7.6 The emergence of citizen science .......................................................................... 211<br />
7.7 Land use change and development ....................................................................... 213<br />
7.8 Decreasing resilience in <strong>the</strong> community ................................................................. 213<br />
7.9 Genetic resilience at <strong>the</strong> edges of range ................................................................ 214<br />
7.10 Globalisation and <strong>the</strong> environment ......................................................................... 214<br />
7.11 Intensifying use of marine resources...................................................................... 216<br />
7.12 Groundwater contamination ................................................................................... 217<br />
7.13 New invasive species ............................................................................................ 217<br />
7.14 Global financial instability ....................................................................................... 217<br />
7.15 Eco-label fatigue .................................................................................................... 218<br />
ii
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
7. Funding Opportunities ..................................................................................... 219<br />
7.1 Revolving Fund <strong>for</strong> securing conservation properties ............................................. 219<br />
iii
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
1. Project Planning Matrices <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> various <strong>the</strong>me areas<br />
The project planning matrices will be placed here in <strong>the</strong> final document, but have been included as a<br />
separate document <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> review and consultation phase, as <strong>the</strong>y are in landscape <strong>for</strong>mat and this has<br />
caused some difficulties <strong>for</strong> readers.<br />
1
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
2. Strategy development – <strong>the</strong> process<br />
2.1 The principles of developing an effective strategy<br />
The following principles lie at <strong>the</strong> heart of how <strong>the</strong> author’s developed this strategy, and <strong>the</strong> text is taken in<br />
full from Mark’s website.<br />
Five Essentials of an Effective Strategy<br />
Mark Rhodes (2010)<br />
http://managemen<strong>the</strong>lp.org/blogs/strategic-planning/2010/06/07/five-essentials-of-an-effective-strategy/<br />
The principles of strategy are timeless. The following notes on <strong>the</strong> essentials of strategy are drawn from<br />
<strong>the</strong> great works of strategy… Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, Napoleon’s Maxims, Clausewitz’ On War. Though<br />
dating up to 2,500 years ago, <strong>the</strong> advice of <strong>the</strong>se strategists is helpful today no matter your competitive<br />
landscape, from high tech to agriculture, from manufacturing to government.<br />
1. An effective strategy is deeply understood and shared by <strong>the</strong> organization.<br />
Genghis Khan’s Mongols defeated far larger armies because <strong>the</strong>y were able to make adjustments on <strong>the</strong><br />
battlefield despite ancient systems of communication that limited <strong>the</strong> way orders could be delivered to<br />
warriors already in action. The secret was instilling battle strategy in <strong>the</strong> hearts and minds of all soldiers<br />
so that <strong>the</strong>y could make correct tactical decisions without direct supervision or intervention.<br />
Like <strong>the</strong> mission statement published in your annual report or guiding principles framed in your lobby, a<br />
strategic plan itself accomplishes nothing. What matters is whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> people of your organization<br />
understand and internalize <strong>the</strong> strategic direction you have articulated and can make tactical choices on<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own. Strategic plans must be articulated in a manner such that operational and tactical decisionmaking<br />
can follow suit.<br />
As a strategist, you must count on <strong>the</strong> employees or members of your organization to make sound tactical<br />
and operational decisions that are aligned with your desired strategic direction. To ensure that <strong>the</strong>se<br />
decisions are well made, your articulated strategic direction and strategic plans must be applicable and<br />
clearly related to <strong>the</strong> issues that people face.<br />
Remember that an effective strategy provides a picture of <strong>the</strong> desired long-term future. In order to make<br />
sound day to day decisions, all members of <strong>the</strong> organization must be able to begin with <strong>the</strong> end in mind.<br />
All steps must ultimately keep <strong>the</strong> company on course toward <strong>the</strong> long-term objective.<br />
2. An effective strategy allows flexibility so that <strong>the</strong> direction of <strong>the</strong> organization can be adapted to<br />
changing circumstances.<br />
Watching <strong>the</strong> rise of Napoleon’s French empire in <strong>the</strong> first decade of <strong>the</strong> 19th century, <strong>the</strong> Prussian<br />
generals were anxious to do battle with Napoleon’s army because <strong>the</strong>ir soldiers were highly trained and<br />
disciplined in battle tactics that had succeeded <strong>for</strong> Frederick <strong>the</strong> Great fifty years be<strong>for</strong>e. It turned out,<br />
though, that <strong>the</strong> Prussian army was designed to fight “<strong>the</strong> last war” while Napoleon’s innovations, including<br />
soldiers carrying <strong>the</strong>ir own provisions instead of <strong>the</strong> supply train of impedimenta typical of <strong>the</strong> traditional<br />
European armies, allowed Napoleon’s troops to react and adapt to conditions far faster than could <strong>the</strong><br />
Prussians. When <strong>the</strong> Battle of Jena-Auersted occurred in 1806, Napoleon’s army out-manoeuvred <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
slow and plodding enemy and destroyed <strong>the</strong> Prussians in that pivotal confrontation.<br />
A rigid strategic direction seldom turns out to have been <strong>the</strong> best course of action. To assure that your<br />
business is nimble and able to react to changes in <strong>the</strong> marketplace, it is essential that your strategy is<br />
flexible and adaptable. As a strategist, you will count on timely and accurate in<strong>for</strong>mation about market<br />
2
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
conditions. It is essential to build and employ effective mechanisms <strong>for</strong> observing and listening to what is<br />
going on in <strong>the</strong> competitive environment. Real-time in<strong>for</strong>mation, in turn must feed on-going strategic and<br />
operational shifts and deployments.<br />
3. Effective strategy results from <strong>the</strong> varied input of a diverse group of thinkers.<br />
Moreover, participants in strategic decision-making must be unafraid to state contrary opinions. In Doris<br />
Kearns Goodwin’s excellent book Team of Rivals, she explains how instead of bringing in a cadre of<br />
leaders whose thinking closely matched his own, Lincoln made a point of surrounding himself with his<br />
political rivals, naming William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Edwin M. Stanton, and Edward Bates – all of<br />
whom had opposed Lincoln in a bitterly fought presidential race – as members of his cabinet. Despite<br />
initial misgivings, this unlikely team learned that Lincoln valued <strong>the</strong>ir opinions, would consider and reflect<br />
on <strong>the</strong>ir disagreements and challenges, and would not stick unnecessarily to preconceived notions.<br />
Though <strong>the</strong> mix of personalities and opinions inevitably led to debate and verbal conflict, Lincoln was able<br />
to facilitate and mediate, tapping into a rich variety of ideas in order to find <strong>the</strong> optimal solution to political<br />
and military issues. Goodwin attributes this ability to manage disagreement and lead an effective<br />
decision-making process as perhaps Lincoln’s greatest strength as he led a troubled nation.<br />
To ensure that your strategic team is ready to make effective decisions, look carefully in <strong>the</strong> mirror. Do<br />
you encourage debate, even argument, among your team about key decisions, or do you encourage<br />
toeing <strong>the</strong> company line Remember that <strong>the</strong> well documented occurrences of groupthink – Kennedy’s illfated<br />
bay of Pigs invasion, NASA’s decision to launch <strong>the</strong> Challenger space shuttle, Bush’s reaction to<br />
presumed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – occur not because of oppressive or stifling leaders.<br />
Ra<strong>the</strong>r, groupthink tends to occur when leadership groups enjoy collegial and fond relationships, leaving<br />
deliberants unwilling to rock <strong>the</strong> boat, or to voice contrary opinions.<br />
4. An effective strategy follows a thorough and deep analysis of both <strong>the</strong> external environment<br />
and <strong>the</strong> internal capabilities of <strong>the</strong> organization.<br />
This is <strong>the</strong> essence of <strong>the</strong> famous SWOT model (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).<br />
The strategist must understand <strong>the</strong> effects and dynamics of external entities such as competitors,<br />
suppliers, regulators and strategic partners. A sound assessment of <strong>the</strong>se external factors leads to a rich<br />
understanding of threats to ward off and opportunities to pursue. The strategist must also understand <strong>the</strong><br />
internal capabilities of his or her organization. A realistic self-assessment enables <strong>the</strong> organization to<br />
leverage <strong>the</strong> strengths of <strong>the</strong> organization and to shore up areas of weakness.<br />
To take advantage of intelligence gained through a SWOT analysis, <strong>the</strong> strategist must ensure that<br />
intelligence does not sit idle, but is immediately mined <strong>for</strong> insight that can be used in strategic and<br />
operational decision-making. All historical stories of <strong>the</strong> great strategic achievements of history – from D-<br />
Day and <strong>the</strong> Normandy invasion to Napoleon’s greatest campaigns – include anecdotes of decisionmakers<br />
poring over maps and data and striving to find <strong>the</strong> optimal course of direction and events.<br />
5. An effective strategy identifies areas of Competitive Advantage<br />
Writing in The Art of Wart of War some 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu postulated two dialectic <strong>for</strong>ces: Zheng<br />
is <strong>the</strong> “ordinary” element that fixes <strong>the</strong> enemy in place. Qi is <strong>the</strong> unexpected and devastating blow. Qi is<br />
indirect, unorthodox, and extraordinary. Qi does not work, though, unless Zheng is able to hold <strong>the</strong><br />
opponent in place until <strong>the</strong> decisive blow is struck.<br />
To put this in <strong>the</strong> context of today’s competitive dynamics, understand that many aspects of business must<br />
be held at parity across a wide swipe of <strong>the</strong> competitive landscape. In business, this is called <strong>the</strong><br />
“business essential” elements of organizational design. You don’t need to be world class at mundane<br />
business practices that are not your distinctive competence, but you must maintain standards of work<br />
3
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
equal to that of your competitors. That is, <strong>the</strong> organization must maintain parity with competitors in <strong>the</strong><br />
ordinary and mundane matters.<br />
But at <strong>the</strong> same time, every successful organization is able to explicate an audacious Qi or extraordinary<br />
<strong>for</strong>ce. You must be world calls at something that differentiates you from <strong>the</strong> competition. Moreover, all<br />
members of <strong>the</strong> organization must keep <strong>the</strong> uniqueness of <strong>the</strong>ir company in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>efront, always keeping<br />
competitive advantages unharnessed in order to compete in a vigorous manner. In short, every strategic<br />
plan must educate <strong>the</strong> full organizational team how it must use carefully identified competitive advantages<br />
in order to compete and win.<br />
2.2 How <strong>the</strong> strategy was developed<br />
As a first step in developing <strong>the</strong> strategy, NRM documentation provided by SWCC, its partners and<br />
sourced independently was reviewed and relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation extracted (see Section 3 <strong>for</strong> full details).<br />
Subsequently key stakeholders were consulted through <strong>the</strong> following processes:<br />
Community workshops<br />
Online survey<br />
Interviews with specialists<br />
Direct feedback from <strong>the</strong> community<br />
Stakeholder workshops to define RCTs, MATs, conduct horizon planning and review results<br />
The review data and <strong>the</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation ga<strong>the</strong>red from stakeholders was <strong>the</strong>n used to develop a first draft of<br />
<strong>the</strong> strategy, which was submitted to SWCC’s Board and staff <strong>for</strong> initial review and comment. Their<br />
valuable inputs were used to develop <strong>the</strong> strategy fur<strong>the</strong>r, resulting in a second draft that was put out to<br />
public review. Input from this was <strong>the</strong>n used to finalise <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
2.3 Choosing <strong>the</strong> assets requiring management action<br />
Assets described in <strong>the</strong> strategy were identified using <strong>the</strong> following approach: The previous strategy listed<br />
a broad range of NRM assets that require management action and <strong>the</strong>se were combined with current<br />
knowledge obtained from individuals, groups and relevant literature to prepare draft lists of priority assets<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> above resource <strong>the</strong>me areas. Specialists <strong>the</strong>n reviewed and proposed changes where appropriate.<br />
These changes were incorporated and <strong>the</strong>n subjected to peer review through a public comment process.<br />
2.4 The need to add landscape-scale NRM<br />
The need to approach NRM at <strong>the</strong> level of landscapes has been widely recognised in <strong>the</strong> literature over<br />
<strong>the</strong> past decade (see Liu and Taylor 2002 <strong>for</strong> an overview). The approach is rapidly becoming a keystone<br />
of conservation programs as it has been recognised that successful conservation requires that isolated<br />
populations of animals and plants be able to move across <strong>the</strong> landscape to ensure genetic mixing of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
populations and to allow movements in response to <strong>the</strong> effects of climate change. The term “biodiversity<br />
conservation corridors” has been coined to describe this and is even being applied trans-nationally, as<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Tiger and Jaguar Corridor Initiatives (http://www.pan<strong>the</strong>ra.org/programs/tiger/tiger-corridorinitiative<br />
and http://www.pan<strong>the</strong>ra.org/programs/jaguar/jaguar-corridor-initiative).<br />
At <strong>the</strong> international level, many of conservation non-governmental organisations, including WWF, <strong>the</strong><br />
Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, have adopted this approach to conservation. The<br />
UK government has done <strong>the</strong> same in its recent biodiversity strategy (UK 2011).<br />
The Australian Government has recognised this by incorporating this philosophy into its Caring <strong>for</strong> our<br />
Country program, <strong>for</strong> example by regularly identifying “landscape-scale conservation targets” as priorities<br />
and stating that “priority will be given to projects that build resilience and connectivity in <strong>the</strong> landscape”<br />
(AG 2012). The Gondwana Link project is an example of a landscape-scale approach to restoring and<br />
4
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
maintaining entire ecosystems in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> NRM region (http://www.gondwanalink.org/), while <strong>the</strong><br />
Great Eastern Ranges Initiative in eastern Australia spans three States<br />
(http://www.greateasternranges.org.au/).<br />
Benefits of <strong>the</strong> landscape approach extend far beyond conservation, however, with substantial positive<br />
economic spin-offs, e.g. in protecting water supplies and significant nature-based tourism assets. The<br />
maintenance of ecosystem functions and connectivity across landscapes is also recognised as being<br />
essential <strong>for</strong> sustaining <strong>the</strong> health and wellbeing of our rapidly growing human population, particularly with<br />
<strong>the</strong> rapid onset of climate change.<br />
The landscape approach is complex, however, and will require <strong>the</strong> support and participation of individuals,<br />
landholders, communities, industry and government. It will also require better integration and coordination<br />
and management of knowledge, tools, science, planning and funding, as well as increasing awareness<br />
and improving NRM management across all land tenures, all of which requires extensive partnerships.<br />
That said, it should be noted that <strong>the</strong> complexity and size/scale of landscapes can make it difficult to<br />
define <strong>the</strong>m well, resulting in inappropriate management recommendations (Brennan et al 2002). All of<br />
SWCC’s resources will thus need to be coordinated carefully to identify, plan and implement programs<br />
and projects if a landscape-scale approach is to be successfully incorporated into SWCC’s work as a<br />
preferred option <strong>for</strong> achieving lasting change in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> NRM region.<br />
As a first step, it is <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e proposed that SWCC consider setting up a new program to oversee <strong>the</strong><br />
introduction of this approach. This would require human resources with cross-sectoral skills and it might<br />
<strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e be useful to combine this with <strong>the</strong> realisation of <strong>the</strong> funding and business model described in<br />
Section 5.4, as both require alternative thinking and new funding streams. The following eight guidelines<br />
<strong>for</strong> building successful integrated NRM programs were developed by Frost et al (2006) and <strong>the</strong>y could<br />
<strong>for</strong>m a useful foundation <strong>for</strong> all landscape-scale interventions undertaken by SWCC:<br />
focus on multi-scale analysis and intervention;<br />
develop partnerships and engage in action research;<br />
facilitate change ra<strong>the</strong>r than dictating it;<br />
promote visioning and <strong>the</strong> development of scenarios;<br />
recognize <strong>the</strong> importance of local knowledge;<br />
foster social learning and adaptive management;<br />
concentrate on both people and <strong>the</strong>ir natural resources, including biodiversity; and<br />
embrace complexity.<br />
2.5 The Consultation Process<br />
2.5.1 Stakeholders consulted<br />
The following organisations and people have contributed to <strong>the</strong> evaluation through direct consultation:<br />
Australian Government NRM office – Neil Riches<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> – David Gardner (Chair), Damien Postma, Bill Bennell, Leonie Offer<br />
Blackwood Basin Group – Ka<strong>the</strong> Purvis, Felicity Willett<br />
Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group – Rod Whittle, Hayley Rolfe, Cassandra Jury<br />
GeoCatch – Robin Flowers (Chair), Bernie Masters, Sally Clifton-Parks<br />
Leschenault <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> – Mike Whitehead (Chair), Joanna Hugues-Dit-Ciles<br />
Peel-Harvey <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> – Jan Star (Chair), Jane O’Malley, Kim Wilson, xxxx<br />
Warren Catchment <strong>Council</strong> – Paul Owens, Lee Fontanini, Andy Russell<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Development Commission – Alan Cross<br />
Peel Development Commission – Colleen Yates<br />
WA Local Government Association – Jessica Sheppard<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture WA – Hea<strong>the</strong>r Percy, xxxx<br />
Department of Environment and Conservation – Kim Williams, xxxx<br />
5
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Department of Fisheries – Laurie Caporn<br />
Department of Water – Felicity Bunny, xxxx<br />
Murdoch University – Prof Giles Hardy, State Centre of Excellence on Climate Change, Woodland and<br />
Forest Health<br />
Non-affiliated persons – xxxx<br />
In addition, <strong>the</strong> following organisations and people have contributed in<strong>for</strong>mation to <strong>the</strong> strategy review<br />
through <strong>the</strong> online survey or through direct feedback:<br />
• xxx<br />
• xxx<br />
2.6 Participants in Community Workshops<br />
2.6.1 Cape to Capes Catchment Group (CCCG) workshop<br />
Margaret River, 31 st March 2011<br />
Janet Dufall, community member<br />
Jann Lane, community member<br />
Ken Colyns, community member<br />
Peter Lane, community member<br />
Peter Wren, community member<br />
Rod Whittle, community member<br />
Cassandra Jury, CCCG<br />
Facilitators: Mike Christensen & Gary McMahon<br />
Drew McKenzie, CCCG<br />
Hayley Rolfe, CCCG<br />
Lyndsey Cox, CCCG<br />
John McKinney, Margaret River shire<br />
Mathilde Breton, Busselton shire<br />
Damien Postma, SWCC<br />
Iszaac Webb, SWCC<br />
2.6.2 Leschenault <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> (LCC) workshop<br />
Bunbury, 4 th April 2011<br />
David Tupp, community member<br />
John Kalbfell, community member<br />
Kevin Martin,, community member<br />
Des Wallace, community member<br />
Paul Sannerson, community member<br />
Peter Ashton, community member<br />
Peter Murphy, community member<br />
Steve Newbey, community member<br />
Joanna Hugues-Dit-Ciles, LCC<br />
Max Ewen, LandCare<br />
Michelle Gooding, LandCare<br />
Andrew Reeves, DAFWA<br />
Facilitators: Mike Christensen & Gary McMahon<br />
Jilwin <strong>West</strong>rup, DAFWA<br />
Beren Spencer, DoW<br />
Cathie Derrington, DoW<br />
Debbie Brace, Donnybrook-Balingup shire<br />
Georgie Colebrook, Dardanup shire<br />
Peter Kay, Harvey shire<br />
Rachael Reed, Bunbury City<br />
Rae McPherson, Capel shire<br />
Ron van Delft, Collie shire<br />
Damien Postma, SWCC<br />
Wendy Wilkins, SWCC<br />
2.6.3 GeoCatch workshop<br />
Busselton, 5 th April 2011<br />
Alan Howe, community member<br />
Alison Cassanet, community member<br />
Bernie Masters, community member<br />
Beth Howe, community member<br />
Ken Orr, community member<br />
Michael Cassanet, community member<br />
Mike Chartres, community member<br />
Peter Howe, community member<br />
6
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Chris Adams, community member<br />
Chris Willmott, community member / GeoCatch<br />
David Kemp, community member / GeoCatch<br />
Elizabeht Orr, community member<br />
Jeff Falconer, community member / GeoCatch<br />
Kerry-Ann Italiano, community member & student<br />
Robin Flowers, community member / GeoCatch<br />
Facilitators: Gary McMahon & Mike Christensen<br />
Gene Hardy, GeoCatch<br />
Sally Clifton-Parks, GeoCatch<br />
Mathilde Breton, Busselton shire<br />
Rae McPherson, Capel shire<br />
Will Oldfield, Busselton shire<br />
Damien Postma, SWCC<br />
Kate Brown, SWCC<br />
2.6.4 Warren Catchment <strong>Council</strong> workshop<br />
Manjimup, 8 th April 2011<br />
Bill Bickerton, community member<br />
Carole Perry, community member<br />
Edna Vyner, community member<br />
Glenn Simcock, community member<br />
Helen Tuckett, community member<br />
Jan & Murray Muir, community members<br />
Jan Sillence, community member<br />
Keith Liddelow, community member<br />
Michael Gill, community member<br />
Paddy Pemberton, community member<br />
Facilitators: Gary McMahon & Mike Christensen<br />
Peter Taylor, community member<br />
Tim Brokenshire, community member<br />
Wendy Eiby, community member<br />
Andy Russell, Warren Catchment <strong>Council</strong><br />
Greg O’Reilly, DoW<br />
Ian Wilson, DEC<br />
Kathy Dawson, DoW<br />
Lee Fontanini, Warren Catchment <strong>Council</strong><br />
Mark Sewell, DoW<br />
2.6.5 Blackwood Basin Group workshops<br />
Narrogin, 15 th April 2011 and Boyup Brook, 18 th April 2011<br />
Janette Liddelow, community member<br />
Maree Heenan, Facey Group<br />
Cara Badger, LCDC<br />
Julie Palmer, DAFWA<br />
Danielle Perrie, LCDC<br />
Damien Postma, SWCC<br />
Ella Maesepp, Katanning LCDC<br />
David Gardner, SWCC - Chair<br />
Jill Richardson, Katanning LCDC<br />
Rebecca Walker, SWCC<br />
Felicity Willett, BBG<br />
Wendy Wilkins, SWCC<br />
Ka<strong>the</strong> Purvis, BBG<br />
Facilitators: Mike Christensen & Gary McMahon<br />
2.6.6 Peel-Harvey Catchment Group (PHCG) workshop<br />
Waroona, 20 th April 2011<br />
Hilary Wheaton, community member<br />
Laurie Snell, community member<br />
Jennie Stringer, teacher<br />
Francis Smit, LCDC<br />
Johanne Garvey, LCDC<br />
Tony Hiscock, Alcoa<br />
Facilitators: Gary McMahon & Mike Christensen<br />
Colleen Archibald, PHCG<br />
Jan Star, PHCG – Chair<br />
Jane O’Malley, PHCG<br />
Jane Towensend, PHCG<br />
Kim Wilson, PHCG<br />
7
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
3. SWCC NRM Strategy – List of reviewed documents<br />
A wide range of documents have been reviewed during <strong>the</strong> preparation of <strong>the</strong> Regional NRM Strategy and<br />
<strong>the</strong>se are presented below in two groups:<br />
1. Key documents: These provided varying amounts of in<strong>for</strong>mation relevant to <strong>the</strong> preparation of<br />
<strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
2. O<strong>the</strong>r documents: Provided by SWCC and o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders <strong>for</strong> review, or sourced by <strong>the</strong><br />
authors, but of no direct relevance to <strong>the</strong> preparation of <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
The documents are listed alphabetically in <strong>the</strong>se three groups. A full bibliographic reference is provided<br />
<strong>for</strong> each document, as well as a brief description of its contents, particularly with regards to its relevance<br />
to <strong>the</strong> strategy. All documents are included on <strong>the</strong> enclosed DVD, unless marked as being unavailable in<br />
electronic <strong>for</strong>mat.<br />
3.1 Key documents<br />
Beatty, SJ, F McAleer and DL Morgan 2009 Migration patterns of fishes of <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River and<br />
relationships to groundwater intrusion. Report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Water.<br />
The Blackwood River catchment is one of two in <strong>the</strong> SW Coast Drainage Division to house all eight freshwater fishes endemic<br />
to <strong>the</strong> region and is <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e of high conservation importance. However, salinisation of <strong>the</strong> upper catchment has led to<br />
substantial range reductions of freshwater species downstream to <strong>the</strong> largely <strong>for</strong>ested region where fresh groundwater intrusion<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Yarragadee and Leederville aquifers is greatest. This study represents <strong>the</strong> only long‐ term and comprehensive monitoring<br />
of freshwater fish populations in <strong>the</strong> SW of WA. The study demonstrates, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> first time, that groundwater plays an important<br />
role in maintaining relictual fish fauna in a major river system of this region. The study specifically identifies Milyeannup Brook<br />
as being of key conservation importance as it houses <strong>the</strong> only breeding population of <strong>the</strong> EPBC listed (Vulnerable) Balston’s<br />
Pygmy Perch Nanna<strong>the</strong>rina balstoni, and also housed all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r freshwater fishes of <strong>the</strong> river.<br />
BBG 2004 Strategic action plan and investment programme <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River Basin, <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia 2004-2007. Blackwood Basin Group, Boyup Brook, WA. 24 pp.<br />
Key strategy produced by one of six sub-regional catchment management groups, listing key assets, threats and priority actions<br />
to address <strong>the</strong>se. Both resources (assets) and key threats are discussed and prioritised under <strong>the</strong> headings land and water<br />
management, biodiversity conservation of sites and species, biodiversity conservation of landscapes and <strong>the</strong> marine and<br />
coastal environment.<br />
BBG 2006 Tweed River – A Preliminary Assessment of In-Stream Salinity. Blackwood Basin Group<br />
Inc., Boyup Brook, WA, 27 pp.<br />
Report shows that salinity increasing in <strong>the</strong> Tweed catchment, major effect on landholders. No specific in<strong>for</strong>mation on whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
affecting any o<strong>the</strong>r asset o<strong>the</strong>r than land. Management options given in recommendations section.<br />
BBG 2006 Gnowergerup/Scott’s Brook Preliminary Assessment of In-Stream Salinity. Blackwood Basin<br />
Group Inc., Boyup Brook, WA, 29 pp.<br />
Report shows that salinity increasing in parts of <strong>the</strong> Gnowergerup/Scott’s Brook catchment, major effect on landholders. No<br />
specific in<strong>for</strong>mation on whe<strong>the</strong>r affecting any o<strong>the</strong>r asset o<strong>the</strong>r than land. Management options given in recommendations<br />
section.<br />
Bennell, B 2010 Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement Guidelines (On-Ground Works). <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong><br />
<strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, Bunbury, WA. 21pp.<br />
Title describes content. Adapted from a Department of Water document. The guidelines were developed to assist Natural<br />
Resource Managers in assessing and meeting SWCC requirements under <strong>the</strong> Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.<br />
Budd, AF and JM Pandolfi 2010 Evolutionary Novelty Is Concentrated at <strong>the</strong> Edge of Coral Species<br />
Distributions. Science 328(5985):1558-61<br />
Conservation priorities are calculated on <strong>the</strong> basis of species richness, endemism, and threats. However, areas ranked highly<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se factors may not represent regions of maximal evolutionary potential. The relationship between geography and<br />
evolutionary innovation was analysed in a dominant complex of Caribbean reef corals, in which morphological and genetic data<br />
concur on species differences. Based on geometric morphometrics of Pleistocene corals and genetically characterized modern<br />
colonies, we found that morphological disparity varies from <strong>the</strong> centre to <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> Caribbean, and we show that lineages<br />
are static at well-connected central locations but split or fuse in edge zones where gene flow is limited. Thus, conservation<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>ts in corals should focus not only on <strong>the</strong> centres of diversity but also on peripheral areas of species ranges and population<br />
connectivity.<br />
8
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
CCCG 2007 Capes Catchment Management Strategy. Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, Margaret<br />
River, WA. 62 pp.<br />
CCCG 2008 Boodjidup Brook Action Plan. Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, Margaret River, WA. 72<br />
pp.<br />
This river action plan (RAP) contains a detailed description of <strong>the</strong> current health of <strong>the</strong> Boodjidup waterways in terms of fringing<br />
vegetation condition, weeds and erosion. It provides in<strong>for</strong>mation on current management issues, and recommends strategies to<br />
address <strong>the</strong>se issues. The report can be used to assist in prioritising actions in <strong>the</strong> catchment to protect and enhance <strong>the</strong> brook<br />
and provides background in<strong>for</strong>mation to aid decision-making <strong>for</strong> landholders, land managers and <strong>the</strong> community. Sections 1<br />
and 2 provide an introduction to <strong>the</strong> report and describe <strong>the</strong> study area. Section 3 discusses stream ecology. Section 4 outlines<br />
<strong>the</strong> methodology used in developing this action plan. Sections 5 and 6 detail <strong>the</strong> management issues identified and actions that<br />
can be taken to address <strong>the</strong>se issues. Section 7 contains maps of <strong>the</strong> study area showing <strong>for</strong>eshore condition rating, fencing<br />
status, weeds, erosion and o<strong>the</strong>r features. Specific management recommendations are detailed <strong>for</strong> each map in this section.<br />
This section may be a good starting point <strong>for</strong> landholders to identify management issues on <strong>the</strong>ir property. Section 8<br />
summarises <strong>the</strong> key actions and recommendations in <strong>the</strong> report. Appendices provide fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation:<br />
List of local native plants species suitable <strong>for</strong> revegetation.<br />
List of local native plant species identified in <strong>the</strong> study area.<br />
Common weeds in <strong>the</strong> study area.<br />
Useful contacts <strong>for</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation and assistance..<br />
CCCG 2011 2011-12 Action plan – Draft. Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, Margaret River, WA. 7 pp.<br />
Sub-regional catchment group’s action plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> year. Has useful in<strong>for</strong>mation, but no prioritisation of assets/threats etc. that<br />
would be of high relevance to strategy development.<br />
Commonwealth of Australia 2007 National Environmental Health Strategy 2007–2012. Department of<br />
Health and Ageing, Commonwealth Government, Canberra, ACT. 14 pp.<br />
Not of direct relevance to <strong>the</strong> strategy, but is cited as an example of <strong>the</strong> “risk assessment and management” approach used<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth Government <strong>for</strong> strategy development. Being cited, it is included here.<br />
Cribb, J 2011 We ignore a deadly invader at our peril. From <strong>the</strong> web on 16 March 2011 on<br />
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20112102-21868-2.html<br />
The invader in this case is <strong>the</strong> Java strain of <strong>the</strong> Asian bee, Apis cerana. At present <strong>the</strong> invading Asian bees are thought to<br />
occupy a foothold in a smallish region around Cairns, in far north Queensland. Compared with <strong>the</strong> well-established European<br />
honeybee (Apis mellifera), <strong>the</strong> Asian bee is a poor honey maker, swarms prolifically, and is capable of outcompeting and<br />
destroying colonies of both <strong>the</strong> European bee and native Australian bees. In <strong>the</strong> Solomon Islands recently it almost annihilated<br />
<strong>the</strong> honeybee industry, reducing it from 2000 hives to just five. On February 2, 2011, a decision was taken by a majority of<br />
State governments to end control ef<strong>for</strong>ts.<br />
Curtis, AL and EC Lefroy 2010 Beyond threat- and asset-based approaches to natural resource<br />
management in Australia. Australasian J Env Management 17(3):134-141<br />
Natural resource management (NRM) in Australia began as a series of campaigns against specific threats to agricultural and<br />
pastoral production, with war progressively declared on soil erosion, introduced pests and dryland salinity. Critiques of NRM<br />
programs in <strong>the</strong> 1990s coincided with a shift towards an asset-based approach. This approach emphasises <strong>the</strong> need <strong>for</strong> public<br />
investment to be focused on those parts of <strong>the</strong> landscape of high value, ra<strong>the</strong>r than defending large areas against broad-scale<br />
threats. The asset-based approach is more strategic, but runs <strong>the</strong> risk of sacrificing effectiveness <strong>for</strong> efficiency by overlooking<br />
<strong>the</strong> large-scale biophysical and social processes that underpin <strong>the</strong> viability of discrete assets. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> asset-based<br />
approach fails to sufficiently acknowledge <strong>the</strong> importance of engaging and building <strong>the</strong> human, social and cultural capital<br />
required to underpin longterm environmental management. A condition-based approach to NRM is proposed that builds on <strong>the</strong><br />
best of <strong>the</strong> threat-based and asset-based approaches by setting targets based on environmental processes ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
perceptions of ideal states; borrowing systematic approaches to assessing value and condition from conservation planning; and<br />
investing in <strong>the</strong> social, economic, human and cultural capital required to support lasting change.<br />
Davis, MA, MK Chew, RJ Hobbs, AE Lugo, JJ Ewel, GJ Vermeij, JH Brown, ML Rosenzweig, MR<br />
Gardener, SP Carroll, K Thompson, STA Pickett, JC Stromberg, P Del Tredici, KN Suding, JG<br />
Ehrenfeld, JP Grime, J Mascaro and JC Briggs 2011 Don't judge species on <strong>the</strong>ir origins. Nature<br />
474:153-4<br />
The authors argue against <strong>the</strong> nativism perspective -- native species equals good, non-native species equals bad – which<br />
dominates conservation ef<strong>for</strong>ts. Many ecologists now believe it is time to rethink this, i.e. need to consider outcomes and<br />
impacts of an organism on an environment ra<strong>the</strong>r than focus on native origins. Scientific studies show that while some<br />
introduced species have negative impacts, it is not always <strong>the</strong> case, and “We need to consider <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong>se terms”.<br />
Electronic version not available.<br />
DEC and Water and Rivers Commission 1997, Wetlands conservation policy <strong>for</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern Australia /<br />
Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia The Government, [Perth, W.A.] : 23pp.<br />
9
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
DoE 2003 Preliminary Agency Statement of Natural Resource Management Priorities in <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia. Unpublished Report prepared by Department of Agriculture, Department of Conservation<br />
and Land Management, Department of Environment and Department of Fisheries, WA. 80 pp.<br />
Key preliminary document <strong>for</strong> discussion that states <strong>the</strong> State Government’s position on NRM assets of WA (See also <strong>the</strong><br />
primary document State NRM Office 2007).<br />
DoW 2009 A draft water quality improvement plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vasse Wonnerup Wetlands and Geographe<br />
Bay. Department of Water, Perth, 805 pp.<br />
17 recommendations addressing <strong>the</strong> management of nutrients (diffuse agricultural, point agricultural, diffuse urban, urban point)<br />
and environmental flows, as well as identifying R&D needs <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two priority assets. Describes:<br />
<strong>the</strong> ecological values;<br />
issues (water quality linked to fish kills, algal blooms (in wetlands and <strong>the</strong> bay), noxious odours, decrease in seagrass beds,<br />
mosquitoes and nutrients); and<br />
water quality objectives & identifies which waterways require Protection, Intervention or Recovery work.<br />
The plan’s five most important management directions are to focus on diffuse agricultural sources of nutrients as a first priority<br />
<strong>for</strong> remedial nutrient management action and investment; fur<strong>the</strong>r improve effluent management at dairies and feedlots; prevent<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r increases to current nutrient loads from new urban developments (critically important); reduce nutrient export from<br />
existing urban areas in some reporting catchments where <strong>the</strong>re are significant nutrient contributions from diffuse urban sources;<br />
and reduce contributions from septic systems in some reporting catchments to address local-level water quality problems.<br />
Document included several o<strong>the</strong>r reports as annexes:<br />
DoW – Nutrient modelling in <strong>the</strong> Vasse Geographe catchment;<br />
DAFWA - Landuse Nutrient Model Framework Development Report;<br />
Wetland Research & Management - Ecological Character Description Vasse-Wonnerup Wetlands Ramsar Site in <strong>South</strong>-west<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia;<br />
Ecotones & Associates - Support System <strong>for</strong> Phosphorus & Nitrogen Decisions – BMP Scenarios <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vasse-Geographe;<br />
and<br />
DoW – Water Quality Monitoring <strong>Programme</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vasse-Geographe Catchment.<br />
DoW 2011 Leschenault Estuary water quality improvement plan – Draft <strong>for</strong> public comment.<br />
Department of Water, Perth, WA xx, 181 pp. + DVD<br />
Detailed description of <strong>the</strong> estuary as an asset, <strong>the</strong> key threats impacting on it, and what needs to be done about it. Key<br />
management actions are given in detail – management of diffuse & point source agricultural nutrients; management of diffuse &<br />
point source urban nutrients; environmental water management; and assess condition and measure progress.<br />
Driscoll, DA, A Felton, P Gibbons, AM Felton, NT Munro and DB Lindenmayer 2011 Priorities in policy<br />
and management when existing biodiversity stressors interact with climate-change. Climatic Change<br />
Online at DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0170-1.<br />
There are 3 key drivers of <strong>the</strong> biodiversity crisis: (1) well-known existing threats, e.g. habitat loss, invasive pest species and<br />
resource exploitation; (2) direct effects of climate change, e.g. on coastal and high elevation communities and coral reefs; and<br />
(3) interaction between existing threats and climate change. The third is set to accelerate <strong>the</strong> biodiversity crisis beyond <strong>the</strong><br />
impacts of <strong>the</strong> first and second drivers in isolation. Management and policy action that address known threats to biodiversity<br />
could substantially diminish <strong>the</strong> impacts of future climate change. An appropriate response to climate change will include a<br />
reduction of land clearing, increased habitat restoration using indigenous species, a reduction in <strong>the</strong> number of exotic species<br />
transported between continents or between major regions of endemism, and a reduction in <strong>the</strong> unsustainable use of natural<br />
resources. Achieving <strong>the</strong>se measures requires substantial re<strong>for</strong>m of policy, and development of new or more effective alliances<br />
between scientists, government agencies, NGOs and land managers. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, new management practices and policy are<br />
needed that consider shifts in <strong>the</strong> geographic range of species, and are responsive to new in<strong>for</strong>mation acquired from improved<br />
research and monitoring programs.<br />
EPA 2007 Community Consultation Document <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> draft Water Quality Improvement Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Rivers and Estuary of <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey System. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, WA, 16 pp.<br />
An important document that lists <strong>the</strong> key actions that need to be undertaken to improve <strong>the</strong> state of a key asset, <strong>the</strong> Peel-<br />
Harvey Inlet. The 12 actions include:<br />
Use a slow-release, low water soluble fertiliser, applied after <strong>the</strong> break of season, preferably in spring and at reduced rates,<br />
on sandy soils in rural areas<br />
Undertake soil amendment on sandy soils in rural areas<br />
Use low water soluble fertiliser in urban areas<br />
Connect all existing homes to infill sewerage<br />
Zero discharge from licensed agricultural premises<br />
Improve o<strong>the</strong>r agricultural practices to reduce phosphorus discharges<br />
Undertake strategic reaf<strong>for</strong>estation of agricultural land<br />
Connect to sewerage all homes and properties <strong>for</strong> new urban developments<br />
Undertake soil remediation in all new urban developments with sandy soil<br />
Implement Local Planning Policies, Strategies and Planning Conditions that incorporate Best Management Practices where<br />
applicable<br />
10
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Incorporate water sensitive urban design in all new developments<br />
Improve <strong>the</strong> agricultural and urban drainage system<br />
EPA 2008 Water Quality Improvement Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> rivers and estuary of <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey System –<br />
Phosphorus management. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, 78 pp.<br />
This WQIP identifies <strong>the</strong> current status of phosphorus loads; identifies <strong>the</strong> environmental values (EVs) of water bodies, and <strong>the</strong><br />
water quality objectives (WQOs) that will protect <strong>the</strong> EVs and identifies a set of management measures and control actions to<br />
achieve and maintain those EVs and WQOs.<br />
Evans, MC, JEM Watson, RA Fuller, O Venter, SC Bennett, PR Marsack and HP Possingham 2011<br />
The Spatial Distribution of Threats to Species in Australia. BioScience 61(4):281-289<br />
Conservation is ultimately about safeguarding biodiversity by arresting and reversing <strong>the</strong> impacts of threatening processes.<br />
Although data on <strong>the</strong> distributions of species are increasingly well resolved, <strong>the</strong> spatial distributions of threats to species are<br />
poorly understood. We mapped <strong>the</strong> distributions of eight major threats to Australia's threatened plants, vertebrates, and<br />
invertebrates using <strong>the</strong> geographic ranges of species affected by particular threats as surrogates <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir spatial occurrence.<br />
Our results indicate that simply quantifying <strong>the</strong> proportion of species affected by particular threatening processes does not<br />
adequately capture <strong>the</strong> variation in <strong>the</strong> spatial extent, prevalence, or predominance of threats to species. Conservation planning<br />
is an inherently spatial process; <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e, explicitly considering <strong>the</strong> spatial dimension of threats could significantly enhance our<br />
ability to direct ef<strong>for</strong>ts to areas where <strong>the</strong> greatest conservation outcomes can be delivered.<br />
http://conservationbytes.com/2011/06/09/know-thy-threat/#more-5802<br />
Finning, S, A Hams and J Steele 2008 Lower Harvey River Rehabilitation Plan. Technical report<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Harvey River Restoration Trust, Harvey, WA. 24 pp.<br />
The report describes <strong>the</strong> Harvey River, which has undergone severe alteration from its natural state in terms of channel<br />
morphology and regional hydrology. The loss of riparian vegetation has had enormous ramifications on water quality and<br />
stream morphological processes (extensive sedimentation and eutrophication) leading to a loss of ecological diversity. Report<br />
discusses rehabilitation, showing it should focus on preserving <strong>the</strong> remaining vegetation and allowing <strong>the</strong> river to continue to<br />
evolve, with <strong>the</strong> addition of large woody debris to increase turbulence, re-oxygenate <strong>the</strong> flow and create fauna habitat. Small<br />
deconstruction of levee banks in places where steepness is excessive and contributing to erosion should also be carried out,<br />
and in <strong>the</strong> short-term banks should be stabilised with matting until native vegetation is well established. Current drainage<br />
management practices of manually clearing sediment from <strong>the</strong> River and increasing <strong>the</strong> heights of <strong>the</strong> levee banks should<br />
cease so as to enable <strong>the</strong> reconnection of <strong>the</strong> floodplain and bank stabilisation to continue.<br />
Froend, R and R Loomes 2006 Determination of ecological water requirements <strong>for</strong> wetland and<br />
terrestrial vegetation – sou<strong>the</strong>rn Blackwood and eastern Scott coastal plain. Report to Department of<br />
Water, Centre <strong>for</strong> Ecosystem Management, Joondalup, WA. 147 pp.<br />
This study is useful <strong>for</strong> managers and builds on a previous URS study and establishes site-specific water regime criteria <strong>for</strong><br />
selected wetlands and representative phreatophytic vegetation within <strong>the</strong> eastern Scott and sou<strong>the</strong>rn Blackwood area. The<br />
study covers 1) Identification of phreatophytic vegetation criteria sites; 2) Establishment of wetland and terrestrial vegetation<br />
transects and baseline monitoring; 3) Proposal of ecological management objectives; 4) Determination of ecological water<br />
requirements; 5) Description of possible impacts due to water level decline; and 6) Proposal of monitoring regimes.<br />
GAO 2011 Climate engineering – Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. Report<br />
to Congressional Requester, Center <strong>for</strong> Science, Technology, and Engineering, United States<br />
Government Accountability Office GAO. 135 pp.<br />
Reports of rising global temperatures have raised questions about responses to climate change, including ef<strong>for</strong>ts to (1) reduce<br />
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, (2) adapt to climate change, and (3) design and develop climate engineering technologies <strong>for</strong><br />
deliberate, large-scale intervention in Earth's climate. Reporting earlier that <strong>the</strong> nation lacks a coordinated climate-change<br />
strategy that includes climate engineering, this report assesses climate engineering technologies, focusing on <strong>the</strong>ir technical<br />
status, future directions <strong>for</strong> research on <strong>the</strong>m, and potential responses. To per<strong>for</strong>m this technology assessment, GAO reviewed<br />
<strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and<br />
viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across <strong>the</strong> United States. The conclusion was that climate engineering technologies do<br />
not now offer a viable response to global climate change. Experts advocating research to develop and evaluate <strong>the</strong> technologies<br />
believe that research on <strong>the</strong>se technologies is urgently needed or would provide an insurance policy against worst-case climate<br />
scenarios - but caution that <strong>the</strong> misuse of research could bring new risks. The technologies being proposed have been<br />
categorized as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). GAO found <strong>the</strong>se technologies to be<br />
currently immature, many with potentially negative consequences.<br />
Geocatch 2008 Geographe catchment management strategy – 2008. Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>,<br />
Busselton, WA. 46 pp.<br />
Key strategy produced by one of six sub-regional catchment management groups, listing key threats and priority actions to<br />
address <strong>the</strong>se. Only key threats (issues) are discussed under <strong>the</strong> headings water, land, biodiversity, marine & coast, people<br />
and climate. The major assets of <strong>the</strong> region are also described in <strong>the</strong> text but not prioritised.<br />
GHD 2007 Status of State Salinity Framework – Report. Report to SWCC, GHD Consultants, Perth<br />
WA. 40 pp.<br />
11
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Title describes content – report describes history and current status (in 2007) of SIF3.<br />
GHD 2008 Review and Application of Financial and Planning Instruments in Managing Dryland Salinity<br />
in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Report to SWCC, GHD Consultants, Perth WA. 52 pp.<br />
The study identified existing or new options that encourage management of salinity by communities and individuals in response<br />
to rising salinity levels in <strong>the</strong>ir environment. This involved a desktop review of <strong>the</strong> financial, planning and o<strong>the</strong>r instruments used<br />
by National, State and Local governments in Australia and internationally to assist local communities manage and/or adapt.<br />
Recommendations <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir use were also developed.<br />
Gozlan, RE 2008 Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad Fish and Fisheries 9:106–115.<br />
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00267.x<br />
Hall, J 2008 DRAFT: Vasse-Geographe Hydrologic & Nutrient Modelling – Coastal Catchment Initiative<br />
Project, 2008. Department of Water, Perth, WA. 152 pp.<br />
The Streamflow Quality Affecting Rivers and Estuaries model (SQUARE) was used as <strong>the</strong> tool to deliver <strong>the</strong> catchment<br />
modelling. It is a model driven by meteorological and land cover inputs, and was developed specifically to model management<br />
scenarios in large scale catchments, and can deal with <strong>the</strong> unique hydrological characteristics of <strong>the</strong> Swan-Coastal Plain. The<br />
WQIP requires load targets and load reduction targets <strong>for</strong> all catchments. The catchment was divided into 15 ‘Reporting<br />
Subcatchments’ and <strong>the</strong> model was used to derive Current average annual loads and winter median concentrations; Predicted<br />
future loads and winter median concentrations; Maximum acceptable loads and load reduction targets; Source Separation of<br />
loads into <strong>the</strong> land use components; Contribution of point source and diffuse source loads; and <strong>the</strong> possible affect of climate<br />
change on catchment loads. The model was also used to calculate <strong>the</strong> total quantity of load delivered to Geographe Bay and to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Vasse Wonnerup Wetlands, and to determine <strong>the</strong> catchment ‘hot-spots’, where large exports of load were coming from.<br />
Catchment remediation scenarios, management scenarios, and climate change scenarios have been developed in conjunction<br />
with o<strong>the</strong>r CCI project managers.<br />
Hams, AB 2008a <strong>South</strong> Dandalup River Action Plan. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> Peel-Harvey<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, WA. 76 pp.<br />
This action plan provides in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> current health of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> Dandalup Catchment and recommendations on how<br />
to manage it better. Issues of concern include:<br />
Stock Access to Riparian Areas<br />
Loss of Riparian Vegetation<br />
Weed Invasion – particularly Watsonia, Cotton Bush, Blackberry and Apple of Sodom<br />
Erosion and Siltation<br />
Feral Animal Invasion – Pigs, Foxes and Rabbits<br />
Indigenous Heritage Issues<br />
Recommendations are included in response to <strong>the</strong> above issues.<br />
Hams, AB 2008b Middle Murray River Action Plan. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> Peel-Harvey<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, WA. 94 pp.<br />
This action plan provides in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> current health of <strong>the</strong> Middle Murray Catchment and recommendations on how to<br />
manage it better. Issues of concern include:<br />
Loss of Riparian Vegetation<br />
Weed Invasion – particularly Watsonia, Cotton Bush, Blackberry and Apple of Sodom<br />
Erosion and Siltation<br />
Stock Access to Riparian Areas<br />
Feral Animal Invasion – Pigs, Foxes and Rabbits<br />
Indigenous Heritage Issues<br />
Recommendations are included in response to <strong>the</strong> above issues.<br />
Heath, R, SM White and J Bowyer 2009 Evaluation Report – Resource condition target setting,<br />
monitoring & evaluation systems <strong>for</strong> dryland salinity (L7-G2 & DS.01d projects). Report to SWCC,<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. 39 pp.<br />
This report details findings from an evaluation, conducted by <strong>the</strong> DAFWA ‘Extension and Communication’ team, of SWCC’s<br />
‘Resource condition target setting, monitoring and evaluation systems <strong>for</strong> dryland salinity’ projects (L7-G2 and DS.01d)1. The<br />
report is divided into three key sections: 1) Introduction – purpose of <strong>the</strong> evaluation; and background in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong><br />
Salinity Target Setting project. 2) Evaluation part 1 – methodology and findings from <strong>the</strong> assessment of delivery of project<br />
contractual obligations. 3) Evaluation part 2 – methodology and findings from <strong>the</strong> evaluation of <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> consultative<br />
process used by <strong>the</strong> project. Provides useful in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> target setting process and <strong>the</strong> targets developed.<br />
Hill, AL, CA S, V S and A Del Marco 1996a Wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain. Vol 2a: Wetland<br />
mapping, classification and evaluation, main report. Water & Rivers Commission, Perth, WA. 352<br />
pp.<br />
A very comprehensive report on <strong>the</strong> wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain, detailing much of <strong>the</strong> methodology etc behind wetland<br />
classification, BUT only prioritises those from Perth down to Mandurah, and so misses all <strong>the</strong> major wetlands important to <strong>the</strong><br />
SW region. Does list <strong>the</strong>m, but no real discussion.<br />
12
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Hill, AL, CA S, V S and A Del Marco 1996b Wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain. Vol 2b: Wetland<br />
mapping, classification and evaluation – wetland atlas. Water & Rivers Commission, Perth, WA. 194<br />
pp.<br />
The accompanying atlas to report vol.2a – shows locations of ALL wetlands from Perth to Dunsborough, so very useful resource<br />
to managers.<br />
Jury, C, G Hanran-Smith and D Rooks 2008 Cowaramup Creeks action plan. Technical report prepared<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, Margaret River, WA. 85 pp.<br />
This action plan provides in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> current health of <strong>the</strong> Cowaramup Catchment and recommendations on how to<br />
manage it better. Issues of concern identified during <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>eshore surveys and community consultation were:<br />
Loss of native fringing vegetation and degradation of remaining vegetation by stock grazing and trampling.<br />
The effect of altered hydrology including declining rainfall, on-stream dams and bores on <strong>the</strong> timing and quantity of flow and<br />
<strong>the</strong> ecology of <strong>the</strong> creeks.<br />
Environmental and agricultural weeds threatening good vegetation.<br />
The planting of invasive non-local plants including deciduous trees which threaten <strong>the</strong> character of <strong>the</strong> area and have <strong>the</strong><br />
potential to impact on creek ecology.<br />
Concerns regarding water quality and <strong>the</strong> impact on marine life in Cowaramup Bay.<br />
The potential impact on remnant vegetation from <strong>the</strong> spread of dieback particularly on <strong>the</strong> unnamed creek.<br />
On-going erosion in areas where all creekline vegetation has been removed and grazing is occurring.<br />
The fragmentation of habitats through <strong>the</strong> loss of creekline vegetation connectivity.<br />
In response to <strong>the</strong>se issues, recommendations have been made in this report to protect and improve <strong>the</strong> condition of <strong>the</strong> creeks.<br />
Kavanagh, R, B Law, F Lemckert, M Stanton, M Chidel, T Brassil, A Towerton and T Penman 2010<br />
Conservation value of eucalypt plantations established <strong>for</strong> wood production and multiple<br />
environmental benefits in agricultural landscapes. Final report <strong>for</strong> NAP/NHT2 eucalypt plantations<br />
project SLA 0013 R3 NAP, Forest & Rangeland Ecosystems Research, NSW Industry and<br />
Investment, NSW. 112 pp.<br />
Report documenting capacity of young eucalypt plantations to restore habitat <strong>for</strong> fauna within highly fragmented and ecologically<br />
degraded agricultural landscapes re birds, reptiles, bats and terrestrial mammals.<br />
Kings<strong>for</strong>d, RT, JEM Watson, CJ Lundquist, O Venter, L Hughes, EL Johnston, J A<strong>the</strong>rton, M Gawel, DA<br />
Keith, BG Mackey, C Morley, HP Possingham, B Raynor, HF Recher and KA Wilson 2009 Major<br />
Conservation Policy Issues <strong>for</strong> Biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology, 23: 834–840<br />
MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SO RELEVANT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN HERE IN FULL<br />
Habitat loss and degradation<br />
Implement legislation, education, and community outreach to stop or reduce land clearing, mining, and unsustainable logging<br />
through education, incentives, and compensation <strong>for</strong> landowners that will encourage private conservation<br />
Establish new protected areas <strong>for</strong> habitats that are absent or poorly represented<br />
In threatened ecosystems (e.g., wetlands), establish large-scale restoration projects with local communities that incorporate<br />
conservation and connectivity<br />
Establish transparent and evidence-based state of environment reporting on biodiversity and manage threats within and<br />
outside protected areas.<br />
Protect free-flowing river systems (largely unregulated by dams, levees, and diversions) within <strong>the</strong> framework of <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
river basin and increase environmental flows on regulated rivers<br />
Invasive species<br />
Avoid deliberate introduction of exotic species, unless suitable analyses of benefits outweigh risk-weighted costs<br />
Implement control of invasive species by assessing effectiveness of control programs and determining invasion potential<br />
Establish regulations and en<strong>for</strong>cement <strong>for</strong> exchange or treatment of ocean ballast and regularly implement antifouling<br />
procedures<br />
Climate change<br />
Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions<br />
Identify, assess, and protect important climate refugia<br />
Ameliorate <strong>the</strong> impacts of climate change through strategic management of o<strong>the</strong>r threatening processes<br />
Develop strategic plans <strong>for</strong> priority translocations and implement when needed<br />
Overexploitation<br />
Implement restrictions on harvest of overexploited species to maintain sustainability<br />
Implement an ecosystem-based approach <strong>for</strong> fisheries, based on scientific data, that includes zoning <strong>the</strong> ocean; banning<br />
destructive fishing; adopting precautionary fishing principles that include size limits, quotas, and regulation with sufficient<br />
resources based on scientific assessments of stocks and; reducing bycatch through regulation and education<br />
Implement international mechanisms to increase sustainability of fisheries by supporting international treaties <strong>for</strong> fisheries<br />
protection in <strong>the</strong> high seas; avoiding perverse subsidies and improve labelling of sustainable fisheries; and licensing exports<br />
of aquarium fish<br />
Control unsustainable illegal logging and wildlife harvesting through local incentives and cessation of international trade<br />
Pollution<br />
13
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Decrease pollution through incentives and education; reduce and improve treatment of domestic, industrial, and agriculture<br />
waste; and rehabilitate polluted areas<br />
Streng<strong>the</strong>n government regulations to stop generation of toxic material from mining ef<strong>for</strong>ts that affects freshwater and marine<br />
environments<br />
Establish legislation and regulations and financial bonds (international) to rein<strong>for</strong>ce polluter-pays principles<br />
Establish regulations, education programs, clean ups, labelling, and use of biodegradable packaging to reduce discarded<br />
fishing gear and plastics<br />
Disease<br />
Establish early-detection programs <strong>for</strong> pathological diseases and biosecurity controls to reduce translocation<br />
Identify causes, risk-assessment methods, and preventative methods <strong>for</strong> diseases<br />
Establish remote communities of organisms (captive) not exposed to disease in severe outbreaks<br />
Implementation<br />
Establish regional population policies based on ecologically sustainable human population levels and consumption<br />
