Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources ... · committees. This continual review is fed...

Adelaide and Mount Lofty RangesNatural Resources Management Plan

Volume 1 — Part 1Strategic Plan

Thriving communities caringfor our hills, plains and seas

2014-15 to 2023-24

November 2013

CopyrightThis work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and right should be directed to the Manager Planning and Evaluation, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, 205 Greenhill Road Eastwood SA 5063.

DisclaimerThe Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board and the Government of South Australia, their employees and their servants do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use or results of use of the information contained herein as to its correctness, accuracy, currency or otherwise. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board and the Government of South Australia, their employees and their servants expressly disclaim all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice contained herein.

2 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

CONTENTSPART 1

FOREWORD 5

ABOUT THIS PLAN 7The Strategic Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region 7Guiding principles for the Regional Plan 8Context of the Regional Plan 9

WHAT THE PLAN IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE 11Vision, goals and targets 11Strategic directions 13Climate change 14Land management and change 14Economic impacts 16Knowledge and capacity 17

THE REGION 19Aboriginal Nations in the region 21Regional conceptual models 22

PART 2 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME 1 PART 2)

SUBREGIONS 61Metropolitan Adelaide 63Northern Coast and Plains 83Northern Hills 107Central Hills 127Willunga Basin 145Fleurieu Peninsula 161Marine 185

PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENT 197Evidence plan 197Adaptive management 198Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Plan 199

ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES 201Abbreviations 201References 202

APPENDIX A: POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN 213Natural resources management planning in South Australia 215Climate change 217Water resources 219Biodiversity 221Biosecurity 227Food and agriculture 229Land use planning and development 230Managing fi re in the landscape 232

APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS LINKS 235

CON

TEN

TS |

3

TABLES

PART 1Table 1: Regional targets 12Table 2: Strategic directions – climate change 14Table 3: Strategic directions – land management and change 15Table 4: Strategic directions – economic impacts 16Table 5: Strategic directions – knowledge and capacity 17Table 6: Agricultural statistics for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region 51Table 7: Projected climate change in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region by 2030 56Table 8: Summary of vulnerability analyses for natural resources management in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 57

PART 2 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME 1 PART 2)Table A1: State NRM Plan goals and guiding targets 216Table B1: Strategic directions and links for climate change driver 237Table B2: Strategic directions and links for land management and change driver 238Table B3: Strategic directions and links for economic impact driver 239Table B4: Strategic directions and links for knowledge and capacity driver 240

FIGURES

PART 1Figure 1: Key elements of the Regional Plan 8Figure 2: Quick guide to fi nding information in the Regional Plan 9Figure 3: The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region 20Figure 4: Remaining areas of terrestrial vegetation communities in the AMLR region 25Figure 5: Terrestrial landscape health regional conceptual model 26Figure 6: South Para case study – putting the terrestrial landscape health regional conceptual model into local action 28Figure 7: Marine habitats of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region 31Figure 8: Marine health regional conceptual model 32Figure 9: Seagrass protection – putting the marine health regional conceptual model into action 34Figure 10: Components of aquatic health (Environmental Protection Authority 2012) 36Figure 11: Gaining and losing streams 36Figure 12: Aquatic health condition of streams in the AMLR region, assessed in 2008 and 2011 38Figure 13: Aquatic health regional conceptual model 39Figure 14: Environmental fl ows in the Onkaparinga River – putting the aquatic health regional conceptual model into action 41Figure 15: Community support for natural resources management regional conceptual model 43Figure 16: Greener schools and healthier kids – putting the community support for natural resources management regional model into action 45Figure 17: Building capacity of natural resources managers regional conceptual model 48Figure 18: Small landholders helping each other learn – putting the building capacity of natural resources managers regional conceptual model into practice 49Figure 19: Primary production in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges 52Figure 20: Sustainable primary production regional conceptual model 53Figure 21: Sustainable farm management in the Barossa Valley – putting the sustainable primary production regional conceptual model into practice 55


Figure 22: Adapting to climate change regional conceptual model 59

Figure 23: Climate change impacts on the inter-tidal coastal ecosystems – putting the adapting to climate change regional conceptual model into action 60

PART 2 (PLEASE REFER TO VOLUME 1 PART 2)Figure 24: Subregions of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region 62Figure 25: Metropolitan Adelaide subregion 65Figure 26: Adelaide Plains Sub-basin and Golden Grove Embayment 79Figure 27: Northern Coast and Plains subregion 85Figure 28: East–west hydrological cross-section along the Gawler River in the NAP PWA 99Figure 29: Priority primary production areas in the Northern Plains (modifi ed from PIRSA 2011a,b,c,d) 103Figure 30: Northern Hills subregion 108Figure 31: Priority areas for reconstruction of closed shrublands in the Northern Hills (including some heathy forest, heathy woodlands and shrubland) (Rogers 2011) 112Figure 32: Priority areas for reconstruction of grassy ecosystems in the Northern Hills, including some grassland and grassy woodland (Rogers 2011) 113Figure 33: Cross section of the Barossa Valley groundwater system 119Figure 34: Priority primary production areas in the Northern Hills (based on provisional mapping and analysis from PIRSA’s Primary Production Priority Areas project (PIRSA 2011a,b,e,f) 122Figure 35: Central Hills subregion 128Figure 36: Priority areas for reconstruction of grassy ecosystems in the Central Hills (including some grassy woodland and grasslands) (Rogers 2011) 132Figure 37: Priority areas for reconstruction of closed shrubland in the Central Hills (including some heathy forests and heathy woodlands) (Rogers 2011) 133Figure 38: Cross section of the Central Hills groundwater system 139Figure 39: Priority primary production areas in the Central Hills (based on provisional mapping and analysis from PIRSA’s Primary Production Priority Areas project (PIRSA 2011a, e,f,g)) 141Figure 40: Willunga Basin subregion 146Figure 41: Groundwater cross section of the Willunga Basin 153Figure 42: Priority primary production areas in the Willunga Basin (PIRSA 2011a,h) 157Figure 43: Fleurieu Peninsula subregion 163Figure 44: Priority areas for reconstruction of grassy ecosystems, including some grassy woodland, in the Fleurieu Peninsula (Rogers 2011) 167Figure 45: Priority areas for reconstruction of closed shrublands, including some heathy forest, in the Fleurieu Peninsula (Rogers 2011) 168Figure 46: Southwest-northeast cross section of the Myponga catchment 176Figure 47: East-west cross section across the Inman Valley catchment 176Figure 48: Perched wetlands structure in the Fleurieu Swamps (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2007b) 178Figure 49: Structure of fractured rock wetlands in the Fleurieu Swamps (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2007b) 179Figure 50: Structure of Permian sands wetlands in the Fleurieu Swamps (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2007b) 179Figure 51: Priority primary production areas in the Fleurieu Peninsula (PIRSA 2011a,h,i,j,k) 181Figure 52: State and transition model of seagrass condition for Gulf St Vincent waters (Gaylard et al. 2013) 190Figure 53: Continuous improvement approach to support adaptive management and evidenced based natural resources management planning. 198

FORE

WO

RD |

5

ForewordA message from Presiding Member Professor Chris Daniels

As the Presiding Member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management (NRM) Board, I am delighted to present this Regional NRM Plan.

why a regional NrM Plan?A Regional Plan is a clear, defensible and transparent statement of what needs to be done in NRM, why action is needed, and how the best possible actions are determined and delivered.

The plan is based on the best science and methodological approaches currently available. The actions proposed in the plan are tested, and the outcomes continually analysed through state of the art monitoring and evaluation techniques. The benefits of the Regional Plan’s approach, methods and targets, are continually reviewed by the board and through active discussion in the NRM groups and committees. This continual review is fed into the Regional Plan through the three-year review process and helps to shape changes to the strategic plan (10-yearly plan review). Life is learning and the plan is a living document that encourages learning as well as action.

One of the great strengths of the regional NRM planning system is that the community participates at every step. The board asks its community directly and through its community-based structures: what needs to be conserved, preserved and used? Natural resources management is not possible without active community involvement. The development of this Regional Plan would not have been possible without the significant input received over the last two years from the community and key stakeholders, and the board thanks you for your involvement.

The Regional Plan also sets boundaries. There are simply not sufficient financial and practical resources for the community to repair everything. We must set priorities. Where do we best direct our limited resources for greatest effect? The Regional Plan determines these priorities and defends our choices. We must continue to challenge ourselves and our Regional Plan, and improve it with future versions. We respond to what we have learned by following the plan, to make a better plan for next time.

why this NrM Plan?This new Regional Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, the second plan for the region, takes a landscape view and approach. The first plan, released in 2008, set specific targets, many of which have been achieved (see achievement reports and report cards at www.amlrnrm.sa.gov.au).

Since that first plan was developed, ecological knowledge has grown and matured. We now know that we must treat ecosystems as a whole and take a landscape approach to be effective. We can have the greatest effect on resource management not by identifying a species or particular creek that needs conserving, or by simply replanting degraded grassland. We conserve more species, repair degraded


land and polluted water, and reinvigorate agricultural services by identifying the ecosystems that best service the region. If we conserve those ecosystems, at a landscape level, then many other beneficial actions will follow.

It is with this greater understanding of the need for an integrated and holistic approach to managing the environment that the AMLR NRM Board acknowledges the perspective of Traditional Owners that the land, waters and all living things are connected. Working together we will support cooperative approaches to the protection and maintenance of culture, cultural sites and the natural resources of the lands and waters through the involvement of all Aboriginal people.

Our region and our country are full of dynamic natural systems. When these ecosystems are resilient, supported by a complex natural biodiversity, and able to use and reuse their resources internally and sustainably, they can cope with stress. Resilient ecosystems can cope with drought and flooding rains, with plagues of rabbits and locusts, with freezing nights and scorching hot days. Landscape denuded of its strength in diversity and resource vitality cannot cope with such stresses. Hence this new Regional Plan is taking a more complex route to identifying resilient landscapes, a stronger environment that can defend itself and us against change. This change from targets to landscape is a big step, but it is appropriately based on the successes of the previous plan. It is at the forefront of our ecological knowledge about how to best manage natural resources in a complex environment with multiple stakeholders and competing interests.

We will continue to use the targets established in the first five year plan – they set the trajectory towards the long term regional targets and still guide our day-to-day actions. Now, however, we place how we will achieve these targets in a bigger, more realistic landscape picture that instills a capacity for resilience, for coping, for responding and surviving in good times and bad.

what is your role in the plan?The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region is home to 1.3 million people, most of them in metropolitan Adelaide. You might live in the urban landscapes of Adelaide but the natural resources that sustain you, physically and mentally, are all around you.

Our ‘backyard’ is more than just resources. It is home. In it we find our rest and recreation, and a sense of place. We are Adelaideans because we holiday on the Fleurieu Peninsula, eat paté from the Barossa Valley, drink milk from Parawa, relish seafood from Gulf St Vincent, sip wine from McLaren Vale, celebrate Christmas with cherries from the Adelaide Hills, nourish our children with veggies from Virginia, go surfing at Middleton, and watch the whales at Victor Harbor. We are among the most fortunate communities in the world. We both want to, and have a responsibility to, keep it that way.

We can all exercise our responsibility towards NRM in many ways. It may be in just willingly paying your levy because you see the benefits that the board and its Regional Plan bring to the region; it may be in volunteering for an environmental project; it may be in managing your land to protect and enhance the natural resources that support ecosystems and your primary production businesses.

Encourage your children to engage in environmental education through schools and through outdoor educational activities. Recognise the importance of home grown produce and our native biodiversity. Most of all, engage with NRM. These are your assets. If you don’t care for them, who will?

ABO

UT

THIS

PLA

N |

7

ABOUT THIS PLANThe Regional Natural Resources Management Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges has been prepared under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (the Act) and is presented in two volumes:

• Strategic Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Region 2014-15 to 2023-24:

a 10-year strategic plan for the region, which the Act intends to apply to all stakeholders managing natural resources in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) region (this document)

• Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Business and Operational Plan 2014–15 to 2016-17:

outlines how the Board will invest the money that it raises through levies and other funding sources.

Under the Act, the Strategic Plan for the region is required to be reviewed at least once in every 10-year period. The Board intends for the Strategic Plan to be an adaptive plan and therefore intends to review and amend it frequently to ensure that it remains an up to date and usable document (see Chapter 5). The Business and Operational Plan must be reviewed, at least, every three years.

The Strategic Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region

The Strategic Plan for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region sets the direction for all stakeholders to work together to improve the natural resources of the region.

This Strategic Plan is the first attempt by the AMLR Natural Resources Management (NRM) Board to adopt a systems approach to developing an NRM plan.

A systems (resilience) approach to NRM is about:

• thinking about the region as linked systems, rather than individual natural resources assets (e.g. water, pests, biodiversity)

• recognising complexity, uncertainty and natural variability

• identifying the drivers that may cause a system to shift to a more undesirable state

• identifying the way in which those drivers may act on a system and the thresholds that may exist between states

• targeting effort towards where it can make the greatest difference to prevent systems approaching or crossing thresholds.

The Strategic Plan outlines the long term vision for the region and identifies the strategic directions necessary to maintain systems in healthy states. A number of additional documents support the implementation of the Regional Plan, although they are not formally a part of it. Key elements of the Regional Plan and key supporting documents are summarised in Figure 1.

The Regional Plan is presented in a different way, with our understanding of the region described using systems. Figure 2 is a quick guide to where to find information.


Figure 1: Key elements of the Regional Plan

Guiding principles for the Regional Plan

A set of guiding principles outlines the underlying philosophy for implementing the Regional Plan:

• Achieve results through government, communities, research institutions and businesses working together

• Plan for uncertainty and take action using an adaptive management approach

• Consult with stakeholders to balance competing social and economic demands to ensure healthy natural resources that underpin healthy communities

• Decisions are based on the best available information

• Allow for innovation

• Protect and enhance core natural resource assets and processes

• Allow for the intergenerational timeframes required to manage ecological systems

Vision, goals and regional targets:Set out the long term vision of what the region is trying to achieve.

Vision and goals(see ‘What this plan is trying to achieve’)

20-year regional targets(see ‘What this plan is trying to achieve’)

Where we are going

Regional conceptual models

(see ‘The region’)

Subregional systems(see ‘Subregions’)

What we know

Regional conceptual models:Documents understanding of some of the key dynamics operating across the region.

Subregional systems:Provides more detailed information at a more localised scale.

Key drivers of change

Strategic directions(see ‘What this plan is trying to achieve’)

AMLR NRM Board Business and Operational

Plan(Volume 2)

Other organisations’ business plans

Strategic directions:Outlines the broad actions that need to be taken (by all stakeholders in the region) to address the key natural resources managment issues.

Links between sections

LEGEND

Key drivers:Identified as those things that could significantly change aspects of our natural resources or influence people

Gui

ding

pri

ncip

les

(How

the

pla

n is

impl

emen

ted.

See

‘A

bout

thi

s pl

an’)

Gui

ding

pri

ncip

les:

Out

line

the

unde

rlyi

ng p

hilo

soph

y ab

out

how

thi

s pl

an

shou

ld b

e im

plem

ente

d.

Supporting documents- Evidence library and plan

- Policy and regulatory framework

- Monitoring, evaluation, reporting improvement

plan- Subregional plans

A number of other documents have been (or will be) developed to assist in implementing the plan, although they will not formally form part of the plan

ABO

UT

THIS

PLA

N |

9

Pest plants and animals

Biodiversity

Agriculture

Water

Community and volunteers

I am

look

ing

for

info

rmat

ion

abou

t:

It can be found in:

• Threats in regional conceptual models (terrestrial landscape health, aquatic health, marine health, sustainable primary production)

• Subregional descriptions of threats to landscapes

• Regional conceptual models (terrestrial landscape health, aquatic health, marine health)

• Subregional descriptions of biodiversity under landscapes heading

• Regional conceptual models (sustainable primary production)

• Subregional descriptions of primary production under livelihoods heading

• Regional conceptual models (aquatic health)• Subregional descriptions of water resources under

landscapes heading

• Regional conceptual models (community support for NRM, building capacity of natural resource managers)

• Subregional descriptions of communities under lifestyles heading

Figure 2: Quick guide to finding information in the Regional Plan

Context of the Regional Plan

This Regional Plan is part of an extensive framework of national, state and regional policies and plans (see Appendix A).

WH

AT T

HE

PLAN

IS T

RYIN

G T

O A

CHIE

VE |

11

What the plan is trying to achieve

Vision, goals and targets

The Regional Plan is based on a long-term vision for the future of the region, which was developed following extensive consultation for the first Regional Plan in 2008.

The vision, Thriving communities caring for our hills, plains and seas, is supported by four goals that outline what the stakeholders in the region are aiming to achieve by 2028 (20 years from the adoption of the first Regional Plan). The desired future described in the goals forms the basis to guide action by stakeholders in managing and improving the natural resources of the region. The goals are:

1. Ecological processes for life and livelihood

−− healthy seas, rivers and landscapes

−− well functioning ecological processes that support life and livelihoods.

2. Communities engaged and active

−− communities living within resource limits

−− informed and engaged communities actively protecting and restoring our natural resources.

3. Amenity, culture and environment valued

−− use and reuse of natural resources based upon environmental, economic, social and cultural values

−− iconic sites protected and new ones created.

4. Knowledgeable decisions and action partners

−− uncertainty is acknowledged and actions anticipate change

−− partners committed to working together to achieve natural resources outcomes.

The regional targets were developed in 2008 to support the vision and goals. They describe the desired condition of natural resources in 2028. The 20-year regional targets (Table 1) will assist with evaluating the region’s collective performance towards achieving the shared vision and goals over the long term.

