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
4 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
6 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
8 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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).
10 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
12 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
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
14 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
strategic direction potential partners
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
DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, land managers, local government, NGOs
l-D Improve the long-term prospects of threatened* and declining species and communities
DEWNR, AMLR NRMB, land managers, local government, NGOs
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
16 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
strategic direction potential partners
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
strategic direction potential partners
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
18 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
20 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
22 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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).
24 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
26 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
28 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
30 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
32 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
34 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
36 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
38 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
40 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
42 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
44 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
46 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
48 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
.
50 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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)
52 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
54 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
56 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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.
58 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
60 | ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
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
Top Related