Unregulated Tech Mediation → Inevitable Online Deception ...
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water ...€¦ · Priorities for implementation...
Transcript of Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water ...€¦ · Priorities for implementation...
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
www.water.nsw.gov.au
Publisher
NSW Department of Primary Industries, a division of NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services.
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
First published August 2012
ISBN 978 1 74256 316 9
Report to be cited as:
Raine, A., Healey, M. and Ryan, N. (2012) Water Sharing Plans: Priorities for implementation activity in unregulated
river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach. NSW Office of Water, Sydney.
© State of New South Wales through Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services 2012.
This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in an unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal use or for non-commercial use within your organisation. To copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any of this publication you will need to seek permission from the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services.
Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (July 2012). However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that information on which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with the appropriate officer of the Department of Primary Industries or the user’s independent advisor.
Publication number 12_222
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background and purpose ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Legislative and other drivers ................................................................................................... 1
2. Developing a prioritisation approach to implementation ................................................................... 3
2.1 Contentious issues.................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Macro water sharing plan classification process..................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Classification results .................................................................................................. 5
2.2.2 Review of initial macro plan classifications................................................................ 6
2.2.2.1 Review of threatened species data......................................................................... 7
2.2.2.2 Review of community dependence and hydrologic stress.................................... 10
2.2.2.3 Recommended changes to initial macro plan classifications ............................... 12
2.3 Specific plan requirements.................................................................................................... 13
3. Defining Implementation Priorities................................................................................................... 15
4. Recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 18
5. References ...................................................................................................................................... 18
A2 Assessment of macro water sharing plan classification outcomes for existing unregulated water sharing plans ..................................................................................................................... 22
A2.1 Rational/background........................................................................................................... 22
A2.2 Method ................................................................................................................................ 23
A2.2.1 Assessment of spatial data.................................................................................... 24
A2.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of initial water source classifications ...................................... 25
A2.2.3 Caveats associated with data provided by OEH and DPI Fisheries ..................... 26
A2.3 Existing water sharing plan review results.......................................................................... 26
A2.3.1 Adelong Creek water sharing plan ........................................................................ 26
A2.3.1.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 26
A2.3.1.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 27
A2.3.1.2 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 28
A2.3.2 Commissioners Waters water sharing plan........................................................... 28
A2.3.2.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 28
A2.3.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 29
A2.3.2.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 30
A2.3.3 Upper Dorrigo water sharing plan ......................................................................... 30
A2.3.3.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 30
A2.3.3.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 31
ii | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.3.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 31
A2.3.4 Jilliby Jilliby Creek water sharing plan................................................................... 31
A2.3.4.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 31
A2.3.4.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 33
A2.3.4.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 33
A2.3.5 Kangaroo River water sharing plan ....................................................................... 33
A2.3.5.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 33
A2.3.5.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 35
A2.3.5.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 35
A2.3.6 Upper Karuah River (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan) ...................... 35
A2.3.6.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 35
A2.3.6.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 36
A2.3.6.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 36
A2.3.7 Mammy Johnston (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan).......................... 36
A2.3.7.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 37
A2.3.7.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 37
A2.3.7.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 37
A2.3.8 Central Karuah River (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan)..................... 38
A2.3.8.1 Assessment of risk and instream Value ............................................................. 38
A2.3.8.2.Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 39
A2.3.8.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 39
A2.3.9 Ourimbah water sharing plan ................................................................................ 39
A2.3.9.1 Assessment of risk and instream value.............................................................. 39
A2.3.9.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................... 40
A2.3.9.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................... 40
A2.3.10 Mooki River water source - part of the Phillips Creek, Mooki River,
Quirindi Creek and Warrah Creek water sharing plan.......................................... 41
A2.3.10.1 Assessment of risk and instream value............................................................ 41
A2.3.10.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................. 41
A2.3.10.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................. 42
A2.3.11 Tarcutta Creek..................................................................................................... 42
A2.3.11.1 Assessment of risk and instream value............................................................ 42
A2.3.11.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................. 43
A2.3.11.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................. 44
A2.3.12 Tenterfield Creek water sharing plan .................................................................. 44
A2.3.12.1 Assessment of risk and instream value............................................................ 44
iii | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.12.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................. 45
A2.3.12.3 Recommendation ............................................................................................. 45
A2.3.13 Upper Brunswick River water sharing plan ......................................................... 46
A2.3.13.1 Assessment of risk and instream value............................................................ 46
A2.3.13.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet............................................. 46
A2.3.13. 3 Recommendation ............................................................................................ 47
A2.3.3 Recommendations................................................................................................. 47
Tables
Table 1: Legislative drivers for the review of implementation activity of water sharing plans............... 2
Table 2: Description of contentious water sharing plans....................................................................... 4
Table 3: A summary of the review of risk classification outcomes for the water sharing plans
assessed. Shaded rows indicate plans/water sources that could be considered a priority for MER activities. .............................................................................................. 8
Table 4: Specific adaptive environmental management requirements for existing unregulated
water sharing plan........................................................................................................... 14
iv | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
v | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Figures
Figure 1: Proposed prioritisation process of existing unregulated water sharing plans........................ 3
Figure 2: Framework of Risk Classification Review .............................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Initial risk classification for water sources in existing unregulated water sharing plan (gazetted in 2004). ............................................................................................................ 6
Figure 4:Final classifications of water sources following review of environmental risk by NSW
Office of Water and community dependence by DPI...................................................... 13
Figure 5: Filters for Staged Assessment and Prioritisation of water sharing plan Implementation Activities ................................................................................................ 17
Figure A2 1: Risk classifications for water sources in existing unreg water sharing plan (Gazetted 2004); B,C,F – high priority; A,E,I – medium priority; D,G,H – low priority). ........................................................................................................................... 24
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and purpose
In 2004, some 20 water sharing plans for unregulated water sources commenced in NSW. These represented some of the first the plans to be rolled-out under the new Water Management Act 2000 (the
WM Act). The plans were developed by Water Management Committees that included government representation, as well as representation by key stakeholder groups. Each committee had an independent chair.
This first round of plans took considerable time to complete. In order for NSW to meet its requirements to have most extraction covered by a plan by 2012 a more stream-lined approach was required. For the majority of the remaining unregulated water sources within NSW, a macro-planning approach has been
applied. This approach classifies water sources according to their environmental and economic value and the risk-imposed to water dependent ecosystems and biota from extraction. The proposed rules for the sharing of water between the environment and other users in a given water source is then based on this
risk. For example, daily flow sharing would only be considered for a macro-plan water source where there is both high demand for water and high risk to instream values. With the first round of plans, daily flow sharing is a requirement regardless of the level of risk to instream values and demand for water. This
means that the level of management required for the first round of plans is far higher in some plans than that which would have been imposed by the macro-planning approach. See www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Water-sharing-plans/planning-process/default.aspx for
further information on the methods used to develop macro water sharing plans.
The same data used in the macro plan assessment process was analysed for each of the existing water sharing plan for unregulated water sources and used to provide an initial value and risk classification.
These initial classifications were then reviewed based on expert knowledge and assessment of data to provide a final classification. This last step is consistent with the Regional Panel review process that was undertaken for macro plan classification.
The purpose of this report is to document a risk assessment approach to unregulated water sharing plan implementation, with the level of risk, along with other parameters (including plan requirements), used to determine the level and/or priorities of implementation and monitoring to be undertaken.
1.2 Legislative and other drivers
The NSW Office of Water has a number of legislative drivers under the WM Act for implementation of unregulated water sharing plans. These are documented in Table 1. This report will assist in the reviews
outlined in Table 1 by providing a transparent and defensible risk management approach to support differences in implementation activity across plans for unregulated water sources, based on the risk to environmental values from extraction.
1 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Table 1: Legislative drivers for the review of implementation activity of water sharing plans
Description Section of the
Act
Requirement
Annual review of implementation
51 DWE is required to undertake annual reviews of implementation and report results in its Annual Report. A review has been undertaken after the 2007-2008 water year for the previous 4 years.
5 year audit of implementation.
44 An independent audit of water sharing plan implementation will occur 5 years after the date of gazettal for each plan. This paper will form the justification of differences in implementation across plans.
10 year review of water sharing plan
43A The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) will review water sharing plans prior to their 10th year of operation to assess the extent to which they have materially contributed to the relevant state standard and target.
Performance monitoring of water sharing plan
35 Each water sharing plan is required to have a set of Performance Indicators against which the strategies and objectives are to be assessed. DWE is required to undertake Performance Indicator (PI) monitoring across all plans, but given that the Water Management Act 2000 (the Act) is not explicit in this regard, it is up to DWE to determine the type and extent of monitoring to be undertaken in any given area.
Whilst the requirements in Table 1 are predominantly driven at a state level by the legislative platform there are a range of other processes that also need to be considered at the state and federal level. These include;
National Water initiative (NWI) monitoring and reporting requirements, whereby the degree of
monitoring and management for a water source subject to a water sharing plan can be commensurate with the nature and intensity of resource use (see Paragraph 40 of NWI). Additionally, the National Water Commission (NWC) undertakes biennial assessments of each
jurisdictions progress toward implementing the NWI. This report will provides the basis for assessing risk and justification for differing levels of implementation activity commensurate with that risk.
The NRC state standard for quality natural resource management (NRC, 2005) was developed in order to provide a transparent and defensible process to develop and evaluate implementation and performance of natural resource management plans. It is envisaged that the NRC will use
this state standard to evaluate the performance of the water sharing plans as required under section 43A of the WM Act. It is important that NSW Office of Water ensures its implementation, monitoring and reporting of the water sharing plans is consistent with the standard. Of particular
importance are the standards for risk management and information management that require documented and defensible evidence of processes of implementation and, or evidence of alternative strategies used to achieve required outcomes.
Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting of the water sharing plans requires understanding the links between implementation action and the effect that this action has on broad-scale implementation of the various water sharing plan provisions and in achieving the plan’s
objectives. NSW Office of Water is establishing an evaluation framework in order to document this process. Implementation Programs are tools that guide the Department’s implementation of the water sharing plans and use milestones to guide implementation activities. The programs
have been updated to incorporate this risk assessment and ensure the milestone reflect effective implementation priorities.
2 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
2. Developing a prioritisation approach to implementation
Under paragraph 40 of the National Water Initiative, the implementation of water sharing for a water
source can be commensurate with the nature and intensity of resource use. Using a risk-based approach to the application of implementation effort for the first round of plans, in conjunction with a review of plan requirements allows resources to be used more effectively, and ensure they are allocated to those water
sources that require more intensive monitoring and management.
The Australian and New Zealand Standard for Risk Management (JSA/SNZC, 2004) defines risk as ‘the chance of something happening that will have an impact on objectives’. In simple terms, risk can be
defined as ‘consequence’ multiplied by ‘likelihood’. The required outcome of the Natural Resources Commission’s state standard for risk is ‘Consideration and management of all identifiable risks and impacts to maximise efficiency and effectiveness, ensure success and avoid, minimise or control adverse
impacts’ (NRC, 2005).
As such this risk based approach, consistent with the state standard (NRC, 2005) will focus resources on those areas where the risk to water users and / or instream values of not undertaking an activity are
relatively high.
The following discussion proposes a hierarchy by which risk is assessed for existing water sharing plans. Figure 1 explains the conceptual model of the interactions that inform the prioritisation process discussed
in this report. It is based on consideration of the following:
Whether there are any contentious issues in a water source that require consideration;
The risk posed to the instream values of the water source from extraction (applying the macro
plan approach); and
A review of specific plan requirements,
and their interactions.
Figure 1: Proposed prioritisation process of existing unregulated water sharing plans
3 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
2.1 Contentious issues
It is important to consider contentious plans as a priority as, in most cases, the contentious issues have arisen due to conflict over water use and economic impacts, and risk to the instream environment. Two
of the existing water sharing plans are regarded as highly contentious (see Table 2).
Table 2: Description of contentious water sharing plans
Water Sharing Plan Contentious Issue
Coopers Creek An appeal to the water sharing plan by a number of licence holders was lodged with the Land and Environment Court in 2003, prior to the commencement of the plan. An out of court settlement has resulted in a number of key changes for which NSW Office of Water must take action.
Wybong Creek The water sharing plan for the Wybong Creek Water Source imposed a cease to pump (CtP) condition which was based on the 95th percentile of all days with flow. At the gauging station this was approximately equivalent to the 80th percentile of all days (including days with no flow). Additionally, water users argued that the stream gauging station forming the primary control was located in a section of stream that was unrepresentative of flow conditions in the majority of the stream. In 2006 water users made representations to NSW Office of Water over the above issues, as well as, the lack of equity between the Wybong water sharing plan and the proposed water access rules in the two neighbouring streams under the macro water sharing plan process. At this time, the CtP had been in place for some 220 consecutive days, despite flows along most of the stream upstream of the gauge. The water sharing plan was suspended, due to socio-economic issues raised by water users related to the frequency and duration of the Cease to Pump (CtP) trigger during the severe drought being experienced in the catchment. Visible flow conditions at a number of flow reference points have since been implemented.
2.2 Macro water sharing plan classification process
A risk assessment process has already been used to define water access and trading rules as part of the
analysis undertaken for macro-water sharing plans. The approach used is detailed in Macro Water Sharing Plans, the approach for unregulated rivers, report to assist community consultation (the community guide that can be obtained at www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Water-sharing-plans/planning-process/default.aspx). In brief, the analysis defines risk (risk = consequence x likelihood) to instream value based on the instream value (consequence) and the hydrologic stress (likelihood).
Risk to instream value (environmental risk) = instream value x hydrologic stress
Risk to instream value was then plotted with Community Dependence on Extraction (the volume and economic value of water extracted and the social benefit of water extraction). This macro plan analysis
was used to assess the 20 unregulated water sources subject to an existing water sharing plan, with the outcome being a matrix table (Figure 3).
It is proposed that those water sources within existing water sharing plan areas which represent a risk as
defined by the macro process, and subject to review, be deemed high priority for more detailed implementation activity due to the potentially higher level of risk to the values of the water source from extraction and the high level of community dependence on the water source. This is also consistent with
the current macro planning process..
The next section of this report details the outcomes of the assessment of existing unregulated water sharing plan water sources using the macro-planning analysis method (Figure 3). It also includes more
4 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
detailed evaluation of the threatened species data and community dependence. This more detailed evaluation was used instead of the Regional Panel review step used in the macro planning process and led to refinement of the initial water source classifications in Figure 3 to those presented in Figure 4..
This process is illustrated by Figure 2.
Figure 2: Framework of Risk Classification Review
2.2.1 Classification results
An assessment across existing unregulated water sharing plan water sources using the macro-planning
risk analysis was undertaken and is provided in Figure 3. A degree of caution needs to be used in interpreting Figure 3, because the macro plan process only assessed each water source relative to other water sources in the macro plan area. For example, the Upper Brunswick water source has only been
assessed relative to a small number of other water sources in the Brunswick River catchment. Relative to these, it scores highly. However, if it were to be compared to all other unregulated water sources in the state its relative ranking may be much less.
Additionally, the initial classifications of water sources subject to macro plans was reviewed by a Regional Panel (see the community guide). The Regional Panel process allowed the initial classifications to be reviewed based on local knowledge of panel members as well as the input of additional information that
was not included in the initial assessment. Instead of using a Regional Panel approach for this project, experts in ecology within NSW Office of Water reviewed the environmental risk rankings and regional agronomists within the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) reviewed the community dependence
rankings.
5 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Figure 3: Initial risk classification for water sources in existing unregulated water sharing plan (gazetted in 2004).
High Env Risk A B
Upper Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
C
Upper Brunswick
Coopers
Kangaroo
Commissioners
Jilliby (assessed as part of Wyong macro)
Dorrigo
Tenterfield
Mooki (part of Philips et al plan)
Medium Env Risk D E
Mammy Johnsons (part of Karuah plan)
Central Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
F
Ourimbah
Low Env Risk G
Aspley
Toorumbee
Upper Billabong
Rocky, Cobbadah, Upper Horton
Philips, Quirindi, Warrah
Lower Karuah and Port Stephens (part of Karuah plan)
H
Wandella
Mandagery
Lower Horton (part of Rocky et al plan)
Blicks (part of Dorrigo plan)
Castlereagh above Binnaway
I
Wybong
Adelong
Tarcutta
Low Comm. Dep. Med. Comm. Dep. High Comm. Dep.
A number of the existing plans were split into their component water sources to make classification consistent with the macroplanning classification process. These included dividing the Karuah into upper , Central, Mammy Johnsons and Port Stephens; Phillips, Quirindi, Warrah, and Mooki assessed
separately; Blicks River separated from the Dorrigo; and separation of Lower and Upper Horton, and Rocky and Cobbadah Creeks.
2.2.2 Review of initial macro plan classifications
A process similar to the Regional Panels was used to review the initial water source classifications of the
existing 20 water sharing plans for unregulated water sources, to ensure the initial classifications were realistic, and to allow amendment based on further information and analysis.
The review involved:
a detailed review of the threatened species data used in the initial classification by NSW Office of Water ecologists; and
a review of the community dependence used in the initial classification by DPI agronomists.
6 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
7 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
2.2.2.1 Review of threatened species data
To assist in the prioritisation of existing water sharing plans (water sources) for monitoring and evaluation,
those water source classified at medium and high community dependence and medium and high ecological risk were reviewed (ie. B, C, E, F and I classifications identified in Figure 3). The review was a rapid desktop re-assessment utilising spatial datasets, threatened species reports and other published
literature.