The regional targets considered the targets set out in South Australia’s Strategic Plan (Government of South Australia 2011) and the Our Place. Our Future. State Natural Resources Management Plan South Australia 2012 – 2017 (Government of South Australia 2012). To be achieved, the regional targets require


action from all stakeholders and individuals investing in NRM in the region. An evaluation of the regional targets late in 2012 considered the rate of progress of their implementation and any refinements that might be necessary. Minor changes were made to targets 1, 2, 5, 9 and 13, and target 4 was removed. Further information on the evaluation of targets can be found at www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges. Most of the changes improved alignment with South Australia’s Strategic Plan and State NRM Plan targets. The regional targets are ambitious but are considered to be achievable with appropriate investment.

Measuring success against the regional targets is an important part of measuring the success of implementing the Regional Plan. A set of core indicators is used to monitor progress and report cards are produced to report on progress against the targets. Further information on these indicators and report cards can be found at www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges.

table 1: regional targets

target* by 2028 link to regional conceptual models**

t1The region will have the system capacity to harvest up to 35 GL of stormwater and 50 GL of wastewater per annum

marine health, aquatic health

t2 Aquatic ecosystems and groundwater condition is maintained or improved

aquatic health

t3 All water resources used within sustainable yield (allowing for variability)

aquatic health, adapting to a changing climate

t5 Maintain or increase the productive capacity of agriculture

sustainable primary production

t6 Land condition for primary production improved by 15%

building capacity of natural resources managers, sustainable primary production

t7Condition and function of ecosystems (terrestrial, riparian) recovered from current levels

terrestrial landscape health, aquatic health

t8Extent of functional ecosystems (coastal, estuarine, terrestrial, riparian) increased to 30% of the region (excluding urban areas)

terrestrial landscape health, marine health, aquatic health

t9Improvement in conservation prospects of native species (terrestrial, aquatic, marine) from current levels

terrestrial landscape health, marine health, aquatic health

t10 Land based impacts on coastal, estuarine and marine processes reduced from current levels

building capacity of natural resources managers, marine health, aquatic health

t11Halt the decline of seagrass, reef and other coast, estuarine and marine habitats, and a trend towards restoration

building capacity of natural resources managers, marine health, aquatic health, terrestrial landscape health

t12All coast, estuarine and marine water resources meet water quality guidelines to protect defined environmental values

marine health, aquatic health

t13 Increase participation in natural resources management activities by 20%

community support for NRM, building capacity of natural resources managers

*T4 (Average annual cost of flood damage reduced) removed after review and evaluation of targets

** see chapter 3 for regional conceptual models

http://www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges

http://www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges

WH

AT T

HE

PLAN

IS T

RYIN

G T

O A

CHIE

VE |

13

Strategic directions

The strategic directions guide the region, and all stakeholders involved in NRM in the region, on the work required to:

•− achieve the regional targets

•− address priority issues in each subregion

•− maintain or shift systems towards the desired states as defined in the regional conceptual models (see Chapter 3).

The strategic directions are likely to be delivered by a range of organisations and individuals taking a range of roles. Potential partners in any aspect of the work proposed are highlighted in each table (Table 2–5). They are intended to be indicative only, and may not necessarily include all organisations and individuals that will undertake NRM work in the region.

Partnerships and collaboration are vital to the successful implementation of the Regional Plan, which is about encouraging and supporting a collaborative approach, as well as getting commitment from key players to collectively make a difference. This partnership approach has been an important part of developing the Regional Plan and will become even more important as we move towards implementation.

Understanding the regional dynamics and subregional systems in this Regional Plan has seen four key drivers of change identified for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) region. These drivers could push terrestrial, aquatic or marine health as well as a range of social systems across thresholds to a different state or undesirable condition. They are:

•− climate change

•− land management and change

•− economic impacts

•− knowledge and capacity.

The strategic directions have been grouped to address each of these key drivers because of their potential impact on the overall resilience of the AMLR region (Table 2–5). The strategic directions are intended to assist the region to adapt to the impact of each driver. Each strategic direction links to relevant regional conceptual models (which provide evidence on why the action is required) and relevant subregions (see Appendix B for links).

phot

o: B

ill D

oyle


Climate change

The future climate in the AMLR region is predicted to:

•− be warmer and drier with longer hotter hot spells

•− have less reliable rainfall and later breaks in season

•− have sea level rise and storm surges impact on coastal infrastructure and ecosystems (including internationally significant migratory bird species).

These predicted changes are likely to drive a wide range of changes to natural resources in the region, and changes to the industries that rely on those natural resources. Further information on the predicted changes and potential impacts of climate change can be found in the ‘Adapting to a changing climate’ regional conceptual model. Strategic directions to address this key driver are shown in Table 2.

table 2: strategic directions – climate change

strategic direction potential partners

c-a Participate in opportunities for low carbon futures

Australian Government, AMLR NRMB, land managers, NGOs, industry

c-B Build the adaptive capacity of communitiesDEWNR, AMLR NRMB, local government, community, industry

c-c Build the understanding and knowledge of future climate change impacts

research organisations, state government, community, local government, industry

c-D Provide opportunities for landscapes to adapt to climate change

DPTI, DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, land managers, industry

c-e Provide opportunities for production systems to adapt to climate change

PIRSA, AMLR NRMB, land managers, industry

Land management and change

Land use in the AMLR region is changing. In particular, urban areas are expanding, rural living is increasing and primary production uses are intensifying. These changes, along with the way land is managed, can result in a wide range of impacts on, and threats to, natural resources, such as:

•− impacts:

−− clearance of vegetation and fragmentation of vegetation

−− increased use of water resources and decreasing water quality

−− fragmentation of primary production land and reduction in farm size leading to less ability to run a profitable primary production business

−− intensification of land use leading to soil impacts

−− conflicts between adjoining land uses

•− strategic threats such as invasive species or altered fire regimes (pre-existing and new/emerging threats).

WH

AT T

HE

PLAN

IS T

RYIN

G T

O A

CHIE

VE |

15

In addition the competing demands for land, particularly for urban development and rural lifestyle development, are increasing property prices across traditionally primary production areas.

The strategic directions to address this key driver (Table 3) can be broadly considered in terms of either land management or land use change. Land use change in particular links closely with the land use planning system, and the controls in place through development plans. Section 75(3)(f) of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, indicates that a regional NRM plan can identify policies in a development plan that the board believes should be reviewed to improve the relationship between the development plan and the regional NRM plan. A number of issues of importance that can best be managed through development plan controls are highlighted throughout this Regional Plan, in particular in the subregional descriptions. Strategic direction L-A is intended to focus on improvements that can be made to the development planning system to ensure better natural resources outcomes.

table 3: strategic directions – land management and change


l-a Identify and resolve land use planning conflicts to minimise impacts on natural resources

DPTI, DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, local government, Renewal SA, industry, PIRSA, DMITRE, EPA

l-B Reinstate ecosystems in priority locations to stem biodiversity declines

DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, land managers, local government, NGOs

l-c Improve the condition of priority biodiversity areas


l-D Improve the long-term prospects of threatened* and declining species and communities


l-e Maintain high value primary production areas for primary production

DPTI, PIRSA, AMLR NRMB, industry groups, land managers

l-FReduce land based impacts on aquatic and marine health through appropriate land management and management of runoff

land managers, local government, AMLR NRMB, DEWNR, EPA, industry

l-gProvide suitable water regimes to maintain and improve the condition of aquatic (freshwater) and marine ecosystems

DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, land managers, SA Water, local government, EPA

* threatened includes non-listed species


Economic impacts

Areas within 100 kilometres of the Adelaide GPO consistently generate around 25% of South Australia’s total farm-gate value of production, much of it from high value horticulture, winegrape and livestock industries. This distinctive pattern of production is due to a combination of favourable natural resources and climate, major investments in infrastructure, and good access to labour, transport and support industries. Very few parts of the state enjoy this combination of factors. These same areas also present important opportunities for adapting to the impacts and uncertainties of climate change, water scarcity, and a carbon-constrained economy. Within this region SA’s farm-sector and food system are buffered from external shocks by the high rainfall, cool climate conditions of the Mount Lofty Ranges, by access to multiple water resource options, including recycled water, and by proximity to a major market and national freight network.

Commercial fisheries contribute $7.6 million (gross regional product) and important social benefits to the region. Main fisheries include the Gulf St Vincent Prawn Trawl fishery for Western King Prawn (as well as by-product catches of Slipper Lobster and Calamari) and the mixed species Marine Scalefish Fishery. A number of invertebrate species such as Calamari, Cuttlefish, Sand Crab, Blue Crab, and Goolwa and Mud Cockles are managed under the multi-species Marine Scalefish Fishery. The Australian Sardine fishery takes a range of small pelagic fish, including Sardine (Pilchard), Anchovy, Sprat and Round Herring in Gulf St Vincent waters. The coast and marine environment also supports a range of recreational industries, for example, recreational fishing and charter boat activities. The main species of fish sought by charter boats in the Gulf St Vincent–Kangaroo Island region are Bight Redfish, King George Whiting and Snapper.

The ability of natural resources managers to implement works for improvement is in part dependent on profitability of the enterprise. Strategic directions to address this key driver are shown in Table 4.

table 4: strategic directions – economic impacts


e-a Support and encourage sustainable primary production

PIRSA, industry groups, land managers, AMLR NRMB, EPA

e-B Support and encourage sustainable marine industries

PIRSA, industry groups, AMLR NRMB, Renewal SA

e-c Support and encourage sustainability in other industries reliant on natural resources

Regional Development Australia, industry groups, local government

e-D Maximise the use of stormwater and treated wastewater

local government, DEWNR, SA Water, AMLR NRNB, EPA

e-e Recognise the intrinsic economic value of biodiversity

NGOs, land managers, AMLR NRMB

WH

AT T

HE

PLAN

IS T

RYIN

G T

O A

CHIE

VE |

17

Knowledge and capacity

People are an integral part of the environment, particularly in the AMLR region, which has a significant population for its geographic area. Most land in the region is in private ownership and therefore to achieve improved natural resources outcomes it is critical to work with the people of the region.

People also provide a significant opportunity for NRM, contributing through both physical action on ground and advocating to policy makers and the broader community about the value of natural resources to the community – both in the intrinsic value offered by the natural resources and the value of the industries those natural resources support. Strategic directions to address this key driver are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Strategic directions – knowledge and capacity


K-aBuild capacity of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in Aboriginal culture

Aboriginal nation groups, DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, community, local government

K-BIncrease the connection that people have with the environment and food production and the link to natural resources

PIRSA, NGOs, schools, community groups, AMLR NRMB, local government

K-c Encourage sustainable living and engagement with nature

NGOs, schools, community groups, local government

K-D Increase and diversify the participation in natural resources management activities

AMLR NRMB, industry groups, community groups, NGOs, local government, EPA

K-e Support all land managers to achieve good natural resources outcomes

AMLR NRMB, land managers, PIRSA, DEWNR, local government

K-F Support land managers to increase areas under environmental stewardship

DEWNR, land managers, AMLR NRMB, Australian government

K-g Support innovation and knowledge sharing research organisations, AMLR NRMB, NGOs, DEWNR

K-h

Encourage urban planning to consider the inclusion of nature in an urban context (link to place making, community health and wellbeing, amenity and urban cooling)

local government, DPTI, DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, NGOs

THE

REG

ION

| 1

9

The RegionThe Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR) region is one of eight natural resources management (NRM) regions established in South Australia under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. It includes metropolitan Adelaide and the western side of the Mount Lofty Ranges, extending from Mallala and the Barossa in the north, to the Fleurieu Peninsula in the south (Figure 3). The region also extends up to 30 km into the marine environment. Of its total area of approximately 11,200 square kilometres, 59% is land and 41% marine waters.

The region supports a diverse mosaic of landscape types, including remnant bushland, agriculture and horticulture, urban areas, beaches, spectacular coastal scenery and marine environments. It is the most complex landscape in the state. The population and landscapes in the region support diverse industries

which make a significant contribution to the state’s economy.

This most biologically diverse region in South Australia is home to half of the state’s species of native plants and three-quarters of its native birds. It also contains some of the state’s most productive primary industries supplying local and international markets and contributing to South Australia’s economic and social wellbeing.

The region is under continual pressure as metropolitan Adelaide grows, and land use changes. In the last 10 years urban development has increased at the northern and southern edges of metropolitan Adelaide and agricultural land use has changed to rural residential land, particularly in the north of the region and in the Fleurieu. Primary production land has also been changing from agricultural to horticultural uses, particularly adjacent to existing horticultural areas. These changes reflect intensification of land uses which may impact on the natural resources of the region.

With approximately 1.3 million people, the region contains almost 80% of the state’s population. The extremely diverse population lives and works in rural landholdings and primary industries, rural townships and peri-urban areas, and metropolitan Adelaide.

In general the region’s population is ageing; population growth is slowing and household sizes are decreasing while the number of households is increasing. These and other socio-demographic characteristics such as education levels, degree of home ownership, language spoken at home, income levels and family status all influence the ability of people to be involved and actively take part in natural resources management.


Figure 3: The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region

LEGEND

Williamstown

Major rivers

0 5 10 20

kilometres

Aldinga Beach

Lobethal

Mount Pleasant

NuriootpaStockwell

NPW SA reserves

Woodside

McLaren Vale

Victor Harbor

Mallala

Gawler

Adelaide

Hahndorf

THE

REG

ION

| 2

1

Aboriginal Nations in the region

The AMLR NRM region intersects the traditional lands of the following Traditional Owner groups:

• Kaurna

• Ngadjuri

• Ngarrindjeri

• Peramangk.

The AMLR NRM Board acknowledges and respects their Traditional Ownership, and their rights, interests and obligations to speak and care for their traditional lands in accordance with their customary laws, customs, beliefs and traditions. The board also acknowledges the perspective of Traditional Owners that the land, waters and all living things are connected, are part of a cultural landscape formed during the creation, and have been continually managed by Traditional Owners since time immemorial.

The Regional Plan seeks to enable partnerships between Traditional Owners, other Aboriginal people living in the region, and the board (and other stakeholders) based upon mutual respect and trust. Traditional Owners seek these partnerships to support cooperative approaches to the protection and maintenance of culture, cultural sites and the natural resources of the lands and waters through the involvement of all Aboriginal people.

The board acknowledges Australian Government reforms focusing on supporting the economic development and employment of Aboriginal people, and Traditional Owner and other Aboriginal people’s interests in gaining economic benefits as part of the implementation of the Regional Plan. The board also acknowledges Aboriginal people’s interests in being involved in natural resources planning and implementation processes.

The board acknowledges there are differences between Traditional Owner groups and other Aboriginal peoples in the region, and their preferred approaches to engaging in natural resources management.

The board acknowledges that the majority of the region aligns with the traditional lands of the Kaurna Nation and seeks to engage the Kaurna people through the Kaurna Nation Cultural Heritage Association.

Ngarrindjeri, represented by the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority, have entered into the whole-of-government Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement (listen to Ngarrindjeri speaking) with the South Australian Government. The authority’s preferred engagement with the government is through the Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement Taskforce meetings and the establishment of working groups with its partners, including the AMLR NRM Board, to implement partnership opportunities.

The region will work in accordance with the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 and work with the Nation Groups to advance their strategic directions in relation to their heritage links with natural values. The Aboriginal Heritage Act covers all areas of South Australia and provides for the protection for Aboriginal remains, and Aboriginal sites and objects of significance to Aboriginal archaeology, anthropology, history and tradition. Any projects with on-ground works can potentially impact on Aboriginal Heritage.


Regional conceptual models

A suite of high level regional conceptual models has been developed to document our understanding of key dynamics in the region. The models focus on identifying potential states that can occur, key threats and drivers that may be shifting systems from one state to another, and the management actions that can shift a system in the opposite direction.

The models are intended to broadly address both biophysical and socio-economic factors in an integrated manner. However, at this stage, the models are either primarily biophysically or primarily socially based. Over time, as more information becomes available, these models will further integrate biophysical and socio-economic factors, and will be scaled down to be more locally relevant at a subregional scale.

The primarily biophysical models focus on the ‘health’ of a system. They should be considered in association with the socially based conceptual models and the subregional systems to get a full picture of the key dynamics of the AMLR region. The three models with a primarily biophysical focus are:

• terrestrial landscape health

• marine health

• aquatic health.

People are an integral part of the environment, particularly in the AMLR region, which has a significant population for the geographic area. Most land in the region is in private ownership and to achieve natural resources management outcomes it is critical to work with the people of the region. The four socially based conceptual models developed describe the dynamics between people and natural resources management. These models are intended to work together and should not be considered in isolation. They should also be considered along with the biophysical conceptual models and the subregional systems to get a full picture of the key dynamics in the AMLR region. The four socially based models, and their focus, are:

• community support for natural resources management – all people in the region, whether or not they manage land

• building capacity of natural resources managers – land managers in the region, regardless of whether or not they are commercial properties

• sustainable primary production – primary producers in the region, that is, land managers who derive an income and run a primary production business from their property

• adapting to a changing climate – adaptation needs for a changing climate.

THE

REG

ION

| 2

3

Terrestrial landscape healthThe terrestrial landscapes of the region support a diverse range of uses that underpin environmental health, economic productivity and social wellbeing in the region. The value of services provided by the soils, flora and fauna are incalculable – they generate oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, filter water for drinking, recycle nutrients, maintain habitat, provide recreational spaces and support tourism. Maintaining and protecting strong, healthy, functioning landscapes are fundamental to social and economic wellbeing (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2008).

