EcosystemRepairPrioritisationOctober2015

PreparedbyRonaldBaker,

EstuaryandCoastalWetlandEcosystemsResearchGroup,CollegeofMarineandEnvironmentalSciences,JamesCookUniversity,Townsville.

Ecosystem Repair Prioritisation

Contents

1. ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................1

1.1. SubSectionLevel1...................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

1.2. SubSectionLevel1...................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

1.2.1. SubSectionLevel2...........................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

2. Introduction...................................................................................................................................2

2.1. TheGBR“aniconunderpressure”.........................................................................................2

3. WetlandDSS...................................................................................................................................5

3.1. Methodology..........................................................................................................................6

3.1.1. OverviewoftheDSS.......................................................................................................6

3.1.2. ApplicationtotheFBAregion........................................................................................9

3.2. Results....................................................................................................................................9

3.2.1. DSSoutputs....................................................................................................................9

3.2.2. DSS2PrioritisationofFBAregionwetlands.................................................................10

4. EcologicalProcessCalculator(EcoCalculator).............................................................................13

4.1. Methodology........................................................................................................................14

4.1.1. DevelopmentoftheEcologicalProcessCalculator......................................................14

4.1.2. ApplicationtotheFBAregion......................................................................................15

4.1.3. BlueMaps.....................................................................................................................16

4.2. Results..................................................................................................................................17

5. FishBarriers.................................................................................................................................20

5.1. PrioritisationMethodology..................................................................................................21

5.2. Results..................................................................................................................................22

5.3. OutcomesandIssues...........................................................................................................27

6. AnIntegratedSystemRepairPrioritisationTool..........................................................................30

6.1. Methods...............................................................................................................................30

6.2. Results..................................................................................................................................31

6.3. ConsiderationsandLimitations............................................................................................35

7. Recommendations.......................................................................................................................38

8. Closure.........................................................................................................................................40

ListofFigures

Figure1:FigureSpaceSaver....................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.Figure2:FigureSpaceSaver....................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

ListofTables

Table1:TableSpaceSaver.......................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

Table2:TableSpaceSaver.......................................................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.

ListofAppendices

AppendixA:Title

AppendixB:Title

1

1. ExecutiveSummary

TheFitzroyBasinAssociation(FBA)aimstoundertakeactionsthatwillreducethreats,restorecondition,andimprovetheoutlookoftheGreatBarrierReef.TheReefPlan2013providesanurgencyanddirectionforimprovingwaterqualitytotheGreatBarrierReeflagoon.NoregretstargetshavebeencommunicatedthroughtheplanthatimpactonthetypesofNRMactivitiesundertakenbytheNRMregionalbodiesandotherstakeholders.AspartoftheWaterQualityImprovementPlanWQIP:2015FBAareundertakingaprioritisationprocesstoimplementactivitiesaddressingsystemsrepairtomeetreeftargetstoimproveaquatichabitatandwetlands.

ThisreportoutlinesthedevelopmentandapplicationofseveralassessmentandprioritisationtoolsfortheFBAregion,andtheircombinationintoasingleprioritisationsupporttool.In2015,theFitzroyBasinFishBarrierPrioritisationProjectwasrevisitedtoaccountforremediationworkstofishbarrierssincetheoriginal2008assessment.There-assessmentscoredandprioritisedthetop46barrierstofishpassagewithintheFBAregion.TheDepartmentofEnvironmentandHeritageProtectionWetlandDecisionSupportSystem(DSS)wasappliedtotheFBAregion,andprioritisedthetop20wetlandsformanagementaction.TheGreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthoritydevelopedtheEco-CalculatorandBlueMapstoquantifychangeinthedeliveryofecosystemservicesfrommodifiedcoastalecosystemssincepre-Europeantimes,andtodefinethelevelofconnectivityofcoastalecosystemswiththeGreatBarrierReef.

EachofthesetoolswasappliedtotheFBAregion,andtheiroutputsstandardisedandcombinedtoproduceanoverallscoreforeachNeighbourhoodCatchment(NC)withintheregion.Thefinalprioritisationidentified61outof189NC’sthatcontainmultiplerankingwetlandsandfishbarriers,withhighconnectivitytothereef.Thehigh-scoringNC’sinthiscombinedoutputrepresentareaswiththegreatestpotentialforrealisingsynergisticbenefitsfrommanagementactions,butshouldnotbeconsideredasafinalprioritisationwithoutcarefulconsiderationoftheunderlyingcomplexitiesandissueswiththeindividualtools,andthosethatarisefromtheircombinationintoasinglescore.

“DecisionSupportSystemsaresupporttoolsthathelpusersdocumentandquantifytheintuitivedecisionspeoplemake,ratherthanmakingdecisionsforyou”(HLAEnvirosciences2007).

Thekeyrecommendationarisingfromthisprocessisthatthefinalintegratedtoolshouldcomprisemorethanasinglecombinedscore.Itshouldbebasedmoredirectlyoneachoftheindividualsub-tools,andallowuserstodrilldownormovebetweentheoutputsofeachtofullyconsiderinteractionsbetweendifferentmanagementoptions.Nosinglenumbercancapturethediversityofvaluesanareamayprovide,anditisimportanttounderstandtheimpactofmanagementgoalsandvaluejudgementsontheoutputsofeachindividualtool.

2

2. Introduction

2.1. TheGBR“aniconunderpressure”

TheGreatBarrierReefisaniconunderpressure.Everyone’sactions,whetherbigorsmall,toreducethreats andhelp restore its conditionwill improve itsoutlook.Combined theywillmake theReefmoreabletorecoverfromthelegacyofpastactionsandbetterabletowithstandthosepredictedtothreatenitsfuture(OutlookReport2014).

TheFitzroyBasinAssociationthroughanumberofinitiativesfundedbygovernmenttoaddressReefhealthhasendeavouredtodojustthat.Makeadifferencewheretheorganisationcan:byfollowingthestrategicdirectionoftheRegionalNRMplaninformedbyregionalstakeholders.HoweverwhenitcomestoSystemsRepairtheorganisation,inthepast,hasbeenabletoguideitsprioritiesthroughexperienceandaknowledgeoftheregionsecosystemservicesthatcontributetoReefhealth.

TheopportunitytorevisitprocessesandincludemorerobustprioritisationthroughtheFBAWaterQuality ImprovementPlanmakes sense. Enabling strategic selectionof critical areas for targetingfundingwillachievebetteroutcomesinthelongerterm.

Intactcoastalhabitats(forexamplefreshwaterwetlands,floodplainsandsaltmarshes)arevitaltoahealthyGreat Barrier Reef. They are important in the lifecycle of species and also play a role inslowingoverlandflowandtrappingsedimentsandnutrients(OutlookReport2014).

Healthoftheecosystemisstronglylinkedtoandindicatedbythewaterquality,habitatandspeciesbiodiversity(Fig.2.1).Eachoneoftheseparametersisinfluencedbytheotherandinmostinstanceseffectedbytheeconomicsprioritiesaroundtheecologicalassets.

3

Figure2.1:Conceptforhealthofecosystems–FBA2015

The systems repair component for theWQIP includes theEHPWetlandsDecision Support System(DSS) toolasawayofprioritisingWetlands for theFitzroyBasinregion. Wewillbeable toselectprioritywetlandsforfundedactivitiesbasedonvalues,threatsandcapacitytointroducechange.

The GBRMPA “BlueMaps” and “EcoCalculator” are to be utilised for determining priority habitatthat influences ecosystem service contribution to the surrounding waters including the southernGBR lagoon. Through this process actions can be determined for consideration in a prioritisationprocess to targetareaswherechangesmadewhether itbeprotection, repairormaintenancewillhaveapositivecontributiontothehealthoftheReef.

Acrossallfisheriesriskstotheecosystemremain(OutlookReport2014).Theoutlookreportgoesontociteoverfishing, incidentalcatch, fishingofspawningaggregationsand illegal fishingassomeofthe continuing causes. This is outside the scope of a regional NRM group to a certain extenthoweverrestoringandimprovingaccessforfishspeciestootherwiseisolatedhabitatcanonlyhelpimprove fish stocks, provide prey species, facilitate migration and improve general ecosystemhealth.

A previously commissionedproject and resulting report in partnershipwith theQueensland StateGovernmentfisheriesdepartment(Moore&Marsden2008)wasrevisitedtodeterminethetop46

4

fishbarriers that currently formblockageanddislocationof aquatichabitat for fish species in theFitzroyBasin.

With the above components for this sub program complete, this report utilises the gatheredinformation and prioritisations and combines them into a matrix process to generate an overallscoringsystem.TheresultsscoreindividualNeighbourhoodCatchmentswithintheFBAregion(Fig.2.2)basedonacombinedscorefromtheFBFBPP,theWetlandsDSS,andBlueMapstoidentifythesub-basinswheremanagementactionscanhavethegreatestimpactforthehealthandwellbeingoftheGBR.Theaimistoprovidemultipleoutcomesatthetargetedsitesensuringfunding isgainingthebesteconomicaloutcomesintandemwiththemostappropriatesystemrepairactions.

Figure2.2:TheFitzroyBasinRegionindicatingtheNeighbourhoodCatchmentsub-regions.

5

Thefollowingchaptersoutlineeachofthesubcomponents,theirapplication,theircombinationintoasingletool,andissuesrelatingtotheinterpretation,applicationandlimitationsofthefinalsinglescoringsystem.Usersareencouragedtorefertotheoriginalreportsthatunderpineachchapterandassociatedprioritisationtooltogainafullgraspoftheaims,functioning,andissuesrelatingtotheuseofeachtool.Thiswillensurethatoutcomesfromanyindividualtoolortheintegratedmatrixcanbe interpreted appropriately, with a clear understanding of the limitations and issues forconsideration.