The aim of the review was to determine which attributes were likely to be located within or near points of surface water extraction as these attributes are potentially at greatest risk from water extraction.
The review focused on threatened species and National Park Estate scores1, and included re-evaluation of such outcomes linked to Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) subregions and relationships with the distribution of surface water licenses in each water source. Threatened species
data provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for the initial classification of water sources were apportioned to IBRA subregions, some of which either encompassed existing Water Sharing Plan boundaries or overlapped several water source boundaries.
Some of spatial data sets for these attributes were readily available from the NSW Office of Water corporate data system while other threatened species spatial and published information was available from the OEH internet (BIONET mapping tool) and NSW DPI Fisheries website. Threatened species
profiles, recovery plans and other published literature were reviewed to assist in determining if threatened species occurred within existing water sharing plan areas. Where additional information was required to confirm the presence or absence of threatened species within existing water sharing plan boundaries,
scientists and managers within OEH and DPI Fisheries were consulted. Full details of the background and method used in this review are provided in Appendix 2. The review of environmental risk did not evaluate the hydrologic stress and assumes that all entitlement is active (see section 2.2.2.2). However,
subcatchment usage (ie Peak Daily Demand = PDD), a component of hydrologic stress, was evaluated for some water sources through sensitivity analysis or adjustment if the data was viewed as being incorrect (see Appendix 2)
Key outcomes from this review include:
5 of 12 water sources had National Park ‘sensitivity’ scores reduced (1 increased);
12 water sources had IBRA subregion ‘issues’;
A number of threatened species above points of extraction;
Peak Daily Demand (hydrological stress) was an over-riding factor in 4 water sources and within water source usage should be reviewed as it influences hydrologic stress and instream risk
outcomes;
Risk from extraction reduced in 4 Plans but increased in 2;
4 water sources remained ‘highest risk’ (B or C).see dot point below
At least 2 water sources require re-assessment of the presence/absence of a threatened fish species as if included as known to occur, it could influence the ‘risk’ outcomes
1 Only National Park Estate that intersects or are adjacent to a named drainage line have been identified for sensitivity to flow assessment. Further details can be found in www.dwe.nsw.gov.au/water/pdf/macro_unreg_manual_web.pdf.
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Table 3 provides a summary of the review of risk classification outcomes for the Water Sharing Plans assessed.
Table 3: A summary of the review of risk classification outcomes for the water sharing plans assessed. Shaded rows indicate plans/water sources that could be considered a priority for MER activities.
Existing
water sharing
plan Name
Initial Risk
Classification
Key Factors That Influenced a Change to Risk Classification
New Risk Classification
Recommendation
Adelong Creek
I NOTE: The subcatchment usage (PDD) value for this water source was modified. 50% of threatened species scores reduced due to lack of known records within water source (error attributed to use of IBRA subregions). National Park Estate is above extraction and unlikely to be sensitive to extraction and score was reduced. Reducing the scores of these attributes significantly reduced final Instream Value and Risk to Instream Value scores.
F It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (low risk to instream values). The 50th percentile flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50th percentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain a F. A check also be made to determine if the Purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source.
Commissioners Waters
C National Park Estate is generally above extraction, score reduced. 67% of threatened species had scores reduced. Reducing the scores significantly reduced final Instream Value and Risk to Instream Value scores.
F Initial Risk classification be reduced from C to F.
(Dorrigo) Upper Dorrigo
C Reducing scores for 55% of threatened species did not reduce the risk to instream values. The Eastern freshwater cod is known to occur in this water source and along with the known threatened species with scores unchanged, extraction of flows could impact on them.
C Initial Risk classification remain a C due to extraction within this water source (ie cumulative risk to instream values is a key driver). This water sharing plan should be considered as a priority for immediate MER work
Jilliby Jilliby Creek
C 88% of threatened species (and declared location) scores reduced due to lack of known records. National Park Estate is above extraction and score reduced. Reducing the scores significantly reduced final Instream Value and Risk to Instream Value scores.
F Initial Risk classification be reduced from C to F.
Kangaroo River
C 84% of threatened species scores reduced due to lack of known records, did not reduce the risk. Macquarie Perch no longer found. Within subcatchment usage (PDD), although medium, is the key factor influencing risk to instream values.
C Initial Risk classification remain a C. PDD usage should be re-assessed to determine actual daily usage. This water sharing plan should be considered as a priority for immediate MER work if PDD does not significantly change.
8 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
9 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Existing water
sharing plan Name
Initial Risk
Classification
Key Factors That Influenced a Change to Risk Classification
New Risk Classification
Recommendation
(Karuah) Upper Karuah
B Reducing scores 60% of threatened species and 1 threatened community did not reduce the risk to instream values in this water source. High levels of subcatchment usage (PDD), is the key factor influencing risk to instream values.
B Initial Risk classification remain a B due to extraction within this water source. PDD usage should be re-assessed to determine actual daily usage as data used may not be reliable and dated (ie VOLCON data). This water sharing plan should be considered as a priority for immediate MER work if PDD does not significantly change.
(Karuah) Central Karuah
E Scores were reduced for two threatened frogs, two bird species and two Declared Location attributes due to lack of known records within water source, or if they do/could occur, are not considered instream dependent. Reducing scores did not change the initial risk to instream values in this water source.
E It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream values from extraction).
(Karuah) Mammy Johnsons
E Scores reduced for all of the threatened frog and two bird species due to lack of known records within water source, or if they do/could occur, are not considered instream dependent. Reducing scores did not change the initial risk to instream values in this water source.
E It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream values from extraction). The MER Steering Committee may whish to consider if the Risk classification should be a H (low level of risk to instream values) based on the information provided in Review Report.
(Phiilips etc) Mooki
C Very high level of hydrologic stress derived mostly from within water source extraction. Majority of threatened bird species and endangered ecological communities had scores reduced to zero due to the lack of known records. Two threatened fish species did not have their scores changed and this water source is not considered key habitat.
I Initial Risk Classification should be an I. Risk to Instream Value attributes low due to the low level of sensitivity of known threatened species/endangered ecological communities to extraction. Not an immediate priority for MER work.
Ourimbah F 54% of threatened species were reduced due to lack of known records within water source, or if they do/could occur, do so above points of extraction. National Park Estate in the middle of the water source had its score increased due to likely sensitivity of attributes to extraction. Score modifications did not change the initial risk to instream values in this water source.
F It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an F (medium risk to instream values from extraction).
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
10 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Existing water
sharing plan Name
Initial Risk
Classification
Key Factors That Influenced a Change to Risk Classification
New Risk Classification
Recommendation
Tarcutta I NOTE: The subcatchment usage value for this water source was modified as the original value did not adequately reflect the annual entitlement for this water source. 50% of threatened species scores reduced due to lack of known records within water source (error attributed to use of IBRA subregions). National Park Estate is above extraction and unlikely to be sensitive to extraction and score was reduced. Lower Murray EEC score increased from predicted to known to occur. Modifying the scores of these attributes did not change the final Instream Value and Risk to Instream Value scores.
F It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (low risk to instream values). The 50th percent125 flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50the percentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain a F. A check also be made to determine if the Purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source.
Tenterfield Creek
C Reducing scores for 33% of threatened species did not reduce the risk to instream values. Threatened fish known or predicted to occur in this water source are key species and extraction during low flows could impact on them.
C Initial Risk classification remain a C. This water sharing plan should be a priority for immediate MER work due to reporting deadlines listed within the existing water sharing plan, particularly the assessment of pool draw-down rules on threatened fish species.
Upper Brunswick River
C National Park Estate is above extraction, score reduced. 43% of threatened species have scores reduced. Reducing scores significantly reduced final Instream Value and Risk to Instream Value scores.
F Initial Risk classification be reduced from C to F.
A detailed report on the results of the review is provided at Appendix 2.
2.2.2.2 Review of community dependence and hydrologic stress
The process used to estimate community dependence is detailed in the community guide. A summary of the method used in calculating hydrologic stress is provided below:
Hydrologic stress = extraction demand (calculated as peak daily demand) ÷ available flow (calculated as a flow percentile in the peak demand month)
A major assumption used in the calculation of hydrologic stress is that all entitlement is active. Hence the calculated peak daily demand represents a worst case scenario, and may be a significant over-estimate of hydrologic stress. In many cases, peak daily demand and yearly usage may be significantly lower.
Additionally, in many unregulated systems, extraction pressures only occur in dry years, where irrigation is used to supplement low rainfall. Hydrologic stress is a major determinand of risk to instream value, so any change can effect a change to the classification, see below:
Risk to instream value (environmental risk) = instream value x hydrologic stress
A review of volumetric conversion data (ie. data on the conversion of all licences in NSW from area-based to a volume) was used as an initial attempt to determine the proportion of entitlement, in any given water
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
sharing plan area that was active. The intent was that the information could then be used to inform a possible review of hydrologic stress. The review of volumetric data found that information could not be used to provide an estimate of the amount of entitlement that is active. For hydrologic stress, the
assumption was made that all entitlement was active.
A form of sensitivity analysis undertaken in the review of threatened species involved the check of the hydrologic stress outcomes for a number of water sources. This was undertaken if a large number of
threatened species and/or National Park Estate scores were modified (up to 50 per cent or greater changes in some spreadsheets) and there were no changes to the Final Instream Value scores. For the water sources where this was required, the sensitivity analysis involved reducing the Peak Daily Demand
(PDD) scores, a part of the Hydrologic Stress calculation, until Final Risk scores moved from the existing score outcome to the next lower level of Risk. This form of sensitivity analysis indicated the influence of PDD and hydrologic stress on Final Instream Risk outcomes for some water sources. Although the initial
classification of water sources assumed that all water entitlement was at full development, the sensitivity analysis allowed investigation of the PDD scores in water sources where initial scores for this attribute were considered incorrect. This type of sensitivity analysis also assisted in the re-checking of the PDD
data initially supplied.
The review of Community Dependence was undertaken by local agronomists within DPI, and was based on a qualitative approach using their knowledge of agriculture in the given water source. This review
resulted in a recommended change in classification for four water sources and these are discussed in Table 4 together with a discussion for Commissioners Waters.
11 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Table 4: Results of the review of community dependence undertaken by DPI agronomists. Existing
water sharing
plan Name
Initial Community Dependence
Comment New Community Dependence
Recommendation
Commissioners Waters
High One previously inactive, but large, licence has become active since the planning process and now drip irrigates vegetables on a 400 acre property with large local employment impacts! The other main active user (downstream) has trouble getting the water he needs as a result. A turf grower is established downstream of the Armidale water filtration plant and is dependent on the regular town water supply filter flush - a modified rule was included in the plan to allow for his extraction.
High No change
(Dorrigo) Blicks
Medium This zone 4 of Dorrigo plan has already been given a fairly tough cease to pump rule as a result of trade-offs in the planning process (allowed Dorrigo zone 2 to extract to a deeper level in exchange for tougher CTP in Zone 4) There are some large potato irrigators in this catchment with high seasonal employment.
High Change to high
(Phillips, etc.) Phiilips, Quirindi, and Warrah
Low
This area is particularly well developed and has had very significant reductions in groundwater entitlements like the Mooki water users. These producers would be looking to offset some of this reduction by accessing other water sources.
High Change Phiilips, Quirindi, and Warrah from low to high
(Rocky, etc) Rocky, Cobbadah, and Upper Horton
Low There are some reasonable set ups that take advantage of flows when available and would be inclined to move to Med. Comm Dep. Both Upper and Lower Horton sources should not be discriminated as both affect the economies of Barraba and Bingara which are small communities but highly productive sheep and cattle grazing systems which include intensive fodder production - improved irrigated pastures, lucerne and oat production.
Medium Change Rocky, Cobbadah, and Upper Horton from low to medium
Upper Brunswick River
High The main irrigation extractor is a dairy farm which has now been given supplementary water from the Mullumbimby sewerage treatment works. However, this is rather less volume than was originally envisaged and he still depends on the river to top up his requirements.
Medium Change Upper Brunswick from High to Medium
2.2.2.3 Recommended changes to initial macro plan classifications
The results of the review process, including reviews of both environmental risk and community
dependence are provided in Figure 4.
12 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Figure 4:Final classifications of water sources following review of environmental risk by NSW Office of Water and community dependence by DPI
High Env Risk A B
Upper Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
C
Coopers
Kangaroo
Dorrigo
Tenterfield
Medium Env Risk D E
Mammy Johnsons (part of Karuah plan)
Central Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
Upper Brunswick
F
Commissioners
Jilliby (assessed as part of Wyong macro)
Adelong
Tarcutta
Ourimbah
Low Env Risk G
Aspley
Toorumbee
Upper Billabong
Lower Karuah and Port Stephens (part of Karuah plan)
H
Wandella
Mandagery
Lower Horton Rocky, Cobbadah, Upper Horton
Blicks (part of Dorrigo plan)
Castlereagh above Binnaway
I
Mooki (part of Philips et al plan)
Wybong
Philips, Quirindi, Warrah
Low Comm. Dep. Med. Comm. Dep. High Comm. Dep.
2.3 Specific plan requirements
All water sharing plans have a range of generic implementation requirements, however, many of the existing plans have specific implementation requirements relating to environmental water and can be best described as adaptive environmental management provisions. Changes can be made to pumping
thresholds associated with low flow provisions or high flow access and pool protection based on evidence provided by ecological investigation and an investigation of socio-economic impact. The timeframes for these amendments are specified within the various plans and therefore can also be prioritised in
accordance with the legislative timeframe, and secondly this process prioritises implementation activity within a timeframe.
In addition to the above, many water sharing plans have a range of performance indicators that will be
monitored in order to evaluate the plans performance against its specific environmental and other objectives by year 10. These are in addition to the generic objectives associated with protecting aboriginal cultural values and the River Flow Objectives that occur in most water sharing plan, as listed:
Protect pools in periods of no flow
Protect very low flows
Protect a proportion of freshes and high flows, and inundation patterns
Maintain natural flow variability
13 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A full list of plan objectives for each water sharing plan is provided in Appendix 3, monitoring for the 10 year review will need to assess if the plan provisions were successful in meeting these objectives. Additionally Table 4 below outlines the specific adaptive environmental requirements and legislative
timeframes of the water sharing plans that have been specified as milestones within the Implementation Program.
Table 4: Specific adaptive environmental management requirements for existing unregulated water sharing plan
Water Source Specific Implementation Requirements (Adaptive Environmental Management Provisions)
Adelong Calculate TDEL for Hindmarsh Ck exclusion zone
Apsley No requirements.
Castlereagh above Binnaway
Low flow Field verification (2-4ML/day Z1, 2-4ML/day Z2, 2-3ML/day Z3, 2-4ML/day Z4, 1-3 Z5) within the term of the plan
Identify pools in the river and establish the initial pool control levels and key sites.
High flow assessment for management zones 1-5 of the need to protect or restore a portion of freshes or high flows after year 5 and conversion of A and B to C class if required.
Commissioners Low flow Field verification (1-2ML/day BoC) within term of the plan
Very low flow access for schedule 5 licenses ceases in Dumaresq Creek if Armidale Council ceases water treatment plant discharge
Coopers Assessment of fish passage flow requirements for Eastern Freshwater Cod and low flow Field verification (20-31ML/day BoC) within term of the plan
Dorrigo Low flow Field verification (109ML/day Z1, 36ML/day Z2, 20ML/day Z3, 27ML/day Z4) within the term of the plan
Portion of groundwater recharge reserved as environmental health water and consequently long-term average extraction limit
Groundwater dependency studies may lead to further GDEs added to schedule 8
Jilliby Low flow Field verification (not less than 5% of days with flow) within the term of the plan
Kangaroo Low flow Field verification (4-7ML/day BoC) within the term of the plan
Identify pools in the river and establish the initial pool control levels and key sites for pools of ecological significance.(yr 5)
Very low flow IDEL access ceases yr 8
Karuah Cease to pump (CtP) to be increased from 3.5ML/day to provide and maintain a 10 ML/day flow at Stroud Weir during the periods 1 June to 31 July and 1 October to 30 November for a period of 3 weeks. The Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Fisheries, may determine a lesser period than three weeks if warranted.
When daily extraction exceeds 25ML/day IDEL of access licenses in B and C classes established (triggered by usage)
Low flow Field verification (4-9ML/day Bounds of Change [BoC]) within term of the plan
Mandagery Low flow Field verification (1.2-1.7ML/day Z1, 3.5-5.6ML/day Z2, 4.2-5.5ML/day Z3, 10-14ML/day Z4, 3.7-4.8 Z5) within the term of the plan
Identify pools in the river and establish the initial pool control levels and key sites.
High flow assessment of the need to restore a portion of the freshes and high flows (subject to flow level availability) after yr 5 of the plan, and conversion of A to C class if required.
Ourimbah Low flow Field verification (4-7ML/day BoC) within the term of the plan
Phillips, Quirindi, Warrah, Mooki
Low flow Field verification (not more than 50ML/day) to protect flows to end of system within the term of the plan
14 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
15 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Water Source Specific Implementation Requirements (Adaptive Environmental Management Provisions)
Rocky, Cobbadah, Lower and Upper Horton
Low flow Field verification (levels equivalent to 95th percentile of days with flow) within the term of the plan
Identify pools in the river and establish the initial pool control levels and key sites.
Tarcutta Low flow Field verification (13-23ML/day BoC) within the term of the plan
Tenterfield Low flow Field verification (not more than 10ML/day Z5) within the term of the plan
Pool pumping study to evaluate the effect of access to the very low flows where access can be ceased by yr 5 as a result. Otherwise access to the very low flows allowed until year 8.