The region is unique, with woodland and forest landscapes flanking the Mount Lofty Ranges, ocean to the south and west, and more arid habitats to the north and east. Figure 4 identifies the remaining vegetation communities in the region. The Mount Lofty Ranges are a nationally recognised biodiversity ‘hotspot’ and support a very high diversity of native species and vegetation communities. The region hosts a diverse mosaic of landscapes containing a number of species of state, national and global significance. The region is particularly significant for orchids, with numerous species unique to the area. It is also home to many relict fauna and flora species which usually occur in the temperate forests and alpine areas in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania. The Mount Lofty Ranges, with their topographic variability, also support the most western occurrence of Messmate Stringybark in Australia (Department for Environment and Heritage 2010). The region is projected to be a very important biodiversity refuge under climate change scenarios.

Four ecological communities in the region are listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Fleurieu Swamps, Grey Box grassy woodland, Peppermint Box grassy woodland, Irongrass grassland (Wilson and Bignall 2009)). Approximately 19% of the native plant species of the region have a conservation rating (EPBC Act or South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972) meaning they are threatened or in decline.

The region has a very diverse bird fauna and supports over half of all bird species in South Australia (Department for Environment and Heritage 2010). It also has a significant number of declining bird species, with the Mount Lofty Ranges recognised as a hotspot for declining woodland birds. The region has one of the highest concentrations of threatened bird species on mainland Australia (Department for Environment and Heritage 2010); 104 species have a conservation status (EPBC or NPW Act listing). A significant number of declining bird species in the region are at the very western end of their range, with losses from the region often equating to a significant range contraction to eastern and south eastern Australia.

Approximately 13% of pre-European settlement native vegetation cover remains in the region, of which approximately 22% is protected under dedicated conservation tenures. Historic land use changes have caused hydrological impacts such as reduced water availability, which in turn has impacted on some of the broad vegetation groups that require higher rainfall (e.g. Red Gums both in creek lines and on flats) and reduced the area suitable for these vegetation groups (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2008).


The coastal ecosystems in the region range from samphire flats and mangrove forests in the north through broad sandy beaches and dunes in the metropolitan area to cliff top and sandy beach communities in the south. These diverse ecosystems give enormous value to our society. The mangrove/samphire flat system in the north is economically important as it is suitable habitat for breeding of a number of commercial fish and crustacean species. The samphire flats are also the final destination for a number of migratory birds which travel annually from Siberia to escape the northern winter. The sandy beaches of the coast not only make a popular recreational landscape they are also a valuable protection barrier from coastal inundation and damage of private homes and public infrastructure. The steep cliff system in the south has magnificent viewscapes and provides important habitat for rare and endangered species including the Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoo. Each of these ecosystems is under increasing pressure from the high number of diverse recreational users, pest plant and animal invasion, recreational and commercial developments, and changing climatic conditions.

Biodiversity in the region continues to decline and faces substantial challenges and continual pressure as metropolitan Adelaide grows. Action is required if this decline is to be halted. Key regional issues include the fragmentation and degradation of native vegetation and landscapes, inappropriate fire regimes, unsustainable land management and resource use.

The control and management of invasive species in the AMLR region is pivotal. The use of appropriate weed control techniques particularly along road sides is extremely important for conservation of species in this region: inappropriate weed control can have a greater impact on native species than on the weeds themselves (Wilson and Bignall 2009).

Biosecurity (pest plants, animals and fungi) is still important to protect both biodiversity and primary production in this region, despite the large number of invasive species that have already become established. Invasive species can have larger impacts than just competing with individual species. For example, the root rust fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi kills a set of species found in the heathy communities of the AMLR (such as Banksia sp. stringybarks and Myrtle Wattle (Acacia myrtifolia)) but their loss from this system can have much wider reaching impacts – potentially total collapse of the system (Department for Environment and Heritage 2010).

The conceptual model for terrestrial landscape health (Figure 5) describes the states, transitions and thresholds controlled by the increasing loss and modification of native habitat (Hobbs and Harris 2001; McIntyre and Hobbs 1999). The model incorporates thresholds associated with the loss of ecological connectivity (below ~60% habitat cover) and loss of physical landscape function (below ~10% habitat cover). As landscapes cross a threshold, they undergo a period of transition (which may take decades) as they move from one state to another (Hobbs 1998; Walker and del Moral 2009). Changes in state result in different possible outcomes and associated management needs (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007).

This model is a generic description of landscape change, outlining broad impact types and implications. As native species occur across a very wide range of spatial of temporal scales (from tens of metres for some insects to hundreds of kilometres for some birds (Wiens et al. 2002), the scale of the ‘landscape’ varies between species. A range of other issues directly impact on species (such as predation, disease, competition). As a result, species will respond to landscape change on an individual basis, rather than strictly reflecting generic models (although there will be a dramatic loss of native species as landscapes become heavily developed (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2007).

THE

REG

ION

| 2

5

Figure 4: Remaining areas of terrestrial vegetation communities in the AMLR region

LEGEND

Major rivers

Arid zone communities

Mallee

Grassland

Aquatic zone communities

Grassy woodland

Coastal zone communities

Shrubland

Heathy woodland

Heathy forest

0 5 10 20

kilometres

Subregions

Victor Harbor

Williamstown

Hahndorf

Nuriootpa

Adelaide

Aldinga Beach

Gawler

Stockwell

Mallala

Mount Pleasant

McLaren Vale

Lobethal

Woodside


Figure 5: Terrestrial landscape health regional conceptual model

SELE

CTIV

ELY

CLEA

RED

LAND

SCAP

EN

ativ

e ec

osys

tem

s do

min

ate

but

part

icul

arty

pes

have

bee

n cl

eare

d

HIG

HLY

MO

DIF

IED

LAN

DSC

APE

(fra

gmen

ted)

DEV

ELO

PED

LAN

DSC

APE

(rel

ictu

al)

3U

rban

and

agr

icul

tura

l la

nd d

omin

ates

but

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

s ar

e st

ill c

omm

onD

evel

oped

lan

d do

min

ates

and

nat

ive

ecos

yste

ms

are

rare

or

abse

nt

1

Reta

ins

mod

erat

e di

vers

ity

wit

h si

gnif

ican

tm

odif

icat

ions

to

ecol

ogic

al p

roce

sses

Focu

s on

who

le la

ndsc

ape

(wit

h pa

rtic

ular

eff

ort

on h

igh

qual

ity

patc

hes)

to:

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Des

truc

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

s (h

isto

ric

and

ongo

ing)

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Reta

ins

high

div

ersi

ty w

ith

only

min

orm

odif

icat

ions

to

ecol

ogic

al p

roce

sses

Pest

s an

d di

seas

es d

o no

t do

min

ate

Goo

d la

ndsc

ape

conn

ecti

vity

and

dis

pers

alop

port

unit

ies

for

faun

a an

d fl

ora

Pest

s an

d di

seas

es a

re b

ecom

ing

dom

inan

tDi

scon

nect

ed la

ndsc

ape

wit

h de

crea

sed

disp

ersa

l opp

ortu

niti

es f

or f

auna

and

flo

ra

Low

div

ersi

ty w

ith

ecol

ogic

al p

roce

sses

now

con

trol

led

by h

uman

act

ivit

ies

Pest

s an

d di

seas

es d

omin

ate

Disc

onne

cted

land

scap

e w

ith

very

poo

rdi

sper

sal o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

fau

na a

nd f

lora

2

Deg

rada

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

s (u

nsus

tain

able

land

use

)In

trod

ucti

on o

f pe

sts

and

dise

ases

Mod

ific

atio

n to

eco

logi

cal

proc

esse

s (s

uch

as f

ire

and

hydr

olog

ical

reg

imes

)Fr

agm

enta

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

s

Nat

ive

ecos

yste

ms

are

still

com

mon

Incr

ease

in u

rban

and

agri

cult

ural

land

use

Reta

ins

high

to

mod

erat

edi

vers

ity

wit

h so

me

impa

cts

on e

colo

gica

l pro

cess

es

Dec

reas

ed la

ndsc

ape

conn

ecti

vity

and

disp

ersa

l lim

ited

due

to f

ragm

enta

tion

rem

ove

and

mit

igat

e ag

ains

tpe

sts

and

dise

ases

mod

ify

dyna

mic

s to

ref

lect

hist

oric

var

iabi

lity

wit

hin

alte

red

land

scap

e (s

oil,

fir

ean

d hy

drol

ogic

al)

reco

nstr

uct

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

sto

cre

ate

links

and

buf

fers

(rei

nsta

te m

issi

ng e

cosy

stem

s)

Focu

s on

the

who

le la

ndsc

ape

to:

rem

ove

exis

ting

thr

eats

crea

te b

uffe

rsm

itig

ate

the

impa

cts

of p

ests

and

dise

ases

mit

igat

e th

e im

pact

s of

frag

men

tati

on a

nd d

egra

dati

on

Rem

ove

exis

ting

thr

eats

Crea

te b

uffe

rsPr

even

t pe

sts

and

dise

ases

esta

blis

hing

Mit

igat

e th

e im

pact

s of

frag

men

tati

on a

ndde

grad

atio

n

MAI

NTE

NAN

CERE

SPO

NSE

3a2a

Des

truc

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

s (h

isto

ric

and

ongo

ing)

Deg

rada

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

s (u

nsus

tain

able

land

use

)In

trod

ucti

on o

f pe

sts

and

dise

ases

Mod

ific

atio

n to

eco

logi

cal

proc

esse

s (s

uch

as f

ire

and

hydr

olog

ical

reg

imes

)Fr

agm

enta

tion

of

nati

veec

osys

tem

sIn

tens

ific

atio

n of

land

use

avoi

d fu

rthe

r im

pact

s on

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

s (r

eveg

etat

ean

d re

habi

litat

e)

Focu

s on

who

le la

ndsc

ape

(wit

h pa

rtic

ular

eff

ort

on h

igh

qual

ity

patc

hes)

to:

rem

ove

pest

s an

d di

seas

esm

odif

y dy

nam

ics

to m

inim

ise

exte

rnal

impa

cts

on n

ativ

eec

osys

tem

s (f

ragm

enta

tion

,pe

sts,

land

use

inte

nsif

icat

ion)

reco

nstr

uct

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

sto

cre

ate

buff

ers

(to

min

imis

eec

osys

tem

des

truc

tion

and

impa

cts

on la

nd u

sein

tens

ific

atio

n)

avoi

d fu

rthe

r im

pact

s on

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

s (r

eveg

etat

ean

d re

habi

litat

e)

Focu

s on

the

rem

aini

ngla

ndsc

ape

patc

hes

to:

prot

ect

as m

useu

m p

iece

ssu

ppor

t ge

neti

c di

vers

ity

crea

te b

uffe

rsm

itig

ate

the

impa

cts

ofpe

sts

and

dise

ases

Thre

shol

d: c

over

bel

ow 6

0%Th

resh

old:

nat

ive

ecos

yste

ms

are

rare

or

abse

nt,

cove

r be

low

10%

Dev

elop

ed la

nd d

omin

ates

and

nati

ve e

cosy

stem

s ar

era

re o

r ab

sent

Reta

ins

mod

erat

e to

low

dive

rsit

y w

ith

seve

rem

odif

icat

ions

to

ecol

ogic

alpr

oces

ses

(wit

h m

ost

proc

esse

s no

w d

omin

ated

by h

uman

act

ivit

ies)

Dis

conn

ecte

d la

ndsc

ape

wit

h de

crea

sing

dis

pers

alop

port

unit

ies

for

faun

a an

dfl

ora

Ecol

ogic

al p

roce

ss?

The

inte

ract

ions

and

con

nect

ions

betw

een

livi

ng a

nd n

on l

ivin

g sy

stem

s,

incl

udin

g m

ovem

ents

or

ener

gy,

nutr

ient

san

d sp

ecie

s. O

r in

mor

e po

etic

ter

ms:

The

natu

ral

mac

hine

ry t

hat

conn

ects

livi

ng a

nd n

on l

ivin

g th

ings

and

kee

psna

ture

hea

lthy

.

Nat

ural

dis

aste

r

Dis

ease

s an

d pe

sts

Cult

ural

lega

cies

(inc

ludi

ngpr

acti

ces

and

atti

tude

s)

Land

man

agem

ent

and

chan

ge

Chan

ges

to le

gisl

atio

nor

pol

icy

SHO

CKS

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

TRE

SPO

NSE

MAI

NTE

NAN

CERE

SPO

NSE

MAI

NTE

NAN

CERE

SPO

NSE

(tra

nsit

iona

l de

clin

ing)

SELE

CTIV

ELY

CLEA

RED

LAND

SCAP

EH

IGH

LY M

OD

IFIE

DLA

ND

SCA

PE(t

rans

itio

nal

decl

inin

g)

(sta

ble)

Nat

ive

ecos

yste

ms

dom

inat

e bu

t pa

rtic

ular

type

s ha

ve b

een

clea

red

Reta

ins

alm

ost

full

dive

rsit

yan

d ec

olog

ical

pro

cess

esPe

sts

and

dise

ases

are

rar

e

Goo

d la

ndsc

ape

conn

ecti

vity

and

dis

pers

alop

port

unit

ies

for

faun

a an

dfl

ora

1a(t

rans

itio

nal

decl

inin

g)

INTA

CT H

ISTO

RIC

LAND

SCAP

E

THE

REG

ION

| 2

7

Terrestrial landscape health – A case study: Community action conserving biodiversity in the South ParaThe terrestrial landscape health model case study (Figure 6) identifies the different states of natural landscape of the AMLR. Due to the populated nature of the region, areas of highly modified landscapes that are fragmented or transitioning to fragmented are uncommon. Work that focuses on protecting and restoring these landscapes is a priority.

One of the largest areas of intact vegetation in the region occurs in the South Para catchment. The South Para case study details the significant input into protecting and increasing the connectedness of the landscape and halting the decline in habitat in the area. In some areas habitat condition has been reversed and restored by changes in practice (Bentz and Milne 2007). The South Para case study shows how implementing management and maintenance responses from the conceptual model contribute to achieving desired outcomes for terrestrial landscape health.


Figure 6: South Para case study – putting the terrestrial landscape health regional conceptual model into local action

Pro

ject

act

ivit

ies

have

pro

tect

edm

ore

than

hec

tare

s of

rem

nant

veg

etat

ion

a

nd

ki

lom

etre

s of

wat

erw

ay.

Build

ing

fenc

es,

and

rem

ovin

g an

d m

anag

ing

stoc

k.

W

eeds

acc

ount

for

up t

o

of

pla

nt s

peci

es in

Pepp

erm

int

Box

Gra

ssy

Woo

dlan

ds.

57

The

Sout

h Pa

ra L

and

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

cov

ers

appr

oxim

atel

y

Cont

ains

the

larg

est

linke

d ar

eas

o

f re

mna

nt v

eget

atio

n i

n th

e M

ount

Lof

ty R

ange

s.

pla

nt

sp

ecie

s.

H

ome

toSo

uth

Aust

ralia

’s c

riti

cally

enda

nger

ed P

eppe

rmin

tBo

x G

rass

y W

oodl

and

habi

tat.

nati

onal

lyen

dang

ered

o

rchi

rds.

resi

dent

b

ird

spe

cies

.

229

Supp

orts

139

3

%

87%

o

f pr

e-Eu

rope

an

veg

etat

ion

h

as b

een

clea

red,

and

the

tot

al a

rea

of

Pepp

erm

int

Box

Gra

ssy

Woo

dlan

ds h

as

dec

lined

by 95

%.

bird

spe

cies

have

bec

ome

e

xtin

ct.

835

,000

hect

ares

.

700

19

Vo

lunt

eers

hav

epr

opag

ated

and

pla

nted

m

ore

t

han

loca

l ind

igen

ous

tube

stoc

k.40

,000

The

prog

ram

has

est

ablis

hed

a co

mm

unit

y-ru

n

nurs

ery

that

sup

plie

s up

to

40

,000

nati

ve p

lant

s ea

ch y

ear.

Reve

geta

ted

site

s ar

esh

owin

g a

dram

atic

incr

ease

in b

ird

spec

ies.

Bein

g su

cces

sful

at

on-g

roun

d re

habi

litat

ion

is o

nly

part

of

the

chal

leng

e fo

r co

mm

unit

y-ba

sed

envi

ronm

enta

l gro

ups.

Gro

ups

also

nee

dvo

lunt

eer

supp

ort

and

fund

ing.

A lo

ng-s

tand

ing

grou

p in

the

Sou

th P

ara

regi

on is

pro

ving

tha

t it

is p

ossi

ble

to b

e fi

nanc

ially

, as

wel

l as,

envi

ronm

enta

lly r

esili

ent.

CA

SEST

UD

YC

omm

un

ity

acti

on c

onse

rvin

g b

iod

iver

sity

in

th

e So

uth

Par

a

Fera

lan

imal

s.

BIO

DIV

ERSI

TY V

ALU

ES O

F TH

E SO

UTH

PA

RA

THRE

ATS

TO B

IOD

IVER

SITY

IN T

HE

SOU

TH P

ARA

PRO

TECT

ING

BIO

DIV

ERSI

TYIN

TH

E SO

UTH

PA

RAG

razi

ng p

ress

ure.

THE

REG

ION

| 2

9

Marine healthMarine waters are a significant component of the region, making up approximately 41% of its total area. Most of the region’s marine waters are in Gulf St Vincent, with the boundary extending to the south into Backstairs Passage and the more exposed waters of the eastern Fleurieu Peninsula. The marine waters are shared with three other NRM regions, Northern and Yorke, Kangaroo Island and South Australian Murray–Darling Basin, and management of the marine area needs to be considered jointly with these regions. The marine waters of the region are covered in part by the Encounter Marine Park and the Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park. Management plans have been developed for both of these marine parks.

Marine biodiversity in Gulf St Vincent is typical of cool temperate biota but with significant levels of species uniqueness or endemism for many algae, fish and marine invertebrates. The gulf (Figure 7) has extensive seagrass meadows, mangroves, and samphire or saltmarsh, as well as significant sandy and soft bottomed habitats and reef areas (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2008).