Ensure that all developments affecting <strong>the</strong> environment are adequately analysed <strong>for</strong> impacts over <strong>the</strong> long term<br />
Promote economic and societal benefits from conservation through education<br />
Determine biodiversity status and trends with indicators that diagnose and manage declines<br />
Invest in taxonomic understanding and provision of resources (scientific and conservation) to increase capacity <strong>for</strong><br />
conservation<br />
Increase <strong>the</strong> capacity of government conservation agencies<br />
Focus ef<strong>for</strong>ts of nongovernmental organisations on small island states on building indigenous capacity <strong>for</strong> conservation<br />
Base conservation on risk assessment and decision support<br />
Establish <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of conservation instruments (national and international) and <strong>the</strong>ir implementation and approaches<br />
and how <strong>the</strong>y affect scientific perception, public perception, and in turn, decision-making in conservation and restoration<br />
management.<br />
Laurance, WF, B Dell, SM Turton, MJ Lawes, LB Hutley, H McCallum, P Dale, M Bird, G Hardy, G<br />
Prideaux, B Gawne, CR McMahon, R Yu, J-M Hero, L Schwarzkopf, A Krockenberger, M Douglas, E<br />
Silvester, M Mahony, K Vellam, U Saikia, C-H Wahren, Z Xu, B Smith, C Cocklin In Press The 10<br />
Australian ecosystems most vulnerable to tipping points. Biol. Conserv. 9 pp.<br />
The paper identifies <strong>the</strong> 10 major terrestrial and marine ecosystems in Australia most vulnerable to tipping points, in which<br />
modest environmental changes can cause disproportionately large changes in ecosystem properties. The list includes <strong>the</strong><br />
Mediterranean ecosystems of southwestern Australia. For each ecosystem <strong>the</strong> paper considers <strong>the</strong> intrinsic features and<br />
external drivers that render each ecosystem susceptible to tipping points, and identify subtypes of <strong>the</strong> ecosystem that we deem<br />
to be especially vulnerable.<br />
LCC 2007 Leschenault NRM Sub-region Catchment management strategy. Prepared by Land<br />
Assessment Pty Ltd <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong> (LCC), Bunbury, WA. 133 pp.<br />
Key strategy produced by one of six sub-regional catchment management groups, listing key assets, threats and priority actions<br />
to address <strong>the</strong>se. Resources (assets) are discussed under <strong>the</strong> headings land resources, water resources, biodiversity, coastal<br />
& marine, climate & air quality, and cultural heritage. Importantly, only issues (threats) and appropriate actions are specifically<br />
listed and discussed in this document, whereas assets are only identified (spread randomly through text), but are not prioritised.<br />
Electronic version not available.<br />
McElhinny, C 2002 Forest and woodland structure as an index of biodiversity: A review. A literature<br />
review commissioned by NSW NPWS, 84 pp.<br />
This report reviews <strong>the</strong> ecological literature concerning <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>for</strong>est and woodland structure and biodiversity,<br />
at <strong>the</strong> scale of an individual stand. Part one provides a definition of “<strong>for</strong>est structure”. Part two concludes that relatively few<br />
international studies contain extensive sets of structural attributes, and that no single study is likely to provide a definitive suite<br />
of attributes. Part three reviews Australian studies that have associated <strong>the</strong> presence, abundance or richness of different faunal<br />
groups with various structural attributes.<br />
McInnis, T and S Wicks 2011 Enhanced reporting on industry specific land management practices.<br />
ABARES, Canberra, ACT. ABARES Res.Report 11.1:1-48<br />
This report collates results from ABARE (now ABARES) surveys on NRM into a summary <strong>for</strong> policymakers working on <strong>the</strong><br />
Australian Government’s Caring <strong>for</strong> our Country (CfoC) initiative; assesses <strong>the</strong> capacity of existing ABARE survey data to in<strong>for</strong>m<br />
CfoC targets and <strong>the</strong> associated CfoC MERI strategy; and provides a framework from which a new NRM survey can be<br />
developed. In <strong>the</strong> period 1991-2010, ABARE conducted 16 surveys that collected in<strong>for</strong>mation on land management practices<br />
and NRM issues. These surveys identified some meaningful trends, e.g. <strong>the</strong> uptake of farm planning has declined since <strong>the</strong><br />
early 1990s, and that Landcare membership has generally increased over <strong>the</strong> same time period. A draft survey instrument is<br />
also described which could be used to specifically in<strong>for</strong>m CfoC and <strong>the</strong> MERI strategy.<br />
MacGregor, C 2008 Innovation in Community Engagement. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource<br />
Management, UWA, Perth, WA. CENRM Report 074 139 pp.<br />
Innovative community engagement, as promoted by <strong>the</strong> Government of Victoria’s (2005) Community Engagement Planning<br />
Key, was tested and trialled in two SWCC projects. The Planning Key approach was found to be flexible, innovative and<br />
14
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
systematic; however, it did not necessarily encourage early stakeholder involvement. In <strong>the</strong> trials <strong>the</strong> Planning Key and its<br />
associated free software were found to be particularly useful in assisting with <strong>the</strong> development of Community Engagement<br />
Plans (CEPs). Especially useful was <strong>the</strong> CLIP (Collaboration, Conflict, Interest and Power) method <strong>for</strong> profiling stakeholders<br />
principally because it helped identify <strong>the</strong> engagement type (in<strong>for</strong>m, consult, involve, collaborate, empower) needed to meet <strong>the</strong><br />
different needs and expectations of stakeholders. However, future users of <strong>the</strong> Planning Key (Project Officers) should<br />
understand that <strong>the</strong>y still need to make decisions about which specific engagement tools (e.g. interviews, focus groups,<br />
workshops etc) <strong>the</strong>y will use in <strong>the</strong>ir engagements. The IAP2 spectrum (2006), which is an integral component of <strong>the</strong> Planning<br />
Key, can assist in identifying appropriate tools according to budgetary and/or o<strong>the</strong>r limiting factors. Importantly, <strong>the</strong> Planning<br />
Key also encouraged <strong>the</strong> development of evaluation strategies (to help determine <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of <strong>the</strong> engagement) and<br />
learning strategies (to help build human and institutional capital during <strong>the</strong> engagement), both of which are easily neglected<br />
during time-constrained projects as practitioners seek to meet broader project objectives. Future research with <strong>the</strong> Planing Key<br />
should consider how well <strong>the</strong> emergent CEPs align with or can be integrated into broader NRM project planning.<br />
Mincherton, G 2008 Buayanyup River Action Plan. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> Geographe<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Busselton and Department of Water, Perth. 110pp.<br />
This action plan provides in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> current health of <strong>the</strong> Buayanyup Catchment and recommendations on how to<br />
manage it better. The Pen-Scott Foreshore Condition Assessment Method was used to undertake assessments of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong>eshore with local landholders and community members and a summary of <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>eshore condition ratings of <strong>the</strong> river is<br />
presented.<br />
NTNU 2012 New quantitative method enables researchers to assess environmental risks posed by nonnative<br />
species. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in ScienceDaily. Retrieved Dec<br />
29, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111226093008.htm<br />
Emerging technology: A coalition of researchers from <strong>the</strong> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) and staff<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Norwegian Biodiversity In<strong>for</strong>mation Centre have created a unique quantitative method that enables researchers and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs to assess <strong>the</strong> environmental risks posed by non-native species (un<strong>for</strong>tunately currently only available in Norwegian, but<br />
planned <strong>for</strong> translation). While <strong>the</strong> method is tailored to <strong>the</strong> Norwegian environment, it can easily be adapted to o<strong>the</strong>r countries,<br />
and fills a vital need internationally <strong>for</strong> a quantifiable, uni<strong>for</strong>m approach to classifying and assessing alien species, <strong>the</strong><br />
developers say. "This provides an objective classification of <strong>the</strong>se species' potential impact on <strong>the</strong> Norwegian environment. We<br />
relied on much of <strong>the</strong> same principles as are used in <strong>the</strong> preparation of <strong>the</strong> 'Red List' of endangered and threatened species,"<br />
says Professor Bernt-Erik Sae<strong>the</strong>r at NTNU's Center <strong>for</strong> Conservation Biology (CCB), who has spearheaded <strong>the</strong> development of<br />
<strong>the</strong> new methodology along with a coalition of o<strong>the</strong>r Norwegian biologists and staff from <strong>the</strong> Biodiversity In<strong>for</strong>mation Centre.<br />
The method classifies species according to <strong>the</strong>ir reproductive ability, growth rate, individual densities, population densities,<br />
prevalence and <strong>the</strong>ir effect. This in<strong>for</strong>mation allows <strong>the</strong> researchers to plot <strong>the</strong> risks posed by each species on two axes, one<br />
which shows <strong>the</strong> likelihood of <strong>the</strong> species' dispersal and ability to establish itself in <strong>the</strong> environment (along with its rate of<br />
establishment, if applicable) and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r shows <strong>the</strong> degree to which <strong>the</strong> alien species will affect native species and habitats.<br />
Based on <strong>the</strong> combined values of <strong>the</strong> two axes, <strong>the</strong> species can be placed in one of five risk categories:<br />
Very high risk species that can have a strong negative effect on <strong>the</strong> Norwegian environment;<br />
High risk species that have spread widely with some ecological impact, or those that have a major ecological effect but have<br />
only limited distribution;<br />
Potentially high risk species that have very limited dispersal ability, but a substantial ecological impact or vice versa;<br />
Low risk species, with low or moderate dispersion and moderate to limited ecological effect;<br />
Species with no known risk factors that are not known to have spread and have no known ecological effects.<br />
Pen, LJ, HS Gill, P Humphries and IC Potter 1993 Biology of <strong>the</strong> black-stripe minnow Galaxiella<br />
nigrostriata, including comparisons with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two Galaxiella species. J.Fish Biol. 43(6): 847-63.<br />
The growth, age composition, reproductive biology and diet of Galaxiella nigrostriata in seasonal water bodies in south-western<br />
Australia are described and compared with G. munda and G. pusilla. Like <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two Galaxiella species, G. nigrostriata has a<br />
1-year life cycle. The mean length attained by female G. nigrostriata at sexual maturity is approximately 37 mm, compared with<br />
about 47 and 28 mm <strong>for</strong> G. munda and G. pusilla, respectively. Like G. munda, G. nigrostriata is a multiple spawner. Although<br />
all three Galaxiella species breed mainly in winter and early spring, spawning occurs earlier in G. nigrostriata than in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
two species. An early production of offspring enables <strong>the</strong> young females and males of this species to reach approximately 78<br />
and 88%, respectively, of <strong>the</strong>ir ultimate body length by early summer. Such a prolonged period of early and relatively rapid<br />
growth is advantageous to G. nigrostriata, since this species lives in water bodies that often dry up during <strong>the</strong> summer and early<br />
autumn and thus cannot grow during this period. The gonads start to undergo rapid development in autumn, when <strong>the</strong> pools<br />
begin to fill with water following <strong>the</strong> onset of <strong>the</strong> seasonal rains. All three Galaxiella species are carnivores. Galaxiella<br />
nigrostriata mainly takes prey from <strong>the</strong> water column and <strong>the</strong> water surface, G. pusilla focuses on prey in <strong>the</strong> water column and<br />
benthos, and G. munda feeds widely on prey on <strong>the</strong> water surface, throughout <strong>the</strong> water column and from <strong>the</strong> benthos. The<br />
prevalence of small prey, such as cladocera and calanoid copepods, is greater in <strong>the</strong> diets of G. nigrostriata and G. pusilla than<br />
in that of G. munda. Electronic version not available.<br />
PHCC 2005 Peel-Harvey Catchment natural resource management plan. Prepared by Land<br />
Assessment Pty Ltd <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong> (PHCC), Mandurah, WA. 114 pp.<br />
Key strategy produced by one of six sub-regional catchment management groups, listing key assets, threats and priority actions<br />
to address <strong>the</strong>se. Resources (assets) are discussed under <strong>the</strong> headings land resources, water resources, biodiversity, coastal<br />
environment, marine environment, air, climate, and people & culture. Importantly, only issues (threats) and appropriate actions<br />
15
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
are specifically listed and discussed in this document, whereas assets are identified, but not prioritised in any real way, e.g. all<br />
53 regionally significant wetlands are listed.<br />
PHCC 2008 Peel-Harvey Water sensitive urban design tour – site descriptions. Peel-Harvey<br />
Catchment Group, Mandurah, WA. 16 pp.<br />
Ten sites are described in detail with regards to <strong>the</strong> water sensitive design features, including description of <strong>the</strong> site’s objectives,<br />
what best management practices have been implemented and o<strong>the</strong>r objectives relevant to water sensitive design. A map is<br />
also included of each site showing where <strong>the</strong> BMPs have been implemented.<br />
PHCC 2008 Draft Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar Site Management Plan. Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>,<br />
Mandurah, WA. 89 pp.<br />
The management plan sets out a framework <strong>for</strong> coordinated and collaborative management that:<br />
works towards protecting and/or restoring <strong>the</strong> ecological character of <strong>the</strong> Peel-Yalgorup System, and<br />
promotes <strong>the</strong> wise use of <strong>the</strong> wetlands in <strong>the</strong> System by fostering <strong>the</strong> roles and responsibilities of local stewards.<br />
It outlines <strong>the</strong> three (long-term) general objectives <strong>for</strong> managing <strong>the</strong> System, under which five-year management outcomes are<br />
prescribed:<br />
GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: The Peel-Yalgorup System will be managed in accordance with <strong>the</strong> principle of wise use, that is,<br />
<strong>the</strong> conservation of <strong>the</strong> wetlands and human uses that are compatible with maintenance of <strong>the</strong> natural properties of <strong>the</strong><br />
ecosystem.<br />
GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2: Community stakeholders will be engaged and supported in active environmental stewardship.<br />
GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3: The ecological character of <strong>the</strong> Peel-Yalgorup System, including services and values, will be<br />
maintained or enhanced to achieve long-term positive outcomes<br />
Rees, W 2011 What’s blocking sustainability Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability:<br />
Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25<br />
The modern world remains mired in a swamp of cognitive dissonance and collective denial seemingly dedicated to maintaining<br />
<strong>the</strong> status quo. The working hypo<strong>the</strong>sis is that modern H. sapiens is unsustainable by nature—unsustainability is an inevitable<br />
emergent property of <strong>the</strong> systemic interaction between contemporary techno-industrial society and <strong>the</strong> ecosphere. This<br />
conundrum is traced to humanity’s once-adaptive, sub-conscious, genetic predisposition to expand (shared with all o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
species), a tendency rein<strong>for</strong>ced by <strong>the</strong> socially-constructed economic narrative of continuous material growth. Un<strong>for</strong>tunately,<br />
<strong>the</strong>se qualities have become maladaptive. The current co-evolutionary pathway of <strong>the</strong> human enterprise and <strong>the</strong> ecosphere<br />
<strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e puts civilization at risk – both defective genes and malicious “memes” can be “selected out” by a changing physical<br />
environment. To achieve sustainability, <strong>the</strong> world community must write a new cultural narrative that is explicitly designed <strong>for</strong><br />
living on a finite planet, a narrative that overrides humanity’s outdated innate expansionist tendencies.<br />
Robins, L and Kanowski, P 2011 Crying <strong>for</strong> our Country: eight ways in which 'Caring <strong>for</strong> our Country'<br />
has undermined Australia's regional model <strong>for</strong> natural resource management Australasian J Env Man<br />
21 pp.<br />
Very good and broad overview of how <strong>the</strong> CfoC program evolved out of NHT, and a discussion of many of <strong>the</strong> problems<br />
associated with it. States that “<strong>the</strong> Australian Government’s CfoC program has undermined Australia’s ‘regional model’ <strong>for</strong><br />
natural resource management, and eroded gains made under <strong>the</strong> precursor Natural Heritage Trust and related programs in 8<br />
significant ways. CfoC has adopted a narrower agenda, increased central government control, and compromised buy-in by state<br />
and territory governments. Priority has been given to discrete projects capable of demonstrating short-term, measurable<br />
outputs. Implementation of CfoC has failed to realise <strong>the</strong> aspirations of regional organisations <strong>for</strong> core funding, substantially<br />
increased transaction costs and diminished success rates under competitive funding arrangements, and prejudiced <strong>the</strong> goodwill<br />
of many in <strong>the</strong> natural resource management community. Commitment to local community natural resource management<br />
movements like Landcare has been inconsistent, and largely unsuccessful. Retracting investment in relevant research and<br />
development (e.g. termination of Land and Water Australia), has severely limited knowledge creation and sharing to in<strong>for</strong>m and<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> regional model.”<br />
Semeniuk, V & C, Research Group 1997 Mapping and classification of wetlands from Augusta to<br />
Walpole in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Water & Rivers Commission, Water Resource<br />
Techn. Series WRT 12:76 pp.<br />
Report presents wetland mapping and classification <strong>for</strong> 3 regions: <strong>the</strong> Augusta to Donnelly River area, <strong>the</strong> Meerup to Walpole<br />
area and <strong>the</strong> Muir-Unicup area. Wetlands are mapped at 1:25 000. The area between Northcliffe and Windy Harbour is<br />
regionally significant as it contains ten consanguineous suites, indicating richness in diversity of wetland types. Much of <strong>the</strong><br />
wetland resource in <strong>the</strong> report’s study area is relatively undisturbed and so are of outstanding value.<br />
Spatial Vision Innovations 2008a Waterway Health Sub-Strategy – Final Report. Spatial Vision<br />
Innovations, Melbourne, VIC, 204 pp + 5 App (174 pp).<br />
An important document that identifies all inland water assets of <strong>the</strong> region, <strong>the</strong>ir values and <strong>the</strong> threats to <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong> actions<br />
required, all prioritised. Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, <strong>the</strong> quality of data that went into <strong>the</strong> system means that <strong>the</strong> identified assets may or may<br />
not be correct and few people have used <strong>the</strong> report.<br />
Spatial Vision Innovations 2008b SWCC IDSS and BIOIDSS – Investment Decision Support System<br />
and User Documentation. Spatial Vision Innovations, Melbourne, VIC, 126 pp.<br />
16
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
This document presents <strong>the</strong> System Documentation and User Guide <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> (SWCC)<br />
Investment Decision Support System (a key component of <strong>the</strong> Waterway Health Sub-Strategy and Biodiversity Sub-Strategy.<br />
As such, it has no specifically useful in<strong>for</strong>mation, but is needed when consulting <strong>the</strong> sub-strategies.<br />
State NRM Office 2007 Agency Statement of important Natural Resource Management Assets in<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Unpublished Report prepared <strong>for</strong> NRM Senior Officers Group, Government of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia. 107 pp.<br />
Key document that states <strong>the</strong> State Government’s position on NRM assets of WA. The report presents <strong>the</strong> views of each<br />
Department on <strong>the</strong> respective NRM assets <strong>for</strong> which it has primary responsibility. A limitation is that <strong>the</strong> report presents differing<br />
levels of detail on in<strong>for</strong>mation and <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e comparisons between asset classes are not recommended without fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation from each section’s respective authors. It focuses primarily on biophysical or tangible assets and has not addressed<br />
<strong>the</strong> social and socio-economic asset class. Highest priority assets included: 6 IBRA sub bioregions, 6 marine conservation<br />
reserve regions, 2 terrestrial IBRA subregions, 7 marine conservation reserves, 343 flora species (terrestrial), 58 fauna species<br />
(terrestrial), 54 TECs (terrestrial), 5 marine fauna species, 24 proposed and existing natural diversity recovery catchments, 7<br />
target landscapes, 13 IBRA provinces with species hotspots, 62 water supplies and 34 waterscapes, 5 aquatic assets and 1<br />
soil-landscape zone (See also <strong>the</strong> secondary document DoE 2003).<br />
Steele, J.J. 2006 Management of diffuse water quality issues in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey coastal drainage<br />
system – A literature review.<br />
The review considers Best Management Practice options <strong>for</strong> water quality improvement along watercourses in a <strong>for</strong>mat relevant<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey catchment. The drainage system is a highly degraded and modified system where works along drainage<br />
lines need to be prioritized due to limited funding, where institutional change in drainage management practices is needed and<br />
where <strong>the</strong> downstream receiving water bodies are of international ecological significance. The need <strong>for</strong> drainage maintenance<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey catchment has not been disputed in this review. What has been disputed is <strong>the</strong> method in which <strong>the</strong>se works<br />
are scheduled and implemented. Recommendations include <strong>the</strong> need to determine <strong>the</strong> conveyance requirements of waterways<br />
so that stable, vegetated drains with adequate drainage capacity can be able to be designed and implemented.<br />
Stuart-Street, A 2003 Natural resource management issues in <strong>the</strong> agricultural zone of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia<br />
– <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region. Department of Agriculture, Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 56<br />
pp.<br />
The document provides an analysis of current pressures on agricultural resources of <strong>the</strong> SW Region. Data were not presented<br />
on <strong>the</strong> actual areas of land affected by <strong>the</strong> various <strong>for</strong>ms of degradation as <strong>the</strong>se weren’t <strong>the</strong>n available and regional land<br />
resource surveys were interpreted to estimate <strong>the</strong>se areas. These estimations are based on characteristics of <strong>the</strong> soils and<br />
landscapes within <strong>the</strong> region. Differing ranges of risk are shown <strong>for</strong> different issues because of varying impacts. Each natural<br />
resource management issue is covered in four sections: 1) Extent; 2) Impacts; 3) Management options; and 4) Effectiveness.<br />
SWCC 2005 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional Strategy <strong>for</strong> Natural Resource Management. <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong><br />
<strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, Bunbury, 164 pp. + CD<br />
Previous strategy and a key document guiding <strong>the</strong> development of <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
SWCC 2010 Community Engagement Strategy – Planning <strong>for</strong> 2010 and Beyond (v.7). Prepared by <strong>the</strong><br />
Community Engagement Team, SWCC <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, Bunbury, WA. 59pp.<br />
Title describes content. The community engagement strategy has been developed to assist SWCC to undertake community<br />
engagement <strong>for</strong> improved Natural Resource Management (NRM) outcomes and strategic organisational development, now and<br />
into <strong>the</strong> future. The strategy has two main <strong>the</strong>mes:<br />
SWCC’s overarching engagement approach – i.e. guiding principles <strong>for</strong> how SWCC as an organisation works with-its<br />
stakeholders and a long-term objective <strong>for</strong> how to achieve this; and<br />
SWCC’s operational approach – i.e. practical in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> SWCC staff to ensure that <strong>the</strong>y are using <strong>the</strong> most effective and<br />
appropriate tools to engage <strong>the</strong>ir relevant stakeholder groups.<br />
Syrinx Environmental PL 2008 Scott Coastal Plain – Best Management Practices. Prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
BBG by Syrinx Environmental PL, Perth, WA. 103 pp.<br />
This report is intended to provide technical in<strong>for</strong>mation to landholders and o<strong>the</strong>rs on <strong>the</strong> best available means of minimising <strong>the</strong><br />
environmental impacts of on-farm activities on <strong>the</strong> Scott Coastal Plain. The report broadly outlines <strong>the</strong> background in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
on <strong>the</strong> selected best management practices and is accompanied by a self-assessment checklist. Landholders using <strong>the</strong><br />
checklist will be able to undertake an initial self-assessment to create a personal benchmark <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance and while undertaking this process determine where improvements would be beneficial. The Best Management<br />
Practices (BMP’s) included in this document are applicable across a wide range of agricultural industries to improve<br />
environmental management and include Environmental Best Practice measures <strong>for</strong> water management, irrigation management,<br />
drain management, nutrient management; soil management; effluent management, and timber plantation management.<br />
Unmack, P 2011 Freshwater ecoregions of <strong>the</strong> world – 801: <strong>South</strong>western Australia. Accessed on Dec<br />
04 2011 on: http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.phpeco=801<br />
Description of <strong>the</strong> freshwater habitats and its fauna in SW Australia.<br />
17
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
URS 2010 An independent feasibility study of treating large saline reserves east of <strong>the</strong> Darling<br />
Escarpment – Final Report. URS Australia Pty Ltd, Perth, WA. 143 pp.<br />
This study has found that <strong>the</strong>re are logistical and technological challenges to <strong>the</strong> treatment and use of major saline water<br />
resources in <strong>the</strong> dryland agricultural areas. It is unlikely that <strong>the</strong> major ‘sea-water equivalent’ resources can be exploited<br />
economically <strong>for</strong> use within <strong>the</strong> agricultural areas, and it is even less likely that exporting this water out of <strong>the</strong> region will be<br />
economically viable. The over-arching recommendation is that fur<strong>the</strong>r research and investigation of <strong>the</strong> feasibility of treating<br />
saline water resources in <strong>the</strong> dryland agricultural areas should focus on matching local supply and demand scenarios within <strong>the</strong><br />
region, where <strong>the</strong> technical issues and costs of treatment can be met by <strong>the</strong> economic value of supplementing or replacing<br />
imported water resources.<br />
Van Looij, E and T Storer 2009a Framework of <strong>the</strong> assessment of river and wetland health trials in<br />
south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Inception report Vol 1. Department of Water, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. 84<br />
pp.<br />
This document outlines <strong>the</strong> south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia FARWH project “Development and implementation of <strong>the</strong> framework<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment of river and wetland health (FARWH) to rivers in <strong>the</strong> south west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia (with <strong>the</strong> exception of<br />
rivers in <strong>the</strong> Rangelands region). This first volume incorporates <strong>the</strong> project details, including <strong>the</strong> budget and schedule, required<br />
outputs, identified risks, overall approach and detailed in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding site selection strategies and <strong>the</strong> approach to<br />
assessing <strong>the</strong> six key indices.<br />
Van Looij, E and T Storer 2009b Framework of <strong>the</strong> assessment of river and wetland health trials in<br />
south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Inception report Vol 2 – Methods. Department of Water, <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia. 51 pp.<br />
This second volume describes <strong>the</strong> methodology <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> field-sampling component of <strong>the</strong> SWWA FARWH project, incorporating<br />
water quality, biota (macroinvertebrates and fish/crayfish) and general site descriptions. In<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> remaining FARWH<br />
indicator <strong>the</strong>mes (hydrology, physical <strong>for</strong>m and fringing vegetation) will be collected through desktop analysis, described in<br />
Volume 1 of inception report.<br />
Van Looij, E, T Storer, G White, K O’Neill, L Galvin, and D Heald 2009 Report on <strong>the</strong> Framework of <strong>the</strong><br />
assessment of river and wetland health trials in south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia: first round. Department<br />
of Water, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. 142 pp.<br />
Useful resource <strong>for</strong> managers as provides an assessment of <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of <strong>the</strong> Framework <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> assessment of river and<br />
wetland health (FARWH) in <strong>the</strong> flowing waters of <strong>the</strong> south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. This report gives results of <strong>the</strong> first trial<br />
conducted in spring 2008, and <strong>the</strong> second will be conducted in <strong>the</strong> spring of 2009.As <strong>the</strong>re was no existing river health program<br />
across <strong>the</strong> south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia which could be used <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> FARWH, <strong>the</strong> first round of trials focused on indicator<br />
development. The second round of field trials will concentrate on refining indicators.<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008a Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Doradine catchment.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn. Rep 334: 21pp.<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets were set:<br />
Use deep drainage as a primary means to contain salinity to 7 per cent of <strong>the</strong> catchment and retain and improve current<br />
farmland, infrastructure and industry.<br />
Utilise oil mallees to lower watertable and produce energy.<br />
Protect existing (priority) reserves and remnant vegetation.<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008b Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Upper Crossman catchment.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn. Rep 337: 29pp.<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets were set:<br />
Manage salinity so that no more than 6 per cent of <strong>the</strong> Upper Crossman catchment is affected by salinity in 2028.<br />
Protect <strong>the</strong> assets of productive farmland, remnant vegetation and water resources to ensure no net loss in production.<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008c Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Yilliminning catchment.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn. Rep 332: 28pp.<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets were set:<br />
No more than 10% of <strong>the</strong> Yilliminning catchment affected by salinity in 2028.<br />
No fur<strong>the</strong>r degradation or loss of natural assets by 2028.<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008d Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Lake Towerrinning catchment.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn. Rep 335: 30pp.<br />
18
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets were set:<br />
Salinity contained to 15 per cent of <strong>the</strong> catchment in 2028.<br />
Maintain water quality in Lake Towerrinning < 1200 mS/m during winter.<br />
Increase productive use from salt-affected land with no net loss in profitability.<br />
Capercup Nature Reserve stabilised and area affected by salinity to increase by no more than an additional 10 per cent<br />
(currently 30-40 per cent affected).<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008e Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Narrakine Gully and Highbury<br />
catchments. Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn.<br />
Rep 336: 34pp.<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets <strong>for</strong> Narrakine Gully were set as:<br />
Contain salinity coverage across <strong>the</strong> catchment to 8 per cent of <strong>the</strong> catchment area with no net loss of production by 2028.<br />
Those <strong>for</strong> Highbury were set as:<br />
Contain salinity coverage across <strong>the</strong> catchment to 15 per cent of <strong>the</strong> catchment area with no net loss of production by 2028.<br />
Increase productivity from currently affected land.<br />
van Wyk, L and P Raper 2008f Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Date Creek catchment.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture, <strong>South</strong> Perth, WA. Resource Management Techn. Rep 333: 31pp.<br />
This is one of <strong>the</strong> reports prepared by DAFWA, commissioned by SWCC to set resource condition targets <strong>for</strong> land salinity and<br />
native vegetation in <strong>the</strong> portion of <strong>the</strong> SW NRM Region with less than 600 mm mean annual rainfall. The following resource<br />
condition targets were set as:<br />
Salinity contained to 10% of <strong>the</strong> catchment in 2028.<br />
Increase productivity from salt-affected land.<br />
Recover condition of remnant vegetation stands.<br />
Vitule, JRS, CA Freire and D Simberloff 2009 Introduction of non-native freshwater fish can certainly be<br />
bad. Fish and Fisheries 10: 98–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00312.x<br />
In this paper, we respond to Gozlan’s views of <strong>the</strong> introduction of freshwater fish, as we strongly disagree with his view and<br />
approach. We demonstrate that many real-world examples of freshwater fish introductions have catastrophic ecological<br />
consequences. We detail a few noteworthy examples, such as those of <strong>the</strong> Nile perch, carp, tilapias, catfishes, and <strong>the</strong> zebra<br />
mussel. We discuss within-nation introductions, and we explore several related problems, such as hybridization and spread of<br />
pathogens and parasites. We propose that Gozlan’s analysis is biased, as more reliable data on impacts that are already<br />
widespread are urgently needed, mainly in <strong>the</strong> biologically richest areas of <strong>the</strong> world. Thus, we continue to advocate <strong>the</strong><br />
precautionary principle, because species introductions, once established, are largely irreversible.<br />
WCC 2011 Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong> Strategic Plan 2011-2015. Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>,<br />
Manjimup, WA. 24 pp.<br />
Key strategy produced by one of six sub-regional catchment management groups, listing key assets, threats and priority actions<br />
to address <strong>the</strong>se. Specific identified assets are discussed under <strong>the</strong> headings waterways, water resources, productive land,<br />
lakes & wetlands, coast, marine, biodiversity, <strong>for</strong>ests, recreation/tourism and culture.<br />
Wernberg, T, BD Russell, MS Thomsen, CFD Gurgel, CJA Bradshaw, ES Poloczanska and SD Connell<br />
2011 Seaweed Communities in Retreat from Ocean Warming. Current Biology 21(21):1828-1832<br />
In recent decades, global climate change has caused profound biological changes – <strong>the</strong>se have been well documented through<br />
long-term studies on land, but similar direct evidence <strong>for</strong> impacts of warming is virtually absent from <strong>the</strong> oceans. This is<br />
important <strong>for</strong> biological conservation as <strong>the</strong> marine environment plays a critical role in regulating <strong>the</strong> Earth's environmental and<br />
ecological functions, as well as <strong>the</strong> associated socioeconomic well-being of humans. This paper reports on a database of<br />
>20,000 herbarium records of macroalgae collected in Australia since <strong>the</strong> 1940s to document changes in communities and<br />
geographical distribution limits in both <strong>the</strong> Indian and Pacific Oceans. It shows that continued warming may drive species<br />
beyond <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> Australian continent so that <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>for</strong> global extinctions is profound as many seaweeds and<br />
seaweed-dependent marine organisms are endemic. Available on http://www.cell.com/currentbiology/retrieve/pii/S096098221101030X.<br />
Zeckoski, R, B Benham, C Luns<strong>for</strong>d 2007 Streamside livestock exclusion: A tool <strong>for</strong> increasing farm<br />
income and improving water quality. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Petersburg, USA. Virginia<br />
Cooperative Extension Report VCE 442-766: 20 pp.<br />
A very useful report. Documents firstly a literature review that compiles data related to restricted livestock stream access;<br />
including production, herd health, economic, and water quality benefits. The review provided info on both complete livestock<br />
exclusion and partial restriction through <strong>the</strong> use of off-stream waterers to lure cattle from <strong>the</strong> stream. Secondly, report<br />
documents results of interviews with 20 producers who had restricted livestock stream access on <strong>the</strong>ir farms. During <strong>the</strong><br />
interviews, producers provided in<strong>for</strong>mation related to <strong>the</strong>ir positive as well as some negative experiences with livestock<br />
19
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
exclusion systems. Several watersheds in Virginia are highlighted in this publication where livestock exclusion from streams<br />
has resulted in significant water quality improvements.<br />
3.2 Useful NRM documents<br />
Anonymous 2009 Fox control <strong>for</strong> Woylie management. Appendix 1 to Final report to SWCC on 2006-<br />
2008 INVESTMENT PLAN COMPONENTS- PW.01B, 8 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Avril, H. 2011 Eco-labels “greenwashing” <strong>for</strong>est exploitation. IPS, Paris, France. 2 pp.<br />
Article describing how eco-label fatigue is starting to occur and some of <strong>the</strong> reasons behind it – an emerging issue.<br />
Barnes, PB, MB <strong>West</strong>era, GA Kendrick and ML Cambridge 2008 Establishing benchmarks of seagrass<br />
communities and water quality in Geographe Bay, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Final technical report prepared<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 113 pp.<br />
Report on two surveys done between 2006 and 2008 to determine patterns of distribution of benthic habitats, seagrasses,<br />
epiphytes, fishes, invertebrates and water quality at 22 sites in Geographe Bay to establish benchmarks <strong>for</strong> future management<br />
of impacts on <strong>the</strong>se seagrass meadows.<br />
Bateman, IJ, GM Mace, C Fezzi, G Atkinson and K Turner 2010 Economic Analysis <strong>for</strong> Ecosystem<br />
Service Assessments. Environ. Resource Econ. 48(2):177-218<br />
This is not a conventional economics journal paper, but is intended as a means of introducing both economists and noneconomists<br />
(and in particular natural scientists) to <strong>the</strong> UK NEA and through that to <strong>the</strong> wider principles involved in <strong>the</strong><br />
application of economic analysis techniques to ecosystem service assessments.<br />
Beatty, SJ and M Allen 2008 Preliminary assessment of <strong>the</strong> functioning of <strong>the</strong> bypass fishway on<br />
Wilyabrup Brook. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical<br />
report to Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, 6 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Beatty, SJ, B Molony, M Rhodes and DL Morgan 2003 A methodology to mitigate <strong>the</strong> negative impacts<br />
of dam refurbishment on fish and crayfish values in a south-western Australian reservoir. Ecological<br />
Management and Restoration 4: 147-149.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ and DL Morgan 2005 Monitoring <strong>the</strong> adequacy of Environmental Water Provisions <strong>for</strong> fish<br />
and crayfish communities of Samson Brook, Harvey River and Harris River. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish &<br />
Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Water.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Beatty, SJ and DL Morgan 2007 Monitoring <strong>the</strong> Margaret River Fishways – 2007. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish &<br />
Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong><br />
Group & Department of Water, 14 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ and DL Morgan 2008 Fishway assessment <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Pinjarra Weir. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries<br />
Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Peel Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 28<br />
pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Beatty, SJ and DL Morgan 2009 Goldfish control in <strong>the</strong> Vasse River: summary of <strong>the</strong> 2008 programme.<br />
Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to Geocatch, 9<br />
pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and M Allen 2008 Freshwater fish and crayfish communities of <strong>the</strong> tributaries of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Margaret River. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical<br />
report to Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, 25 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
20
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and M Allen 2009a Freshwater fish and crayfish communities of <strong>the</strong> Carbunup<br />
and Buayanyup Rivers: conservation significance and management considerations. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish &<br />
Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to GeoCatch, 36 pp.<br />
This study addressed major knowledge gaps on <strong>the</strong> distribution of freshwater fishes in south-western Australia. It is <strong>the</strong> first to<br />
examine <strong>the</strong> fish and freshwater crayfish of <strong>the</strong> Carbunup and Buayanyup Rivers and contains some notable in<strong>for</strong>mation that<br />
have conservation and management implications <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se rivers.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and T Fazeldean 2008 McLeod Creek (Blackwood River) fish survey: December<br />
2007. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to<br />
Lower Blackwood Land Conservation District Committee, 20 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2003a Fish resource survey of Churchman Brook Reservoir. Centre<br />
<strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water<br />
Corporation of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2003b Fish resource survey of Phillips Creek Reservoir. Centre <strong>for</strong><br />
Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water Corporation<br />
of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2003c Reproductive biology of <strong>the</strong> large freshwater crayfish Cherax<br />
tenuimanus in south-western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 597-608.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2005a Role of life history strategy in <strong>the</strong> colonisation of <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australian aquatic systems by <strong>the</strong> introduced crayfish Cherax destructor Clark, 1936. Hydrobiologia<br />
549: 219-237.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2005b Life history and reproductive biology of <strong>the</strong> gilgie, Cherax<br />
quinquecarinatus, a freshwater crayfish endemic to south-western Australia. Journal of Crustacean<br />
Biology 25(2): 251-262.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan and HS Gill 2005c Biology of a translocated population of <strong>the</strong> large freshwater<br />
crayfish, Cherax cainii (Austin and Ryan, 2002) in a <strong>West</strong>ern Australian river. Crustaceana 77: 1329-<br />
1351.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Beatty, SJ, DL Morgan, M Klunzinger and AJ Lymbery 2010 Aquatic macrofauna of Ellen Brook and <strong>the</strong><br />
Brockman River: fresh water refuges in a salinised catchment. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research,<br />
Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to Ellen Brockman Integrated Catchment Group.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Bell, C and BA Cook 2008 Hillman River <strong>South</strong> Groundwater Drainage Demonstration Project:<br />
Benchmark ecological data <strong>for</strong> assessing impacts of drainage discharge on water quality and <strong>the</strong><br />
environment. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia,<br />
Perth, WA. Report CENRM066 17 pp.<br />
In order to determine what impacts <strong>the</strong> groundwater drainage might have on <strong>the</strong> Hillman River <strong>South</strong> catchment, benchmark<br />
data on water quality and biodiversity values were collected prior to <strong>the</strong> construction and operation of <strong>the</strong> proposed drain.<br />
Monitoring of <strong>the</strong> project will include regular salinity and pH sampling of <strong>the</strong> drain throughout <strong>the</strong> downstream catchment, as well<br />
as annual ecological surveys at four locations near <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> drain site. This report details <strong>the</strong> results of <strong>the</strong> initial<br />
benchmark ecological survey.<br />
BBG 2008 Saline aquaculture case studies 1-3. Blackwood Basin Group, Boyup Brook, WA. 3 pp.<br />
Saline aquaculture case studies (3 in<strong>for</strong>mation sheets).<br />
Brockman, H 2008 Supporting <strong>the</strong> development of alternative industries <strong>for</strong> saline land. Report to<br />
SWCC by DAFWA, Albany, WA. 42 pp.<br />
Three plant species were tested <strong>for</strong> suitability as bio-fuel and latex/rubber producers. A report “Life Cycle Assessment of<br />
Biodiesel Production from Moringa Oleifera Oilseeds” was included as an appendix.<br />
21
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
CCWFH 2011 Marri decline. Brochure produced by <strong>the</strong> Centre of Excellence <strong>for</strong> climate change,<br />
woodland and <strong>for</strong>est health, Murdoch, WA. 2 pp.<br />
Gives a brief description of marri decline and what <strong>the</strong> centre is trying to achieve.<br />
CFFR 2008 Progress Report – The feral Rosy Barb in Jingarmup Brook: biology, assessment and<br />
control program development. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA.<br />
Technical report to GeoCatch and SWCC, 10 pp.<br />
City of Mandurah, STT and PHCC 2009 Groundwater conservation plan – Operating Strategy.<br />
Technical report prepared by <strong>the</strong> City of Mandurah, Sports Turf Technology and <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> City Of Mandurah, WA. 49 pp.<br />
Summary of <strong>the</strong> responsibilities <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> use and management of <strong>the</strong> water resource being accessed by <strong>the</strong> local government<br />
authority, <strong>the</strong> plan also incorporates major water conservation and efficiency commitments derived from <strong>the</strong> Groundwater<br />
Conservation Plan. The Operating Strategy includes a series of licensee’s ‘commitments’ that specify <strong>the</strong> water source, water<br />
abstraction regime and methods, environmental impacts of abstraction, contingency plans and major water efficiency measures.<br />
It becomes part of <strong>the</strong> licensee’s obligations under <strong>the</strong>ir groundwater license. The Groundwater Conservation Plan is a tool that<br />
aims to assist local government in devising strategies and actions that will achieve <strong>the</strong> requirements of <strong>the</strong> water licence and <strong>the</strong><br />
groundwater conservation/efficiency goals of <strong>the</strong> council.<br />
Davis, JA, RS Rosich, JS Bradley, JE Growns, LG Schmidt and F Cheal 1993 Wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan<br />
Coastal Plain. Vol 6: Wetland classification on <strong>the</strong> basis of water quality and invertebrate community<br />
data. Water & Rivers Commission, Perth, WA. 245 pp.<br />
A very comprehensive report on <strong>the</strong> wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain, but only around Perth. Gives details on <strong>the</strong><br />
methodology behind wetland classification based on water quality and invertebrates, so from that perspective is useful to<br />
wetland specialists.<br />
DAFWA 2008 Property Planning Manual <strong>for</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Department of Agriculture, Perth, WA.<br />
Bulletin 4734, 71 pp.<br />
This manual aims to support <strong>the</strong> process of property planning, in particular by guiding you through a workshop process. It also<br />
provides you with pointers on <strong>the</strong> type of technical in<strong>for</strong>mation you will need in order to maximise <strong>the</strong> outcomes, and directs you<br />
to places where you can find <strong>the</strong> most relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> your circumstances.<br />
DAFWA 2008 Technical In<strong>for</strong>mation to Support Property Planning <strong>for</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Department of<br />
Agriculture, Perth, WA. Bulletin 4734, 63 pp.<br />
This manual provides support in<strong>for</strong>mation to <strong>the</strong> manual.<br />
DAFWA 2008 Managing seasonal variability - important now, essential in <strong>the</strong> future. Department of<br />
Agriculture, Perth, WA. 106 pp.<br />
The report provides <strong>the</strong> presentations <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> “AcCLIMATise managing seasonal variability workshops”, which were designed to<br />
provide farmers and farm advisors with a better understanding of WA wea<strong>the</strong>r systems, climate, soils and yield <strong>for</strong>ecasting tools<br />
and how each can be integrated into a versatile management approach that allows <strong>for</strong> better management of seasonal risk.<br />
The document gives a useful overview of <strong>the</strong>se.<br />
DEFRA 2002 Working with <strong>the</strong> grain of nature – A biodiversity strategy <strong>for</strong> England. Department <strong>for</strong><br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 180 pp.<br />
Strategy recognises that UK can only secure <strong>the</strong> long-term health of biodiversity that is needed to bring a truly sustainable future<br />
by also achieving fundamental changes to public policy and in <strong>the</strong> behaviour of people across society as a whole, i.e. by<br />
ensuring that biodiversity considerations become embedded in all <strong>the</strong> main sectors of economic activity, public and private. Has<br />
some good content, e.g. discussion of web-based Biodiversity Action Reporting System (BARS – see http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/<br />
<strong>for</strong> details) and interesting indicators.<br />
DEFRA 2011a The Natural Choice: securing <strong>the</strong> value of nature. Department <strong>for</strong> Environment, Food<br />
and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 84 pp.<br />
A key document in <strong>the</strong> UK’s bid to secure a sustainable future in <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>the</strong> EU, with some innovative approaches to<br />
community engagement, policy and valuing nature, particularly by devolving NRM to local groups – very relevant to Australia.<br />
Three supporting documents are also on <strong>the</strong> disk.<br />
DEFRA 2011b Government response to <strong>the</strong> Making Space <strong>for</strong> Nature review. Department <strong>for</strong><br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 13 pp.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r key document in <strong>the</strong> UK’s bid to secure a sustainable future, with some interesting observations on LGs, policy and <strong>the</strong><br />
increased push <strong>for</strong> a devolved way of doing NRM (see also Lawton et al 2010).<br />
DoF 2005 Fish ruler. Department of Fisheries, Perth, WA. 1pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
DoF 2008 Factsheet No.9 – Common Blowfish. Department of Fisheries, Perth, WA. 4pp.<br />
22
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
DoF 2008 Factsheet No.10 – <strong>West</strong>ern Blue Groper. Department of Fisheries, Perth, WA. 4pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
DoF 2008 Fish nursery areas - poster. Department of Fisheries, Busselton, WA. 1pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
DoF 2008 Fish identification guide – Busselton Jetty. Department of Fisheries, Busselton, WA. 2+2pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Doupé, RG, AJ Lymbery and ND Pettit 2006 Stream salinisation is associated with reduced taxonomic,<br />
but not functional diversity in a riparian plant community. Austral Ecology 32: 388-393.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Doupé, RG, AJ Lymbery and MR Starcevich 2003 Rethinking <strong>the</strong> land: <strong>the</strong> development of inland saline<br />
aquaculture in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 1: 30-37.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
DoW 2008 Peel Harvey Modelling Analysis and Scenarios. Department of Water, Water Modelling<br />
Branch, Perth, WA. 11 pp.<br />
Description of <strong>the</strong> proposed modelling <strong>for</strong> Peel-Harvey catchment. As such, it has no specifically useful in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Ecker, S D Burnside 2008 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region Sustainable Agriculture Change Issues – Findings from<br />
Consultation with Industry and Sub-regional Representatives, <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong>, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. SE<br />
Consulting, Murrumbateman, NSW & URS Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia. 39 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Ecker, S, V Brown and I Kininmonth 2008 Components of a Behaviour Change Framework to underpin<br />
Sustainable Agriculture in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Literature review. SE<br />
Consulting, Murrumbateman, NSW, Australia. 89 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Ecker, S, V Brown and I Kininmonth 2008 Behaviour Change Framework to underpin Sustainable<br />
Agriculture in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Summary report. SE Consulting,<br />
Murrumbateman, NSW, Australia. 10 pp.<br />
The report provides a summary of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Sustainable Agriculture Behaviour Change Framework – should be read with<br />
associated literature review, workbook and CD Rom toolkit. The Behaviour Change Framework is based on a rigorous analysis<br />
of what affects people’s behaviour in <strong>the</strong> context of sustainable agriculture in <strong>the</strong> SW region of WA. Behavioural <strong>the</strong>ory and<br />
findings on what actually works in <strong>the</strong> context of agriculture in <strong>the</strong> SW were used to develop <strong>the</strong> framework. The behaviour<br />
change framework is based on in<strong>for</strong>mation, which demonstrates that <strong>the</strong>re are preferred methods to achieving change towards<br />
more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture.<br />
Erol, C 2007 Increasing landholder adoption of improved surface water management practices –<br />
Literature review of relevant Australian studies. DAFWA, Perth, WA. Resource Management<br />
Technical Report 325: 37 pp.<br />
Useful report, title describes content. This is a review of studies related to surface water best management practices mainly in<br />
WA, to identify key findings and possible barriers to adoption applicable to <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Catchment area. Thirteen studies<br />
were reviewed, six from <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, three from Queensland, two from New <strong>South</strong> Wales and two Australia-wide general<br />
reviews. The most frequently identified barriers to adoption were motivational, technical, financial and biophysical:<br />
Motivational and o<strong>the</strong>r barriers included lack of direction from government, <strong>the</strong> wrong extension model, lack of confidence,<br />
lack of support and cultural resistance to change.<br />
Technical barriers included limited knowledge, advice and in<strong>for</strong>mation, lack of clearly written materials, lack of access to<br />
adequately skilled and trusted NRM advisers.<br />
Financial barriers included lack of money and incentive grants, <strong>the</strong> perception that <strong>the</strong> costs outweigh benefits, lack of<br />
equipment and time.<br />
Biophysical barriers included variable seasons, poor productivity (because of salinity, acidity, and lack of trace elements),<br />
poor off-farm drainage and lack of suitable productive land. These barriers are very region-specific and vary according to<br />
production system.<br />
Future studies aimed at identifying specific barriers to adoption should pay particular attention to <strong>the</strong> specificity of biophysical<br />
barriers and <strong>the</strong>ir effect on land conservation management adoption.<br />
Essential Environmental Services 2007 Draft model Local Planning Policy Water Sensitive Urban<br />
Design <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment. Essential Environmental Services, WA, 15 pp.<br />
This document provides a methodology <strong>for</strong> action, but is not relevant to <strong>the</strong> strategy, gives a template <strong>for</strong> Local Governments to<br />
use and adapt to <strong>the</strong>ir respective needs.<br />
23
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Fox, NJ and LE Beckley 2004 Hotspots, biogeography, complementarity and pragmatism: Priority areas<br />
<strong>for</strong> conservation of western Australian coastal fishes. Australian Marine Science Association<br />
Conference, Hobart, Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Fox, NJ and LE Beckley 2005a Priority areas <strong>for</strong> conservation of <strong>West</strong>ern Australian coastal fishes: a<br />
comparison of hotspot, biogeographical and complementarity approaches. Biological Conservation<br />
125: 399-410.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Fox, NJ and LE Beckley 2005b Marine conservation in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia: Efficiency, stakeholders and<br />
<strong>the</strong> problem of <strong>the</strong> remote north. International Marine Protected Areas Congress, Geelong, Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
FPC 2008 Strategic tree farming – creating social, environmental and economic solutions <strong>for</strong> WA<br />
farmers. Brochure produced by <strong>the</strong> Forest Products Commission, Perth, WA. 8 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Fugro 2008 Dumbleyung SWCC Core Area, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Airborne Magnetic, Gamma-ray and<br />
Elevation Survey <strong>for</strong> Geoscience Australia: Acquisition and Processing Report. Fugro Airborne<br />
Surveys, Perth, WA. 83 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Gaynor, A, GA Kendrick and MB <strong>West</strong>era 2008 An Oral History of Fishing and Diving in <strong>the</strong> Capes<br />
Region of <strong>South</strong>-<strong>West</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>. University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 56 pp.<br />
Report on interviews with fifteen fishers and a dive operator, each with at least 20 years’ experience, to obtain local knowledge<br />
of change and continuity in <strong>the</strong> marine and coastal environments of <strong>the</strong> SW Capes region.<br />
GEM 2007 Seagrass mapping – Geographe Bay 2004. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> Geographe<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>. Geographical Ecological Modelling (GEM) Group, School of Earth and<br />
Geographical Sciences, University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 18 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
GHD 2008a Report on Preliminary Salinity Situation Statement – Hotham Williams Murray Catchment.<br />
Part 1: Conceptual Hydogeological Analysis. GHD Consultants, Perth. 53pp.<br />
Report commissioned by Peel-Harvey, documenting <strong>the</strong> outcome of a Conceptual Hydrogeological Investigation into <strong>the</strong><br />
Hotham Williams Murray (HWM) catchment. Also looked at defining <strong>the</strong> extent of salinity within <strong>the</strong> catchment, developing a<br />
better understand and document hydrogeological processes resulting in dryland salinity within <strong>the</strong> catchment, identifying areas a<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r risk of salinity development within <strong>the</strong> catchment & potential areas where fur<strong>the</strong>r investigation may be required, or where<br />
specific action may result in improved management to control <strong>the</strong> spread of salinity, and assisting with interpreting outputs from<br />
numeric hydrogeological modeling.. No really important info.<br />
GHD 2008b Report on Preliminary Salinity Situation Statement – Hotham Williams Murray Catchment.<br />
Part 2: LUCICAT Model. GHD Consultants, Perth. 53pp.<br />
Report commissioned by Peel-Harvey, documenting <strong>the</strong> development and calibration of a numeric model (LUCICAT) <strong>for</strong> stream<br />
flow and salt load in <strong>the</strong> Hotham Williams Murray (HWM) catchment. Also looked at preliminary scenario modelling to<br />
determine <strong>the</strong> effects of potential climate change on river flows and salt concentrations at selected calibration points (gauging<br />
stations) within <strong>the</strong> catchment, and determined <strong>the</strong> overall affect of potential rainfall changes on stream salinity. No really<br />
important info.<br />
GHD 2008c Report on an online salinity and vegetation survey. GHD Consultants, Perth, WA. 31 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content – of very little use, as only details how few respondents <strong>the</strong>re were, but gave no results.<br />
Gill, HS, SJ Hambleton and DL Morgan 1999 Gambusia holbrooki a major threat to <strong>the</strong> native<br />
freshwater fishes of south-western Australia In: Seret, B and J-Y Sire (eds), Proceedings 5th Indo-<br />
Pacific Fish Conference (Noumea, 3-8 November1997), Societe Francaise d’Ichtyologie and Institut<br />