Identify pools in the river and establish the initial pool control levels and key sites.
Toorumbee No requirements
Upper Billabong
Low flow Field verification (95th-80th percentile all days with flow) within the term of the plan
Upper Brunswick
No requirements
Wandella Low flow Field verification within the term of the plan
Wybong Low flow Field verification (0.5-1ML/day BoC) within the term of the plan, plan suspended due to inadequate CtP so rules need to be reviewed as a priority ie: Pool control levels and key sites reviewed
Studies into water extraction and connectivity of surface and groundwater required within the term of the plan.
In summary any prioritisation of implementation activity needs to incorporate an assessment of the legislative timeframe for the activity. For example within the Tenterfield water sharing plan by year 5 of the plan action can be taken to cease access to the very low flows if pool draw down studies identify an
ecological impact. If this timeframe for evaluation is missed water users will have access to the very low flows until the end of year 8 of the plan, which may have an impact upon ecologically important taxa such as the purple spotted gudgeon. As Tenterfield water sharing plan was also evaluated in category C of
high ecological risk and high community dependence, implementation activities for this provision would be a priority due to both the outcomes of the risk assessment and the legislative basis.
3. Defining Implementation Priorities
NSW Office of Water has recently undertaken a review of unregulated water sharing plan implementation.
This review was required under Section 51 of the Act and encompassed the past four years of implementation activities in evaluating whether the Implementation Programs were effective in implementing the water sharing plans. One of the outcomes of this review was the development of a
revised Implementation Program (2009) to facilitate more successful implementation of the plans for their remaining term. The milestones within the program reflect the water sharing plan legislative timeframes and are consistent with this prioritisation process.
Successful Implementation of the water sharing plan provisions requires the department to undertake a range of activities. Some of these activities can be considered Keystone, in that they are fundamental for driving a range of flow on processes and implementation actions that result in implementing the water
sharing plan provisions. These keystone implementation activities include the following;
establishment of new gauges, required in order to implement daily flow sharing and the CtP, key to protection of environmental water,
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
establishment of metering in order to enable temporary trading, monitor compliance with the pumping thresholds and long term average extraction limit,
establishment of flow classes in order to share daily extraction through a range of flows,
monitoring growth in basic landholder rights (BLR) in order to review the individual daily extraction limit, total daily extraction limit and long term average extraction limit,
compliance, important to ensure implementation of the water sharing plan provisions and flow
rules, equity and parity,
field verifications used to inform plan amendments of the pumping thresholds such as the very low flow, low flow and high flow,
performance monitoring, required in order to evaluate the performance of the plan provisions in meeting the environmental, hydrologic, socio-economic and cultural objectives,
plan amendments, required as a result of evaluation of implementation, but that are not
legislatively required currently within the plan eg: Wybong and Coopers where contention over rules or as a result of implementation led to suspension of the plans.
Defining the priorities has been undertaken at a number of stages. The first stages of assessment have
been explained in section 2 and involved
identifying contentious issues,
defining the ecological risk and community dependence of the plan area, and
the water sharing plan legislative timeframes.
The next stage of identifying implementation priorities is to evaluate the interactions between the first stage of assessment (as above). This is described previously by Figure 1 and further explained here.
The weighting of significance of the interactions in how they determine priority implementation activity by water sharing plan area is determined by the first stage of assessment and which activity the evaluation impacts on. This is explained by Figure 5 that highlights that the outcome of the contentious issues
assessment should be the first filter in identifying priority implementation activities, as the level of activity required by the NSW Office of Water would generally be high in addressing and resolving the contention. If plans have passed the contentious issues filter the legislative timeframe requirements for certain
processes would be the next filter in the context of the macro-planning assessment outcomes. The example in Figure 5 shows that by year 5 the Tenterfield water sharing plan requires a pool pumping study in order to evaluate the impact of access to the very low flow class, as only by year 5 can adaptive
environmental amendments be made to cease access to the very low flows, prior to year 8. This study would receive a higher priority than low flow field verifications in other plans, apart from Wybong and Coopers Creek, that were contentious, because it is required by year five and the other plans require this
within the term of the plan. The last filter in the prioritisation process is the macro-planning risk assessment. The Tenterfield plan has also received a C classification meaning that it was rated with high ecological risk and community dependence. This again reinforces that not only is the pool pumping study
important to monitor the impact of pool drawn down on the habitat for the purple spotted gudgeon and therefore potentially amending access to the very low flow, but other activities such as metering and daily flow sharing also receive a high priority than other plan areas with a G (low ecological risk and community
16 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
dependence) classification, such as the Upper Billabong water sharing plan. This prioritisation process is important as the level of implementation activity should be commensurate with risk.
Figure 5: Filters for Staged Assessment and Prioritisation of water sharing plan Implementation Activities
Contentious Issue
Risk Classification
WSP Legislative Timeframe
First Stage of Assessment
Outcome of Assessment
Activity Required by Assessment
Wybong WSP – CtP rules
Coopers Creek Court Appeal
After year 5 of the plan
Within the Term of the Plan
By Year 5 of the Plan
G – Low ecological risk and community dependence
C – High ecological risk and community dependence
CtP low flow field Verification
Low and High flow field verification
Fish Passage Study
High flow field verification (Castlereagh / Mandagery)
Tenterfield Pool pumping study
Metering / Daily Flow sharing
Performance Monitoring
17 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
4. Recommendation
In order to successfully implement the unregulated water sharing plan for the remaining plan term a risk
assessment process was used to prioritise implementation activity within and across plan areas within NSW, to ensure that appropriate key implementation activities are undertaken in those water sources where the risk to the community and the environment is highest. This is consistent with the intent of the
National Water Initiative where the degree of monitoring and management of a water source can be commensurate with the nature and intensity of resource use. It also ensures that the current water sharing plans for unregulated water sources are managed in a manner that will be consistent with the
management regime for the majority of unregulated water sources in NSW, as determined through the macro planning approach. It will also help address issues of social equity between the existing water sharing plan and macro plans.
5. References
Anstis, M. 2002. Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. Reed New Holland Australia.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). 2005. Threatened species,
populations and ecological communities of NSW web site. Department of Environment and Climate Change. Available from: http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/home_species.aspx
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA). 2009. Maccullochella peelii peelii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66633
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA). 2008. Australian Biological Resources Study: Australian Fauna Directory. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and
Arts, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-
resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Archaeophya_adamsi
Department of Land and Water Conservation, NSW Fisheries, NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service. 2002. Environmental Water Requirements for the Kangaroo River Catchment, Revision 111, Discussion Paper prepared by the Department of Land and Water Conservation for the Shoalhaven Illawarra Water Management Committee, May 2002, DLWC Wollongong, NSW.
ISBN 0 7347 5284 9.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2006. Macro water sharing plans: The approach for unregulated rivers. Report to assist community consultation. Department of Natural Resources
NSW
Department of Primary Industries (DPI). 2005. Threatened species conservation web site. Department of Primary Industries. Available from: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-
protection/species-conservation/what-current
Harris, E. 2008 unpub. Determining Freshwater Requirements of Estuaries for the Macro Water sharing Plans: Technical Support Document: Draft as at 8th Sept, 2008. Department of Water and
Energy.
18 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
19 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Joint Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand Committee. 2004. Risk Management. Standards Australia / Standards New Zealand, Sydney / Wellington.
Murray, J. Raine, A. and Ryan, N.J. 2009 unpublished. Annual Review of the Implementation of
New South Wales Water Sharing Plans: 2004-2008, In support of Section 51 of the Water Management Act 2000: For Internal Use Only, Department of Water and Energy.
Natural Resources Commission (NRC). 2005. Standard for Quality Natural Resource
Management. ISBN 1921050071
NSW Government. 2005. NSW Government Agency biodiversity database systems. http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/BioNet.cfm?is_ie5up
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
20 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Ap
pen
dix
1 E
nti
tlem
ent
per
wat
er s
ou
rce
Wat
er s
harin
g pl
an
No.
lic
ence
s≥10
0ML
Cum
ulat
ive
Ent
itlem
ent
≥100
ML
No.
lic
ence
s≥50
ML
Cum
ulat
ive
Ent
itlem
ent
≥50M
L
No.
lic
ence
s≥10
ML
Cum
ulat
ive
Ent
itlem
ent
≥10M
L T
otal
No.
Li
cenc
es
Tot
al
Ent
itlem
ent
Tot
al
Ent
itlem
ent
- T
WS
E
ntitl
eme
nt
Hig
h P
rio
rity
Upp
er K
arua
h*
4 47
817
1308
33
1828
3618
4618
46
Com
mis
sion
ers
7 15
639
1687
33
2126
5122
1821
85
Coo
pers
22
36
2541
4846
78
5738
135
5981
5981
D
orrig
o 32
75
0253
9042
88
1005
213
110
204
9904
Ji
lliby
Jill
iby
2 59
04
700
18
981
2610
3510
35
Kan
garo
o 15
23
6339
3973
67
4658
104
4838
4753
M
ooki
23
30
728
2530
885
29
3098
340
3105
731
057
Our
imba
h 6
5734
1663
1656
72
6092
7444
2444
T
ente
rfie
ld
10
2750
2336
3750
42
0868
4306
3482
U
pper
B
runs
wic
k 2
460
355
59
678
2271
571
5 T
OT
AL
S
123
5579
323
062
949
461
6851
270
569
644
6340
2
M
ediu
m
Pri
ori
ty
O
ther
Kar
uah
Wat
er S
ourc
es
2 42
511
1042
24
1390
3614
5211
32
Ade
long
17
27
5228
3509
46
3942
5339
82
Tar
cutta
15
27
3039
4487
83
5498
9055
25
Wyb
ong
27
5061
5972
3310
1 86
3610
386
49
TO
TA
LS
61
10
968
137
1627
125
4 19
466
282
1960
811
32
Lo
w P
ri
oty
ri
Aps
ley
0 0
327
25
302
932
6
Cas
tlere
agh
8 22
0422
3202
53
4105
5441
10
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
21 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
abov
e B
inna
way
M
anda
gery
22
56
6444
7200
86
83
0698
8372
Phi
lips
et a
l (w
ithou
t Moo
ki)
6 12
4134
1014
8121
4237
2160
Roc
ky e
t al
24
4208
4052
5557
57
3959
5747
W
ande
lla
1 8
26
03
394
505
1655
1U
pper
B
illab
ong
2 30
03
3
330
330
333
0T
ooru
mbe
e 0
00
00
0
00
TO
TA
LS
63
24
6
1387
712
518
134
2142
927
621
596
0
*
The
Upp
er K
arua
h W
ater
Sou
rce
For
ms
Zon
e 2
of th
e K
arua
h w
ate
r sh
arin
g pl
an. T
he r
emai
ning
Wat
er S
ourc
es in
the
wat
er s
harin
g pl
an
area
are
incl
uded
in ‘O
ther
Kar
uah
Wat
er S
ourc
es’
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Appendix 2: Detailed report on assessment of threatened species data
A2 Assessment of macro water sharing plan classification outcomes for existing unregulated water sharing plans
A2.1 Rational/background
In the initial phase of the macro water sharing plan process, all existing (Gazetted) unregulated water sharing plans were included in all catchment classifications. This was primarily due to the assessment of
cumulative hydrologic stress, and the relative assessment of instream values throughout a catchment. Hence the existing water sharing plans received indicative classification outcomes for draft water access and trading rules.
It is proposed that those water sources within existing water sharing plan areas with a risk classification of B, C, or F, as defined by the macro process be deemed high priority for more detailed implementation activity due to the potentially higher level of risk to the values of the water source from extraction and the
high level of community dependence on the water source.
This study aims to provide a ‘reality check’ (similar to regional Panel review…more information on this process can be obtained from www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Water-sharing-plans/planning-process/default.aspx) of the macro water sharing plan classification outcomes of existing gazetted unregulated water sharing plans to:
determine the spatial extent of the environmental features (threatened species and specific
instream values) relative to extraction as a further filter. This will help understand if the upstream value in a water source are likely to be impacted extraction.
determine if the threatened species/and specific instream values at risk to extraction, are reliant
on longitudinal connectivity, an important factor that could be mediated by extraction.
This review also aims to determine if the initial classification outcome for instream risk in a water source accurately reflect the risk to instream values (eg. the instream value attributes are likely to be directly
impacted by extraction as they occur close to or within points of extraction). This review will assist in prioritising where effort could be placed for monitoring the outcomes of water sharing rules within a water source (gazetted water sharing plans).
The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has indicated that some of the threatened species, communities and population scores provided by them for use in the classification process may be ‘over-estimated’ for some water sources. The likely cause of over-estimated scoring of threatened species in a
water source was the use of IBRA (Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia) sub-regions.
In the assessment methodology supplied DECC (2005),comprehensive modelled data for the North Coast and Hunter was available for use to predict the occurrence of threatened species. Thus, for the North
Coast and Hunter water sharing plan areas, NSW Wildlife Atlas data was used to indicate a species is known to be present, and modelled data used to determine if a species is predicted to be present in a water source. In all other regions, except the North Coast and Hunter, threatened species were
determined to be known or predicted in a water source using the OEH Threatened Species Profile
22 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Database (DECC (2005). This database uses landscape units called IBRA sub-regions to apportion threatened species data.
Of the 17 IBRA bioregions in NSW, although 250 sub-regions have been delineated, 130 reflect a unifying
set of major environmental influences which shape the occurrence of flora and fauna and their interaction with the physical environment. For each of the 130 sub-regions, the OEH Threatened Species database lists all threatened species/populations/ communities known to or predicted to occur in each sub-region.
If a sub-region overlays one or more water sources, the same score was attributed to each water source. A threatened species that occupies a water source in the southern portion of a sub-region will be scored the same in a water source in the northern part of a sub-region, even if no OEH database records indicate
that species did actually occur in the northern water source. This review will also assist in determining if this is the case for data used to classify the existing water sharing plan water sources.
A2.2 Method
The classification spreadsheets used to classify unregulated river water sources in NSW were collated to assess the initial outcomes of each existing water sharing plan (water source). Background on the process used to classify water sources to determine draft water sharing rules is provided in DNR (2006).
Reference to known or the predicted occurrence of threatened species, populations and communities for each water source review (see A2.3 below) is based on the data provided by OEH and DPI for the classification of unregulated water sources in each catchment.
An assessment across existing unregulated water sharing plan water sources has shown that there are some 9 water sources in existing plans that fall high environmental risk (B, C) category (see Figure A2.1), with 3 medium (F, E) and 14 classified as low risk to instream values.
23 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Figure A2 1: Risk classifications for water sources in existing unreg water sharing plan (Gazetted 2004); B,C,F – high priority; A,E,I – medium priority; D,G,H – low priority).
High Env Risk A B
Upper Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
C
Upper Brunswick
Coopers
Kangaroo
Commissioners
Jilliby (assessed as part of Wyong macro)
Dorrigo
Tenterfield
Mooki (part of Philips et al plan)
Medium Env Risk
D E
Mammy Johnsons (part of Karuah plan)
Central Karuah (part of Karuah plan)
F
Ourimbah
Low Env Risk G
Aspley
Toorumbee
Upper Billabong
Rocky, Cobbadah, Upper Horton
Philips, Quirindi, Warrah
Lower Karuah and Port Stephens (part of Karuah plan)
H
Wandella
Mandagery
Lower Horton (part of Rocky et al plan)
Blicks (part of Dorrigo plan)
Castlereagh above Binnaway
I
Wybong
Adelong
Tarcutta
Low Comm. Dep. Med. Comm. Dep. High Comm. Dep.
This review has focussed on the assessment water sources classified as B, C, and F. A degree of caution needs to be used in interpreting Figure 1. This is because the macro plan process only assessed each water source relative to other water sources in the macro plan area. For example, the Upper
Brunswick water source has only been assessed relative to a small number of other water sources in the Brunswick River catchment. Relative to these, it scores highly. However, if it were to be compared to all other unregulated water sources in the state its relative ranking may be much less.
A2.2.1 Assessment of spatial data
The spatial data sets held by NSW Office of Water were used to derive individual water source maps of each of the gazetted water sharing plans identified with a Risk classification of B, C, F and I. Licensed surface water extraction points were plotted in each water source map along with National Park/Reserve
and State Forest areas. These latter attributes can assist in determining available habitat and or distribution of threatened species managed by OEH.
NSW Office of Water GIS data sets do not yet have the spatial data (ie. threatened species) provided by
OEH and Department of Primary Industries (DPI-Fisheries) for the macro water sharing plan classification process.
24 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
25 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
For OEH threatened species data, the spatial distribution of each species within each existing water sharing plan area were mapped using the BIONET mapping tool on the OEH internet website (NSW Government 2005). IBRA subregion boundaries were overlayed over water source boundaries to assist
in the review of occurrence of threatened species within water sources. The occurrence and spatial distribution of the threatened species relative to surface water licences in a water source was then subjectively assessed. The scores for National Park Estate as listed in the Value Input workbook in the
classification spreadsheets were also reviewed in this way as the scoring process for this attribute used ‘sensitivity to flow extraction’ as part of the assessment process by OEH. Distribution information for threatened frogs and birds was also assessed via review of published documents.