Dominant habitats in near shore subtidal waters (<15 m) include seagrass, rocky reefs and unvegetated soft sediment (Edyvane 1999a).

The seagrass meadows along the metropolitan coast are mostly Posidonia and Amphibolis communities. The mixed Posidonia and Amphibolis communities of the past are now being dominated by Posidonia. Outside the metropolitan areas, coastal seagrass meadows appear to be relatively healthy with continuous and extensive dense seagrass still in Encounter Bay. Recent mapping of the southern Fleurieu found eight species of seagrass (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM 2008).

The region’s subtidal temperate reefs are dominated by large seaweeds or macroalgae and invertebrates such as sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, hydroids, echinoderms, molluscs and crustaceans. Structure and species composition is related to wave action and other physical influences. Below the brown algal canopy are a number of understoreys, comprising smaller green, brown or red algae. The species composition of these understoreys appears to be variable at different sites (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board 2008).

In addition to its intrinsic value, a healthy marine aquatic environment supports a substantial commercial and recreational fishing industry, nursery habitat for resident and migratory species, protection against storms, sediment trapping and stabilisation, beach protection and the tourism industry. Marine aquatic health has been assessed (Gaylard et al. 2013) based on the habitat status of:

• seagrass cover and condition

• reef condition.

Near-shore waters are exposed to a range of external pressures which can adversely affect their condition. These wide and varied pressures include short-term pulsed inputs such as stormwater, through to constant discharges such as those from sewage treatment plants. The impacts on marine aquatic health can be temporary and localised or can be permanent and wide ranging. The major impact of stormwater is long term as it is a source of elevated nutrients (into a naturally low nutrient system), contaminants and erosion sediments. Both near-shore and off-shore habitats can also be impacted by a range of marine based activities such as dredging (Gaylard et al. 2013).

Studies have shown that for South Australian marine waters even small increases in nutrient concentrations can have disproportionate degenerative effects. These include increasing epiphyte loading on seagrass, potentially leading to seagrass loss, and shifting from canopy macroalgal reef systems to turf dominated reef systems. When habitats shift to less productive, less diverse systems


they are generally seen as being in poor condition. A system in poor condition can lead to not only loss of ecological value but economic losses as well. Consistent with the findings of other similar large–scale studies, the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (Fox et al. 2007) identified modification and degradation of Adelaide’s coastal marine environment as a result of many years of near-continuous inputs of nutrient rich, turbid and coloured water and wastewater. All the evidence points to the key role of nitrogen loads causing nutrient enrichment of coastal waters, growth of epiphytes, and (perhaps) direct effects on the seagrasses. There is no evidence from the study to show that toxicants or other nutrients play a key role in the ecosystem dynamics (Fox et al. 2007).

The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study generated a unique historical record of nitrogen (and other pollutant) loads to coastal waters, coupled with a long series of observations of seagrass cover in Adelaide coastal waters. Analysis of this historical loading trend (coupled with the realisation of long time lags in this system between loading increases and seagrass losses) shows that seagrass losses were widespread after the loads increased to about half the present levels.

Sediment movement inshore of the seagrass beds is presently sufficient to prevent regrowth of seagrasses. Amphibolis has been shown to recruit to patches of sacking and other rough materials anchored to the bottom (Wear 2006) – a possible technique to support future recovery if conditions are conducive to recruitment and subsequent growth. Recovery is expected to be slow. In other parts of the world it has taken up to 20 years for seagrasses to regrow once suitable conditions were re-established, and for both Posidonia and Amphibolis–dominated systems, this timeframe may exceed 100 years. Large–scale recovery of seagrass meadows should not be expected unless dramatic and lasting reductions in coastal inputs are made. Even then, sediment instability and nutrient recycling may inhibit progress (Fox et al. 2007).

The marine health regional conceptual model (Figure 8) identifies the indicators of various states of the marine environment based on monitoring multiple lines of evidence. The model combines historical knowledge and monitoring results to identify key pressures and appropriate management responses to maintain or improve marine system health. While the model is particularly technical in its content at this stage, ongoing work with stakeholders in the marine environment will aim to build improved social and economic indicators to add to the descriptions of the state of marine health and to the threats and management response information.

THE

REG

ION

| 3

1

Figure 7: Marine habitats of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region

0 5 10 20

kilometres

Other, cobble, macroalgae, patchy, medium

Other, gravel/pebble, macroalgae, continous, medium

Other, gravel/pebble, bare, continuous

Other, gravel/pebble, macroalgae, patchy, medium

Other, gravel/pebble, macroalgae, patchy, sparse

Reef, continuous, high profile

Reef, continuous, low profile

Reef, continuous, medium profile

Reef, patchy, low profile

Sand, bare, continuous

Sand, invertebrates, patchy, medium

Sand, invertebrates, patchy, sparse

Sand, macroalgae, continuous, medium

Sand, macroalgae, continuous, sparse

Sand, macroalgae, patchy, medium

Sand, macroalgae, patchy, sparse

Seagrass, continuous, dense

Seagrass, continuous, medium

Seagrass, continuous, sparse

Seagrass, patchy, dense

Seagrass, patchy, medium

Seagrass, patchy, sparse

Nearshore marine habitats (2013)

LEGEND

Major rivers

Reservoir

Deeper water marine habitats (2000 2001)

Pinna Sand Seagrass

Williamstown

Adelaide

McLaren Vale

Victor Harbor

Gawler

NuriootpaStockwell

Mallala

Aldinga Beach


Figure 8: Marine health regional conceptual model

TRA

NSI

TIO

N S

TATE

Redu

ctio

n in

den

sity

of

seag

rass

or

incr

ease

in p

atch

ines

sof

sea

gras

s co

ver

Seag

rass

typ

ical

ly s

pars

e an

d pa

tchy

or

tota

lly l

ost

from

whe

re it

has

pre

viou

sly

occu

rred

Fair

Epip

hyte

gro

wth

con

side

red

mod

erat

e, p

oten

tial

lyin

hibi

ting

lig

ht t

o se

agra

ss n

ear

sour

ces

or a

t ou

ter

dept

hlim

it

Seag

rass

con

diti

on in

dex*

<30

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

T RE

SPO

NSE

Stop

poi

nt s

ourc

e po

lluti

on d

isch

arge

Rest

ore

seag

rass

Man

age

fish

ing

effo

rt (

traw

ling)

Hal

t th

e in

trod

ucti

on o

f ne

w a

nd m

anag

e th

esp

read

of

exis

ting

pes

ts

Redu

ce t

otal

and

impr

ove

qual

ity

ofst

orm

wat

er r

unof

f

Stop

poi

nt s

ourc

e po

lluti

on d

isch

arge

Rest

ore

seag

rass

Man

age

fish

ing

effo

rt (

traw

ling)

Hal

t th

e in

trod

ucti

on o

f ne

w a

nd m

anag

e th

esp

read

of

exis

ting

pes

ts

Redu

ce t

otal

and

impr

ove

qual

ity

ofst

orm

wat

er r

unof

f

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Land

bas

ed im

pact

s (s

torm

wat

er r

unof

f an

dpo

int

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

)

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Land

bas

ed im

pact

s (s

torm

wat

er r

unof

f an

dpo

int

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

)

Cano

py o

f ro

bust

bro

wn

mac

roal

gae

>20%

or

has

incr

ease

dov

er t

ime

Turf

ing

alga

e co

ver

on r

ocky

ree

fs <

40%

Bare

sub

stra

te o

n ro

cky

reef

s <4

0%Sp

arse

or

no o

ppor

tuni

stic

mac

roal

gae

(Ulv

a or

Hin

cksi

a sp

p)

No

visi

ble

alga

l or

bact

eria

l mat

on

soft

un-

vege

tate

dsu

bstr

ates

Med

ian

chlo

roph

yll a

typ

ical

ly lo

wer

tha

n 0.

7 ug

/L

Med

ian

tota

l nit

roge

n ty

pica

lly lo

wer

tha

n 0.

18 m

g/L

Infr

eque

nt e

piso

des

of e

leva

ted

wat

er c

lari

ty,

but

med

ian

turb

idit

y ty

pica

lly <

0.25

NTU

Supp

orts

sus

tain

able

com

mer

cial

and

rec

reat

iona

l fis

hing

Opp

ortu

nist

ic a

lgae

con

side

red

mod

erat

e (o

r in

crea

sed

inam

ount

)Co

nsid

erab

ly h

ighe

r or

mor

e va

riab

le n

utri

ents

tha

n in

the

desi

red

stat

e

Vari

able

wat

er c

lari

ty w

ith

som

e pe

riod

s w

here

insu

ffic

ient

light

rea

ches

the

ben

thos

(an

imal

s or

pla

nts

at t

hebo

ttom

), p

arti

cula

rly

duri

ng w

ind

and

rain

eve

nts

Seag

rass

cov

ered

in h

eavy

epi

phyt

e lo

ads

(and

sub

sequ

entl

yly

ing

flat

and

abr

aide

d by

san

d)

Cano

py c

over

of

robu

st b

row

n m

acro

alga

e on

roc

ky r

eefs

<20

%Co

ver

of t

urfi

ng a

lgae

on

rock

y re

efs

>40%

Larg

e ar

eas

of b

are

subs

trat

e on

roc

ky r

eefs

>40

%

Evid

ence

of

lack

of

oxyg

en

Dom

inan

ce o

f op

port

unis

tic

spec

ies

(tha

t fa

vour

dis

turb

edha

bita

t e.

g. a

lgae

, as

cidi

ans

(sea

squ

irts

), f

ish

spec

ies)

pote

ntia

lly s

mot

heri

ng a

ny r

emai

ning

hab

itat

s

Mod

erat

e to

hig

h le

vels

of

dom

inan

ce o

f al

gal o

r ba

cter

ial

mat

s on

sof

t un

vege

tate

d su

bstr

ates

Chlo

roph

yll a

may

be

in t

he o

rder

of

1.4

ug/L

or

high

er

Tota

l nit

roge

n m

ay b

e in

the

ord

er o

f 0.

28 m

g/L

or h

ighe

r

Like

ly t

o be

long

ter

m c

hron

ic e

ffec

ts f

rom

ligh

t be

ing

freq

uent

ly b

lock

ed t

o th

e be

ntho

sTu

rbid

ity

may

be

in t

he o

rder

of

1.57

NTU

or

high

er

Does

not

sup

port

com

mer

cial

and

rec

reat

iona

l fis

hing

His

tori

cal t

raw

ling

Eros

ion

and

frag

men

tati

on o

f re

mai

ning

seag

rass

es

Inap

prop

riat

e re

crea

tion

al a

ctiv

ity

Inva

sive

pes

ts

Eros

ion

and

frag

men

tati

on o

f re

mai

ning

seag

rass

esIn

appr

opri

ate

recr

eati

onal

use

Inva

sive

pes

ts

Wat

er q

uality

(pa

rtic

ular

ly n

itro

gen

and

turb

idit

y)Se

agra

ss c

over

*

Seag

rass

con

diti

on in

dex

is b

ased

on

SHO

CKS

Nat

ural

dis

aste

r(e

.g.

stor

m)

Indu

stri

al d

isas

ter

(e.g

. po

lluti

onso

urce

)

Dis

ease

and

pes

ts

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Land

man

agem

ent

and

chan

geLa

nd u

se c

hang

ere

sult

ing

inch

ange

s in

disc

harg

e to

the

mar

ine

envi

ronm

ent

(qua

lity

and

quan

tity

)

Incr

easi

ngpo

pula

tion

(inc

reas

e in

effl

uent

disc

harg

e)

CON

TRO

LLIN

G V

ARIA

BLE(

S)

dens

ity,

spe

cies

, co

ntin

uity

and

pro

xim

ity

of p

atch

es t

o ea

ch o

ther

.M

easu

red

on s

cale

of

0-10

0.

DES

IRED

STA

TEG

ood

12

UN

DES

IRED

STA

TE3

Poo

r

Mod

erat

e to

den

se s

eagr

ass

mea

dow

s

Seag

rass

con

diti

on in

dex*

>50

Thre

shol

ds e

xist

bet

wee

n st

ates

. Sp

ecif

icth

resh

olds

rel

atin

g to

the

con

trol

ling

vari

able

are

not

wel

l und

erst

ood

in t

he m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

t.

The

cont

roll

ing

vari

able

is

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

t of

a s

yste

m t

hat

cont

rols

whe

ther

or

not

it w

ill

mov

e to

war

ds o

r aw

ay f

rom

a t

hres

hold

poi

nt.

THE

REG

ION

| 3

3

Marine health – A case study: Protecting South Australia’s valuable seagrass communitiesSeagrass communities are only one component of the marine ecosystem but their extent and condition contributes to assessing the health of marine systems.

The marine health case study (Figure 9) identifies the value of seagrass to the environment and to the community including economic impacts of seagrass loss and economic value of its presence. Seagrass condition varies across the AMLR depending on the site; it is a strong example of a component of the marine health system in poor and good states in different parts of the region (see also Chapter 4, Figure 53: State and transition model of seagrass condition for Gulf St Vincent waters).

Metropolitan Adelaide seagrass bears the results of many years of impacts from the urban environment (Westphalen et al. 2004), in sharp comparison to the good condition of seagrass on the Fleurieu Peninsula (Tanner et al. 2012). The causes of seagrass loss along the metropolitan coast are well known and this knowledge should be used to ensure the same impacts do not occur along the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Management actions for protecting the Fleurieu and encouraging recovery of seagrass beds along the metropolitan coast are well documented and identified (Fox et al. 2007).

Phot

o: A

lison

eat

on


Figure 9: Seagrass protection – putting the marine health regional conceptual model into action

Ade

laid

e m

etro

tim

es m

ore

biod

iver

sity

tha

n

bar

e-sa

nd c

omm

unit

ies.

Seag

rass

is c

riti

cal f

or m

aint

aini

ng b

iodi

vers

ity

in c

oast

al w

ater

s. S

eagr

ass

com

mun

itie

s in

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

are

con

side

red

to b

e am

ongs

tth

e la

rges

t an

d m

ost

dive

rse

in t

he w

orld

. H

owev

er,

urba

nisa

tion

has

dev

asta

ted

com

mun

itie

s of

f th

e Ad

elai

de m

etro

polit

an c

oast

.Th

e Fl

euri

eu c

oast

cou

ld a

lso

expe

rien

ce s

eagr

ass

decl

ine

if f

utur

e ur

ban

expa

nsio

n do

es n

ot m

inim

ise

hum

an im

pact

s.

CA

SEST

UD

YP

rote

ctin

g So

uth

Au

stra

lia’

s va

luab

le s

eagr

ass

com

mu

nit

ies

40

Seag

rass

sta

bilis

es u

nder

lyin

g sa

nd a

nd r

educ

es e

rosi

on.

The

loss

of

Seag

rass

mea

dow

s he

lp t

o

red

uce

wav

e en

ergy

and

prev

ent

stor

m

dam

age

to c

oast

lines

.

The

ecos

yste

m s

ervi

ces

valu

e of

sea

gras

sfo

r So

uth

Aust

ralia

i

s be

twee

n

seag

rass

mea

dow

s ha

s le

d to

incr

ease

d sa

nd e

rosi

on o

f Ad

elai

de’s

bea

ches

.

to r

eple

nish

Ade

laid

e’s

lost

bea

ch s

and.

Seag

rass

com

mun

itie

sha

veap

pro

xim

atel

y $1

mill

ion

Each

yea

r it

cos

ts $

12,6

35 $

25,2

70pe

r he

ctar

e ea

ch y

ear.

&

5,2

00

Ade

laid

e’s

met

ropo

litan

coa

st

has

lost

mor

e th

anhe

ctar

esof

sea

gras

s.

50

Ove

r th

e pa

st

year

s,

1 un

it=

1000

hec

tare

sTh

is lo

ss h

as b

een

linke

d to

incr

ease

d se

dim

ent

and

nutr

ient

load

sfr

om u

rban

was

tew

ater

infl

ows

and

agri

cult

ural

run

off,

and

phy

sica

ldi

stur

banc

e by

coa

stal

dev

elop

men

ts s

uch

as m

arin

as a

nd a

quac

ultu

re.

Nut

rien

t lo

ads

in A

dela

ide’

s co

asta

l wat

ers

hav

e in

crea

sed

by

a

fac

tor

of

30-5

0.

&in

The

30-

Year

Pla

n fo

r G

reat

er A

dela

ide.

The

Fleu

rieu

coa

st is

tar

gete

d fo

r

14

,50

022,0

00

The

Fleu

rieu

’s s

eagr

ass

com

mun

itie

s ar

e la

rgel

yin

tact

. Act

ion

is u

nder

way

to

prot

ect

thes

eco

mm

unit

ies

as u

rban

isat

ion

incr

ease

s.

+ +Re

stor

ing

seag

rass

in

degr

aded

area

s.

Mon

itor

ing

nutr

ient

load

sen

teri

ng F

leur

ieu’

s co

asta

lw

ater

s an

d th

e ba

selin

eco

ndit

ion

of a

llse

agra

ssar

eas.

Fleu

rieu

coa

st

Stor

mw

ater

har

vest

ing

and

was

tew

ater

reus

e sc

hem

es a

rere

duci

ng w

aste

wat

eren

teri

ng A

dela

ide’

sco

asta

l wat

ers.

THE

REG

ION

| 3

5

Aquatic healthThe inland waters of the AMLR region include surface water (rivers and streams) and wetlands. The major catchments in the region include the Light and Gawler rivers (including the North and South Para) in the north, the Torrens and Onkaparinga rivers in the centre, and a number of smaller catchments on the Fleurieu peninsula, the largest being the Hindmarsh and Inman rivers.