de Recherche pour le Development, Paris, pp. 79-87.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Green Iguana 2007 Lower Vasse river reed raft trial. Green Iguana, Dunsborough, WA. Report<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong> GeoCatch, 56 pp.<br />
This report describes <strong>the</strong> successful results of seeding and growth trials using four species of sedges.<br />
Hales, G 2008 Yornanning Catchment plan. Blackwood Basin Group, Boyup Brook, WA. 51 pp.<br />
24
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Title adequately describes content – catchment is 20km north of Narrogin.<br />
Hales, G and N Reichelt 2008 Daping Creek Catchment plan. Blackwood Basin Group, Boyup Brook,<br />
WA. 47 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content – catchment is 10km north of Katanning.<br />
Hale, J, M McGuire, SJ Hambleton, DL Morgan, J Davis, HS Gill and E Paling 2000 Water quality,<br />
aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish monitoring of <strong>the</strong> Worsley Freshwater Lake and Brunswick River<br />
catchment (March to December 1999). Report to Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Hambleton, SJ, HS Gill, DL Morgan and IC Potter 1996a Interactions of <strong>the</strong> introduced mosquitofish<br />
(Gambusia holbrooki) with native fish species in <strong>the</strong> RGC Wetlands, Capel, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Technical Report No. 33. Capel: RGC Mineral Sands Ltd.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Hambleton, SJ, HS Gill, DL Morgan and IC Potter 1996b The distribution of freshwater fish in <strong>the</strong> RGC<br />
Wetlands, Capel, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Technical Report No. 34. Capel: RGC Mineral Sands Ltd.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Heal, G and S Molloy 2008 City of Mandurah Stormwater Management Plan. Technical report prepared<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> City of Mandurah, WA. 39 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Healthy Waterways 2007 <strong>South</strong> East Queensland – Healthy waterways strategy 2007-2012.<br />
Queensland Government, Brisbane, QLD. 8 pp.<br />
Very succinct strategy. Describes <strong>the</strong> Water Quality Objectives established <strong>for</strong> Moreton Bay, all SEQ estuaries and some<br />
freshwater systems and how <strong>the</strong> Strategy aims to achieve <strong>the</strong>se by:<br />
Significant reductions in both urban and non-urban diffuse source pollution.<br />
Significant decreases in point source pollution.<br />
Protection and conservation of High Ecological Value waterways.<br />
Improvements in catchment health.<br />
Effective strategies to combat coastal algal blooms.<br />
Increased commitment and capacity of <strong>the</strong> general community.<br />
Improved management via better modelling and evaluation.<br />
Refinements to <strong>the</strong> Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program.<br />
Jenkins, GI, DJW French, IC Potter, S de Lestang, NG Hall, GJ Partridge, SA Hesp and GA Sarre 2006<br />
Restocking <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River Estuary with <strong>the</strong> black bream Acanthopagrus butcheri. FRDC Final<br />
Report No. 2000/180.<br />
The study shows that hatchery-reared Black Bream can be used to enhance <strong>the</strong> stock of this commercially and recreationallyimportant<br />
species in <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River Estuary in which it is depleted. The ease and relatively low cost of culture of Black<br />
Bream and its hardiness and restriction to its natal estuary make <strong>the</strong> restocking of Black Bream a feasible and economicallyviable<br />
proposition.<br />
Kelsey, P 2009 Nutrient Export Modelling of <strong>the</strong> Leschenault catchment. Department of Water, Perth,<br />
WA. Water Science Techn.Ser. Rep 9:66 pp.<br />
This report describes <strong>the</strong> model used by Kelsey & Hall (2009). As such, it has no specifically useful in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Kelsey, P and J Hall 2009 Nutrient Loads, Status and Trends in <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment.<br />
Department of Water, Perth, WA. Water Science Techn.Ser. Rep 9:172 pp.<br />
This report discusses <strong>the</strong> catchment monitoring undertaken by <strong>the</strong> Department of Water on behalf of <strong>the</strong> Leschenault<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>. The objectives of <strong>the</strong> monitoring program were two-fold: 1) to determine <strong>the</strong> nutrient status of <strong>the</strong><br />
waterways and whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re have been significant changes in <strong>the</strong> nutrient status; and 2) to provide nutrient data to support<br />
numerical modelling of catchment exports. As such, it has no specifically useful in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Kendrick, GA, ES Harvey, J Meeuwig, MB <strong>West</strong>era, NA Goldberg and D Watson 2009 Primary<br />
producers, benthic invertebrates and demersal finfish as indicators of resource condition – A review.<br />
Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth,<br />
WA. 61 pp.<br />
The review presents <strong>the</strong> present state of knowledge <strong>for</strong> indicators from primary producers (seagrass, algae), benthic<br />
invertebrates and fish, <strong>the</strong>n tests <strong>the</strong> existing datasets on macroalgae, benthic invertebrates and fish from SWCC’s projects and<br />
<strong>the</strong>n makes recommendations specific to <strong>the</strong> marine resource monitoring programs in <strong>the</strong> SW region.<br />
25
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Lam, A and MB <strong>West</strong>era 2006 An annotated bibliography on reef communities of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 29 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Land insights 2008 Local Environmental Planning Strategy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shire of Busselton. Report 1 –<br />
Environmental Profile. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shire of Busselton. Land insights, Damara<br />
WA and Shore Coastal, WA. 191 pp.<br />
Very detailed report with lots of detail, maps and o<strong>the</strong>r useful legal & policy in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Larsen, KS, LC Andresen, C Beier, S Jonasson, KR Albert, P Ambus, MF Arndal, MS Carter, S<br />
Christensen, M Holmstrup, A Ibrom, J Kongstad, L Van Der Linden, K Maraldo, A Michelsen, TN<br />
Mikkelsen, K Pilegaard, A Priemé, H Ro-Poulsen, IK Schmidt, MB Selsted, K Stevnbak 2011<br />
Reduced N cycling in response to elevated CO2, warming, and drought in a Danish heathland:<br />
Syn<strong>the</strong>sizing results of <strong>the</strong> CLIMAITE project after two years of treatments. Global Change Biol.<br />
17(5):1884-99<br />
Field-scale experiments simulating realistic future climate scenarios are important tools <strong>for</strong> investigating <strong>the</strong> effects of current<br />
and future climate changes on ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical cycling. We exposed a seminatural Danish heathland<br />
ecosystem to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), warming, and extended summer drought in all combinations. Here,<br />
we report on <strong>the</strong> short-term responses of <strong>the</strong> nitrogen (N) cycle after 2 years of treatments. Elevated CO2 significantly affected<br />
aboveground stoichiometry by increasing <strong>the</strong> carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratios in <strong>the</strong> leaves of both co-dominant species (Calluna<br />
vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa), as well as <strong>the</strong> C/N ratios of Calluna flowers and by reducing <strong>the</strong> N concentration of<br />
Deschampsia litter. Belowground, elevated CO2 had only minor effects, whereas warming increased N turnover, as indicated by<br />
increased rates of microbial NH4+ consumption, gross mineralization, potential nitrification, denitrification and N2O emissions.<br />
Drought reduced belowground gross N mineralization and decreased fauna N mass and fauna N mineralization. Leaching was<br />
unaffected by treatments but was significantly higher across all treatments in <strong>the</strong> second year than in <strong>the</strong> much drier first year<br />
indicating that ecosystem N loss is highly sensitive to changes and variability in amount and timing of precipitation. Interactions<br />
between treatments were common and although some synergistic effects were observed, antagonism dominated <strong>the</strong> interactive<br />
responses in treatment combinations, i.e. responses were smaller in combinations than in single treatments. None<strong>the</strong>less,<br />
increased C/N ratios of photosyn<strong>the</strong>tic tissue in response to elevated CO2, as well as drought-induced decreases in litter N<br />
production and fauna N mineralization prevailed in <strong>the</strong> full treatment combination. Overall, <strong>the</strong> simulated future climate scenario<br />
<strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e lead to reduced N turnover, which could act to reduce <strong>the</strong> potential growth response of plants to elevated atmospheric<br />
CO2 concentration. Electronic version not available.<br />
Lawton, JH, Bro<strong>the</strong>rton, PNM, Brown, VK, Elphick, C, Fitter, AH, Forshaw, J, Haddow, RW, Hilborne, S,<br />
Leafe, RN, Mace, GM, <strong>South</strong>gate, MP, Su<strong>the</strong>rland, WJ, Tew, TE, Varley, J, & Wynne, GR 2010<br />
Making Space <strong>for</strong> Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to<br />
DEFRA. Department <strong>for</strong> Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. 119 pp.<br />
The report sets out to show if England’s wildlife sites comprise a coherent and resilient ecological network and if not, what<br />
needs to be done The report considers why <strong>the</strong>se questions are important in <strong>the</strong> context of past, current and future pressures<br />
on <strong>the</strong> environment, and describes what ecological networks are and <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>the</strong>y bring; <strong>the</strong>n goes on to consider <strong>the</strong><br />
strengths and weaknesses of current wildlife sites, be<strong>for</strong>e setting out a prioritised set of ecological solutions to improve <strong>the</strong><br />
network; and finally makes 24 recommendations <strong>for</strong> practical action to Make Space <strong>for</strong> Nature and achieve a coherent and<br />
resilient ecological network. The approach is one of step-change in nature conservation, which requires strong leadership from<br />
government, but also effective and positive engagement with <strong>the</strong> landowners and land managers, as well as improved<br />
collaboration between local authorities, local communities, statutory agencies, <strong>the</strong> voluntary and private sectors, farmers, o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
land-managers and individual citizens.<br />
Leprieur F, Beauchard O, Blanchet S, Oberdorff T and Brosse S 2008 Fish invasions in <strong>the</strong> world’s river<br />
systems: When natural processes are blurred by human activities. PLoS Biol 6(2):404-10<br />
Describes <strong>the</strong> global patterns of freshwater fish invasion in 1,055 river basins covering more than 80% of Earth’s continental<br />
surface and identifies six major invasion hotspots where non-native species represent more than a quarter of <strong>the</strong> total number of<br />
species, including <strong>South</strong> Australia. The SW is also on <strong>the</strong>ir map as a hotspot, but not named specifically.<br />
Limbourn, AJ and MB <strong>West</strong>era 2006 A review, gap analysis and assessment of current in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
relating to marine and coastal environments in <strong>the</strong> SW region. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong><br />
<strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 91 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Lymbery, AJ, RG Doupé, and NE Pettit 2003 Effects of salinisation on riparian plant communities in<br />
experimental catchments on <strong>the</strong> Collie River, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 51: 667-<br />
672.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
26
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Lymbery, AJ, RG Doupé, T Bennett and MR Starcevich 2006 Efficacy of a subsurface-flow wetland<br />
using <strong>the</strong> estuarine sedge Juncus kraussii to treat effluent from inland saline aquaculture. Aquacultural<br />
Engineering 34: 1-6.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Maddern, MG, HS Gill and DL Morgan 2005 More invasive than Gambusia holbrooki The biology and<br />
potential environmental impacts of <strong>the</strong> introduced freshwater fish Phalloceros caudimaculatus<br />
(Poeciliidae) in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Australian Society <strong>for</strong> Fish Biology, Annual Meeting, Darwin,<br />
Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Marillier, B, J Hall and D Shakya 2009 Water Balance Modelling of <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment.<br />
Department of Water, Perth, WA. Water Science Techn.Ser. Rep 10:72 pp.<br />
This modelling project was aimed at quantifying monthly flows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> major rivers located in <strong>the</strong> Leschenault catchment <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
period 1998 – 2007. A new monthly water balance model was developed driven by rainfall and potential evaporation,<br />
incorporated <strong>the</strong> modified drainage on <strong>the</strong> coastal plain and irrigation supply in <strong>the</strong> summer months and was modified to include<br />
additional parameters (deep-rooted vegetation and transpiration from <strong>the</strong> groundwater store). The flow model provides <strong>the</strong><br />
basis <strong>for</strong> nutrient modelling work in 2009, which will involve scenario assessment based on land use changes, improved riparian<br />
vegetation management, climate change and in-stream interventions.<br />
Market<strong>for</strong>ce 2009 Adoption of Surface Water Best Management Practices in <strong>the</strong> Medium to Low<br />
Rainfall Areas (less than 600mm) of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region of WA – An investigation of factors<br />
impacting on adoption levels. Report prepared <strong>for</strong> DAFWA. Market<strong>for</strong>ce Consulting, East Perth WA.<br />
62 pp.<br />
Title describes content. Results were based on telephone survey from four “soil landscape mapping units” and focus group<br />
discussions in Cuballing, Wagin, Kojonup, Nyabing and Katanning. A key insight was that changes in farming systems over<br />
time, in combination with lower rainfall are perceived to have reduced surface water issues across <strong>the</strong> project area. Nine<br />
recommendations were made on: Simplifying Best Practice; Understanding Key Issues; Documenting Examples; Industry<br />
Relationships and Training; Financial Incentives; Water Movement; Communications Channels; Government Roles; and a<br />
Communication Plan.<br />
Mincherton, G 2008 Sabina River Revegetation Site – Site Preparation Trial. Report prepared <strong>for</strong><br />
GeoCatch. 6 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content; reports on a trial to determine if varying site preparation techniques aided in seedling<br />
survival at <strong>the</strong> Sabina River Restoration Site, showing that <strong>the</strong> addition of Terracottem to <strong>the</strong> hole prior to planting resulted in an<br />
increased overall seedling survival rate, whereas burying <strong>the</strong> seedlings 2/3 of <strong>the</strong>ir length also increased seedling survival.<br />
Molony, B, S Beatty, C Bird and V Nguyen 2005 Mitigation of <strong>the</strong> negative impacts on biodiversity and<br />
fisheries values of <strong>the</strong> refurbishment of Waroona Dam, south-western Australia. Report to <strong>the</strong> Water<br />
Corporation of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Fisheries Research Contract Report No. 12.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2003a Fish fauna of Margaret River <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Report to <strong>the</strong><br />
Margaret River Regional Environment Centre.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2003b Fish fauna of <strong>the</strong> Hotham River (including <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> Lion’s<br />
Weir on fish migration). Report to <strong>the</strong> Water and Rivers Commission of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia and<br />
Boddington Rivers Action Group.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2003c Freshwater fishes of <strong>the</strong> Walpole River and impact of <strong>the</strong> weir to fish<br />
and lamprey migrations. Report to Department of Fisheries <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2003d Fish and decapod fauna of Bancell Brook (Harvey River) and <strong>the</strong><br />
impacts of irrigation slot boards on migrations. Report to <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Peel Partnership Landcare<br />
Group.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2004a Fish fauna of <strong>the</strong> Vasse River and <strong>the</strong> colonisation by feral goldfish<br />
(Carassius auratus). Report to Fishcare WA and Geocatch.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
27
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2004b Fish utilisation of <strong>the</strong> Goodga River Fishway conserving <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australian trout minnow (Galaxias truttaceus). Report to Fisheries <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2004c The aquatic macrofauna of Pinwernying Dam (Katanning). Report to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Water Corporation of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2004d Margaret River Fishway. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research,<br />
Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Margaret River Regional Environment Centre.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, D. and S.J.Beatty 2004e Fish fauna of <strong>the</strong> Vasse River and <strong>the</strong> colonisation by feral goldfish<br />
(Carassius auratus). Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical<br />
report to Fishcare WA and Geocatch.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2005a Baseline study on <strong>the</strong> fish and freshwater crayfish fauna in <strong>the</strong><br />
Blackwood River and its tributaries receiving discharge from <strong>the</strong> Yarragadee Aquifer. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish &<br />
Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Department of<br />
Environment, Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2005b The Goodga River Fishway – two years of monitoring <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australian trout minnow (Galaxias truttaceus). Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch<br />
University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Fisheries <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2005c Control of feral Goldfish (Carassius auratus) in <strong>the</strong> Vasse River.<br />
Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Vasse-<br />
Wonnerup LCDC.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2005d Fish and crayfish fauna of Ellen Brook, Cowaramup Brook and<br />
Gunyulgup Brook in <strong>the</strong> Cape to Cape Region of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries<br />
Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to Ribbons of Blue/Waterwatch WA.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2006a Use of a vertical-slot fishway by galaxiids in <strong>West</strong>ern Australila.<br />
Ecology of Freshwater Fish 15: 500-509.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2006b Overview of <strong>the</strong> feral Goldfish Control <strong>Programme</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Vasse River,<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia: 2004-2006. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA.<br />
Technical report to Geocatch.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2006c Fish and freshwater crayfish communities of <strong>the</strong> Brunswick and<br />
Preston Rivers. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical<br />
report to <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2007 Feral Goldfish (Carassius auratus) in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia: a case study<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Vasse River. J.Roy.Soc.WA 90(3): 151-156.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available but copy is included in Morgan, Beatty & Kurata (2009).<br />
Morgan, DL and SJ Beatty 2008 Fish and freshwater crayfish of Boodjidup Brook, south-western<br />
Australia. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to<br />
Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, 20 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Morgan, DL, SJ Beatty, HS Gill, D Thorburn and A Rowland 2004 Assessment of groundwater<br />
discharge from <strong>the</strong> Yarragadee Aquifer on <strong>the</strong> fish and decapod fauna of Rosa Brook. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish<br />
28
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
& Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water Corporation of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, S Beatty, FJ McAleer and T Fazeldean 2008 Survey of Rainbow Trout in Bancell Brook:<br />
following <strong>the</strong> cessation of a stocking programme. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch<br />
University, Perth, WA. Technical report to Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, 5 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Morgan, DL, S Beatty and K Kurata 2009 Feral Goldfish (Carassius auratus) in <strong>the</strong> Warren River<br />
catchment. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to<br />
Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, 9 pp.<br />
Report on a fish sampling survey. Includes copy of paper DL Morgan & SJ Beatty 2007 Feral Goldfish (Carassius auratus) in<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia: a case study from <strong>the</strong> Vasse River. J Royal Soc of WA 90:151–156<br />
Morgan, DL and HS Gill 2000 Fish associations within <strong>the</strong> different inland habitats of lower southwestern<br />
Australia. Records of <strong>the</strong> <strong>West</strong>ern Australian Museum 20: 31-37.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL and HS Gill 1996 The effect of Big Brook dam during drought on <strong>the</strong> fish communities of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Lefroy and Big Brooks. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, WA.<br />
Unpublished Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water and Rivers Commission of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill , MG Maddern and SJ Beatty 2004 Distribution and impacts of introduced<br />
freshwater fishes in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. NZ J.Mar.Freshwater Res. 38: 511–523<br />
This paper presents comprehensive distributional data, from over 1300 sites, on introduced freshwater fishes in <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 1995a Life cycle, growth and diet of Balston's pygmy perch in its<br />
natural habitat of acidic pools. Journal of Fish Biology 47: 808-825.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 1995b The distribution of freshwater fish in <strong>the</strong> south-western corner<br />
of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia (Busselton to Walpole). Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch<br />
University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water Authority of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
311 sites in 19 major watersheds in SW corner of Australia were sampled <strong>for</strong> freshwater fish. The report concluded that <strong>the</strong><br />
most important actions that should be taken to ensure <strong>the</strong> conservation of <strong>the</strong> unique freshwater fish fauna is <strong>the</strong> maintenance<br />
of natural flow regimes in rivers and <strong>the</strong> preservation of <strong>the</strong> lentic water bodies of <strong>the</strong> peat flats. To ensure this, buffer zones<br />
should be maintained in areas used <strong>for</strong> farming and/or <strong>for</strong>estry and <strong>the</strong> effects of water usage on stream flow should be<br />
minimised (A). . Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 1996a The distribution of freshwater fish in <strong>the</strong> south-western corner<br />
of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Water Resource Technical Series, Water and Rivers Commission Report WRT4.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 1996b Supplement to <strong>the</strong> distribution of freshwater fish in <strong>the</strong> southwestern<br />
corner of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia (Walpole to Albany). Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research,<br />
Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water and Rivers Commission.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 1998 Distribution, identification and biology of freshwater fishes in<br />
south-western Australia. Rec. <strong>West</strong>. Aust. Mus. Suppl. No. 56, 97 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, HS Gill and IC Potter 2000 Age composition, growth and reproductive biology of <strong>the</strong><br />
salamanderfish Lepidogalaxias salamandroides: a re-examination. Environmental Biology of Fishes<br />
57: 191-204.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, SJ Hambleton, HS Gill and SJ Beatty 2002 Distribution, biology and likely impacts of <strong>the</strong><br />
introduced redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis) (Percidae) in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Marine and Freshwater<br />
Research 53: 1211-1221.<br />
29
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
In WA, Perca fluviatilis is restricted to <strong>the</strong> south-western corner and is found in <strong>the</strong> Swan, Murray, Harvey, Collie, Capel,<br />
Carbunup, Margaret, Blackwood, Donnelly and Warren river systems. Released into Big Brook Dam, it has since played a role<br />
in eliminating <strong>the</strong> native teleosts. Its success here is attributed to a young age at maturity, rapid growth (compared with<br />
populations elsewhere), predatory nature, large size (compared with native fish), broad environmental and habitat tolerances,<br />
and absence of predators. Diets of fish 50–200 mm TL comprised mainly small aquatic invertebrates, whereas larger fish<br />
preyed almost exclusively on decapods, mainly marron (Cherax tenuimanus), and teleosts. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, IC Potter and HS Gill 1995 The freshwater fish fauna of <strong>the</strong> pools of <strong>the</strong> south branch of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Collie River, during a period of extremely low water levels. Centre <strong>for</strong> Fish & Fisheries Research,<br />
Murdoch University, Perth, WA. Technical report to <strong>the</strong> Water Authority of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, DC Thorburn and HS Gill 2000 The distribution and habitat associations of fish in <strong>the</strong><br />
Blackwood River catchment. Report to <strong>the</strong> Blackwood Basin Group.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Morgan, DL, DC Thorburn and HS Gill 2003 Salinization of south-western <strong>West</strong>ern Australian rivers and<br />
<strong>the</strong> implications <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> inland fish fauna – <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River, a case study. Pacific Conservation<br />
Biology 9: 161-171.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Nankervis, L 2007 ICLEI water campaign - corporate and community local action plan. Technical report<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shire of Augusta – Margaret River, WA. 41 pp.<br />
Plan describes series of actions needed to reduce water consumption by <strong>the</strong> corporate sector and <strong>the</strong> community.<br />
Onton, K 2009 Augusta Microbial Threatened Ecological Community Monitoring Report 2007-2008,<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region. Department of Environment and Conservation, Bunbury, WA. 17 pp.<br />
Monitoring report on tufa – a TEC (threatened ecological community). Report provides info on Ecological Water Requirements<br />
(EWR’s) of <strong>the</strong> tufa; <strong>the</strong> biological composition of <strong>the</strong> various tufa <strong>for</strong>mations and occurrences seasonally; <strong>the</strong> lithological<br />
parameters of <strong>the</strong> tufa (element and mineral composition); <strong>the</strong> growth of tufa between seasons and over time; and identifies<br />
threats to tufa occurrences.<br />
Onton, K 2009 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Island Survey Report, <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region. Department of Environment and<br />
Conservation, Bunbury, WA. 17 pp.<br />
Survey report on islands off coast at Augusta. Report provides info on <strong>the</strong> number of New Zealand Fur Seals utilizing <strong>the</strong><br />
islands and rocks; <strong>the</strong> diversity and density of seabirds breeding on and utilizing <strong>the</strong> islands, particularly monitoring observations<br />
of tropical seabirds that have been observed extending <strong>the</strong>ir range south (Dunlop, 2008); a general inspection of <strong>the</strong> nature<br />
reserves; <strong>the</strong> flora species diversity of <strong>the</strong> larger islands (St Alouarn, Seal and Hamelin); and <strong>the</strong> amount of rubbish on <strong>the</strong><br />
islands.<br />
Onton, K 2009 Capes’ Hooded Plover Report 2007-2009, <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region. Department of<br />
Environment and Conservation, Bunbury, WA. 14 pp.<br />
Survey report on monitoring program of <strong>the</strong> Hooded Plover that focused on <strong>the</strong> Naturaliste-Augusta Hooded Plover<br />
Management Region encompassing <strong>the</strong> coastline from Dunsborough to Augusta. Provides info <strong>the</strong> distribution and abundance<br />
of Hooded Plover in <strong>the</strong> Capes region; <strong>the</strong>ir breeding success; <strong>the</strong> level of disturbance to Hooded Plover nesting in <strong>the</strong> Capes<br />
region; <strong>the</strong> tolerance of Hooded Plover to disturbance; <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of management techniques in reducing disturbance to<br />
Hooded Plover; and engagement of <strong>the</strong> local community in coastal bird conservation through participation and education.<br />
Onton, K 2009 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Coast Action Grant Summary Report, <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Region. Department of<br />
Environment and Conservation, Bunbury, WA. 16 pp.<br />
Title describes content.<br />
Overheu, T 2002 Cranbrook-Toolbrunup catchment appraisal report. DAFWA Resource Management<br />
Techn Rep 235: 87 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content – research area is in <strong>South</strong> Coast NRM region.<br />
Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong> 2008 Stormwater retrofitting: Products available in <strong>the</strong> Peel <strong>for</strong><br />
stormwater management. Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, WA, 46 pp.<br />
Useful report but not relevant to development of <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong> 2008 Development of a stormwater monitoring program: Guidelines <strong>for</strong><br />
local government. Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, WA, 25 pp.<br />
Useful report but not relevant to development of <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
30
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Perkins, S 2011 Beyond <strong>the</strong> “Cali<strong>for</strong>nia condor” approach to adaptation. Climate Feedback – <strong>the</strong><br />
climate change blog. Viewed 22.March 2011 on<br />
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2011/02/aaas_2011_beyond_<strong>the</strong>_cali<strong>for</strong>ni.html<br />
Although no one knows <strong>the</strong> ultimate effects of climate change on … ecosystems, scientists know enough … to proceed with<br />
adaptation… And while many previous studies have focused on minimizing detriments to single species of economic<br />
importance, future ef<strong>for</strong>ts should shift to preserving ecosystems and <strong>the</strong>ir capacity to adapt. Indeed, a wide variety of holes<br />
exist in scientists’ knowledge about when —and how — ecosystems will respond to climate change. While many studies have<br />
assessed <strong>the</strong> individual effects of (warming), … <strong>the</strong> combined effects of multiple stressors are largely unknown. Looking to<br />
save ecosystems by preserving a single species of importance probably won’t work … Such a “Cali<strong>for</strong>nia condor” approach – a<br />
massive ef<strong>for</strong>t dedicated to preserving just one, usually charismatic species – ignores <strong>the</strong> fact that ecosystems are finely-tuned<br />
biological networks composed of numerous interacting species. A far better approach than saving a few keystone species would<br />
be to preserve an entire ecosystem’s ability to adapt. While long-term ef<strong>for</strong>ts to mitigate climate change might address carbon<br />
dioxide emissions, <strong>the</strong> root cause of climate change, in <strong>the</strong> short term people can preserve <strong>the</strong> ocean’s biodiversity at local<br />
levels by reducing overfishing, nutrient runoff and pollution.<br />
Postma, D 2008 ICLEI water campaign - corporate and community local action plan. Technical report<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> City of Mandurah, WA. 30 pp.<br />
Plan describes series of actions needed to reduce water consumption by <strong>the</strong> corporate sector and <strong>the</strong> community.<br />
Potter, IC, PN Chalmer, DJ Tiivel, RA Steckis, ME Platell and RCJ Lenanton 2000 The fish fauna and<br />
finfish fishery of <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Estuary in south-western Australia. Journal of <strong>the</strong> Royal Society of<br />
W.A. 83: 481-501.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Prior, SP and LE Beckley 2005 What do fishermen really think A case study from <strong>the</strong> Blackwood<br />
Estuary. 3rd WA State Coastal Conference, Busselton, Australia.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Raines, Julie. & Royal Australasian Ornithologists' Union. 1994, Wetlands of outstanding ornithological<br />
importance <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Register of <strong>the</strong> National Estate in south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia : interim report / by<br />
Julie Raines Royal Australasian Ornitologists Union, [Adelaide :<br />
Reid, J and R Eade 2009 SkyTEM Field processed data – Darkan-Wagin (Dardadine Palaeochannel)<br />
survey. SkyTEM, Perth WA. 40 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content – presents data on <strong>the</strong> palaeochannel.<br />
Rockwater 2008 Wagin townsite borefield – results of drilling and test pumping production bores.<br />
Department of Food and Agriculture WA, Rockwater P/L, Jolimont, WA. 130 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SEConsulting 2008 Behaviour Change Framework to underpin Sustainable Agriculture in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong><br />
<strong>West</strong> Region of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. SE Consulting, Melbourne, Australia. 7 pp.<br />
This Behaviour Change workbook help to guide <strong>the</strong> reader through <strong>the</strong> process of creating a behaviour change action plan <strong>for</strong> a<br />
project. It has been designed to assist planners and deliverers of sustainable agriculture projects to achieve long-term change.<br />
Seewraj, K 2007 Governance Arrangements <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fence Road Drainage Scheme. Department of<br />
Water, Bunbury, WA. 36 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Seewraj, K 2008a Fence Rd construction drawings. Department of Water, Bunbury, WA. 15 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Seewraj, K 2008b Analysis of Monitoring Data from <strong>the</strong> Fence Road Drainage Scheme. Department of<br />
Water, Bunbury, WA. 24 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Seewraj, K 2008c Technical Review of <strong>the</strong> Implementation of <strong>the</strong> Fence Road Drainage Scheme.<br />
Department of Water, Bunbury, WA. 3 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Very useful document.<br />
Seewraj, K 2008d Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title Guidelines <strong>for</strong> On-Ground Works – Pilot<br />
Document. Department of Water, Bunbury, WA. 37 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Very useful document.<br />
31
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Seewraj, K 2009 Aboriginal Consultation and Engagement in Natural Resource Management.<br />
Department of Water, Bunbury, WA. 11 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Semeniuk Research Group 1997 Mapping and classification of wetlands from Augusta to Walpole in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>South</strong>-<strong>West</strong> of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Report to <strong>the</strong> Water and Rivers Commission, Policy and Planning<br />
Division, East Perth, WA Water Resource Techn. Series 12:1-68<br />
SKM 2007 Sediment sampling plan. Sinclair Knight Merz, Perth, WA. 31 pp.<br />
The aim of this document is to provide a sediment sampling plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey catchment that addresses both <strong>the</strong><br />
strategic selection of an appropriate sampling regime and a set of work instructions that can be used by personnel in <strong>the</strong> field.<br />
Has no in<strong>for</strong>mation of direct relevance to strategy development.<br />
SMEC 2008 Environmental Study – Mundijong/Whitby District Structure Plan (Draft Report). Technical<br />
report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale. SMEC Australia, WA. 279 pp.<br />
Very detailed report with lots of detail, maps and o<strong>the</strong>r useful legal & policy in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Sommer B, P Horwitz and P Hewitt 2008 Assessment of wetland invertebrate and fish biodiversity <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Gnangara Sustainability Strategy (GSS). Report to Department of Water. Centre <strong>for</strong> Ecosystem<br />
Management, Joondalup, WA. 123 pp.<br />
This report is not too useful as it is from ano<strong>the</strong>r region, yet provides some relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation on methods by reviewing<br />
existing sources of in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> aquatic fauna on <strong>the</strong> Gnangara Mound in order to provide a syn<strong>the</strong>sis of <strong>the</strong> richness,<br />
endemism, rarity and habitat specificity of aquatic invertebrates in wetlands; identify gaps in aquatic invertebrate data on <strong>the</strong><br />
Gnangara Mound; provide a syn<strong>the</strong>sis of <strong>the</strong> status of freshwater fishes on <strong>the</strong> Gnangara Mound; and assess <strong>the</strong> management<br />
options <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> conservation of wetlands and wetland invertebrates.<br />
Spatial Vision Innovations 2008c Workshop Notes – Investment DSS Post-Deployment Training Sept<br />
2008. Spatial Vision Innovations, Melbourne, VIC, 25 pp.<br />
This document presents <strong>the</strong> notes <strong>for</strong> a workshop on <strong>the</strong> Investment Decision Support System (a key component of <strong>the</strong><br />
Waterway Health Sub-Strategy and Biodiversity Sub-Strategy. As such, it has no specifically useful in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Starcevich, MR, AJ Lymbery and RG Doupé 2003 Potential environmental impacts from farming<br />
rainbow trout using inland saline water in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental<br />
Management 10: 15-24.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Steele, JJ 2008 Management of diffuse water quality pollution in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey Coastal Drainage<br />
System – A strategic approach to implementation of best management practices. Peel-Harvey<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, 193 pp.<br />
Not directly relevant to <strong>the</strong> strategy, <strong>the</strong> document describes five aspects of work in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey:<br />
Development of a classification scheme <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> coastal drainage system to document differences channel character and<br />
functioning<br />
Characterisation of sediment as a pollutant, channel <strong>for</strong>ming material and important transport and storage mechanism <strong>for</strong><br />
nitrogen and phosphorus<br />
Creation of a catalogue Best Management Practices available and <strong>the</strong> appropriateness of <strong>the</strong>se BMPs to different channel<br />
classes<br />
Evaluation of riparian buffers as a Best Management Practice<br />
Investigations into <strong>the</strong> role of in-channel sediment in controlling nutrient fluxes<br />
Storer, C and J Trendall 2007 Marketing Strategy <strong>for</strong> The Saltwater Aquaculture Alliance Inc. – 2007 to<br />
2010. Report to Blackwood Basin Group. Muresk Institute, Northam, WA. 17 pp.<br />
Very useful to those involved in saline aquaculture. The Marketing Plan has three parts. Stage 1. The product, consumers and<br />
potential market segments are detailed and reviewed. Stage 2. The target consumers and markets are used as <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>for</strong><br />
specific promotion and marketing programs. Stage 3. The promotion and marketing of <strong>the</strong> product is concentrated on those<br />
customers and market segments that deliver <strong>the</strong> best per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
Strawbridge, M. & <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Water and Rivers Commission. & Natural Heritage Trust (Australia)<br />
& <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Water and Rivers Commission. Catchment and Salinity Investigations Section.<br />
1999 The extent, condition and management of remnant vegetation in water resource recovery<br />
catchments in south <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Report to <strong>the</strong> Natural Heritage Trust, Water and Rivers<br />
Commission, Resource Investigations Division, Catchment and Salinity Investigations Section. Water<br />
and Rivers Commission, Perth, WA. 46 pp.<br />
32
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Su<strong>the</strong>rland, W.J., S. Bardsley, L. Bennun, M. Clout, I.M. Côté, M.H. Depledge, L.V. Dicks, A.P. Dobson, L.<br />
Fellman, E. Fleishman, D.W. Gibbons, A.J. Impey, J.H. Lawton, F. Lickorish, D.B. Lindenmayer, T.E.<br />
Lovejoy, R. MacNally, J. Madgwick, L.S. Peck, J. Pretty, S.V. Prior, K.H. Red<strong>for</strong>d, J.P.W.<br />
Scharlemann, M. Spalding, M. and A.R. Watkinson 2011 Horizon scan of global conservation<br />
issues <strong>for</strong> 2011. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26(1):10-16<br />
ISSUES identified`: Environmental consequences of increasing milk consumption in Asia; new greenhouse gases; increases in<br />
productivity of polar oceans driven by loss of sea ice; biological impacts of perfluorinated compounds; xpansion in mining <strong>for</strong><br />
lithium used in rechargeable batteries; genetic techniques to eradicate mosquitoes; nitric acid rain; substantial changes in soil<br />
ecology; denial of biodiversity loss; protected area failure; re-emergence of rinderpest; climate governance; trans<strong>for</strong>mation of<br />
oceans and domestication of marine species; vegetation change facilitated by earthworms in North American <strong>for</strong>ests; hydraulic<br />
fracturing.<br />
SWAA 2006 INLAND SALTWATER AQUACULTURE – Growth Strategy: Using salined water to grow<br />
fish and diversify farm income in <strong>the</strong> dryland areas of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Report to Blackwood Basin<br />
Group. Salt Water Aquaculture Alliance (SWAA), Albany, WA. 22 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SWAA 2009a Aquaculture organisation plan. Report to Blackwood Basin Group. Salt Water<br />
Aquaculture Alliance (SWAA), Albany, WA. 3 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SWAA 2009b Business plan – Section 2: Production plan. Report to Blackwood Basin Group. Salt<br />
Water Aquaculture Alliance (SWAA), Albany, WA. 27 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Key message “The “fit” of <strong>the</strong> Saltwater Trout enterprise into wheatbelt farming systems as<br />
a diversification option is unlikely to occur because peak labour requirements <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Saltwater Trout enterprise would clash with<br />
peak seasonal labour demands especially at seeding and still significantly but to a lesser degree at harvest.<br />
SWAA 2009c Operations manual – saltwater rainbow trout. Salt Water Aquaculture Alliance (SWAA),<br />
Albany, WA. 27 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SWCC 2007 Map of oil mallee plantings 2005-07. SWCC, Bunbury, WA. 1 p.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SWCC 2009a Project report - Project DS.O6a New Opportunities in <strong>the</strong> Wool belt. SWCC, Bunbury,<br />
WA. 9 p.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
SWCC 2009b Communications Toolkit. SWCC, Bunbury, WA. 22 p.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Syrinx Environmental PL 2008 Scott Coastal Plain – Demonstration projects – nutrient and water<br />
management. Prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> BBG. Syrinx Environmental PL, Perth, WA. 103 pp.<br />
This report details <strong>the</strong> sample and analysis plan <strong>for</strong> four monitoring sites on dairy farms that are implementing BMPs on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
properties to reduce nutrient runoff. As such, has no in<strong>for</strong>mation relevant to strategy development.<br />
Trayler, KM, JA Davis, P Horwitz and DL Morgan 1997 Aquatic fauna of <strong>the</strong> Warren Bioregion, southwest<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia: Does reservation guarantee preservation Journal of <strong>the</strong> Royal Society of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia 79: 281-291.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Electronic version not available.<br />
Thompson, McRobert, Edgeloe 2009 Waroona Drainage Study. Report to Waroona Shire, Waroona,<br />
WA, 94 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
Thompson, McRobert, Edgeloe 2009 Cost benefit analysis of water sensitive urban design.<br />
Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Bunbury, WA, 20 pp.<br />
This report details <strong>the</strong> costs and benefits of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) within <strong>the</strong> Leschenault catchment. It is to be<br />
used as a guide to direct WSUD works throughout <strong>the</strong> catchment and allow decisions on <strong>the</strong> best overall outcome from limited<br />
budgets. To achieve this, <strong>the</strong> report looks at <strong>the</strong> constraints and opportunities of implementing WSUD in a variety of areas,<br />
including different soil types, position in <strong>the</strong> catchment to priority water bodies and retrofitting WSUD versus direct incorporation<br />
in new developments. The report also contains a simple matrix to assist with this prioritisation of works and a table on actual<br />
WSUD examples implemented in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong>. These will assist with ranking potential projects based on budgets and<br />
outcomes. Useful report but not directly relevant to development of <strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
33
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Townley, Lloyd Richard. & Balla, S. A. & Davis, J. A. & Water Authority of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. 1993<br />
Wetlands of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain. Water Authority of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, [Leederville, W.A.] :<br />
Trees <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> 2008 Report on <strong>the</strong> Barriers and Benefits to <strong>the</strong> Adoption of Farm Forestry.<br />
Unpublished report to SWCC, TreesSW, WA. 8 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content – provides results of a minor literature review, discussions with a focus group and a survey.<br />
Van Niel, KP, KW Holmes and B Rad<strong>for</strong>d 2007 Seagrass mapping – Geographe Bay 2004-2007.<br />
Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Catchment <strong>Council</strong>. School of Earth and Geographical<br />
Sciences, University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 25 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content. Expanded version of GEM 2007.<br />
Webb, Hugh, & Giblett, Rodney James. & Wetlands Conservation Society. & Convention on Wetlands of<br />
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, (1971) 1996, <strong>West</strong>ern Australian wetlands<br />
: <strong>the</strong> Kimberley and south-west / edited by Rod Giblett and Hugh Webb Black Swan Press/Wetlands<br />
Conservation Society, Perth : 173pp.<br />
<strong>West</strong>era, MB, Barnes, PB, ES Harvey, GA Kendrick and G Shedrawi 2008 Benchmark study on marine<br />
communities of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> (Capes) region <strong>for</strong> long-term monitoring including <strong>the</strong> proposed Ngari<br />
Capes Marine Park. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 101 pp.<br />
Report on surveys of 22 sites. Data was collected on <strong>the</strong> abundance and size (or biomass) of fishes, algae and mobile<br />
invertebrates from 22 sites in <strong>the</strong> Capes region (Cape Naturaliste - Geographe Bay to Cape Leeuwin - Flinders Bay). Sanctuary<br />
zones are proposed as part of <strong>the</strong> Ngari Capes Marine Park and sampling was designed to test <strong>the</strong> effect of sanctuary zones on<br />
marine communities as well as to provide baseline data on marine reef communities <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> SW region.<br />
<strong>West</strong>era, MB, PB Barnes, GA Kendrick and ML Cambridge 2007 Establishing benchmarks of seagrass<br />
communities and water quality in Geographe Bay, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Technical report prepared <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA. 67 pp.<br />
Report on surveys done in 2006 to determine patterns of distribution of benthic habitats, seagrasses, epiphytes, fishes,<br />
invertebrates and water quality at 20 sites in Geographe Bay to establish benchmarks <strong>for</strong> future management of impacts on<br />
<strong>the</strong>se seagrass meadows (see also Barnes et al 2008 <strong>for</strong> final report).<br />
<strong>West</strong>era, MB, PB Barnes, GA Kendrick and ML Cambridge 2009 Brochure – Seagrass Communities of<br />
Geographe Bay – Patterns of Diversity, Ecological Importance & Threats to Conservation. Prepared<br />
<strong>for</strong> SWCC, Bunbury, WA. 2 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
<strong>West</strong>era, M, E Harvey, G Kendrick and P Barnes 2009 Brochure – Marine Communities of <strong>the</strong> SW<br />
Capes Region – Biodiversity, Marine Management and Creating Sanctuary Zones. Prepared <strong>for</strong><br />
SWCC, Bunbury, WA. 2 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
WRM 2008 SW Rivers – Design of a Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of Environmental Water<br />
Provisions in <strong>South</strong>-<strong>West</strong> Rivers. Technical report prepared by Wetland Research & Management <strong>for</strong><br />
Department of Water, Perth, WA. 57 pp.<br />
Title adequately describes content.<br />
WorleyParsons 2009 Wheatbelt Groundwater Desalination – Feasibility Study. WorleyParsons, Perth,<br />
WA. 168 pp,<br />
The objective of this study was to undertake a high level assessment of <strong>the</strong> feasibility of desalinating groundwater <strong>for</strong><br />
commercial and/or public use in <strong>the</strong> Blackwood Catchment, and includes a separate review of desalination technologies as an<br />
appendix. Case studies were Dumbleyung, Kojonup, Darkan and Narrogin. The major finding of this investigation was that<br />
desalinating groundwater <strong>for</strong> irrigation use in <strong>the</strong> Wool and Wheatbelt region of WA is currently most economical using RO<br />
technology but it currently appears only to be financially viable <strong>for</strong> high yielding agricultural activities (i.e. those with high<br />
financial returns). Two enterprises, a piggery using <strong>the</strong> water <strong>for</strong> stock drinking and wash down, and a grazing property using<br />
<strong>the</strong> water <strong>for</strong> stock drinking, returned a positive net value over <strong>the</strong> 25 year horizon if power was already available on <strong>the</strong> site. No<br />
irrigation-based enterprises were profitable. However, this financial assessment did not include <strong>the</strong> potentially significant costs<br />
associated with establishing <strong>the</strong> enterprise. Qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of <strong>the</strong> external benefits of lowering <strong>the</strong><br />
water table and restoring natural and social values to <strong>the</strong> region were very low at each individual site and are not likely to have a<br />
material affect on <strong>the</strong> NPV of any of <strong>the</strong> case studies. The greatest likelihood of an enterprise using desalinated water being<br />
financially viable is where <strong>the</strong> financial return from <strong>the</strong> prime enterprise using <strong>the</strong> desalinated water is high, and <strong>the</strong> concentrate<br />
itself has significant value. With continuing land degradation, <strong>the</strong> costs of damage caused by salinity and water logging will<br />
34
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
increase, but with technical advances, desalination technology may become cheaper, making desalinating groundwater <strong>for</strong><br />
commercial and/or public use financially viable.<br />
It was thus recommended that <strong>the</strong> feasibility of <strong>the</strong> financially viable case studies assessed in this study be explored beyond this<br />
very high level, and that <strong>the</strong> costs not included in this assessment, such as enterprise establishment costs, be included. To<br />
support future studies, <strong>the</strong> following data that affect costs and feasibility of extracting and desalinating ground water and utilising<br />
or disposing of concentrate should be collected and made more widely available by government agencies whenever<br />
groundwater investigations are undertaken:<br />
pH, major ionic composition, silica, iron, manganese and o<strong>the</strong>r metals, and suspended solids content of groundwater<br />
yield, transmissivity and storativity of bores and aquifers.<br />
Zhao, M and SW Running 2011 Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial primary production from<br />
2000 through 2009. Science 329(5994):940-3<br />
Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies <strong>the</strong> amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as<br />
biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation,<br />
allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been <strong>the</strong> warmest since<br />
instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction<br />
in <strong>the</strong> global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in <strong>the</strong><br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting <strong>the</strong> increased NPP over <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Hemisphere. A<br />
continued decline in NPP would not only weaken <strong>the</strong> terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition<br />
between food demand and proposed biofuel production. Electronic version not available.<br />
3.3 O<strong>the</strong>r key documents<br />
The following documents were reviewed and relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation used to develop <strong>the</strong> strategy, but <strong>the</strong><br />
referencing has not been completed and <strong>the</strong> summary is yet to be written:<br />
BBG, 2004, Strategic Action Plan and Investment <strong>Programme</strong> 2004 – 2007, Blackwood Basin Group<br />
Beckwith, J 2009 Social values of <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> water resources, A report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Water<br />
CALM 1994 Dryandra Woodland Management Plan 1995 – 2005. Department of Conservation and Land<br />
Management Management Plan No 30<br />
Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management 2004 Ecological Water Requirements of <strong>the</strong><br />
Blackwood River and tributaries – Nannup to Hut Pool. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource<br />
Management, University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Report CENRM 11/04: 134 pp.<br />
CCCG Cape to Cape Catchment Management Strategy<br />
CCCG 2003 Margaret River River Action Plan. Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, 65 pp.<br />
CCCG 2006 Wilyabrup Brook River Action Plan. Cape to Cape <strong>Catchments</strong> Group, 81 pp.<br />
CCCG Cape to Capes Catchment Group additional RAPs (available from Capes Office): Yallingup Brook;<br />
Gunyulgup Brook; Cowaramup Brook; Ellen Brook and Boodjidup Brook.<br />
DAFWA 2008 Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Date Creek catchment, Leon van Wyk and Paul<br />
Raper, DAFWA<br />
DAFWA 2008 Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Lake Towerrininning catchment, Leon van Wyk<br />
and Paul Raper, DAFWA<br />
DAFWA 2008 Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in <strong>the</strong> Narrakine Gully and Highbury catchments,<br />
Leon van Wyk and Paul Raper, DAFWA<br />
DAFWA 2008 Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Upper Crossman catchment, Leon van Wyk and<br />
Paul Raper, DAFWA<br />
DAFWA 2008 Setting targets <strong>for</strong> resource condition in Yilliminning catchment, Resource Management<br />
Technical Report 332, DAFWA<br />
DEC 2008 Lake McLarty Nature Reserve Management Plan No 60. Department of Environment and<br />
Conservation, 72 pp.<br />
35
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
DEC 2010 Management of <strong>the</strong> Ramsar-listed Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands. Department of Environment<br />
and Conservation, In<strong>for</strong>mation Sheet 28: 2 pp.<br />
DEC Approved recovery plans (see http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/869/1556/), e.g. <strong>for</strong> Chuditch<br />
(Dasyurus geoffroii), Woylie (Bettongia penicillata), Orange-bellied (Geocrinia vitellina) and whitebellied<br />
frogs (Geocrinia alba), Sunset frog (Spicospina flammocaerulea), <strong>West</strong>ern swamp tortoise<br />
(Pseudemydura umbrina), Carnaby’s Cockatoo, Dunsborough Burrowing Crayfish (Engaewa reducta),<br />
Margaret River Burrowing Crayfish (Engaewa pseudoreducta) and Walpole Burrowing Crayfish<br />
(Engaewa walpolea), Forest Black Cockatoo (Baudin’s Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii and Forest<br />
Redtailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) and <strong>West</strong>ern Trout Minnow (Galaxias<br />
truttaceus hesperius).<br />
DEC Also approved interim recovery plans (see http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/865/1556/)<br />
Deeley, D. 2005 Geographe Bay Coastal Catchment - Land Capability Assessment <strong>for</strong> Managing <strong>the</strong><br />
Impact of Land Use Change on Water Resources. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Landvision, 132 pp.<br />
Del Borrello, N. 2007 Management triggers and responses <strong>for</strong> groundwater-dependent ecosystems in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> groundwater areas. Department of Water, Water resource allocation planning series<br />
Report no. 31: 76 pp.<br />
Donohue, R., Green, A., Pauli, N., Storey A., Lynas, J. and Bennett, K. 2010, Ecological Water<br />
Requirements of Cowaramup Brook, Department of Water, Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia,<br />
Environmental Water Report No. 10.<br />
DoW 2007 Agency statement of Important Natural Resource Management Assets in <strong>West</strong>ern Australia<br />
Prepared by <strong>the</strong> Department of Water <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> NRM Senior officers group 106 pp.<br />
DoW 2009 Draft management response framework <strong>for</strong> rural drainage on <strong>the</strong> coastal plains of SW<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia: Statement of Response. Department of Water, Perth, 28 pp.<br />
DoW 2009 Draft Perth Peel Regional Water Plan 2010 – 2030 Responding to our Drying Climate.<br />
Department of Water, Perth. 69 pp.<br />
DoW 2010 Murray drainage and water management plan draft <strong>for</strong> public comment, Department of<br />
Water, Drainage and water management plan 4, September 2010<br />
DoW 2010 The effects of climate change on streamflow in south-west <strong>West</strong>ern Australia Projections <strong>for</strong><br />
2050 Department of Water Surface water hydrology series Report no. HY34<br />
DoW 2010 Vasse Wonnerup wetlands and Geographe Bay – Water Quality Improvement Plan.<br />
Department of Water, Perth. 187 pp.<br />
DoW 2010 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional Water Plan 2010 – 2030. Department of Water, Perth.<br />
Economics Consulting Services 2008, Peel waterways: An economic evaluation, prepared <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department of Water. Perth, WA.<br />
Ecosystem Solutions 2009 Biodiversity Sub-Strategy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Ecosystem Solutions, Dunsborough, 105 pp.<br />
EPA 2009 Deep drainage in <strong>the</strong> Wheatbelt. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia, Environmental Protection Bulletin No.5:4 pp.<br />
EPA 2009 <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional Ecological Linkages. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth,<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Environmental Protection Bulletin No.8:4 pp.<br />
EPA 2010 Revised Draft Environmental Protection (<strong>West</strong>ern Swamp Tortoise Habitat) Policy 2010 –<br />
Report to <strong>the</strong> Minister <strong>for</strong> Environment. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia,<br />
79 pp.<br />
Finning, S 2009 Lower Harvey River Rehabilitation Plan. Harvey River Restoration Task<strong>for</strong>ce / PHCC<br />
24 pp.<br />
36
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Froend, R. and R. Loomes 2006 Determination of Ecological Water Requirements of Wetland and<br />
Terrestrial Vegetation - Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Blackwood and Eastern Scott Coastal Plain. Centre <strong>for</strong> Ecosystem<br />
Management, Edith Cowan University Report No. 2005-07: 147 pp.<br />
GeoCatch 1999 Capel River Action Plan. Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 102 pp.<br />
GeoCatch 2000 Carbanup River Action Plan. Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 73 pp.<br />
GeoCatch 2000 Vasse River Action Plan. Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 79 pp.<br />
GeoCatch 2002 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sabina, Abba and Ludlow Rivers. Geographe Catchment<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, 63 pp.<br />
GeoCatch 2004 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cape Naturaliste streams. Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 98<br />
pp.<br />
GeoCatch 2006 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sabina, Abba and Ludlow Rivers. Geographe Catchment<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, 70 pp.<br />
GeoCatch additional RAPs: Abba River Action Plan; Capel River Action Plan; Cape Naturaliste Streams<br />
Action Plan; Carbanup River Action Plan; Ellen Brook Action Plan; Gunyulgup Brook Action Plan;<br />
Gynudup Brook & Tren Creek Action Plan; Ludlow River Action Plan; Margaret River Action Plan;<br />
Sabina River Action Plan; Vasse River Action Plan and Yallingup Brook Action Plan.<br />
GeoCatch, 2008, Geographe Catchment Management Strategy 2008, Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 45<br />
pp<br />
GHD 2008 Preliminary Salinity Situation Statement <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Hotham Williams Murray Catchment Part 1<br />
and Part 2 Report to DoW / PHCC Part 1 53 pp. Part 2 47 pp.<br />
Goode, B. and C. Irvine 2008 A Survey of Aboriginal Social Water Requirements <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Blackwood Plateau and Scott Coastal Plain, <strong>South</strong>west, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Brad Goode &<br />
Associates, Dunsborough, 70 pp.<br />
Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia 1992 Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Protection<br />
(Peel Inlet – Harvey Estuary) policy approval order 1998. WA Government Gazette No.215: 15 pp.<br />
Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia 1992 Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Protection<br />
(Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) policy approval order 1992. WA Government Gazette No.179: 5 pp.<br />
Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia 1998 Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Protection<br />
(<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> agricultural zone wetlands) policy approval order 1992. WA Government Gazette<br />