For DPI Fisheries threatened species data, distribution of each species in existing water sharing plan areas was checked against information provided on the DPI Fisheries website (DPI 2005) (for Murray Cod the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) website was used
(Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009)). Additional information on the spatial distribution of threatened fish and invertebrate species was obtained by consulting staff from DPI Fisheries and NSW Office of Water, and by assessment of any available Recovery Plans and/or
published documents. A threatened species requiring longitudinal connectivity to disperse in a water source was also assessed in this way.
For some water sources, there was a need to check the actual number of licenses and annual volume of
entitlement of surface water licenses. This was done to gain a clearer, more current understanding of volumes contributing to hydrologic stress. To undertake this process, the NavWater Tools software add-on to ArcGis 9.2 was used. This process was undertaken for the Adelong Creek, Upper-, and Central
Karuah, Mammy Johnsons (part of Karuah), Ourimbah, Mooki River and Tarcutta Creek water sources (existing water sharing plan areas). Data listed on numbers of licenses and annual volume of entitlement for the other water sharing plan areas was derived directly from published water sharing plans.
A2.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of initial water source classifications
Following the review of spatial and published data on threatened species associated with each existing water sharing plan, scores in each relevant spreadsheet were adjusted. Generally this occurred if a threatened species or National Park area should have been scored lower as either a species or National
Park area was not present or records indicated they were above points of surface water extraction in a water source.
Another form of sensitivity analysis involved the check of the hydrologic stress outcomes for a number of
water sources in the spreadsheet 2b – Value2 Input. For the water sources where this was required, the sensitivity analysis involved reducing the Peak Daily Demand (PDD) scores, a part of the Hydrologic Stress calculation, until Final Risk scores moved from the initial score to the next lower level of Risk. This
form of sensitivity analysis indicated the influence of PDD and hydrologic stress on Final Instream Risk outcomes for some water sources. This was undertaken if a large number of threatened species and/or National Park Estate scores were modified changes made to 50 per cent or more of attributes initial
scores in some spreadsheets) and there were no changes to the Final Instream Value scores. Review details for each of the water sources are provided below and a summary of these details are listed in Table A2.1.
2 Peak Daily Demand (PDD) or crop usage, is one of two factors used to determine hydrologic stress. At times PDD was the primary factor that influenced final instream risk outcomes, even after other attribute scores were reduced or increased.
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.2.3 Caveats associated with data provided by OEH and DPI Fisheries
OEH and DPI - Fisheries provided a range of threatened and non-threatened species data for the classification assessment process of the Macro Water Sharing Plans. The assessments should not be used for any purpose other than classification of catchment management units (CMUs) as part of the
Macro Water Sharing Planning Process. The assessments were undertaken based on CMU boundaries defined by the former Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR).
For both OEH and DPI Fisheries, the assessments are based on:
the most suitable and relevant data,
information that could be sourced and analysed within the limited timeframe, and
within resource constraints.
The assessments are provided as indicators only, and are not intended as a comprehensive or exhaustive analysis. The absence of a value within an assessment for a CMU does not necessarily mean the value is not present. Also, the assessments provided are not necessarily final, and could change as
other/additional data becomes available.
A2.3 Existing water sharing plan review results
A2.3.1 Adelong Creek water sharing plan
NOTE: In the Murrumbidgee classification spreadsheet, subcatchment usage (ie PDD) for Adelong
Creek water source was originally listed as 0.01 ML/day. A check of the License Administration System (LAS) database indicated that there are currently 67 surface water licenses with a total annual entitlement of 4970.4 ML/yr. This indicates that the listed subcatchment usage of 0.01 ML/day may be incorrect. To
attempt to rectify this, the total annual entitlement was divided by 365 days to produce a more realistic subcatchment usage outcome. The new subcatchment usage value for this review is 14 ML/day.
Following the inclusion of the new subcatchment usage data, the value classification changed from a to c
and the risk classification changed from I to C.
There are around 20 other water sources with a subcatchment usage value of 0.01 ML/day and should be reassessed based on the outcome for this water source.
A2.3.1.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Adelong Creek is essentially all within the water source due to the high
demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Within the Adelong Creek water source, the majority of licensed entitlement is located in the upper reaches with lesser numbers of licenses in the mid and lower
reaches. There are some 67 licenses with an annual entitlement of around 4970 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) for Adelong Creek of 14 ML/day. The cumulative usage of 14 ML/day PDD is significantly more than the 50th percentile flow (1.0 ML/day) hence
the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
There are 4 threatened fish species listed as predicted (score = 1) to occur in this water source. A check of the data published on the DPI Fisheries Threatened Species web page (DPI 2005) (indicates the
natural distribution for all listed species occurs within the Adelong Creek water source. Scores for these
26 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
species remain unchanged on this basis. There should be another threatened fish species listed, the Purple spotted gudgeon (Mogurnda adspersa) (western population) as it also has its natural distribution occurring in this water source. DPI Fisheries staff at Narrandera Fisheries Research Station should be
consulted on the occurrence of this species in the Adelong Creek water source.
Four threatened frog species (Alpine tree frog (Litoria verreauxii alpine), Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis), Southern Bell frog (Litoria raniformis) and Spotted tree frog ((Litoria spenceri) are listed
as known (score = 2) to occur in this water source. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that none of the species have been recorded in this water source. However, the Booroolong Frog has been recorded close by in an adjoining water source and habitat for this species occurs in this water source. A
score of 1 is appropriate for this species as it could also occur (ie predicted) in this water source. The Southern bell frog should have been scored as a predicted to occur and its score has been modified to 1. The Spotted tree frog and Alpine tree frog have had their scores reduced to 0 as neither species are likely
to be recorded in this water source due to the absence of known habitat and known range. This error is likely to be due to the use of IBRA subregions to apportion threatened species data.
Nine threatened bird species are listed for this water source, 8 as known to occur and 1 as predicted. A
check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that none of the bird species have been recorded in this water source. Three species have been recorded in water sources adjacent or nearby, the Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), Blue billed duck (Oxyura australis) and Freckled duck (Stictonetta
naevosa). Only the two duck species may utilise the flowing water environment in this water source and potentially could occur. Both the Blue billed and Freckled duck have had their scores modified to 1 as predicted to occur. All other bird species have had their scores modified to 0. These errors are likely to
be due to the use of IBRA subregions to apportion threatened species data.
Assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates the Large-footed Myotis bat (Myotis macropus) has not been recorded in this water source, although it has been recorded nearby. Yet this species is scored
as known to occur. The score was reduced from 2 to 1 for this species as predicted to occur.
One threatened plant, the Floating swamp wallaby grass (Amphibromus fluitans) is listed as known to occur in this water source. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that it has not been recorded in
this water source. Its score was reduced from 2 to 0 as the known locations are well away from this water source.
There was no change to the Lower Murray Endangered Ecological Community score as this community
occurs in this area. There were no Declared Locations listed for this water source.
There are two small areas of National Park Estate within this water source, and both areas are above points of extraction. The Estate areas are not likely to be sensitive to extraction and the score for this
attribute was reduced from 2 to 1.
A2.3.1.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Scores for 4 threatened frogs species were either reduced to 1 or 0, while for the 9 threatened birds listed, 7 had scores reduced to 0 while two species were reduced from 2 to 1 for reasons provided above. Scores for a threatened bat, plant and National Park Estate were also reduced.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 6.9 to 4.8. The changes to scores reduced the final Risk score from 6.9 to 5.8. Risk Classification changes from a I (low risk to instream values) to an F (medium risk to instream values).
27 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.1.2 Recommendation
Reduction of scores for threatened frog species, birds, a threatened bat, plant and National Park Estate
did significantly reduce the final Risk score from a C (high risk to instream values) to an F (medium risk to instream values). A check should be made to determine if the Purple spotted gudgeon is known to occur or predicted to occur in this water source. Even if it was scored as 1 (predicted to occur), this would not
likely change the Risk score from an F.
Risk to instream values within this water source is strongly influenced by the subcatchment usage (PDD) volume as indicated by including a new score for this attribute. PDD is significantly higher than the listed
50th percentile days with flow, hence the high score for hydrologic stress. This level of extraction in this water source, particularly as flows approach the 50th percentile, is highly likely to impact on the majority of attributes scored for instream values. It would be worth considering an assessment of active entitlement
and re-evaluating PDD and hydrologic stress in this water source. Given the uncertainty associated with the 50th percentile flows, this attribute should also be re-assessed
It is recommended that within each water source the usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key
factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (high risk to instream values). The 50th
percentile flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50th
percentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain a F.
This water source could be considered in a secondary group of water sources for MER activities if time and resources permitted, although not as high a priority as a water source classified as C. A check also be made to determine if the purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source.
A2.3.2 Commissioners Waters water sharing plan
A2.3.2.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Commissioners Waters is essentially all within the water source due to
the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. There are more than 40 licences with a total entitlement of around 2,000 ML/year. Most licensed entitlement is located in the lower half of the water source. The
classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 15.6 ML/day which is the forth highest PDD listed in the Macleay catchment. PDD is much higher than the 80th percentile flow (1.7 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
No threatened fish have been scored in this water source indicating that no records have been recorded, nor has any modelling predicted their occurrence. All other threatened vertebrates listed in this water source were scored 2 as known to occur. Five threatened frogs and one threatened bird (Freckled duck)
were species listed as known to occur, although the BIONET mapping tool indicated that this bird species had not been recorded in this water source. However changes to natural river flows is listed as a key threat to this species. A check of the OEH threatened species distribution maps indicated that 4 of the 5
listed frog species have not been found within this water source. The score of 2 (known to occur) for these species is a likely artefact of using the IBRA subregions. The only frog species with mapped records in this water source was the Yellow-spotted tree frog (Litoria castenea), a species not recorded in
this area for around 20 or more years. However, alteration to flow is listed as a key threat to this species.
A check of the spatial distribution of National Park estate indicates that there is only a small amount present in Commissioners Waters water source. This attribute had been scored a 2 (= only a small
proportion of the Estate is located within the CMU; OR a significant amount of the Estate is located within the CMU but the attributes of the Estate mean that it is likely to be only moderately sensitive to flow extraction). However, only 1 of 3 reserves is located adjacent to a stream, and it is below 2 small licences
28 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
thus it would unlikely be sensitive to extraction Thus the score for National Park Estate should be a 1 (the Estate is not sensitive to extraction).
A2.3.2.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Replacing the score for National Park Estate with a 1 instead of 2 dropped the initial Final Instream Value score from 5.2 to 4.6. This inturn reduced the Instream Risk from 7.5 to 7.0, and did not change the
classification from a C.
Of the five threatened frog species, all but one had their scores reduced from 2 to 0 due to no records listed on the BIONET mapping tool. The Yellow-spotted tree frog score remained a 2. The only
threatened bird species listed, the Freckled duck remained a score of 2 as it had been recorded in an adjoining water source, and is a species that will move readily across the landscape and could easily occur in Commissioners Waters.
Changing the above mentioned species scores from a 2 to 0 further reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.6 to 3.4 and reduced the Final Instream Risk further from 7.0 to 5.7. Risk Classification changes from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
29 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.2.3 Recommendation
Although the BIONET mapping tool indicated that the majority of threatened frog species have not been
recorded in this water source, it is highly degraded (terrestrial and riparian vegetation has been heavily cleared, modified natural flow due to extraction and instream dams) and key habitat is unlikely to be available within this water source.
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be reduced from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
A2.3.3 Upper Dorrigo water sharing plan
NOTE: The Upper Dorrigo water sharing plan is divided into four management zones (Zone 1=Upper
Nymbioda River, Zone 2= Bielsdown River, Zone 3=Wild Cattle Creek, Zone 4=Blicks River). The macro classification of water sources in the Clarence River catchment only lists Blicks River and Upper Dorrigo River water sources (Stressed Rivers division of sub-catchments). The Upper Nymboida River water
source also includes management zones 2 and 3 listed above, but not management zone 4, Blicks River. This review will only focus on the Upper Nymboida water source as it is classified as a C and it contains the majority of licensed surface water extraction in the existing water sharing plan area.
A2.3.3.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Upper Dorrigo is essentially all within the water source due to the high
demand for water relative to low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. However, in the existing Dorrigo water sharing plan, zones 2 and 3 flow into zone 1, the Upper Nymboida. There are more than 100 surface water licences with a total entitlement of
around 9,580 ML/year. Most licensed entitlement is located in the Bielsdown River management zone of this water source. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 93.3 ML/day which is the 2nd highest PDD listed in the Clarence River catchment. PDD is just less than the 80th percentile
flow (98 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
The threatened fish, Eastern Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis), was scored as a 2 (known to occur) in this water source. Discussions with NSW DPI indicated that this species was stocked in sections of the
Nymboida and Blicks River during the last 10 years. There are likely to be natural populations in both the Nymboida and Blicks River extending at least half way up into the water source along these rivers. This species requires longitudinal connectivity in rivers to migrate during moderate flow events or during
breeding season. A score of 2 is appropriate for the Eastern cod in this water source.
Of the 7 species of frogs scored for threatened species, 6 were scored as known (score=2) to occur and 1 was predicted (score =1) to occur within this water source. Following a check of the BIONET mapping
tool, four species scored as 2 (known) have records within points of extraction and initial score remained unchanged. Three frogs (Green-thighed frog (Litoria brevipalmata), Sphagnum frog (Philoria sphagnicolus) and Pouched Frog (Assa darliongtoni)) will have scores reduced to 0 as they are not
regarded as stream dependent, have no records within the water sharing plan area as per check of BIONET mapping tool and/or they would be found in habitat above extraction points.
The 2 threatened bird species are listed in this water sharing plan area. The Black-necked stork
(Ephippiorhynchus astiaticus) (score=2) and the Black bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis) (score =1). The former would be considered a vagrant although one record indicates it was found amongst extraction points in a tributary of Bielsdown River. The latter species has no records within the water sharing plan
30 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
area but has been recorded close to this area. The Black bittern is reliant more on wetland habitats and alteration to flow is not listed as a key threat.
The one threatened wet flora species, Ravine orchid (Sarcochilus fitzgeraldi), is not flow dependent, and
has not be recorded in the water sharing plan area, but recorded in nearby mountain habitat. Score should be reduced.
Although only a moderate amount of National Park estate is found within the water sharing plan area, it is
located downstream of major extraction. This has the potential to impact on stream dependent attributes sensitive to extraction in the estate and score remain a 3.
A2.3.3.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Four threatened frogs, two birds and a plant had their initial scores reduced to 0 for reasons described above. This reduced the Final Instream Value from 8.1 to 7.8 but this did not reduced the final Risk score
from 10. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from a C (high risk to instream values).
No other scores were modified in the spreadsheet for this water source.
A2.3.3.3 Recommendation
A number of scores for threatened species in this water source were unchanged and were appropriate. The four threatened frogs, two birds and a plant that had their scores reduced to 0 did not change the
final Risk score for this water source. Hydrologic stress is very high in this water source and risk from extraction to some threatened instream dependent species and other instream values should be considered high. This water source should be considered a priority for immediate assessment.
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be remain a C (high risk to instream values).
A2.3.4 Jilliby Jilliby Creek water sharing plan
NOTE: Jilliby Jilliby Creek water sharing plan area was combined with Wyong River water source as part of the macro water sharing plan classification process for the Central Coast. Jilliby Creek water source is
a major tributary that flows into the Wyong River water source. This review will only focus on the Jilliby Creek water source during the assessment of OEH data, although hydrologic stress outcomes need to be related from the whole Wyong River water source as used in the macro water sharing plan process.
Jilliby Creek entitlement was not used (nor was Town Water Supply entitlement) in the hydrologic stress assessment of the Wyong River.
A2.3.4.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Wyong River is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which
cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. However, Jilliby Creek is a tributary flowing into the Wyong River. The majority of licensed entitlement is located along the main reaches of Wyong River and Jilliby Creek, with the highest number of licenses along the Wyong River. There are some 26 licenses
with an annual entitlement of around 960 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 80 ML/day which is the 2nd highest PDD listed in the Central Coast catchment. PDD is substantially more than the 80th percentile flow (9.9 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative
hydrologic stress. It is likely that hydrologic stress would be similar within the Jilliby Creek water source as the 80th percentile flows would be lower than the annual entitlement.
31 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
One threatened invertebrate, Adam’s Emerald dragonfly (Archaeophya adamsi) is suggested to be known from this water source, although there is no spatial data yet available to indicate known record sites. This species is one of Australia’s rarest dragonflies. Australian Faunal Directory data (DEWHA 2008) indicates
Jilliby Creek occurs in a zone suggested to be an area of potential distribution for this species. Optimum habitat for this species is likely to occur in the National Park estate/State Forest in headwater areas. Although it has been given the highest flow sensitivity score of 4, alteration to flow is not listed as a key
threat to this species (DPI 2005). Given the rarity of this species and its potential to occur in this water source, a score of 1 is appropriate.
Eight threatened frogs are listed as known to occur within the Wyong River water source. A check of the
BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for 4 of these species (Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioprus australiacus), Green and Golden Bell frog (Litoria aurea), Green-thighed frog and Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula)) within the Jilliby Creek water source although most are known to occur in water
sources adjoining Wyong River. All of these species had their scores reduced from 2 to 0 as not occurring in Jilliby Creek water source. This error could be due to the use of IBRA sub-regions as the base layer for threatened species. The remaining frog species (Giant Barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus),
Stuttering barred frog (Mixophyes balbus), Red-crowned toadlet (Pseudophryne australis) and Littlejohn’s tree frog (Litoria littlejohni) are known to occur in locations well above extraction, generally within State Forest areas. On the basis of the spatial location of known records and the availability of optimum habitat
in headwater areas in Jilliby water source, scores for these four species should also be reduced to 0 as they are unlikely to be located within or below extraction in Jilliby Creek.