3. WetlandDSS

Image:HLA(2007)

ThischapterprovidesasummaryoftheWetlandDecisionSupportSystemtool,therationalebehinditsdevelopment,howitworks,andissuesrelevanttoitsintegrationwithotherdecisiontoolsforapplicationintheFBAregion.Unlessotherwisecited,itdrawsprimarilyfromtheWetlandDecisionSupportSystemWorkshopManual,2007,areportbyHLA-EnvirosciencesPtyLtd(HLA2007),andJaenschetal(2015)AprioritisationofFitzroyBasinwetlandsforNRMinvestment,areporttotheFitzroyBasinAssociation.

TheAustralianGovernmentimplementedtheGreatBarrierReefCoastalWetlandsProtectionProgramme(GBRCWPP)inresponsetoconcernsabouttheimpactstotheGBRfromdegradationofcoastalwetlands.BecausetherearenotenoughfundsavailabletocompleterepaireffortsonallwetlandsintheGBRcatchment,theWetlandsDecisionSupportSystem(DSS)wasdevelopedtoguidetheallocationandprioritisationoffundsforwetlandrestoration/protectionandremediationinthecoastalareasoftheGBR.Inconsideringrepaireffortsitiscriticaltoconsiderawiderangeof

6

complexandinterlinkedbiophysical,socialandeconomicfactorsthatimpingeonandwillbeaffectedbyanyworkscarriedout.

ThepurposeofaDSSistosupportdecisionmakingbyassemblingandpresentingthecomplexofrelevantinformationinawaythatcanbeunderstoodbydecisionmakers,andcommunicatedtothebroadercommunitysothattheprocessistransparent.ADSSisasupportsystem,itisnotintendedtomakedecisions.Rather,itprovidestherationalebehinddecisionsinawaythatpeoplecanclearlyunderstandhowandwhyparticularwetlandsrankhighlyorpoorlyintheprioritylist.Itisaflexiblesystemandtheoutcomeswillvarydependingonthespecificgoalsandobjectivesoftheuser.Assuch,itisessentialthatanytimethetoolisused,thataclearsetofobjectivesisdefined,andtheweightingforeachofthescoringcriteriaareadjustedtomeetthestatedobjectives.

ToincorporatethistoolintoabroaderframeworkforprioritisingactionswithintheFBAregion,itwillbenecessarytoapplythetoolconcurrentlywiththeothertools,andexactlyhowthisisdonewilldependonthespecificgoals.ThecurrentiterationoftheapplicationoftheWetlandsDSStotheFBAregionprovidesagoodstartingpointthatidentifiesthehighestprioritywetlandswithintheregion.OnceincorporatedintotheintegratedmatrixwiththeFishPassagePrioritisationandBlueMaps,itwillindicatesub-basinsintheFBAthatcontainhighprioritywetlands.Toguidethisprocess,theremainderofthischapterprovidesasummaryofthemechanicsofthetool,andtheoutcomesofitsapplicationtotheFBAregion.

Note:TheRamsarwetlandsShoalwaterBayandCorioBaywetlandswereexcludedfromtheprocessalongwithKinkawetlandsofnationalimportanceandasignificantareaoftheFitzroyfloodplainasthesewetlandsarecurrentlyfundedto2018andRamsarwetlandswillcontinuetobeconsideredbyFBAaspriorityindecisionprocesses.

3.1. Methodology

3.1.1. OverviewoftheDSS

TheDSSmanualemphasisesthecriticalimportanceofhavingclearlyidentifiedmanagementobjectivesbeforeusingtheDSStoprioritisemanagementactions.Thisisbecausedecisionsaboutweightingeachofthecriteriaarevaluejudgements,andwillvarydependingonthespecificmanagementobjectives.Forinstance,isthemanagementpreferencetoprotectpristinewetlands,orrestoredegradedones?Isthegoaltoimprovewaterquality,orenhancefisheriesvalues?Individualcriteriamaybegivenoppositeweightingsunderthesedifferentscenarios,andtherelativeimportanceofdifferentcriteriawillalsovarywidely.

TheDSSbringstogetherthreetypesofinformationtoprioritisewetlandsformanagementaction.

7

Thisinformationisusedinthetwostepprioritisationprocess,withStep1,thePrimaryDSSbeingappliedtowetlandsacrosstheentireGBRcatchment,andStep2,theSecondaryDSSbeingappliedonaregionalscale,inthisinstance,totheFBAregion.

Scoringinvolvesapplyingscorestoeachwetlandacrossarangeofcriteriagroupedunderthreebroadcategories;Value,ThreatandCapacity.‘Value’referstotheinherentvaluesthatmaybeattributedtoparticularwetlands,suchastheirvaluesasfisherieshabitatorforwaterbirds.‘Threats’includethevarioussourcesofpressuresandstressorsonthewetland,while‘Capacityconsiderscommunitycapacityforwetlandconservationandtheavailabilityoffinancialassistanceforrestorationorprotectionefforts.Scoringisperformedtoobjectivelyidentifythecurrentstateofeachwetland,andtherelevantissuesrelatingtoitsmanagement.Thescoresareindependentofthegoalsormanagementobjectives.ItisduringWeightingthattherelativeimportanceofeachcriterionisdeterminedbymanagers,experts,andotherstakeholders.

Scoring Objectivelyassigningvaluestoeachwetlandunderarangeofcriteria.Scoreisinherenttoawetlandanddoesnotchangewithobjectives.

Weighting Valuejudgementoftherelativeimportanceof

eachcriteria.Bestdeterminedbydecisionmakersinworkshopscenario

Direction Valuejudgementofthecriteria;isitpositiveor

negative,benefitorcost.Dependingonthegoals,thedirectionvaluecanchange.

8

ThecriteriadefinitionsandscalesareexplainedindetailinthereportcommissionedbyFBAtitled“AprioritisationofFitzroyBasinwetlandsforNRMinvestment”(Jaensch2015).Brieflytheyare:

ValuesCriteria:

• RecreationalValue–importancefornature-basedrecreation.• IndigenousValue–sitesignificancetoTraditionalOwners.• FisheriesHabitat–valuetocommerciallyorrecreationallyimportantfishspecies.• AssimilativeCapacity–abilitytodetainnutrientsandsedimentstoimprovewaterquality.• Populationsofrareorthreatenedtaxa–significantpopulationsofspecieslistedinStateor

Commonwealthlegislation.• VegetationRepresentativeness–ratioofpre-Europeantocurrentrepresentationof

RegionalEcosystemtypes.• WetlandRepresentativeness–identifiesuniqueorremnantwetlandtypesinaregion.• SpeciesRichness–formajortaxaincludingfish,birdsandvascularplants.• Size–largerwetlandsareconsideredtohavegreaterpotentialvalue.• WaterbirdHabitatValue–qualityofhabitatandsignificanceofbirdpopulationssupported.• WetlandCondition–considersfloristic,faunal,hydrologicalandgeomorphological

character.

ThreatsCriteria:

• FishPassage–extentofconnectivitytodownstreamestuarineareasrelativetopre-Europeantimes.

• LandUseIntensity–proportionofcatchmentunderintensivelanduses;drylandandirrigatedagricultureandplantations.

• LandUseIntensification–potentiallandusezoningfor1kmbufferaroundwetland.• WeedInvasion–threatposedbyexistingweedinfestations.• WaterQuality–currentstatusofwetlandwaterquality.• PointSourcePollution–presenceofupstreampollutionsourcesandlevelofimpacts.• HydrologicalChange–changestothetimingandvolumeofflowsandrechargeofsurface

andgroundwaters.

CapacityCriteria:

• LevelofProtection–protectionofwetlandbystatutoryorbindingmanagement.• FinancialIncentives–availabilityoffundingtosupportmanagementefforts.• IndustryLand-useViability–profitabilityoflocalindustryreflectscapacityandwillingness

tosupportNRMinitiatives.• EngagementCapacity–extenttowhichwetlandisalreadyrecognisedasapriorityareaby

localNRMgroupsandland-holders.• BestManagementPracticeFeasibility–feasibilityofachievingbestmanagementpractice

givencurrentconditions,capacityandtechnologicalconstraints.

9

Oncecandidatewetlandshavebeenscoredaccordingtotheabovecriteria,eachcriterionisweightedaccordingtothespecificmanagementobjectives.

Weightingisavalue-basedassessmentoftheimportanceofeachofthecriteria.Thisisbestperformedbylocaldecisionmakers,experts,andotherstakeholdersinaworkshopsituation.Thisprovidesatransparentmechanismwherebythevaluesofend-usersareincorporatedintotheprocess.Itfostersinvolvementofvariousstakeholders,andfacilitatesconsiderationofdifferentinterestsandvalueseachmayassigntowetlandsandtheirprioritiesforremediationaction.

Directionindicatesifahighscoreandweightingforacriterionincreasesordecreasesitspriorityforaction.AswithWeighting,thisisguidedbythemanagementobjectivesandcanbedeterminedaspartoftheweightingprocess.Forinstance,ifthemanagementpreferencewastoprotectpristinewetlandareasfromdegradation,thencriteriathatscoredhighlybasedonhealthyfunctionalecologicalvalueswouldbepositive,therebyincreasingtherankingintheprioritylist,whilethosescoringhighlyduetosevereimpactswouldbenegative.Ifthefocuswasonactionstorepairdegradedsystems,thenthereversedirectionswouldbeapplied.

3.1.2. ApplicationtotheFBAregion

TheWetlandsDSSwasappliedtotheFBAtoprioritisewetlandsformanagementaction,andthisprocessisdetailedinthereportbyJaenschetal(2015).TheapplicationoftheDSStotheFBAregionstartedwith40identifiedcandidatewetlands,whichwerethenrunthroughtheSecondaryDSSprocessusinglocalmanagers,expertsandstakeholderstoprioritisethetop20wetlandsformanagementaction.The40wetlandsconsidereddidnotincludeRamsarsitessincethesearealreadygainingprojectsupportformanagingvalues.TheselectionwasfocussedonwetlandsthatwereknownorlikelytocontributetowaterqualityimprovementintheReeflagoon,wetlandsthat(otherwiseorinaddition)hadbiodiversityvaluesknownorlikelytobehigh,and—atthisstagetolesserextent—wetlandswheresomekindofNRMinvestmentseemedfeasible.