Benefits from aquatic systems are many and varied but they can broadly be thought of in two groups: consumptive benefits and non-consumptive (or intrinsic) benefits.

Consumptive benefits occur when water is taken from an aquatic system and used for production purposes. This often generates private benefits, for example, extracting water for irrigated agriculture with private benefits arising from commercial farming. The wide range of consumptive users of water resources in the region includes agriculture (irrigation and stock watering), industry and public water supply.

Non-consumptive benefits arise without extracting water from the system. They can include protection from floods, reduction of pest species, links to cultural heritage, and opportunities for recreation and tourism. Non-consumptive benefits are often of a public nature – they contribute to societal wellbeing and are obtained free of any direct monetary charge (Plant et al. 2012).

For these reasons, as well as maintaining the intrinsic value of aquatic ecosystems, it is important to better understand the dynamics of maintaining aquatic health.

Aquatic health (Figure 10, 11 and 12) indicates how well surface water and groundwater systems are functioning and interacting, and how well catchments are functioning. The health of groundwater-dependent ecosystems is particularly influenced by the use of, and recharge to, groundwater systems. The aquatic health of streams in the AMLR region is shown in Figure 12.

A wide range of indicators (Figure 10) need to be considered when determining the health of any aquatic habitat (Goonan et al. 2012), such as:

• macroinvertebrates – generally assessed in terms of both diversity and abundance (number), easy to sample and identify, and respond predictably to changes in their environment

• water quality parameters (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus, oxygen)

• vegetation, including the amount and type of both in-stream and riparian vegetation

• surface water levels and flows (hydrology)

• groundwater levels and movement (hydrogeology).

Many factors can influence the health of an aquatic ecosystem, for example:

• water regime (including volume and timing of water availability) – influenced by the flow of surface water resources and interactions of surface and groundwater resources

• water quality – influenced by runoff and activities in the catchment.


The extraction and use of surface water resources (rivers) can clearly impact on the health of an aquatic ecosystem; the use of groundwater can also impact on aquatic health in a surface water resource, because of interactions between surface and groundwater resources. The nature and degree of connection between groundwater and surface water (Figure 11) can vary significantly and manifest as:

• gaining water from inflow of groundwater through the streambed

• losing water to groundwater by outflow through the streambed

• gaining in some parts and losing in others, or alternating between gaining and losing depending on changes in relative stream and groundwater levels.

Clay

Water quality

MacroinvertebratesAquatic

plants

Riparian plants

Sediments Nitrogen

Phosphorus

P

N

P

NKey

Figure 10: Components of aquatic health (environmental Protection Authority 2012)

Some streams can be gaining and losing in different parts of their catchment; others can be gaining and losing at different times in the same reach (area) depending on the physical conditions (rainfall, runoff) and the volume of groundwater use from the aquifer.

In areas where there is a strong connection between groundwater and surface water, the effects of groundwater pumping can lead to significant impacts on the connected surface water resource and associated aquatic systems health.

Generally, in the AMLR region, the headwaters (hills area, incised valleys) are gaining streams, and plains watercourses are losing streams. Streams can then become gaining again near the coast where saline groundwater may enter the streams to make them saline streams.

Gaining Shallow aquifer

Unsaturated zone

Watertable

Losing Shallow aquifer

Watertable Unsaturated zone

Figure 11: gaining and losing streams

THE

REG

ION

| 3

7

The regional conceptual model for aquatic health (Figure 13) uses the criteria developed to assess aquatic health to identify desired, transition and undesired states for aquatic systems. Controlling variables that contribute to moving aquatic systems from one state to the next have been identified as have the management actions that can be implemented to move to or maintain an aquatic system in a desired state.

The aquatic health regional conceptual model currently focuses on mainly biophysical descriptions of states; however, over time it is envisaged that social and economic indicators and drivers of aquatic health state will be developed and included into the model to improve the understanding of the socio-ecological system.


Figure 12: Aquatic health condition of streams in the AMLR region, assessed in 2008 and 2011

0 5 10 20

kilometres

LEGENDEPA aquatic health 2008*

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

EPA aquatic health 2011*GoodFair

Poor

Very poor

Fish health indicator 2011**Stable fish population

Poor fish population

At risk fish population

Major rivers

Reservoir

Watershed priorityPriority 1

Priority 3

Priority 2

* Source: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/water_quality/aquatic_ecosystem_monitoring_evaluation_and_reporting

** Source: McNeil et al. 2011

THE

REG

ION

| 3

9

Figure 13: Aquatic health regional conceptual model

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

T RE

SPO

NSE

Impr

ove

wat

er u

se e

ffic

ienc

yIm

prov

e ri

pari

an z

ones

(w

eed

man

agem

ent,

reve

geta

tion

, fe

ncin

g)Im

prov

e la

nd m

anag

emen

t to

man

age

diff

use

pollu

tion

Stop

dis

char

ge o

f po

int

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

Man

age

surf

ace

and

grou

nd w

ater

ext

ract

ions

thro

ugh

wat

er a

lloca

tion

pla

nsIn

wat

ersh

ed (

or o

ther

pri

orit

y) a

reas

onl

y+M

anag

e w

ater

ext

ract

ions

thr

ough

wat

eral

loca

tion

pla

ns

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Vege

tati

on c

lear

ance

Crit

ical

min

imal

flo

ws

mai

ntai

ned

at r

efug

e si

tes

Goo

d co

nnec

tion

s m

aint

aine

d be

twee

n su

rfac

e w

ater

and

grou

ndw

ater

Wat

er is

ava

ilabl

e to

sup

port

soc

ial a

nd e

cono

mic

obje

ctiv

es

Mac

roin

vert

ebra

te in

dica

tors

sho

w g

ood

dive

rsit

y an

dat

leas

t so

me

rare

and

sen

siti

ve s

peci

es

Nat

ive

vege

tati

on r

emai

ns (

wat

erco

urse

and

rip

aria

n)Li

mit

ed w

ater

qua

lity

para

met

ers

may

be

high

er t

han

wou

ld b

e ex

pect

ed b

ased

on

the

dom

inan

t la

nd u

sein

the

cat

chm

ent

Wel

l oxy

gena

ted

and

low

in n

utri

ents

and

tur

bidi

ty

At le

ast

one

plan

t in

dica

tor

may

sho

w

sign

s of

hig

hnu

trie

nts*

, bu

t th

e si

te is

not

dom

inat

ed b

y ex

cess

plan

t gr

owth

(al

gae

or in

-str

eam

veg

etat

ion)

Nat

ive

fish

pop

ulat

ions

are

sta

ble

and

show

ing

sign

sof

bei

ng m

aint

aine

d (e

.g.

bree

ding

, fi

sh e

xist

in a

llst

ages

of

lifec

ycle

)

Mac

roin

vert

ebra

te in

dica

tors

sho

w t

hat

gene

ralis

t an

dto

lera

nt s

peci

es d

omin

ate,

and

rar

e an

d se

nsit

ive

spec

ies

are

eith

er n

ot p

rese

nt o

r pr

esen

t in

ver

y lo

wnu

mbe

rs

Envi

ronm

enta

l flo

w r

equi

rem

ents

met

som

etim

es,

but

unlik

ely

to b

e m

et f

or lo

w f

low

or

base

flo

wre

quir

emen

tsFa

ir w

ater

qua

lity,

gen

eral

ly s

atur

ated

dis

solv

edox

ygen

(du

ring

the

day

)

Mac

roin

vert

ebra

te in

dict

ors

show

tha

t to

lera

nt a

ndge

nera

list

spec

ies

dom

inat

e an

d th

ere

are

usua

lly h

igh

num

bers

of

thos

e sp

ecie

sEn

viro

nmen

tal f

low

req

uire

men

ts a

re n

ot m

et

Poor

wat

er q

ualit

y

Hig

h ni

trog

en a

nd p

hosp

horu

s co

ncen

trat

ions

are

hig

hpl

ant

prod

ucti

vity

* (d

omin

ated

by

exce

ss a

lgae

or

in s

trea

m v

eget

atio

n m

ost

of t

he t

ime)

Conn

ecti

on b

etw

een

grou

ndw

ater

and

sur

face

wat

eris

lost

Poor

hab

itat

str

uctu

re a

nd w

ater

flo

w

Unh

ealt

hy f

ish

popu

lati

ons

wit

h fe

w s

peci

es o

f na

tive

fish

and

red

uced

num

bers

, si

gnif

ican

t co

mpe

titi

onfr

om in

trod

uced

spe

cies

and

litt

le r

ecru

itm

ent

Wat

er is

not

ava

ilabl

e fo

r so

cial

and

eco

nom

icob

ject

ives

Chan

ges

to r

unof

f pa

tter

nsPo

int

sour

ce a

nd d

iffu

se p

ollu

tion

Incr

ease

d w

ater

ext

ract

ion

Chan

ged

flow

reg

imes

* H

igh

plan

t pr

oduc

tivi

ty a

nd s

ign

of h

igh

nutr

ient

s =

Chlo

roph

yll >

10 u

g/L,

mac

roph

yte

cove

r >1

0% a

nd/o

r fi

lam

ento

us a

lgae

>35

%

Econ

omic

impa

cts

Legi

slat

ion

chan

ges

Cost

pri

ce s

quee

ze(i

ncre

asin

g co

sts

decr

easi

ngco

mm

odit

y pr

ices

)

Incr

easi

ngur

bani

sati

on

Incr

easi

ngde

man

d fo

rw

ater

Incr

easi

ngin

tens

ity

ofag

ricu

ltur

e

Hea

lthy

env

iron

men

t w

ith

a di

vers

ity

of n

ativ

ean

imal

and

pla

nt li

fe

Nit

roge

n an

d/or

pho

spho

rus

pres

ent

at h

igh

conc

entr

atio

ns a

nd h

igh

alga

l and

pla

nt g

row

th*

Fish

pop

ulat

ions

are

con

side

red

to b

e at

ris

k(p

reda

tion

, co

mpe

titi

on,

low

num

bers

of

nati

ve f

ish,

decl

inin

g re

fuge

env

iron

men

ts)

Mod

ifie

d ri

pari

an z

one

(no

effe

ctiv

e fi

lter

ing)

Land

use

cha

nge

Vege

tati

on c

lear

ance

Chan

ges

to r

unof

f pa

tter

ns

Poin

t so

urce

and

dif

fuse

pol

luti

onIn

crea

sed

wat

er e

xtra

ctio

nCh

ange

d fl

ow r

egim

esM

odif

ied

ripa

rian

zon

e (n

o ef

fect

ive

filt

erin

g)

Dam

s ob

stru

ctin

g m

ovem

ent

Impl

emen

t en

viro

nmen

tal f

low

pro

gram

sdo

wns

trea

m o

f re

serv

oirs

Prov

ide

low

flo

ws

past

str

ateg

ic f

arm

dam

s

Impr

ove

wat

er u

se e

ffic

ienc

yIm

prov

e ri

pari

an z

ones

(w

eed

man

agem

ent,

reve

geta

tion

, fe

ncin

g)Im

prov

e la

nd m

anag

emen

t to

man

age

diff

use

pollu

tion

Stop

dis

char

ge o

f po

int

sour

ce p

ollu

tion

+

Wat

ersh

ed is

a p

rior

ity

area

be

caus

e it

is a

w

ater

sup

ply

sour

ce;

impr

oved

wat

er q

ualit

y (a

ndaq

uati

c ha

bita

t) r

educ

es w

ater

tre

atm

ent

cost

s.O

ther

pri

orit

y ar

eas

may

be

iden

tifi

ed t

o pr

otec

tan

im

port

ant

envi

ronm

enta

l ass

et.

SHO

CKS

Nat

ural

dis

aste

r(e

.g.

floo

d)

Indu

stri

al d

isas

ter

(e.g

. po

lluti

onso

urce

)

Dis

ease

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Land

man

agem

ent

and

chan

ge

The

cont

roll

ing

vari

able

is

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

t of

a s

yste

m t

hat

cont

rols

whe

ther

or

not

it w

ill

mov

e to

war

ds o

r aw

ay f

rom

a t

hres

hold

poi

nt.

CON

TRO

LLIN

G V

ARIA

BLE(

S)

Flow

reg

ime

(vol

ume,

fre

quen

cy,

tim

ing,

dur

atio

n)W

ate

r quality

Flow

reg

ime

requ

irem

ents

, w

here

kno

wn,

are

doc

umen

ted

in r

elev

ant

wat

eral

loca

tion

pla

ns.

DES

IRED

STA

TEG

ood

1M

inor

cha

nges

to

ecol

ogic

al c

ondi

tion

and

fun

ctio

n

TRA

NSI

TIO

N S

TATE

Mod

erat

e nu

trie

nt e

nric

hmen

t

Fair

Chan

ges

to t

he r

ate,

dur

atio

n an

d fr

eque

ncy

of f

low

betw

een

grou

ndw

ater

and

sur

face

wat

er

2U

ND

ESIR

ED S

TATE

3 Seve

rely

alt

ered

fro

m n

atur

al s

tate

Poo

r

Gro

ss n

utri

ent

enri

chm

ent

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Phys

ical

dist

urba

nces

of s

ubst

rate

s suc

h as

ero

sion

and

colla

pse

Com

peti

ng w

ater

dem

ands

Com

peti

ng w

ater

dem

ands

Thre

shol

ds e

xist

bet

wee

n st

ates

. Sp

ecif

icth

resh

olds

rel

atin

g to

the

con

trol

ling

vari

able

vary

acr

oss

the

regi

on.


Aquatic health – A case study: Using environmental flows to increase the onkaparinga River’s resilienceHealthy aquatic ecosystems are integral to the maintenance of good natural resources condition. In the region, rivers also often form part of the system to collect and distribute water for human consumption. This has resulted in significant modification of aquatic systems and their consequent poor health.

The Mount Bold reservoir is part of the Onkaparinga River aquatic system and is an important source of water for human consumption. However, the reduced flow in the Onkaparinga River had significant environmental impacts including on the health of the Onkaparinga estuary (Cook and Coleman 2010).

Implementing environmental flows (a management response in the aquatic health model) in the Onkaparinga River, and monitoring the response of the system to those flows has shown improvements in the condition of the aquatic ecosystem to the point that it is now fair to good (Coleman 2013). Ongoing work is required to ensure that the system can be maintained in a good state while still retaining its ability to deliver the required water for human consumption.

This case study is a good example of how the environment, economic and social needs of a system need to be balanced to achieve the desired outcome (Figure 14).

Onkaparinga River - before and after environmental flow release

THE

REG

ION

| 4

1

Figure 14: Environmental flows in the Onkaparinga River – putting the aquatic health regional conceptual model into action

Mou

nt B

old

Rese

rvoi

r

Port

Noa

rlun

ga

Reef

Each

yea

r

an

est

imat

ed

v

isit

ors

u

se

P

ort

Noa

rlun

ga R

eef

and

O

nkap

arin

ga E

stua

ry

A

quat

ic R

eser

ve

f

or r

ecre

atio

n.

Mur

ray

Brid

ge -

Onk

apar

inga

pip

elin

e

Undergr

ound w

ater tu

nnel

to Happ

y Valle

y Rese

rvoir

O

nkap

arin

ga

Riv

er e

stua

ry

pr

ovid

es im

port

ant

habi

tat

for

mig

rato

rybi

rds

unde

r in

tern

atio

nal

agre

emen

ts.

170,0

00

The

Onk

apar

inga

Riv

er s

uppl

ies

arou

nd

% o

f A

dela

ide’

s w

ater

ne

eds

in a

n av

erag

e ye

ar.

The

rive

r’s

natu

ral s

easo

nal f

low

s do

wns

trea

m o

f Cl

aren

don

Wei

r ha

vebe

en s

igni

fica

ntly

alt

ered

to

mee

t th

is d

eman

d. T

his

has

impa

cted

the

aqu

atic

heal

th o

f hi

gh v

alue

nat

ural

ass

ets

in t

he O

nkap

arin

ga R

iver

and

est

uary

.

See

enla

rged

map

Onk

apar

inga

Riv

er c

atch

men

t

Tota

l are

a: 5

46 s

quar

e ki

lom

etre

s

Long

est

rive

r in

the

AM

LR N

RM r

egio

n

Rece

nt a

ctio

ns t

o re

turn

nat

ural

flo

w c

hara

cter

isti

cs t

oth

e O

nkap

arin

ga a

re s

how

ing

enco

urag

ing

sign

s of

a r

esili

ent

rive

r.Th

e AM

LR N

RM B

oard

, SA

Wat

er a

nd D

epar

tmen

t of

Env

iron

men

t,W

ater

and

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es a

re t

rial

ing

the

annu

al r

etur

n of

to t

he r

iver

dow

nstr

eam

of

Clar

endo

n W

eir

usin

g a

flow

reg

ime

that

mim

ics

natu

ral s

easo

nal f

low

s.

Onk

apar

inga

Nat

iona

l Par

k

Onk

apar

inga

Riv

er

estu

ary

The

Onk

apar

inga

Riv

erdo

wns

trea

m o

f Cl

aren

don

Wei

r

has

a h

igh

div

ersi

ty o

f

fi

sh a

nd a

quat

ic

p

lant

s.

% o

f th

e ti

me

ther

e

is

no

fres

hwat

er f

low

dire

ctly

bel

ow C

lare

ndon

Wei

r.

The

rive

r m

outh

has

nar

row

ed a

s a

resu

lt o

f re

duce

d fl

ows,

cre

atin

g ba

rrie

rs t

o fi

sh p

assa

ge b

etw

een

estu

arin

e an

d m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

ts.

Redu

ced

flow

has

incr

ease

dso

me

salin

ity

zone

s to

leve

lshi

gher

tha

n se

awat

er in

the

estu

ary.