Of the 4 threatened bird species listed, one (Australasian Bittern) had not been recorded within Jilliby
Creek water source and its score was reduced from 2 to 0. This error is likely due to the use of IBRA sub-regions as the base layer for threatened species. Using the BIONET mapping tool, single records in Jilliby Creek for the Jacana (Irediparra gallinacean) and Black Bittern were identified. Both these species
are not considered stream dependent and are generally found in wetland habitats and alteration to flow is not listed as a key threat. On this basis their scores were reduced from 2 to 0. The Black-necked stork has been recorded in at least 3 locations within Jilliby Creek and would forage along the banks of small
creeks such as this although wetlands are preferred habitat. Modification to wetlands via changes in natural water regime is listed as a key threat and considering it may occur along Jilliby Creek foraging, its score remains unchanged as a 2.
One threatened plant, Maundia triglochinoides, is listed as known to occur but assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates no records within the Jilliby Creek water source. One record of this species is from an adjacent water source and one downstream in Tuggerah Lake. There is the possibility that this
species could also be found in Jilliby Creek. The score remains a 2 for this species.
Scores for Declared locations (SEPP 14 wetlands and Nationally Important Wetlands) were reduced to 0 as they are not within Jilliby Creek water source. The same approach was used in reducing the score for
JAMBA/CAMBA as migratory birds related to this category would generally be found in the lower Lakes areas. However, the former 2 attributes may be influenced by water extraction as they are located downstream and should remained unchanged for the overall assessment of Wyong River water source.
The National Park Estate within the Jilliby Creek water source, Jilliby State Conservation Area, occupies almost half of the water source area and only small portions of State Forest lands. Nevertheless a score of 2 (significantly sensitive to flow extraction) is unwarranted. The Conservation Area and State Forest is
located above all points of extraction and on this basis the score was reduced to 1 (not sensitive to extraction).
32 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.4.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For reasons provided above, the scores for Adam’s Emerald dragonfly was unchanged, and all
threatened frogs had scores reduced to 0. All but one bird species had scores reduced from 2 to 0 on the basis on either no records known from within the water source or known records were above points of extraction. Scores for Nationally Important, SEPP 14, and JAMBA/CAMBA were also reduced from to 0
as described above.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 10 to 3.9 and this also reduced the Final Risk score from 10 to 3.9. Reducing the National Park Estate score down from 2 to 1 further reduced Final
Instream Value from 3.9 to 3.7. On the basis of these adjustments, the Risk Classification CHANGED from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
A2.3.4.3 Recommendation
A number of scores for threatened species in this water source were changed due to no records of either some species or Declared Locations, or for the few species/communities that occurred within the water
source, they were above areas of extraction. Areas of National Park Estate were also above extraction points. This had a dramatic effect on reducing the Final Instream Value Score and Risk to Instream Values Score. Although the actual PDD for Jilliby Jilliby Creek was not available for this review, it would
likely have an 80th percentile flow lower than that listed for the Wyong River water source (Stressed Rivers reporting lists it at <1 ML/day). Given the level of entitlement is just under 1000 ML /year, hydrologic stress is still considered to be high.
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be reduced from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
A2.3.5 Kangaroo River water sharing plan
A2.3.5.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Kangaroo River is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which
cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. There are some 80 licences with a total entitlement of around 4,313 ML/year. More licences are located in the mid to lower reaches compared to some 36 licences in headwater areas above National Park estate. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily
demand (PDD) of 51 ML/day which is the 2nd highest PDD listed in the Shoalhaven catchment. PDD is much higher than the 80th percentile flow (81 ML/day) hence the moderate score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
One threatened fish, Macquarie perch (Macquarie australasica), is suggested to no longer occur in this water source (NSW Office of Water Wollongong staff pers com.) and the score of 2 is not appropriate. This species has previously been recorded near the lower reaches of this water source (DLWC et al
2002) and it may still occur in the lower and mid-reaches, where there are a high number of surface water licences. Modification to natural river flow is considered a key threat to this species. The score of 2 was reduced to 0 for this species in this water source.
One threatened invertebrate, Adam’s Emerald dragonfly is suggested to be known from this water source, although there is know spatial data yet available to indicate known record sites. This species is one of Australia’s rarest dragonflies (DPI 2005). Australian Faunal Directory data (DEWHA 2008) data indicates
this water source occurs in a zone suggested to be an area of potential distribution for this species. Optimum habitat for this species is likely to occur in the National Park estate in headwater areas.
33 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
Although it has been given the highest flow sensitivity score of 4, alteration to flow is not listed as a key threat to this species (DPI 2005). Nevertheless, given the rarity of this species and its potential to occur in this water source, a score of 1 other than 2 is more appropriate. This species was also scored twice
more as 2 as it was also included in the ‘Macroinvertebrate species’ section. These scores have been changed to a 0 in this section to prevent duplication of scoring.
Six threatened frogs are listed as known to occur in this water source and received a score of 2. A check
of the BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for 4 of these species (Booroolong frog, Green and Golden bell frog, Red-crowned toadlet and Stuttering barred frog). This is a likely artefact of using the IBRA subregions. The Stuttering barred frog and Red crowned toadlet are known from sites
immediately above this water source. These species could occur in the headwater areas, but based on adjoining water source records, they would likely occur in habitat above extraction points. Green and Golden Bell frogs have been recorded in a nearby water source, and potentially could occur in suitable
wetland habitat. This species should score a 1 (predicted to occur). The Booroolong frog is unlikely to now occur in this area with populations isolated generally in western flowing streams thus this species should score of 0. Of the remaining 2 species, Littlejohn’s tree frog and the Giant Burrowing frog are
recorded in National Park estate above extraction and on the upper eastern edge of the water source. On the basis that all known records of threatened frogs are above extraction points, scores have been reduce to 0.
Of the 16 threatened bird species listed, 8 are considered migratory waders, or estuary species that inhabit sand flats and bays in estuaries and are unlikely to occur in this water source yet they scored a 2. This error is likely due to the use of IBRA sub-regions as the base layer for threatened species. These
species will have their initial scores modified to 0.
For the remaining threatened bird species, with the exception of the Regent honeyeater, no records for these species in this water source were detected on the BIONET mapping tool. Key habitat wetland
habitat would not be available for these species in this water source. The Regent honeyeater (Xantthomyza Phrygia) was recorded near Hampton Bridge at the bottom section of this water source, its score was reduced to 0 as it is not an instream dependent species, although it does utilise riparian gallery
forest as habitat.
Assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates the Greater broad-nosed bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) has been recorded at 1 location within the water source and the Large-footed Myotis bat known at least 3
sites, close to points of water extraction. A score of 2 is appropriate for these species. A key threat to the Greater broad-nosed bat is changes to water regimes (DECC 2005) which could impact on food resources along creeks/streams, while Large-footed Myotis hunts for prey above and from streams.
The threatened plant Asterlasia buxifolia and the endangered ecological community, Coastal saltmarsh had scores reduced form 2 to 0. The former species had no records listed on BIONET for this water source while saltmarsh is highly unlikely to occur this far upstream.
A check of the distribution of ‘other Nationally Important Wetlands’ indicates that the only located in this water source is the Barren Grounds Nature Reserve Heath Swamps. This is located in the top eastern highland area above any extraction points. This attribute should score a 0 as even if it was sensitive to
extraction, there is none occurring near this wetland that would influence its values.
The majority of National Park estate in this water source is above extraction, although there is some area of estate in the western section of this water source that is downstream from 17 or more licensed
extraction points. The score of 2 for a small proportion of the Estate with attributes likely to be only moderately sensitive to flow extraction) is appropriate for this water source.
34 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.5.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For reasons provided above, the scores for Adam’s Emerald dragonfly was reduced from 2 to 1, and most
threatened frog and all bird species had scores reduced from 2 to 0 on the basis on either no records known from within the water source or known records were above points of extraction. The Green and Golden Bell Frog had its score reduced from 2 to 1. Nationally Important wetlands and Coastal Saltmarsh
also had scores reduced from 2 to 0 as described above.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 10 to 8.7 but this did not reduce the final Risk score from 10. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from a C (high risk to instream values).
A2.3.5.3 Recommendation
A number of scores for threatened species in this water source were changed due to no records of either
some species, communities or important wetlands or for the few species/communities that occurred within the water source, they were above areas of extraction. The presence of Macquarie Perch in this water source and its high sensitivity to extraction also has a major bearing on the Final Instream Value score,
but not the Final Risk score. Although hydrologic stress is medium (scored 0.63 and is just under the high cumulative hydrologic stress threshold of 0.66) in this water source, this is the overriding attribute that controls the risk to instream values. If PDD was reduced from 51 ML/day to 22 ML/day this would
reduce the risk to instream values to an F (medium risk). However such a reduction to PDD is unlikely. It would be worth considering an assessment of active entitlement and re-evaluating PDD and hydrologic stress in this water source.
It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of C (high risk to instream values).
A2.3.6 Upper Karuah River (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan)
NOTE: The existing Karuah River water sharing plan area is divided into five management zones: Zone
1 – Telegherry River and all of its tributaries, Zone 2 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River upstream of Stroud Weir, excluding Mammy Johnsons River, Zone 3 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of Stroud Weir, but upstream of the Booral flow
monitoring site, Zone 4 – Mammy Johnsons River and all its tributaries, and Zone 5 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of the Booral flow monitoring site. This part of the review will only focus on Zone 1 and 2 as part of the Upper Karuah water source as listed in the macro
water sharing plan classification spreadsheet for the Lower North Coast.
A2.3.6.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Upper Karuah is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Most licensed entitlement is located along the main
reaches of the Karuah River in the mid- to lower reaches in this water source. Within the Upper Karuah water source there are some 33 licenses with an annual entitlement of around 1666 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 23 ML/day which is the 9th highest PDD (of
25 water sources) listed in the Lower North Coast catchment. PDD is substantially more than the 80th
percentile flow (11.6 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
Five threatened frogs are listed within this water source, two (Davies’ tree frog (Litoria daviesae),
Stuttering frog) as known to occur and received a score of 2, and three (Giant barred frog, Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa), Green thighed frog) as predicted to occur and received a score of 1. A check of
35 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
the BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for 3 of these species (Giant barred frog, Glandular frog, and Green thighed frog). Both Davies tree frog and the Stuttering frog have been recorded in forested National Park and State Forest areas above extraction points. Davies tree frog
generally occurs above 400m elevation (DECC 2005) and on this basis would not likely occur near extraction points in this water source and a score of 0 is more appropriate than 2. The Stuttering barred frog may occur near the upper areas of extraction along the forested riparian zones and a score of 2 is
appropriate. The score for the Giant barred frog of 1 (predicted to occur) is appropriate as this species could also occur near the upper areas of extraction along the forested riparian zones. The Glandular tree frog is generally found above 300m altitude (Anstis 2002) and would not likely be found near the upper
extraction areas and its score should be reduced from 1 to 0. The Green thighed frog score of 1 should be reduced to 0 as this species is not considered an instream dependent species.
No threatened bird species, wet flora, ecological communities, populations or declared locations are listed
for the Upper Karuah water source.
The are large areas of State Forest and National Park Estate in headwater sections of this water source, but they are all above points of extraction. The score of 1 (estate is not sensitive to extraction) is
appropriate.
A2.3.6.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For reasons described above, three threatened frogs had their scores reduced from 2 (known to occur) to 0 (occur but above or considered not sensitive to extraction). No other scores in the classification spreadsheet were modified.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 5.5 to 3.1 but this did not reduce the final Risk score from 10. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from a B (high risk to instream values).
A2.3.6.3 Recommendation
Scores for 3 of 5 threatened frog species in this water source were reduced for reasons described above. Generally, these species are either not likely to occur in this water source due to know habitat
requirements or if they may occur, they would occur in habitat above points of extraction. However, reducing scores for 3 frog species did not reduce the high level of risk to instream values in this water source.
Risk to instream values within this water source is strongly influenced by the subcatchment usage (PDD) volume. PDD is significantly higher than the 80th percentile days with flow, hence the high score for hydrologic stress. This level of extraction in this water source, particularly as flows approach reduce and
approach the 80th percentile, is highly likely to impact on the majority of attributes scored for instream values. It would be worth considering an assessment of active entitlement and re-evaluating PDD and hydrologic stress in this water source.
It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of B (high risk to instream values).
A2.3.7 Mammy Johnston (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan)
NOTE: The existing Karuah River water sharing plan area is divided into five management zones: Zone
1 – Telegherry River and all of its tributaries, Zone 2 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River upstream of Stroud Weir, excluding Mammy Johnsons River, Zone 3 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of Stroud Weir, but upstream of the Booral flow
36 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
monitoring site, Zone 4 – Mammy Johnsons River and all its tributaries, and Zone 5 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of the Booral flow monitoring site. This part of the review will only focus on Zone 4 as part of the Mammy Johnsons water source as listed in the macro
water sharing plan classification spreadsheet for the Lower North Coast.
A2.3.7.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Mammy Johnsons is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Most licensed entitlement is located along the lower
reaches of the water source with around 4 licenses in the mid-reach sections. Within the Mammy Johnsons water source there are some 9 licenses with an annual entitlement of around 197 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 3.59 ML/day which is the 16th highest PDD
(of 25 water sources) listed in the Lower North Coast catchment. PDD is just less than the 80th percentile flow (5.83 ML/day) hence the moderate score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
Four threatened frogs are listed within this water source, two (Green thighed frog and Stuttering frog) as
known to occur and received a score of 2, and two (Giant barred frog, and Glandular frog) are predicted to occur and received a score of 1. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for 3 of these species (Giant barred frog, Glandular frog, and Green thighed frog). The Giant barred frog
could potentially occur in this water source and a score of 1 is adequate. The Glandular tree frog is generally found above 300m altitude (Anstis 2002) and would not likely be found near the upper extraction areas and its score should be reduced from 1 to 0. The Green thighed frog score of 1 should
be reduced to 0 as this species is not considered an instream dependent species. The Stuttering frog score of 2 remains unchanged as it could occur in other locations within or near points of extraction.
No threatened bird species, wet flora, ecological communities, populations or declared locations are listed
for the Mammy Johnsons water source.
The are moderately large areas of State Forest and National Park Estate in headwater sections of this water source, but they are all above points of extraction. The score of 1 (estate is not sensitive to
extraction) is appropriate.
A2.3.7.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For reasons described above, two threatened frogs had their scores reduced from 2 (known to occur) to 0 (occur but above or considered not sensitive to extraction). No other scores in the classification spreadsheet were modified.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.1 to 3.7. The changes to scores only reduced the final Risk score from 3.7 to 3.4. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from an E (medium risk to instream values) but was very close and could be considered ‘borderline’ between E and H in the
Risk Matrix.
A2.3.7.3 Recommendation
Reduction of scores for two threatened frog species did not significantly impact on the final Instream Risk score. However it did reduce the Instream Risk score to a level that could be considered borderline between an E (Medium Environmental Risk) and an H (Low Environmental Risk).
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream values from extraction).
37 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.8 Central Karuah River (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan)
NOTE: The existing Karuah River water sharing plan area is divided into five management zones: Zone 1 – Telegherry River and all of its tributaries, Zone 2 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River upstream of Stroud Weir, excluding Mammy Johnsons River, Zone 3 – Karuah River and all
its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of Stroud Weir, but upstream of the Booral flow monitoring site, Zone 4 – Mammy Johnsons River and all its tributaries, and Zone 5 – Karuah River and all its tributaries that enter Karuah River downstream of the Booral flow monitoring site. This part of the
review will only focus on Zone 3 as part of the Central Karuah water source as listed in the macro water sharing plan classification spreadsheet for the Lower North Coast.
A2.3.8.1 Assessment of risk and instream Value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Central Karuah is not only from within the water source, but also from the cumulative hydrologic stress from two upstream water sources that flow into it, the Upper Karuah and
Mammy Johnsons. Within the Central Karuah water source, the majority of licensed entitlement is located along the mid- and lower reaches. There are some 20 licenses with an annual entitlement of around 926 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) for the Central
Karuah of 3.59 ML/day which is the 16th highest PDD (of 25 water sources) listed in the Lower North Coast catchment. However, the cumulative usage of 44 ML/day PDD is slightly more than double the 80th
percentile flow (20 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
Three threatened frogs are listed within this water source, two (Green thighed frog and Giant barred frog) as predicted to occur and received a score of 1, and one (Stuttering frog) as known to occur and received a score of 2. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that ALL 3 of these species are recorded to
occur in this water source indicating an error in scoring of two of these species and should have been scored a 2 (known to occur). The Stuttering frog and Giant barred frog records are above extraction points. These species would most likely occur in forested lands, in National Park Estate or State Forest
areas and not impacted by extraction. For this reason their scores have been reduced from 2 to 0. The Green thighed frog score of 1 should be reduced to 0 as this species is not considered an instream dependent species. The known record of this species and most likely habitat available for this species is
above existing extraction points.
A check of the BIONET mapping tool for records of the 2 threatened bird species listed (Black necked stork and Jacana), indicate that none had not been recorded within the Central Karuah water source. .
This error is likely due to the use of IBRA sub-regions as the base layer for threatened species. Assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates the Black necked stork and Jacana have been recorded immediately down stream of this water source and they both could occur upstream along creeks
and the Jacana could also occur in floodplain wetlands. The Black necked stork has also been recorded in upstream locations in the adjacent Myall River water source. Although wetlands are preferred habitat for the Black necked stork, modification to wetlands via changes in natural water regime is listed as a key
threat (DECC 2005) As there are no records for either species in this water source they could occur in areas of extraction and scores were reduced from 2 to 1.