SitesatwhichsignificantpreviousinvestmentsforNRMhadoccurred,orwereongoing,wereomitted.ThiswasbecauseFBAwantedtoexpandthegeographicalspreadofinvestmentsinNRMforwetlandsintheBasinandtoengageadditionallandholders.Somesiteswithpreviousinvestmentwereneverthelessincluded,becausethereseemedtobelimitedprospectsforfurtherinvestmentbyotherorganisationsintheshort-mediumterm.Severalsitesthatwereduetobetargetedinupcomingorrecently-startedprojectsofFBA—suchasonthelowerFitzroyFloodplain—wereomitted.SomesiteswhereanyformofNRMinvestmentseemedhighlyimprobable,orimpracticalintheshort-mediumterm,wereomitted,e.g.sitesthatwerehighlyremoteorsubjecttoseverefloodingimpacts.

3.2. ResultsandDiscussion

3.2.1. DSSoutputs

10

Considerationofthefullrangeofcriteriahighlightsthatmanyprovidepotentiallyconflictingvalues.Thisisnotacriticismoftheprocessorthetool,butreinforceswhythetoolmustbemodifiedthroughcarefulweightingofeachcriterionaccordingtoclearlydefinedmanagementobjectives.Forexample,undertheFisheriesHabitatcriterion,awetlandwithsuitablehabitatforfisheriesspecies,butinaccessibleduetobarrierswouldscore0(outof10),whilethesamewetlandwouldscore10outof10undertheFishPassagecriterion.Inthisinstance,theweightingforthesevalueswoulddependonifexistinghighvalueandfunctionalhabitatwasconsideredmoreorlessimportantthanrestoringaccesstopotentiallyvaluablebutcurrentlyinaccessiblehabitat.Withoutthislevelofcarefulconsiderationduringtheprocess,i.e.withequalweighting,thesetwocriteriawouldeffectivelycanceleachotherout.Anotherwaytoconsiderthisisthatawetlandwithvaluablefisherieshabitatandgoodfunctionalconnectivitywouldscorethesameasawetlandwithpotentiallyvaluablehabitatbutnoconnectivityduetobarriers.Thishighlightstheneedfordecisionmakerstocarefullyexaminethefullrangeofoutputs,andtoexplorehowchangestoweightinganddirectioncanaffectthefinalresults.TheserecommendationsareemphasisedintheoriginalDSSManualandarerepeatedhere.

3.2.2. DSS2PrioritisationofFBAregionwetlands

Figure3.1:WetlandprioritisationresultsfromtheapplicationoftheSecondaryWetlandsDSSto40wetlandsintheFBAregion(fromJaenschetal2015).

ApplicationoftheSecondaryWetlandsDSStotheFBAregionresultedinprioritisationofthetop20wetlandsformanagementaction.Thisprocessprioritisedthese20wetlandsoutofanoriginallistof40fromtheregion,anddidnotincludeRAMSARwetlandsthatarealreadythefocusofseparate

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Toril

la P

lain

Pal

m T

ree

& R

obin

son

Cre

ek (T

aroo

m)

Twel

ve M

ile C

reek

(Baj

ool)

St.L

awre

nce

Nan

kin

Pla

ins

(Fitz

royv

ale,

B

road

mea

dow

s)

Wav

erle

y &

Bar

Pla

ins

Iwas

aki W

etla

nds

Gle

n P

rairi

e

Lake

Mar

y C

ompl

ex

Wum

algi

Pen

insu

la (B

road

Sou

nd)

Josk

elei

gh &

Long

Bea

ch

Per

ch &

Mim

osa

Cre

ek

Mac

Ken

zie

Per

ched

Wet

land

s

Low

er H

erbe

rt C

reek

Gre

en L

ake

Com

plex

Ser

pent

ine

Cre

ek (F

itzro

y D

elta

)

Sou

th Y

aam

ba C

ompl

ex

Low

er D

awso

n (M

oura

to D

uarin

ga)

Low

er Is

aacs

Flo

odpl

ain

Cal

lide-

Don

Jun

ctio

n

Wetland Sites

Wetland Priority Values Threats Capacity

11

managementactions.Thetoprankingwetlandsscoredhighlyineachofthethreebroadcategories,Values,ThreatsandCapacity(Fig.3.1).Someofthelowerrankedwetlands(inthetop20)scoredhighlyintheThreatcategory,butpoorlyinValuesandCapacityindicatingthatwhilethesewetlandsmaybenefitconsiderablyfrommanagementinterventions,thecostandcapacitytoeffectivelyimplementthesemakesthemalessattractiveoptionthanthehigherrankedwetlands.

TheprioritisationprocessfoundtheWetlandsDSStobeausefultoolfortheFBAregion,butnotedthatthebiastowardcoastalwetlandsinseveralimportantcriteriaresultedinfewinlandwetlandsscoringhighly.Thisisdespiteseveralinlandwetlandshavingapparenthighvalueandgoodpotentialforinvestmenttoprovideimprovements.Asaresult,Jaenschetal(2015)recommendfutureassessmentsconsiderinlandwetlandsseparatelyusingamodifiedscoringsystemnotbiasedtowardscoastalconnectivity.

TheweightingofeachcriterionwasbasedonthedetailedunderstandingbyFBAstaffwhoknowtheregion,thepriorities,andfeasibilityofimplementingworks.Thisprocessidentifiedsomeimportantgapsinavailabledata.Forinstance,waterqualityandpoint-sourcepollutionwereconsideredthemostimportantoftheThreatscriteria,andwereassignedaweightingof10.However,littledatawasavailableforeitherofthesecriteria,andhencescoresweresettoaveragebydefault.

12

Figure3.2:WetlandprioritisationresultsfromtheapplicationoftheSecondaryWetlandsDSSto20wetlandsintheFBAregion(FBA2015).

13

4. EcologicalProcessCalculator(EcoCalculator)

TheEcoCalculatorscoresthecurrentstatusoftheprovisionofecosystemservicesbyGBRcatchmentecosystemsrelativetotheirpre-Europeancondition(imagefromGBRMPA2015).

ThischapterdescribesthedevelopmentandapplicationoftheEcoCalculatorandBlueMapsforguidingmanagementeffortsintheFBAregion,andunlessotherwisecitedisdrawninwholeorinpartfromadraftreporttotheFBAfromtheGreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority(GBRMPA2015).

In2009,theOutlookfortheGreatBarrierReefidentifiedwaterqualityandcoastaldevelopmentastwoofthethreemainthreatstotheGreatBarrierReef.ThepublicationInformingtheOutlookforGreatBarrierReefCoastalEcosystems(publishedin2012)showedthatwidespreadmodificationshaveoccurredinmuchoftheGreatBarrierReefcatchment.Whatisnotknowniswhat,ifany,impactthesechangesarehavingontheReefandwhatarethelevelsofacceptablechange?

EcologicalprocessesprovidedbycatchmentcoastalecosystemsarecriticalforthelongtermhealthandresilienceoftheGreatBarrierReef.Ecologicalprocessesincludebiological,biogeochemicalandphysicalprocesses.Forexamplecoastalecosystemssuchaswetlandstrapwaterallowingbiofilmsandaquaticalgaetogrowandassimilateheavymetals,theyallowsedimentstosettleandnutrientstobecycled.Wetlandsalsoslowoverlandflowsallowinggreatergroundwaterrechargeandmoreresidualtimeforecologicalprocessestooccur.TheyarealsoimportanthabitatsandrefugiaforspeciesconnectedtotheReef.

TheEcologicalProcessesCalculatorisageneraltoolforassessingthechangestoecologicalprocessesprovidedbycatchmentecosystemsthatsupportthehealthandresilienceoftheGreatBarrierReef.Thecalculatorcomparesthecapacityofpre-European(pre-clear)coastalecosystemecologicalprocessestothoseofapresentday(2009)catchmentmadeupofnaturalandmodifiedecosystems.Thecalculatorcanalsobeusedtodeterminetheimpactsofimprovedpractices(currentbestpractice)ontheecologicalprocessesprovidedatageneralscaleand,whenusedwith‘bluemaps’asatoolforfunctionalrestorationplanning.

14

Scoresareprovidedatabasin-scale,withbasinssubdividedusingtheBlueMaptodistinguishlevelsofconnectivitytoGBR.Finalscoresrangefrompoortoverygood.However,therelevanceofthiswilldependonthequestionandobjective.Ifprotectingintacthabitatisimportant,thenascoreof“verygood”willbeweightedhighly.Ifrestoringdegradedhabitatistoppriority,thenthereverseistrue,andscoresof“poor”shouldhavehigherweighting.

ThecombinedEco-calculatorandBlueMapscanguidemanagementprioritisationintheFBAregionintwogeneralways;usingBlueMapstoidentifythepartsoftheregionwithgreatestconnectivityandthusimpactontheGBR,andthenfocussingonactionsthatwillbestaddresstheissuesidentifiedbytheEco-calculatorasmostimportant,orconversely,onceanumberofsitesareidentifiedforpotentialaction,theycouldbeprioritisedaccordingtothevaluesidentifiedbytheBlueMapandEcoCalculator.