No.175: 9 pp.<br />
Government of WA 2007 State Water Plan 2007.<br />
Hale, J and Butcher, R 2007 Ecological Character Description of <strong>the</strong> Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar Site.<br />
Report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Environment and Conservation and <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>,<br />
Perth, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Hales G. and N. Reichelt 2009 Daping Creek Catchment / Implementation Plan. Blackwood Basin<br />
Group<br />
Hales G. 2009 East Yornanning Catchment / Implementation Plan. Blackwood Basin Group<br />
Hick, P. 2006 Understanding, quantifying & demonstrating <strong>the</strong> likely local effects of climate change &<br />
variability in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey catchment, Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, Mandurah, WA.<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands – Muir-Byenup System. 2pp.<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands – Toolibin Lake. 2pp.<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands – Vasse-Wonnerup System. 2pp.<br />
37
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Kelsey, P. and J. Hall 2010 Nutrient loads, status and trends in <strong>the</strong> Leschenault catchment, Water<br />
Science Technical series, Report no. 9, Department of Water, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Kilminster, K.L. 2010 Sediment quality in three south-western Australian estuaries, Water Science<br />
technical series, Report no. 18, Department of Water, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
LCC 2006 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Upper Preston River. Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 67 pp.<br />
LCC 2006 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Brunswick River. Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 64 pp.<br />
LCC 2007 Leschenault NRM sub-regional strategy 2007<br />
LCC 2008 River Action Plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lower Collie River. Leschenault Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 68 pp.<br />
Luu, R., Mitchell, D. and Blyth, J. 2004 Interim Recovery Plan No. 153 Thrombolite (Stromatolite-Like<br />
Microbialite) Community of a Coastal Brackish Lake (Lake Clifton) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009,<br />
Dept of Conservation and Land Management. 22 pp. See also<br />
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html <strong>for</strong> national plan details.<br />
Mauger, G.W., M. Bari, L. Boniecka, R.N.M. Dixon, S.S. Dogramaci and J. Platt 2001 Salinity situation<br />
statement: Collie River. Water and Rivers Commission, Water Resource Technical Series No. WRT<br />
29: 108 pp.<br />
Mayer, X.M., J.K. Ruprecht, and M.A. Bari 2005 Stream salinity status and trends in south-west<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Department of Environment, Salinity and land use impacts series, Report No. SLUI<br />
38, Government of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia, Perth, WA.<br />
Martin, K. 2006 Analysis and Comparison of Regional NRM Strategy and LGA Planning Documents,<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, pp 108<br />
McKenna, M. 2007 The Leschenault Estuarine System, <strong>South</strong>-<strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Condition Statement<br />
and Recommendations <strong>for</strong> Management. Department of Water, Bunbury, 172 pp.<br />
McPhearson R. 2010 Upper Capel River Action Plan.<br />
PHCC 2008 Middle Murray River Action Plan, Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong> 83 pp.<br />
PHCC 2008 <strong>South</strong> Dandalup River Action Plan, Peel-Harvey Catchment <strong>Council</strong> 65 pp.<br />
Rapid Catchment Appraisal Resource Management Technical Reports: 233 Blackwood - Katanning Zone<br />
6 Feb-02 307,000 ha; 243 Blackwood - Beau<strong>for</strong>t Zone Sep-03 339,000 ha; 309 Hillman - Narrogin<br />
Nov-05 409,000 ha; 275 Wagin - Woodanilling Jan-06 163,000 ha; 319 Boyup Brook - Upper Warren<br />
Zone Jun-07 613,000 ha; and 322 High Rainfall Oct-07 2,400,000 ha.<br />
Seewraj, K. 2010 Fence Road drainage system - interim assessment of monitoring data, Department of<br />
Water, Bunbury, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Seewraj, K. 2009 Draft management response framework <strong>for</strong> rural drainage on <strong>the</strong> coastal plains of SW<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia: Statement of Response, Department of Water, Bunbury, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Smith, M.G., R.N.M. Dixon, L.H. Boniecka, M.L. Berti, T. Sparks, M.A. Bari, and J. Platt 2006 Salinity<br />
Situation Statement: Warren River, <strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Department of Water, Water Resource<br />
Technical Series No. WRT 32: 110 pp.<br />
Strang, M. 2009 INFFER Project Assessment Form Lake Muir-Unicup (<strong>South</strong>-<strong>West</strong> WA), August 2009<br />
accessed via http://cyllene.uwa.edu.au/~dpannell/inffer.htm 22 Dec 2010<br />
URS 2008 State of Play Peel-Harvey Eastern Estuary Catchment Environmental Assessment Discussion<br />
Paper, a report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Water<br />
van Looij, E. and T. Storer 2009 Framework <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH)<br />
in <strong>the</strong> south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Inception Report Volume 1. Department of Water, Perth, 75<br />
pp.<br />
38
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
van Looij, E and T. Storer 2009 Framework <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH)<br />
in <strong>the</strong> south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia – Inception Report Volume 2 – Methods. Department of Water,<br />
Perth, 47 pp.<br />
WCC 2006 Donnelly River Action Plan. Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, 106 pp.<br />
WCC 2006 Lower Warren River Action Plan. Warren <strong>Catchments</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, 69 pp.<br />
WCC 2007 Strategy <strong>for</strong> Natural Resource Management in <strong>the</strong> Warren Subregion 2007 - 2011 Warren<br />
Catchment <strong>Council</strong>, 40pp<br />
Wells, 2005, Draft Peel-Harvey Catchment Natural Resource Management Plan, Peel-Harvey Catchment<br />
<strong>Council</strong> 88 pp ( 95 pp in appendices, separate document)<br />
Wong, D. and G.M. Blake 2009 Salinity situation statement: Tweed River and Gnowergerup Brook.<br />
Department of Water, Water Resource Technical Series No WRT 41: 81pp.<br />
WRM 2007 Ecological Character Description <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Vasse-Wonnerup Wetlands Ramsar Site in <strong>South</strong>west<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Australia. Unpublished report to <strong>the</strong> Department of Environment and Conservation and<br />
Geographe Catchment <strong>Council</strong> Inc. by Wetland Research & Management.<br />
39
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
4. Historical perspective<br />
A brief overview of assets and threats identified by NRM stakeholders over <strong>the</strong> past decade or more is<br />
presented in this section. This in<strong>for</strong>mation, while not directly relevant to <strong>the</strong> current strategy, has been<br />
included to provide <strong>the</strong> historical context <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> current strategy, which has been developed based on a<br />
review of this in<strong>for</strong>mation combined with updates provided by <strong>the</strong> broader NRM community (including<br />
agency staff, NRM professionals and community members).<br />
A wide range of documents was consulted to determine this historical background about NRM priorities,<br />
including key documents that provided in<strong>for</strong>mation at a catchment level (BBG 2004, CCCG 2007,<br />
Geocatch 2008, LCC 2007, PHCC 2005 and WCC 2011), regional level (Ecosystem Solutions 2008,<br />
SWCC 2005) and State level (Stuart-Street 2003, State NRM Office 2007). Water Quality Improvement<br />
Plans (WQIPs) also provided key in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
4.1 Biodiversity<br />
4.1.1 Previously identified priority biodiversity assets<br />
The following six biodiversity asset categories were assigned regional priority in <strong>the</strong> previous strategy<br />
(SWCC 2005):<br />
Declared Rare Flora (CR, EN);<br />
Gazetted Threatened Fauna;<br />
Threatened Ecological Communities (CR, EN);<br />
Ramsar wetlands;<br />
Conservation Reserves in <strong>the</strong> Avon-Wheatbelt and Mallee bioregions; and<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r land managed <strong>for</strong> conservation in <strong>the</strong> Avon-Wheatbelt and Mallee bioregions.<br />
At a catchment level, priority assets were identified by six community catchment groups as follows:<br />
Blackwood River Catchment<br />
All TECs.<br />
Natural Diversity Recovery<br />
<strong>Catchments</strong>, e.g. Lake Toolibin.<br />
Lower Blackwood ecological<br />
communities, e.g. Scott River<br />
plain.<br />
Avon Wheatbelt and Mallee<br />
conservation reserves.<br />
All “Critically endangered”,<br />
“Endangered” and “Estuarine<br />
dependent” species.<br />
Avon Wheatbelt 1 & 2<br />
Vegetation systems – Beau<strong>for</strong>t,<br />
Bridgetown, Broomehill,<br />
Dumbleyung, Scott River, Wagin<br />
and Williams<br />
Cape to Capes Catchment<br />
All biodiversity assets of <strong>the</strong> region<br />
listed in <strong>the</strong> strategy, but not<br />
prioritized. The following were<br />
identified (but needs to be<br />
expanded):<br />
All TECs.<br />
All Declared Rare Flora and<br />
Threatened Fauna species.<br />
Geographe Catchment<br />
5 TECs:<br />
o Heaths on SW coastal<br />
granites;<br />
o Swan Coastal Plain (SCP)<br />
Community 1b – Corymbia<br />
calophylla woodlands;<br />
o SCP Community 2 - Sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
wet shrublands;<br />
o SCP Community 10a -<br />
Shrublands on dry clay flats;<br />
and<br />
o SCP Community 10b -<br />
Shrublands on sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
ironstones.<br />
8 species - <strong>West</strong>ern Ringtail<br />
Possum, Quenda, Brush-tailed<br />
Phascogale, Chuditch, Water<br />
Rat, and Baudin’s, Carnaby’s and<br />
Red-tailed Black Cockatoos.<br />
Leschenault Catchment<br />
Threatened flora (21 species).<br />
Fauna including <strong>West</strong>ern Ringtail<br />
Possum; Quenda; Brush-tailed<br />
Phascogale; Water rat; Baudin’s,<br />
Peel-Harvey Catchment<br />
38 TECs.<br />
All Declared Rare Flora and<br />
Threatened Fauna species.<br />
Yalgorup National Park.<br />
Warren Catchment<br />
Avifauna<br />
Granite outcrops<br />
Marron, salamanderfish and<br />
lamprey eel<br />
40
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Carnaby’s and Red-tailed Black<br />
Cockatoos; migratory shorebirds;<br />
all native freshwater crayfish and<br />
some native freshwater fish (incl.<br />
pouched lamprey).<br />
TECs (Community types 3c, 7, 8,<br />
9, 18 and 19).<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r ecological communities (7<br />
including <strong>the</strong> White Mangrove).<br />
Various wetlands, including<br />
Leschenault Estuary, Kemerton<br />
wetland chain and billabongs<br />
along Collie River.<br />
Eastern estuary nature reserves.<br />
Dryandra Reserve.<br />
Migratory shorebirds.<br />
Remnant vegetation.<br />
Microbial mats (Lake Preston).<br />
Mt Chudalup<br />
Native fauna<br />
Native flora<br />
Peat swamps<br />
Yeagarup Dunes<br />
Ecosystem Solutions (2009) refined this in<strong>for</strong>mation, assigning priority ranking on <strong>the</strong> basis of 38 criteria in<br />
<strong>the</strong> following five groupings:<br />
Richness (2 criteria);<br />
Rarity (22 criteria);<br />
Distinctiveness (3 criteria);<br />
Representativeness (9 criteria); and<br />
Naturalness (2 criteria).<br />
Eight bio-landscapes were <strong>the</strong>n identified as <strong>the</strong> highest value biodiversity assets in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> NRM<br />
region that would protect priority fauna and/or flora species/communities, in addition to rare and/or<br />
endangered vegetation associations. A fur<strong>the</strong>r 11 assets of secondary priority were also identified that<br />
contained only priority fauna and/or flora species.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> current strategy, aquatic biodiversity has been separated out from terrestrial biodiversity, as aquatic<br />
fauna and flora have generally been under-represented in past documents and are subject to different<br />
issues and management options. Indeed, aquatic biodiversity assets haven’t been identified as a specific<br />
<strong>the</strong>me area at ei<strong>the</strong>r State, regional or catchment level, but a number of priority assets are listed in various<br />
documents that can be included in this <strong>the</strong>me area. They include:<br />
All “Critically endangered”, “Endangered” and “Estuarine dependent” aquatic species.<br />
Aquatic fauna including all native freshwater fish and crayfish, with priority given to Margaret River<br />
freshwater crayfish, Dunsborough freshwater crayfish, Balston’s Pygmy Perch and <strong>the</strong> lamprey eel.<br />
Very little is known about most aquatic species, so this list will undoubtedly be expanded at various levels<br />
as time goes on.<br />
4.1.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s terrestrial biodiversity<br />
The following threats were identified as key threats <strong>for</strong> biodiversity in <strong>the</strong> six IBRA regions represented in<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> (State NRM Office 2007, Ecosystem Solutions 2009 – high-level threats are shown in<br />
bold):<br />
Climate change;<br />
Dieback (Phytophthora spp);<br />
Decreasing rainfall (drought);<br />
Fire (including inappropriate fire management regimes);<br />
Environmental weeds (Category A) and introduced animals (cats, European fox, rabbits);<br />
Problem species (introduced and native – European Honey Bee, Kookaburra, Minahs, Galahs,<br />
Corellas);<br />
Habitat fragmentation and/or isolation;<br />
41
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Land clearing;<br />
Removing buffer and/or riparian vegetation;<br />
Grazing by stock;<br />
Salinity;<br />
Armillaria;<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r problem species – pigs and kangaroos;<br />
Contamination through chemicals/pesticides;<br />
Water extraction and/or capture; and<br />
Physical removal of plants and/or animals.<br />
A fur<strong>the</strong>r 20 lower level threats were identified, including problem weeds and species (introduced and<br />
native – Category B weeds, Port Lincoln Ringneck Parrot, plantation species such as pines and blue<br />
gums), floods/inundation, erosion, urban expansion, recreational management and access, illegal<br />
activities (e.g. rubbish dumping) and mines and quarries.<br />
The <strong>West</strong>ern Australian Government identified five of <strong>the</strong>se as priority threats to biodiversity in WA in its<br />
State of <strong>the</strong> Environment Report (SoE 2007):<br />
Changed fire regimes;<br />
Introduced animals;<br />
Loss or degradation of native vegetation;<br />
Phytophthora dieback; and<br />
Weeds.<br />
In terms of aquatic biodiversity, a number of threats were identified, including <strong>the</strong> following (key threats are<br />
shown in bold):<br />
climate change, e.g. reduced rainfall causing drying out of refuges such as permanent pools;<br />
introduction of non-native species, e.g. yabbies and Gambusia;<br />
ecosystem fragmentation;<br />
eutrophication;<br />
movement of species, e.g. marron from one catchment to ano<strong>the</strong>r;<br />
pollution from point sources;<br />
coastal development (including <strong>the</strong> development of oil and gas fields and o<strong>the</strong>r mining<br />
activities);<br />
intensive agriculture;<br />
water development;<br />
fishing by Australian and <strong>for</strong>eign fleets;<br />
aquaculture and boating facilities; and<br />
recreational and commercial fishing.<br />
4.2 Water resources<br />
4.2.1 Previously identified priority water resources<br />
The water resources of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> region as defined in <strong>the</strong> NRM strategy (SWCC 2005) include <strong>the</strong><br />
categories waterways, wetlands, estuaries and water resources. No specific assets were given priority in<br />
<strong>the</strong> strategy.<br />
At a State level, a wide variety of water resources were identified as ei<strong>the</strong>r priority waterscapes or water<br />
supplies (State NRM Office 2007), as follows:<br />
Waterscapes: Barraghup Swamp, Broadwater Wetland, Brunswick River, Carey Brook, Collie River,<br />
Cowaramup River, Gingilup-Jasper Wetland System, Hardy Inlet Estuary, Lake McLarty, Lake<br />
Toolibin, Leeuwin Ridge streams, Leschenault Estuary, Lower Blackwood tributaries, Margaret River<br />
42
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
and Estuary, Milyannup Brook, Muir/Unicup System, Peel Harvey Estuaries, Poison Gully, Reedia<br />
Complexes, Scott Coastal Plain Wetlands, Scott River, Serpentine River, Vasse-Wonnerup<br />
Estuaries/Wetlands, Wilyabrup River and Estuary, Upper Blackwood (above Boyup Brook) and<br />
Yalgorup Lakes.<br />
Water supplies: Badgarning, Balingup, Bridgetown – Hester Dam, Bancell Brook, Blackwood, Boyup<br />
Brook, Busselton-Capel, Bunbury, Collie, Conjurunup Creek Pipehead Dam, Donnybrook,<br />
Dumbleyung, Dunsborough/Yallingup, Greenbushes Dams, Jandakot, Kirup, Kojonup Dam, Leeuwin<br />
Spring Dam, Lefroy Brook, Manjimup Dam (Phillips Creek and Scabby Gully), Margaret River/Ten<br />
Mile Brook, Millstream, Mullalyup, Mullalyup Dam, Mungalup, North Dandalup Pipehead Dam,<br />
Pemberton (Lefroy Brook and Big Brook Dam), Preston Beach, Quinninup Dam, <strong>South</strong> Dandalup<br />
Pipehead Dam, Tanjanerup creek, Warren River, Wellington Dam and Wungong Brook.<br />
A slightly different approach assigned priority to <strong>the</strong> following water assets in SWCC’s previous strategy<br />
(SWCC 2005):<br />
Lower Blackwood River and estuary;<br />
Peel-Harvey estuarine system;<br />
Vasse-Wonnerup Estuary;<br />
Lower Scott River;<br />
Broadwater;<br />
Gingilup-Jasper wetland system;<br />
Preston River;<br />
Hardy Inlet;<br />
Leschenault Estuary; and<br />
Warren River.<br />
At a catchment level, priority assets were identified by six community catchment groups as follows:<br />
Blackwood River Catchment<br />
Lower Blackwood River.<br />
Middle Blackwood River reaches.<br />
Mid-upper Blackwood –<br />
groundwater resources.<br />
Hardy Inlet – water quality.<br />
Mid-low basin – in-stream water<br />
quality.<br />
Cape to Capes Catchment<br />
All water assets of <strong>the</strong> region listed<br />
in <strong>the</strong>ir strategy, but not prioritized.<br />
Only <strong>the</strong> following was identified:<br />
Groundwater with connection to<br />
cave <strong>for</strong>mations.<br />
Geographe Catchment<br />
Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands.<br />
Bussell Highway Swamp, Ludlow<br />
wetlands (incl. McCarley’s<br />
Swamp), Tutunup Rd Lake,<br />
Broadwater floodplain (incl.<br />
Toby’s Inlet), and Ludlow-Abba &<br />
Naturaliste Lake wetlands.<br />
Capel, Ludlow and Sabina<br />
Rivers.<br />
Meelup & Dologup Brooks.<br />
Seasonal wetlands on ironstone<br />
between Capel and Carbanup<br />
Rivers.<br />
Leschenault Catchment<br />
Leschenault Estuary and Inlet.<br />
Rivers (Brunswick, Ferguson,<br />
Lower Collie, Preston,<br />
Wellesley).<br />
Wetlands (Benger Swamp, Mialla<br />
Lagoon, Kemerton wetlands, Big<br />
Swamp and Ca<strong>the</strong>dral Avenue<br />
wetlands).<br />
Stored water (Wellington Dam,<br />
SW Irrigation Area, Groundwater<br />
Peel-Harvey Catchment<br />
3 Ramsar wetland systems.<br />
All 53 regionally significant<br />
wetlands and lakes.<br />
19 regionally important<br />
waterways (Fig 12 – PHCC<br />
2005).<br />
Warren Catchment<br />
Deep River.<br />
Coastal freshwater streams.<br />
Ground water.<br />
Shannon River.<br />
Warren River.<br />
Big Brook dam.<br />
Farm dams.<br />
Groundwater systems.<br />
Town water supplies.<br />
Water quality.<br />
43
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Bunbury, SW Coastal,<br />
Busselton-Capel and Collie<br />
GMAs).<br />
Coastal lakes.<br />
Lake Jasper.<br />
4.2.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s water resources<br />
The following were identified in strategies published by <strong>the</strong> community catchment groups, as well as in<br />
Water Quality Improvement Plans as <strong>the</strong> key threats that impact on <strong>the</strong> region’s water resources (with key<br />
threats shown in bold):<br />
Erosion;<br />
Sedimentation;<br />
Eutrophication;<br />
Salinity;<br />
Pollution from point sources;<br />
Ecosystem fragmentation;<br />
Land development (residential, rural residential, intensive agriculture, broad acre farming,<br />
pastoral, aquaculture and boating facilities);<br />
Feral animals and weed infestations;<br />
Recreational and commercial fishing;<br />
Industrial discharge;<br />
Water abstraction; and<br />
Agricultural drainage (e.g. coastal plain and saline land drainage).<br />
The State of <strong>the</strong> Environment Report (SoE 2007) cites two documents as sources <strong>for</strong> identified threats at<br />
a State level (WRC 2000, 2003), which listed <strong>the</strong> following as <strong>the</strong> key threats to <strong>the</strong> state’s water<br />
resources:<br />
Salinisation and acidification of inland waters;<br />
Loss or degradation of wetlands, and of fringing, in-stream and riparian vegetation, linked to:<br />
Erosion and sedimentation of inland waters;<br />
Eutrophication linked to nutrient enrichment (diffuse sources) and point source pollution;<br />
These were linked to exotic plant and animal invasions; waterlogging, drainage and inundation;<br />
streamflow and channel changes; unsustainable use of water resources and in-stream and riparian zone<br />
use. These compare well with those identified previously. In addition, <strong>the</strong> report identified contamination<br />
of inland waters and loss of floodplain connectivity as emerging issues.<br />
4.3 Land resources<br />
4.3.1 Previously identified priority land assets<br />
The land resources of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> region as defined in <strong>the</strong> NRM strategy (SWCC 2005) include <strong>the</strong><br />
categories agricultural land, remnant vegetation on private land and productive <strong>for</strong>ests, particularly those<br />
found in <strong>the</strong> following priority agricultural zones (State NRM Office 2007):<br />
Bassendean Zone<br />
Donnybrook Sunkland Zone<br />
Eastern Darling Range Zone<br />
Leeuwin Zone<br />
Perth Coastal Zone<br />
Pinjarra Zone<br />
Scott Coastal Zone<br />
<strong>South</strong>-eastern Zone of Ancient Drainage<br />
<strong>South</strong>-western Zone of Ancient Drainage<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Zone of Rejuvenated Drainage<br />
Warren-Denmark <strong>South</strong>land Zone<br />
<strong>West</strong>ern Darling Range Zone<br />
44
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
At a catchment level, priority assets were identified by some of <strong>the</strong> six community catchment groups as<br />
follows:<br />
Blackwood River Catchment<br />
Agricultural land in mid-low<br />
rainfall belt (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
4.4 Coasts and <strong>the</strong> marine environment<br />
4.4.1 Previously identified priority coastal assets<br />
No specific priority assets were identified in <strong>the</strong> previous strategy (SWCC 2005), with <strong>the</strong> strategic<br />
direction of management actions being directed towards management of key identified threats. Some of<br />
<strong>the</strong> six community catchment groups did identify <strong>the</strong> following priority assets:<br />
Blackwood River Catchment<br />
Lower Blackwood estuary.<br />
“Estuarine dependent”, “Critically<br />
endangered”, “Rare & Threatened”<br />
and “Potentially threatened”<br />
species.<br />
Cape to Capes Catchment<br />
All coastal assets of <strong>the</strong> region<br />
listed in <strong>the</strong>ir strategy, but not<br />
prioritized, so were not included<br />
here.<br />
Geographe Catchment<br />
Geographe Bay seagrass<br />
communities.<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Geographe Bay<br />
(proposed marine park).<br />
All coral species.<br />
Quindalup dune system.<br />
Leschenault Catchment<br />
None specifically identified in <strong>the</strong><br />
strategy, but <strong>the</strong> Leschenault<br />
Peninsula Conservation Park, <strong>the</strong><br />
Ocean to Preston Regional Park and<br />
System 6 – Leschenault Inlet, white<br />
mangroves in <strong>the</strong> estuary and inlet,<br />
and Point Druro are important (J<br />
Hugues-Dit-Ciles pers.comm.).<br />
Peel-Harvey Catchment<br />
All coastal assets of <strong>the</strong> region<br />
listed in <strong>the</strong>ir strategy, but not<br />
prioritized, so were not included<br />
here.<br />
Warren Catchment<br />
Black Point Beach.<br />
Broke Inlet.<br />
Coalmine Beach.<br />
Mouth of <strong>the</strong> Doggerup.<br />
Walpole-Nornalup Inlet.<br />
Fish stocks.<br />
Highly natural quality.<br />
Whales.<br />
4.4.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s coastal assets<br />
A number of key threats <strong>for</strong> SW coastal and marine environments were identified in <strong>the</strong> previous strategy<br />
(SWCC 2005; listed alphabetically, not in order of priority):<br />
Chemical pollution;<br />
Climate change;<br />
Coastal development.<br />
Commercial and recreational fishing;<br />
Disease;<br />
Habitat degradation (sediments and nutrients);<br />
Introduced fauna and flora, including marine pests; and<br />
Recreation and tourism, including tourist interactions.<br />
Similar threats were also identified by <strong>the</strong> WA Government in it’s State of <strong>the</strong> Environment Report (SoE<br />
2007), which identified <strong>the</strong> following key threats to coastal resources:<br />
Degradation and contamination of coastal and marine environments through:<br />
o pollution (waste discharge and nutrient enrichment);<br />
o dredging and sedimentation;<br />
o increasing coastal populations;<br />
o overfishing;<br />
o industrial development;<br />
o oil spills; and<br />
o increasing ecotourism.<br />
Introduced marine species.<br />
High costs of research and monitoring.<br />
The report also identified marine debris as an emerging issue.<br />
46
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
4.5 People and Culture of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong><br />
4.5.1 Previously identified priority socio-cultural assets<br />
The <strong>the</strong>me area “People and Culture of <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> region” as defined in <strong>the</strong> NRM strategy (SWCC<br />
2005) includes <strong>the</strong> categories people, culture, NRM capacity, Indigenous people and settlements &<br />
infrastructure.<br />
At both catchment and regional levels, priority assets identified included <strong>the</strong> whole SW community, and all<br />
registered Indigenous sites and listed European sites of historical significance, based on <strong>the</strong> following<br />
values (listed alphabetically, not in order of priority):<br />
Community well-being;<br />
Economic resources;<br />
Governance capacity;<br />
Knowledge and skills, particularly in <strong>the</strong> areas of cross-cultural awareness and <strong>the</strong> principles of<br />
community engagement;<br />
Networks/organisations; and<br />
Values/culture.<br />
Community engagement was <strong>the</strong> cross-cutting activity that was identified as <strong>the</strong> key way to secure <strong>the</strong>se<br />
values into <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
4.5.2 Previously identified threats to <strong>the</strong> region’s socio-cultural assets<br />
A number of key threats <strong>for</strong> SW socio-cultural assets were identified in <strong>the</strong> strategies developed by <strong>the</strong><br />
community catchment groups and in o<strong>the</strong>r documents, and include (listed alphabetically, not in order of<br />
priority):<br />
Declining terms of trade impacting on <strong>the</strong> economic health of country areas resulting in rural decline<br />
and loss of disposable income <strong>for</strong> use in NRM;<br />
Improved communications and <strong>the</strong> replacement of labour by technology, resulting in population<br />
decline;<br />
Inadequate resourcing at all levels;<br />
Loss or degradation of Indigenous knowledge and heritage;<br />
Loss or degradation of natural and historic heritage; and<br />
Loss of landholder knowledge through rural decline.<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong>se were also identified by <strong>the</strong> WA Government’s State of <strong>the</strong> Environment Report (SoE 2007),<br />
which identified <strong>the</strong> following key threats to heritage resources:<br />
Loss or degradation of natural heritage;<br />
Loss or degradation of Indigenous knowledge and heritage;<br />
Loss or degradation of historic heritage;<br />
Gaps and deficiencies in heritage legislation;<br />
Incomplete recognition, monitoring and maintenance of heritage places; and<br />
Inadequate resourcing at <strong>the</strong> State and local government levels.No emerging issues were identified.<br />
4.6 Air and Climate<br />
At a catchment level, no specific priority actions were identified. At a State level, <strong>the</strong> atmosphere as a<br />
whole was identified as <strong>the</strong> priority asset, and a number of key threats were identified (SoE 2007),<br />
including:<br />
47
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Stratospheric ozone depletion;<br />
Greenhouse gas emissions;<br />
Particulates;<br />
Photochemical smog; and<br />
Sulphur dioxide.<br />
The report also listed some emerging issues, i.e. oxides of nitrogen and <strong>the</strong> decline in indoor and outdoor<br />
air quality linked to air pollution.<br />
48
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5. Results of Community Consultation<br />
5.1 Potential to refine scores allocated to assets<br />
Three scores were allocated to assets identified by <strong>the</strong> community and were used to rank <strong>the</strong>se assets in<br />
<strong>the</strong> strategy. In order to improve this ranking, it is suggested that four fur<strong>the</strong>r scores could be allocated to<br />
all identified assets in order to draw up a more robust, prioritized ranking of <strong>the</strong> assets:<br />
1. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not (a) SMART goal(s) <strong>for</strong> intervention(s) can be identified (yes=1, no=0).<br />
2. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> proposed action(s) will make a real difference (yes=1, no=0).<br />
3. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not it is likely that <strong>the</strong> private sector will participate actively if <strong>the</strong> intervention requires<br />
it, e.g. through allocation of own resources (yes=1, no=0); and/or<br />
4. Whe<strong>the</strong>r or not it is likely that <strong>the</strong> public sector will participate actively if <strong>the</strong> intervention requires<br />
it, e.g. through provision of government data or providing support through existing programmes<br />
(yes=1, no=0).<br />
These four “extra” scores have not been drawn up <strong>for</strong> this strategy, however, as it requires more<br />
resources than were allocated by SWCC, i.e. about 1½ to 2 full days to obtain <strong>the</strong> required in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
and cross-check <strong>the</strong> analysis with competent specialists <strong>for</strong> a batch of 15-20 similar assets. The<br />
estimated resources required (40-55 days plus funds) are currently unavailable, but it is recommended<br />
that SWCC and its partners assess <strong>the</strong> possibility of scoring all assets completely in <strong>the</strong> near future.<br />
A total of 546 assets were identified in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> region through this “community feedback process”,<br />
including some that are thought-provoking and usually not described as NRM assets in <strong>the</strong> conventional<br />
NRM literature. These included “community groups” and “sites of previous NRM work”. The collated<br />
results are presented by catchment region in <strong>the</strong> following sections, with an additional section <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
individual responses, as <strong>the</strong>se results were not subjected to <strong>the</strong> same <strong>for</strong>m of peer review as <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
5.1 Workshop with Cape to Capes Catchment Group<br />
Held on 31 st March 2011 at <strong>the</strong> Education Campus, Margaret River. Assets were identified and scored as<br />
being exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those three<br />
headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole was also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. The<br />
assumed threat level was scored as being very high (>75% degradation or loss), high (50-75%<br />
degradation or loss), moderate (25-50% degradation or loss) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water; introduced weeds (arum<br />
lily, Vinca, onion weed 1 and Dolichos pea).<br />
High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire) on private land and<br />
public land; clearing on private land and human use.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire) on public<br />
land; clearing on public land and human use.<br />
Comments:<br />
5.1.1.2 7 Wildlife Corridors<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; weeds; feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as fish and<br />
crustaceans) and water.<br />
High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire) on private land and<br />
clearing on private land.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Ecological linkages (N-S AND E-W); Augusta-Margaret River Shire has relevant plan<br />
(contact Drew McKenzie CCCG)<br />
5.1.1.3 Margaret River & its catchment<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Weeds; Feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as fish and crustaceans) and<br />
coal & gas mining.<br />
High level threats: Climate change; dams; water extraction; barriers in <strong>the</strong> catchment; degradation of<br />
vegetation along river banks and pollution.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Urban development and human use.<br />
Comments: Drinking water catchment, <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e very high value; several RAPs completed; includes<br />
swamps.<br />
5.1.1.4 Hardy Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Coal and gas mining; pollution; human use; upstream management and<br />
management of Scott River.<br />
1<br />
Questionable whe<strong>the</strong>r this really is a very high level threat.<br />
50
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
High level threats: Weeds; Feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as fish and crustaceans).<br />
Medium to low level threats: Climate change; degradation of vegetation around <strong>the</strong> Inlet and dams.<br />
Comments: Particularly valuable due to its cultural heritage and significance (both Indigenous and o<strong>the</strong>r).<br />
5.1.1.5 Groundwater aquifers<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change effects on shallower aquifers; water extraction and coal & gas<br />
mining.<br />
High level threats: Climate change effects on deep aquifers.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Pollution; clearing and plantations.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
5.1.1.6 Blackwood River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Salinity.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
High level threats: Flooding; degradation of vegetation along riverbanks and feral animals.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Weeds; dams; pollution; clearing; water extraction; urban development and<br />
cols/gas mining.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
5.1.1.7 Remnant vegetation on public land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change and pathogens.<br />
High level threats: Introduced species and fire.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
5.1.1.8 Coastline - sections with easy access<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Introduced species.<br />
High level threats: Human use.<br />
51
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire; marine pollution; development pressure; sewerage; upstream land<br />
management practises and climate change.<br />
Comments: Includes Meelup, Yallingup, Smiths, Gracetown, Kilcarnup, Prevelly, Gnarabup, Redgate,<br />
Contos, Hamelin, Quarry Bay, Black Point, Gas Bay / Boodji, Cosy Corner, Ellensbrook, Wilyabrup Cliffs<br />
and Injidup. 4WD access major impacts.<br />
5.1.1.9 Caves<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
High level threats: Human use (pollution, vandalism, and linked to land use) and water use.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fires.<br />
Comments: Threat is mainly due to decreasing water levels (water use, decreasing rainfall and pumping<br />
aquifers).<br />
5.1.1.10 Healthy trees<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; pathogens and water.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
High level threats: Fire (both fire management practises and wildfires).<br />
Medium to low level threats: Land management practises.<br />
Comments: Trees all over <strong>the</strong> SW are in decline, including Jarrah (dieback), flooded gums, peppermints<br />
(mainly “o<strong>the</strong>r” type of dieback – Phytophtera) and Marri (canker & borers). Murdoch has listed some 20<br />
reasons <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> decline in tree health, decreasing rainfall being a key factor in exacerbating <strong>the</strong> effects of<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r threats.<br />
5.1.1.11 Flinders Bay<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Introduced species<br />
High level threats: Human use<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire; marine pollution; development pressures; sewerage; upstream land<br />
management practises and climate change<br />
Comments: Sewage is leaching directly into streams and leaching from old tip are possible/suspected<br />
threats.<br />
5.1.1.12 Water Point No. 4<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
52
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; pathogens; tree decline (dieback etc.); fire (both fire<br />
management practises and wildfires) and land management practises<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: A swamp just off Davis Rd, SE of Witchcliffe, has Geocrinia alba, recently a break was cut<br />
through it to construct a fence <strong>for</strong> a vineyard.<br />
5.1.1.13 Water volume and quality<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; dams; water extraction and pollution (e.g. leaching from tips)<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: Salinity; mining and gas extraction; plantations; acid sulphate soils and<br />
land management practises<br />
Comments: Linked to “Environmental Water.<br />
5.1.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.1.2.1 Permanent pools<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; feral aquatic species such as goldfish, redfin perch and<br />
yabbies; degradation of vegetation along riverbanks and around pools, fire (both fire management<br />
practises and wildfires) and land management practises<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
5.1.2.2 Agricultural soils<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; fire (both fire management practises and wildfires) and land<br />
management practises<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
53
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.1.2.3 Lake Jingi<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Near Bunker’s Bay; fur<strong>the</strong>r info from SWCC (Zac) – perched seasonal wetland.<br />
5.1.2.4 Barrabup Pools<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Feral aquatic species such as goldfish<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: None listed at this workshop.<br />
5.1.2.5 McLeod Creek<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG; LB LCDC has RAP.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.6 Calgardup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG, needs RAP.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.7 Quinninup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG, RAP is scheduled; some important Indigenous sites.<br />
54
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.1.2.8 Wilyabrup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.2.9 Biljedup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.10 Cowaramup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG, RAP available.<br />
5.1.2.11 Ellen Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG; RAP available (CCCG/DEC/National Trust).<br />
5.1.2.12 Boodjidup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG; RAP available.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.13 Turner Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
55
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG; needs RAP.<br />
5.1.2.14 Scott River<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC/DoW; see Hardy Inlet WQIP.<br />
5.1.2.15 Chapman Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Part of <strong>the</strong> brook; fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG (has RAP).<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.16 Remnant vegetation on private land<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; pathogens and introduced species<br />
High level threats: Land management practises<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; wildfires; fire and logging<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.2.17 Bird diversity<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change<br />
High level threats: Land management practises; fire management practises, wildfires and logging (both<br />
legal and illegal (<strong>for</strong> firewood))<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Seek info from Birds Australia or o<strong>the</strong>r specialists.<br />
5.1.2.18 Kilcarnup wetland<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
56
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
High level threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire and climate change<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.2.19 Waterways in general<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Refers mainly to riparian biodiversity; fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.2.20 Gingilup swamps<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Acid sulphate soils<br />
High level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Medium to low level threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
5.1.2.21 Leeuwin springs<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: See Leeuwin National Park management plan; water supply <strong>for</strong> Augusta.<br />
5.1.2.22 Marine assets impacted by human use<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG & Murdoch.<br />
5.1.2.23 “Augusta” wetlands<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
57
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Wetlands east of river mouth (possibly Emu Springs); fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood<br />
LCDC.<br />
5.1.2.24 Threatened species<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.2.25 Indigenous heritage<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: SWCC (Zac and his team) to comment<br />
5.1.2.26 Devil’s Pool<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: On Boodjidup Brook; has had significant investment in weed control (blackberry and fig) in<br />
accordance with actions identified in RAP.<br />
5.1.2.27 Unnamed and o<strong>the</strong>r small creeks<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.2.28 Geocrinia habitats<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
58
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from recovery plans.<br />
5.1.2.29 Yallingup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.1.3.1 Rails to Trails Reserve<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change and pathogens<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
High level threats: Introduced species and fire<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access<br />
Comments: Environmentally 2 and socially significant.<br />
5.1.3.2 Cape to Cape Track<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change and pathogens<br />
High level threats: Introduced species and fire<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info available from “Friends of <strong>the</strong> Cape to Cape Track”.<br />
5.1.3.3 Perched wetlands<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Example is <strong>the</strong> one south of <strong>the</strong> Margaret River golf course; seek info from DEC.<br />
2<br />
Environmental significance is only on parts of <strong>the</strong> reserve.<br />
59
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.1.3.4 Lake Davies<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Near Lake Hamelin; fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.3.5 Lindburg Remnant Vegetation<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; weeds; water and feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as<br />
fish and crustaceans)<br />
High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire) and clearing<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access<br />
Comments: VERY large block of private land east of lower part of <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River; fur<strong>the</strong>r info<br />
possibly from Lower Blackwood LCDC. Threats are assumed (similar to corridors – 2.1.1.2); makes up a<br />
significant portion of <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River corridor but should be considered alongside Boathaugh property<br />
directly to <strong>the</strong> north with similar values. Drew has good in<strong>for</strong>mation about both properties (CCCG).<br />
5.1.3.6 Witchcliffe Remnant Vegetation 1<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; weeds; water and feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as<br />
fish and crustaceans)<br />
High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire) and clearing<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access<br />
Comments: VERY large block of private land east of Witchcliffe; fur<strong>the</strong>r info possibly from Lower<br />
Blackwood LCDC. Threats are assumed (similar to corridors – 2.1.1.2); this block of state <strong>for</strong>est was not<br />
identified on <strong>the</strong> maps provided by SWCC – needs to be checked.<br />
5.1.3.7 Witchcliffe Remnant Vegetation 2<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Very high level threats: Climate change; weeds; water and feral animals (incl. aquatic species such as<br />
fish and crustaceans)<br />
High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced species and fire); clearing and leaching<br />
from tip (also a health issue)<br />
Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging and access<br />
60
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: High quality patch south and east of Witchcliffe tip. Threats are assumed (similar to corridors<br />
– 2.1.1.2); see also Chapman Brook management plan <strong>for</strong> possible fur<strong>the</strong>r info.<br />
5.1.3.8 Gunyulgup Brook<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.3.9 Wyadup Brook<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.3.10 <strong>West</strong> Bay Creek<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.1.3.11 Environmental awareness of community<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
5.1.3.12 Weed-free areas<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threats: None identified at this workshop.<br />
Threat score: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Example would be to set up containment lines, e.g. east of highway <strong>for</strong> arum lily;<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r info from CCCG.<br />
61
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
TOTAL SCORE<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
Cape to Cape workshop<br />
5.1.1.1 Leeuwin National Park 5.0 4.0 1.0 10.0<br />
5.1.1.12 Water Point No. 4 5.0 3.0 1.0 9.0<br />
5.1.1.9 Caves 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.1.1.8 Coastline - sections with easy access 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.1.1.10 Healthy trees 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.1.1.4 Hardy Inlet 5.0 2.0 1.0 8.0<br />
5.1.1.2 7 Wildlife Corridors 5.0 2.0 1.0 8.0<br />
5.1.1.7 Remnant vegetation on public land 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.1.1.6 Blackwood River 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.1.1.5 Groundwater aquifers 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.1.1.3 Margaret River & its catchment 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.1.1.13 Water volume and quality 5.0 2.0 0.0 7.0<br />
5.1.1.11 Flinders Bay 5.0 2.0 0.0 7.0<br />
5.1.2.2 Agricultural soils 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.1.2.1 Permanent pools 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.1.2.4 Barrabup pools 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.3 Lake Jingi 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.26 Devil's Pool 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.23 “Augusta” wetlands 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.21 Leeuwin springs 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.20 Gingilup swamps 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.18 Kilcarnup wetland 3.0 1.0 4.0<br />
5.1.2.9 Biljedup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.8 Wilyabrup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.7 Quinninup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.6 Calgardup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.5 McLeod Creek 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.29 Yallingup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.28 Geocrinia habitats 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.27 Unnamed and o<strong>the</strong>r small creeks 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.25 Indigenous heritage 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.24 Threatened species 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.19 Waterways in general 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.16 Remnant vegetation on private land 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.15 Chapman Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
62
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.1.2.14 Scott River 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.13 Turner Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.12 Boodjidup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.11 Ellen Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.10 Cowaramup Brook 3.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.1.2.22 Marine assets impacted by human use 3.0 0.0 3.0<br />
5.1.2.17 Bird diversity 3.0 0.0 3.0<br />
5.1.3.7 Witchcliffe Remnant Vegetation 2 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.6 Witchcliffe Remnant Vegetation 1 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.5 Lindburg Remnant Vegetation 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.4 Lake Davies 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.2 Cape to Cape Track 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.1 Rails to Trails Reserve 1.0 1.0 2.0<br />
5.1.3.9 Wyadup Brook 1.0 0.5 1.5<br />
5.1.3.8 Gunyulgup Brook 1.0 0.5 1.5<br />
5.1.3.3 Perched wetlands 1.0 0.5 1.5<br />
5.1.3.10 <strong>West</strong> Bay Creek 1.0 0.5 1.5<br />
5.1.3.12 Weed-free areas 1.0 0.0 1.0<br />
5.1.3.11 Environmental awareness of community 1.0 0.0 1.0<br />
5.2 Workshop with Leschenault Catchment Group<br />
Held on 4 th April 2011 at <strong>the</strong> Department of Water offices in Bunbury. Assets were identified and scored<br />
as being exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those<br />
three headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole was also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. The<br />
assumed threat level was scored as being very high (>75% degradation or loss), high (50-75%<br />
degradation or loss), moderate (25-50% degradation or loss) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on banks; land management practises;<br />
bushfires; human use; pollution; water extraction; dams; gas extraction (fracking); erosion; salinity; falling<br />
water tables (groundwater); illegal human activities; pollution (nutrients); edge effect; dogs; cats; human<br />
population growth and pressure.<br />
Comments: Refers to its recreational and social values; range of ecotypes, represents a contiguous tract<br />
of land extending from <strong>the</strong> western bank of <strong>the</strong> Preston River to <strong>the</strong> coast.<br />
5.2.1.3 Dune system west of Leschenault Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; development; clearing; degradation of vegetation through human use; fire management<br />
practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.1.4 Preston River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; weeds; land management practises; fire management<br />
practises and bushfires; stock access and salinity<br />
Comments: Pathogens, water stress, vegetation structure, water quality (nutrients) all factors in decline;<br />
still has freshwater oysters, mussels and mayflies (4 species).<br />
5.2.1.5 Flooded gums<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially (thru’ veg mapping)<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; development; clearing; degradation of vegetation through human use; land & fire management<br />
practises; dams; water extraction; bushfires; erosion; salinity; lerps and human use<br />
Comments: High mortality causing river blockage and diversion, erosion and siltation. Loss of over-story<br />
causing a loss of habitat, loss of shade resulting in rising water temperatures. Concern that some<br />
populations north of collie may be E. camaldulensis..<br />
5.2.1.6 State Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but diverse<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
64
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land & fire management practises; bushfires; logging; human use (uncontrolled access<br />
and mining); pollution; water extraction; dams; gas extraction (fracking); urban development; erosion;<br />
salinity; logging; lack of consultation; lack of transparency; no public record of flora and fauna; lack of<br />
balance between environment and economics; mining.<br />
Comments: Carbon and ecosystem services, aes<strong>the</strong>tics, biodiversity, heritage, recreation, tourism,<br />
spiritual, wea<strong>the</strong>r. 80% of <strong>the</strong> shire of collie is state <strong>for</strong>est or national park, poor management practices<br />
resulting in loss of high quality trees.<br />
5.2.1.7 Banksia woodlands on Bassendean sands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; clearing;<br />
urban and industrial development; land management practises; clearing; fire management practises;<br />
bushfires; salinity and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.1.8 Preston River delta<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Realignment of delta.<br />
Comments: Bird haven, fish nursery and habitat; river may be diverted, but diversion will impact on<br />
birdlife (“killing” it); salt marsh is in good condition.<br />
5.2.1.9 Hay Park wetlands, Bunbury<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; weeds; feral animals; fire management practises and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Valued <strong>for</strong> its biodiversity, remnant vegetation and wetland characteristics; paperbarks;<br />
federally listed; owned by City; has cockatoos and possums.<br />
5.2.1.10 Community groups<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes (but not by GIS) SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Funding discontinuity; lack of transparency; loss of knowledge; government policy<br />
changes; narrowly-targeted funding.<br />
65
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: If lose <strong>the</strong>se groups, lose expertise, networks and knowledge; loss of funding can lead to loss<br />
of groups’ activities and impetus, eventual decline of groups.<br />
5.2.1.11 Leschenault Inlet mangroves<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation; human use; species loss; algal blooms; heavy industry; vandalism; saltwater<br />
intrusion; acid suphate issues (anaerobic processes); weeds; rowing club wants <strong>the</strong>m out<br />
Comments: Sou<strong>the</strong>rnmost mangroves in world; last remnant of prehistoric distribution; under system 6.<br />
5.2.1.12 Lake Preston<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Freshwater infiltration on west side of lake, trickling from dunes from underground<br />
aquifer – urban development on west side may dry out <strong>the</strong> fresh water infiltration is key threat; climate<br />
change; weeds; clearing; degradation of vegetation; land management practises; fire management<br />
practises; extractive industries; market gardens; road through DEC land (access problems) and infiltration<br />
of seawater<br />
Comments: Not in Leschenault catchment, but in Peel-Harvey; private landholders; long lake; DEC owns<br />
<strong>for</strong>eshore’ Ramsar-listed; saltwater lake (8x seawater levels); lots of birdlife, some remnant vegetation,<br />
water levels are dropping; outside of catchment but included as an asset. Microbial mats are key asset.<br />
5.2.1.13 High value agricultural land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds; subdivisions; pests and diseases and pollution of water<br />
Comments: Refers to agricultural land that has access to good water supplies, often of multiple use; 20-<br />
100 ha minimum size, e.g. on Harvey irrigation scheme.<br />
5.2.1.14 Leschenault Community Nursery<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified threats:Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; fire; loss/degradation of vegetation remnants that are<br />
source of seeds and lack of funding/loss of site<br />
Comments: Only place that local provenance seedlings can be bought <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Leschenault Catchment;<br />
also doing research into growing of native orchids; only organisation that grow a large variety of native<br />
wetland species <strong>for</strong> rehab projects; major supporter <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir land tenure is DoW, who will longer deal in<br />
NRM; relies on volunteers and is a not <strong>for</strong> profit organisation.<br />
66
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.1.15 Loughton Park, Bunbury<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified threats:Fire management practises; bushfires and human use<br />
Comments: Has some rare orchids.<br />
5.2.1.16 Non-urban wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on banks; land management practises; human use; bushfires and pollution.<br />
Comments: Yourdamung Lake may be of specific interest/value.<br />
5.2.1.17 Good Quality & Quantity Groundwater<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; clearing; land management practices; pollution; water extraction; gas<br />
extraction (fracking); urban development; erosion; salinity; plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: A water resource that is at risk of contamination by heavy metals from mining, and<br />
mismanagement of acid sulphate soils, acidification and o<strong>the</strong>r pollutants.<br />
5.2.1.18 Air and Rainwater Quality<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Land Management Practices, Pollution, Plantations, Logging<br />
Comments: WHO compliant atmospheric levels of acid rain producing compounds. Acidic rain of pH 5.5<br />
present, increase in industrial air pollution will affect all land and human and water resources n <strong>the</strong> airshed<br />
areas of <strong>the</strong> Collie Basin<br />
5.2.1.19 Sites where previous weed control has been done<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Introduced species, Weeds,<br />
Comments: Value of previous weed control investment will be lost if ongoing weed control is not done at<br />
<strong>the</strong>se sites.<br />
67
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.1.20 NRM Staff<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: no<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Lack of resources, lack of knowledge by Local Govt of role of NRM officers, lack of<br />
skill development, networking and support, Working in isolation, organisational structure<br />
Comments: No NRM staff means no NRM projects; needed to support community, Link NRM to<br />
community.<br />
5.2.1.21 NRM Positions<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Lack of continuity, funding<br />
Comments: None.<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.2.1.22 Batalling Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
land management practices; fire management practices; human use; erosion (soil); salinity; logging;<br />
conflicting management and recreation.<br />
Comments: Protected species, heritage value, high biodiversity values, and release site <strong>for</strong> endangered<br />
species.<br />
5.2.1.23 Arcadia Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and Pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; bushfires; human use; pollution;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; salinity; plantations; logging and bauxite mining.<br />
Comments: Suggested it should become part of <strong>the</strong> Wellington National Park, nature based tourism,<br />
quokka habitat<br />
5.2.1.24 Remnant Vegetation on Coastal Plain<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
68
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution; water<br />
extraction; urban development and erosion.<br />
Comments: Urban development pressures – housing, industry & Kemerton (as 80% has been cleared<br />
what’s left is considered important).<br />
5.2.1.25 Minninup Pool (on Collie River)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; weeds; human use; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks and salinity.<br />
Comments: Salinity considered key threatening process to maintain vegetation.<br />
5.2.1.26 Run-off<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; dams; plantations; lack of river flushing; lower level flooding; silting of<br />
pools.<br />
Comments: Main issue is small lifestyle dams that abound on lots of small creeks and gullies<br />
5.2.1.27 High Value Agricultural Land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land management practices; fire;<br />
pollution; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; salinity; plantations; fire<br />
management on stubbles; lifestyle development; mining and industry.<br />
Comments: Needed <strong>for</strong> food production; aes<strong>the</strong>tics needs protection by sustainable practices; diversity.<br />
Inappropriate use or rezoning of assets should be kept <strong>for</strong> Agricultural production. Loss of financial<br />
viability <strong>for</strong> agriculture, resulting in subdivision <strong>for</strong> housing; plantations; reduced surface water and runoff;<br />
5.2.1.28 Marine Aquatic Diversity (SW)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species and pollution.<br />
Comments: Also should include Dive sites, e.g. Lina<br />
5.2.1.29 Waterways and Tributaries (including creeks)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
69
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; clearing; land<br />
management practices; human use; pollution; water extraction; dams; urban development; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; erosion; salinity; plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: those on <strong>the</strong> coastal plain considered to have higher degree of threats than those in <strong>the</strong><br />
scarp, however considered toge<strong>the</strong>r as one asset.<br />
5.2.1.30 The Coast<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; urban development; erosion;<br />
4wd recreation; over fishing; rubbish; lack of controlled access; sea level rises; desalination plant;<br />
dredging and canal developments.<br />
Comments: Iconic, tourism, recreations, biodiversity, aes<strong>the</strong>tic values.<br />
5.2.1.31 EPP Conservation Category Wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Asset identified at end of workshop as a missing value.<br />
5.2.1.32 Water Resources <strong>for</strong> Agriculture<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but limited<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Urban development and plantations.<br />
Comments: Allocations limiting development; industry and mining are priority; plantations not requiring<br />
water allocations.<br />
5.2.1.33 Good Quality Wetlands near populated areas<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; clearing; land management practices;<br />
fire management practices; pollution; water extraction and urban development.<br />
70
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Degraded wetlands haven no natural predators <strong>for</strong> mosquitoes (RRvirus and Barnah Forest<br />
Virus, very low pH water renders chemical control ineffective.<br />
5.2.1.34 Remnant Vegetation with rare flora and fauna<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution; urban<br />
development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.1.35 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife Sites<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; urban development;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: Lack of funding <strong>for</strong> landowners and project coordinators is issue<br />
5.2.1.36 Collie River, lower sections from Wellington dam down<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution; water<br />
extraction; dams; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; salinity; logging;<br />
boating traffic; stock access; nutrients; siltation; over-fishing and recreation.<br />
Comments: Values include tourism, water resource, aes<strong>the</strong>tic, recreation and biodiversity.<br />