No threatened, wet flora, ecological communities, or populations are listed for the Central Karuah water
source.
Two attributes for Declared Locations, SEPP 14 wetlands and other Nationally Important Wetlands scored a 1 for this water source. A check of maps and data sets indicates that neither of these attributes
occurs in this water source and scores were reduced from 1 to 0.
38 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
There is a large area of State Forest and smaller area of National Park Estate in upper third of this water source. The majority of extraction points are well below these areas with a single license on a small 1st order stream a lower location in the State Forest. The attributes of the National Park Estate are unlikely
to be impacted by extraction in this water source. The score of 1 is appropriate and was not modified.
A2.3.8.2.Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Scores for three threatened frogs species were reduced to 0 (occur but above or not considered as sensitive to extraction) for reasons provided above. Scores for two threatened birds were reduced from 2 to 1. The score for National Park Estate was unchanged at 1.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.1 to 3.6. The changes to scores only reduced the final Risk score from 5.5 to 5.3. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from an E (medium risk to instream values).
A2.3.8.3 Recommendation
Reduction of scores for three threatened frog species, two bird species and 2 attributes of Declared
Locations did not significantly impact on changing the final Instream Risk classification of E (Medium Environmental Risk).
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream
values from extraction).
A2.3.9 Ourimbah water sharing plan
A2.3.9.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Ourimbah Creek is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Less than half the number of licenses are located along
the mid- to lower reach of Ourimbah Creek and greatest number of licenses are located in headwater streams (as farm dams). There are some 80 licenses with an annual entitlement of more than 7000 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 33 ML/day which is the 4th
highest PDD listed in the Central Coast catchment. PDD is just substantially more than the 80th percentile flow (9 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
One threatened invertebrate, Adam’s Emerald dragonfly is suggested to be known from this water source,
although there is know spatial data yet available to indicate known record sites. Australian Faunal Directory data (DEWHA 2008) data indicates this water source occurs in a zone suggested to be an area of potential distribution for this species. Optimum habitat for this species is likely to occur in the National
Park estate/State Forest in headwater areas and upper mid- reaches of this water source. Although it has been given the highest flow sensitivity score of 4, alteration to flow is not listed as a key threat to this species. Given the rarity of this species and its potential to occur in this water source, a score of 1 is
appropriate.
Seven of eight threatened frogs are listed as known to occur within the Ourimbah Creek water source. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for 2 of these species (Giant Barred
Frog and Wallum Froglet). The Wallum froglet is unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat and its score was reduced from 2 to 0. The Giant Barred frog scored a 1 as predicted to occur and could occur in National Park Estate and State Forest in this water source and on this basis the score remains
unchanged. The Green and Golden Bell frog and the Green-thighed frog are not considered instream
39 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
dependent breeders (Anstis 2002), and would most likely be found in ephemeral soaks and depressions in the National Park and State Forest areas. Heavy rainfall and localised runoff filling breeding habitat are suggested to be factors more favourable to these species. The number of instream dams at locations
immediately above known locations (and National Park Estate) are unlikely to influence these two species and their scores were reduced from 2 to 0. However, the Red crowned toadlet occupies wet soaks and drainage lines that could be impacted by flow reduction by the numerous instream dams in the upper
areas of the water source. This species score of 2 is unchanged. The Giant Burrowing frog, Littlejohns tree frog and Stuttering barred frog occur in this water source. They are stream breeders and could be impacted by extraction in areas above and within locations they are known to occur in this water source.
Their scores remained a 2.
Of the 4 threatened bird species listed, none had not been recorded within the Ourimbah Creek water source following a check of the BIONET mapping tool. On this basis scores were reduced from 2 to 0,
except for the Black necked stork. This error is likely due to the use of IBRA sub-regions as the base layer for threatened species. Assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates the Black necked stork has been recorded immediately down stream of this water source and it could occur upstream along
creek areas. Although wetlands are preferred habitat, modification to wetlands via changes in natural water regime is listed as a key threat and considering it may occur along Ourimbah Creek foraging, its score remains unchanged as a 2.
No threatened bird species, wet flora, ecological communities, populations or declared locations are listed for the Upper Karuah water source.
The is large areas of State Forest and National Park Estate in upper third of this water source, with
numerous points of extraction above it. A smaller portion of National Park Estate occurs in the mid- section of the water source with portions of Estate abutting Ourimbah Creek. Eight or more extraction points are either above or within this Estate area. The potential impact from extraction to 4 threatened
frogs described above, and the high scores for a number of Instream Value attributes that could occur in the Estate or State Forest are important factors. The score of 1 (estate is not sensitive to extraction) is NOT appropriate. A score of 3 is more appropriate for National Park Estate as a significant amount is
within the water source and attributes of the Estate are likely to significantly sensitive to flow extraction. Score for was changed from 1 to 3.
A2.3.9.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Scores for three of eight threatened frogs species were reduced to 0 (occur but above or not considered as sensitive to extraction). Scores for 3 of 4 threatened birds were reduced from 2 to 0. The score for
National Park Estate was increased from 1 to 3 for reasons described above.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.8 to 4.3. The changes to scores only reduced the final Risk score from 4.8 to 4.3. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from an F (medium
risk to instream values).
A2.3.9.3 Recommendation
Reduction of scores for three threatened frog species did not impact on the final Instream Risk score due to an increase in the score for National Park Estate. The remaining 5 threatened frog species have the potential to be impacted by extraction, as to a number of Instream Value attributes (eg. riparian
vegetation, wet flora, drought refuges and platypus) and National Park Estate.
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an F (medium risk to instream values from extraction).
40 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.10 Mooki River water source - part of the Phillips Creek, Mooki River, Quirindi Creek and Warrah Creek water sharing plan
A2.3.10.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Mooki River is not all within the water source, but is contributed to by
extraction in four upstream water sources (Phillips Creek, Warrah Creek, Quirindi Creek and Werris Creek). The majority of licensed entitlement is located along the main stem of the Mooki River from the top of the water source down to about 10km above the flow outlet. There are some 30 surface water
licences with annual entitlement of around 31,057 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) over 100 usage/flow days of 222.4 ML/day within the water source which is the 2nd highest PDD listed in the Namoi River catchment. PDD is considerably more than the 50th percentile flow
(21 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
Two threatened fish species, Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) and Murray cod (Maccullochella peeli peeli), are scored a 1 (suspected or modelled to be present, or known from only rare sightings, and not
considered to be a ‘key’ location for this species) in this water source. Discussions with NSW DPI indicates that both species are know from this water source, with Silver perch recorded as far up as Breeza, and Murray cod recorded up as far as the confluence with Warrah Creek (near the top of the
water source). This indicates the importance of longitudinal connectivity for these species to be able to disperse up through this water source into others above it. NSW DPI recommended that the score remain a 1 for these two species as the Mooki River instream and riparian habitats are not in good
condition and that this water source would not be considered a key location.
No threatened frog species have been listed a known to occur in this water source. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates no records for the listed species in this water source, although 5
threatened frog species are recorded from the Quirindi water source above the Mooki River water source.
Eight threatened bird species are listed within this water source, four known to occur and 4 predicted to occur. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records for the 8 species in this water
source, although several species occur within 10-60 km of this area. The score of 2 (known to occur) for these species is a likely artefact of using the IBRA subregions. The Black-necked stork would be considered a vagrant and unlikely to occur and should have its score reduced from 2 to 0. Five other
species should have scores reduced to 0 except the Freckled and Blue-billed ducks which should score a 1 as they have records close to this water source and could occur in pools..
One threatened plant, Cyperus conicus, is listed to be predicted in from this water source but a check of
the BIONET mapping tool indicates it is not known from this area. Habitat for this species could occur in this water source and a score of 1 is appropriate. It is highly unlikely that the endangered ecological communities, the Lower Darling Aquatic Community and Carbeen Open forest community occur in this
water source and scores have been reduced to 0. Carbeen Open Forest is not an instream dependent community, and even if it did occur in this water source it should have scored a 0 on this basis.
All other scores for Threatened species and Instream Value appear to be appropriate and remain
unchanged.
A2.3.10.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For reasons provided above, the scores for many threatened bird species were reduced to 0 as no known records were determined in this water source using the BIONET mapping tool. Other species had their initial score of 2 downgraded to a 1 as they could occur in river pools from time-to-time. Several
endangered ecological communities had scores reduced to 0 for reasons described above.
41 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 2.2 to 1.3. This inturn reduced the final Risk score from 1.9 to 1.0 BUT the Instream Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from an I (low risk to instream values).
A2.3.10.3 Recommendation
The initial Risk to Instream Values classification did not change for this water source following the
adjustment of threatened species and community scores. For known threatened species/endangered ecological communities in the water source, they have a low level of sensitivity to extraction. This is why the risk score is low relative to the high level of cumulative hydrologic stress. Initial Risk to Instream
Values should remain an I.
A2.3.11 Tarcutta Creek
NOTE: In the Murrumbidgee classification spreadsheet, subcatchment usage (ie PDD) for Tarcutta Creek water source was originally listed as 0.01 ML/day. A check of the LAS database indicated that
there are currently89 surface water licenses with a total annual entitlement of 5238 ML/yr. This indicates that the listed subcatchment usage of 0.01 ML/day may be incorrect. To attempt to rectify this, the total annual entitlement was divided by 365 days to produce a more realistic subcatchment usage outcome.
The new subcatchment usage value for this review is 14 ML/day.
Following the inclusion of the new subcatchment usage data, the value classification changed from d to f and the risk classification changed from I to F.
There are around 20 other water sources with a subcatchment usage value of 0.01 ML/day and should be reassessed based on the outcome for this water source.
A2.3.11.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Tarcutta Creek essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which
cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Within the Adelong Creek water source there are 3 management zones and the majority of licensed entitlement is located along the main river sections from the upper to lower reaches. In the ‘Westbrook’ management zone, there are a greater number of licenses
in the upper headwater sections compared to the mid- and lower reaches. There are some 89 licenses with an annual entitlement of around 5238 ML/yr. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) for the Central Karuah of 14 ML/day. The cumulative usage of 14 ML/day PDD is
significantly more than the 50th percentile flow (1.0 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
There are 3 threatened fish species listed as predicted (score = 1) to occur in this water source. A check
of the data published on the NSW DPI’s Threatened Species web page (DPI 2005) indicates the natural distribution for all listed fish species occurs within the Adelong Creek water source. Scores for these species remain unchanged on this basis. Macquarie Perch should have also scored a 1 for this water
source as it is also predicted to occur in Adelong Creek. The score for this species was changed to reflect this. There should be another threatened fish species listed, the purple spotted gudgeon (western population) as it also has its natural distribution occurring in this water source. DPI Fisheries staff at
Narrandera Fisheries Research Station should be consulted on the occurrence of this species in the Adelong Creek water source.
Four threatened frog species (alpine tree frog, booroolong frog, southern bell frog and spotted tree frog
are listed as known (score = 2) to occur in this water source. A check of the BIONET mapping tool
42 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
indicates that none of the species have been recorded in this water source. However, the Booroolong Frog has been recorded close by in an adjoining water source and habitat for this species occurs in this water source. A score of 1 is appropriate for this species as it could also occur (ie predicted) in this water
source. The southern bell frog should have been scored as a predicted to occur and its score has been modified to 1. The spotted tree frog and Alpine tree frog have had their scores reduced to 0 as neither species are likely to be recorded in this water source due to the absence of known habitat and known
range. This error is likely to be due to the use of IBRA subregions to apportion threatened species data.
Nine threatened bird species are listed for this water source, 8 as known to occur and 1 as predicted. A check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that only one of the bird species (regent honeyeater) have
been recorded in this water source. Three species have been recorded in water sources adjacent or nearby, the Australasian bittern, blue billed duck and freckled duck. Only the two duck species may utilise the flowing water environment in this water source and potentially could occur. Both the blue billed
and freckled duck have had their scores modified to 1 as predicted to occur. All other bird species have had their scores modified to 0. These errors are likely to be due to the use of IBRA subregions to apportion threatened species data. The regent honeyeater was recorded near Tarcutta at the bottom
section of this water source, its score was reduced to 0 as it is not an instream dependent species, although it does utilise riparian gallery forest as habitat.
One threatened plant, the floating swamp wallaby grass is listed as known to occur in this water source. A
check of the BIONET mapping tool indicates that it has not been recorded in this water source. Its score was reduced from 2 to 0 as the known locations are well away from this water source.
The Lower Murray Endangered Ecological Community (ECC) score is listed as a 1 (predicted) in this
water source yet it was scored as a 2 (known) for the Adelong Creek water source. A check of the listed distribution of this EEC indicates it should have been scored as a 2 for this water source and the score was adjusted accordingly. There were no Declared Locations listed for this water source.
There are two small areas of National Park Estate within this water source, and both areas are above points of extraction. The Estate areas are not likely to be sensitive to extraction and the score for this attribute was reduced from 2 to 1.
A2.3.11.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Scores for 4 threatened frogs species were either reduced to 1 or 0, while for the 9 threatened birds
listed, 7 had scores reduced to 0 while two species were reduced from 2 to 1 for reasons provided above. Scores for a threatened, plant and National Park Estate were also reduced. The score for the Lower Murray Endangered ECC was increased from 1 to 2.
The above changes reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.3 to 3.8. The changes to scores reduced the final Risk score from 4.3 to 3.8. Risk Classification remained a C an F (medium risk to instream values).
43 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.11.3 Recommendation
Reduction of scores for threatened frog species, birds, a plant and National Park Estate, and an increase
in the score for the Lower Murray Endangered ECC did not reduce the final Risk score from an F (medium risk to instream values). A check should be made to determine if the Purple spotted gudgeon is known to occur or predicted to occur in this water source. Even if it was scored as 1 (predicted to occur),
this would not likely change the Risk score from an F.
Risk to instream values within this water source is strongly influenced by the subcatchment usage (PDD) volume as indicated by including a new score for this attribute. PDD is significantly higher than the listed
50th percentile days with flow, hence the high score for hydrologic stress. This level of extraction in this water source, particularly as flows approach the 50th percentile, is highly likely to impact on the majority of attributes scored for instream values. It would be worth considering an assessment of active entitlement
and re-evaluating PDD and hydrologic stress in this water source. Given the uncertainty associated with the 50th percentile flows, this attribute should also be re-assessed
It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor
influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (medium risk to instream values). The 50th percentile flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50thpercentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain an F. A check also be
made to determine if the purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source.
A2.3.12 Tenterfield Creek water sharing plan
NOTE: The classification spreadsheet for the Border Rivers catchment splits the existing Tenterfield Creek water sharing plan into two areas, Tenterfield and immediately downstream, Tenterfield Creek.
This follows the sub-catchment delineation of the Stressed Rivers Assessment approach. In the classification spreadsheet, Tenterfield Creek scored a C and Tenterfield an I in the Risk Assessment. However Tenterfield Creek water source represents only one-third of the existing water sharing plan area.
For the purpose of this review, the scores of Tenterfield Creek will be used to apply to the whole existing water sharing plan area, as it calculates the cumulative hydrologic tress from the water source immediately upstream. Scores used in the threatened species spreadsheet will be applied to all of the
existing water sharing plan area. Assessment of spatial data will be attributed to the existing water sharing plan area. Note, in the calculation for hydrologic stress the 50th percentile daily flow was used in this water source instead of the 80th percentile daily flow used in eastern flowing catchments.
A2.3.12.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk from hydrologic stress in the Tenterfield Creek is essentially all within the water source due to the
high demand for water relative to the available flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. Assessment of the distribution of licences within this water source indicates that there are more than 60 licences with a total entitlement of around 3,675
ML/year. Most licensed entitlement is located in the upper two-thirds of this water source. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) over 100 usage/flow days of 21.3ML/day which is the fifth highest PDD listed in the Border Rivers catchment. PDD is just less than half the 50th
percentile flow (43.5 ML/day) hence the medium score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
Three threatened fish species are listed for this water source. A DPI Fisheries Regional Conservation Officer and a NSW Office of Water ecologist were contacted for information on the spatial distribution of
these species in the Tenterfield Creek water source. Purple-spotted gudgeon is known to occur in numerous pools upstream of the Clifton river gauge. Murray Cod was initially scored a 1 (predicted to
44 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
occur) and it was suggested that this species has been re-stocked into areas of this water source. It is likely to only occur in the lower one-third of the water source due to natural instream barriers. The olive perchlet (Ambassis agassizii) scored a 2 as known to occur yet advice suggests there are no historical
records of this species in this water source. Longitudinal connectivity is an important factor to all listed fish species in this water source. No scores were changed for the listed threatened fish.
Only one threatened frog species was listed as known to occur, the sphagnum frog. A check of the
BIONET mapping tool indicates there are no records of this species with this water source, and none recorded in potential habitat in adjoining water sources headwater areas. The score of 2 (known to occur) for this species is a likely artefact of using the IBRA subregions.
Assessment of the BIONET mapping tool indicates the Greater broad-nosed bat has been recorded at 3 locations within the water source, 2 sites within points of water extraction. A score of 2 is appropriate for this species. A key threat to this species is changes to water regimes which could impact on food
resources along creeks/streams.