4.1. Methodology

4.1.1. DevelopmentoftheEcologicalProcessCalculator

In2010,theGBRMPAheldaworkshopwithapanelofexpertsfromawiderangeofdisciplinestoidentifyandunderstandtheecologicalprocessesthatareprovidedbycoastalecosystemsforthehealthandresilienceoftheGreatBarrierReef.Thisworkshopidentifiedandrefinedalistofcoastalecosystems,groupedaccordingtosimilaritiesintheecologicalprocessesthattheydeliverfortheGreatBarrierReef.Thesefunctionalgroupswere:estuaries(includesmangrovesandsaltmarsh),freshwaterwetlands,forestedfloodplains,grassandsedgelands,heathandshrublands,rainforests,forestsandwoodlands.Itwasalsorecognisedthatmodifiedcoastalecosystemsimpacton,andcanprovidesomeecosystemservicesfortheGBR,andhenceadditionalecosystemtypeswereincludedforfurtherassessment:grazingnaturalareas,forestry,intensiveanimalproduction,intensivecommercialandresidential,drylandproduction,irrigatedproduction,pondedpastures,waterstorage,transportandmining.TheextentofcoastalecosystemswasthendeterminedbygroupingQueenslandgovernmentRegionalEcosystemsintotheassignedcoastalecosystemsclassifications.Thisgroupingallowedspatialanalysisofchangestovegetationfrompre-Europeantimestocurrenttimes.TheworkshopalsoidentifiedthatthecapacityforeachcoastalecosystemtodeliverecosystemserviceswillvaryacrosstheGBRcatchment,duetochangesinclimate,rainfall,connectivity,landform,andsize.

Theecologicalservicesprovidedbycoastalecosystemsaregroupedintofourmaincategories:Recharge-dischargeprocesses;physicalprocesses(Sediments);biogeochemicalprocesses;andbiologicalprocesses.Adetaileddescriptionofeachoftheindividualprocesses/servicesandhoweachwasquantifiedandscoredisprovidedinGBRMPA(2015),whileasummaryoftheprocessesisprovidedbelow:

Recharge-dischargeprocesses:

15

• Detainswater;floodmitigation;potentiallyconnectsaquaticecosystems;regulateswaterflow–groundwater;regulateswaterflow–overlandflows.

PhysicalProcesses(Sediments):

• Sedimentation–fine:trapfinesediments;retainfinesediments;releasefinesedimentsslowly.

• Sedimentation–coarse:trapcoarsesediments;retaincoarsesediments;releasecoarsesedimentslowly.

• Materialtransport:transportsmaterialforcoastalprocesses;particulatedepositionandtransport(sediments,nutrients,chemicals);materialdepositionandtransport(debris,DOM,rock).

Biogeochemicalprocesses:

• Production:Primaryproduction;secondaryproduction.• Nutrient:sourceofN,P;uptakesnutrients;regulatesnutrients.• Carbon:carbonsource;sequesterscarbon;regulatescarbon.• Decomposition:sourceofDOM.• Regulation:salinityregulation;regulatestermpertature.

BiologicalProcesses:

• Survival:habitatrefugiaforaquaticspecieswithreefconnections;habitatforterrestrialspp.connectedtoreef;foodsource;habitatforecologicallyimportantanimals.

• Dispersal:replenishment/ecosystemcolonisation;pathwayformigratoryfish.• Pollinate:Pollination.• Recruitment:habitatcontributessignificantrecruitment.

Foreachriverbasin,theseprocessesarescoredasapercentagechangefrompre-Europeantimes,andtheresultsarepresentedforeachbasindividedintoregionsofconnectivitytotheGBRbasedonBlueMaps(see4.1.3.below).Percentchangefrompre-Europeantimesof±10%wereclassifiedas“VeryGood”,±>10-25%as“Good”,±>25-50%as“Moderate”,±>50-75%as“Poor”,and±>75%and“VeryPoor”.Eachsystemwasthengivenafinalscorecardthataveragedthe%changevaluesfortheprocessesineachcategory.WithineachBlueMapssub-region,thedominantmodifiedecosystemwasidentifiedsinceactionintheseareasislikelytoyieldthegreatestrangeofecosystemservicebenefits.

4.1.2. ApplicationtotheFBAregion

Followingtheworkshop,aliteraturereviewallowedforfurtherassessmentofthecapacityofthesenaturalandmodifiedecosystemstoprovideservices,andtheirvulnerabilities.Fromthis,andecologicalprocessmatrixwasdevelopedandappliedinafurtherworkshoptofocusonindividualbasincase-studiestoallowforvariabilityinecosystemcapacitytobeexamined.ThisledtothedevelopmentoftheCoastalEcosystemAssessmentFramework(GBRMPA2012),whichwasthen

16

appliedtoafurther7basinsintheGBRcatchment.Theanalysisidentifiedmanyofthekeyassets,driversandpressuresimpactingonthecapacityofcoastalecosystemstodeliverecologicalprocesses.Thebasinassessmentsalsoidentifiedthatdriversoccurringatabasinscalecansignificantlyimpactuponthecapacityofecologicalprocessdeliveryandthereforeneededtobeconsidered.

Thenextstepwastoquantifytheextentofchangestoecologicalprocessesineachbasin.Asaresulttheecologicalprocesses(fortheGreatBarrierReef)calculatorwasdevelopedforuseincollaborationwithlocalexpertstocapturetheinherentvariabilityinecologicalprocessesdeliveredatfinerscales.Itisdesignedtocapturecoastalecosystemandmodifiedecosystemprocessesatlocalscales(basin–sub-basinscale)andcalculatetheapproximatechangesincapacityofecologicalprocessesdeliveredbetweenpre-clearcoastalecosystemsandthecurrentlandscape(post-clear).Itisnotintendedtobeaprecisetoolandshouldonlybeconsideredaguideinitscurrentform.NotethattheuseofothergroupingsofRegionalEcosystems(RE)(basedonQueensland’sRegionalEcosystemmappingprogram)canbeusedforfinerscaleanalysis.Afulllistofidentifiedecologicalprocessesisavailableinappendix1ofthedraftreport(GBRMPA2015).

TheEcologicalProcessCalculatorusestheworkshopassignedcapacityscores,pre-clearandpost-clearcoastalecosystemextentsandAustralianLandUseMappingProject(ALMUP)landusedata(hectares)tocalculateapercentagechangescoreforeachecologicalprocess.BymergingtheALUMPdataandCoastalEcosystemdataintoanexcelspreadsheet,datacanbecombinedusingthepivottablefunction.Percentagechangescorescanalsobecalculatedforotherspatiallydefinedareassuchasthecoastalzoneorfloodplain.GBRMPAhasusedtheareasofconnectivityboundariesfromtheBlueMapstool.

ThisprocesswasrecentlyappliedspecificallytotheFBARegionthroughworkshopsinvolvinglocalexperts,managersandstakeholders.TheresultingassessmentprovidedcapacityscoresacrosstherangeofecosystemservicesfortheStyx,Waterpark,Fitzroy,Shoalwater,Calliope,andBoynebasins,andidentifiedthedominantmodifiedland-uselikelytodrivechangesincapacitytodeliverecosystemservicesineachbasin.

4.1.3. BlueMaps

TheimportanceofecologicalprocessesandthecapacityofcoastalandmodifiedecosystemstodelivertheseprocesseswithbenefitstotheGreatBarrierReefareoftendependantontheproximityoftheserviceareatotheReef.TheBlueMapsdevelopedbytheGreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthorityshowtheareasofstrongestconnectivitythroughthemappingofwetterareasofthecatchment(Figs.4.1,4.2).AlthoughthewholecatchmentisconnectedtotheGreatBarrierReef,andsomeprocessessuchassedimenttransportcanoriginatefromthetopofthecatchment,manymoreprocessesoccurwhereconnectivityisgreatest.TheBlueMapsidentifythoseareaswiththegreatestvalueforthedeliveryofecologicalprocessesthatbenefittheGreatBarrierReef(Fig.4.2).

17

Figure4.1:DatalayersandconnectivityfrequenciesusedtodefinetheregionsinBlueMaps.

Figure4.2:BlueMapsclassificationsofthelowerFitzroybasindefininglevelsofconnectivitytothewatersoftheGBR.

TheresultingBlueMapsrepresentameasureofareasbasedupontheirfrequencyofconnectionwiththeGBR,eitherdirectlyorthroughthesubterraneanmovement.

4.2. Results

ThedevelopmentoftheEcoCalculatoridentifiedthecapacityofarangeofnaturalandmodifiedcoastalecosystemstoprovideecologicalservicesthatpotentiallybenefittheGBR(Table4.1).Whileitisrecognisedthatthecapacityofspecificecosystemtypestodeliverparticularecologicalservices

18

willvarythroughouttheGBRcatchment,theoutputsinTable4.1providearepresentativeindicationofthetypesandextentofservicesprovidedbyeachecosystem.

Table4.1:EcologicalprocessesfornaturalandmodifiedecosystemsintheGBRcatchment.Thedarkerthecell,thehigherthecapacityfortheecosystemtodelivertheecologicalprocess(fromGBRMPA2015).

TheEco-calculatorcanbeusedtohelprefineprioritisationsderivedfromtheintegratedtool,andalsotoidentifythetypeofecosystemservicesanareamayprovide,andthetypeofactionsthatwillprovidethebestimprovementsfortheGBR.

BlueMapswasappliedtoeachoftheNeighbourhoodCatchmentswithintheFBAregion(Fig.2.2).ThisallowedthecalculationoftheareawithineachNCthatliesineachoftheBlueMaps-connectivitycategories.Twenty-nineofthe193NC’scontainedatleastsomelandclassifiedas“VeryFrequentlyConnected”byBlueMaps(Fig.4.1).Ofthese,only2had>25%intheVFCcategory;F2(35%)andF27(26%).VerylittleareawithintheFBAregionwasclassifiedas“FrequentlyConnected”.Only22NCshadlandwithintheFCcategory,andtheproportionofeachNCclassifiedasfrequentlyconnectedrangedfrom<0.01to6%.PartsofeveryNCwithinthebasinareclassifiedas“IntermittentlyConnected”and“InfrequentlyConnected”withthesecategoriescoveringalargeproportionofthewholebasin.