The

inst

alla

tion

of

an e

nvir

onm

enta

lfl

ow v

alve

at

Clar

endo

n W

eir

will

red

uce

the

impa

ct o

f ur

ban

wat

er d

iver

sion

on

vita

l aqu

atic

eco

syst

ems.

Des

mid

s, f

resh

wat

er p

lank

ton,

hav

ere

turn

ed t

o th

e O

nkap

arin

ga e

stua

ry s

ince

the

begi

nnin

g of

the

env

iron

men

tal

flow

s tr

ial.

Cla

rend

onW

eir

Expe

cted

ben

efit

s of

the

tri

al in

clud

eim

prov

ed w

ater

qua

lity

and

aqua

tic

habi

tat,

and

mor

e su

stai

nabl

epo

pula

tion

s of

nat

ive

fish

.

40

Earl

y m

onit

orin

g re

sult

s of

the

tr

ial s

how

tha

t sa

linit

y ha

sre

turn

ed t

o na

tura

l lev

els

inth

e es

tuar

y.9,4

00m

egal

itre

s of

wat

er

92

CA

SEST

UD

YU

sing

env

iron

men

tal f

low

s to

incr

ease

the

Onk

apar

inga

’s r

esili

ence


Community support for natural resources managementThe AMLR region is characterised by the significant urban population based in metropolitan Adelaide (1.1 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011)) and surrounding townships.

This population contributes to NRM through physical action on ground and by advocating to policy makers and the broader community about the value of natural resources. The community also contributes financial resources through the NRM levy.

Government and the board have a significant role in recognising the value of a community that is actively engaged and participating in managing natural resources and actively seeking to work in partnership with them (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2011). They also have a critical role in removing barriers to community action and involvement, and can help people recognise their relationship with natural resources. Adams et al. (2005) note a strong link between participation in the community and a positive influence on physical wellbeing.

People (the community) have had, and continue to have, impacts on natural resources (Sexton Marketing Group 2007). For example, the size and proximity of the urban population has forced land clearing, an ongoing demand for land for urban development, conflicts between adjoining land uses and impacts on natural resources from recreation use.

The region is important for primary production, and has productive landscapes that integrate agriculture and biodiversity. However, there is often a disconnect between much of the urban community and the growth of food (Hillman and Buckley 2011). Many consider that the urban population should be reconnected with primary production and food growth (Charles and Low 2009; Jordan 2009).

There is significant evidence (see References) that a community engaged with NRM works to modify and reduce its impacts, and support the actions required to truly make significant improvements in the state of the region’s natural resources. However, community engagement is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ process and individual community groups require specific approaches to maintain and increase engagement (Adams et al. 2005).

The regional conceptual model for community support for NRM (Figure 15) identifies the attributes of the community in various states of NRM awareness and support. This model identifies controlling variables and management actions that support the change of the community from one state to another. It is a qualitatively derived model that identifies social characteristics. Future investigations will work at identifying relevant quantitative measures that could be used to support the indicators of each state in the model.

THE

REG

ION

| 4

3

Figure 15: Community support for natural resources management regional conceptual model

DES

IRED

STA

TE

An a

ctiv

e co

mm

unit

y th

at u

nder

stan

ds t

heco

mpl

exit

y of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es a

nd c

ares

for

the

m

TRA

NSI

TIO

N S

TATE

UN

DES

IRED

STA

TE3

Wel

l m

eani

ng a

nd a

ctiv

e co

mm

unit

y w

ho h

ave

am

oder

ate

posi

tive

nat

ural

res

ourc

es o

utco

me

A co

mm

unit

y th

at d

oes

not

advo

cate

for

nat

ural

reso

urce

s

Supp

orti

ve c

omm

unit

y*

In

form

ed/a

war

e co

mm

unit

y D

isco

nnec

ted

com

mun

ity

1

Info

rmed

but

inac

tive

com

mun

ity

due

to h

ighe

ral

tern

ativ

e pr

iori

ties

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

T RE

SPO

NSE

Dev

elop

opp

ortu

niti

es f

or t

he c

omm

unit

y to

collab

orat

e on

pos

itiv

e ou

tcom

es f

or n

atur

alre

sour

ces

and

prim

ary

prod

ucti

on

Empo

wer

com

mun

itie

s in

nat

ural

res

ourc

esm

anag

emen

t de

cisi

on m

akin

g

Reco

gnis

e an

d re

war

d co

ntri

buti

on

Link

the

val

ue o

f na

tura

l re

sour

ces

to e

very

day

acti

vity

Rais

e aw

aren

ess

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

valu

e of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

Incr

ease

the

vis

ibili

ty o

f th

e w

ork

of t

he N

RMBo

ard

thro

ugh

invo

lvem

ent

and

colla

bora

tion

w

ith

com

mun

ity

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Cha

nges

in

prio

riti

es a

ffec

ting

ava

ilabl

ere

sour

ces

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Lack

of

info

rmat

ion

abou

t na

tura

l re

sour

ces

man

agem

ent

Com

mun

ity

that

adv

ocat

es f

or t

he e

nvir

onm

ent

and

has

the

conf

iden

ce t

o de

velo

p pl

ans

and

beco

me

real

part

ners

in d

iscu

ssio

nAc

tive

coo

pera

tion

bet

wee

n pe

ople

Coor

dina

tion

of

effo

rts

prod

ucin

g be

tter

out

com

es f

orna

tura

l res

ourc

es

A re

silie

nt c

omm

unit

y ab

le t

o ad

apt

to c

hang

es

Resi

lient

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

abl

e to

eng

age

in n

atur

alre

sour

ces

man

agem

ent

and

supp

ort

thei

r co

mm

unit

ies

Com

mun

ity

supp

orts

the

NRM

levy

Valu

ing

natu

ral r

esou

rces

is t

he ‘

norm

’

Acti

ve c

omm

unit

y bu

t un

able

to

achi

eve

posi

tive

outc

omes

Litt

le o

r no

res

ourc

e al

loca

tion

tow

ards

man

agin

gna

tura

l res

ourc

esLi

ttle

or

no s

uppo

rt o

f th

e N

RM le

vy

Una

war

e of

NRM

levy

Com

mun

ity

has

no c

onne

ctio

n to

the

nat

ural

envi

ronm

ent

and

the

regi

on a

s a

food

pro

duce

r

2

Loss

of

rele

vant

ski

lls

Redu

ced

educ

atio

n an

d sk

ill lev

els

Poor

inf

orm

atio

n pr

ovid

edBa

d pr

evio

us e

xper

ienc

es w

ith

natu

ral

reso

urce

man

agem

ent

Lack

of

reso

urce

for

nat

ural

res

ourc

esm

anag

emen

t

Com

mun

ity

is w

ell c

onne

cted

to

the

natu

ral

envi

ronm

ent

and

the

regi

on a

s a

food

pro

duce

r

*

Com

mun

ity,

in t

his

syst

em,

is in

tend

ed t

o in

clud

e a

wid

e ra

nge

of s

take

hold

ers

incl

udin

gco

mm

unit

y gr

oups

, lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, g

ener

alpo

pula

tion

.

Indi

vidu

al f

inan

cial

stab

ility

(liv

ing

stan

dard

s,av

aila

ble

inco

me)

The

cont

roll

ing

vari

able

is

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

t of

a s

yste

m t

hat

cont

rols

whe

ther

or

not

it w

ill

mov

e to

war

ds o

r aw

ay f

rom

a t

hres

hold

poi

nt.

CON

TRO

LLIN

G V

ARIA

BLE(

S)

Abili

ty t

o ac

t (f

inan

cial

and

oth

er r

esou

rces

)Kn

owle

dge

abou

t w

hat

to d

o

Econ

omic

impa

cts

Legi

slat

ive

chan

ges

SHO

CKS

Polit

ical

cha

nges

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Thre

shol

ds e

xist

bet

wee

n st

ates

. Sp

ecif

icth

resh

olds

rel

atin

g to

the

con

trol

ling

vari

able

vary

acr

oss

the

regi

on.


Community support for natural resources management – A case study: greener schools and healthier kidsIncreasing community support for, and knowledge about, natural resources is a complex problem requiring a range of approaches depending on the demographic or group of interest.

One successful program is building support and knowledge for NRM among school communities by developing a ‘living sustainably’ culture that can be spread beyond the school, to all in the community (Figure 16). School children can discuss and discover a range of ways to implement sustainable living outcomes, which all link to using and protecting natural resources.

Schools build sustainable living education activities into the whole curriculum so that it becomes a way of life rather than a subject studied at school. The program supports teachers in developing curriculum and provides training and development opportunities.

These school children will become the NRM supporters of the future as well as in the present. It is more likely that they will choose NRM careers or become natural resources volunteers. Increased knowledge and participation leads to a more resilient community.

THE

REG

ION

| 4

5

Figure 16: greener schools and healthier kids – putting the community support for natural resources management regional model into action

Was

te r

educ

tion

init

iati

ves

Kitc

hen

gard

ens

The

gap

betw

een

urba

n ki

ds a

nd n

atur

e is

wid

enin

g. M

ore

and

mor

e re

sear

ch is

fin

ding

tha

t th

is d

isco

nnec

t co

ntri

bute

s to

AD

HD

, ob

esit

yan

d de

pres

sion

. O

ne w

ay t

o ad

dres

s th

is p

robl

em is

to

allo

w k

ids

to e

ngag

e w

ith

thei

r na

tura

l env

iron

men

t w

hile

at

scho

ol.

Kids

in t

heAd

elai

de a

nd M

ount

Lof

ty R

ange

s N

RM r

egio

n ge

t th

is o

ppor

tuni

ty t

hrou

gh a

num

ber

of s

choo

l-ba

sed

sust

aina

bilit

y ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

s.

CA

SEST

UD

Y

Gre

ener

sch

ools

and

hea

lthi

er k

ids

Envi

ronm

enta

l res

tora

tion

and

mon

itor

ing

SCHO

OL

102

scho

ols

have

foo

d ga

rden

s.

105

scho

ols

have

con

duct

eda

was

te a

udit

.

82 sc

hool

sha

ve b

iodi

vers

ity

gard

ens.

12 sc

hool

sha

ve c

ondu

cted

an e

nerg

y au

dit.

42 sc

hool

sha

ve a

Sch

ool E

nvir

onm

enta

lM

anag

emen

t Pl

anth

at c

over

s is

sues

suc

h as

was

te,

ener

gy,

wat

er a

nd b

iodi

vers

ity.

Dur

ing

2011

-12,

AM

LR N

RM E

duca

tion

eng

aged

11,

810

stud

ents

in t

he r

ange

of

acti

viti

es it

off

ers

unde

r Au

SSI-

SA.

This

incl

uded

12 Y

outh

For

ums

invo

lvin

g 67

sch

ools

and

430

stu

dent

s.

As a

t 31

Jan

uary

201

3, 2

27 s

choo

ls w

ere

regi

ster

ed w

ith

the

AuSS

I-SA

pro

gram

. Th

e pr

ogra

m s

uppo

rts

stud

ent

lear

ning

abo

ut

sust

aina

ble

livin

g.

PART

ICIP

ATIO

N I

N S

UST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y E

DU

CAT

ION

AC

TIV

ITIE

S

In 2

012,

AM

LR N

RM E

duca

tion

del

iver

ed 1

51 t

rain

ing

even

ts t

o

1,75

9 te

ache

rs a

nd 1

,104

stu

dent

s.

Inte

grat

ing

sust

aina

bilit

y in

toal

l asp

ects

of

scho

olin

g

Elec

tric

ity

savi

ngin

itia

tive

s


Building capacity of natural resources managersThe capacity to achieve sustainable NRM can be built by a range of activities. Capacity in this context includes awareness, skills, knowledge, motivation, commitment and confidence (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2011).

Natural resources management problems are complex and occur on a broad spatial and temporal scale. They often involve difficult tradeoffs between alternative land uses (and users). People need the capacity to respond to new challenges as they arise, and be able to be proactive in their response to change.

Adaptive capacity describes the capacity of people to deal with change and disturbance, and reflects learning through knowledge sharing. Communities that are able to enhance their adaptive capacity can deal with conflicts, make difficult tradeoffs between short and long term wellbeing, and implement rules for ecosystem management. This in turn improves the capacity of the ecosystem to continue to provide services (Fabricius et al. 2007).

To obtain on-ground improvement in the environment, those who live and work directly with it have a major role to play along with government and industry. Investment in people as well as on-ground works is needed to achieve long-term environmental outcomes (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2011).

The National Natural Resource Management Capacity Building Framework (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2011) identifies four key conceptual areas of importance to capacity building:

• Awareness – individuals in the community become conscious of regional NRM issues and understand the link between them and the long-term viability of their community.

• Knowledge and information – natural resources managers and users are able and willing to access the necessary information, data and science (biophysical, social and economic) to make sound NRM decisions.

• Skills and training – natural resources managers and users are equipped with, or have access to, the necessary technical, people management, project management and planning skills to participate in the development and implementation of sustainable NRM at property, local and regional scales.

• Facilitation and support – support systems are in place to ensure the engagement and motivation of the community, build social capital, and enable skilled natural resources managers and users to exercise ownership over regional NRM decision-making processes and effectively implement actions arising from these processes.

Capacity building is not just a focus on transferring technical information and capability to land managers; it also looks at building human and social capital — the capability of individuals and the social networks and relationships they develop.

The majority of land in the region is held in private ownership. Therefore, the capacity of people to manage their natural resources is critical for meaningful NRM outcomes.

The diverse property types in the region can broadly be considered to be properties where the major source of income is derived:

• on farm (economically productive or commercial properties)

• off farm/property (rural lifestyle).

THE

REG

ION

| 4

7

This split is not marked; in reality there is likely to be a continuum for landholder reliance on off-farm income. Many factors influence how much any given property may rely on off-farm income, and it may vary from year to year. The ability of landholders to manage the natural resources of their property may depend on the type of landholder they are, that is, where they derive their income from (Moon and Cocklin 2011).

This regional conceptual model (Figure 17) is intended to apply to all land managers regardless of whether they manage commercial properties or not.

Building capacity of natural resource managers – A case study: Small landholders helping each other learnAll land managers in the AMLR region have responsibilities for maintaining the natural resources of the region. This case study (Figure 18) focuses on a sector of the community often referred to as lifestyle or ‘hobby’ farmers. They make up a significant proportion of the land manager population in the Central Hills and Fleurieu subregions, and that proportion is rising. Identifying the characteristics of this sector, which makes them different from more commercial land managers, is critical to identifying the best ways to support them and build their NRM capacity (Moon and Cocklin 2011).

Key for this group is building their understanding of land management impacts on the whole environment. Improving their stock management practices, knowledge of soil issues and understanding of how improvements to land management lead to improved natural resources, is a goal for this sector.


Figure 17: Building capacity of natural resources managers regional conceptual model

DES

IRED

STA

TE

Wel

l m

anag

ed a

nd g

ood

cond

itio

n na

tura

l re

sour

ces

TRA

NSI

TIO

N S

TATE

UN

DES

IRED

STA

TE3

Land

hold

ers

invo

lved

in n

atur

al r

esou

rces

man

agem

ent

on t

heir

pro

pert

yN

atur

al r

esou

rces

in p

oor

or u

nmai

ntai

ned

cond

itio

n

Land

hold

ers

wit

h ca

paci

ty t

om

anag

e th

eir

natu

ral r

esou

rces

Land

hold

ers

wit

hout

cap

acit

yto

man

age

natu

ral r

esou

rces

1

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es c

ondi

tion

is m

aint

aine

d

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

T RE

SPO

NSE

Enco

urag

e po

siti

ve e

xper

ienc

es w

ith

natu

ral

reso

urce

s m

anag

emen

tIm

plem

ent

prog

ram

s ai

med

at

reta

inin

g st

aff

to m

inim

se s

taff

tur

nove

r

Cre

ate

and

supp

ort

netw

orks

Enco

urag

e po

siti

ve e

xper

ienc

es w

ith

natu

ral

reso

urce

s m

anag

emen

t

Supp

ort

inno

vato

rs a

nd c

ham

pion

s w

ho c

anle

ad c

omm

unit

ies

Dem

onst

rate

eco

nom

ic a

nd e

nvir

onm

enta

lbe

nefi

ts o

f na

tura

l re

sour

ces

man

agem

ent

acti

viti

es (

whe

re p

ossi

ble)

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

NRM

sup

port

sta

ff t

urno

ver

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Lack

of

info

rmat

ion

Land

hold

ers

wor

king

as

grou

ps b

oth

on a

nd o

ffpr

oper

ties

Land

hold

ers

fully

eng

aged

in n

atur

al r

esou

rces

man

agem

ent

and

empo

wer

ed d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

(dri

ving

the

age

nda)

A sh

ared

vis

ion

for

natu

ral r

esou

rces

tha

t ca

n be

clea

rly

com

mun

icat

ed

Land

hold

ers

valu

e na

tura

l res

ourc

es f

or b

oth

intr

insi

can

d pr

oduc

tive

val

ues

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es o

rgan

isat

ions

are

val

ued

as s

ourc

esof

info

rmat

ion

and

supp

ort

Land

hold

ers

act

for

long

ter

m o

utco

mes

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es a

re v

alue

d fo

r co

ntri

buti

on t

opr

oduc

tion

out

com

es

Land

hold

ers

not

invo

lved

in a

ny n

atur

al r

esou

rces

man

agem

ent

acti

viti

es o

n, o

r of

f, p

rope

rty

Land

hold

ers

susp

icio

us o

r ac

tive

ly h

osti

le t

owar

dsna

tura

l res

ourc

es m

anag

emen

t or

gani

sati

ons

and

grou

ps

Land

hold

ers

acti

vely

hos

tile

to

wor

king

wit

h ot

hers

or

in g

roup

s

2

Land

hold

er t

urno

ver

Lack

of

fnan

cial

res

ourc

es a

nd t

ime

Lack

of

awar

enes

s of

nat

ural

res

ourc

esm

anag

emen

t is

sues

wit

hin

lifes

tyle

land

hold

er p

opul

atio

n

Poor

pre

viou

s ex

peri

ence

wit

h na

tura

lre

sour

ces

man

agem

ent

Land

hold

ers

seek

info

rmat

ion

from

nat

ural

res

ourc

es

orga

nisa

tion

s in

som

e ci

rcum

stan

ces

Land

hold

ers

not

colla

bora

ting

wit

h ne

ighb

ours

or

grou

ps

Acti

on m

ay b

e sh

ort

term

Cos

t to

cha

nge

land

man

agem

ent

prac

tice

s

Prov

ide

trai

ning

opp

ortu

niti

es t

o bu

ild s

kills

inla

nd m

anag

men

tFa

cilit

ate

and

supp

ort

land

man

ager

s th

roug

hpr

acti

ce c

hang

e (e

.g.

educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng,

ince

ntiv

es)

Prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

and

trai

ning

opp

ortu

niti

esU

se d

uty

of c

are

prov

isio

ns t

o m

aint

ain

min

imum

nat

ural

res

ourc

e st

anda

rds

The

cont

roll

ing

vari

able

is

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

t of

a s

yste

m t

hat

cont

rols

whe

ther

or

not

it w

ill

mov

e to

war

ds o

r aw

ay f

rom

a t

hres

hold

poi

nt.