The BIONET tool did not list any records of the giant dragonfly although it scored a 1 for predicted to occur. A change to natural flow is listed as a key threat to this species which inhabits swamps. However,
the nearest record of this species is several hundred kilometres to the east on the North Coast.
The BIONET tool did not indicate any records for the black-necked stork (scored a 2 as known, outcome likely due to use of IBRA sub-regions) and the jacana (scored a 1 as predicted). Both these species
would be considered an uncommon species in this area and the Jacana tends to be found in wetland habitats. The regent honeyeater scored a 2 as known to occur but this species does not utilise instream habitats. The BIONET tool indicated no records of this species in this water source although data
indicates it may be found in riparian gallery forests. The freckled duck is predicted to occur and could occupy pools within Tenterfield Creek and a score of 1 is appropriate.
National Park estate scored a 1 (the Estate is not sensitive to extraction) and is appropriate as these
small areas in this water source are above all extraction points.
A2.3.12.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
For threatened species, the score for the, giant dragonfly, sphagnum frog and black-necked stork were changed from a 2 to a 0 due to their unlikely occurrence in this water source. The Regent honeyeater score of 2 in the upstream water source to Tenterfield Creek and the score was reduced to a 1 (predicted
to occur). This reduced the Final Instream Value from 6.1 to 5.6 but this did not reduced the final Risk score from 10. Risk Classification DID NOT CHANGE from a C (high risk to instream values).
No other scores were modified in the spreadsheet for this water source.
A2.3.12.3 Recommendation
The majority of scores for threatened species in this water source were unchanged and were appropriate.
The 3 threatened species that had their scores reduced to 0 did not change the final Risk score for this water source. Reducing the regent honeyeater from a 2 to 1 in the Tenterfield water source did not alter any final Risk score outcomes. Threatened fish are key species in this water source that potential can be
impacted by extraction in low flows via a reduction of longitudinal connectivity between pool habitats. Risk to instream values did not change primarily due to the proportion of risk (ie. extraction) within the water source and cumulative risk (ie. extraction upstream combined with in-water source extraction).
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be remain a C (high risk to instream values).
45 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.13 Upper Brunswick River water sharing plan
A2.3.13.1 Assessment of risk and instream value
Risk in the Upper Brunswick River is essentially all within the water source due to the high demand for
water relative to the available low flow. There is no upstream water source for which cumulative hydrologic stress could be attributed. There some 17 licences with a total entitlement of 566 ML/year. Ten of these licences are on the main stem of the Brunswick River with the majority of these in the lower
half of the water source. The remaining licences are generally on lower order streams in the headwater areas of the water source. The classification spreadsheet lists a peak daily demand (PDD) of 6.2 ML/day which is the highest PDD listed in the Brunswick catchment. PDD is much higher than the 80th percentile
flow (3 ML/day) hence the high score for cumulative hydrologic stress.
All threatened vertebrate species have received a score of 1 (for fish 1 = believed or known to be present but not a key location; for other vertebrates 1 = species is modelled to be present). Essentially these
scores suggest that no threatened vertebrates are known to be present in this water source BUT modelled to occur. A check of the DECC Threatened species distribution maps also indicated this. A check of the Recovery Plan for the oxleyan pygmy perch (Nannoperca oxleyana) also indicates that this
fish species is unlikely to occur in this water source, due to a lack of key habitat.
The three threatened (wet) flora species listed are either KNOWN to occur in the riparian zones of rivers or are associated with wetlands. Although modification/changes to river flow is not listed as a key threat
to these species, scores for these species remained unchanged.
The Instream Risk of extraction to Instream Ecological Values (2b spreadsheet) indicates that National Park Estate, ranked as a 3 (significant amount within water source), plays a major roll in contributing to
the Final Instream value score of 5.9 (= medium Instream Value). A check of the distribution of National Park Estate in this water source revealed that only a very small amount occurs in the fringes of the upper catchment of this water source AND no licensed extraction occurs upstream or within these areas. Thus
the score for National Park Estate should be a 1 (estate is not sensitive to extraction).
A2.3.13.2 Sensitivity analysis of classification spreadsheet
Replacing the score for National Park Estate with a 1 instead of 3 dropped the initial Final Instream Value score from 5.9 to 4.9. This in turn reduced the Instream Risk from 7.5 to 6.4, changing the classification from a C to an F (Medium Instream Risk).
Seven threatened frog and three threatened bird species are predicted to occur in this water source. Scores for the green-thighed frog, wallum frog, black bittern, black-necked stork and osprey (Pandion haliaetus) were reduced from 1 to 0 as none of these species are considered to be highly instream
dependent species but more wetland dependent. The osprey would be considered more estuary and ocean dependent. Assessment using the BIONET mapping tool also indicated there were no records of these species in this water source. Altered flow is also not listed as a threat to these species.
Fleay’s barred frog (Mixophyes fleayi) was modelled to occur in this water source and received a score of 1. Assessment using the BIONET mapping tool also indicated there were no records of this species in this water source. Published information also indicated this species is unlikely to be present in this water
source. The threatened species score was also changed to a 0. This further reduced the Final Instream Value from 4.9 to 3.7 and reduced the Final Instream Risk further from 6.4 to 5.2. Risk Classification remains an F.
46 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
A2.3.13. 3 Recommendation
Although several stream dependent threatened frog species are modelled (predicted) to occur within this
water source, they are most likely to be in forested/riparian upper catchment areas, above the major areas of water extraction. Given the oxleyan pygmy perch is modelled to occur in this water source, there is the potential it may occur in the lower areas of this water source and could be impacted by water
extraction.
It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be reduced from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
A2.3.3 Recommendations
It is recommended that NSW Office of Water consider the following outcomes from this risk assessment review process. In particular, how the review process modified the classification outcomes in some water sources which provide guidance as to which water sources (existing unregulated water sharing plans)
should be considered a priority for monitoring and the threatened species or other attributes that influence this.
The recommendations identified for each water source are discussed below.
Adelong Creek water sharing plan: Water source usage (ie PDD) should be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (high risk to instream values). The 50th
percentile flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50th
percentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain a F. NSW DPI should be consulted to determine if the purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source as natural distribution of this species occurs in this water source. There are around
20 other water sources in the Murrumbidgee unregulated river area with a subcatchment usage value of 0.01 ML/day and should be re-assessed based on the outcome for this water source.
Commissioners Waters water sharing plan: The BIONET mapping tool indicated that the majority of
threatened frog species have not been recorded in this water source, and key habitat is also highly degraded (terrestrial and riparian vegetation has been heavily cleared, modified natural flow due to extraction and instream dams) within this water source. It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk
classification be reduced from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values).
Upper Dorrigo water sharing plan: Instream dependent threatened and non-threatened species that occur in this water source should be considered as factors at risk from water extraction during low stream
flows. Although four threatened frogs, two birds and a plant that had their scores reduced to 0, this outcome did not change the final Risk score of C for this water source due to the number of remaining attributes at risk. Hydrologic stress is very high in this water source. It is recommended that the initial
Instream Risk classification be remain a C (high risk to instream values).
Jilliby Jilliby Creek water sharing plan: It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be reduced from a C to an F (medium risk to instream values). Scores for threatened species, Declared
Locations and National Park Estate were reduced due to either the absence of records or attributes were located above points of extraction.
Kangaroo River water sharing plan: It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-
assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of C (high risk to instream values).
47 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach
48 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012
Upper Karuah River (part of the Karuah water sharing plan): It is recommended that within water source usage (ie PDD) be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of B (high risk to instream values).
Mammy Johnson (part of the Karuah water sharing plan): It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream values from extraction) as a reduction in scores of several threatened species did not significantly influence the risk score.
Central Karuah River (Part of the Karuah River water sharing plan): It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an E (medium risk to instream values from extraction). Reduction of scores for a number of threatened species and other attributes did not significantly alter the final instream
risk.
Ourimbah water sharing plan: It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification remain an F (medium risk to instream values from extraction). Reduction of scores for a number of threatened
species and other attributes did not significantly alter the final instream risk.
Mooki River water source (part of the Phillips creek, Mooki River, Quirindi Creek and Warrah Creek water sharing plan): It is recommended that this water source should not be considered as a priority for MER
activities on the basis of this assessment. Initial Risk to Instream Values should remain an I. Known threatened species/endangered ecological communities in the water source have a low level of sensitivity to extraction. This is why the risk score is low relative to the high level of cumulative hydrologic stress.
Tarcutta Creek water sharing plan: Water source usage (ie PDD) should be re-assessed as this is the key factor influencing the initial Instream Risk classification of I (high risk to instream values). The 50th
percentile flows for the critical month should also be re-assessed. If no change to PDD or the 50th
percentile flow is determined, then the Final Risk classification for this water source should remain a F. DPI Fisheries should be consulted to determine if the purple spotted gudgeon is known or predicted to occur in this water source as natural distribution of this species occurs in this water source. There are
around 20 other water sources in the Murrumbidgee unregulated river area with a subcatchment usage value of 0.01 ML/day and should be re-assessed based on the outcome for this water source.
Tenterfield Creek water sharing plan: It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be
remain a C (high risk to instream values) due to the presence of a number of threatened species and other instream attributes that may be at risk from water extraction at low river flows.
Upper Brunswick: It is recommended that the initial Instream Risk classification be reduced from a C to an
F (medium risk to instream values) due to the likely absence of threatened species or these species and other instream attributes are located above the points of water extraction.
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
Ap
pen
dix
3–P
lan
ob
ject
ive
s f
or
un
reg
ula
ted
riv
er
wat
er s
ou
rces
su
bje
ct t
o a
wat
er s
har
ing
pla
n
Ten
terf
ield
Cre
ek
Jilli
by
Jill
iby
Cre
ek
Ou
rim
bah
Cre
ek
Cas
tler
eag
h R
iver
ab
ove
Bin
naw
ay
11(a
) pr
otec
t, m
aint
ain
and
enha
nce
the
envi
ronm
enta
l va
lues
of t
his
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(b)
man
age
this
wat
er s
ourc
e to
en
sure
equ
itabl
e sh
arin
g of
wat
er
betw
een
all u
sers
, (c
) en
sure
ext
ract
ion
from
this
w
ater
sou
rce
is m
anag
ed w
ithin
th
e lim
its e
stab
lishe
d fo
r th
e B
orde
r R
iver
s U
nreg
ulat
ed
Ext
ract
ion
Man
agem
ent U
nit,
(d)
ensu
re th
at e
xtra
ctio
n fr
om
this
wat
er s
ourc
e oc
curs
with
in
sust
aina
ble
limits
, (e
) m
anag
e th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to
reco
gnis
e an
d pr
eser
ve b
asic
la
ndho
lder
rig
hts,
(f
) pr
ovid
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r m
arke
t bas
ed tr
adin
g of
sur
face
w
ater
rig
hts
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
w
ithin
sus
tain
abili
ty li
mits
, (g
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e,
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qu
ality
. Alth
ough
the
re a
re n
o sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gies
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
this
ob
ject
ive
in th
is P
lan,
the
envi
ron
men
tal
wat
er p
rovi
sion
s in
this
Pla
n m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
mai
ntai
ning
wat
er
qual
ity.
(h)
prot
ect t
he c
ultu
ral,
herit
age
and
spiri
tual
val
ue o
f thi
s w
ater
so
urce
whe
re p
ossi
ble
thro
ugh
wat
er s
harin
g
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
wat
er le
vels
in
poo
ls, r
iver
s an
d w
etla
nds
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
ws,
(b
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
low
flow
s,
(c)
prot
ect o
r re
stor
e a
prop
ortio
n of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
(fre
shes
) an
d hi
gh fl
ows,
(d
) m
aint
ain
or r
esto
re th
e na
tura
l in
unda
tion
patte
rns
and
dist
ribut
ion
of fl
oodw
ater
s su
ppor
ting
natu
ral w
etla
nd a
nd
flood
plai
n ec
osys
tem
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n or
imita
te n
atur
al lo
w
flow
var
iabi
lity
in a
ll riv
ers,
(f
) m
inim
ise
the
impa
ct o
f in-
river
st
ruct
ure
s,
(g)
mai
ntai
n or
reh
abili
tate
do
wns
trea
m (
incl
udin
g es
tuar
ine)
pr
oces
ses
and
habi
tats
, (h
) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y to
mee
t ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial b
asic
la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
requ
irem
ents
(fo
r do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
, and
nat
ive
title
rig
hts)
, con
ditio
nal o
n w
ater
av
aila
bilit
y,
(i) p
rovi
de a
n ag
reed
leve
l of w
ater
sh
arin
g fo
r ag
ricul
tura
l and
in
dust
rial r
equi
rem
ents
, co
nditi
onal
on
wat
er a
vaila
bilit
y,
(j) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y to
mee
t ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial d
omes
tic
need
s of
urb
an c
omm
uniti
es,
cond
ition
al o
n w
ater
ava
ilabi
lity,
(k
) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y to
mee
t
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
wat
er le
vels
in
pool
s, r
iver
s an
d w
etla
nds
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
ws,
(b
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
low
flow
s,
(c)
prot
ect o
r re
stor
e a
prop
ortio
n of
m
oder
ate
flow
s (f
resh
es)
and
high
flo
ws,
(d
) m
aint
ain
or r
esto
re th
e na
tura
l in
unda
tion
patte
rns
and
dist
ribut
ion
of fl
oodw
ater
s su
ppor
ting
natu
ral
wet
land
and
floo
dpla
in e
cosy
stem
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n or
imita
te n
atur
al fl
ow
varia
bilit
y in
all
river
s,
(f)
min
imis
e th
e im
pact
s of
in-r
iver
st
ruct
ure
s,
(g)
mai
ntai
n or
reh
abili
tate
do
wns
trea
m (
incl
udin
g es
tuar
ine)
pr
oces
ses
and
habi
tats
, (h
) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y to
mee
t ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial b
asic
la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
requ
irem
ents
(fo
r do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
, and
nat
ive
title
rig
hts)
, con
ditio
nal o
n w
ater
av
aila
bilit
y,
(i) p
rovi
de a
n ag
reed
leve
l of w
ater
sh
arin
g fo
r ag
ricul
tura
l and
in
dust
rial r
equi
rem
ents
, con
ditio
nal
on w
ater
ava
ilabi
lity,
(j)
to p
rote
ct a
nd e
nhan
ce w
ater
de
pend
ent s
peci
es a
nd s
ites
of
sign
ifica
nce
to th
e lo
cal A
borig
inal
C
omm
unity
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
(k
) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y to
mee
t th
e ex
istin
g an
d po
tent
ial d
omes
tic
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
wat
er le
vels
in p
ools
of
cree
ks, r
iver
s an
d w
etla
nds
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
w,
(b)
prot
ect n
atur
al lo
w fl
ow,
(c)
prot
ect o
r re
stor
e a
prop
ortio
n of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
(fre
shes
) an
d hi
gh fl
ows,
(d
) m
aint
ain
natu
ral f
low
var
iabi
lity,
(e
) m
inim
ise
the
effe
cts
of w
eirs
and
oth
er
stru
ctu
res,
(f
) pr
otec
t aqu
atic
eco
syst
ems,
(g
) pr
otec
t acc
ess
to w
ater
for
basi
c rig
hts,
(h
) gi
ve p
riorit
y of
acc
ess
to lo
cal w
ater
util
ity,
dom
estic
and
sto
ck a
cces
s lic
ence
s ov
er o
ther
ac
cess
lice
nces
, (i)
eng
ende
r co
mm
unity
ow
ners
hip
and
acce
ptan
ce o
f thi
s P
lan,
(j)
pro
vide
equ
itabl
e ac
cess
to w
ater
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e A
ct,
(k)
allo
w fo
r tr
adin
g of
wat
er a
cces
s rig
hts
with
in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(l) s
usta
in v
iabl
e w
ater
bas
ed in
dust
ries,
in
clud
ing
the
irrig
atio
n in
dust
ry,
(m)
enco
urag
e w
ater
ext
ract
ion
to m
ove
from
lo
wer
flow
s to
hig
her
flow
s,
(n)
enco
urag
e ef
ficie
nt w
ater
use
pra
ctic
es,
(o)
pres
erve
Abo
rigin
al c
ultu
ral h
erita
ge v
alue
s ac
ross
this
wat
er s
ourc
e th
at r
elat
e to
wat
er
shar
ing
man
agem
ent,
(p)
pres
erve
wat
er r
elat
ed E
urop
ean
cultu
ral
herit
age
valu
es
(q)
cont
ribut
e to
the
achi
evem
ent o
f wat
er
qual
ity to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of
this
wat
er s
ourc
e.
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qua
lity.
A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed to
49 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g th
e cu
ltura
l, he
ritag
e an
d sp
iritu
al v
alue
of
this
wat
er
sour
ce. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng th
e cu
ltura
l, he
ritag
e an
d sp
iritu
al v
alue
of
this
wat
er
sour
ce.
(i) r
ecog
nise
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f th
e m
anag
emen
t of t
his
wat
er
sour
ce fo
r do
wns
trea
m r
iver
he
alth
.
the
exis
ting
and
pote
ntia
l ind
ustr
ial
and
com
mer
cial
nee
ds o
f urb
an
com
mun
ities
, con
ditio
nal i
n w
ater
av
aila
bilit
y,
(l) p
rote
ct a
nd e
nhan
ce w
ater
de
pend
ent s
peci
es a
nd s
ites
of
sign
ifica
nce
to th
e lo
cal A
borig
inal
co
mm
uniti
es in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e (m
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of th
is w
ater
so
urce
. N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
need
s of
urb
an c
omm
uniti
es,
cond
ition
al o
n w
ater
ava
ilabi
lity,
(l)
mai
ntai
n w
ater
sup
ply
to m
eet
the
exis
ting
and
pote
ntia
l ind
ustr
ial
and
com
mer
cial
nee
ds o
f urb
an
com
mun
ities
, con
ditio
nal o
n w
ater
av
aila
bilit
y (m
) im
prov
e w
ater
qua
lity
para
met
ers
as a
res
ult o
f im
prov
ed
flow
con
ditio
ns.