BecausescalingoftheBlueMapsproportionalareaswasweightedtofavourareaswithgreaterconnectivitytotheGBR,the10NC’swiththegreatestareaofVFClandcomprised8ofthetop10finalscoresfromBlueMapsscoring.ThecurrentweightingsystemshouldbecarefullyevaluatedtodetermineifitprovidesappropriatefocusonareasmostcloselyconnectedtotheGBR.Asitstands,theweightedBlueMapsscoresapplyingaweightingof4forareasVFCthroughto1forareasInfrequentlyConnectedassumesforexamplethataunitareaoflandthatisVFChasdoublethevalueofthesameareaoflandthatisonlyintermittentlyconnected.SowhilethecurrentBlueMaps

19

weightingprocedurehighlightsNC’smostconnectedtotheGBR,thedetailsoftheweightingsystemneedfurtherconsideration.

20

5. FishBarriers

St.LawrenceWeir(BarrierID9393)onStLawrenceCreekisahighprioritybarriertofishpassagewithintheFBAregion(imagefromMarsden2015).

Healthyfunctionalecosystemsthatsupportfishandfisheriesdonotactinisolation,butratherformpartofanecosystemmosaicthatprovidesalltheneedsoffishspeciesthroughouttheirlives.TheFitzroyBasincontainsadiversityofaquatichabitatsfromfreshwaterlagoonsandswamps,smallriversandstreams,throughsomeofthelargestriversonthecontinent,tomangroveswampsandestuaries,allofwhichultimatelyconnectintocoastalwatersandthelagoonoftheGreatBarrierReef.Manyfishinthebasinmakeextensivemovementsduringtheirlives,and23ofthe49fishspeciesrecordedintheFBAregion’sfreshwatersarediadromous,meaningtheyrequireaccesstoestuarineandmarinewaterstocompletetheirlifecycle(Moore&Marsden2008).Theseincludemanyofourmostprizedandiconicspeciessuchasbarramundi.Therefore,maintainingfunctionalconnectivitybetweenthesesystemsiscriticalforeffectivelymanagingtheFitzroyBasin’svaluablefisheryresourcesandbiodiversity.

AllbarrierstofishmigrationwithintheFBAregionwereidentified,assessed,andprioritisedinthe2008FitzroyBasinFishBarrierPrioritisationProject(FBFBPP;Moore&Marsden2008).Thatprojectidentified10,502potentialin-streambarrierstofishmigration,anduseda3-stageprocesstoprioritisethetop30barriersforfutureremediation.Sincethenanumberofbarriershavebeenremediatedwithinthebasin,andin2015thefishbarrierprioritisationwasupdatedtoidentifytheremainingbarriersandcatchmentswiththegreatestneedofremediation(Marsden2015).Thischapterprovidesanoverviewoftheprocessbysummarisingthesereports,includingthekeymethodsandfindingsoftheupdate.TheaimistoprovidemanagerswithanunderstandingoftheissuesandconsiderationssurroundingremediationoffishpassageintheFBAregion,sothatthetoolcanbeusedtosupportprioritisationofmanagementactiontoachievebroaderenvironmentaloutcomes.Forfulldetails,pleaserefertotheoriginal2008andupdated2015reports(Moore&Marsden2008,Marsden2015).

21

5.1. PrioritisationMethodology

TheFBFBPPinvolvedathreestageprocesstoprioritisebarriersbasedonarangeofbiological,socialandeconomiccostsandbenefitsofremediation.

• Stage1:automatedGISprocesstoidentifypotentialbarriersandprioritisetop150basedon5broadattributes(Streamorder;positionalongstreamgradient;catchmentcondition;areaofhabitatopenedbyremediation;downstreambarriers).

• Stage2:fieldvalidationconfirmingactualbarriersanddatacollectiononphysical,biologicalandlogisticalparametersrelevanttoremediationefforts;manualrefiningofprioritisation

Stage1:mappingandautomatedGISranking (streamorder;positionalongstreamgradient;catchmentcondition;areaofhabitatopened;downstreambarriers)

Stage2:Fieldvalidationandrefinedscores

(barriertype;streamcondition;watersupply;waterquality;upstreamhabitat

quality)

Stage3:Finalprioritisationscores (cost;availablefinancialsupport;technicalviability;productivity

benefits;conservationsignificance;remediationeffectiveness)

22

basedonscoresfor:barriertype;streamcondition;watersupply;waterquality;upstreamhabitatquality.

• Stage3:refinedfinalprioritisationbasedonscoresfor:cost;availablefinancialsupport;technicalviability/difficulty;productivitybenefits;conservationsignificance;remediationeffectiveness.

Adetaileddescriptionofthemethodology,includinglistingofthespecificcriteriaandscoringusedateachstageoftheprocessisprovidedinMoore&Marsden(2008).

5.2. Results

Stage1oftheoriginalFBFPPidentifiedatotalof10,632potentialbarrierstofishpassage;10,502in-stream(Fig.5.1)and131off-streaminwetlands.Afterapplyingthe5initialcriteriathiswasrefineddowntothetop150potentialin-streambarriersforfurtherinvestigation.

23

Figure5.1:The10,502potentialin-streambarrierswithintheFitzroyBasinAssociationRegionidentifiedduringStage1ofthe2008prioritisationprocess(fromMoore&Marsden2008).

FieldvalidationinStage2identifiedthat59ofthe150potentialbarriersidentifiedinStage1representedactualbarrierstofishmigration(Fig.5.2).Datacollectionduringthefieldvisitsallowedrankingofthese59actualbarriers.TheapplicationofthecriteriainStage3producedthefinalprioritylistofthetop30barriersforremediationefforts.

24

Fig.5.2:Thetop59priorityfishbarriersintheFBAregionasidentifiedduringStage2ofthe2008prioritisationproject(fromMoore&Marsden2008).

The2015re-assessmentconsideredthe59barriersidentifiedatStage2oftheoriginalprocess(Fig.5.2).Itusedthese59ratherthanthefinal30fromStage3inordertostartthere-assessmentprocesswithafocusonfishcommunityimpactsratherthanbroadersocial,economicandlogisticalconsiderations.Althoughtheseotherconsiderationsareimportant,thepurposeofthere-

25

assessmentwastoallowthesignificantfishbarrierstobeconsideredinabroaderintegratedprocessincludingtheWetlandsDSS,BlueMapsandEcoCalculator,andassuchitwasimportanttofocusthere-assessmentdirectlyonimpactstofishpassage.

There-assessmentprimarilyaccountedfor13prioritystructuresthathadbeenremediatedtovaryingdegreessincethe2008assessment(Table5.1,Fig.5.3).Theremediationeffortsresultedintheremediatedbarriersbeingremovedfromtheprioritylist,andthescoresforremainingbarriersbeingadjustedduetochangesinthenumberofdownstreambarriersduetotherestorationefforts.

Table5.1:FishpassagebarrierswithintheFABregionthathavebeenremediatedsincethe2008prioritisationproject,andwerethereforeremovedfromthere-assessmentin2015(fromMarsden2015).

Barrier ID

Stream Name Barrier Name/Type Remediation action

Transparency

6474 Fitzroy R Fitzroy Barrage Fishway installation

Low

1 Fitzroy R Eden Bann Weir Fishway installation

Moderate

5 Dawson R Neville Hewitt Weir Fishway installation

High

6 Dawson R Moura Weir Fishway installation

Moderate

9348 Amity Ck Tidal interface crossing/Bund Fishway installation

Very High

1042 Bridge Ck Wumalgi/Pipes Fishway installation

Very High

9002 Cattle Ck Old Hwy/Pipes Removal Very High 9441 Clairview Ck Creek Crossing Removal Very High 531 Moore's Ck Botanical Gardens/Pipes Fishway

installation High

527 Stony Ck Creek Crossing-Byfield S.Forest Fishway installation

Very High

529 Stony Ck Daddy's Crossing/Byfield S.Forest Fishway installation

Very High

8945 Waterpark Ck Waterpark Ck Weir Fishway installation

Moderate

9392 Wran Ck Weir/Pipes Fishway installation

Moderate

26

Table5.2:Prioritisationofthe46fishpassagebarriersintheFBAregion,re-assessedinthe2015project(Marsden2015).

Priority Barrier ID Stream Name Barrier Name/Type 1 524 Fitzroy R Redbank Crossing 2 1000 Boyne R Mann's Weir 3 523 Fitzroy R Hanrahan's Crossing 4 3951 Fitzroy R Glenroy Crossing 5 3952 Fitzroy R Craiglee Crossing 6 535 Amity Ck Wumalgi Rd/Pipes 7 9001 Boyne R Awonga Dam 8 6169 Serpentine Lagoon Tidal interface bund wall 9 9393 St.Lawrence Ck St.Lawrence Weir

10 8652 Calliope R Blackgate Rd/Pipes 11 8618 Calliope R Mt Alma Rd Crossing/Pipes 12 8677 Clairview Ck Clairview Weir 13 2 Mackenzie R Tartrus Weir 14 525 Mackenzie R Duaringa Apis Ck Rd 15 3 Mackenzie R Bingegang Weir 16 8354 Boyne R Pikes Crossing 17 8716 Amity Ck Old HWY/Pipes 18 9718 Lake Callemondah Barrage 19 25 Raglan Ck Langmom Rd/Pipes 20 4 Mackenzie R Bedford Weir 21 534 Montrose Ck Weir/Town water supply 22 22 Raglan Ck Upper Raglan/Pipes 23 85 8 Mile Ck Bajool Weir 24 9165 Black Swan Ck Flinders Rd-Rundle Ranges 25 3015 Mackenzie R Tartrus Road Crossing 26 4152 Dawson R Boolburra/Pipes 27 528 Stony Ck Byfield S.Forest 28 82 12 Mile Ck 12 Mile CK Rd/ Pipes 29 8731 Stoodleigh Ck Barretts Rd/Pipes 30 9629 Sandy Ck Next to railline/Pipes 31 530 Stony Ck Freeman's Crossing 32 9000 Ewen Ck Stanage Bay Rd/Pipes 33 526 Lake Callemondah (Police CK Creek Crossing 34 1032 Oakey Ck Archer Station/Pipe 35 8784 Tooloombah Ck (Styx) Rocky Crossing 36 6348 Dawson R Nun's Crossing 37 9550 Block Ck Stanage Bay Rd/Pipes 38 9192 Unnamed Wydham Rd-Gladstone/Pipes 39 69 12 Mile Ck 2nd Barrier u/stream Pipes 40 9041 Coorooman Ck Coorooman Ck Rd/Culverts 41 6144 12 Mile Ck 3rd Barrier u/stream Pipes 42 6198 Nankin Ck Thompsons Pt Rd/ Culverts 43 8642 Unnamed Harvey St - Gladstone/Pipes 44 532 Moore's Ck Musgrave St weir 45 2664 Dawson R Kianga River Rd/Pipes 46 8606 Calliope R Pipes

27

Figure5.3:Locationofthe46barriersre-prioritisedinthe2015assessment,andthe13barriersremediatedtovaryingdegreessincethe2008assessment(fromMarsden2015).