CON

TRO

LLIN

G V

ARIA

BLE(

S)

Abili

ty t

o ac

t (f

inan

cial

and

oth

er r

esou

rces

)Kn

owle

dge

abou

t w

hat

to d

o

Econ

omic

impa

cts

Legi

slat

ive

chan

ges

Cost

pri

ce s

quee

ze(i

ncre

asin

g co

sts

decr

easi

ngco

mm

odit

y pr

ices

)

Incr

easi

ngur

bani

sati

onIn

crea

sing

land

pri

ces

SHO

CKS

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rs

Dis

ease

Polit

ical

cha

nges

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Land

man

agem

ent

and

chan

ge

Thre

shol

ds e

xist

bet

wee

n st

ates

. Sp

ecif

icth

resh

olds

rel

atin

g to

the

con

trol

ling

vari

able

vary

acr

oss

the

regi

on a

nd w

ithi

n di

ffer

ent

sect

ors.

THE

REG

ION

| 4

9

Figure 18: Small landholders helping each other learn – putting the building capacity of natural resources managers regional conceptual model into practice

Aci

dic

soils

Soils

can

bec

ome

acid

ic a

fter

the

add

itio

n o

f nit

roge

n fe

rtili

sers

and

inte

nsiv

e le

gum

e-ba

sed

past

ure

prod

ucti

on.

Thi

s ca

n ca

use

soil

eros

ion

as t

he s

oil s

truc

ture

bre

aks

dow

n.

Lim

ing

of s

oils

can

reba

lanc

e pH

leve

ls.

Appl

y fe

rtili

ser

only

in

requ

ired

am

ount

s.

The

AMLR

NRM

Boa

rd is

hel

ping

to

addr

ess

this

issu

eby

fun

ding

pee

r-to

-pee

r le

arni

ng ab

out

sust

aina

ble

land

man

agem

ent

prac

tice

s fo

r sm

all f

arm

er o

wne

rs in

the

reg

ion.

20 la

ndho

lder

s ha

ve d

evel

oped

the

ir o

wn

prop

erty

pla

n.Th

ey e

ncou

rage

oth

ers

to d

o so

by

each

hos

ting

akn

owle

dge-

shar

ing

wor

ksho

p fo

r 20

-30

land

hold

ers.

C

rypt

ospo

ridi

um a

nd G

iard

ia

ent

er w

ater

cour

ses

in li

vest

ock

fae

ces

whe

n th

ere

is n

o ri

pari

an b

uffe

r.

Wat

er q

ualit

y

Smal

l fa

rm o

wn

ers

hel

pin

g ea

ch o

ther

lea

rn a

nd

impl

emen

tsu

stai

nab

le l

and

man

agem

ent

prac

tice

sC

ASE

STU

DY

The

Mou

nt L

ofty

Ran

ges

have

alw

ays

had

a la

rge

num

ber

of s

mal

l far

ms.

Eros

ion

Rota

tion

graz

ing

syst

ems

Fenc

e of

f w

ater

way

s an

d in

stal

lri

pari

an b

uffe

rs t

hat

filt

er w

ater

.

N

utri

ents

can

als

o en

ter

wat

erw

ays

and

cau

se a

lgal

blo

oms.

Man

y sm

all f

arm

o

wne

rs h

ave

urba

n ba

ckgr

ound

s and

d

eriv

e th

eir

prim

ary

inco

me

off-

farm

.

They

are

oft

en t

ime-

poor

and

str

uggl

e t

o de

dica

te t

ime

to le

arni

ng a

nd im

plem

enti

ng s

usta

inab

lela

nd m

anag

emen

t pr

acti

ces.

Whe

n gr

azin

g is

exc

essi

ve it

rem

oves

g

roun

dcov

er a

nd le

aves

the

soi

l

su

scep

tibl

e to

ero

sion

.


Sustainable primary productionThe objects of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 promote ecologically sustainable development by, among other things:

• recognising and protecting the intrinsic value of natural resources

• providing for the protection and management of catchments, and the sustainable use of land and water resources

• supporting sustainable primary production systems.

The region supports a diverse range of land uses and primary industries (Table 6), in particular cropping (cereal), perennial and annual horticulture, viticulture, forestry, grazing and dairy (Figure 19). Pressures on sustainable and profitable primary production have seen supporting industries and value-adding industries becoming increasingly important to the sector.

Some of the major NRM issues in the region are:

• land degradation and soil fertility management

• pest and weed control

• watercourse management

• remnant vegetation management.

Natural resources underpin productivity. It is critical that the natural resources base is protected to maintain and increase the primary production (and food production) sector in the region. Undesirable consequences of some agricultural activities include erosion, salinity, and loss of soil structure; these can limit farm productivity. There are also off-site impacts of farm practices such as herbicide or nutrient discharge into watercourses (Kokic et al. 2006). The links between environmental degradation and farm productivity in many instances are not clear; however, sustainable primary production relies in part on the natural resources base that supports it, and in turn profitable primary production businesses are able to invest in good NRM.

Social and economic influences can often be more immediately critical to maintaining profitable primary production businesses, and are therefore often given a higher priority, as they impact on day to day business. This focus has the potential to lead to poor NRM outcomes with consequences for individual properties and the wider landscape.

It is therefore critical to understand the links between profitable and sustainable primary production. The natural resources of the region must be improved to better support a sector that has significant ability to influence NRM outcomes for the region. This regional conceptual model (Figure 20) identifies attributes of sustainable and profitable primary production and the controlling variables that move sustainable primary production industries from one state to the another. The model includes mainly qualitative information on the attributes of each state and those controlling variables. Identifying and collecting further information for specific industries and areas of primary production will add value to the information in this regional conceptual model.

THE

REG

ION

| 5

1

Table 6: Agricultural statistics for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region

AMLR

reg

ion

% of

sta

te

tota

l

Num

ber

of

busi

ness

es in

the

AMLR

*

AMLR

tot

al

prod

ucti

on (

t)

% of

sta

te

prod

ucti

on

Hay and silage (ha) 18,776 600 94,822 8.6%

Wheat (ha) 26,449 183 94,516 1.6%

Oats (ha) 772 32 1,918 1.5%

Barley (ha) 13,307 150 43,093 34.6%

Triticale (ha) 565 23 1,669 1.9%

All other cereals (ha) 2,299 15 4,402 4.1%

Canola (ha) 5,035 56 9,617 2.7%

Chickpeas (ha) 325 5 440 3.1%

Field beans (ha) 4,440 60 10,739 6.7%

Field peas for grain (ha) 6,357 85 12,287 6.3%

Nurseries, cut flowers or cultivated

turf (ha)384 39.4% 136

Vegetables (ha) 2,347 16.4% 403 118,916 12.7%

Fruit and nut trees (trees under 6 yrs)

(number of trees)448,500 24.5% 134

Fruit and nut trees (trees over 6 yrs)

(number of trees))1,407,312 21.9%

Grapevines for wine production (area

not yet bearing) (ha)1,273 42.0% 210

Grapevines for wine production (area

of bearing age) (ha)21,798 29.7% 1,159 168,002 21.7%

Dairy cattle (number) 25,823 18.1% 114

Meat cattle (number) 65,049 5.9% 804

Sheep (number) 298,952 2.7% 583

Pigs (number) 84,736 22.7% 36

Horses (stud and other) (number) 2,753 28.9% 325

*note: number of business totals includes business that produce multiple products, therefore totals could include businesses counted multiple times.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012a,b,c)


Figure 19: Primary production in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges

Adelaide

LEGEND

Cropping

Nature coservation

Intensive animal production

Plantation forestry

Grazing

Residential

Unmapped

Mining

Horticulture

Land use (2008)

McLaren Vale

Woodside

PPPA subregions

Hahndorf

Aldinga Beach

Victor Harbor

Lobethal

Mount Pleasant

Williamstown

Gawler

Nuriootpa

StockwellMallala

0 5 10 20

kilometres

THE

REG

ION

| 5

3

Figure 20: Sustainable primary production regional conceptual model

DES

IRED

STA

TE

Ente

rpri

se h

as d

evel

oped

and

is im

plem

enti

ng a

who

le f

arm

bus

ines

s pl

an (

incl

udes

pro

pert

y an

dbu

sine

ss m

anag

emen

t)

TRA

NSI

TIO

N S

TATE

UN

DES

IRED

STA

TE3

Busi

ness

pla

nnin

g an

d in

nova

tion

‘ho

ldin

g th

e fo

rt’

but

not

supp

orti

ng t

he m

ove

to ‘

prem

ium

foo

d fr

oma

clea

n en

viro

nmen

t’

Busi

ness

pla

nnin

g an

d in

nova

tion

not

kee

ping

up

wit

h th

e pa

ce o

f ch

angi

ng c

ircu

mst

ance

s

Sust

aina

ble

and

prof

itab

lepr

imar

y pr

oduc

tion

indu

stri

esUn

sust

aina

ble

and

unpr

ofit

able

prim

ary

prod

ucti

on in

dust

ries

1

Min

imal

ada

ptiv

e m

anag

emen

t

MAN

AGEM

ENT

RESP

ON

SEM

ANAG

EMEN

T RE

SPO

NSE

Ass

ista

nce

wit

h ad

vice

on

opti

ons

totr

ansf

orm

or

dive

rsif

y bu

sine

ssSu

ppor

t an

d en

cour

agem

ent

of in

dust

rygr

oups

.

Ass

ista

nce

wit

h su

cces

sion

pla

nnin

g

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Deg

rada

tion

of

natu

ral re

sour

ces

REG

ION

AL T

HRE

ATS

Deg

rada

tion

of

natu

ral re

sour

ces

Prof

itab

le b

usin

ess

(reg

ardl

ess

of t

he s

cale

of

oper

atio

n, i.

e. c

an in

clud

e sm

all s

cale

, ni

che

mar

ket)

Prop

erty

dem

onst

rate

s in

nova

tive

or

adap

tive

prod

ucti

on m

anag

emen

t (w

hen

requ

ired

and

appr

opri

ate)

Indu

stry

sta

ndar

d be

nchm

arks

are

ach

ieve

d

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es b

ase

in g

ood

cond

itio

n

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es m

anag

emen

t im

plem

ente

d ab

ove

duty

of

care

* re

quir

emen

ts

Regi

onal

pro

duct

ivit

y in

crea

ses

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es b

ase

cond

itio

n ju

st m

eets

duty

of

care

* st

anda

rds

No

inno

vati

on o

r ad

apti

ve m

anag

emen

t

Nat

ural

res

ourc

es b

ase

is d

egra

ding

Forc

ed t

rans

form

atio

n (c

hang

ing

com

mod

itie

s or

busi

ness

str

uctu

re)

2

Incr

ease

d de

bt

Dec

reas

ed inc

ome

Deg

rada

tion

of

capi

tal an

d eq

uity

Loss

of

cont

rol an

d ab

ility

to

self

det

erm

ine

Cons

ider

ing

tran

sfor

mat

ion

(cha

ngin

g co

mm

odit

ies

orbu

sine

ss s

truc

ture

)

Incr

ease

d de

bt

Supp

ort

for

adap

tive

and

inno

vati

vem

anag

emen

t ap

proa

ches

Prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

and

educ

atio

n on

lan

dm

anag

emen

t op

tion

s

Use

dut

y of

car

e pr

ovis

ions

to

mai

ntai

nm

inim

um n

atur

al r

esou

rces

sta

ndar

ds

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rs

Land

man

agem

ent

and

chan

ge

Incr

easi

ngur

bani

sati

on

Incr

easi

ngla

nd p

rice

s

Dis

ease

Spec

ific

indu

stry

colla

pse

Bord

erlin

e su

stai

nabi

lity

and

prof

itab

ility

Valu

e ad

ding

indu

stri

es s

uppo

rt r

egio

nal p

rodu

ctio

n

Lack

of

oppo

rtun

ity

for

valu

e ad

ding

indu

stri

es

Supp

ort

for

alte

rnat

ive

agri

cult

ural

ente

rpri

ses

and

busi

ness

mod

els

Incr

ease

d op

erat

ing

cost

s

Loss

of

opti

ons

to v

ary

prod

ucti

on t

ype

Cha

nges

to

prim

ary

prod

ucer

dem

ogra

phic

s(a

gein

g po

pula

tion

s, lac

k of

int

eres

t fr

omyo

unge

r ge

nera

tion

s)

Dec

reas

ed inc

ome

Loss

of

abili

ty t

o ne

goti

ate

wit

h fi

nanc

ial

inve

stor

s or

buy

ers

* D

uty

of c

are

is t

he g

ener

al r

espo

nsib

ility

to

pre

vent

har

m t

o na

tura

l res

ourc

es.

The

cont

roll

ing

vari

able

is

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

t of

a s

yste

m t

hat

cont

rols

whe

ther

or

not

it w

ill

mov

e to

war

ds o

r aw

ay f

rom

a t

hres

hold

poi

nt.

CON

TRO

LLIN

G V

ARIA

BLE(

S)

Abili

ty t

o ac

t (f

inan

cial

and

oth

er r

esou

rces

)

Cost

pri

ce s

quee

ze(i

ncre

asin

g co

sts,

decr

easi

ngco

mm

odit

y pr

ices

)

Econ

omic

impa

cts

Legi

slat

ive

chan

ges

SHO

CKS

Polit

ical

cha

nges

HIG

H L

EVEL

DRI

VERS

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Thre

shol

ds e

xist

bet

wee

n st

ates

. Sp

ecif

icth

resh

olds

rel

atin

g to

the

con

trol

ling

vari

able

vary

acr

oss

the

regi

on.


Sustainable primary production – A case study: increasing farm resilience through sustainable land managementAgriculture is a significant contributor to the state’s economy (PIRSA 2012) and the sustainability of individual farm businesses and industries as a whole is improved with good NRM. Sustainable primary production is supported by an understanding of the links between financial viability and sustainable management of resources, and the pressures outside an individual’s sphere of influence (Fiebig and Sherriff 2011).

This case study focused on identifying good resource management practices that contribute positively to the economic viability of farm businesses in the Barossa Valley (Figure 21).

The project received seed funding from the board; its purpose was to change management practices to improve not only the condition of natural resources but also farm profitability.

The project identified aspects of land management that impacted negatively on business performance and NRM condition, and then identified management responses to address those threats. It is trialing new and innovative practices and communicating the results throughout the community.

The management responses implemented so far have improved natural resources condition and had positive impacts on farm profitability.

THE

REG

ION

| 5

5

Figure 21: Sustainable farm management in the Barossa Valley – putting the sustainable primary production regional conceptual model into practice

Agri

cult

ural

pro

duct

ion

in t

he A

MLR

NRM

reg

ion

duri

ng 2

009-

10 t

otal

led

Win

ter

Sum

mer

Pasture growth

788

$m

illio

n.$

Incr

ease

d yi

elds

of

qual

ity

past

ure,

redu

cing

the

nee

d fo

r su

pple

men

tary

fee

ding

.

Incr

ease

d fa

rm p

rofi

t vi

a

incr

ease

d ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity

a

nd li

vew

eigh

t ga

in o

f

live

stoc

k.

$$

+

+

+

+ + +

is r

equi

red

to o

verc

ome

the

annu

al

ac

idif

icat

ion

rate

.

A

nnua

l pas

ture

(e.g

. an

nual

rye

, br

assi

cas,

ann

ual m

edic

s) c

anno

t su

rviv

e dr

y su

mm

er c

ondi

tion

s. O

nce

they

stop

gro

win

g an

d ar

e gr

azed

dow

n, b

are

grou

nd r

esul

ts a

nd e

rosi

on r

isk

incr

ease

s. W

ith

autu

mn

rain

fall,

dor

man

tse

ed t

akes

a w

hile

to

germ

inat

e. It

tak

es a

long

tim

e be

fore

the

pla

nts

are

capa

ble

of h

oldi

ng t

he s

oil t

oget

her.

32,0

00to

nnes

of

lime

per

year

In t

he A

MLR

reg

ion,

a m

inim

um a

pplic

atio

n of

Pere

nnia

l pas

ture

(e.g

. pe

renn

ial r

ye,

cock

sfoo

t, p

hala

ris,

fes

cue,

luce

rne,

clo

vers

) ca

n su

rviv

e ye

ar-r

ound

and

whe

n gr

azed

dow

n th

ey r

emai

n as

clu

mps

of

root

s th

at c

onti

nue

to h

old

the

soil

toge

ther

. Th

ey c

an s

prin

g in

tolif

e w

ith

min

imal

rai

nfal

l and

qui

ckly

pro

vide

goo

d gr

ound

cove

r.