5.2.1.37 Brunswick River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; clearing; human<br />
use; pollution; dams; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion (from stock) salinity; plantations<br />
and logging.<br />
Comments: Has saline, brackish and fresh waters<br />
5.2.1.38 Harris River Dam Catchment (incl Lake Ballingal)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
71
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; weeds and logging.<br />
Comments: Has a fully <strong>for</strong>ested catchment.<br />
5.2.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.2.2.1 Lake Kepwari<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Near Collie – is an open pit, disused; valued <strong>for</strong> recreation; can be trashed; 100 ha and 75m<br />
deep, man-made asset; <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Development Commission and o<strong>the</strong>rs have been trying <strong>for</strong> years to<br />
get this going.<br />
5.2.2.2 Dolphin nurseries<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Human use (boating, ships).<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Mainly refers to Koombana Bay, which has high tourist value; also a valuable nursery site <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> species as shallow and protected.<br />
5.2.2.3 Kemerton wetlands<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; weeds; industrial development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on banks; land management practises; fire management practises; plantations<br />
and human use (uncontrolled access).<br />
Comments: Degradation is linked to land management practises.<br />
Feasibility: See Infrastructure Plan – zoned as heavy industrial area, <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e priorities lie elsewhere;<br />
socially acceptable; monitoring only scheduled to be “in-house”.<br />
5.2.2.4 Ecosystem Interdependency<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
72
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; clearing; urban development; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; erosion; salinity; plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: Within catchment, <strong>the</strong> current high degree of fragmentation and need to reconnect corridors<br />
focusing on waterways, need to extend Ocean to Preston Regional Park to <strong>the</strong> ocean and to Collie hills<br />
and beyond.<br />
5.2.2.5 Benger Swamp<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; weeds (Typha); feral animals (pigs); fire; human use; pollution and<br />
water extraction.<br />
Comments: Main impacts are from climate change and reduced drainage.<br />
5.2.2.6 Reefs off Back beach<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; human use and pollution.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.2.2.7 Poorly Reserved Coal Basin Vegetation<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land and fire management practices.<br />
Comments: Unique veg complexes and poorly reserved, hence security isn’t guaranteed.<br />
5.2.2.8 Remnant Vegetation on Scarp<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution and urban<br />
development.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.2.9 Remnant vegetation<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
73
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats:<br />
Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; urban development; clearing;<br />
land management practises; fire management practises; salinity; bushfires and human use.<br />
Comments: Ecologically and socially important; mainly <strong>for</strong> biodiversity; used as corridors and <strong>for</strong><br />
reproduction by certain species; bits worth protecting are rare and often small.<br />
5.2.2.10 Water Resources <strong>for</strong> Environmental Flows<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Asset identified at end of workshop as a missing value.<br />
5.2.2.11 Road Reserve Corridors<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; urban<br />
development; erosion; salinity; water logging; lack of education/training in local government; lack of<br />
identification; mapping and protection.<br />
Comments: Whole SW region, often only remnant native vegetation left, wildlife corridors, containing<br />
protected vegetation, high biodiversity.<br />
5.2.2.12 Local Reserves – Shire Managed<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution; urban<br />
development; degradation of vegetation on river banks.<br />
Comments: important <strong>for</strong> local biodiversity hotspots, and community focus (friends of groups).<br />
5.2.2.13 Noneycup Creek - Donnybrook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
74
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; water extraction;<br />
dams; gas extraction (fracking); urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion;<br />
salinity.<br />
Comments: O<strong>the</strong>r pressure includes industry along creek. The creek is <strong>the</strong> only recharge <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> 3 bores<br />
that supply Donnybrook with its drinking water.<br />
5.2.2.14 Balingup Brook<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; water extraction;<br />
dams; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: Directly feeds into <strong>the</strong> Blackwood, has aes<strong>the</strong>tic values.<br />
5.2.2.15 Beau<strong>for</strong>t, Arthur and Hillman Rivers<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; water extraction; urban<br />
development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.2.16 Haddleton Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; human use; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.2.17 Lake Towerrinning<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; weeds; feral animals; land management<br />
practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
erosion; salinity.<br />
Comments: Recreational values as well.<br />
75
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.2.18 Eelup Wetland, Eaton (EPP listed, next to Collie River)<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; land management<br />
practices; pollution; urban development; salinity.<br />
Comments: Urban development is main threat. Eelup is part of <strong>the</strong> wetland chain following <strong>the</strong> Collie<br />
River.<br />
5.2.2.19 Upper Collie River (above Wellington Dam)<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
land management practices; fire management practices; human use; pollution; degradation of vegetation<br />
on river banks; erosion; salinity; logging; mining; industry; access.<br />
Comments: Values – Biodiversity, Water resources, Tourism, recreation.<br />
5.2.2.20 Preston River<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing; land management practices; fire management practices; fire; human use; pollution; water<br />
extraction; dams; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; logging; stock<br />
access; nutrients; siltation; water logging; overfishing; acidification.<br />
Comments: Values – recreation, irrigation, biodiversity, tourism.<br />
5.2.2.21 Groundwater<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; clearing; land management practices; pollution; water extraction;<br />
dams; urban development; erosion; salinity; plantations; logging; lack of regulation; over allocation;<br />
nitrification; lack of knowledge regarding extraction and recharge; lack of water conservation measures;<br />
acidification.<br />
Comments: Major source of water <strong>for</strong> biodiversity and food production<br />
5.2.2.22 Crooked Brook Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
76
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; weeds; land management practices; fire management<br />
practices; human use.<br />
Comments: none<br />
5.2.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.2.3.1 Leschenault Inlet / Estuary<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrients, plastics); climate change; water extraction; introduced species<br />
(e.g. Caulerpa); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on banks (erosion<br />
through boating traffic); land management practises; fire management practises; human use; species loss;<br />
algal blooms; heavy industry; vandalism; saltwater intrusion; acid sulphate issues (anaerobic processes);<br />
weeds (Patterson’s Curse, Cape tulip); logging; management of riparian zones; over-fishing; poorly<br />
maintained watercraft; market gardens with poor practices; lack of ownership and responsibility; change of<br />
zonings; high populations and density and mass tourism.<br />
Comments: There is an accretion of sediment on eastern side as compared to being sandy flats in 50s-<br />
60s; losing crabs (now no longer crab fishing); areas north of Inlet have been downgraded from being <strong>for</strong><br />
conservation use to multiple use; holistic asset of whole estuary, sustainability attributes need to be<br />
included in development, considered an icon <strong>for</strong> tourism, recreation, biodiversity.<br />
Feasibility: Need to know who is responsible <strong>for</strong> what (grey area); very costly; socially important and<br />
acceptable; WQIP will give fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation; technical fixes available.<br />
5.2.3.2 Wetland on East side of Old Coast Rd<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Water extraction; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; land management<br />
practises; fire management practises; fire and human use (uncontrolled/unmanaged access)<br />
Comments: Opposite Galty’s farm, DEC wetland, nature reserve, at moment is a mess.<br />
5.2.3.3 Tuart Forest, <strong>South</strong> Bunbury<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; introduced species; weeds; feral animals and human<br />
use (uncontrolled access and domestic animals (cats, birds)<br />
Comments: Wetland that is under threat (management shared by Bunbury and Capel); value mainly as a<br />
recreational asset and educational tool <strong>for</strong> community; bush is wrecked (no conservation value), although<br />
<strong>the</strong> coastal dune and coastal shrub ecosystem is good.<br />
77
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.3.4 Reef off Binninup<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: There is a “Friends of” group; Harvey shire responsible <strong>for</strong> protection of <strong>for</strong>eshore; used <strong>for</strong><br />
fishing crayfish.<br />
5.2.3.5 Riparian Vegetation in Plantations<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Clearing; plantations; logging.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.3.6 Isolated Paddock Trees<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very high<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and pathogens; climate change; introduced species; land management<br />
practices; urban development; soil compaction; acidification; herbicides; insects; rising water tables.<br />
Comments: Biodiversity, shelter, aes<strong>the</strong>tics.<br />
5.2.3.7 Blackberry Containment Line<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding (continuity); politics; should be funded by <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth<br />
government through <strong>the</strong> State.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.3.8 Wellington Dam<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding (continuity); politics; should be funded by <strong>the</strong> Commonwealth<br />
government through <strong>the</strong> State<br />
Comments: None.<br />
78
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.3.9 Wetlands surrounded by suburbs<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; human use; pollution; acid<br />
sulphates; heavy metal contaminations; unfiltered storm water-runoff.<br />
Comments: If classified multiple use, protected to some degree by exiting policy.<br />
5.2.3.10 Organic Food Production<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: none identified.<br />
Threat score: Not determined<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Was initially stated as increasing organic food production, however that is an action, <strong>the</strong><br />
asset was considered to be organic food production.<br />
5.2.3.11 Leschenault Estuary – Biota, Flora, Fauna, Fish, Birds<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practices; human use; pollution; water extraction; dams; urban development; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: Water quality issues in estuary are important to maintain biota and food chain<br />
5.2.3.12 Leschenault Estuary and associated Vegetation complexes<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practices; human use; pollution; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks and salinity.<br />
Comments: Vegetation is not protected and valued, esp. by local government, fringes of estuary still<br />
being cleared <strong>for</strong> urban and industrial development, no management occurring.<br />
5.2.3.13 Good Quality Surface Water (especially East of Collie)<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; clearing; land management practices; dams; salinity and plantations.<br />
79
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Plantations an issue to manage quality and quantity issues.<br />
5.2.3.14 Native Freshwater Fish<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Not compete<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; feral animals; pollution; water extraction; dams; urban development;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion and salinity.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.2.3.15 Collie Groundwater<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: not determined<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Land management practices pollution; water extraction; mining; changing hydrological<br />
balances.<br />
Comments: Outflows from highly contaminated aquifers risk contaminating receiving bodies with heavy<br />
metals.<br />
5.2.3.16 Small Geographe Wineries<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: Not determined<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Not in Leschenault catchment; considered by some as a threat ra<strong>the</strong>r than an asset: group<br />
thought that this was an asset <strong>for</strong> owners improving <strong>the</strong> surrounds and bringing visitors into <strong>the</strong> area.<br />
5.2.3.17 Myalup Lagoon<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Not in Leschenault catchment; wetland east side of old coast road (north of buffalo road and<br />
treasure road)<br />
5.2.3.18 Tuart Forest south of Bunbury<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
80
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Asset identified at end of workshop as a missing value<br />
5.2.3.19 Transition Vegetation (jarrah to Wheatbelt)<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and Pathogens; climate change and clearing.<br />
Comments: Transition zone from jarrah <strong>for</strong>est to wandoo woodlands and Wheatbelt vegetation<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
Leschenault workshop<br />
5.2.1.1 Leschenault Estuary (recreational & social values) 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.2 Ocean to Preston Regional Park 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.3 Dune system west of Leschenault Inlet 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.4 Preston River 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.5 Flooded gums 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.6 State Forest 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.7 Banksia woodlands on Bassendean sands 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.8 Preston River delta 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.9 Hay Park wetlands, Bunbury 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.10 Community groups 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.11 Leschenault Inlet mangroves 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.12 Lake Preston 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.13 High value agricultural land 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.14 Leschenault Community Nursery 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.15 Loughton Park, Bunbury 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.16 Non-urban wetlands` 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.17 Good Quality & Quantity Groundwater 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.18 Air and Rainwater Quality 5 4 0.5 9<br />
81
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.1.19 Sites where previous weed control has been done 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.2.1.20 NRM Staff 5 3 1.0<br />
5.2.1.21 NRM Positions 5 3 1.0<br />
5.2.1.22 Batalling Reserve 5 4 0.0<br />
5.2.1.23 Arcadia Forest 5 3 1.0<br />
5.2.1.24 Remnant Vegetation on Coastal Plain 5 4 0.0<br />
5.2.1.25 Minninup Pool (on Collie River) 5 4 0.0<br />
5.2.1.26 Run-off 5 3 1.0<br />
5.2.1.27 High Value Agricultural Land 5 3 1.0<br />
5.2.1.28 Marine Aquatic Diversity (SW) 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.2.1.29 Waterways and Tributaries (including creeks) 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.2.1.30 The Coast 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.2.1.31 EPP Conservation Category Wetlands 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.2.1.32 Water Resources <strong>for</strong> Agriculture 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.2.1.33 Good Quality Wetlands near populated areas 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.34 Remnant Vegetation with rare flora and fauna 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.35 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife Sites 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.36 Collie River, lower sections from Wellington dam<br />
down 5 4 1.0<br />
5.2.1.37 Brunswick River 5 2 1.0<br />
5.2.1.38 Harris River Dam Catchment (incl Lake Ballingal) 5 3 0.0<br />
5.2.2.1 Lake Kepwari 3 2 1.0<br />
5.2.2.2 Dolphin nurseries 3 3 0.0<br />
5.2.2.3 Kemerton wetlands 3 4 0.5 7<br />
5.2.2.4 Ecosystem Interdependency 3 4 0.5 7<br />
5.2.2.5 Benger Swamp 3 4 0.5 7<br />
5.2.2.6 Reefs off Back beach 3 4 0.5 7<br />
5.2.2.7 Poorly Reserved Coal Basin Vegetation 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.2.2.8 Remnant Vegetation on Scarp 3 3 1.0<br />
5.2.2.9 Remnant vegetation 3 4 0.0<br />
5.2.2.10 Water Resources <strong>for</strong> Environmental Flows 3 3 1.0<br />
5.2.2.11 Road Reserve Corridors 3 3 1.0<br />
5.2.2.12 Local Reserves - Shire Managed 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.2.2.13 Noneycup Creek - Donnybrook 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.2.2.14 Balingup Brook 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.2.2.15 Beau<strong>for</strong>t, Arthur and Hillman Rivers 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.2.2.16 Haddleton Reserve 3 4 1.0<br />
5.2.2.17 Lake Towerrinning 3 4 1.0<br />
5.2.2.18 Eelup Wetland, Eaton (EPP listed, next to Collie<br />
River) 3 4 1.0<br />
5.2.2.19 Upper Collie River (above Wellington Dam) 3 4 1.0<br />
5.2.2.20 Preston River 3 3 0.0<br />
5.2.2.21 Groundwater 3 2 1.0<br />
5.2.2.22 Crooked Brook Reserve 3 3 0.0<br />
5.2.3.1 Leschenault Inlet / Estuary 1 4 0.5 5<br />
5.2.3.2 Wetland on East side of Old Coast Rd 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.3 Tuart Forest, <strong>South</strong> Bunbury 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.4 Reef off Binninup 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.5 Riparian Vegetation in Plantations 1 3 1.0<br />
82
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.2.3.6 Isolated Paddock Trees 1 3 1.0<br />
5.2.3.7 Blackberry Containment Line 1 3 1.0<br />
5.2.3.8 Wellington Dam 1 3 0.0<br />
5.2.3.9 Wetlands surrounded by suburbs 1 2 1.0<br />
5.2.3.10 Organic Food Production 1 2 1.0<br />
5.2.3.11 Leschenault Estuary - Biota, Flora, Fauna, Fish,<br />
Birds 1 2 1.0<br />
5.2.3.12 Leschenault Estuary and associated Vegetation<br />
complexes 1 3 0.0<br />
5.2.3.13 Good Quality Surface Water (especially East of<br />
Collie) 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.14 Native Freshwater Fish 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.15 Collie Groundwater 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.2.3.16 Small Geographe Wineries 1 0 1.0<br />
5.2.3.17 Myalup Lagoon 1 0 0.5 1<br />
5.2.3.18 Tuart Forest south of Bunbury 1 0 0.0<br />
5.2.3.19 Transition Vegetation (jarrah to Wheatbelt) 1<br />
5.3 Workshop with GeoCatch<br />
Held on 5 th April 2011 at <strong>the</strong> Community Centre, Busselton. Assets were identified and scored as being<br />
exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those three<br />
headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole was also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. The<br />
assumed threat level was scored as being very high (>75% degradation or loss), high (50-75%<br />
degradation or loss), moderate (25-50% degradation or loss) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: No, dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; krill harvesting; seismic testing and human use, e.g. boat traffic<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.3 State <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; fire and human use<br />
Comments: Refers to native <strong>for</strong>ests, not plantations.<br />
5.3.1.4 Meelup Regional Park<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land and fire management practises; erosion; bushfires and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Rare tree and orchid species; unique vegetation also used <strong>for</strong> seed collection; high social<br />
value and recreational value (landscape); A-class reserve; includes Eagle Bay and Castle Bay and <strong>the</strong><br />
environs; iconic beaches.<br />
5.3.1.5 Dunsborough urban reserves (TECs)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development (and facilitation); clearing; land management practises; fire management<br />
practises; fire; human use; small patches (edge effect) and bushland reserves used to make cubbies, bike<br />
tracks etc.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.6 NRM community groups<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding and support <strong>for</strong> projects.<br />
84
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Includes historical knowledge; need to be relevant in <strong>the</strong> “big picture” of regional NRM;<br />
includes Friends of Breadwater Beach; Wonnerup residents; Dunsborough Coast and Landcare group;<br />
Toby Inlet Catchment Group; FAWNA; LCDCs in Capel, Vasse-Wonnerup, Yallingup, Sussex and<br />
Donnybrook & Balingup residents.<br />
5.3.1.7 Wildlife corridors<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction; urban development; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; plantations and human use<br />
Comments: Essential that we grow <strong>the</strong> level of corridors to maintain and expand possible access &<br />
egress <strong>for</strong> wildlife to encourage population increases and diversity of same.<br />
5.3.1.8 Black Cockatoos<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; urban<br />
development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; bushfires; human use and<br />
logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.9 Coastal Peppermint woodlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species, weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; fire<br />
management practises; degradation of vegetation; human use and clearing (in old part of Busselton)<br />
Comments: Stronghold of <strong>West</strong>ern Ring-tailed Possum; decline of trees (pathogens); including urban<br />
populations of possums; also includes o<strong>the</strong>r peppermint woodlands away from coast; great opportunity to<br />
maintain habitat by encouraging eco-parks not only on coast but in most agricultural areas.<br />
5.3.1.10 Seagrass meadows<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate to high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; gas extraction (fracking); urban development; land<br />
management practises and human use<br />
85
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: In Geographe Bay; potential <strong>for</strong> dredging <strong>for</strong> access to Busselton as a major threat; some<br />
discussion on level of threat, with some saying that <strong>the</strong>re is no scientific basis <strong>for</strong> allocating more than a<br />
“low” threat score.<br />
5.3.1.11 Migratory birds<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution and waste materials; climate change; water extraction; urban development;<br />
degradation of vegetation; land management practises; salinity; bushfires and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.12 Iconic beaches<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: Yes<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; urban development; land management practises; erosion<br />
and human use<br />
Comments: Meelup, Eagle Bay, Castle Bay and Bunkers.<br />
5.3.1.13 Yallingup siding<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: Rails to Trails.<br />
5.3.1.14 Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; fire; plantations; human use;<br />
logging<br />
Comments: Refers to areas outside of national park.<br />
5.3.1.15 Happy Valley Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
86
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; weeds; land management practises;<br />
fire management practises; mining<br />
Comments: Not in GeoCatch catchment; very valuable as EPA has deemed it too exceptional to mine –<br />
see also BMax mining proposal.<br />
5.3.1.16 Urban populations of <strong>West</strong>ern Ring-Tailed Possum<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate to high<br />
Asset identifiable: No, dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management<br />
practises; fire management practises; human use; lack of community understanding and peppermint<br />
decline<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.17 Vegetated streams<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity and human use<br />
Comments: Includes revegetation.<br />
5.3.1.18 Patch of State <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; feral animals and fire.<br />
Comments: Refers to an identified Quokka habitat north of Margaret River managed by DEC.<br />
5.3.1.19 Ironstone TECs<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: Yes<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; mining; gas extraction (fracking); feral animals; clearing; land management practises; fire<br />
management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
87
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.1.20 Underwater Observatory<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution and climate change<br />
Comments: None.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.3.1.21 Ambergate Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; feral animals; land management practises; fire management practises; salinity; human use and<br />
uncontrolled fires<br />
Comments: 90% TECs with 3-5 DRF species (declared rare flora); well near car park 50m up walking trail<br />
is fresh in top 1m, deeper is salty (seawater level); shire reserve, managed by Busselton Naturalist Club –<br />
needs ongoing management, very high social values (2-4000 visitors annually), also educational values.<br />
5.3.1.22 Spearwood Swamp<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced aquatic species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; fire management practises; salinity;<br />
bushfires; human use (4WDs; motorbikes; horticultural gardens)<br />
Comments: On Lower Blackwood; has both white-bellied and orange-bellied frogs.<br />
5.3.1.23 Walburra Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; land and fire management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.24 Coastal walk trails<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
88
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; fire management practises; fire and human use (littering and camping)<br />
Comments: Cape to Cape and in Meelup Regional Park.<br />
5.3.1.25 <strong>West</strong>ern Ring-Tailed Possum core habitat<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management<br />
practises; fire management practises; fire; human use; peppermint decline; lack of connectivity; smaller<br />
lots in new subdivisions and lack of knowledge<br />
Comments: Refers to peppy woodlands.<br />
5.3.1.26 Fishing in <strong>the</strong> Bay<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; introduced species; urban development; degradation of<br />
vegetation on beach; land management practises and human use<br />
Comments: Refers to recreational values, e.g. fishing <strong>for</strong> blue manna crabs, herring, whiting and squid;<br />
also educational and recreational opportunities; commercial fishing affects <strong>the</strong> recreational values; huge<br />
tourism drawcard; management of seagrass as nursery included.<br />
5.3.1.27 Cape Naturaliste Precinct<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; fire and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Important tourism and environmental asset.<br />
5.3.1.28 Endemic and rare flora<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; pollution;<br />
water extraction; weeds; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land<br />
management practises; fire management practises and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
89
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.1.29 Wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; pollution (nutrient run-off); degradation<br />
of vegetation on banks; drainage; weeds; land management practises (grazing)<br />
Comments: Likely to be some very good ones, but needs to be studied to identify <strong>the</strong>m. One set of<br />
important wetlands is located on private land in triangle between Stratham-Boyanup Rd, Preston River<br />
and SW Highway; of value to birds, many on private land; excludes Vasse-Wonnerup, Broadwater and<br />
Toby’s Inlet (dealt with separately); all need to be fur<strong>the</strong>r studied <strong>for</strong> functional values; drainage re<strong>for</strong>m<br />
needed – be<strong>for</strong>e drains, green grass most of year and now cut hay 4-6 weeks earlier than <strong>the</strong>n, resulting<br />
in less and poorer growth in cold season.<br />
5.3.1.30 Groundwater quality<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Water extraction; introduced species; land management practises; salinity and human<br />
use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.31 Yarragadee aquifer<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction and salinity (if pumped, saline water from Leederville<br />
will enter aquifer; also saltwater intrusion will increase<br />
Comments: Threat score goes to “very high” if proposed water extraction plans go ahead; linked to<br />
Leederville aquifer.<br />
5.3.1.32 Sabina River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals (aquatic and o<strong>the</strong>rs; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
farming and land management practises; erosion and human use<br />
Comments: Is an Indigenous trading route, so valuable; many catchment rivers are also tribal boundaries.<br />
5.3.1.33 Capel River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
90
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species (redfin perch); dams; weeds; feral animals (pigs in upper reaches); urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management<br />
practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use and logging<br />
Comments: Fed by Yarragadee, <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e permanent; has mussels and marron.<br />
5.3.1.34 Ludlow River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction; introduced species; weeds; feral animals (pigs);<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; farming / land management practises and human use<br />
Comments: Exceptional because of its fish fauna – redfin perch is a threat.<br />
5.3.1.35 Vasse River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; farming and land<br />
management practises; erosion; salinity; human use; nutrients<br />
Comments: The Lower Vasse River was also discussed but assigned same scores, values and threats,<br />
so included here.<br />
5.3.1.36 All waterways<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; Water extraction; weeds; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
land management practises; erosion (particularly on slopes; drainage network and fire management<br />
practises<br />
Comments: Ludlow important <strong>for</strong> fish; Capel <strong>for</strong> mussels etc.;
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; weeds; feral animals; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; human use; mining;<br />
increasing kangaroo densities and logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.38 Ludlow Tuart Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds (including<br />
pasture grasses); feral animals; clearing; fire management practises; human use; kangaroos (at a<br />
historical high, wipe out understorey); lack of funding <strong>for</strong> DEC; mining and plantations (DECs pine<br />
plantations); over-use (abstraction) of groundwater might cause saline intrusion.<br />
Comments: Tuarts require really hot fire to reproduce, as seeds fall into and germinate in ash bed where<br />
no o<strong>the</strong>r competition; only very old trees produce seed; <strong>for</strong>est now dominated by young trees and<br />
peppermints; conflict between need to protect peppermints (<strong>for</strong> possums – community pressure) vs. need<br />
<strong>for</strong> hot fires that kills peppermints.<br />
5.3.1.39 Remnant vegetation on Coastal Plain<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens (most important); climate change; water extraction;<br />
introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development; fire management practises; salinity;<br />
bushfires; drainage and human use<br />
Comments: Includes both public and private remnants; main value as an ecosystem and potentially as a<br />
corridor; also as seed collection source.<br />
5.3.1.40 Remnant vegetation<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species<br />
(fox); weeds (dodder vine, pest grasses, fruit trees); feral animals; land management practises<br />
(monocultures); erosion; fire management practises; bushfires and lack of connectivity to o<strong>the</strong>r remnant<br />
vegetation patches<br />
Comments: Seed collection source.<br />
5.3.1.41 Road verges with intact remnant vegetation<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
92
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire; plantations; domestic<br />
animals (cattle, sheep etc.), where allowed to graze; realignment of roads with consequent clearing and<br />
human use (population increase)<br />
Comments: Lack of public understanding of value <strong>for</strong> biodiversity along roadsides etc. LGAs appear to<br />
look more at safety than <strong>the</strong> broader socio-cultural issues.<br />
5.3.1.42 Community landcare nurseries<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; fire; loss/degradation of vegetation remnants that are<br />
source of seeds and lack of funding<br />
Comments: Refers mainly to <strong>the</strong> Geographe community landcare nursery; value is mainly as source of<br />
seedlings of local provenance.<br />
5.3.1.43 Productive agricultural land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; land and fire management practises; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; water extraction; development (subdivisions); mining; salinity; erosion; plantations and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Should be protected <strong>for</strong> long-term food production; is part of <strong>the</strong> environment, but can be a<br />
liability if not managed correctly.<br />
5.3.1.44 Tourism<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats:Climate change; pollution; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation;<br />
erosion; salinity; plantations; human use and logging<br />
Comments: Can be linked to environmental education.<br />
5.3.1.45 Lower Blackwood 1<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced aquatic species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; fire management practises; salinity;<br />
bushfires; human use (4WDs; motorbikes)<br />
93
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Refers to its recreational values <strong>for</strong> locals (highly valued); see also Spearwood Swamps; has<br />
good Reedia beds.<br />
5.3.1.46 Lower Blackwood 2<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced aquatic species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; fire management practises; salinity;<br />
bushfires; human use (4WDs; motorbikes)<br />
Comments: Refers to its biodiversity and natural values; includes a strip 5-10 km wide each side of <strong>the</strong><br />
river.<br />
5.3.1.47 Geographe Bay<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrient run-off); climate change; introduced species (continual risk); urban<br />
development; clearing; land and fire management practises and human use<br />
Comments: Urban run-off is highest risk; risk also of major urban run-off due to summer storms.<br />
5.3.1.48 Stirling wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban<br />
development; drainage; salinity; erosion; human use; water management and land management practises<br />
(many linked to private ownership)<br />
Comments: Little knowledge of values, so need <strong>for</strong> surveys; multiple owners makes management<br />
complicated; reasonable water supply; very heavily grassed at boundaries; less diversity than Vasse-<br />
Wonnerup.<br />
5.3.1.49 Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrients from farming, industry and sewerage); climate change; water<br />
extraction; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation on banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; bushfires;<br />
human use and water level management through floodgates<br />
Comments: Water level is dropping and greatly impacted by lack of flow of water through <strong>the</strong> system;<br />
peppermint decline; State/local laws reduce development threat; as seawater doesn’t come in any more;<br />
94
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
so <strong>the</strong> salt-tolerant vegetation has disappeared and is replaced with species that require fresher water<br />
over an 80-year period – if open again, will kill off <strong>the</strong> latter and should return to original, natural state; bird<br />
numbers high though some species decreasing; of international significance; environment is degrading.<br />
5.3.1.50 Beach and dune ecosystem<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds; urban development (Holy Mile); clearing; land management<br />
practises (particularly measures to stabilise coast with breakwaters causing sedimentation up-current and<br />
erosion down-current; erosion and human use<br />
Comments: Social and recreational values important; buffer against sea level rise.<br />
5.3.1.51 Wonnerup-Tutunup Railway Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; feral animals; land management practises; bushfires; human use and fire management practises<br />
Comments: Full of rare and endangered plants; one of only two corridors across <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain<br />
south of Perth; all fenced off; in spite of 100+ years of continuous burning off annually, STILL important<br />
flora.<br />
5.3.1.52 Engaewa habitat<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; weeds; urban development; clearing; land<br />
management practises and fire management practises<br />
Comments: Lack of knowledge about species distribution and biology.<br />
5.3.1.53 Remnant vegetation on Whicher Range 1<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; weeds; feral animals;<br />
urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion and<br />
fire management practises and bushfires<br />
Comments: Refers to private land only; biodiversity values (cockatoo nesting sites).<br />
95
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.1.54 Remnant vegetation on Whicher Range 2<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; weeds; feral animals (pigs); clearing<br />
(mining); fire management practises; human use (motorbikes and 4WDs) and logging (illegal taking of<br />
firewood)<br />
Comments: Refers to public land only; problem is poor silvicultural practises; has rare species.<br />
5.3.1.55 Whicher National Park<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; fire management practises; bushfires and human use (illegal firewood/timber harvesting; 4WDs<br />
and motorbikes)<br />
Comments: Very rare flora and very diverse.<br />
5.3.1.56 Toby’s Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; weeds; feral animals; land management practises;<br />
clearing; degradation of vegetation on banks; seawater intrusion and human use (jetties etc.)<br />
Comments: Is saline over summer; very high social value; natural drainage patterns have been severely<br />
modified leading to less water flow through inlet; adjacent housing development not sewered; restrictions<br />
to natural tidal flows impacting on water quality in inlet.<br />
5.3.1.57 Haag Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds; land management practises; fire management practises; fire<br />
and human use<br />
Comments: Careful intervention needed to maintain Albany Pitcher plant and Dunsborough burrowing<br />
crayfish; DEC-managed, see <strong>the</strong> draft Leeuwin-Naturaliste management plan <strong>for</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
5.3.1.58 Ironstone Gully Falls<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
96
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; water extraction; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; degradation of vegetation on river banks; <strong>for</strong>est and fire management practises; salinity; fire;<br />
human use (illegal access)<br />
Comments: Refers mainly to recreational values; but also ecological, tourism and Indigenous values;<br />
popular tourism spot and an Aboriginal Heritage site; camping, picnicking, wildflowers.<br />
5.3.1.59 Carbanup River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.1.60 Whicher scarp<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; feral animals; clearing; fire management practises; bushfires; erosion; plantations; logging and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Contains a large proportion of biodiverse flora; vegetated hinterland with visual values; if<br />
vegetation lost, will affect Geographe Bay catchment.<br />
5.3.1.61 Groundwater in general<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; weeds; gas<br />
extraction (fracking); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; plantations; human use; logging<br />
and mining<br />
Comments: Limited follow-up of <strong>the</strong> amounts of water extracted, i.e. monitoring of amounts of water<br />
drawn, even where licenses are allocated.<br />
5.3.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.3.2.1 Busselton-Dunsborough Foreshore parks<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
97
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development<br />
Comments: Signal, Barnard; social and recreational value very high.<br />
5.3.2.2 Wonnerup House<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.3 Muddy Lakes<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change (decreasing rainfall); water extraction; introduced species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; fire management practises; fire and acid sulphate soils.<br />
Comments: Last mainland population of quokkas on <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain; <strong>the</strong>re’s a drain through <strong>the</strong><br />
area removing water; also blister bush is present which keeps people out.<br />
5.3.2.4 St John’s Brook<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; weeds; feral animals;<br />
fire management practises and fire<br />
Comments: Not in this catchment, but valued; mooted as a Conservation Park in State <strong>for</strong>est, not<br />
gazetted; asset does not include private land.<br />
5.3.2.5 Capel Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; weeds; feral animals; fire management practises;<br />
bushfires and human use (off-road vehicles)<br />
Comments: Rare orchids – very little known.<br />
98
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.2.6 Busselton Par 3 golf course<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises and human use<br />
Comments: Vegetation reserves; contains Caladenia procera and ringtail possums and quenda.<br />
5.3.2.7 Native fauna<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land management practises and fire<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.8 Biodiversity<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.9 Private land under Conservation Covenant<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.10 Irrigated land<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: No; dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; dams; weeds and erosion<br />
99
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Used <strong>for</strong> horticulture and viticulture, i.e. as productive agricultural land.<br />
5.3.2.11 Holy Mile<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land management practises; erosion and human use, e.g. tourism practises<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.12 Paluslope wetlands<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; dams; clearing; land management<br />
practises; fire management practises; salinity; fire; human use; mining and logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.13 Groundwater-dependent ecosystems<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; land management practises; acid sulphate soils and human use<br />
Comments: Includes Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands; Peron Reserve (Dunsborough); Quindelup Lake<br />
Reserve; Fish Nature Reserve (Busselton); Ruabon-Tutunup reserves; Muddy Lake.<br />
5.3.2.14 Ngilgi Cave<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats (most important in bold): Pollution; climate change; water extraction; urban<br />
development and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.15 Dunsborough streams<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
100
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management<br />
practises; erosion and human use<br />
Comments: Dugulup; Jingarmup; Dailadup.<br />
5.3.2.16 Shipwrecks<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; ocean management practises and human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.17 Local herbaria<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development and lack of funding (continuity)<br />
Comments: Threat value questioned; great opportunity to revegetate degraded areas of vegetation with<br />
local flora.<br />
5.3.2.18 Marron<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; aquatic weeds;<br />
gas extraction (fracking); feral animals; urban development; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land<br />
management practises; erosion; salinity and human use<br />
Comments: Refers to both <strong>the</strong> smooth-backed marron and <strong>the</strong> Dunsborough burrowing crayfish.<br />
5.3.2.19 Enthusiastic new residents<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of programmes that encourage new participants to engage in NRM projects.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.20 Shire reserves<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
101
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; fire;<br />
human use (illegal access); lack of resources to manage values; not valued enough by <strong>the</strong> community and<br />
no <strong>for</strong>mal protection<br />
Comments: Refers to bushland reserves.<br />
5.3.2.21 Lamprey<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; land management practises; fire management practises; salinity and bushfires<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.22 Frogs<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; weeds<br />
(including aquatic); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use and<br />
logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.23 Yoongarillup Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; fire; human use and lack of<br />
recognition<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.24 Native freshwater fish<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
102
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; land management practises; fire management practises; salinity; fire and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.25 Rainbow bee-eaters<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises;<br />
bushfires; lack of knowledge and human use<br />
Comments: Migratory birds; nesting sites are being lost as suitable sites are often used <strong>for</strong> development.<br />
5.3.2.26 Buayanup River<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban<br />
development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Heavily modified (as a drain); upper reaches are in very good condition.<br />
5.3.2.27 Caravan parks<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development; land management practises; lack of demand and financial profits<br />
Comments: Refers to those with natural values; very useful as an educational resource <strong>for</strong> visitors; also<br />
cultural values.<br />
5.3.2.28 Chicken Treat Hill<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; introduced species; weeds; urban<br />
development; human use; land management practises<br />
Comments: Refers mainly to cultural values (incl. Indigenous); library reserve; degraded but has<br />
interesting flora.<br />
103
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.2.29 Curtis Bay Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds and feral<br />
animals<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.2.30 Locke Estate<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; weeds;<br />
clearing; land management practises and erosion<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.3.3.1 Surf spots<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Human use<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Meelup. Point Piquet; value is <strong>for</strong> tourism and recreation<br />
5.3.3.2 NZ Fur Seal colony<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Human use and overfishing<br />
Comments: None<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.3.3.3 4-Mile Reef<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Recreational value and tourism.<br />
104
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.3.4 Freshwater mussels<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; gas<br />
extraction (fracking); urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land<br />
management practises; erosion; salinity and human use<br />
Comments: None<br />
5.3.3.5 Salmon migration<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; human use (fishing)<br />
Comments: None<br />
5.3.3.6 Private wetland blocks<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging<br />
Comments: None<br />
5.3.3.7 Capel-Boyanup railway reserve<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; weeds and fire management practises<br />
Comments: None<br />
5.3.3.8 Busselton showgrounds<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Urban development and clearing<br />
Comments: None.<br />
105
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.3.9 Millennium seed bank<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None specifically identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Ra<strong>the</strong>r than identifying threats, this is seen as an opportunity to support future species<br />
rehabilitation and counter current threats to biodiversity.<br />
5.3.3.10 Heritage trees<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; urban development;<br />
clearing; land management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: None<br />
5.3.3.11 Boronia Swamps<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; dams; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practises; fire management practises; salinity; fire; human use and logging<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.3.12 Natural soaks<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Water extraction; clearing; land management practises; salinity; plantations and<br />
human use<br />
Comments: Natural values.<br />
5.3.3.13 Fry’s Dam<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; clearing; degradation of vegetation on banks;<br />
land management practises and human use<br />
Comments: Feeds <strong>the</strong> Capel River; of high value, needs to be managed better.<br />
106
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.3.14 Rural hinterland with vegetation<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; clearing;<br />
land management practises; erosion and salinity<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.3.3.15 Broadwater Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; weeds; feral animals; urban development<br />
and degradation of vegetation on banks of wetlands<br />
Comments: Not enough known about threats.<br />
5.3.3.16 Free campsites on Tuart Drive<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging<br />
Comments: Tourism asset; provides a rare bushland experience <strong>for</strong> travellers.<br />
5.3.3.17 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife properties<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals; land management practises; fire management practises; fire and human use<br />
Comments: Support <strong>for</strong> landholders by DEC.<br />
5.3.3.18 Naturaliste Lighthouse<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Fire and human use<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
107
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
TOTAL SCORE<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Tourism asset.<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
GeoCatch workshop<br />
5.3.1.58 Ironstone Gully Falls 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.57 Haag Reserve 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.56 Toby's Inlet 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.55 Whicher National Park 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.54 Remnant vegetation on Whicher Range 2 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.53 Remnant vegetation on Whicher Range 1 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.51 Wonnerup-Tutunup Railway Reserve 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.5 Dunsborough urban reserves (TECs) 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.4 Meelup Regional Park 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.3 State <strong>for</strong>est 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.21 Ambergate Reserve 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.20 Underwater Observatory 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.19 Ironstone TECs 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.18 Patch of State <strong>for</strong>est 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.15 Happy Valley Forest 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.14 Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.13 Yallingup siding 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.1 Sites of Aboriginal significance 5.0 4.0 1.0 10<br />
5.3.1.9 Coastal Peppermint woodlands 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.7 Wildlife corridors 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.59 Carbanup River 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.52 Engaewa habitat 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.50 Beach and dune ecosystem 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.17 Vegetated streams 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.12 Iconic beaches 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
108
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.1.10 Seagrass meadows 5.0 4.0 0.5 9.5<br />
5.3.1.8 Black Cockatoos 5.0 4.0 0.0 9<br />
5.3.1.6 NRM community groups 5.0 4.0 0.0 9<br />
5.3.1.23 Walburra Reserve 5.0 3.0 1.0 9<br />
5.3.1.22 Spearwood Swamp 5.0 3.0 1.0 9<br />
5.3.1.2 Humpback whales, Blue whales and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
cetaceans 5.0 4.0 0.0 9<br />
5.3.1.11 Migratory birds 5.0 4.0 0.0 9<br />
5.3.1.25 <strong>West</strong>ern Ring-Tailed Possum core habitat 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.3.1.24 Coastal walk trails 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.3.1.16 Urban populations of <strong>West</strong>ern Ring-Tailed<br />
Possum 5.0 3.0 0.5 8.5<br />
5.3.2.17 Local herbaria 3.0 4.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.49 Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.48 Stirling wetlands 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.42 Community landcare nurseries 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.38 Ludlow Tuart Forest 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.32 Sabina River 5.0 2.5 0.5 8<br />
5.3.1.28 Endemic and rare flora 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.1.27 Cape Naturaliste Precinct 5.0 2.0 1.0 8<br />
5.3.2.22 Frogs 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.21 Lamprey 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.20 Shire reserves 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.18 Marron 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.16 Shipwrecks 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.15 Dunsborough streams 3.0 4.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.60 Whicher scarp 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.47 Geographe Bay 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.46 Lower Blackwood 2 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.45 Lower Blackwood 1 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.43 Productive agricultural land 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.41 Road verges with intact remnant vegetation 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.39 Remnant vegetation on Coastal Plain 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.37 National parks 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.36 All waterways 5.0 2.5 0.0 7.5<br />
5.3.1.35 Vasse River 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.34 Ludlow River 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.33 Capel River 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.31 Yarragadee aquifer 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.1.29 Wetlands 5.0 2.0 0.5 7.5<br />
5.3.2.19 Enthusiastic new residents 3.0 4.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.2.14 Ngilgi Cave 3.0 3.0 1.0 7<br />
5.3.2.11 Holy Mile 3.0 3.0 1.0 7<br />
5.3.1.61 Groundwater in general 5.0 2.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.1.44 Tourism 5.0 2.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.1.40 Remnant vegetation 5.0 2.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.1.30 Groundwater quality 5.0 2.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.1.26 Fishing in <strong>the</strong> Bay 5.0 2.0 0.0 7<br />
5.3.2.13 Groundwater-dependent ecosystems 3.0 3.0 0.5 6.5<br />
109
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.3.2.12 Paluslope wetlands 3.0 3.0 0.5 6.5<br />
5.3.2.9 Private land under Conservation Covenant 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.6 Busselton Par 3 golf course 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.5 Capel Nature Reserve 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.30 Locke Estate 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.3 Muddy Lakes 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.29 Curtis Bay Reserve 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.28 Chicken Treat Hill 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.23 Yoongarillup Reserve 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.2 Wonnerup House 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.1 Busselton-Dunsborough Foreshore parks 3.0 2.0 1.0 6<br />
5.3.2.4 St John's Brook 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.3.2.27 Caravan parks 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.3.2.26 Buayanup River 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.3.2.25 Rainbow bee-eaters 3.0 2.0 0.5 5.5<br />
5.3.3.9 Millennium seed bank 1.0 3.0 1.0 5<br />
5.3.2.8 Biodiversity 3.0 2.0 0.0 5<br />
5.3.2.7 Native fauna 3.0 2.0 0.0 5<br />
5.3.2.24 Native freshwater fish 3.0 2.0 0.0 5<br />
5.3.2.10 Irrigated land 3.0 2.0 0.0 5<br />
5.3.3.8 Busselton showgrounds 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.7 Capel-Boyanup railway reserve 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.3 4-Mile Reef 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.2 NZ Fur Seal colony 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.18 Naturaliste Lighthouse 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.17 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife properties 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.16 Free campsites on Tuart Drive 1.0 2.0 1 4<br />
5.3.3.15 Broadwater Nature Reserve 1.0 2.0 1 4<br />
5.3.3.13 Fry's Dam 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.11 Boronia Swamps 1.0 2.0 1.0 4<br />
5.3.3.10 Heritage trees 1.0 3.0 0.0 4<br />
5.3.3.6 Private wetland blocks 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.3.3.4 Freshwater mussels 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.3.3.14 Rural hinterland with vegetation 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.3.3.12 Natural soaks 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.3.3.1 Surf spots 1.0 2.0 0.5 3.5<br />
5.3.3.5 Salmon migration 1.0 2.0 0.0 3<br />
5.4 Workshop with Warren Catchment Group<br />
Held on 8 th April 2011 at <strong>the</strong> Community Resource Centre, Manjimup. Assets were identified and scored<br />
as being exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those three<br />
headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole is also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. Scores<br />
are given as being ei<strong>the</strong>r very high (>75% degradation), high (50-75% degradation), moderate (25-50%<br />
degradation) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Useful comment: Historically, catchment groups worked mainly on rivers, revegetating river banks, fencing<br />
<strong>the</strong>m off, etc. This has changed, and <strong>the</strong>y now work at a broader, landscape scale.<br />
5.4.1 Exceptional Assets<br />
5.4.1.1 Lake Muir/Unicup<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.2 Wilgarup Lake<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.3 Remnants on Private Property<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Highly important connectivity in <strong>the</strong> upper catchment.<br />
5.4.1.4 Rivers and Waterways<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, human use, pollution, water<br />
extraction, dams, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity, plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.4.1.5 Forests<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
111
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, human use, degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks, , plantations, logging and mining.<br />
Comments: Unique, beauty, old growth, resource, dominates landscape, habitat.<br />
5.4.1.6 Karri<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: partially though veg mapping SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.7 Walpole – Nornalup Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: no<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.8 Freshwater permanent streams<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; land management practices, human use, pollution, water extraction,<br />
dams, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity and plantations.<br />
Comments: Potential threats include mining, bauxite exploration.<br />
5.4.1.9 Coastal Environment<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; human use, pollution, gas extraction (fracking), urban development,<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity, plantations, logging, overfishing, shipping,<br />
mining (offshore) and acid sulphate soils.<br />
Comments: Wilderness, recreation, unique, isolation.<br />
112
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.1.10 Broke Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species (pigs), weeds, feral<br />
animals, fire management practices, human use, degradation of vegetation on river banks and commercial<br />
fishing (net).<br />
Comments: Intact/undisturbed/non modified, unique, totally protected <strong>for</strong>est catchment. Management of<br />
<strong>the</strong> opening is need to let water in and out.<br />
5.4.1.11 Native Flora and Fauna<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: no<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity,<br />
plantations, logging and mining.<br />
Comments: Uniqueness, diversity, degree of threats is concern.<br />
5.4.1.12 National Parks<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity and acid sulphate.<br />
Comments: Secure natural assets <strong>for</strong> biological process and human use (recreation).<br />
5.4.1.13 Wilderness/Naturalness<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity,<br />
plantations, logging.<br />
Comments: Lots of it, large protected areas, biodiversity and natural beauty.<br />
113
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.1.14 Soils<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change;, weeds, feral animals, clearing, land<br />
management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution, water extraction, dams,<br />
urban development, erosion, salinity, overfishing.<br />
Comments: Foundation <strong>for</strong> life, production, economic values.<br />
5.4.1.15 Productive Agricultural Land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, urban development, erosion, salinity, acidity, overspray (fertiliser and pesticide),<br />
GMO, age of landowners, labour availability.<br />
Comments: Only makes up 15% of region, very diverse.<br />
5.4.1.16 Farmers and Knowledge<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Plantations, polarisation of supermarkets, competition in markets,<br />
Comments: Ageing and viability issues, money, overseas investments.<br />
5.4.1.17 Dryland Farming<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.4.1.18 Lakes<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
114
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, human use, pollution, water extraction, erosion, salinity,<br />
plantations. changes to hydrology.<br />
Comments: Migratory bird habitat, recreation.<br />