5.3. OutcomesandIssues

TheoriginalFBFBPPguidedtheremediationof13barrierstofishpassage.Thishasimprovedconnectivitywithinthebasin,re-connectedpreviouslyisolatedpopulations,andopenedmorehabitatformigratoryfishspeciestoutilise.Therevisedprioritylistfromthe2015re-assessmentprovidesanupdatetoguidefurtherworksonin-streambarriers(Table5.2,Fig.5.3).Asitwasintended,thisprocessisfocusedonprioritisingin-streambarriersforremediationthatprovidethe

28

greatestbenefitforthebasinasawhole.The2015report(Marsden2015)identifiedanumberofgapsandissuesthatneedaddressinginordertorealisethebestoutcomesfromfishpassageremediationeffortswithintheFBAregion.

TheFBFBPPspecificallyexcludedbarriersinwetlands,pondedpasturesandotheroff-streamhabitatsinStage1oftheprocess.BecausethefocusoftheFBFBPPwasonconnectivityformigratoryfishthroughouttheregion,andparticularlyfordiadromousspeciesoffisheriessignificance,itprioritisedonlyin-streambarrierswithmoreweightgiventothoseinthecoastalreachesofrivers.Withsuchafocus,off-streamwetlandsrepresentindividualpotentialend-pointsofmigrationsbysuchspecies,whileuplandriversmaybebeyondtheirnaturalrange,andthereforethesesystemsreceivelowweightingintheprioritisationprocess.Marsden(2015)notedthattheseuplandandoff-streamhabitatsareparticularlyimportantforarangeofspecies,includinglocaldiadromousfisheryspeciessuchasbarramundi,andrecommendedthatfutureprioritisationscouldbestratifiedtoensuretheseareasarerepresentedinfutureprioritylists.

Intheoriginal2008report,MooreandMarsden(2008)pointoutthatwhileoff-streamwetlandshavearangeofvaluesforbiodiversity,wecurrentlylacktheunderstandingoftheirfunctionalvaluestoallowtheirinclusionwithintheprioritisationframework.Forexample,whilemanypondedorbundedwetlandspotentiallyprovidevaluablehabitatforfishsuchasbarramundi,withoutaclearunderstandingofthedynamicsoffloodingandphysicalconnectivity,andofimmigration,occupationandemigrationbyfishes,itisimpossibletounderstandtheactualfunctionalvaluesofindividualwetlands,ortheirresponsestoremediationactions.Forexample,apotentialbarriertofishpassageonawetlandmayinfactbetheonlythingthatcausesretentionofenoughwatertoallowthesuccessfuloccupationbyfish;whileconversely,thebarriermaycreateatemporarywetlandthatattractslargenumbersofrecruitingfishes,butsubsequentlydriesoutbeforesuccessfulemigration,therebyformingadeathtrapforfish.Withoutaclearunderstandingoftheseissues,itisnotcurrentlypossibletoincludebundedorpondedpasturesintotheassessment.The2015re-assessmentmadeaclearrecommendationthatfurtherworkisundertakentounderstandhowfloodplainwetlandsfunctionforfishsothattheycanbeincludedintofutureassessments.

Thepreviouslyhighprioritybarriersthathadundergonesomelevelofremediationwereremovedfromthe2015re-assessment.Thisoccurredevenwheretheremediatedbarrierwasstillconsideredtoprovidelowtransparencyforfish(i.e.poorpassage,orstillremainsasignificantbarrier–e.g.FitzroyBarrage,Fig.5.3).Thereisaneed(identifiedinthereport)toassesstheeffectivenessofremediationeffortstoensurepositiveoutcomesfrominvestments.Thisisparticularlyimportantinrelationtoconsideringfurtherfishpassageworksinthebasin.Forinstance,theFitzroyBarrageliesattheheadoftheFitzroyRiverestuary,anddespitetheadditionofafishwaybetweenthe2008and2015assessments,itisconsideredtohavelowtransparency,i.e.itremainsasignificantbarriertofishpassageundermanyconditions.Assuch,workstoimprovefishpassageinanyareasupstreamoftheBarragemaybeineffectiveifthedownstreambarrierremains.

Thereportalsonotestheimportanceofassessingtheeffectivenessofremediationworksinimprovingfishpassage,theappropriatemanagementofanyfishpassagestructures(e.g.fishway),andtheneedforregularre-assessmentofthefunctionalityofexistingfishways.Itisrecommended

29

thatthisbecomepartoftheintegrateddecisionsupporttoolsothatmanagerscanmakeinformedchoicesamongoptionsbasedontheperformanceandpracticaleffectivenessofpreviousremediationefforts.

30

6. AnIntegratedSystemRepairPrioritisationTool

TheoutputsoftheindividualprioritisationtoolswerecombinedtogenerateanoverallscoringsystemforeachNeighbourhoodCatchmentwithintheFBAregion(Fig.2.2)basedonacombinedscorefromtheFBFBPP,theWetlandsDSS,andBlueMaps.ThisIntegratedToolidentifiesthesub-basinswheremanagementactionscanhavethegreatestimpactforthehealthandwellbeingoftheGBR.Theaimistoprovidemultipleoutcomesatthetargetedsitesensuringfundingisgainingthebesteconomicaloutcomesintandemwiththemostappropriatesystemrepairactions.

6.1. Methods

TheoutputsoftheWetlandsDSS(Fig.3.1),BlueMaps(Fig.4.2)andtheFishBarrierPrioritisation2015(Table5.2,Fig.5.3),werecombinedtoprovideanoverallscoreforeachNeighbourhoodCatchmentwithintheFBAregion(Fig.2.2).Theaimwastoidentifyareaswhereremediationworksormanagementactionscouldpotentiallyprovidemultiplebenefitsacrossarangeofvalues,therebyprovidingthebestreturnsoninvestment.Theoutputsoftheintegratedprioritisationshouldnotbeconsideredasafinalrankingforaction,butratherasidentifyingareastobeconsideredmorecloselyforthepotentialforsynergisticbenefitsfromanyparticularmanagementaction.

Tocombinetheoutputsfromeachtool,scoresfromtheWetlandsDSSandFishBarrierPrioritisationwerefirststandardisedtorangefrom1-10,withthehighestscoringbarrierorwetlandrescaledto10,andthelowestscoringofthoseconsideredrescaledtoascoreof1.The46fishbarriersrankedduringthe2015re-assessment(Table5.2,Fig5.3)wererescaledbasedontheStage2scoresfromthatre-assessment.Thismeansthescoresreflectimpactsonfishpassagewithoutregardtocapacityorcostofremediation.Theresultisthatfishbarriershavingthegreatestimpactonfishpassageinthebasinarescoredmosthighly.The20wetlandsprioritisedinthe2015WetlandsDSSfortheFBAregion(Fig.3.1)wererescaledinthesameway,basedontheoverallscorewhichcombinesthescoresfor“Values”,“Threats”and“Capacity”.

ScoreswerethensummedforeachNeighbourhoodCatchmentwithintheFBA.IndividualfishbarrierswerealwayswithinasingleNC,andanindividualNCmaycontainmorethanonerankedfishbarrier.WetlandsmayspanacrossNCboundaries,andsoscoresforanindividualwetlandmayapplytomorethanoneNC.Asforfishbarriers,anindividualNCmaycontainmorethanonerankedwetland.AllNC’swerethensortedbasedonthepooledFishBarrierandWetlandsDSSscores,andonlythe61NC’scontainingatleastonerankedbarrierorwetlandwereconsideredfurther.

EachoftheNC’scontainingatleastonerankedbarrierorwetlandwasthengivenascorebasedontheBlueMapsmeasureofconnectivitytotheGBR.TheproportionofthetotalareaofeachNCwithineachofthefourBlueMapsconnectivityfrequencycategorieswascalculated.Theseproportionswereweighted(multiplied)asfollows:“VeryFrequentlyConnected”,4;“FrequentlyConnected”,3;“IntermittentlyConnected”,2;and“InfrequentlyConnected”,1.Theresultingscorescouldtheoreticallyrangebetween400(foranNCthatwas100%VFC)to100(anNC100%InfrequentlyConnected).Asfortheotheroutputs,thesescoreswererescaledtorangefrom1-10

31

withthehighestscoringNCrescaledto10,andthelowestscoringto1.ThefinalintegratedscoringsystemthensimplysummedtogetherthestandardisedscoresfromtheFishBarrier,WetlandsDSS,andBlueMapstoolstogiveanoverallscoreforeachofthe61NCsconsidered.