Impr

oved

soi

l car

bon

leve

ls,

whi

chim

prov

es s

oil h

ealt

h ch

arac

teri

stic

s:

wat

er h

oldi

ng c

apac

ity

nut

rien

t re

tent

ion

soi

l str

uctu

ral s

tabi

lity.

Bene

fits

of

rota

tion

gra

zing

and

per

enni

al p

astu

res

231

37%

.

Redu

ced

risk

of

soil

eros

ion

This

rep

rese

nted

of

Sou

th A

ustr

alia

’s

t

otal

agr

icul

tura

l pro

duct

ion.

A gr

oup

of B

aros

sa f

arm

ers

is im

plem

enti

ng b

est

prac

tice

gra

zing

syst

ems,

as

they

rec

ogni

se s

ome

exis

ting

land

man

agem

ent

prac

tice

slim

it t

heir

pro

fita

bilit

y an

d su

stai

nabi

lity.

The

gro

up is

tri

allin

g di

ffer

ent

past

ure

syst

ems

and

rota

tion

al g

razi

ng,

whi

ch is

impr

ovin

g th

epr

oduc

tivi

ty a

nd h

ealt

h of

gro

undc

over

.

The

Proj

ect

Coor

dina

tor

help

ed t

he g

roup

att

ract

add

itio

nal

Com

mon

wea

lth

Gov

ernm

ent

fund

ing,

ena

blin

g th

e tr

ials

to

be e

xpan

ded

to c

onsi

der

soil

heal

th is

sues

. Th

is e

xam

ple

show

s ho

w a

sm

all a

mou

nt o

ffi

nanc

ial s

uppo

rt t

o gr

oups

can

res

ult

in s

igni

fica

nt im

prov

emen

ts in

sust

aina

ble

farm

ing

prac

tice

s as

wel

l as

smal

l far

m b

usin

ess

prof

itab

ility

.

Live

stoc

k w

as t

he h

ighe

st c

ontr

ibut

orat

f

ollo

wed

by

win

egra

pes

at

17%

39%

The

AMLR

NRM

Boa

rdpr

ovid

ed t

he g

roup

’s in

itia

lfu

ndin

g gr

ant.

The

gro

up c

hose

to

em

ploy

a P

roje

ct C

oord

inat

orto

org

anis

e th

e pa

stur

e tr

ials

and

se

cure

ext

ra

fun

ding

.

The

Bar

ossa

con

trib

uted

mill

ion

t

owar

ds t

his

tota

l.

Exam

ples

of

land

man

agem

ent

issu

es t

hat

affe

ct f

arm

sus

tain

abili

ty

Aci

dic

soils

cau

se e

cono

mic

and

land

man

agem

ent

impa

cts

in t

he B

aros

sa.

Past

ures

dom

inat

ed b

y an

nual

spe

cies

can

pose

an

eros

ion

risk

bec

ause

the

gro

und

beco

mes

bar

e in

dry

sum

mer

mon

ths,

as

expl

aine

d by

thi

s gr

aph.

Impr

oved

wee

d su

pres

sion

Redu

ced

need

for

che

mic

al p

esti

cide

s

Bare

soi

l lea

ds t

o er

osio

n,co

mpa

ctio

n an

d lo

ss o

f nu

trie

nts.

CA

SEST

UD

Y In

crea

sing

far

m r

esil

ienc

e th

roug

h su

stai

nabl

e la

nd m

anag

emen

t


Adapting to a changing climateIn the AMLR region, climate change has the potential to significantly compromise the sustainability of NRM for current and future generations. Natural resources managers already deal well with climate variability but ongoing climate change will bring significant challenges.

The wide range of climate changes predicted for the region are summarised in Table 7.

Table 7: Projected climate change in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region by 2030

Greenhouse gas emissions • Carbon dioxide increase to 420–480 ppm (currently approximately

390 ppm)

Temperature • Increase in annual range of warming of 0.4–1.2oC

• Increase in annual number of hot days over 35oC in Adelaide to

15–20 days (currently 14)

• Increase in annual number of hot spells (3–5 days over 35oC) to

2 spells (currently 1 spell)

• Increase in the annual number of hot days over 40oC in Adelaide to

2–3 days (currently 1 day)

Rainfall • Likely decrease in average annual rainfall of 1–10%

• Possible increase in extreme rainfall events

Environmental change (changes

in climate could lead to

important environmental change

in the region)

• More intense storm events

• Changes in timing of flowering and breeding cycles

• More variable breaks in the winter growing season

• Sea level rise

• Higher coastal storm surges

• Increased fire frequency and intensity

• More frequent erosive events

• Changes in the impact of weeds and animal pests

• Reductions in groundwater recharge

• Reductions in average stream flows

Source: Bardsley (2006)

The response to climate change can be guided by an assessment of the vulnerability of the system, based on the projected impacts of climate change and capacity to adapt to change. An initial assessment of vulnerability has been made for the AMLR (Bardsley 2006), which can help to focus where significant effort is needed to help develop the adaptive capacity of the region.

Vulnerability can be defined as the extent to which a human society or system is unable to cope with the negative impacts of climate change, variability and extremes. Vulnerability is assessed by two key criteria: potential impact and adaptive capacity.

THE

REG

ION

| 5

7

The potential impacts of climate change come from both:

• exposure – the weather events, weather patterns and background climate conditions that affectthe system

• sensitivity – the responsiveness of systems to climatic influences and the degree to which changes in

climate might affect them.

A number of NRM sectors are vulnerable to projected climate change (Table 8). This severity rating is not designed to undervalue other NRM issues; rather, the issues mentioned could be considered priority areas for investigation and action in the short term.

Table 8: Summary of vulnerability analyses for natural resources management in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges

Sector Potential impactAdaptive

capacityVulnerability

Wat

er

Riparian flood management medium limited medium–high

Surface water medium–high significant medium

Groundwater medium–high significant medium

Land

Agriculture: annual crops medium–high significant medium

Agriculture: horticulture medium–high medium medium–high

Land management medium significant low–medium

Parks and gardens low–medium significant low

Biod

iver

sity

Terrestrial biodiversity medium–high medium medium–high

Freshwater biodiversity high limited high

Revegetation medium significant medium

Invasive species medium medium medium

Bushfire high medium medium–high

Coas

t Coastal flooding high medium high

Beach management high medium medium–high

Source: Bardsley (2006)

The regional conceptual model for adapting to climate change (Figure 22) is considerably different to the other models presented. This is because climate change influences all social-ecological systems. This model identifies a conceptual understanding of the current activities and potential future activities that may be required to support the region (and the state) in adapting to the impacts of climate change now and in the future.


Adapting to a changing climate – A case study: Climate change and the resilience of inter-tidal coastal ecosystemsThe potential consequences of climate change to the region are difficult to determine with a high degree of accuracy as current models operate on global scales. However, predictions of potential impacts are still relevant, useful and important when planning natural resources management activities to ensure potential changes in the future are accounted for (Abuodha and Woodroffe 2007).

This case study (Figure 23) identifies one system where the impacts of climate change are reasonably well predicted and the actions required cover, a wide range of partners and stakeholders. It is a good example of managing adaptation to climate change in a complex social and ecological environment.

Sea level rise particularly along the northern coast of the region has the potential to significantly impact on both natural and built habitats. Planning for the future of the area needs to take into account the requirements of both the natural and built environment in the event of the worst case scenario (Gurran et al. 2011). The challenge is working through the conflicts between the land use needs of both to ensure the system as a whole retains its resilience.

THE

REG

ION

| 5

9

Figure 22: Adapting to climate change regional conceptual model

Expe

cted

cha

nges

Exam

ples

of

curr

ent

and

futu

re e

xpos

ures

and

sen

siti

viti

es

Futu

re r

equi

red

adap

tive

stra

tegi

es a

nd o

ppor

tuni

ties

Ada

ptiv

e ca

paci

ty d

evel

opm

ent

need

s fo

rm

ediu

m-h

igh

and

high

vul

nera

bilit

y se

ctor

s

Curr

ent

adap

tive

str

ateg

ies

and

oppo

rtun

itie

s

Gui

ding

pri

ncip

les

for

adap

tati

on a

ctio

n

War

mer

, dr

ier

clim

ate,

long

er h

otte

r sp

ells

Del

iver

ada

ptat

ion

acti

ons

whe

re t

here

is a

plau

sibl

e ri

sk o

f ha

rm e

ven

in t

he a

bsen

ce o

fco

mpl

ete

scie

ntif

ic p

roof

Less

rel

iabl

e ra

infa

ll an

d la

ter

brea

ks in

sea

son

Sea

leve

l ris

e an

d st

orm

sur

ges

impa

ct o

n co

asta

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

and

ecos

yste

ms

(inc

ludi

ngin

tern

atio

nally

sig

nifi

cant

mig

rato

ry b

ird

spec

ies)

Dec

lines

in g

row

ing

seas

on r

ainf

all i

mpa

cts

on a

gric

ultu

ral p

rodu

ctio

n

Wat

er a

vaila

bilit

y

Risi

ng s

ea le

vel a

nd s

torm

sur

ges

Tem

pera

ture

impa

cts

on p

lant

gro

wth

and

deve

lopm

ent

Polli

nati

on t

imin

g

Pest

s/di

seas

e

Inno

vati

on

Land

scap

e tr

ansf

orm

atio

n

Soci

al s

yste

m t

rans

form

atio

n

Regi

onal

inte

grat

ed v

ulne

rabi

lity

asse

ssm

ents

Regi

onal

agr

eem

ents

impl

emen

ting

out

com

esfr

om v

ulne

rabi

lity

asse

ssm

ents

Sect

oral

res

pons

es t

o vu

lner

abili

tyas

sess

men

ts

Prio

riti

se a

ctio

n ba

sed

on t

he c

aref

ulas

sess

men

t of

ris

ks,

cost

s, e

ffic

acy

and

equi

ty u

sing

the

bes

t av

aila

ble

scie

nce

toin

form

ada

ptat

ion

resp

onse

s

Giv

e pr

iori

ty t

o th

ose

sect

ors

that

are

like

lyto

pro

vide

the

gre

ates

t so

cial

, ec

onom

ic a

nden

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

it t

o th

e re

gion

Dev

elop

res

pons

es a

t th

e m

ost

appr

opri

ate

scal

e to

eff

ecti

vely

add

ress

ris

ks a

ndm

axim

ise

oppo

rtun

itie

s

Invo

lve

indi

vidu

als,

indu

stry

, bu

sine

ss,

acad

emia

and

all

tier

s of

gov

ernm

ent

inde

velo

ping

res

pons

es u

sing

a c

oord

inat

edre

spon

se

Build

on,

enh

ance

and

lear

n fr

om t

heex

peri

ence

of

com

mun

itie

s an

d se

ctor

s in

deve

lopi

ng a

dapt

atio

n re

spon

ses

Plan

for

unc

erta

inty

and

tak

e ac

tion

usi

ng a

nad

apti

ve m

anag

emen

t ap

proa

ch t

o al

low

for

adju

stm

ents

as

new

info

rmat

ion

aris

es

Use

the

bes

t av

aila

ble,

mos

t ap

prop

riat

e an

dlo

cally

rel

evan

t sc

ienc

e th

at is

bas

ed o

n go

odda

ta a

nd r

obus

t pr

oces

ses

to in

form

tho

sebe

st p

lace

d to

del

iver

ada

ptat

ion

resp

onse

san

d m

anag

e ri

sks

Take

into

acc

ount

pop

ulat

ion

proj

ects

and

soci

o-ec

onom

ic t

rend

s

Cons

ider

the

inte

rcon

nect

ions

bet

wee

n so

cial

, en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd e

cono

mic

sys

tem

s an

d th

elin

kage

s be

twee

n se

ctor

s in

ord

er t

o m

ake

appr

opri

ate

trad

eoff

s w

here

nec

essa

ry

Ensu

re r

espo

nses

avo

id u

nint

ende

dco

nseq

uenc

es a

nd d

o no

t un

derm

ine

our

abili

ty t

o ad

apt

over

the

long

ter

m

Take

ear

ly a

ctio

n w

here

the

re a

rede

mon

stra

ted

cost

-ben

efit

s

Ensu

re t

hat

adap

tati

on r

espo

nses

are

appr

opri

atel

y in

tegr

ated

and

mai

nstr

eam

ed

Bush

fire

ris

ks (

chan

gebu

shfi

re r

egim

e)Fr

eshw

ater

bio

dive

rsit

yRi

pari

an f

lood

man

agem

ent

Agri

cult

ure

hor

ticu

ltur

e

Terr

estr

ial b

iodi

vers

ity

Build

kno

wle

dge

Enco

urag

e co

mm

unit

yba

sed

adap

tati

onM

aint

ain

soci

al a

nden

viro

nmen

tal c

onne

cted

ness

Enco

urag

e an

d re

war

dco

llect

ive

acti

on

Sect

ors

Dev

elop

men

t ne

eds


Figure 23: Climate change impacts on the inter-tidal coastal ecosystems – putting the adapting to climate change regional conceptual model into action

of S

outh

Aus

tral

ia’s

coas

tal s

hore

s ar

e tid

al f

lats

.

Tida

l fla

ts h

ave

high

inve

rteb

rate

biod

iver

sity

and

are

set

tlem

ent

site

sfo

r la

rvae

, pr

ovid

ing

food

res

ourc

es f

or

p

raw

ns,

fish

and

bir

ds.

9 %

2006

Base

line

Sea

leve

l ris

e vu

lner

abili

ty

asse

ssm

ents

and

map

s

to f

ocus

pla

nnin

g ef

fort

s.

Secu

ring

of

crit

ical

are

as t

hat

will

allo

w la

ndw

ard

retr

eat

of s

altm

arsh

and

man

grov

e co

mm

unit

ies.

Rese

arch

into

pra

ctic

al m

etho

ds

for

prop

ogat

ing

and

tran

sloc

atin

g

salt

mar

sh a

nd o

ther

com

mun

itie

s.

Prot

ecti

on o

f ex

isti

ng s

amph

ire

retr

eat

zone

s us

ing

plan

ning

or

othe

r m

easu

res.

Ope

ning

or

part

ially

ope

ning

of

tida

l cro

ssin

gs t

hat

rest

rict

tid

al

flow

s in

str

ande

d sa

lt m

arsh

es.

2030

2080

Ade

laid

e

Sea

leve

ls a

repr

edic

ted

to r

ise

inth

e A

MLR

reg

ion.

33

bird

spe

cies

rel

y

on

the

se t

idal

fla

ts a

ssh

elte

red

feed

ing

grou

nds.

Lar

ge f

lock

s of

sho

rebi

rds

com

mon

ly f

eed

in t

he s

hallo

w,

wid

e

ban

d of

wat

er a

nd e

xpos

ed

m

ud a

t th

e ed

ge o

f th

e ti

de.

By 2

100

u

p to

res

iden

tial

bui

ldin

gs in

So

uth

Aust

ralia

may

be

at r

isk

of in

unda

tion

fro

m s

ea le

vel r

ise

of 1

.1 m

.

+17

cm

+16

54

cm

48,0

00

Plan

ts m

ay n

ot b

e ab

le t

o re

trea

t fr

om t

hese

awat

er b

ecau

se o

f im

preg

nabl

e ba

rrie

rssu

ch a

s se

a w

alls

or

road

s, c

ausi

ng t

hese

habi

tats

to

beco

me

prog

ress

ivel

y sm

alle

r.

WH

AT C

AN

BE

DO

NE

?

Sea

leve

l ris

e m

ay s

igni

fica

ntly

impa

ct la

rge

area

s of

sho

rebi

rd

habi

tat.

Dee

peni

ng o

f ar

eas

that

cur

rent

ly p

rovi

de lo

w-t

ide

habi

tat

is

l

ikel

y to

be

the

larg

est

sing

le im

pact

.

Area

s of

sal

tmar

sh a

re a

lso

at r

isk

of w

ater

logg

ing

from

incr

ease

d ti

dal f

lood

ing.

CA

SEST

UD

YTh

e So

uth

Aust

ralia

n co

astl

ine

is a

lrea

dy e

xper

ienc

ing

sea

leve

l ris

e. In

add

itio

n to

infr

astr

uctu

re im

pact

s, r

isin

g se

a le

vel t

hrea

tens

to

alte

r w

here

som

e co

asta

l pla

nts

can

live.

A lo

t of

spe

cies

, an

d th

e be

nefi

ts t

hey

prov

ide,

cou

ld b

e lo

st if

thi

s th

reat

is n

ot m

anag

ed.

Clim

ate

chan

ge a

nd t

he r

esili

ence

of

inte

r-ti

dal c

oast

al e

cosy

stem

s

Adelaide and Mount Lofty RangesNatural Resources Management Plan

Volume 1Strategic Plan

Thriving communities caringfor our hills, plains and seas

Natural resources centreswww.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/adelaidemtloftyranges

Eastwood205 Greenhill RoadEastwood SA 5063(08) 8273 9100

Gawler8 Adelaide RoadGawler South SA 5118(08) 8523 7700

Lobethal1 Adelaide Lobethal RoadLobethal SA 5241(08) 8389 5900

Willunga5 Aldinga RoadWillunga SA 5172(08) 8550 3400

Printed on recycled paper

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges N

RM

Plan1 | Strategic Plan 2014―

24

2014-15 to 2023-24

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources ... · committees. This continual review is fed...

Documents

Transcript of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources ... · committees. This continual review is fed...