5.4.1.19 Yeagerup Dunes<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: no<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.20 Mt Chudalup<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.21 Known/Registered Indigenous Sites<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.22 Granite Outcrops<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.23 Black Point Beach and Surrounds (Points etc)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
115
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Bird nesting areas and NZ fur seals.<br />
5.4.1.24 Mouth of Doggerup<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.25 Peat Swamps<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.26 Groundwater<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; clearing, human use, pollution, water<br />
extraction, dams, urban development, erosion, salinity, plantations, logging and mining.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.27 Avifauna<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity and<br />
logging.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.28 Deep River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
116
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.29 Shannon River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.1.30 Old Growth Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed & limited<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, introduced species, weeds, fire management practices,<br />
fire, human use and logging.<br />
Comments: Lack of education and understanding, inadequate funding <strong>for</strong> research, unlogged but<br />
managed, access management needed.<br />
5.4.1.31 Wetlands/habitat<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution, water<br />
extraction, dams, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity,<br />
plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.32 Unique Flora (Rare and Endemic)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
117
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity, plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: Universal loss of habitat and resulting fragmentation, lack of knowledge and understanding,<br />
lack of long term strategic approach due to short term funding.<br />
5.4.1.33 Unique Fauna (Native) Rare and Endangered<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity,<br />
logging, fragmentation, apathy, lack of funding.<br />
Comments: Last stronghold of some endemics, universal loss of habitat and resulting fragmentation, lack<br />
of knowledge and understanding, lack of long term strategic approach due to short term funding.<br />
5.4.1.34 Old Trees as Habitat (Public and Private)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Clearing, land management practices, fertilizers, stock access.<br />
Comments: Farmers feel <strong>the</strong> need to clear.<br />
5.4.1.35 Local Knowledge and Expertise<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Transient populations, centralisation of services, cultural shift <strong>for</strong> next generations,<br />
lack of funding, lack of NRM support, decreases in volunteerism and ageing populations.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.36 Heathland Patch<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species, weeds – primarily Victorian Tea Tree.<br />
Comments: East of Lake Mottram Lake in Fink Creek Catchment on private land (east of Thomas Muirs<br />
Property).<br />
118
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.1.37 Water Quality and Quantity<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, gas extraction (fracking), urban development, degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks, erosion, salinity, plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.1.38 Coastal Belt Lakes<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral animals, fire management<br />
practices, human use, water extraction, dams, , plantations, tourism and State government priorities.<br />
Comments: International areas of migratory birds, unique to area, threats to lake jasper if Yarragadee is<br />
pumped.<br />
5.4.1.39 Plantations in Recharge Areas<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Actual value depends on species.<br />
5.4.1.40 Climate<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, land management practices, lack of knowledge, high<br />
carbon activities.<br />
Comments: Education needed <strong>for</strong> local people.<br />
5.4.1.41 Permanent Small Streams along <strong>the</strong> coast<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
119
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species, weeds, human use, 4WD, bikes etc.<br />
Comments: Unique Augusta – Walpole, seepage, Holocene sites.<br />
5.4.1.42 Lake Jasper<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change, feral animals (especially pigs), clearing, human use, water extraction<br />
(yarragadee), plantations, acid sulphate soils.<br />
Comments: Indigenous values, Yarragadee.<br />
5.4.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.4.2.1 Stored Water (Dams, Lakes)<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; weeds, human use, pollution, water extraction, salinity and<br />
plantations.<br />
Comments: Bureaucracy.<br />
5.4.2.2 Air Quality<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; fire management practices, fire, pollution, gas extraction (fracking),<br />
urban development and mining.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.3 Natural Physical Resources Used Locally<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Includes gravel, sand and o<strong>the</strong>r extraction materials.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
120
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.2.4 Coalmine Beach<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.5 Urban Bushland Blocks<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, weeds, feral animals, clearing, fire management<br />
practices, fire, degradation of vegetation on river banks, blackberries, off road vehicles.<br />
Comments: Main issue seen as blackberry.<br />
5.4.2.6 Marine Coastal Waters<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.4.2.7 Revegetation and o<strong>the</strong>r completed NRM projects<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.8 Cultural and Heritage Sites<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams, urban development, erosion and infrastructure.<br />
121
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.9 Water Volume in Warren River<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; land management practices, human use, , water extraction, , salinity,<br />
plantations and logging.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.10 Bibbulmun Track<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Included at end of workshop as a missing asset.<br />
5.4.2.11 Farmed Animals<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.12 Warren River – riverine biodiversity<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: O<strong>the</strong>r pressure includes industry along creek. The creek is <strong>the</strong> only recharge <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> 3 bores<br />
that supply Donnybrook with its drinking water.<br />
5.4.2.13 Local People – Community<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
122
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified Threats: Climate change; introduced species, land management practices, fire, pollution, water<br />
extraction, salinity, economics, apathy, loss of knowledge, staff and people turn over and rates.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.14 Active Community Groups (General)<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
5.4.2.15 Tourism Industry<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral<br />
animals, clearing, land management practices, fire management practices, fire, human use, pollution,<br />
water extraction, dams,, urban development, degradation of vegetation on river banks, erosion, salinity,<br />
plantations, logging and mining.<br />
Comments: Economic is also a threat if it declines.<br />
5.4.2.16 Weed & Feral Community Groups<br />
Asset value: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.4.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.4.3.1 Low Population<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: Human use, urban development.<br />
Comments: Diminishes most threats.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
123
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.3.2 Mundabiddy Trail<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Comments: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
5.4.3.3 Salt land in <strong>the</strong> future – untapped potential land uses<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xxx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xxx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xxx<br />
Identified Threats: None identified during workshop.<br />
Threat score: not determined<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xxx<br />
Comments: Current unusable land will be an asset into <strong>the</strong> future once methods <strong>for</strong> use are developed or<br />
discovered.<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
Warren workshop<br />
5.4.1.14 Soils 5 4 1.0 10<br />
5.4.1.41 Permanent Small Streams along <strong>the</strong> coast 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.40 Climate 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.38 Coastal Belt Lakes 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.36 Heathland Patch 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.30 Old Growth Forest 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.29 Shannon River 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.28 Deep River 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.27 Avifauna 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.24 Mouth of Doggerup 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.21 Known/Registered Indigenous Sites 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.20 Mt Chudalup 5 4 0.5 9.5<br />
5.4.1.6 Karri 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.5 Forests 5 3 1.0 9<br />
124
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.4.1.42 Lake Jasper 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.4 Rivers and Waterways 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.34 Old Trees as Habitat (Public and Private) 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.32 Unique Flora (Rare and Endemic) 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.2 Wilgarup Lake 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.18 Lakes 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.15 Productive Agricultural Land 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.13 Wilderness/Naturalness 5 4 0.0 9<br />
5.4.1.12 National Parks 5 4 0.0 9<br />
5.4.1.11 Native Flora and Fauna 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.1 Lake Muir/Unicup 5 3 1.0 9<br />
5.4.1.9 Coastal Environment 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.1.8 Freshwater permanent streams 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.1.37 Water Quality and Quantity 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.1.25 Peat Swamps 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.1.23 Black Point Beach and Surrounds (Points etc) 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.1.19 Yeagerup Dunes 5 3 0.5 8.5<br />
5.4.2.2 Air Quality 3 4 1.0 8<br />
5.4.1.33 Unique Fauna (Native) Rare and Endangered 5 3 0.0 8<br />
5.4.1.31 Wetlands/habitat 5 3 0.0 8<br />
5.4.1.3 Remnants on Private Property 5 2 1.0 8<br />
5.4.1.16 Farmers and Knowledge 5 2 1.0 8<br />
5.4.1.7 Walpole - Nornalup Inlet 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.1.39 Plantations in Recharge Areas 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.1.35 Local Knowledge and Expertise 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.1.26 Groundwater 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.1.22 Granite Outcrops 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.1.10 Broke Inlet 5 2 0.5 7.5<br />
5.4.2.8 Cultural and Heritage Sites 3 4 0.0 7<br />
5.4.2.5 Urban Bushland Blocks 3 4 0.0 7<br />
5.4.1.17 Dryland Farming 5 2 0.0 7<br />
5.4.2.7 Revegetation and o<strong>the</strong>r completed NRM projects 3 3 0.5 6.5<br />
5.4.2.6 Marine Coastal Waters 3 3 0.5 6.5<br />
5.4.2.12 Warren River - riverine biodiversity 3 3 0.5 6.5<br />
5.4.2.9 Water Volume in Warren River 3 2 1.0 6<br />
5.4.2.3 Natural Physical Resources Used Locally 3 2 1.0 6<br />
5.4.2.16 Weed & Feral Community Groups 3 3 0.0 6<br />
5.4.2.14 Active Community Groups (General) 3 3 0.0 6<br />
5.4.2.1 Stored Water (Dams, Lakes) 3 3 0.0 6<br />
5.4.3.1 Low Population 1 4 0.5 5.5<br />
5.4.2.11 Farmed Animals 3 2 0.5 5.5<br />
5.4.2.10 Bibbulmun Track 3 2 0.5 5.5<br />
5.4.2.4 Coalmine Beach 3 2 0.0 5<br />
5.4.2.15 Tourism Industry 3 2 0.0 5<br />
5.4.2.13 Local People - Community 3 2 0.0 5<br />
5.4.3.2 Mundabiddy Trail 1 3 0.0 4<br />
5.4.3.3 Salt land in <strong>the</strong> future - untapped potential land<br />
uses 1 0 0.0 1<br />
125
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5 Workshops with Blackwood Basin Group<br />
Held on 15 th and 18 th April 2011 on <strong>the</strong> Department of Food and Agriculture premises in Narrogin and in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Community Resource Centre, Boyup Brook. Assets were identified and scored as being<br />
exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those three<br />
headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole is also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. Scores<br />
are given as being ei<strong>the</strong>r very high (>75% degradation), high (50-75% degradation), moderate (25-50%<br />
degradation) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.4 Community Resource Centres<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Changing government policies; changes in community needs; poor management; lack<br />
of succession planning<br />
Comments: The ability of such centres to get messages across through <strong>the</strong>ir broad networks is<br />
exceptional; usually have excellent resources; in 4-5 years it is expected that <strong>the</strong>y will be even more<br />
accountable and consistent through standardisation; centres have to become more business-like<br />
(efficient) to remain “in business”.<br />
5.5.1.5 Landholders affinity <strong>for</strong>, and knowledge of, <strong>the</strong> land<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of incentive to pass on <strong>the</strong> knowledge and experience (succession) and to keep it<br />
up (economic pressures, climate change, peer pressure); <strong>the</strong> role as mentor is key to passing this<br />
“attitude” on as society doesn’t value it in general; corporate farms; buying power of big companies;<br />
<strong>for</strong>eign ownership<br />
Comments: Stewardship of <strong>the</strong> land; largely learnt from parents and/or o<strong>the</strong>r mentors early on in life;<br />
great value as case studies <strong>for</strong> educational and o<strong>the</strong>r purposes; educational and inspirational tool.<br />
5.5.1.6 Local innovators and educators<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Economic pressures; lack of time / energy; surrounding properties (peer pressure);<br />
decline in availability of water resources as rainfall declines (climate change); government policies; shire<br />
councils<br />
Comments: Examples include Sheila’s Tortoiseshell Farm and Roo Gully; lifestyle choice, but also <strong>for</strong><br />
greater benefit; un<strong>for</strong>tunately no central collection “point” where data collected and experiences can be<br />
collated, stored and disseminated.<br />
5.5.1.7 Historical collections of reports, data etc.<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding; ad hoc storage methods resulting in data becoming unusable<br />
(compatibility of software versions etc.) and loss of hard copies (rats, damp); “new broom sweeping<br />
clean”; loss of staff/people that know what is stored and where/how.<br />
Comments: Serious issue as much in<strong>for</strong>mation about past successes and failures (lessons learned) is<br />
being lost.<br />
127
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.8 Local community groups<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of support; decrease in volunteerism ethic; time and o<strong>the</strong>r economic pressures;<br />
lack of in<strong>for</strong>mation and in<strong>for</strong>mation; burnout<br />
Comments: Includes groups such as LCDCs, “Friends of…..”.<br />
5.5.1.9 Perup Ecology Centre<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; water extraction; introduced species;<br />
weeds; feral animals; fire and human use (vehicle access; constant trapping; lights blinding animals)<br />
Comments: Very high educational and recreational value, as well as biodiversity (Woylie); also provides<br />
good baseline data/in<strong>for</strong>mation through research program.<br />
5.5.1.10 Natural resources acting as a climate change buffer<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Potentially any and all of <strong>the</strong> following: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (algal<br />
blooms); climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; gas extraction (fracking);<br />
feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management<br />
practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: Degradation of assets, e.g. vegetation on north banks and <strong>the</strong> lack of knowledge, as well as<br />
uptake/acceptance of facts is an issue, as will reduce ability of natural systems to recover from climate<br />
change effects. Many o<strong>the</strong>r areas in Australia have less intact ecosystems, so investment in this region to<br />
prevent fur<strong>the</strong>r degradation and build resilience would not only be of benefit locally but would provide good<br />
examples that will benefit <strong>the</strong>se o<strong>the</strong>r more degraded regions. Need funds to improve ability to mitigate<br />
effects, build resilience, etc., e.g. through building carbon stores in soils, using renewable energy sources<br />
such as wind, use water more efficiently; an enthusiastic community is needed to take such measures on<br />
board.<br />
5.5.1.11 Good quality potable water resources<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (e.g. nutrients causing algal blooms); climate change; water extraction;<br />
introduced species (algae); dams; gas extraction (fracking); urban development (subdivisions &<br />
unsewered development); degradation of vegetation; land management practises; erosion; salinity;<br />
128
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
plantations (drying out water sources); human use; logging (fouling <strong>the</strong> rivers); lack of regulation (policy);<br />
mining; inefficient irrigation systems; water management practises<br />
Comments: This asset includes surface water and groundwater; major loss is through leaking irrigation<br />
channels; water entering drains strips nutrients off agricultural land be<strong>for</strong>e polluting drains.<br />
5.5.1.12 Landcare officers<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Changing government priorities; low pay; lack of security and award system;<br />
(conditions and wages)<br />
Comments: Includes NRMOs and environment officers; already lots of gaps throughout rural regions<br />
where knowledge, experience and networks have been lost; effect on local communities and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
involvement in NRM is extreme.<br />
5.5.1.13 Yarragadee<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Following threats refer mainly but not only to recharge areas: Pollution through<br />
declining water quality; climate change; water extraction; dams; gas extraction (fracking); urban<br />
development; mining; lack of sufficient surface water and human use<br />
Comments: Need <strong>for</strong> water in Perth and elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> SW, particularly if climate change dries out SW,<br />
will increase; high environmental value; effects of drawing it down are not yet well understood.<br />
5.5.1.14 Productive agricultural land<br />
Asset value: Exceptionable<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: To some extent (dispersed) SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds; urban development (subdivisions and <strong>for</strong> smaller holdings or<br />
use <strong>for</strong> non-productive purposes); land management practises; salinity; bushfires and plantations (seen as<br />
non-productive – food)<br />
Comments: Important as areas that can retain carbon.<br />
5.5.1.15 NRM groups as extension agents<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding; changes in government priorities, e.g. competitive environment; loss<br />
of active landholders as farming not viable (economic pressures)<br />
129
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Groups such as <strong>the</strong> Blackwood Basin Group have provided an excellent extension service<br />
over <strong>the</strong> years that has become ever more important as government agencies scale back <strong>the</strong>ir extension<br />
work; <strong>the</strong> future of <strong>the</strong>se groups hinges on <strong>the</strong>ir relevance; need to maintain knowledge acquired<br />
(succession & storage).<br />
5.5.1.16 Remnant vegetation<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals (above normal ring-necked parrot & kangaroo densities, pigs, deer); urban development<br />
(subdivisions); clearing; degradation of vegetation; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; fire; plantations (as source of weeds); human use; logging (access);<br />
edge effect; little regrowth<br />
Comments: More people = more cats and dogs and o<strong>the</strong>r increasing human impacts.<br />
5.5.1.17 Community knowledge<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change (indirect); urban development (subdivisions); economic (farming not<br />
viable); succession issues; lack of funding; increase in numbers of hobby and absentee landholders; bad<br />
advice; societies push to maximise yield ra<strong>the</strong>r than sustainability<br />
Comments: Actual, current farming methods are an important asset (knowledge, experience); risk is that<br />
lots of farmers could give up and leave, killing small rural communities; values include NRMOs (see<br />
above).<br />
5.5.1.18 Balingup Brook<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrients, run-off); climate change; water extraction; introduced species<br />
(carp); dams; weeds; subdivisions; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises<br />
(e.g. no fencing) and salinity<br />
Comments: Water resource <strong>for</strong> agriculture; social, tourist and recreational asset (canoeing, fishing etc.);<br />
also an environmental asset.<br />
5.5.1.19 Blackwood River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
130
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (run-off from upper catchment during extreme<br />
events, exacerbated through climate change); climate change; introduced species (yabby, Gambusia);<br />
dams; weeds; feral animals; subdivisions and smallholdings; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; salinity; bushfires; plantations; human use; logging and <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that <strong>the</strong> river is not proclaimed (refers to its status).<br />
Comments: Refers to entire river and its catchment; Indigenous values; also recreational, aes<strong>the</strong>tic<br />
values, and as a corridor/link (also <strong>for</strong> people, acting as a unifier); tourism value; lack of funding a clear<br />
threat.<br />
5.5.1.20 Tributaries of <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very high<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (run-off from upper catchment during extreme<br />
events, exacerbated through climate change); climate change; introduced species (yabby, Gambusia);<br />
dams; weeds; feral animals; subdivisions and smallholdings; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; salinity; bushfires; plantations; human use; logging and <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that <strong>the</strong> river is not proclaimed (refers to its status).<br />
Comments: Water quality of <strong>the</strong> tributaries affects <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River; same values as Blackwood, but<br />
also agriculture as often water is of better quality.<br />
5.5.1.21 Haddleton Reserve Complex<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion;<br />
fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong> Haddleton, Haddleton Springs and Trigwell Reserves as a group of<br />
interconnected reserves. Is in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> East Collie Biodiversity Recovery Catchment, only fresh<br />
groundwater dependent catchment prior to clearing; DEC priority - unique flora and fauna, wetland is in<br />
fairly good condition, high community value; also includes Wild Horse Creek which feeds into Meeking<br />
Swamp. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC<br />
in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.22 Agricultural land – Broadacre<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Succession, economics, viability, climate change; introduced species; weeds; land<br />
management practises; erosion; salinity.<br />
Comments: Food, productivity, livelihood, amenity, underwrites all NRM in our area, Integral part of<br />
Ecosystem (wheatbelt), spiritual, Identified by all as N° 1 asset, community/family; includes all broad-acre<br />
131
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
farmland (grains and grazing) - agriculture productive land. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.23 Beau<strong>for</strong>t palaeochannel and flats<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Valuable water resource and high value land; grouped as one; one of few pieces of fresh<br />
water in landscape, patches of salt but components are fresh, site specific areas of fresh, main channelsustainable<br />
yield, threatening range of values. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, communitydriven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.24 Towerrinning palaeochannels<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Fresh water, local economic importance, local town water supply. Also identified through <strong>the</strong><br />
peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.25 Hillman palaeochannel<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Valuable water resource and high value land; grouped as one; one of few pieces of fresh<br />
water in landscape, patches of salt but components are fresh, site specific areas of fresh, main channelsustainable<br />
yield, threatening range of values; freshwater resource, underground ecosystem, scientific<br />
and educational values, high production capacity, consumptive use, opportunity value. Also identified<br />
through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.26 Toolibin Lake Complex<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: SWCC & DEC priority, Ramsar wetland, a lot of previous investment; well studied, 4 TECs.<br />
Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
132
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.27 Lake Towerrinning<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises, climate change.<br />
Comments: Altered lake with very high value; high value recreational and tourism asset – very high<br />
community value, also includes surrounding catchment and hinterland; remnant vegetation, bird life,<br />
recreation; has had significant investment, high value water-skiing lake. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peerreviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.28 Wagin Lakes System<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, weeds, feral animals, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: High biodiversity, water birds, recreation, amenity, spiritual, unique hydrology, high value<br />
habitat, natural and man made drainage point, cultural and Indigenous value, iconic, good navigation<br />
point. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in<br />
2008.<br />
5.5.1.29 Threatened species/communities<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, climate change, introduced species, weeds, feral animals, fire management<br />
practises, human use.<br />
Comments: Threatened species/TECs, priority spp/ecological communities (whole region); in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
available spatially – overlay with land monitor data (DEC). Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.30 Dryandra Vegetation Complex<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, human use, climate change, land and fire management<br />
practises.<br />
Comments: Includes private land in and around <strong>the</strong> reserve; corridors between blocks in <strong>the</strong> reserve<br />
need to be consolidated; valued as a linkage, with good quality agricultural land (good rain) and remnant<br />
vegetation, high local value; agricultural land and remnant vegetation exceptional on basis of close<br />
proximity to Dryandra; corridors as links between blocks in <strong>the</strong> reserve. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peerreviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
133
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.31 Central & Eastern Avon Wheatbelt national biodiversity hotspot<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, climate change, salinity, land and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Broadly across region (IBRA region); <strong>the</strong> ones on valley floor conserve rarity; threat is high,<br />
but is long term; SWCC priority. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3<br />
process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.32 Private remnant vegetation - protected<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, introduced species, human use, climate change, land and fire<br />
management practises.<br />
Comments: Some are exceptional (refer to hotspot), native vegetation on valley floors at risk of salinity.<br />
Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.33 Australian Bush Heritage Site (Kojonup)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, introduced species, human use, climate change, land and fire<br />
management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Small 150 ha block with high ecological value (see <strong>the</strong> Whitfield Report re salinity risk). Also<br />
identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.34 Marribank Settlement<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, introduced species, human use, climate change, land and fire<br />
management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Very high Indigenous value; also historical value; permanent river pool, DRF (Wagin<br />
Banksia), source of firewood, cemetery. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.35 On-farm water (captured)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
134
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change, land management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: No comments at <strong>the</strong> workshop. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.36 Lake Dumbleyung<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change, land management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Very High values <strong>for</strong> short periods when it fills, collectively has exceptional value, iconic,<br />
biggest water body in catchment, needs to be managed to ensure it doesn't impact on Blackwood River;<br />
historical value (world land water speed record broken by Donald Campbell), needs water <strong>for</strong> sailing, top<br />
of Blackwood Catchment, integral part of regional water balance. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peerreviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.37 Dryandra Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change, land management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Dryandra Woodland-Tutanning is <strong>the</strong> focal focal area and may include reserves listed in <strong>the</strong><br />
workshops such as Commodine, east Yornaning and Yornaning; very local impact from salinity (1%); DEC<br />
priority - rare and endangered flora and faune (28,000 ha). Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.38 Tarin Rock representative landscape<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change, land management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: DEC priority. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.39 Dongolocking Complex<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
135
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: No comments. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.40 Tutanning Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Dryandra Woodland-Tutanning is <strong>the</strong> focal focal area and may include reserves listed in <strong>the</strong><br />
workshops such as Commodine, east Yornaning and Yornaning; very local impact from salinity (1%); DEC<br />
priority - rare and endangered flora and faune (28,000 ha). Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.41 Tarin Rock representative landscape<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: DEC priority. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.42 Lake Ewlymartup<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Similar to Lake Coyrecup but not as high value (as local recreational site); close to town,<br />
aes<strong>the</strong>tics, unique hydrology, good representation of valley floor vegetation, Carnaby Cockatoo's habitat.<br />
Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.43 Hotham River and significant tributaries<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: RS01 SWCC project; values – high amenity, aes<strong>the</strong>tics, recreation, fishing, Indigenous<br />
significance; environmental value (scientific and research); rivers are a good indication of environmental<br />
health; economic value <strong>for</strong> tourism; best section is from Dwarda through to <strong>for</strong>est. Also identified through<br />
<strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
136
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.44 Drainage Demonstration Sites<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Fence Road and Beynon Road; scientific value, lots of previous investment. Also identified<br />
through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.45 Highbury Forest<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Part of <strong>the</strong> Dryandra representative complex, large number of threatened Flora and fauna,<br />
large, small landholder area, recreational value. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, communitydriven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.46 Kojonup Spring<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Cultural significance. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3<br />
process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.47 <strong>West</strong>mere Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: High in landscape so less at risk from salinity. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.48 Williams Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
137
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: High in landscape so less at risk from salinity. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.49 Beau<strong>for</strong>t remnant vegetation on ridgetops<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Farming practises, kangaroo (increased numbers), rabbits.<br />
Comments: Range of vegetation change; ironstones, Banksia spp representation, orchids, etc… lizards -<br />
outliers.<br />
5.5.1.50 Productive agricultural soils<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
5.5.1.51 Kwobrup Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo habitat.<br />
5.5.1.52 Bibbulman Track<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.5.1.53 Active community groups<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Change of community values, lack of continuity, funding perceptions etc.<br />
Comments: Includes <strong>the</strong>ir skills; needed <strong>for</strong> effective NRM <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge and skills.<br />
138
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.54 Waterways through private properties<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Farm management practises, salinity, erosion.<br />
Comments: Vegetation on banks valuable as corridors.<br />
5.5.1.55 Covenanted bushland<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
5.5.1.56 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife properties<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.5.1.57 Blackwood River Basin NRM community<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong> network of people throughout <strong>the</strong> region that are involved in NRM; <strong>the</strong> “vibe” of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Blackwood.<br />
5.5.1.58 Foxes Lair Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: On sou<strong>the</strong>rn boundary of Narrogin; natural area, high social and recreational value.<br />
5.5.1.59 Gnarogin Creek<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
139
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: High Indigenous value; artists, public space, creek through town.<br />
5.5.1.60 Red-tailed Phascogale<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Rare species; iconic and good “marketing” species.<br />
5.5.1.61 Numbat<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Rare species; iconic and good “marketing” species.<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.5.1.62 Carnaby’s White-tailed Black Cockatoo<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Rare species; iconic and good “marketing” species.<br />
5.5.1.63 Adaptive farmers<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Very useful as leaders and as case studies.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.5.1.64 NRM champions<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
140
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Very useful as leaders and as case studies.<br />
5.5.1.65 Employed NRM officers<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
5.5.1.66 Potential <strong>for</strong> carbon storage and sequestration<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: unknown<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Opportunities <strong>for</strong> revegetation projects; potential future value to environment and NRM, but<br />
not on price of carbon.<br />
5.5.1.67 Arthur River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Valuable <strong>for</strong> stock water, recreation and remnant vegetation. Also identified through <strong>the</strong><br />
peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.68 Beau<strong>for</strong>t River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: DEC priority – unique fauna and flora; drought refuges; local value. Also identified through<br />
<strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.69 Williams River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
141
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3<br />
process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.70 Darkan Palaeochannels<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Possible water source and reserve. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, communitydriven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.1.71 Transition zone (woodland to Mallee)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Comments: Representative of ecosystems “at <strong>the</strong> edge”. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.5.2.1 Balingup Pool<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrients, run-off); climate change; water extraction; introduced species<br />
(carp); dams; weeds; subdivisions; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises<br />
(e.g. no fencing) and salinity<br />
Comments: Weir construction is a possibility.<br />
5.5.2.2 Coyrecup Lake System<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Includes Lake Coyrecup and Lake Dumbleyung; large catchment, unique vegetation<br />
associations, a lot of degradation in <strong>the</strong> Coblinine catchment; high value refers to lake, high quality<br />
142
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
remnant native vegetation, recreational and cultural significance; high variety of water birds.<br />
identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
Also<br />
5.5.2.3 Remnant vegetation between Dryandra and Tutanning<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Valued <strong>for</strong> its value as a potential corridor between <strong>the</strong> two reserves; potential <strong>for</strong><br />
revegetation, protection/linkages of poorly represented patches, remnant vegetation is <strong>the</strong> asset, critical<br />
<strong>for</strong> linking Dryandra to State Forrest, main threat is fragmentation, decline of vegetation increases salinity<br />
threat on private land; value on a landscape level, biodiversity value; salinity risk needs to be assessed in<br />
detail. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in<br />
2008.<br />
5.5.2.4 Dardadine Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Includes <strong>the</strong> old school site and <strong>the</strong> gully and railway reserve; sits over Hillman<br />
palaeochannel. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by<br />
SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.5 Commodine Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Includes private land in and around <strong>the</strong> reserve; corridors between blocks in <strong>the</strong> reserve<br />
need to be consolidated; valued as a linkage, with good quality agricultural land (good rain) and remnant<br />
vegetation, high local value; agricultural land and remnant vegetation exceptional on basis of close<br />
proximity to Dryandra; corridors as links between blocks in <strong>the</strong> reserve. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peerreviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.6 Wandering Mission<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
143
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, introduced species, human use, climate change, land and fire<br />
management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Very high Indigenous value; also historical value; permanent river pool, DRF (Wagin<br />
Banksia), source of firewood, cemetery. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.7 Badgebup Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo habitat; Anglican memorial church – cultural, spiritual, community<br />
and heritage values. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.8 Carrolup River Reach Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Includes <strong>the</strong> Carrolup River as a whole, fenced (>70%), pools, source of nutrients into<br />
Beau<strong>for</strong>t, water to Marribank pools. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3<br />
process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.9 Lake Coomelberrup<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: East of Lake Dumbleyung, decline in water quality overlast 10 yrs, supports lots of water<br />
birds, fresh water, aes<strong>the</strong>tics. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.2.10 Cherry Tree Pool Camp<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Cultural and recreational value (tennis club and camp ground, historical), good native<br />
vegetation, water birds. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process<br />
conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
144
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.2.11 Drainage lines<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: On private properties – contours, surface water management.<br />
5.5.2.12 Crossman River<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at workshop.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: This river is in better condition than o<strong>the</strong>rs. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.5.3.1 Private remnant vegetation - unprotected<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, introduced species, human use, climate change, land and fire<br />
management practises.<br />
Comments: Some are exceptional (refer to hotspot), native vegetation on valley floors at risk of salinity.<br />
Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.3.2 O’Halloran’s Bush Block<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Comments: Near Marribank, has conservation value. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.5.3.3 Old Toolibin townsite<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
145
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, rabbits, bridal creeper.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop<br />
5.5.3.4 Community nurseries<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified at <strong>the</strong> workshop.<br />
Comments: None at workshop.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
BBG workshop<br />
5.5.1.1 Community-run events with an NRM focus 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.2 Investment in perennials 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.3 Sustainable land management practises 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.4 Community Resource Centres 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.5 Landholders affinity <strong>for</strong>, and knowledge of, <strong>the</strong> land 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.6 Local innovators and educators 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.7 Historical collections of reports, data etc. 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.8 Local community groups 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.9 Perup Ecology Centre 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.10 Natural resources acting as a climate change buffer 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.11 Good quality potable water resources 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.12 Landcare officers 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.13 Yarragadee 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.14 Productive agricultural land 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.15 NRM groups as extension agents 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.16 Remnant vegetation 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.17 Community knowledge 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.18 Balingup Brook 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.19 Blackwood River 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.20 Tributaries of <strong>the</strong> Blackwood River 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.21 Haddleton Reserve Complex 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.5.1.22 Agricultural land - Broadacre 5 4 0.5 9<br />
146
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.23 Beau<strong>for</strong>t palaeochannel and flats 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.24 Towerrinning palaeochannels 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.25 Hillman palaeochannel 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.26 Toolibin Lake Complex 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.27 Lake Towerrinning 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.28 Wagin Lakes System 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.29 Threatened species/communities 5 4 0.0<br />
5.5.1.30 Dryandra Vegetation Complex 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.31 Central & Eastern Avon Wheatbelt national<br />
biodiversity hotspot 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.1.32 Private remnant vegetation - protected 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.33 Australian Bush Heritage Site (Kojonup) 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.34 Marribank Settlement 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.35 On-farm water (captured) 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.36 Lake Dumbleyung 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.37 Dryandra Nature Reserve 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.38 Tarin Rock representative landscape 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.39 Dongolocking Complex 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.40 Tutanning Nature Reserve 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.5.1.41 Tarin Rock representative landscape 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.42 Lake Ewlymartup 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.43 Hotham River and significant tributaries 5 4 1.0<br />
5.5.1.44 Drainage Demonstration Sites 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.45 Highbury Forest 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.46 Kojonup Spring 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.47 <strong>West</strong>mere Nature Reserve 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.48 Williams Nature Reserve 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.49 Beau<strong>for</strong>t remnant vegetation on ridgetops 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.50 Productive agricultural soils 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.51 Kwobrup Nature Reserve 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.52 Bibbulman Track 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.53 Active community groups 5 2 1.0<br />
5.5.1.54 Waterways through private properties 5 3 0.0<br />
5.5.1.55 Covenanted bushland 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.56 Land <strong>for</strong> Wildlife properties 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.57 Blackwood River Basin NRM community 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.58 Foxes Lair Reserve 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.59 Gnarogin Creek 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.60 Red-tailed Phascogale 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.61 Numbat 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.62 Carnaby's White-tailed Black Cockatoo 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.63 Adaptive farmers 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.64 NRM champions 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.65 Employed NRM officers 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.66 Potential <strong>for</strong> carbon storage and sequestration 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.67 Arthur River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.68 Beau<strong>for</strong>t River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.69 Williams River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.70 Darkan Palaeochannels 5 3 1.0<br />
147
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.5.1.71 Transition zone (woodland to Mallee) 5 3 1.0<br />
5.5.2.1 Balingup Pool 3 3 1.0<br />
5.5.2.2 Coyrecup Lake System 3 3 1.0<br />
5.5.2.3 Remnant vegetation between Dryandra and<br />
Tutanning 3 3 1.0<br />
5.5.2.4 Dardadine Reserve 3 2 0.0<br />
5.5.2.5 Commodine Nature Reserve 3 2 0.0<br />
5.5.2.6 Wandering Mission 3 2 0.0<br />
5.5.2.7 Badgebup Nature Reserve 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.5.2.8 Carrolup River Reach Reserve 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.5.2.9 Lake Coomelberrup 3 4 1.0<br />
5.5.2.10 Cherry Tree Pool Camp 3 2 1.0<br />
5.5.2.11 Drainage lines 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.5.2.12 Crossman River 3 0.0<br />
5.5.3.1 Private remnant vegetation - unprotected 1 3 0.5 4<br />
5.5.3.2 O'Halloran's Bush Block 1 2 1.0<br />
5.5.3.3 Old Toolibin townsite 1 2 1.0<br />
5.5.3.4 Community nurseries 1 2 1.0<br />
148
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6 Workshop with Peel-Harvey Catchment Group<br />
Held on 20 th April 2011 at <strong>the</strong> Community Resource Centre, Waroona. Assets were identified and scored<br />
as being exceptionally valuable, very highly valuable or highly valuable, and are listed under those three<br />
headings, but not in any particular order.<br />
The level and likelihood of all threats to <strong>the</strong> asset as a whole is also scored on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> expected<br />
level of degradation of <strong>the</strong> asset in <strong>the</strong> next 20 years if <strong>the</strong>re is no additional management action. Scores<br />
are given as being ei<strong>the</strong>r very high (>75% degradation), high (50-75% degradation), moderate (25-50%<br />
degradation) or low (
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6.1.4 Lake Mealup<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: pollution; climate change; water extraction; urban development; clearing; degradation<br />
of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.5 Serpentine lakes system<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; urban<br />
development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.6 O<strong>the</strong>r lakes on <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats:<br />
Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams;<br />
weeds; gas extraction (fracking); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on<br />
river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations;<br />
human use; logging<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.7 Peel Inlet<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; dams; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management<br />
practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; eutrophication.<br />
Comments: Government policy concerns, has recreational and biodiversity values.<br />
5.6.1.8 Harvey estuary<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
150
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; gas extraction (fracking); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation<br />
of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity;<br />
fire; plantations; human use; logging<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.9 Palus Plain<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging, poor understanding.<br />
Comments: Role in wetland support poorly understood.<br />
5.6.1.10 Thrombolites<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced species; weeds; urban<br />
development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on banks; land management practises; erosion; salinity;<br />
plantations; human use; pH and water quality.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.11 Dryandra Reserve and associated remnants<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing;; land management practises; erosion;<br />
fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: Important reserve including <strong>the</strong> “stepping stones” (corridor) throughout <strong>the</strong> landscape in <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern section.<br />
5.6.1.12 Korijegup Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
151
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (illegal rubbish dumping); climate change;<br />
introduced species; weeds; feral animals; land management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: Only one of its kind, has variety of species (wandoo, jarrah, wildflowers, brush-tailed<br />
wallabies), very close to Harvey and to scarp.<br />
5.6.1.13 Marradong Nature Reserve<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; dams;<br />
weeds; feral animals; urban development; land management practises; erosion; fire management<br />
practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use.<br />
Comments: Wandoo.<br />
5.6.1.14 Tumulus Springs TEC<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; urban development; clearing; human use; mining, general loss of stewardship.<br />
Comments: The one in this catchment is <strong>the</strong> only one south of Perth.<br />
5.6.1.15 Beaches and <strong>the</strong> dunes backing <strong>the</strong>m<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks;; erosion;; human use; 4WDs.<br />
Comments: Attached to national park <strong>for</strong> management decisions, includes inter-dune wetlands and<br />
relictual rain<strong>for</strong>est species.<br />
5.6.1.16 Holocene dunes and inter-dune wetlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; erosion; human use; 4WDs.<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong> dune and inter-dune systems and swales just behind <strong>the</strong> beaches.<br />
5.6.1.17 State <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
152
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; lack of funds <strong>for</strong> management; climate change (in<br />
longer term); water extraction; weeds; feral animals (pigs, deer); land management practises; fire;<br />
plantations (weedy species & clearing); human use (linked to dieback); logging and mining.<br />
Comments: The chief value lies in <strong>the</strong> rarity (uniqueness) of <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Jarrah Forest ecosystem; also<br />
social and recreational values.<br />
5.6.1.18 Remnant vegetation managed by DEC<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; waste (dumping); climate change (decreasing rainfall);<br />
introduced species; clearing; weeds; feral animals (rabbits, increasing numbers of kangaroos); urban<br />
development (increasing pressures of human use); degradation of vegetation; land management<br />
practises; bushfires; human use (motorbikes, 4WDs); lack of knowledge/awareness (“who cares”); limited<br />
funds.<br />
Comments: Very few are truly “managed” by DEC due to lack of funds (so not priorities); shire reserves<br />
generally better managed (in Serpentine and Waroona, less so in Harvey); biodiversity values as little left<br />
on coastal plain; tap into what people care <strong>for</strong> (orchids and warm & fuzzies).<br />
5.6.1.19 Remnant vegetation in well-managed shire reserves<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (rubbish – illegal dumping); climate change;<br />
introduced species; clearing; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; fire management practises; bushfires; human use; lack of funds<br />
<strong>for</strong> environmental officers in some shires.<br />
Comments: Shires include Mandurah City, and Serpentine-Jarrahdale; environmental officers have a very<br />
focussed role; S-J is divesting itself of “lower” value reserves, only keeping those with DRF etc. (significant<br />
reserves are known, mapped) – S-J has decided to only keep “good” ones and get rid of everything else;<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r shire threats are magnified as little or no management; S-J has strong community groups (active as<br />
lobbyists); values include biodiversity.<br />
5.6.1.20 Remnant vegetation in not-so-well managed shire reserves<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (rubbish – illegal dumping); climate change;<br />
introduced species; clearing; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land management practises; fire management practises; bushfires; human use; lack of funds<br />
<strong>for</strong> environmental officers in some shires.<br />
153
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: All o<strong>the</strong>r shires (o<strong>the</strong>r than Mandurah City and Serpentine-Jarrahdale shire); environmental<br />
officers have a very focussed role, but only very few of <strong>the</strong>m; threats are magnified as little or no<br />
management; difficult to motivate locals; Harvey LCDC not invited to LCC workshop; values include<br />
biodiversity.<br />
5.6.1.21 Remnant vegetation on private property<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution (rubbish); climate change; water extraction;<br />
introduced species; clearing; weeds; feral animals; urban development (subdivisions); clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation; land management practises (e.g. grazing); erosion; fire management practises;<br />
human use; economics.<br />
Comments: Valuable as biodiversity corridors, can be used as linkages <strong>for</strong> creating corridors; value<br />
increases with size, e.g. Lowlands in S-J is particularly large; minimum about 1 acre to be of value, unless<br />
has DRF; S-J has rate subsidy <strong>for</strong> bushland (conservation rating, e.g. with fencing to exclude stock).<br />
5.6.1.22 Lot 300<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development; land<br />
management practises; erosion; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; planning may be threat.<br />
Comments: Is an Estuary to Ocean corridor/link; intact vegetation, Peel Regional scheme picked it up as<br />
important. Has Indigenous values too.<br />
5.6.1.23 Tuarts<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species;; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Considered an iconic species within <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
5.6.1.24 Grasstrees<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species;; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
154
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: All species including unique and common species, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir impact on <strong>the</strong> landscape and <strong>the</strong><br />
aes<strong>the</strong>tics.<br />
5.6.1.25 Mature trees<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats:<br />
Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens (tree decline – flooded gums, tuarts, jarrah, wandoo etc.); climate change;<br />
water extraction; feral animals (bees and o<strong>the</strong>rs taking over nesting sites); urban development; clearing;<br />
land management practises; fire management practises (lack of fire) and human use.<br />
Comments: Habitat loss; mature trees are critical habitat as “hopping points” and <strong>for</strong> nesting/corridors.<br />
5.6.1.26 Flora – declared/listed<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; habitat loss; pollution; climate change; water extraction;<br />
introduced species; dams; weeds; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks;<br />
land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use and<br />
unauthorized acceess; logging.<br />
Comments: Refers to DRFs and TECs (see State and Federal lists).<br />
5.6.1.27 Regionally significant BioPlan vegetation<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species;; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire<br />
management practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Refers to vegetation on <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain.<br />
5.6.1.28 Mundijong-SW Highway Rail Corridor<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; dams;<br />
weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire management<br />
practises; salinity; fire; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
155
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6.1.29 Fauna – endangered/listed<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: climate change; water extraction; introduced species; feral animals; urban<br />
development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations;<br />
human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.30 Fauna – not listed or endangered<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction; introduced species; feral animals; urban<br />
development; clearing; land management practises; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations;<br />
human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.31 Iconic fauna<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; feral animals; urban development land<br />
management practises; human use.<br />
Comments: Dolphins, crabs, pelicans and estuarine fish species;<br />
5.6.1.32 All black cockatoo species<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land<br />
management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.33 Fairy terns<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
156
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land<br />
management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.34 Hooded Plover<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land<br />
management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.35 Woodland bird species<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; introduced species (bees, o<strong>the</strong>r birds);<br />
feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land and fire<br />
management practises; salinity; bushfires; plantations; human use and logging.<br />
Comments: Requires research.<br />
5.6.1.36 Resident waterbirds<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals; human use; logging; urban development.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.37 Migratory waterbirds<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water quality; introduced species; feral animals; human use; logging;<br />
urban development; water extraction.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.38 Productive agricultural land<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
157
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; weeds; feral animals (pigs, rabbits, foxes); urban development and<br />
subdivisions; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; fire management<br />
practises; decreasing economic viability; landholder succession is issue as next generation leaving <strong>the</strong><br />
land; government restrictions and controls; competition <strong>for</strong> labour with mining sector; competition from<br />
overseas products; increasing input costs; increasing rates (disproportionate to CPI).<br />
Comments: Valued <strong>for</strong> its food production, amenity, lifestyle, community and social values; some<br />
progressive landholders do a great job protecting/restoring; just too hard to stay on <strong>the</strong> land; expectation<br />
of “all-year round availability” of agricultural products in society is an issue.<br />
5.6.1.39 High value agricultural soils<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: urban development; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises;<br />
salinity;; plantations; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.1.40 Landscapes of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging, planning decisions.<br />
Comments: Includes <strong>the</strong> topography, vegetation and land<strong>for</strong>ms that toge<strong>the</strong>r make up <strong>the</strong> visual<br />
character (“amenity”) of <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
5.6.1.41 Landscapes of <strong>the</strong> Scarp and hinterland<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use; logging, planning decisions.<br />
Comments: Includes <strong>the</strong> topography, vegetation and land<strong>for</strong>ms that toge<strong>the</strong>r make up <strong>the</strong> visual<br />
character (“amenity”) of <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