6.2. Results

Thetwohighest-scoringNCsub-regions,F27andF2(Fig.6.2,Table6.1)scoredhighlyacrossallthreecomponents,eachcontainedmultiplehighlyrankedfishbarriersandwetlands,andarehighlyconnectedtotheGBR.F27includestheFitzroyestuarywhileF2spansfromtheStyxRivertoSt.LawrenceCreek(Fig.2.2).

32

Figure6.1:a)IntegratedprioritisationofFBANeighbourhoodCatchmentsbasedonthesumofthere-scaledscoresfor:b)FishBarriers,c)WetlandsDSS,andd)BlueMaps.ThelocationofeachNCwithintheFBAregionisindicatedinFigure2.2.

Thenext10highestscoringNCs(F17-T29)tendedtoscorehighlyinonlyoneortwoofthethreesub-tools,indicatingwhiletheseregionsmaycontainmultiplebarriersorwetlands,theytendnotto

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50F27

F17

B13

F25

T29 B7

F9

F8

F21 F3

F5

T31

F13

F14

D45

D37

D27

D36

F24

T27

T25

F12 D6

D18

T19

T32 D2

F16

T18

D13

D12

WetlandsDSSscore

0

20

40

F F B F T B F F F F F T F F D D D D F T T F D D T T D F T D D

FishBarrierscore

0

20

40

F F B F T B F F F F F T F F D D D D F T T F D D T T D F T D D

WetlandsDSSscore

0246810

F F B F T B F F F F F T F F D D D D F T T F D D T T D F T D D

BlueMapsscore

a)

b)

c)

d)

33

containboth(Table6.1).Onlythreeoftheremaining49NCscontainedbothfishbarriersandwetlandsrankedbytheindividualtools.Someofthese49NCscontainhighlyrankedbarriersorwetlandsdespitescoringpoorlyintheintegratedassessment.Forexample,F18containsasinglerankedfeature,Hanrahan’sCrossing,whichreceivedtheequalsecond-highestscoreofanyfishbarrierintheentireFBAregion(Marsden2015).Similarly,F21containspartoftheLakeMaryComplex,whichwasthe9thhighestscoringwetlandintheWetlandsDSS,yetastheonlyrankedfeatureinF21,thisNCscorespoorlyintheintegratedassessment.

Table6.1:IntegratedscoresforFBAregionNeighbourhoodCatchments.Theindividualre-scaledscoresforeachNCareprovidedfromBlueMaps,FishBarrierPrioritisation,andtheWetlandsDSS,aswellasthefinalIntegratedscores.Notethatindividualbarriersandwetlandswerescoredbetween1and10,soanNCwithascore>10indicatesitcontainsmorethanonerankedbarrierorwetland.For‘BarrierRanking’and‘DSSRanking’,“nr”indicatesnotranked,i.e.didnotcontainarankingbarrierorwetland.BlueMapsrankingsreflectrankforallNC’swithintheFBAregion.

NC ID

Blue Maps score

Fish Barrier score

Wetlands score

ITEGRATEDRANKINGSCORE

Blue Maps

Ranking Barrier

Ranking Wetlands Ranking

F27 8.12 26 11.51 45.62 3 2 5F2 10.00 15.5 19.60 45.10 1 4 1F17 3.25 28.5

31.75 65 1 nr

F1 6.35 16 7.27 29.62 12 3 10B13 7.72 16

23.72 4 3 nr

F15 7.57 2.5 11.81 21.88 6 19 4F25 5.48 4 10.69 20.17 17 17 6F7 6.21

13.91 20.12 14 nr 2

T29 3.47 12.5 4.05 20.02 58 5 14F26 7.59

12.06 19.66 5 nr 3

B7 8.27 9.5

17.77 2 7 nrF28 5.64 11.5

17.14 16 6 nr

F9 7.48 9

16.48 7 8 nrB1 6.23 9

15.23 13 8 nr

F8 5.22

10 15.22 20 nr 7T39 4.33 7.5 2.64 14.47 34 11 19F21 4.91

9.35 14.26 23 nr 8

B12 5.33 8.5

13.83 19 9 nrF3 4.69 9

13.69 29 8 nr

F6 3.05 6.5 3.91 13.46 78 13 15F5 7.13

6.33 13.46 8 nr 12

F18 2.85 9.5

12.35 86 7 nr

34

T31 4.72 7

11.72 28 12 nrD47 2.71

8.81 11.52 89 nr 9

F13 4.72

6.77 11.49 27 nr 11B6 6.48 5

11.48 11 15 nr

F14 1.98

9.35 11.32 153 nr 8D3 3.62 5 2.64 11.26 52 15 19D45 2.37

8.81 11.18 121 nr 9

B10 3.09 8

11.09 75 10 nrD37 2.16

8.81 10.97 133 nr 9

B9 3.20 7.5

10.70 69 11 nrD27 1.70

8.81 10.51 168 nr 9

D48 1.67

8.81 10.48 171 nr 9D36 1.62

8.81 10.43 174 nr 9

T35 4.19 5.5

9.69 37 14 nrF24 5.45

3.60 9.05 18 nr 17

F4 4.25 4.5

8.75 36 16 nrT27 4.69

4.05 8.74 30 nr 14

T28 4.07

4.05 8.12 43 nr 14T25 3.45

4.05 7.50 59 nr 14

D8 2.66

4.52 7.18 98 nr 13F12 3.64

3.13 6.77 51 nr 18

D30 3.26 3.5

6.76 64 18 nrD6 2.15

4.52 6.67 135 nr 13

D7 2.00

4.52 6.52 151 nr 13D18 4.88 1.5

6.38 25 20 nr

F19 3.25

3.13 6.38 66 nr 18T19 3.90

2.16 6.06 44 nr 20

T20 3.77

2.16 5.93 48 nr 20T32 1.69

4.05 5.74 169 nr 14

D10 2.07

3.64 5.71 146 nr 16D2 2.93

2.64 5.57 83 nr 19

T21 3.22

2.16 5.39 67 nr 20F16 2.64

2.64 5.28 100 nr 19

D1 2.59

2.64 5.24 103 nr 19T18 2.68

2.16 4.85 94 nr 20

T14 2.67

2.16 4.84 96 nr 20D13 2.55

1 3.55 108 nr 21

B8 2.54 1

3.54 110 21 nrD12 2.44

1 3.44 118 nr 21

D5 2.32

1 3.32 123 nr 21

35

6.3. ConsiderationsandLimitations

Theintegratedprioritisationtoolcombiningoutputsfromprioritisationsoffishbarriers,wetlands,andconnectivitytotheGBRprovidesanindicationofareaswithintheFBAregionthatcontainmultiplerankingwetlandsorbarriers,withhighconnectivitytotheGBR.Assuch,theseareasshouldbeexaminedmorecloselywhenconsideringparticularmanagementactions.Theseareasprovidethegreatestpotentialforachievingsynergisticbenefitsacrossmultiplevalueswhenmanagementactionsareundertaken,therebymaximisingoutcomesforinvestment.However,anyparticularactionwithinthehighestrankingNeighbourhoodCatchments(NC)fromtheintegratedassessmentwillnotnecessarilyproducethedesiredoutcomeforavarietyofreasons(explainedbelow).Toachievetheoverallgoalofmostefficientlyimprovingecosystemhealth,itisabsolutelycriticaltounderstandthefunctioningofeachindividualtool,andthelimitationsoftheprocessofcombiningtheseintoasinglescore.

Thecurrentintegratedtoolgivesequalweightingtooutputsfromeachofthethreesub-tools,andtothehighestandlowestrankedfeaturesineach.Thehighestrankedfishbarrierisgivenequalweighttothehighestrankedwetland,andthere-scaledscoresforwetlands,fishbarriers,andBlueMapsaregivenequalweightinginthesummedscoreforeachNC.ItisunlikelythatremediatingthehighestrankedfishbarrierandhighestrankedwetlandwouldprovideequivalentbenefitsforthebasinandtheGBR,yetifconsideredasarankedprioritylist,thecurrentprioritisationassumestheywould.Aswasclearlystressedbythedevelopersofeachofthesub-tools,itiscriticaltohaveclearmanagementobjectivesthatguidetheprioritisationprocess,sinceoutcomesdependgreatlyonvaluejudgementsoftheend-users.

Finalscoresintheintegratedrankingarethesumofre-scaledscoresforindividualfeatureswithintheNC.Assuch,whilehigh-scoringNC’stendtocontainmultiplerankedfeatures,high-rankingbarriersorwetlandsmaybetheonlyrankingfeaturewithinanNC,andsomaygainapoorscoreintheintegratedassessment.Basedonthedetailedprocessforeachindividualprioritisation,remediationofthesehigh-rankingfeaturesmayproducewide-reachingbenefitsforthebasinandtheGBReventhoughtheylieisolatedinlow-scoringNC’s.Thereforeitisimportanttoconsidertheoutcomesoftheindividualprioritisationstogetherwiththatoftheintegratedtool.

Manyfactorsareconsideredacrossmultiplesub-tools.Wheretheyareassignedequivalentvalueandweighting,theresultisaninflationofthefinalscorebasedonscoringmultipletimesforagivenfactor.Conversely,wherethedifferentsub-toolsassignconflictingvaluestoasinglefactor,theeffectisforthescorestocancelout.Forexample,eachofthethreesub-toolshasaclearlyacknowledgeddownstreambias,wherebyfeaturesorareasclosertothecoastreceivegreaterweighting.Whentheoutputsoftheindividualtoolsarecombined,theimportanceofdownstreamareasisgreatlyinflatedoverthoseupstream.WhiletheoverallobjectiveoftheprogramistoimprovetheresilienceoftheGBR,itisnotclearthatthefinalinflatedscoreswithastrongdownstreambiasaccuratelyreflectstheimpactsorbenefitsofremediationactionsindifferentparts

36

ofthebasin.AnotherexampleisthetreatmentoffishpassagebarrierswhichareconsideredinboththeFishBarrierandWetlandsDSStools(morethanonceineach).Alargeareaofpotentiallyvaluablewetlandhabitataboveanimpassablefishbarrierwouldscorehighlyinthebarrierprioritisationbecauseremediationofthebarrierwouldopenaccesstoasignificantareaofvaluablehabitat,whilethesameareawouldscorepoorlyintheWetlandsDSS,becauseactioninthewetlandwouldhavelimitedbenefitiffishcannotaccessit.Thesignificanceofthesefactorsinthefinalprioritisationclearlydependsonvaluejudgementsandtheaimsoftheend-users.Havingasystemthatsimplycancelssuchscoresoutorover-inflatesthemisnotsatisfactory.Thereforeitisimportanttore-evaluatetheindividualtoolsinacomprehensivewaytoensurethatfactorsorprocessesaretreatedequivalentlyineach,andthatredundantscoringisremovedtoavoid“doubledipping”orover-inflatingfinalscoresbasedonrepeatedscoreforasinglefactor.

ThefinalrankingsarebasedonscoresthatconsideronlyfeaturesthatliewithintheboundariesofeachNC.Fishbarriersdownstream,orconnectivitytowetlandsorothervaluablehabitatupstreamarenotcurrentlyincludedinthefinalscores.Clearlywhentheunderlyingaimistomakeimprovementsthathavethewidest-reachingoutcomes,itisimportanttofurtherdeveloptheintegratedprioritisationtoincludeupstreamanddownstreamconnectivitywithotherrankedwetlandsorbarriersbeyondtheboundariesofeachindividualNC.WhilethecurrentprioritisationsareheavilyweightedtowardsdownstreamareaswithgreaterconnectivitytotheGBR,itisstillpossiblethatindividualsitesformanagementactionmaybeinfluencedbydownstreamimpacts.

HighscoringNC’smaynotnecessarilyindicateopportunitiesforactionsthathavebroaderimpacts.Thisisbecauseeventhoughtheymayoccurwithinthesamecatchment,individualbarriersorwetlandswithintheNCmayhavelittleornointeractionwitheachother.WhilehighscoringNC’sdoindicatehigherpotentialforsuchsynergies,itiscriticaltocarefullyevaluateactualsynergieswithincandidateNC’sbeforeactionsareplanned.

Theintegratedprioritisationonlyconsidersfishbarriersorwetlandsthatwererankedbytheindividualprioritisationtools.Thefishbarrierprioritisationinitiallyidentifiedsome10,500potentialbarrierswithintheFBAregion,withthefinalprioritisationrankingthetop46foraction.Similarly,theWetlandsDSS2appliedtotheFBAregionconsideredonly40wetlandsfromtheregionandprioritisedthetop20.Theindividualtoolsweredevelopedandimplementedbyexpertsintheirrespectivefields,andtheoutputsclearlyidentifythefishbarriersandwetlandsofhighestpriorityforaction.However,unrankedbarriersorwetlandsmustbeconsideredwhenaimingtoobtainthegreatestbasin-wideoutcomesforanymanagementactions.Forexample,highprioritywetlandsmaybecompletelyinaccessibletomigratoryfishduetounrankedfishpassagebarriersthathavenotbeenconsidered.Likewise,smallmanagementactionsmayprovideaccesstoorimprovementoflargeareasoflow-ornon-rankedwetlands.Sowhileitisclearthatindividualhigh-rankedfishbarriersandwetlandsshouldbeprioritisedformanagementactions,itiscriticaltofullyconsiderthepotentialforun-rankedfeaturestoseriouslyimpactonthesuccessofanymanagementactionatprioritysites.

Thereisaclearneedtomonitorandevaluatethesuccessofpreviousremediationworksinordertoguidethemostefficienteffortonfutureworks.Forexample,aspointedoutbyMarsden(2015),the

37

2015re-assessmentoffishbarriersexcludedthoseonwhichsomeremediationworkshadbeencompletedsincethepreviousassessment,regardlessofiftheremediationworkswereentirelyeffective.Asaconsequenceitispossiblethatineffectivepriorworksmayreducethebenefitoffutureworksonotherconnectedfeatures.Forexample,remediationofwetlandsabovetheFitzroyBarragebasedontheassumptionthatthefishwayonthebarrageprovideseffectivepassage.Effortstoimprovefishhabitatabovethebarragemaybeineffectiveifthebarrageitselfremainsasignificantbarriertofish.Therefore,robustevaluationofthesuccessofremediationorrepairworksisanessentialcomponentofanyprocessaimedatgainingthegreatestbenefitfromlimitedfunds.

Nosinglescorecaneffectivelyreflectthefullrangeofvaluesorconsiderationswhenprioritisingthesesystemsforremediationworks.SowhiletheintegratedprioritisationtoolpresentedhereidentifiesareaswithintheFBAregionthatcontainmultiplerankedfeaturesofinterest,carefulconsiderationoftheindividualcomponentsandfactorsthatunderpineachsub-tooliscriticalifthemaximumbenefitsfromremediationorrepairactionsaretoberealised.

38

7. Recommendations

Thedocumentedprioritisationprocessesthroughoutthispublicationaremeanttoguidetheenduserandthereforeitwouldbedisadventagoustorelyonasinglefinalscoretoprioritisemanagementactionsbasedoncomplexanddetailedindividualprocesses.Doingsoassumesthatthefinalscoresaccuratelyreflectthegoalsandvaluesoftheend-user.Itisessentialtofullyunderstandeachofthesub-componentssothatthefinalprioritisationdoesreflecttheaims,andachievesthegoalofmaximisingbenefitfrominvestments.

Decisionsupporttoolssuchasthisintegratedprioritisationtoolaimtosupportdecisionmakingbyassemblingandpresentingthecomplexofrelevantinformationinawaythatcanbeunderstoodbydecisionmakers,andcommunicatedtothebroadercommunitysothattheprocessistransparent.Theyarenotintendedtomakedecisionsinthemselves.Rather,theyprovidetherationalebehinddecisionsinawaythatpeoplecanclearlyunderstandhowandwhyparticularfeaturesrankhighlyorpoorlyintheprioritylist.Eachofthesubcomponentsisaflexiblesystem(exceptBlueMaps),andtheoutcomeswillvarydependingonthespecificgoals,objectivesandvaluejudgmentsoftheuser.Assuch,itisessentialthatanytimethetoolisused,thataclearsetofobjectivesisdefined,andtheweightingforeachofthescoringcriteriaareadjustedtomeetthestatedobjectives.

Thekeyrecommendationsarisingfromthisreportare:

• Understandthefunctioningofeachindividualtool,andthelimitationsoftheprocessof

combiningtheseintoasinglescore.

• Haveclearmanagementobjectivesthatguidetheprioritisationprocess,sinceoutcomesdependgreatlyonvaluejudgementsoftheend-users.

• Considertheoutcomesoftheindividualprioritisationstogetherwiththatoftheintegratedtool.

• Re-evaluatetheindividualtoolsinacomprehensivewaytoensurethatfactorsorprocessesaretreatedequivalentlyineach,andthatredundantscoringisremovedtoavoid“doubledipping”orover-inflatingfinalscoresbasedonrepeatedscoreforasinglefactor.

• Furtherdeveloptheuser-interfaceoftheintegratedprioritisationtooltoincludeupstreamanddownstreamconnectivitieswithotherrankedwetlandsorbarriersbeyondtheboundariesofeachindividualNC.

• EvaluateactualsynergieswithincandidateNC’sbeforeactionsareplanned.

• Considerthepotentialforun-rankedfeaturestoseriouslyimpactonthesuccessofanymanagementactionatprioritysites.

39

• Robustevaluationofthesuccessofremediationorrepairworksisanessentialcomponent

ofanyprocessaimedatgainingthegreatestbenefitfromlimitedfunds.

TheidealfinaltoolforprioritisingworkintheFBAregionwillprovidenotonlyasinglefinalscoreforeachNC,butwillallowtheusertodrilldownthroughlayersthatrepresentandcapturethecomplexitiesofeachindividualsub-tool,therebyallowingmanagementdecisionstobebasedonafullappreciationofthecomplexityandconnectivityamongdifferentpartsofthebasin.

40

8. ReferencesGreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority(2015)Assessingthechangestoecologicalprocessestothe

GreatBarrierReef.GBRMPATownsville.Unpublishedreport,37pp.

GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority(2012)InformingtheOutlookforGreatBarrierReefCoastalEcosystems.GBRMPA,Townsville.

GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority(2012)CoastalEcosystemsAssessmentFramework2012.GBRMPA,Townsville,29pp.

HLA(2007)WetlandDecisionSupportSystemworkshopmanual.HLAEnvirosciencesPtyLtd,33pp.

JaenschR,WestleyS,SmithP(2015)AprioritisationofFitzroyBasinwetlandsforNRMinvestment.ReporttoFitzroyBasinAssociation,45pp.

Marsden T (2015)Fitzroy BasinAssociation: Fish Barrier PrioritisationUpdate 2015. Report to theFitzroyBasinAssociation.AustralasianFishPassageServices,36pp.

Moore,MandMarsden,T.J.(2008).FitzroyBasinFishBarrierPrioritisationProject.QueenslandDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Fisheries.51pp.

GreatBarrierReefOutlookReport2014/GreatBarrierReefMarineParkAuthority(2014),328pp.

9. ClosureThisdocumentwaspreparedforFBAincollaborationwithourProgrampartners.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorrequireadditionaldetails,pleasecontacttheFitzroyBasinAssociationInc.RockhamptonQLD..

Appendices

41

Appendix A: Title

Appendices

42

AppendixB:Title