5.6.1.42 Granite outcrops<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
158
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; clearing; human use.<br />
Comments: Issues related to fragmentation of <strong>the</strong>se elements within <strong>the</strong> landscape, need to look at<br />
connectivity.<br />
5.6.1.43 Lowlands<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; weeds; feral animals; clearing;; land<br />
management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity.<br />
Comments: Powerlines and o<strong>the</strong>r infrastructure impact on <strong>the</strong> values.<br />
5.6.1.44 Serpentine River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens (particularly on scarp); pollution (nutrients); climate<br />
change; water extraction; introduced species (Gambusia, redfin perch, yabby); dams (Serpentine dam);<br />
weeds; feral animals (pigs); urban development and subdivisions; clearing; degradation of vegetation on<br />
river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire (on water quality); human use (unrestricted stock<br />
access).<br />
Comments: Refers to entire system/catchment; Goegerup; Water Corporation stopped water flow by<br />
50%; used <strong>for</strong> stock and <strong>for</strong> irrigation, also recreational value (canoeing, fishing <strong>for</strong> bream and marron);<br />
feeds into Black Lake so healthy river is key to health of this lake system.<br />
5.6.1.45 Murray-Hotham River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens (particularly on scarp); pollution (nutrients); climate<br />
change; water extraction; introduced species (Gambusia, redfin perch, yabby); dams (farm dams); weeds;<br />
feral animals (pigs); urban development and subdivisions; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire (on water quality); human use (unrestricted stock<br />
access); mining (conveyor belts through bush); salinity (salty, so not dammed); pine plantations (weedy<br />
species); lack of awareness/knowledge.<br />
Comments: Refers to entire system/catchment; social and recreational values include boating; no major<br />
dams; SWCC’s map may be in error re extent of conservation parks as no private land in central portion;<br />
only river in this region runs from broad-acre farms through <strong>for</strong>est to <strong>the</strong> coastal plain.<br />
5.6.1.46 Harvey River<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: High<br />
159
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; urban development; clearing; degradation<br />
of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; human use.<br />
Comments: Refers to entire system/catchment.<br />
5.6.1.47 Surface water<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species (Gambusia, redfin perch, yabby); major dams; weeds; gas extraction (fracking – unsure what is<br />
going on); feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river banks; land<br />
management practises; plantations; human use (fishing, boating etc.); logging; mining; transfer of water<br />
between dams which can bring weeds (Nardoo), salt (from Wellington dam to Harvey) and chlorine across<br />
catchment boundaries – poor water and environmental management practises; cross-boundary issues<br />
make it hard to understand/manage <strong>for</strong> DEC; classified as a drain so regularly dug out/excavated; funds<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Harvey River Restoration Fund running out.<br />
Comments: Value refers mainly to maintaining environmental flows; environmental water flows<br />
inadequate; pumped <strong>for</strong> irrigation and stock; social and recreational values; quite good fisheries<br />
management in public waters; have made inroads into weed infestations but continuity of funding an<br />
issue.<br />
5.6.1.47 Water <strong>for</strong> human use<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change (decreasing rainfall); human use (unrestricted access, wastes);<br />
government policy and water management.<br />
Comments: Refers to both potable water and water <strong>for</strong> agricultural use; has social, economic and<br />
recreational value; causes lot of issies downstream (major threat); low water levels affecting values and<br />
<strong>the</strong> water catchment..<br />
5.6.1.48 Groundwater systems<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction; dams; urban development; land<br />
management practises; salinity; plantations; human use.<br />
Comments: Requires research as lack of knowledge is also a threat.<br />
160
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6.1.49 NRM staff<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding; policy that project funding not provided to do farm support work<br />
(=extension, so engagement is being lost); change of government (funding prioritiesz0; Federal vs. State<br />
policies; Federal government follows mainly Eastern State priorities, ignores WA; short-term contracts so<br />
doesn’t attract young people into NRM as a career; burn-out; no job security / career path.<br />
Comments: NRM staff are needed to organise things, source grants etc., which volunteers can’t cover.<br />
5.6.1.50 Community-based NRM groups<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but not spatially<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of support; burn-out; few people to “carry” <strong>the</strong> work load; lack of funds <strong>for</strong> work;<br />
change in community perception (more egotistical/ selfish); less time/money; modern lifestyle (including<br />
communications); lack of skills to write grant applications (lengthy, complex); group dynamics (rotating<br />
roles) and mining boom.<br />
Comments: Includes volunteers as “key” input; needs to be promoted/marketed differently (re “what’s in it<br />
<strong>for</strong> me” – need recognition, e.g. tree planting days); change mentality of kids so need educational<br />
programs to help change perceptions).<br />
5.6.1.51 Landcare centres<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Funding, people, interest, burn-out, knowledge.<br />
Comments: Community concern about long-term support.<br />
5.6.1.52 Knowledge systems<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially, but intangible SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of space/funds to collate, store and disseminate in<strong>for</strong>mation; technological<br />
change making data incompatible and inaccessible.<br />
Comments: Includes people’s memories (how things used to be), verbal histories, photos, reports, aerial<br />
photography, data etc.; skills, knowledge and experience of individuals can be lost, much of which is<br />
irreplaceable.<br />
5.6.1.53 Sites of Indigenous significance<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Not identified<br />
161
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Unsure, not specified during workshop.<br />
Comments: Includes Modulla Valley Includes <strong>the</strong> East-<strong>West</strong> and <strong>the</strong> North-<strong>South</strong> trail; also includes<br />
migratory links and o<strong>the</strong>r spatial linkages.<br />
5.6.1.54 Funding streams<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate (but possibly larger)<br />
Asset identifiable: Intangible<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Top-down approach has become serious threat in contrast to bottom-up (communitybased)<br />
NRM, which historically has worked well; changing priorities; economic pressures (bean-counter<br />
mentality); people’s values; lack of people and skills to obtain funds and <strong>the</strong>n manage <strong>the</strong>m (transparency<br />
and accountability have increased <strong>the</strong> work load and <strong>the</strong> skill level required).<br />
Comments: Absolutely essential to community-based NRM; priorities have to be matched to flavour of<br />
month; how much does industry give to NRM Alcoa used to give $25K. to each LCDC <strong>for</strong> local priorities<br />
5.5.1.55 Threatened species/communities<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, climate change, introduced species, weeds, feral animals, habitat<br />
degradation; fire management practises, human use.<br />
Comments: Threatened species/TECs, priority spp/ecological communities (whole region); in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
available spatially – overlay with land monitor data (DEC). Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed,<br />
community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008. Includes mound springs, thrombolites,<br />
Holocene dune swales, claypans and systems 3a, 3c and 20a. See also Section 5.5.1.16.<br />
5.6.2 Very High Value Assets<br />
5.6.2.1 Jarrah Forest Transition zone<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; weeds;<br />
feral animals; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire management<br />
practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human use; logging; mining.<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong> North-<strong>South</strong> zone; potential impacts from thinning <strong>for</strong> water run-off.<br />
5.6.2.2 Eastern Harvey estuary<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
162
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution; climate change; water extraction dams; weeds; feral animals; urban<br />
development; clearing; land management practises; human use - bikes; drainage.<br />
Comments: Refers to vegetation and birds.<br />
5.6.2.3 Priority flora<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; dams;<br />
weeds; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises;<br />
salinity; fire;; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.2.4 Various eucalypt species<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; introduced species; dams;<br />
weeds; urban development; clearing; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises;<br />
salinity; fire;; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: Includes E.laeliae, E.lane-poolei, E.haemotoxylon and E.marginata elegatii; <strong>the</strong> uniqueness<br />
of <strong>the</strong>se species is an asset to <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
5.6.2.5 Fauna - unlisted<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development;<br />
clearing; degradation of vegetation; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises;<br />
salinity; fire; logging.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.2.6 Specific mammal species<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
163
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Climate change;; introduced species; feral animals; urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management<br />
practises; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: Wallabies, Quokkas, Ring-tailed possums; Chuditch and water rat.<br />
5.6.2.7 Tuttaning Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; pollution; climate change; water extraction; introduced<br />
species; dams; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation on river<br />
banks; land management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; plantations; human<br />
use.<br />
Comments: None.<br />
5.6.2.8 Mundlimup State Forest block<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; logging, weeds, mining.<br />
Comments: May have already been substantially cleared <strong>for</strong> mining.<br />
5.6.2.9 Warrangup Spring<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: pollution; climate change; water extraction; human use – 4WD; feral animals.<br />
Comments: Indigenous values; used to be perennial, had friends of group and cultural significance.<br />
5.6.2.10 Sand rises (mined)<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral<br />
animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation; land management practises; erosion;<br />
bushfires; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.2.11 Recreation areas<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
164
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; human use; logging; mining.<br />
Comments: Includes water bodies and camping areas, e.g. Lane Pool.<br />
5.6.2.12 Public dams<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; human use; logging; mining.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.2.13 Drainage system<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (nutrients); climate change; introduced species; weeds; feral animals;<br />
clearing (within drains – management of drains could save money as less maintenance work needed, and<br />
could be more of benefit to everyone); degradation of vegetation on banks; erosion.<br />
Comments: Main value is as a flood mitigation asset; of high value as reduces risk of flooding; some<br />
biodiversity values, also economic and agricultural value.<br />
5.6.2.14 “Utility” reserves<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Pollution (rubbish, dumping); weeds; feral animals; urban development (e.g.<br />
realignment of roads); clearing; land management practises (shires – spraying, clearing); fire (particularly<br />
along railways); and human use (cars).<br />
Comments: Refers to road, rail and water corporation reserves; some have good vegetation (indeed<br />
some have <strong>the</strong> only remaining patches of particular vegetation types); lobbying to stop clearing is key<br />
management tool.<br />
5.6.2.15 Tim’s Thicket Reserve<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; land<br />
management practises; erosion; fire management practises; salinity; fire; human use – access motor<br />
cycles; logging.<br />
165
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.2.16 Tamala Limestone Karst system<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Water extraction; urban development; clearing; human use; logging.<br />
Comments: Tuart vegetation, groundwater impacts, lack of in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
5.6.2.17 WALGA regional corridors<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; dumping of waste; climate change; water extraction;<br />
introduced species; weeds; feral animals; urban development; clearing; degradation of vegetation; land<br />
and fire management practises; salinity; bushfires; human use.<br />
Comments: Value as ecological linkages.<br />
5.6.3 High Value Assets<br />
5.6.3.1 Carpet python<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; introduced species; feral animals; urban development; clearing;<br />
degradation of vegetation; land management practises; fire management practises; bushfires.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.3.2 Freshwater mussels<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; pollution; water extraction; introduced species; degradation of<br />
vegetation on river banks; land management practises; erosion; salinity; human use.<br />
Comments: None at this workshop.<br />
5.6.3.3 Private dams<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
166
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Climate change; water extraction; lack of education, awareness, knowledge.<br />
Comments: Mainly belonging to farmers; with regards to landholder dams, value is economic and social,<br />
plus some biological value as habitat, but <strong>the</strong>se are also threat to rivers as reduce flows, mainly catch rain,<br />
and water allocations only apply to main rivers not tributaries.<br />
5.6.3.4 Existing project works<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and o<strong>the</strong>r pathogens; introduced species; weeds; feral animals; clearing; land<br />
management practises (grazing).<br />
Comments: Including projects funded through Landcare, Rivercare etc.<br />
The following table shows <strong>the</strong> ranked/scored assets (also available as an Excel spreadsheet):<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
Peel-Harvey workshop<br />
5.6.1.1 Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar System 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.2 Inland wetlands in <strong>the</strong> Peel-Harvey sub-region 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.3 Lake McLarty 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.4 Lake Mealup 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.5 Serpentine lakes system 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.6 O<strong>the</strong>r lakes on <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.7 Peel Inlet 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.8 Harvey estuary 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.9 Palus Plain 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.10 Thrombolites 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.11 Dryandra Reserve and associated remnants 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.12 Korijegup Reserve 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.13 Marradong Nature Reserve 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.14 Tumulus Springs TEC 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.15 Beaches and <strong>the</strong> dunes backing <strong>the</strong>m 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.16 Holocene dunes and inter-dune wetlands 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.17 State <strong>for</strong>est 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.18 Remnant vegetation managed by DEC 5 4 0.5 9<br />
167
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6.1.19 Remnant vegetation in well-managed shire reserves 5 3 1.0<br />
5.6.1.20 Remnant vegetation in not-so-well managed shire<br />
reserves 5 3 1.0<br />
5.6.1.21 Remnant vegetation on private property 5 3 1.0<br />
5.6.1.22 Lot 300 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.23 Tuarts 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.24 Grass trees 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.25 Mature trees 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.26 Flora - declared/listed 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.27 Regionally significant BioPlan vegetation 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.28 Mundijong-SW Highway Rail Corridor 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.29 Fauna - endangered/listed 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.30 Fauna - not listed or endangered 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.31 Iconic fauna 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.32 All black cockatoo species 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.33 Fairy terns 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.34 Hooded Plover 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.35 Woodland bird species 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.36 Resident waterbirds 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.37 Migratory waterbirds 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.38 Productive agricultural land 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.6.1.39 High value agricultural soils 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.40 Landscapes of <strong>the</strong> Swan Coastal Plain 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.41 Landscapes of <strong>the</strong> Scarp and hinterland 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.42 Granite outcrops 5 4 1.0<br />
5.6.1.43 Lowlands 5 2 1.0<br />
5.6.1.44 Serpentine River 5 2 1.0<br />
5.6.1.45 Murray-Hotham River 5 2 1.0<br />
5.6.1.46 Harvey River 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.47 Surface water 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.6.1.47 Water <strong>for</strong> human use 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.48 Groundwater systems 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.49 NRM staff 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.50 Community-based NRM groups 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.51 Landcare centres 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.52 Knowledge systems 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.53 Sites of Indigenous significance 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.1.54 Funding streams 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.5.1.55 Threatened species/communities 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.6.2.1 Jarrah Forest Transition zone 3 2 0.0<br />
5.6.2.2 Eastern Harvey estuary 3 2 0.0<br />
5.6.2.3 Priority flora 3 2 0.0<br />
5.6.2.4 Various eucalypt species 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.6.2.5 Fauna - unlisted 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.6.2.6 Specific mammal species 3 2 1.0<br />
5.6.2.7 Tuttaning Reserve 3 2 1.0<br />
5.6.2.8 Mundlimup State Forest block 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.9 Warrangup Spring 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.10 Sand rises (mined) 3 2 0.5 5<br />
168
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.6.2.11 Recreation areas 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.12 Public dams 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.13 Drainage system 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.14 “Utility” reserves 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.6.2.15 Tim's Thicket Reserve 3 0.5 3<br />
5.6.2.16 Tamala Limestone Karst system 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.6.2.17 WALGA regional corridors 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.6.3.1 Carpet python 1 3 0.5 4<br />
5.6.3.4 Existing project works 1 2 1.0<br />
5.6.3.2 Freshwater mussels 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.6.3.3 Private dams 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7 Individual Submissions<br />
Community members interested in NRM throughout <strong>the</strong> region were asked to fill out ei<strong>the</strong>r an Excel<br />
spreadsheet or an online survey (see also Section 6.2). The latter was conducted between 4 th February<br />
and 31 st March 2011. In all, 34 valid 3 responses were received. The <strong>for</strong>mat of <strong>the</strong> survey is shown in<br />
Appendix 3.<br />
The results are summarised below. Feedback:<br />
Nice survey.<br />
I believe we need to halt logging in areas of high conservation (regrowth) value around <strong>the</strong> Wellington<br />
National Park. I know we need <strong>the</strong> wood resource <strong>for</strong> industry but <strong>the</strong> value of those trees in <strong>the</strong><br />
ground outweighs <strong>the</strong> value of <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> that purpose when approached from a balanced sustainability<br />
perspective. Erosion, salinity, habitat loss, atmospheric carbon, and one of <strong>the</strong> fastest drying areas in<br />
<strong>the</strong> world - when will <strong>the</strong>y get it Chopping down native <strong>for</strong>est in that catchment really should stop.<br />
I feel <strong>the</strong> SWCC in going <strong>for</strong>ward needs to be more strategic and broaden its focus beyond <strong>the</strong> 'asset<br />
management' investment model. There is great capacity in new industry development that has large<br />
external NRM benefits [such as bioenergy from woody perennials] to deliver cost efficient long term<br />
and scale appropriate change. SWCC needs to streng<strong>the</strong>n it's partnership relationships with groups<br />
that have well aligned interests. Given 85% of <strong>the</strong> region is dryland farmed I believe <strong>the</strong> funding<br />
direction can be better targeted to build land use change to stop leakage from cleared land of water,<br />
dissolved salts and o<strong>the</strong>r industrial products. Orientation of investment going <strong>for</strong>ward will be better<br />
attacked from a strong sustainable community needs focus and targeted actions that have multiple<br />
benefits.<br />
Have recently moved to Roelands in southwest. Would like to be actively involved in bush<br />
regeneration or protecting what we have left with relation to flora and fauna. What groups in southwest<br />
are actively doing something about this.<br />
The team who are working in SWCC and dealing with <strong>the</strong> upper blackwood are doing an excellent job<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> unusual funding parameters <strong>the</strong>y're faced with. Let's hope more funds are available in<br />
future CfoC business plans & funding rounds to directly support locally based NRM's again, and to<br />
continue implementing sustainable agriculature projects and Groundworks projects but to meet<br />
objectives that more closely relate to landholder's major concerns such as salinity, soil health &<br />
erosion, pest control and water quality enancement - in a nut-shell sustainable agriculture! That is,<br />
profitable farming with protection of <strong>the</strong> land in mind.<br />
3<br />
Valid responses refer to those that were ei<strong>the</strong>r fully or partially completed. In total, 69 responses were sent in, but had no<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation and <strong>the</strong> 37 invalid responses were discarded.<br />
169
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1 Exceptional Assets<br />
5.7.1.1 Lefroy River<br />
Sub-region: Warren<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, erosion, feral fish species, weeds, reduction in water quality and quantity.<br />
Comments: Water salinity is very low and water quality is good - best delivered into <strong>the</strong> Warren River.<br />
5.7.1.2 Lefroy catchment area<br />
Sub-region: Warren<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Reduction in water quality and quantity.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Lefroy catchment area contains high value agricultural land with largest diversity of land uses<br />
in our Shire, town water supply dams, tourism, recreational, commercial businesses (nurseries, mills,<br />
cellar door sales etc).<br />
5.7.1.3 Yarloop workshops<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development, fire, mining and fire management.<br />
Comments: Values include recreational values, tourism and historical values; only one in sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
hemisphere. Main management action is fire management.<br />
5.7.1.4 Bull Banksia & Kangaroo Paws<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, human intrusion (spraying, slashing, mining) and fire<br />
management practises.<br />
Comments: Values include flora, recreational values and tourism; natural entry statement to region. Main<br />
management actions include biodiversity management, weed control and fire management.<br />
170
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.5 Floristic community in reserves along SW Highway<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: weeds, feral animals, development, mining, human intrusion (rubbish, firewood taken)<br />
and fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Values include rare species, fauna, flora, recreational values and tourism; identified in<br />
system 6 report as vulnerable. Main management actions include biodiversity management, pest animal<br />
control, weed control and fire management.<br />
5.7.1.6 Water<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey and Blackwood (2x)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Intangible<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development, climate change and mining.<br />
Comments: Values include rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater and agricultural land.<br />
Main management action is <strong>the</strong> maintenance or improvement of water quality (stop giving good quality<br />
water to mining uses); support and promote sustainable farming practises.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – maintenance or<br />
improvement of water quality; 3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion.<br />
5.7.1.7 Fish stocks<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Intangible<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Over-fishing, commercial fishing and mismanagement of stocks.<br />
Comments: Values are mainly social and recreational (tourism); actions could include ban by Fisheries of<br />
commercial netting.<br />
5.7.1.8 Lake Coyrecup<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dumping of waste; climate change; weeds; feral animals; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land and fire management practises; human use; salinity; Government’s / funder’s priorities<br />
not matching local priorities; lack of native vegetation.<br />
171
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong> whole system including Coyrecup Lake, <strong>the</strong> Coryecup sub-catchment and <strong>the</strong><br />
broader Coryecup-Coblinine River system. SWCC & DEC priority, native vegetation and high recreational<br />
values as has high quality remnant vegetation and variety of water birds, large catchment, unique<br />
vegetation association, a lot of degradation in Coblinine, value refers to lake and vegetation and cultural<br />
significance. Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, agricultural land, recreational, tourism<br />
and historical values. Current community focus.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important –<br />
salinity management; 3 rd most important – biodiversity management. Also engineering works and<br />
increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.1.9 Lake Ewlyamartup<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dumping of waste; climate change; weeds; feral animals; clearing; degradation of<br />
vegetation; land and fire management practises; human use; salinity; Government’s / funder’s priorities<br />
not matching local priorities; lack of native vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, agricultural land, recreational, tourism<br />
and historical values. Current community focus.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important –<br />
salinity management; 3 rd most important – biodiversity management. Also engineering works and<br />
increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.1.10 Carrolup River<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals; development; fire management; salinity; erosion (wind or water);<br />
lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, agricultural land, recreational, tourism<br />
and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – weed control. Also increasing remnant vegetation.<br />
5.7.1.11 Engaged community<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Centralisation of decision-making; lack of funds <strong>for</strong> local officers; local priorities not<br />
matching those of funding bodies / govt priorities.<br />
172
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Can't do anything without <strong>the</strong>m as <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> land managers; also local knowledge,<br />
experience and historical value; over work by a dedicated few.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – local officer funding; 2 nd most important – local priorities valued by<br />
funders.<br />
5.7.1.12 Farmers<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development; salinity; lack of funding <strong>for</strong> local priorities; small landholders.<br />
Comments: Control most of <strong>the</strong> land, are a skilled, knowledgeable and resourceful bunch, also economic<br />
drivers.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – local officer funding; 2 nd most important – local priorities used by<br />
funders; 3 rd most important – local networks.<br />
5.7.1.13 Native animals<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW, Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals; development; fire management; salinity; lack of remnant vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – increasing native vegetation (corridors); 2 nd most important – pest<br />
animal control; 3 rd most important – salinity management.<br />
5.7.1.14 Productive agricultural land<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development; salinity; erosion (wind or water); de-prioritisation of salinity; small<br />
landholders.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater, agricultural land, tourism<br />
and historical values. Economic driver in <strong>the</strong> region, major landuse.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – pest animal control; 3 rd<br />
most important – weed control. Also sustainable farming options.<br />
5.7.1.15 Native <strong>for</strong>est<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW, Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
173
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of connectivity; development and fire management.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater, agricultural land,<br />
recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also termed remnant woodlands; tree species not<br />
found elsewhere (endemics) and <strong>the</strong> age of <strong>the</strong> trees is also important.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – connectivity; 2 nd most important – increasing areas protected; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management. Also pest animal and weed control, and maintenance or improvement of<br />
water quality.<br />
5.7.1.16 Waterways and <strong>the</strong>ir tributaries<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater, agricultural land,<br />
recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.1.17 Black Cockatoos<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW; Leschault; Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation, lack of nesting sites (need artificial ones).<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species and fauna values; iconic species.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation and planting<br />
of food source trees (Marri).<br />
5.7.1.18 NRM Officers<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of funding and burn-out (no career path).<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to <strong>the</strong>ir experience, local knowledge and ability to get community involved, bringing<br />
<strong>the</strong>m toge<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – securing funding.<br />
174
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.19 Blackwood River Basin<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development; lack of funding <strong>for</strong> on-ground works; certain <strong>for</strong>ms of agriculture.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, water resource, Indigenous and tourism values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important –<br />
biodiversity management; 3 rd most important – fire management. Also increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.1.20 Marine Environment<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW; Cape to Cape<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Introduced species, weeds, development and erosion.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, historical, Indigenous and tourism values; includes <strong>the</strong> beach and <strong>the</strong><br />
ocean.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – control of introduced species; 2 nd most important – fisheries<br />
management.<br />
5.7.1.21 Harris River Dam<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to water resource values; only fully <strong>for</strong>ested catchment in <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance of water quality.<br />
5.7.1.22 Minningup Pool and adjoining reserves<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, erosion, dieback.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also diversity of<br />
habitats.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management.<br />
175
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.23 <strong>West</strong>ern Yellow Robin<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, development, climate change and fire management.<br />
Comments: Is a very rare species.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd<br />
most important – pest animal control. Also need to look at addressing climate change.<br />
5.7.1.24 Phascogales<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, development, climate change and fire management.<br />
Comments: Are very rare.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd<br />
most important – pest animal control. Also need to look at addressing climate change.<br />
5.7.1.25 Baldivis National Park<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development, fire management, dieback.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: This small pocket of native bushland is close to schools and would be invaluable <strong>for</strong><br />
understanding nature; <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e educational; spring in this nature reserve is outstanding –<br />
photographically appealing. Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism and Indigenous values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd<br />
most important – weed control.<br />
5.7.1.26 Port Peron<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Development.<br />
Comments: Refers to recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
176
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.27 Rockingham National Park<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, fire management, dieback.<br />
Comments: This small pocket of native bushland is close to schools and would be invaluable <strong>for</strong><br />
understanding nature; <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e educational; spring in this nature reserve is outstanding –<br />
photographically appealing. Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism and Indigenous values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – fire management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – biodiversity management.<br />
5.7.1.28 Nesting sites <strong>for</strong> birds<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Clearing, land management and fire management practises, climate change,<br />
introduced species (bees and parrots from <strong>the</strong> Eastern states).<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also allows increase<br />
in breeding populations of native birds.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd<br />
most important – pest animal control. Also educating people of <strong>the</strong>ir importance and creating man-made<br />
nesting structures on developed reserves.<br />
5.7.1.29 Coastal dunes<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, erosion, climate change, human use/impacts.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also slows<br />
coastal erosion.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – management of erosion; 2 nd most important – biodiversity<br />
management; 3 rd most important – weed control. Also educating people of <strong>the</strong>ir importance, creating<br />
vehicle barrier fencing and installing walk trails.<br />
5.7.1.30 Endemic frog species<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
177
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Salinity, development, feral animals, spraying (larvicidal properties and o<strong>the</strong>r toxic<br />
effects).<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also control of insect breeding,<br />
e.g. mosquitoes, and are good indicators of habitat health.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – pest animal control; 3 rd<br />
most important – salinity management. Also educating people of <strong>the</strong>ir importance and vehicle barriers.<br />
5.7.1.31 Ephemeral wetlands<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Partially, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Clearing, land and fire management practises, development, weeds, salinity, erosion,<br />
dieback, contamination by chemicals.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also habitats <strong>for</strong> frogs<br />
(breeding sites).<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality/quantity; 2 nd most<br />
important – salinity management; 3 rd most important – biodiversity management. Also educating people<br />
of <strong>the</strong>ir importance and vehicle barriers.<br />
5.7.1.32 Peel-Harvey Estuary<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, salinity, dieback, contamination by chemicals.<br />
Comments: Refers to recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also food supply and<br />
breeding site <strong>for</strong> waterbirds.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – maintenance of water<br />
quality; 3 rd most important – salinity management. Also weed control, educating people about <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
importance and reducing boat access areas.<br />
5.7.1.33 Buffalo Beach<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, development, erosion, 4 wheel driving on <strong>the</strong> beach creating erosion,<br />
and destruction of below ground organisms.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values.<br />
178
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Priority actions: Most important – erosion management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – pest animal control. Also manage erosion beach erosion from vehicles travelling on<br />
beach.<br />
5.7.1.34 Leschenault Estuary <strong>for</strong>eshore<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, development, no vegetation planting to replace trees/shrubs that<br />
are dying.<br />
Comments: Refers to boat ramp/picnic area; recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – erosion management;<br />
3 rd most important – pest animal control. Revegetation projects required.<br />
5.7.1.35 Brunswick River<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, erosion, development, weed infestations within river bed area, no<br />
protection from development.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also water<br />
resources.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management; 3 rd most<br />
important – pest animal control.<br />
5.7.1.36 Collie River<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, erosion, development, speedboats travelling too fast and causing bed<br />
and bank erosion, no protection from development, logging in nearby State <strong>for</strong>ests.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also water<br />
resources.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – pest animal control. Also rehabilitation of dredged section of river and maintenance or<br />
improvement of water quality.<br />
5.7.1.37 Leschenault Peninsula and Estuary<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
179
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, development, fire management, illegal fishing, pollution,<br />
unauthorised vehicle access and erosion.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also waterbird<br />
habitat.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – erosion management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – pest animal control. Also protection of, and research on, local marine species, and<br />
maintenance or improvement of water quality.<br />
5.7.1.38 Places of Aboriginal significance<br />
Sub-region: Whole of SW<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, erosion, dieback.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; important<br />
stories of <strong>the</strong> dreamtime and <strong>the</strong>ir significance, lessons in taking care of <strong>the</strong> land, keeping what is <strong>the</strong>re <strong>for</strong><br />
future generations (educational).<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management.<br />
5.7.1.39 Minningup Pool and adjoining reserves<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, erosion, dieback.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical values; also diversity of<br />
habitats.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management.<br />
5.7.1.40 Geographe Bay<br />
Sub-region: GeoCatch<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Poor water quality.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism and Indigenous values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
180
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.41 Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands<br />
Sub-region: GeoCatch<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, poor water quality, feral animals.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna and tourism values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.42 <strong>West</strong>ern Ringtail Possum<br />
Sub-region: GeoCatch<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, development, habitat loss.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna and Indigenous values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.43 Batalling Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species and recreational values.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Priority actions: Most important – pest animal control; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd most<br />
important – biodiversity management. Also increase cooperation between DEC and local community.<br />
5.7.1.44 Haddleton Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood (3x)<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, development, fire management practises, salinity.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, groundwater and recreational values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – pest animal control; 3 rd<br />
most important – fire management. Also increase cooperation between DEC and local community and<br />
weed control.<br />
181
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.45 EEP wetlands on Swan Coastal Plain in Leschenault estuary<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Clearing, weeds, reduced rainfall and lowering water tables, human activities, dogs<br />
and cats.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, groundwater, tourism and recreational values.<br />
5.7.1.46 Upper catchment rivers and creeks in uncleared areas<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Farming practices, drying climate, weeds, dieback.<br />
Comments: Refers to biodiversity values.<br />
5.7.1.47 7 Wildlife Corridors<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Climate change; weeds; feral animals (incl. aquatic species<br />
such as fish and crustaceans); and water; High level threats: Land management practises (incl. introduced<br />
species and fire) on private land; and clearing on private land.<br />
Comments: Ecological linkages (N-S AND E-W); Augusta-Margaret River Shire has relevant plan<br />
(contact Drew McKenzie).<br />
5.7.1.48 Hardy Inlet<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Coal and gas mining; pollution; human use; upstream<br />
management; and management of Scott River; High level threats: Weeds; Feral animals (incl. aquatic<br />
species such as fish and crustaceans); Medium to low level threats: Climate change; degradation of<br />
vegetation around <strong>the</strong> Inlet; and dams.<br />
Comments: Particularly valuable due to its cultural heritage and significance (both Indigenous and o<strong>the</strong>r).<br />
5.7.1.49 Groundwater aquifers<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
182
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Climate change effects on shallower aquifers; water extraction;<br />
and coal & gas mining; High level threats: Climate change effects on deep aquifers; Medium to low level<br />
threats: Pollution; clearing; and plantations.<br />
Comments: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.50 Blackwood River<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Salinity; High level threats: Flooding; degradation of vegetation<br />
along river banks; and feral animals; Medium to low level threats: Weeds; dams; pollution; clearing; water<br />
extraction; urban development; and cols/gas mining.<br />
Comments: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.51 Remnant vegetation on public land<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Climate change; and pathogens; High level threats: Introduced<br />
species; and fire; Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging; and access.<br />
Comments: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.52 Flinders Bay<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Climate change; and pathogens; High level threats: Introduced<br />
species; and fire; Medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; logging; and access.<br />
Comments: None identified.<br />
5.7.1.53 Nollajup Nature Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
183
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, fire management practises.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna and recreational values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.2 Very High value assets<br />
5.7.2.1 Balingup Racecourse Flora Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and pathogens, climate change; introduced species, weeds, feral animals,<br />
land management practices, fire management practices, human use, erosion (soil), conflicting<br />
management, recreation.<br />
Comments: The reserve is located north of <strong>the</strong> Balingup Town site on <strong>the</strong> opposite side of SW Highway<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Balingup Golf course. Majority of <strong>the</strong> reserve is native bush land. The area once disturbed by <strong>the</strong><br />
racecourse has been highlighted as ideal areas <strong>for</strong> revegetation. Values refer to fauna, flora and historical<br />
values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – fire management; 2 nd most important – pest animal control; 3 rd most<br />
important – weed control.<br />
5.7.2.2 Avenue of Honour - Balingup<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and pathogens, climate change, land management practices, tree<br />
management, human use, recreation.<br />
Comments: The Avenue of Honour is an avenue of oak trees planted to honour soldiers who died at war.<br />
The oak trees require some arborist attention to keep <strong>the</strong>m alive <strong>for</strong> a long time to come.<br />
5.7.2.3 Marribank Settlement<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Dieback and pathogens, climate change, land management practices, tree<br />
management, human use, recreation.<br />
Comments: Historical value, Indigenous site so high Indigenous values, permanent river pool, DRF<br />
(Wagin Banksia), source of firewood, cemetery. Also identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, communitydriven<br />
SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
184
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.2.4 Honey possums<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species and fauna values.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.2.5 River riparian zones<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater, agricultural land,<br />
recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.2.6 Road and Railway Reserves<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW; whole Blackwood; upper Blackwood, Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation; value perceptions; fire management<br />
practises; clearing (development); degrading health of on-farm bush corridor biodiversity.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, fauna, flora, water resources, groundwater, recreational, historical<br />
and tourism values; often have mature banksias with strong roots to hold soil, home <strong>for</strong> native creatures;<br />
needs to be more areas reserved within some shire (e.g. Shire of Harvey) <strong>for</strong> protection of flora and fauna.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – fire management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – biodiversity management. Also need to increase native vegetation, manage salinity and<br />
erosion in some areas.<br />
5.7.2.7 Wellington National Park (and dam)<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Lack of development to cater <strong>for</strong> human use.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
185
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, water resource, recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – maintenance or<br />
improvement of water quality; 3 rd most important – biodiversity management. Also continued improvement<br />
of visitor management.<br />
5.7.2.8 Public open spaces<br />
Sub-region: Whole SW<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, development, human use, fire management, removal of native<br />
species and replacement with grassed areas etc.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, tourism and historical values; iconic species. Includes<br />
<strong>for</strong>eshore walks and riding trails.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd most<br />
important – pest animal control. Also management of biodiversity and erosion, protect from future<br />
development and prioritize appropriate zoning.<br />
5.7.2.9 Noneycup Creek<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, industry, pollutants.<br />
Comments: Donnybrook. Refers to water resources and water resource values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – management of erosion.<br />
5.7.2.10 Preston River<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity, no protection from development.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, water resources, recreational, tourism, Indigenous and historical<br />
values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – management of<br />
erosion; 3 rd most important – weed control. Needs a management plan.<br />
5.7.2.11 Balingup Brook<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
186
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds.<br />
Comments: Refers to water resources, tourism, Indigenous and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – pest animal control.<br />
5.7.2.12 Blackwood River<br />
Sub-region: Middle and Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation, drought, development.<br />
Comments: Refers to water resources, recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation and weed<br />
control.<br />
5.7.2.13 Dorothy Scott Bushland<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: feral animals, development, fire management.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management.<br />
5.7.2.14 Maslins Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – fire management.<br />
5.7.2.15 Peel Inlet<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
187
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic, tourism and historical values, also bird<br />
breeding area, wildlife refuge, fish and crab breeding area.<br />
5.7.2.16 Serpentine River<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: .<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic, Indigenous and historical values, also<br />
boating, cruising fishing, crabbing, dolphins.<br />
5.7.2.17 Big Swamp<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, domestic animals.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, water resources and recreational.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – biodiversity management; 2 nd most important – pest animal control; 3 rd<br />
most important – weed control.<br />
5.7.2.18 Manea Park<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals and development.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – pest animal control; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management; 3 rd<br />
most important – weed control.<br />
5.7.2.19 Tuart Walk<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
188
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Identified threats: Feral animals, domestic animals, litter.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – pest animal control; 2 nd most important – weed control; 3 rd most<br />
important – biodiversity management.<br />
5.7.2.20 Wellington National Park<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: Exceptional<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds and feral animals, logging in nearby State <strong>for</strong>ests.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important – fire<br />
management; 3 rd most important – pest animal control.<br />
5.7.2.21 Ruabon-Tutanup Rail Reserve<br />
Sub-region: GeoCatch<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, dieback.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species and flora values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.2.22 Urban wetlands<br />
Sub-region: GeoCatch<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, feral animals, development, poor water quality.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, recreational, tourism and Indigenous values.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.2.23 Arthur River<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, salinity, erosion.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, rare species and agricultural land values.<br />
189
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Priority actions: Most important – management of erosion; 2 nd most important – biodiversity<br />
management; 3 rd most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality.<br />
5.7.2.24 Beau<strong>for</strong>t River<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, salinity, erosion.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, rare species and agricultural land values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – management of erosion; 2 nd most important – biodiversity<br />
management; 3 rd most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality.<br />
5.7.2.25 Hillman River<br />
Sub-region: Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, development, salinity, erosion.<br />
Threat score: High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, rare species and agricultural land values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – management of erosion; 2 nd most important – biodiversity<br />
management; 3 rd most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality.<br />
5.7.2.26 Barrabup Pools<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Low<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Feral aquatic species such as goldfish; medium to low level<br />
threats: Weed Invasion, Human-use.<br />
Comments: None identified.<br />
5.7.2.27 Turner Brook<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Eutrophication from run-off and superphosphate; high level<br />
threats: human-use, weeds of national significance, lack of rain.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
190
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.2.28 Scott River<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Acid sulphate soils, weeds of national significance; high level<br />
threats: human-use, pollution, drought.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
5.7.2.29 Chapman Brook<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Weeds of National Significance, Feral Animals, Soil<br />
degradation; high level threats: human-use, drought.<br />
Comments: Part of <strong>the</strong> brook – fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
5.7.2.30 Remnant vegetation on private land<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Threat score: High to moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Climate change; pathogens; and introduced species; high level<br />
threats: Land management practises; medium to low level threats: Fire management practises; wildfires;<br />
fire; and logging.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
5.7.2.31 Gingilup Swamps<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Acid sulphate soils; high level threats: pollution, drought.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Department of Water.<br />
5.7.2.32 Augusta wetlands<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
191
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: High level threats: pollution, drought.<br />
Comments: Wetlands east of river mouth (possibly Emu Springs); fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood<br />
LCDC and Department of Water.<br />
5.7.2.33 <strong>West</strong> Bay Creek<br />
Sub-region: Lower Blackwood<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes, but dispersed<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Very high level threats: Eutrophication due to runway from o<strong>the</strong>r waterways, high<br />
phosphate levels, soil degradation and soil disturbance; high level threats: Human use, pollution.<br />
Comments: Fur<strong>the</strong>r info from Lower Blackwood LCDC.<br />
5.7.3 High value assets<br />
5.7.3.1 Capercup Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Middle Blackwood<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, salinity.<br />
Threat score: Very High<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: 160ha, no salinity in 1996, currently 50% affected; rare flora, smoker parrot habitat. Also<br />
identified through <strong>the</strong> peer-reviewed, community-driven SIF3 process conducted by SWCC in 2008.<br />
5.7.3.2 Lake Towerrrinning<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood (2x)<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals; development; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to rare species, water resources, recreational, tourism and historical values.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation, maintenance<br />
or improvement of water quality and weed control.<br />
5.7.3.3 Stream water quality<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
192
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; salinity; lack of fringing vegetation.<br />
Comments: Refers to water resource values; it really is precious stuff, helps everyone, feeds everyone<br />
too.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – salinity management; 2 nd most important – biodiversity management;<br />
3 rd most important – management of soil or wind erosion. Also increasing native vegetation.<br />
5.7.3.4 Community<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Sense of place; issues of ownership; capacity <strong>for</strong> action.<br />
Priority actions: Create enterprise diversity and employment opportunities, sustainable energy, and<br />
sustainable water.<br />
5.7.3.5 Soil health and biodiversity<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault, Middle & Upper Blackwood (3x)<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Erosion, land management practises, salinity, declining soil pH, reduced biological<br />
activity through chemical use, weeds, development, erosion.<br />
Comments: Refers to its value to agriculture and to <strong>the</strong> health of <strong>the</strong> overall landscape, its water and<br />
biodiversity; need to prevent <strong>the</strong> loss of rich soils from agricultural properties (loss of valuable nutrients,<br />
helps <strong>the</strong> farmer to grow what he/she needs without trucking in fertiliser at great cost rich, soil and<br />
nutrients never to be seen again); foundation to production; support and promote sustainable farming<br />
practises.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – control of erosion; 2 nd most important – salinity management; 3 rd most<br />
important – weed control.<br />
5.7.3.6 Water security<br />
Sub-region: Upper Blackwood<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified.<br />
Comments: Foundation to production.<br />
5.7.3.7 Buckingham Reserve<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
193
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds, fire management, dieback.<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to floral values; is also a boundary of different vegetation associations.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – weed control; 2 nd most important – fire management; 3 rd most<br />
important – biodiversity management. Also dieback management.<br />
5.7.3.8 Wallabies<br />
Sub-region: Leschenault<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: No<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: None identified.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna values; also to recognise mammal diversity.<br />
Priority actions: None identified.<br />
5.7.3.9 Commet Bay Beach<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic and historical values; also easy access,<br />
wind protected, beautiful beach.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – erosion management; also dredge material may change shape and<br />
colour of <strong>the</strong> beach.<br />
5.7.3.10 Mandurah Estuary<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic and historical values; includes <strong>the</strong> canals,<br />
also Christmas Lights Cruise, Habour Cruise, dolphins, biking, walking.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important –<br />
erosion management.<br />
5.7.3.11 Manjar Bay <strong>for</strong>eshore<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: High<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
194
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic and historical values, also walking,<br />
picnicking, easy access to shops attractive shaded area.<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality, also clean up rubbish.<br />
5.7.3.12 Murray River<br />
Sub-region: Peel-Harvey<br />
Asset value: Very High<br />
Asset identifiable: Yes<br />
Will proposed action make real difference: xx<br />
Likely private intervention if required: xx<br />
Likely public intervention if required: xx<br />
Threat score: Moderate<br />
SMART goal <strong>for</strong> actions: xx<br />
Identified threats: Weeds; feral animals, fire management.<br />
Comments: Refers to fauna, flora, water resources, recreational, social/aes<strong>the</strong>tic, Indigenous and<br />
historical values, also boating, cruising fishing, crabbing, dolphins<br />
Priority actions: Most important – maintenance or improvement of water quality; 2 nd most important –<br />
salinity management.<br />
195
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
6. The online survey<br />
6.1 The 7-page online survey<br />
196
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
197
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
198
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
199
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
200
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
201
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
202
Asset identifiable<br />
SMART goal possible<br />
Technol. Feasible<br />
Private participation likely<br />
Public participation likely<br />
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
6.2 Results of <strong>the</strong> online survey<br />
No. and Name of asset<br />
Asset<br />
Value<br />
E=Exceptional=5<br />
VH=Very High=3<br />
H=High=1<br />
Level of<br />
Threat<br />
VH=Very<br />
High=4<br />
H=High=3<br />
M=Moderate=2<br />
L=Low=4<br />
U=Unknown=0<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r Scores<br />
If yes, score 1<br />
If no, score 0<br />
Individual responses - online survey<br />
5.7.1.1 Lefroy River 5 4 1.0<br />
5.7.1.2 Lefroy catchment area 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.7.1.3 Yarloop workshops 5 4 0.5 9<br />
5.7.1.4 Bull Banksia & Kangaroo Paws 5 3 1.0<br />
5.7.1.5 Floristic community in reserves along SW Highway 5 3 1.0<br />
5.7.1.6 Water 5 3 1.0<br />
5.7.1.7 Fish stocks 5 3 1.0<br />
5.7.1.8 Lake Coyrecup 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.9 Lake Ewlyamartup 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.10 Carrolup River 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.11 Engaged community 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.12 Farmers 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.13 Native animals 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.14 Productive agricultural land 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.15 Native <strong>for</strong>est 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.16 Waterways and <strong>the</strong>ir tributaries 5 3 0.5 8<br />
5.7.1.17 Black Cockatoos 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.18 NRM Officers 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.19 Blackwood River Basin 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.20 Marine Environment 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.21 Harris River Dam 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.22 Minningup Pool and adjoining reserves 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.23 <strong>West</strong>ern Yellow Robin 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.24 Phascogales 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.25 Baldivis National Park 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.26 Port Peron 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.27 Rockingham National Park 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.28 Nesting sites <strong>for</strong> birds 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.29 Coastal dunes 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.30 Endemic frog species 5 2 1.0<br />
5.7.1.31 Ephemeral wetlands 5 4 1.0<br />
5.7.1.32 Peel-Harvey Estuary 5 4 1.0<br />
5.7.1.33 Buffalo Beach 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.34 Leschenault Estuary <strong>for</strong>eshore 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.35 Brunswick River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
203
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.1.36 Collie River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.37 Leschenault Peninsula and Estuary 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.38 Places of Aboriginal significance 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.39 Minningup Pool and adjoining reserves 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.40 Geographe Bay 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.41 Vasse-Wonnerup wetlands 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.42 <strong>West</strong>ern Ringtail Possum 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.43 Batalling Reserve 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.44 Haddleton Reserve 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.45 EEP wetlands on Swan Coastal Plain in Leschenault<br />
estuary 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.46 Upper catchment rivers and creeks in uncleared<br />
areas 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.47 7 Wildlife Corridors 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.48 Hardy Inlet 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.49 Groundwater aquifers 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.50 Blackwood River 5 2 0.5 7<br />
5.7.1.51 Remnant vegetation on public land 5 2 0.0<br />
5.7.1.52 Flinders Bay 5 2 0.0<br />
5.7.1.53 Nollajup Nature Reserve 5 2 0.0<br />
5.7.2.1 Balingup Racecourse Flora Reserve 3 2 0.0<br />
5.7.2.2 Avenue of Honour - Balingup 3 2 0.0<br />
5.7.2.3 Marribank Settlement 3 2 0.0<br />
5.7.2.4 Honey possums 3 2 0.0<br />
5.7.2.5 River riparian zones 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.7.2.6 Road and Railway Reserves 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.7.2.7 Wellington National Park (and dam) 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.7.2.8 Public open spaces 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.7.2.9 Noneycup Creek 3 3 0.5 6<br />
5.7.2.10 Preston River 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.11 Balingup Brook 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.12 Blackwood River 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.13 Dorothy Scott Bushland 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.14 Maslins Reserve 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.15 Peel Inlet 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.16 Serpentine River 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.17 Big Swamp 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.18 Manea Park 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.19 Tuart Walk 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.20 Wellington National Park 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.21 Ruabon-Tutanup Rail Reserve 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.22 Urban wetlands 3 2 1.0<br />
5.7.2.23 Arthur River 3 4 1.0<br />
5.7.2.24 Beau<strong>for</strong>t River 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.25 Hillman River 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.26 Barrabup Pools 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.27 Turner Brook 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.28 Scott River 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.29 Chapman Brook 3 2 0.5 5<br />
204
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
5.7.2.30 Remnant vegetation on private land 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.31 Gingilup Swamps 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.32 Augusta wetlands 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.2.33 <strong>West</strong> Bay Creek 3 2 0.5 5<br />
5.7.3.1 Capercup Reserve 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7.3.2 Lake Towerrrinning 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7.3.3 Stream water quality 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7.3.4 Community 1 2 1.0<br />
5.7.3.5 Soil health and biodiversity 1 3 0.0<br />
5.7.3.6 Water security 1 2 1.0<br />
5.7.3.7 Buckingham Reserve 1 2 1.0<br />
5.7.3.8 Wallabies 1 2 1.0<br />
5.7.3.9 Commet Bay Beach 1 2 1.0<br />
5.7.3.10 Mandurah Estuary 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7.3.11 Manjar Bay <strong>for</strong>eshore 1 2 0.5 3<br />
5.7.3.12 Murray River 1 2 0.0<br />
Full results not yet incorporated into <strong>the</strong> document.<br />
205
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
7. Fur<strong>the</strong>r discussion on emerging threats<br />
Horizon planning 4 is a workshop approach that has been developed fairly recently, allowing a group of<br />
people with shared interests to explore changes that might impact on <strong>the</strong>ir area of interest in <strong>the</strong> near to<br />
mid-term future, whe<strong>the</strong>r through human-induced or o<strong>the</strong>r causes. Generally specialists from a range of<br />
fields participate to ensure that as broad a range of factors as possible is discussed. Often, such sessions<br />
identify and highlight issues that are unlikely to have o<strong>the</strong>rwise been discovered.<br />
A group of scientists from around <strong>the</strong> world have been implementing <strong>the</strong> approach since 2009 to identify<br />
emerging issues <strong>for</strong> conservation, highlighting 15 key issues in an annual report. The latest of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
identified four trends that have some relevance to <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> NRM region (Su<strong>the</strong>rland et al. 2011):<br />
Human denial of long-term threats<br />
Global responses to climate change<br />
Trans<strong>for</strong>mation of oceans and domestication of marine species<br />
Hydraulic fracturing<br />
In addition, NRM stakeholders in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> region have identified a number of o<strong>the</strong>r issues through<br />
direct consultation or at a workshop held in Bunbury on 2011. Each of <strong>the</strong>se issues is discussed in more<br />
detail below.<br />
7.1 Human denial of long-term threats<br />
A number of authors have argued that it is a predictable and natural human behaviour to deny long-term<br />
threats to human quality of life and health, such as climate change and biodiversity loss (Rees 2011). As<br />
an example, social responses to HIV-Aids consistently indicate that a large proportion of society will deny<br />
scientific evidence and that individuals will only change <strong>the</strong>ir behaviour when <strong>the</strong>y personally experience<br />
serious, immediate impacts. It should <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e be expected that society will respond to climate change in<br />
a similar manner, and indeed, <strong>the</strong> proportion of people denying climate change in <strong>the</strong> USA is now<br />
increasing.<br />
Worse still, social psychologists suggest that denial is expected to increase both in extent and intensity as<br />
scientific evidence of a threat from phenomena such as climate change or biodiversity loss accumulates 5 .<br />
This expected behaviour has major implications <strong>for</strong> much of <strong>the</strong> work conducted in <strong>the</strong> NRM field,<br />
particularly when combined with <strong>the</strong> ever-growing aspirations of people in developing countries <strong>for</strong> a<br />
“better life” that inexorably lead to increasing consumption levels.<br />
7.2 Decreasing rainfall<br />
The only global agreement with specific targets to control greenhouse gas emissions, <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol,<br />
expires at <strong>the</strong> end of 2012. Failure of negotiating parties to reach agreement on a successor means that it<br />
is now almost inevitable that any new agreement will take effect some time after <strong>the</strong> Kyoto Protocol<br />
expires. It is even possible that a global agreement is not feasible. Never<strong>the</strong>less, local ef<strong>for</strong>ts to reduce<br />
emissions will probably continue in many countries. Under a global agreement, <strong>the</strong>re might be<br />
opportunities to optimize or target emission reduction mechanisms, particularly those designed to reduce<br />
de<strong>for</strong>estation or enhance carbon storage in natural systems, which might also benefit native species.<br />
Without an overarching global agreement, it is unclear which mechanisms will be available to ensure that<br />
4<br />
5<br />
Or as Su<strong>the</strong>rland et al (2010) put it, “Horizon scanning is <strong>the</strong> systematic search <strong>for</strong> incipient trends, opportunities and<br />
constraints that might affect <strong>the</strong> probability of achieving management goals and objectives. Explicit objectives of horizon<br />
scanning are to anticipate issues, accumulate data and knowledge about <strong>the</strong>m, and thus in<strong>for</strong>m crucial decisions.” It is a<br />
technique widely employed in <strong>the</strong> health sector, as well as business and in <strong>the</strong> defence <strong>for</strong>ces, but has not been widely used in<br />
<strong>the</strong> fields of conservation and natural resource management.<br />
Dickinson, J.L. 2009 The people paradox: self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human response to climate<br />
change. Ecol. Soc. 14: 17<br />
206
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
<strong>the</strong> probability of persistence of native species increases ra<strong>the</strong>r than decreases in response to climate<br />
change mitigation.<br />
Projected environmental outcomes are known to differ according to whe<strong>the</strong>r power within a governance<br />
framework operates at <strong>the</strong> local, national or international level and <strong>the</strong> relative influence of <strong>the</strong> state or <strong>the</strong><br />
market on society. There has been no previous attempt at climate change mitigation that involves global<br />
carbon markets but lacks global coordination (Su<strong>the</strong>rland et al. 2011).<br />
7.3 Tree decline<br />
The following is excerpted from an unpublished paper “Climate Change and Declining Forest Ecosystems in <strong>South</strong>-west <strong>West</strong>ern<br />
Australia”, by G Hardy, P Barber, B Evans, T Lyons, S Moore, E Veneklaas, P Poot, M Renton, B Dell, T Fleming, R Hobbs, C<br />
Baudains, R Schibeci, M Buizer, L Valentine, T Moore, G Matusick, M Bader, J Chopard, N Brouwers and T Burgess, from State<br />
Centre of Excellence on Climate Change, Woodland and Forest Health, Murdoch University and <strong>the</strong> University of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia.<br />
Accessed on 2/1/2012 from http://www.<strong>for</strong>es<strong>the</strong>alth.com.au/<br />
Tree decline is a serious nationwide phenomenon. A number of woodland and <strong>for</strong>est ecosystems in <strong>the</strong><br />
south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia are suffering from varying degrees of decline. These include Eucalyptus<br />
gomphocephela (tuart), E. wandoo (wandoo), E. rudis (swamp gum), Agonis flexuosa (WA peppermint),<br />
Corymbia calophylla (marri) and E. marginata (jarrah). The causes of <strong>the</strong>se decline syndromes are<br />
complex and it is likely that predisposing (e.g. climate shifts, disturbance regime shifts), inciting (e.g. frost,<br />
drought, insect defoliation) and contributing issues (e.g. soil-borne and canker pathogens, wood and bark<br />
beetles) will be different <strong>for</strong> each of <strong>the</strong>se <strong>for</strong>est or woodland ecosystems. The decline in rainfall and <strong>the</strong><br />
slight increase in average summer and winter temperatures over <strong>the</strong> last 30 years could well be playing a<br />
significant role in helping predispose <strong>the</strong>se ecosystems to decline. These changes toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> longterm<br />
predictions of a 5-60% decrease in rainfall and a 0.5-6.5 C increase in summer temperatures by<br />
2070 do indicate that our woodland and <strong>for</strong>est ecosystems and <strong>the</strong> ecosystem services <strong>the</strong>y provide are<br />
under threat. Consequently, we need to be thinking about how to manage our <strong>for</strong>ests given that we are<br />
already experiencing climate change and that predictions all indicate substantial change <strong>for</strong> a hotter and<br />
drier climate.<br />
The question now needs to be asked ‘have ecological tipping points been reached <strong>for</strong> any of <strong>the</strong> woodland<br />
and <strong>for</strong>est ecosystems described above’ For example, in areas of <strong>the</strong> tuart <strong>for</strong>est such as immediately<br />
east of Lake Clifton all trees of all age classes are now dead. This is essentially part of an ecosystem that<br />
has collapsed. The consequences of such a decline on ecosystem function and services, and biodiversity<br />
values remain largely unexplored, but are likely profound. Seed banks are no longer present and to return<br />
this area of <strong>for</strong>est to its <strong>for</strong>mer state will require significant management inputs. These would include fire<br />
<strong>for</strong> ash beds, planting of tuart seedlings or <strong>the</strong> manual distribution of seed toge<strong>the</strong>r with A. flexuosa<br />
management to reduce competition. However, we still need to understand <strong>the</strong> causes of tuart decline,<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e we look at active intervention as any attempts to restore <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>est might well be unsuccessful. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> case of marri, <strong>the</strong> canker fungi Quambalaria coyrecup (<strong>the</strong> cause of branch, stem and trunk cankers)<br />
and Q. piterika (<strong>the</strong> cause of foliar, flower and fruit blight) are now wide spread and causing profound<br />
decline and death of marri across most of its range. Q. coyrecup is believed to be an endemic pathogen,<br />
so why is it now expressing itself as a primary pathogen This could be due to a change in <strong>the</strong> virulence of<br />
<strong>the</strong> pathogen, or to drought or some o<strong>the</strong>r change in <strong>the</strong> abiotic environment that has shifted <strong>the</strong> ability of<br />
marri to defend itself from <strong>the</strong> pathogen. There<strong>for</strong>e, <strong>for</strong> marri unlike <strong>for</strong> tuart, we have a much clearer<br />
understanding of <strong>the</strong> cause of <strong>the</strong> declines, although we do not know why marri, which has likely evolved<br />
with Q. coyrecup is now unable to defend itself. O<strong>the</strong>r similar stories and questions can be linked to <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r woodland and <strong>for</strong>est ecosystems that are in decline. The most effective way to address <strong>the</strong>se will be<br />
to develop multi-disciplinary research teams that interact and work closely with stakeholders.<br />
Many knowledge gaps still exist with regards to climate change and <strong>for</strong>est health:<br />
Tree water use - how much does a particular tree species need <strong>for</strong> survival and what level of a lack of<br />
sufficient water causes a tree to become stressed<br />
207
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
How do even small changes in climate affect phenological changes (flowering and fruiting) Even<br />
small changes may escalate into major impacts on <strong>for</strong>est biodiversity, because co-evolution has<br />
produced highly specialized interactions between specific plant and animal species.<br />
How will changes in climate affect insects and pathogens of host species, both exotic and endemic<br />
What are <strong>the</strong> climate cues that may make host species more resistant or susceptible to insects and<br />
pathogens<br />
What o<strong>the</strong>r tree species in <strong>the</strong> south-west of <strong>West</strong>ern Australia are likely to decline in future given <strong>the</strong><br />
current climate change scenarios<br />
Where should we be putting our resources with respect to <strong>the</strong> management of woodland and <strong>for</strong>est<br />
declines and to <strong>the</strong> understanding of how <strong>the</strong>se might impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services<br />
How and where do we establish long-term monitoring plots to record biotic and abiotic perturbations in<br />
our <strong>for</strong>ests and how can we use historical records to help monitor alterations in tree and<br />
pest/pathogen distributions that expose our <strong>for</strong>ests to new or enhanced pressures that will result in<br />
change or ecosystem tipping points<br />
What are <strong>the</strong> best methods and tools to monitor <strong>for</strong>est health and change remotely<br />
These and many o<strong>the</strong>r questions will need to be asked and addressed to ensure we manage our <strong>for</strong>est<br />
and woodland ecosystems and <strong>the</strong> services <strong>the</strong>y provide in <strong>the</strong> face of climate change.<br />
7.4 Emissions trading, carbon tax and related issues<br />
The Australian Government has set up a number of initiatives to help deal with climate change and its<br />
effects. As such, <strong>the</strong>y provide significant opportunities <strong>for</strong> SWCC and its partners to access funding.<br />
They include:<br />
1. Biodiversity Fund<br />
2. Carbon Farming Futures<br />
3. Indigenous Carbon Fund<br />
4. Regional Natural Resource Management Planning <strong>for</strong> Climate Change Fund<br />
5. Carbon Farming Skills<br />
6. Carbon Farming Initiative – Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund<br />
The following in<strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong>se has been taken from <strong>the</strong> Government’s websites.<br />
1. Biodiversity Fund: An ongoing fund, <strong>the</strong> Biodiversity Fund (part of <strong>the</strong> Clean Energy Future Plan)<br />
aims to support Australia’s farmers and o<strong>the</strong>r land managers by supporting projects that establish,<br />
restore, protect or manage biodiverse carbon stores<br />
Funding will be allocated to activities to help farmers and land managers store carbon, enhance<br />
biodiversity and increase resilience across <strong>the</strong> Australian landscape. The Biodiversity Fund will<br />
facilitate investment in:<br />
Biodiverse plantings: Funding will help farmers and o<strong>the</strong>r land managers expand native habitat on<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir property through planting mixed vegetation species appropriate to <strong>the</strong>ir region. This will help<br />
build landscape resilience and connectivity.<br />
Protecting and enhancing existing native vegetation: Funding will support farmers and o<strong>the</strong>r land<br />
managers to protect, manage and enhance high conservation value native vegetation, on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
land <strong>for</strong> its carbon storage and biodiversity benefits.<br />
Managing threats to biodiversity: Funding will support farmers and o<strong>the</strong>r land managers to control<br />
<strong>the</strong> threat of invasive pests and weeds.<br />
There have also been some serious questions raised about <strong>the</strong> fund, see <strong>for</strong> example<br />
http://<strong>the</strong>conversation.edu.au/<strong>the</strong>-biodiversity-fund-ano<strong>the</strong>r-missed-opportunity-4889<br />
208
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
2. The Carbon Farming Futures program is designed to assist land owners and users to participate in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Initiative and reduce emissions. This program is itself made up of several<br />
components:<br />
Filling <strong>the</strong> Research Gap (AUD201 million) will fund research into new technologies and practices<br />
<strong>for</strong> land managers to reduce emissions and store soil carbon. This program has already<br />
commenced, building on research undertaken through <strong>the</strong> Climate Change Research Program.<br />
The relevant website says, “Projects will target current research gaps around abatement<br />
technologies and practices. Research priorities are reducing methane emissions, reducing nitrous<br />
oxide emissions, sequestering carbon and improving modelling capability.”<br />
Converting research into methodologies (AUD20 million) provides funding to convert research into<br />
estimation methodologies <strong>for</strong> use in <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Initiative. This program will commence<br />
from 1st July 2012 and <strong>for</strong> those familiar with <strong>the</strong> processes of <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Initiative and<br />
its Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, funding support will be very welcome.<br />
Action on <strong>the</strong> Ground (AUD99 million) is designed to assist industry and farming groups test and<br />
apply research outcomes in real farming situations. The first round of funding applications has<br />
closed, with successful applicants to be advised in <strong>the</strong> near future.<br />
Extension and Outreach (AUD 64 million) to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation, support and an extension<br />
network to help farmers take action on <strong>the</strong> land. Latest in<strong>for</strong>mation suggests funding will be<br />
available to organisations in and related to agriculture.<br />
Refundable Tax Offset (RTO) will provide 15% RTOs <strong>for</strong> new eligible conservation tillage<br />
equipment installed between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015. This element of Carbon Farming<br />
Futures is exclusively open to agricultural activities and excludes farming, but may include private<br />
farm <strong>for</strong>estry initiatives.<br />
3. The ongoing Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund will support Indigenous Australians to benefit from<br />
carbon farming. The Fund will commence from July 2012, and will be delivered in two streams:<br />
A Research and Development stream ($5.2 million over five years) will provide funding <strong>for</strong><br />
research and reporting tools <strong>for</strong> Carbon Farming Initiative methodologies. This funding will be<br />
directed towards low-cost methodologies likely to have high Indigenous participation to help create<br />
real and lasting opportunities <strong>for</strong> Indigenous Australians.<br />
A Capacity Building and Business Support stream ($17.1 million over five years) will help<br />
Indigenous communities establish or participate in carbon farming projects.<br />
One can register your interest in receiving email updates about <strong>the</strong> Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund<br />
Research and Development stream and o<strong>the</strong>r land sector measures by emailing <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming<br />
Administrator - cfi@climatechange.gov.au.<br />
4. The Regional Natural Resource Management Planning <strong>for</strong> Climate Change Fund: Regional<br />
Natural Resource Management (NRM) organisations will be supported to update existing regional<br />
NRM plans to guide planning <strong>for</strong> climate change impacts on <strong>the</strong> land and to maximise <strong>the</strong><br />
environmental benefits of carbon farming projects.<br />
Around $44m over five years will be utilised <strong>for</strong> this fund. The fund will help to guide where<br />
biosequestration projects should be located in <strong>the</strong> landscape to maximise <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>for</strong> biodiversity,<br />
water and agricultural production. The fund is divided into two streams:<br />
Stream 1: Will provide $28.9m over five years to support <strong>the</strong> 56 regional NRM organisations<br />
revise existing regional NRM plans to help identify where in <strong>the</strong> landscape adaptation and<br />
mitigation activities should be undertaken. This stream will be administered by <strong>the</strong> Department of<br />
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities<br />
Stream 2: Will provide $15m over five years to support development of regional-level in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of scenarios about <strong>the</strong> impacts of climate change (water, temperature, storms) which<br />
209
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
can be used <strong>for</strong> medium term regional NRM land use planning. This stream will be administered<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.<br />
For more in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> Regional NRM Planning <strong>for</strong> Climate Change Fund, please subscribe to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Clean Energy Enviro News.<br />
5. Carbon Farming Skills: The ongoing Carbon Farming Skills initiative will ensure that landholders<br />
have access to credible, high quality advice and carbon services. This measure will fund:<br />
development of a new nationally accredited qualification <strong>for</strong> carbon service providers<br />
accreditation of carbon brokers and aggregators operating in <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Initiative; and<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation workshops <strong>for</strong> farm extension officers, catchment authorities and rural service<br />
providers about carbon farming.<br />
The program, with funding of $4 million over five years, will commence in July 2012. Carbon Farming<br />
Skills will be administered by <strong>the</strong> Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.<br />
You can register your interest in receiving email updates about <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Skills and <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r land sector measures by emailing <strong>the</strong> Carbon Farming Administrator -<br />
cfi@climatechange.gov.au.<br />
6. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by<br />
storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on <strong>the</strong> land. These credits can <strong>the</strong>n be sold to<br />
people and businesses wishing to offset <strong>the</strong>ir emissions. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/cfi<br />
The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is an Australian Government scheme to help farmers, <strong>for</strong>est<br />
growers and land managers earn income from reducing emissions like nitrous oxide and methane<br />
through changes to agricultural and land management practices.<br />
http://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi The initiative will achieve this by:<br />
establishing a carbon crediting scheme - These rule and regulations will be <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
carbon crediting scheme and developing on farm methodologies <strong>for</strong> emissions offset activities.<br />
Landholders undertaking activities that con<strong>for</strong>m to an approved methodology will generate carbon<br />
credits. These carbon credits could <strong>the</strong>n be sold on domestic or international carbon markets.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong>se rules is available from <strong>the</strong> Department of Climate Change and<br />
Energy Efficiency and <strong>the</strong> CFI brochure.<br />
developing methodologies <strong>for</strong> offset projects - Landholders and Indigenous Land Managers<br />
undertaking projects to credit offsets will need to use an approved methodology in order to<br />
participate in <strong>the</strong> carbon offset scheme. All offset methodologies are assessed by <strong>the</strong> Domestic<br />
Offsets Integrity Committee (DOIC), an independent committee of experts, to ensure <strong>the</strong>y lead to<br />
real and measurable emissions reductions. The Committee brings a range of expertise to <strong>the</strong>se<br />
assessments, including science, technology, legal, methodology development and greenhouse<br />
gas measurement approaches. A list of proposed methodologies and fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation on how<br />
to submit comments are available on <strong>the</strong> Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency<br />
website. The Government is continuing to work with stakeholders to develop fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
methodologies <strong>for</strong> submission to <strong>the</strong> DOIC.<br />
providing in<strong>for</strong>mation and tools to help farmers and land managers benefit from carbon markets<br />
investing in a CFI Communications Program - The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)<br />
Communications Program will invest $4 million from 2011–12 to 2013-14 to provide farmers, land<br />
managers and <strong>the</strong>ir key influencers with credible, clear and consistent in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> CFI.<br />
Part of <strong>the</strong> program will provide targeted grants to each of <strong>the</strong> 56 Natural Resource Management<br />
(NRM) regions. This will see Regional Landcare Facilitators (RLFs) work closely with farmers,<br />
Indigenous Australians and o<strong>the</strong>r land managers to identify how <strong>the</strong>y can participate in and benefit<br />
from <strong>the</strong> opportunities created by <strong>the</strong> CFI and carbon farming. RLFs participated in a national<br />
<strong>for</strong>um about <strong>the</strong> CFI in Canberra on 8 and 9 March 2011. They have also attended state and<br />
210
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
territory based workshops delivered by <strong>the</strong> Australian Government and <strong>the</strong> University of<br />
Melbourne. It is expected that RLFs will begin delivering in<strong>for</strong>mation sessions to farmers and land<br />
managers from December 2011.<br />
investing in a Biochar Capacity Building Program<br />
The implementation of <strong>the</strong> scheme will be undertaken jointly by DAFF and <strong>the</strong> Department of Climate<br />
Change and Energy Efficiency.<br />
7.5 Changes in approaches to prioritizing assets and threats<br />
INFFER has been developed as a means to prioritize assets <strong>for</strong> intervention on <strong>the</strong> basis of (mainly)<br />
economic in<strong>for</strong>mation (see www.inffer.org <strong>for</strong> a complete description and a brad range of useful<br />
publications). There have been recent suggestions that <strong>the</strong> so-called condition-based approach might be<br />
more effective (Curtis and Lefroy 2010), but this framework requires fur<strong>the</strong>r development.<br />
Yet o<strong>the</strong>r researchers are developing methods based on those utilised in <strong>the</strong> health sector to prioritize<br />
investment into priority health issues (Evans et al 2011) and SWCC should research <strong>the</strong>se carefully be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
going ahead with any system.<br />
7.6 The emergence of citizen science<br />
Citizen Science is gaining in popularity as a method of research, and <strong>for</strong> many good reasons (Cooper et al<br />
2007). As <strong>the</strong> term suggests, Citizen Science involves <strong>the</strong> participation of <strong>the</strong> wider community<br />
(particularly non-scientists) in scientific projects. Interestingly, it is nothing new – naturalists were people<br />
that provided significant inputs to <strong>the</strong> world of science, including Aristotle, John James Audubon, Charles<br />
Darwin, Joseph Banks, Alexander von Humboldt, Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay<br />
Gould, Henry David Thoreau, Theodore Roosevelt, Carl Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and David Suzuki.<br />
Proponents of Citizen Science, when listing its benefits, usually begin with how it enables extensive data<br />
collection. Indeed, this benefit is considerable; but it is <strong>the</strong> interaction between scientists and <strong>the</strong><br />
community, and <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>for</strong> projects to in<strong>for</strong>m both groups, that are perhaps <strong>the</strong> most exciting outcomes<br />
of this approach. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, new ways to conduct and augment Citizen Science projects are being<br />
developed that are enhancing <strong>the</strong> potential of this research methodology.<br />
Developing our scientific understanding of <strong>the</strong> natural world often requires a great deal of data collection,<br />
but time and resource availability limit scientists' ability to collect that data. One solution to this problem is<br />
to have more people collecting data, and this is where Citizen Scientists can assist. Data can be collected<br />
by <strong>the</strong> community and submitted via online survey instruments, or materials can be collected and<br />
delivered to scientists. Scientists benefit from data collected over a large area, or over a long period of<br />
time. Data and materials can also be collected from areas that are normally difficult to access, such as<br />
private property.<br />
Additional benefits:<br />
There are many o<strong>the</strong>r benefits of Citizen Science. By participating in a project, community members get a<br />
chance to in<strong>for</strong>m scientists, and, in <strong>the</strong> process, learn more about <strong>the</strong>ir environment. In<strong>for</strong>mation gained<br />
through Citizen Science projects can change public perceptions of <strong>the</strong> natural world, promote interaction<br />
with nature, and engage <strong>the</strong> community in <strong>the</strong> management of natural resources. These natural<br />
advantages of a Citizen Science program can be augmented by additional education and research<br />
strategies:<br />
The inclusion of educational materials <strong>for</strong> school-based projects, e.g. exercises developed <strong>for</strong> Barbara<br />
Hardy Institute Citizen Science projects at <strong>the</strong> University of <strong>South</strong> Australia are introducing children to<br />
animal classification, wildlife observation, collecting data and collating results<br />
http://www.unisa.edu.au/barbarahardy/research/citizen-science.asp .<br />
211
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Data can be collected, or self-reported, that concerns <strong>the</strong> attitudes of <strong>the</strong> participating Citizen<br />
Scientists. This collection of attitudinal data enables scientists to examine <strong>the</strong> influences on people's<br />
behaviour towards wildlife.<br />
There are even whole organisations devoted to this e.g. Community Science Institute (CSI) is a not-<strong>for</strong>profit<br />
organization whose mission is to empower local people to understand <strong>the</strong>ir environment and<br />
manage <strong>the</strong>ir resources sustainably, particularly water. They recruit, train and support groups of<br />
volunteers to partner with a state-certified water quality testing lab and monitor streams and lakes over <strong>the</strong><br />
long term. Data produced by <strong>the</strong> monitoring partnerships with local volunteers fills gaps left by federal,<br />
state and academic programs, while monitoring results help position local governments to manage water<br />
resources and distribute costs equitably among stakeholders. By participating directly in <strong>the</strong> scientific<br />
process of collecting management-quality data, volunteers become knowledgeable stewards of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
watersheds (See http://communityscience.org/).<br />
Taken from: Cooper, CB, J Dickinson, T Phillips and R Bonney 2007 Citizen science as a tool <strong>for</strong><br />
conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society 12(2):11 Sourced online on 8 th March 2012<br />
at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/<br />
The following also provides fur<strong>the</strong>r insights: “Building a Sustainable Future Needs More Than Science” by<br />
Stephen Leahy, who wrote: Contrary to popular belief, humans have failed to address <strong>the</strong> earth's<br />
worsening emergencies of climate change, species' extinction and resource overconsumption not<br />
because of a lack of in<strong>for</strong>mation, but because of a lack of imagination, social scientists and artists say.<br />
At a conference <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> American Academy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Advancement of Science (AAAS) here in Vancouver,<br />
British Columbia, experts argued that <strong>the</strong> path to a truly sustainable future is through <strong>the</strong> muddy waters of<br />
emotions, values, ethics, and most importantly, imagination.<br />
Humans' perceptions of reality are filtered by personal experiences and values, said David Maggs, a<br />
concert pianist and PhD student at <strong>the</strong> Institute <strong>for</strong> Resources, Environment and Sustainability at <strong>the</strong><br />
University of British Columbia (UBC).<br />
As a result, <strong>the</strong> education and communication paradigm of "if we only knew better, we'd do better" is not<br />
working, Maggs told attendees at <strong>the</strong> world's largest general science meeting. "We don't live in <strong>the</strong> real<br />
world, but live only in <strong>the</strong> world we imagine."<br />
"We live in our heads. We live in storyland," agreed John Robinson of UBC's Institute <strong>for</strong> Resources,<br />
Environment and Sustainability.<br />
"When we talk about sustainability we are talking about <strong>the</strong> future, how things could be. This is <strong>the</strong><br />
landscape of imagination," Robinson told IPS. "If we can't imagine a better world we won't get it."<br />
This imagining will be complex and difficult. Sustainability encompasses far more than just scientific facts<br />
– it also incorporates <strong>the</strong> idea of how we relate to nature and to ourselves, he said.<br />
"We haven't yet grasped <strong>the</strong> depth of changes that are coming."<br />
Because human decisions and behaviour are <strong>the</strong> result of ethics, values and emotion, and because<br />
sustainability directly involves our values and ethical concerns, science alone is insufficient to make<br />
decisions about sustainability, said Thomas Dietz, assistant vice president <strong>for</strong> environmental research at<br />
Michigan State University.<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation plays a much smaller role than we like to think, Dietz explained. In order to truly address big<br />
issues like climate change or sustainability, we need to talk at a society-wide scale about our values and<br />
reach mutual understanding about <strong>the</strong> values needed <strong>for</strong> sustainability.<br />
"However, we don't like to talk about our values or feelings, because it threatens our personal identity."<br />
Engaging <strong>the</strong> public<br />
Treating nature as an object, separate and distinct from us, is part of <strong>the</strong> problem, said Sacha Kagan,<br />
sociologist at Leuphana University in Germany. The current environmental crisis results from technological<br />
thinking and a fear of complexity that science alone cannot help us with, Kagan said.<br />
212
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
The objectification of <strong>the</strong> natural world began during <strong>the</strong> Age of Enlightenment about 300 years ago.<br />
People saw <strong>the</strong> world and <strong>the</strong>ir place in it in very different ways be<strong>for</strong>e that, said Robinson.<br />
Today, he said, sustainability will not be achieved without "engaging people in numbers and at levels that<br />
have never been done be<strong>for</strong>e".<br />
New social media tools like Facebook may help with such a monumental task, as "people certainly don't<br />
like to come to public meetings".<br />
Current approaches to help <strong>the</strong> public understand <strong>the</strong> implications of climate change, such as graphs or<br />
iconic pictures of polar bears, have limitations and are ineffective, said Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at<br />
<strong>the</strong> University of East Anglia in <strong>the</strong> UK.<br />
"We need to find new ways to think about <strong>the</strong> future under climate change," said Hulme.<br />
Art could be one such approach, suggested Dietz. It would serve not as propaganda but as a creative way<br />
to engage our imaginations. "Art can provoke thinking and actually change people's perceptions of <strong>the</strong><br />
complex issues associated with sustainability science," he argued.<br />
"When we're considering questions about preserving biodiversity versus creating jobs, art can help us<br />
examine our values and have a discussion that's broader than just scientific facts."<br />
It is tempting to believe <strong>the</strong> arts can help by softening and 'pretty-fying' <strong>the</strong> message and bringing it to a<br />
wider audience, said award-winning photographer Joe Zammit-Lucia.<br />
"We need to go much fur<strong>the</strong>r to provide a different worldview that can help us re-frame <strong>the</strong> issues," said<br />
Zammit-Lucia.<br />
Society's choices are driven by people's cultural perceptions of reality, which in turn are based on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
values and <strong>the</strong>ir cultural context, he said. While helpful, scientific knowledge and experts are also part of<br />
<strong>the</strong> problem: by dominating <strong>the</strong> sustainability discourse, <strong>the</strong>y narrow people's visions of what's possible.<br />
"I also don't buy in <strong>the</strong> idea we need to make <strong>the</strong> right decisions. What we need is <strong>the</strong> right process, ways<br />
in which <strong>the</strong> public can fully participate," he concluded.<br />
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.aspidnews=106808 21-2-2012<br />
7.7 Land use change and development<br />
The speed of land use change and development in <strong>the</strong> <strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> NRM region has accelerated over <strong>the</strong><br />
last decade or so, partly due to <strong>the</strong> ever-increasing numbers of mining employees on FIFO (fly in-fly out)<br />
contracts that now call <strong>the</strong> south west “home”. This naturally puts <strong>the</strong> environment under increasing<br />
pressure and demands ever more rapid responses from <strong>the</strong> NRM community, just to maintain <strong>the</strong> status<br />
quo <strong>for</strong> our most valued NRM assets.<br />
Of particular importance is <strong>the</strong> fact that many of <strong>the</strong> community engagement strategies employed in <strong>the</strong><br />
past may not be as effective as be<strong>for</strong>e, as FIFO employees don’t have <strong>the</strong> same “connection with <strong>the</strong><br />
land” as do people who have lived <strong>for</strong> generations in <strong>the</strong> same area, or at least have moved to an area<br />
with <strong>the</strong> aim of staying <strong>the</strong>re in <strong>the</strong> long term. SWCC and its partners will have to deal with this issue, as<br />
will all o<strong>the</strong>r sectors (ranging from health to policing and social welfare).<br />
7.8 Decreasing resilience in <strong>the</strong> community<br />
Resilience is generally said to mean <strong>the</strong> time it takes <strong>for</strong> an individual, community or organization to<br />
recover/rebound from a crisis or disturbance, such as a drought or freak storm, and not effectively resolve<br />
it but also learn from it, be streng<strong>the</strong>ned and emerge trans<strong>for</strong>med by <strong>the</strong> experience. That said, it is a<br />
more “diffuse” issue that is a little difficult to “pin down”, also being closely related to some of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
issues, such as globalisation and FIFO contracts, as well as with consumerism and <strong>the</strong> general decrease<br />
in personal responsibility and empathy across communities.<br />
213
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong> key responses that have been identified include supporting self-organization; fostering<br />
learning and education; and encouraging adaptation (Sapirstein – see<br />
www.oriconsulting.com/social_resilience.pdf). Enhancing Social Resilience requires cooperation and<br />
collaboration of all stakeholders, including <strong>the</strong> private sector, government (public sector), Non-<br />
Governmental Organizations (NGO's) and o<strong>the</strong>r community organizations (such as community catchment<br />
groups), <strong>the</strong> aim being to increase <strong>the</strong> strength of <strong>the</strong> community by increasing <strong>the</strong> strength and scope of<br />
<strong>the</strong> internal connections between <strong>the</strong> people, organizations and environment that <strong>for</strong>m that society. This<br />
moving away from <strong>the</strong> doctrine of independence to embracing a culture of interdependence is <strong>the</strong> key to<br />
both harmony and development.<br />
7.9 Genetic resilience at <strong>the</strong> edges of range<br />
It is becoming gradually clearer that <strong>the</strong> genetic resilience of individuals of a species increases <strong>the</strong> closer<br />
to <strong>the</strong> edge of <strong>the</strong> range of that species. This is possibly due to <strong>the</strong> fact that species in those locales are<br />
subjected to a more hostile environment (<strong>for</strong> that species) than those living in <strong>the</strong> centre of <strong>the</strong>ir habitat<br />
range, where conditions are likely to be more “ideal”. This could have a significant influence some of <strong>the</strong><br />
adaptation work proposed in response to climate change, e.g. on relocation and restocking, as individuals<br />
from <strong>the</strong> edges of <strong>the</strong>ir ranges may be better candidates <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>se activities, given that <strong>the</strong>ir genetics make<br />
<strong>the</strong>m more disposed to surviving in adverse habitats. At <strong>the</strong> very least, it highlights <strong>the</strong> need to use<br />
individuals from a variety of locales to ensure that as wide a range of genetic diversity is “captured” as<br />
possible <strong>for</strong> such work.<br />
It should be noted that this is not <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> widely-known “edge of range effect”, where species in<br />
less favoured habitats are more likely to become locally extinct.<br />
7.10 Globalisation and <strong>the</strong> environment<br />
This is a debate that often becomes very heated. One of <strong>the</strong> better discussions of <strong>the</strong> issue was<br />
published on <strong>the</strong> web last year by W Yeoh on whydev.org, a collaborative and participatory plat<strong>for</strong>m <strong>for</strong><br />
individuals passionate about global issues, allowing <strong>the</strong>m to discuss a diverse range of topics from<br />
international development and <strong>for</strong>eign aid to career advice and morality. His paper, sourced on 13/3/2012<br />
on http://www.whydev.org/globalisation-technology-and-<strong>the</strong>-environment-a-recipe-<strong>for</strong>-pollution/ is<br />
reproduced here:<br />
Globalisation, technology and <strong>the</strong> environment – a recipe <strong>for</strong> pollution<br />
by Weh Yeoh on November 5, 2010<br />
The speed at which globalisation has spread has lead to unprecedented impacts on <strong>the</strong> environment.<br />
There are two schools of thought however; one group believes that through <strong>the</strong> spread of economic<br />
success, knowledge and technology, globalisation will improve <strong>the</strong> condition of <strong>the</strong> environment. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong> opposite perspective states that <strong>the</strong> success of globalisation inherently depends on environment<br />
degradation.<br />
Optimists believe that globalisation leads to economic growth and higher per capita incomes, which<br />
creates wealth and political will, two factors necessary to combat environmental damage. They often point<br />
to <strong>the</strong> environmental Kuznets curve, which states that along <strong>the</strong> path of economic growth, <strong>the</strong>re is a<br />
tendency <strong>for</strong> temporarily higher pollution levels as a result of <strong>the</strong> early stages of industrial development.<br />
However, once a certain level of per capita income is reached, environmental damage decreases (see<br />
graph below).<br />
Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, this view is overly simplistic in that it ignores two powerful reasons why <strong>the</strong> net<br />
environmental impact is still higher as income increases.<br />
Firstly, globalisation facilitates an increase in consumption that occurs as a wider selection of goods<br />
become available at a lower price. Industrial countries, with 15% of <strong>the</strong> world’s population, account <strong>for</strong><br />
214
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
76% of global consumption expenditure. This brings us to <strong>the</strong> second argument, which is that as countries<br />
develop, people tend to shift <strong>the</strong> production, and hence <strong>the</strong> pollution, onto less developed nations. This<br />
creates a gap between consumption and production, which distances <strong>the</strong> consumer both physically and<br />
ethically from <strong>the</strong> negative implications of consumption, fur<strong>the</strong>r encouraging more consumption. In o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
words, if I don’t see <strong>the</strong> net effect of my purchases here in Australia, because <strong>the</strong> factory underpaying <strong>the</strong><br />
workers and producing pollution is in China, I can go out on a spending spree guilt free.<br />
The Environmental Kuznets curve<br />
This gap is fur<strong>the</strong>r highlighted when one considers <strong>the</strong> inequity in carbon produced between developed<br />
and developing nations. Current data from <strong>the</strong> World Bank suggests that <strong>the</strong> bulk of CO2 emissions<br />
produced in 2002 overwhelmingly came from countries with a high-income average. This debunks <strong>the</strong><br />
underlying assumption of <strong>the</strong> environmental Kuznets curve, because clearly, as per capital income<br />
increases, pollution also goes up and up (see graph below).<br />
If globalisation was supposed to result in improved technology, which facilitates more efficient and<br />
pollution-free production, <strong>the</strong>n it is clear that on balance, this has not occurred ei<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
The Jevons paradox states that increased efficiency through technological progress leads to increased<br />
consumption, as human behaviour dictates that an increased demand <strong>for</strong> a resource occurs as <strong>the</strong> cost is<br />
lowered. The classic example used to illustrate this phenomenon is that in creating more fuel-efficient<br />
cars, you have billions of fuel-efficient cars purchased, ra<strong>the</strong>r than millions of inefficient cars. So an<br />
increase in technology and efficiency through globalisation has <strong>the</strong> effect of increasing consumption and<br />
hence environmental degradation.<br />
Critics also point to <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> focus of globalisation is on profit and economic success, through trade<br />
liberalisation, and <strong>the</strong> environment necessarily becomes a secondary consideration. As Roe and Eaton<br />
put it, “WTO rules do not consider <strong>the</strong> value of such elements as clean air and fresh water”. Globalisation<br />
inherently causes environmental damage through <strong>the</strong> increase in transport, goods, infrastructure and<br />
energy consumption that occurs out of necessity as world markets are linked toge<strong>the</strong>r. As markets move<br />
from local to global, <strong>the</strong> physical space between <strong>the</strong> consumer and producer increases. This not only<br />
results in higher transport costs to <strong>the</strong> environment, but also infrastructure to support <strong>the</strong> transfer of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
goods.<br />
In attempting to combat globalisation’s effect on environmental degradation, a major barrier is <strong>the</strong><br />
increasing number of actors in <strong>the</strong> global political economy, and <strong>the</strong>ir decreasing levels of accountability.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> very heart of this problem lies <strong>the</strong> shift in power that has occurred from states to markets, and <strong>the</strong><br />
215
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
increasingly transnational <strong>for</strong>ms of governance that have occurred. Simply put, <strong>the</strong> lack of an<br />
intergovernmental body overseeing this area means that growth is unregulated and unsustainable.<br />
National CO2 emissions per country per capita, click to enlarge.<br />
Globalisation and <strong>the</strong> underlying principles of neoliberalism suggest that <strong>the</strong> natural equilibrium of <strong>the</strong> free<br />
market leads to a more efficient and productive society. While this in itself is questionable, it leaves issues<br />
like <strong>the</strong> environment in <strong>the</strong> “too hard” category, because protecting our natural resources is not considered<br />
as something of major value. This issue brings up many questions surrounding global governance, and<br />
where responsibilities lie when corporations are left unregulated in <strong>the</strong> pursuit of profit. For example, what<br />
challenges would an international organisation charged with regulating environmental degradation face<br />
Where does <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>for</strong> solving environmental problems lie – with <strong>the</strong> state, market or civil<br />
society Is <strong>the</strong>re hope towards true international regulation, or will it be stymied by <strong>the</strong> individual agendas<br />
of each country<br />
7.11 Intensifying use of marine resources<br />
The way that humans view and use <strong>the</strong> sea might be changing dramatically, from a perceived wild space<br />
that provides resources to an intensively managed space that is “farmed”<br />
(http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2009/04/taming-<strong>the</strong>-blue-frontier/). Use of <strong>the</strong> oceans to generate<br />
energy, produce food and mitigate climate change is advancing rapidly. Increasingly common <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />
marine industry include deep-sea fish farming, marine renewable energy generation, floating server plants<br />
and extraction of rare metals from seawater.<br />
216
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
And <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re is aquaculture, which is expected to supply 50% of seafood by 2015. Already <strong>the</strong><br />
abundance of large predators has been reduced in most oceans, with more dramatic declines in<br />
intensively used areas, such as <strong>the</strong> North Atlantic. Shallow seabeds are extensively trawled. The rate of<br />
infrastructure construction, especially <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> production of renewable energy, is accelerating. Although<br />
none of <strong>the</strong>se individual issues is highly novel, <strong>the</strong>se rapid, simultaneous developments across multiple<br />
sectors will probably have a dramatic impact on <strong>the</strong> oceans and <strong>the</strong> species that <strong>the</strong>y support.<br />
See Su<strong>the</strong>rland et al. (2011) <strong>for</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
7.12 Groundwater contamination<br />
The threat to environmental quality posed by open-cast mining of oil sands has been widely highlighted,<br />
but comparatively little attention has been paid to <strong>the</strong> threats arising from hydraulic fracturing (also known<br />
as “fracking”) to extract natural gas from organic-rich shale basins. This technology is proposed <strong>for</strong> a<br />
number of sites across Australia, including some in <strong>the</strong> south west.<br />
Depending on site conditions, hydraulic fracturing at a single horizontal well might require pumping of<br />
8,000-38,000 tons of water-based fracturing fluids at high pressure into <strong>the</strong> bedrock. The pumping creates<br />
fractures that enable <strong>the</strong> subsequent flow of gas out to <strong>the</strong> wellhead. This generally occurs usually far<br />
below any aquifers and wells can be effectively sealed to prevent leakage. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong>re have been<br />
cases of pollution of both surface water and aquifers, and of gas leakage.<br />
This is of concern, as fracturing fluids contain several toxic chemicals, including naphthalene, butanol,<br />
fluorocarbons and <strong>for</strong>maldehyde, which are considered carcinogenic and are linked to numerous human<br />
illnesses. Gas companies are not required to disclose <strong>the</strong> composition of fluids, which could result in less<br />
effective treatment by wastewater plants.<br />
The high quantities of water required <strong>for</strong> fracturing are typically extracted on-site from groundwater or<br />
nearby streams, and this could affect aquatic ecology and public water resources. The growth of this<br />
industry across <strong>the</strong> USA and elsewhere is considerable. This again is of concern, as <strong>the</strong> spatial reach of<br />
each well is limited so that a high density of wells, access roads and pipelines is needed <strong>for</strong><br />
comprehensive gas extraction, creating a footprint that is affecting large areas of natural landscapes in <strong>the</strong><br />
USA.<br />
See Su<strong>the</strong>rland et al. (2011) <strong>for</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
7.13 New invasive species<br />
There are a number of serious pest species that may impact on NRM in <strong>the</strong> south west in <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
These not only include <strong>the</strong> well-known Cane toad, but also <strong>the</strong> much less known Asian bee, Apis cerana,<br />
which has decimated <strong>the</strong> honey bee industry in <strong>the</strong> Solomons (reducing hive numbers from >2000 to just<br />
5). Un<strong>for</strong>tunately, in February 2011, a decision was taken by a majority of State governments to end<br />
control ef<strong>for</strong>ts (see Cribb 2012, accessed on 17/3/2012 at<br />
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asparticle=11661).<br />
Many notable ecologists believe, however, that <strong>the</strong> case against non-native species is often overplayed<br />
and that it is time to study each such species on a case by case basis, ensuring that both positive and<br />
negative impacts are well-known be<strong>for</strong>e “damning” <strong>the</strong> species (Davis et al 2011 – see<br />
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/474153a.html and also<br />
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/474153a.html <strong>for</strong> a response).<br />
7.14 Global financial instability<br />
The recent economic crises around <strong>the</strong> globe have spooked many investors and reduced <strong>the</strong> amount of<br />
investment funding available. Impacts have been largely contained in Australia, probably due to <strong>the</strong><br />
217
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
continuing strong per<strong>for</strong>mance of <strong>the</strong> mining sector. That said, <strong>the</strong> Australian Government is cutting<br />
funding support <strong>for</strong> many programs and this may impact on NRM. Additionally, <strong>the</strong> lack of investor<br />
confidence means that it may be harder <strong>for</strong> SWCC and/or its partners to seek non-government funding, if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y choose to do so.<br />
7.15 Eco-label fatigue<br />
Eco-label fatigue is a new term that became widespread in 2011, even acknowledged in <strong>the</strong> Wikipedia<br />
description of eco-labels as leading “to some confusion and perhaps fatigue amongst consumers” (see<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecolabel). It refers to <strong>the</strong> fact that many consumers (and investors) are<br />
becoming tired/wary of eco-labelling schemes as reports on <strong>the</strong> misuse of such labels and/or corruption<br />
within <strong>the</strong>m grows, and <strong>the</strong> sheer numbers of such schemes grows exponentially as businesses try to take<br />
advantage of <strong>the</strong> idea.<br />
This has serious potential to erode <strong>the</strong> usefulness of such schemes, and could affect <strong>the</strong> ability of some<br />
sectors of NRM in <strong>the</strong> south west to access funding, e.g. <strong>the</strong> environmental management systems (EMS)<br />
schemes.<br />
Possible impacts are discussed by Joshua Saunders (2010), who shows how this is affecting eco-labels in<br />
<strong>the</strong> USA by <strong>for</strong>cing a process of consolidation and cooperation, whereby <strong>the</strong> plethora of such labels is<br />
slowly being reduced to a few that are authoritative, trusted and well-known (“branded”) – see<br />
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/09/23/are-<strong>the</strong>re-too-many-eco-labels-and-green-ratings. For a<br />
discussion on how this affects <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>est certification industry, see<br />
http://ipsnews.net/news.aspidnews=55985).<br />
218
DRAFT<br />
<strong>South</strong> <strong>West</strong> Regional NRM Strategy – Ancillary Document<br />
7. Funding Opportunities<br />
7.1 Revolving Fund <strong>for</strong> securing conservation properties<br />
One example is <strong>the</strong> “Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature”, which is an independent, not-<strong>for</strong>-profit organisation that manages a<br />
unique Revolving Fund that enables <strong>the</strong> Trust to quickly purchase significant native habitats. The Fund is<br />
an example of Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature's innovative approach to conservation that yields real and long-term<br />
sustainable conservation outcomes.<br />
Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature purchases high-conservation value properties through <strong>the</strong> Revolving Fund and <strong>the</strong>n onsells<br />
<strong>the</strong>m with a Conservation Covenant on <strong>the</strong> title to a caring new owner. All money generated through<br />
<strong>the</strong> sale of <strong>the</strong> properties is wholly returned to <strong>the</strong> Fund to replenish its reserves and enable future<br />
purchases. In this way <strong>the</strong> fund revolves in perpetuity.<br />
Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature's Revolving Fund was established in 1989 and has since become a key component to <strong>the</strong><br />
organisation. The idea <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fund was conceived and implemented by <strong>the</strong> Board of Trustees and staff in<br />
response to <strong>the</strong> need to establish a conservation-based market <strong>for</strong> real estate buyers.<br />
Due to <strong>the</strong> enormous success of Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature's Revolving Fund, <strong>the</strong> Fund is now used as a model<br />
being adopted by kindred land trusts in o<strong>the</strong>r states across Australia. Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature's revolving Fund to<br />
date has on-sold a total of 41 properties and at value of $3.4 million.<br />
As a trust, Trust <strong>for</strong> Nature can accept donations that are tax deductible, while also providing supporters<br />
an opportunity purchase a Revolving Fund property which helps protect Australia's natural heritage be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
it disappears <strong>for</strong>ever. See http://www.trust<strong>for</strong>nature.org.au/about-revolving-fund/<br />
219