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qu
ality
. Alth
ough
the
re a
re n
o sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gies
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
this
obj
ectiv
e in
th
is P
lan,
the
envi
ronm
enta
l wat
er
prov
isio
ns
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to
ma
inta
inin
g w
ate
r q
ua
lity.
this
obj
ectiv
e in
this
Pla
n, t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
Ro
cky
Ck,
Co
bb
adah
, Up
per
H
ort
on
an
d L
ow
er H
ort
on
W
ybo
ng
Cre
ek
Man
dag
ery
Cre
ek
Kar
uah
Riv
er
11(a
) im
plem
ent t
he r
elev
ant
Riv
er F
low
Obj
ectiv
es a
s st
ated
in
App
endi
x 4,
to p
rote
ct,
mai
ntai
n an
d en
hanc
e th
e en
viro
nmen
tal v
alue
s of
this
w
ater
sou
rce,
(b
) m
anag
e th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to
ensu
re e
quita
ble
shar
ing
of w
ater
be
twee
n al
l use
s,
(c)
prot
ect t
his
wat
er s
ourc
e by
en
surin
g ad
vers
e im
pact
s of
ex
trac
tion
are
min
imis
ed,
(d)
impr
ove
the
wat
er q
ualit
y of
th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
wat
er le
vels
in
poo
ls d
urin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
ws,
(b
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
low
flow
s,
(c)
prot
ect o
r re
stor
e a
prop
ortio
n of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
(fre
shes
) an
d hi
gh fl
ows,
(d
) m
aint
ain
or r
esto
re th
e na
tura
l in
unda
tion
patte
rns
and
dist
ribut
ion
of fl
oodw
ater
s su
ppor
ting
natu
ral w
etla
nd a
nd
flood
plai
n ec
osys
tem
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n or
imita
te n
atur
al fl
ow
varia
bilit
y,
(f)
mai
ntai
n gr
ound
wat
er w
ithin
na
tura
l lev
els
and
varia
bilit
y cr
itica
l to
sur
face
flow
s an
d ec
osys
tem
s,
(g)
min
imis
e th
e im
pact
s of
in-r
iver
st
ruct
ure
s,
(h)
ensu
re r
iver
flow
man
agem
ent
11(a
) id
entif
y an
d re
cogn
ise
the
key
ecol
ogic
al fe
atur
es d
epen
dent
on
flow
s in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(b)
prot
ect n
atur
al w
ater
leve
ls in
po
ols
of c
reek
s an
d riv
ers
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
w,
(c)
prot
ect n
atur
al lo
w fl
ows,
(d
) pr
otec
t or
rest
ore
a pr
opor
tion
of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
(fre
shes
) an
d hi
gh
flow
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n or
res
tore
the
natu
ral
inun
datio
n pa
ttern
s an
d di
strib
utio
n of
floo
dwat
ers
supp
ortin
g na
tura
l w
etla
nd a
nd fl
oodp
lain
eco
syst
ems,
(f
) m
aint
ain
or im
itate
nat
ural
flow
va
riabi
lity
of a
ll riv
ers,
(g
) m
aint
ain
a flo
w r
egim
e th
at
supp
orts
in-r
iver
hab
itat,
ende
mic
aq
uatic
spe
cies
, end
emic
rip
aria
n
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
wat
er le
vel i
n po
ols
durin
g pe
riods
of l
ow fl
ows,
(b
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
low
flow
s,
(c)
prot
ect o
r re
stor
e a
prop
ortio
n of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
and
high
flow
s,
(d)
mai
ntai
n or
res
tore
the
natu
ral i
nund
atio
n pa
ttern
s an
d di
strib
utio
n of
floo
dwat
ers
supp
ortin
g na
tura
l wet
land
and
floo
dpla
in
ecos
yste
ms,
(e
) m
aint
ain
or im
itate
nat
ural
flow
var
iabi
lity,
(f
) m
inim
ise
the
impa
cts
of in
-riv
er s
truc
ture
s,
(g)
mai
ntai
n es
tuar
ine
proc
esse
s an
d ha
bita
ts,
(h)
mai
ntai
n w
ater
sup
ply
prio
ritie
s fo
r ba
sic
land
hold
er r
ight
s,
(i) s
uppl
y to
wn
wat
er to
mee
t the
exi
stin
g an
d po
tent
ial p
opul
atio
n ne
eds
of u
rban
co
mm
uniti
es, c
ondi
tiona
l on
wat
er a
vaila
bilit
y,
(j) p
rovi
de a
n ag
reed
leve
l of w
ater
sha
ring
to
mai
ntai
n irr
igat
ion
indu
stry
via
bilit
y,
50 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
(e)
prov
ide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
ecol
ogic
ally
sus
tain
able
mar
ket-
base
d tr
adin
g of
sur
face
wat
er in
th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
(f
) m
anag
e th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to
pres
erve
and
enh
ance
bas
ic
land
hold
er r
ight
s to
wat
er,
(g)
ensu
re e
xtra
ctio
n fr
om th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e is
man
aged
with
in
the
Mur
ray-
Dar
ling
Bas
in
Agr
eem
ent,
Sch
edul
e F
- C
ap o
n D
iver
sion
s,
(h)
man
age
this
wat
er s
ourc
e to
pr
eser
ve a
nd e
nhan
ce c
ultu
ral
and
herit
age
valu
es,
(i) r
ecog
nise
and
pro
tect
tr
aditi
onal
val
ues
of w
ater
to
Abo
rigin
al p
eopl
e,
(j) r
ecog
nise
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f th
e m
anag
emen
t of t
his
wat
er
sour
ce fo
r do
wns
trea
m r
iver
he
alth
.
prov
ides
for
cont
inge
ncie
s,
(i) m
aint
ain
or im
prov
e th
e ec
olog
ical
con
ditio
n of
this
wat
er
sour
ce a
nd it
s rip
aria
n ar
eas
over
th
e lo
nger
term
, (j)
rec
ogni
se a
nd p
rote
ct th
e co
ntrib
utio
n fr
om th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to d
owns
trea
m w
ater
sou
rces
’ en
viro
nmen
tal a
nd b
asic
rig
ht
requ
irem
ents
, (k
) m
aint
ain
wat
er s
uppl
y pr
iorit
y fo
r ba
sic
land
hold
er r
ight
s,
(l) p
rovi
de a
n ag
reed
leve
l of w
ater
sh
arin
g fo
r irr
igat
ion
and
othe
r in
dust
ry,
(m)
reco
gnis
e an
d pr
otec
t tr
aditi
onal
val
ues
of w
ater
to
Abo
rigin
al p
eopl
e (n
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of th
is w
ater
so
urce
. N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
vege
tatio
n an
d th
e re
cove
ry o
f th
reat
ened
spe
cies
, (h
) de
liver
a r
ange
of r
ecre
atio
nal
and
amen
ity o
ppor
tuni
ties
with
in
the
natu
ral f
low
reg
ime,
(i)
pro
vide
for
com
mun
ity o
wne
rshi
p an
d ac
cept
ance
of t
his
Pla
n,
(j) m
ake
prov
isio
n fo
r an
d m
aint
ain
at a
ll tim
es p
riorit
y to
acc
ess
for
basi
c la
ndho
lder
rig
hts,
(k
) pr
ovid
e eq
uita
ble
acce
ss to
w
ater
, (l)
enc
oura
ge w
ater
use
effi
cien
t p
ract
ices
, (m
) pr
ovid
e a
plat
form
for
futu
re
sust
aina
ble
econ
omic
dev
elop
men
t, (n
) pr
ovid
e a
wat
er m
arke
t tha
t al
low
s tr
adin
g of
wat
er a
cces
s rig
hts
with
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
(o
) im
plem
ent w
ater
sha
ring
that
re
cogn
ises
, res
pect
s an
d pr
otec
ts
the
spiri
tual
, eco
nom
ic a
nd
aest
hetic
val
ues
of th
e la
ndsc
ape,
(p
) re
cogn
ise
the
cont
ribut
ion
of th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e to
the
dow
nstr
eam
w
ater
sys
tem
s, a
nd
(q)
prot
ect a
nd im
prov
e w
ater
qu
ality
in th
e M
anda
gery
Cre
ek
Wat
er S
ourc
e th
roug
h th
e m
anag
emen
t of f
low
s.
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qu
ality
. Alth
ough
the
re a
re n
o sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gies
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
this
obj
ectiv
e in
th
is P
lan,
the
envi
ronm
enta
l wat
er
prov
isio
ns
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to
ma
inta
inin
g w
ate
r q
ua
lity.
(k)
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce r
ecre
atio
nal a
nd to
uris
m
oppo
rtun
ities
, (l)
rec
ogni
se a
nd p
rote
ct tr
aditi
onal
val
ues
of
wat
er to
Abo
rigin
al p
eopl
e,
(m)
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce r
ecre
atio
nal a
nd
com
mer
cial
fish
ing
inte
rest
s,
(n)
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e oy
ster
indu
stry
in
the
low
er K
arua
h R
iver
, (o
) im
prov
e w
ater
qua
lity
para
met
ers
as a
res
ult
of e
nviro
nmen
tal f
low
s at
low
flow
per
iods
. N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ualit
y.
Alth
ough
ther
e a
re n
o sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gies
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
this
obj
ectiv
e in
this
Pla
n, t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
51 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
Asp
ley
Riv
er
Co
mm
issi
on
ers
Wat
ers
To
oru
mb
ee C
reek
U
pp
er B
illab
on
g
11(a
) m
aint
ain
natu
ral i
n-riv
er
proc
esse
s w
ithin
the
Oxl
ey W
ild
Riv
ers
Nat
iona
l Par
k by
m
anag
ing
extr
actio
n up
stre
am to
en
sure
suf
ficie
nt fl
ows
thro
ugh
the
Par
k,
(b)
prot
ect p
ools
and
nat
ural
low
flo
ws
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce
by
limiti
ng e
xtra
ctio
ns,
(c)
impr
ove
wat
er q
ualit
y in
this
w
ater
sou
rce
thro
ugh
the
man
agem
ent o
f flo
ws,
(d
) pr
otec
t and
enh
ance
wat
er
depe
nden
t eco
syst
ems,
th
reat
ened
spe
cies
and
en
dang
ered
eco
logi
cal
com
mun
ities
by
man
agin
g a
cces
s to
flow
s,
(e)
cont
ribut
e to
the
pros
perit
y of
co
mm
uniti
es w
ithin
this
wat
er
sour
ce b
y al
low
ing
som
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r ex
trac
tion,
(f
) m
aint
ain
or im
prov
e th
e ov
eral
l hea
lth o
f the
Mac
leay
R
iver
and
est
uary
by
ensu
ring
suffi
cien
t con
trib
utio
ns to
this
sy
stem
thro
ugh
flow
s fr
om th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(g)
imita
te n
atur
al r
iver
var
iabi
lity,
in
clud
ing
the
prot
ectio
n of
fr
eshe
s, in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e th
roug
h th
e m
anag
emen
t of
acc
ess
to v
ario
us
flow
cla
sses
, an
d (h
) re
cogn
ise
and
prot
ect
Abo
rigin
al h
erita
ge s
ites
and
valu
es th
roug
h th
e m
anag
emen
t of
flow
s an
d in
wat
er li
cens
ing
11(a
) m
aint
ain
natu
ral i
n-riv
er
proc
esse
s w
ithin
the
Oxl
ey W
ild
Riv
ers
Nat
iona
l Par
k by
man
agin
g ex
trac
tion
upst
ream
to e
nsur
e su
ffici
ent f
low
s th
roug
h th
e P
ark,
(b
) pr
otec
t poo
ls a
nd n
atur
al lo
w
flow
s in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e by
lim
iting
ext
ract
ions
, (c
) im
prov
e w
ater
qua
lity
in th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e th
roug
h th
e m
anag
emen
t of f
low
s,
(d)
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce w
ater
de
pend
ent e
cosy
stem
s,
thre
aten
ed s
peci
es a
nd
enda
nger
ed e
colo
gica
l co
mm
uniti
es b
y m
anag
ing
acce
ss
to fl
ows,
(e
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e w
ell b
eing
of
com
mun
ities
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce
by a
llow
ing
oppo
rtun
ities
for
extr
actio
n,
(f)
prot
ect n
atur
al w
ater
leve
l in
pool
s du
ring
perio
ds o
f no
flow
s,
inun
datio
n pa
ttern
s an
d di
strib
utio
n of
floo
dwat
ers
supp
ortin
g na
tura
l wet
land
and
flo
odpl
ain
ecos
yste
ms,
(g
) m
aint
ain
or im
prov
e th
e ov
eral
l he
alth
of t
he M
acle
ay R
iver
, its
es
tuar
y an
d ad
jace
nt in
shor
e w
ater
s by
ens
urin
g su
ffici
ent
cont
ribut
ions
to th
is s
yste
m
thro
ugh
flow
s fr
om th
is w
ater
so
urce
, (h
) im
itate
nat
ural
riv
er v
aria
bilit
y,
incl
udin
g th
e pr
otec
tion
of fr
eshe
s,
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce
thro
ugh
the
man
agem
ent o
f acc
ess
to v
ario
us
11(a
) pr
eser
ve th
e hi
gh
cons
erva
tion
valu
es o
f the
T
ooru
mbe
e C
reek
Wat
er S
ourc
e by
lim
iting
ext
ract
ion
from
the
river
to
basi
c la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
user
s,
dom
estic
and
sto
ck a
nd
unre
gula
ted
river
(A
borig
inal
cu
ltura
l) ac
cess
lice
nce
user
s, a
nd
by e
ncou
ragi
ng th
ese
user
s to
ad
opt e
ffici
ent p
ract
ices
dur
ing
perio
ds o
f ver
y lo
w fl
ows,
(b
) m
aint
ain
high
qua
lity
wat
ers
in
the
Too
rum
bee
Cre
ek W
ater
S
ourc
e,
(c)
mai
ntai
n or
impr
ove
the
over
all
heal
th o
f the
Mac
leay
Riv
er
catc
hmen
t, its
est
uary
and
ad
join
ing
insh
ore
wat
ers,
by
enab
ling
suffi
cien
t con
trib
utio
ns to
th
is s
yste
m fr
om T
ooru
mbe
e C
reek
flo
ws,
(d
) pr
otec
t and
enh
ance
wat
er
depe
nden
t eco
syst
ems,
thre
aten
ed
spec
ies
and
enda
nger
ed e
colo
gica
l co
mm
uniti
es w
ithin
the
river
by
allo
win
g on
ly th
e ho
lder
s of
do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
rig
hts,
nat
ive
title
rig
hts,
and
dom
estic
and
sto
ck
and
unre
gula
ted
river
(A
borig
inal
cu
ltura
l) ac
cess
lice
nce
user
s a
cces
s to
flow
s,
(e)
prot
ect w
ater
qua
lity
and
habi
tat
by p
rote
ctin
g fr
eshe
s an
d lo
w fl
ows
thro
ugho
ut th
e riv
er s
yste
m b
y al
low
ing
only
dom
estic
and
sto
ck
user
s, n
ativ
e tit
le r
ight
s ho
lder
s an
d A
borig
inal
peo
ple
to a
cces
s flo
ws,
an
d by
enc
oura
ging
thes
e us
ers
to
11(a
) pr
otec
t nat
ural
low
flow
s (f
low
s fr
om th
e ve
ry lo
w a
nd A
cla
sses
),
(b)
prot
ect i
mpo
rtan
t ris
es in
riv
er le
vels
, (c
) pr
otec
t a p
ropo
rtio
n of
mod
erat
e flo
ws
(B
clas
s flo
ws)
, (d
) m
aint
ain
wet
land
and
floo
dpla
in in
unda
tion,
(e
) pr
otec
t the
nat
ural
wet
ting
and
dryi
ng c
ycle
s of
eph
emer
al w
ater
way
s,
(f)
prov
ide
wat
er to
mee
t exi
stin
g an
d fu
ture
lic
ense
d do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
req
uire
men
ts,
cond
ition
al o
n cl
imat
ic v
aria
bilit
y, th
e pr
ovis
ion
of
wat
er fo
r en
viro
nmen
tal p
urpo
ses
and
the
prov
isio
n of
wat
er to
mee
t bas
ic la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
requ
irem
ents
, (g
) pr
ovid
e fo
r th
e pr
actic
al s
harin
g of
wat
er fo
r ot
her
licen
sed
cons
umpt
ive
uses
, con
ditio
nal o
n cl
imat
ic v
aria
bilit
y, th
e pr
ovis
ion
of w
ater
for
envi
ronm
enta
l pur
pose
s, th
e pr
ovis
ion
of w
ater
to
mee
t bas
ic la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
requ
irem
ents
an
d th
e pr
ovis
ion
of w
ater
to m
eet e
xist
ing
and
futu
re li
cens
ed d
omes
tic a
nd s
tock
re
quire
men
ts,
(h)
prov
ide
a sh
are
of w
ater
to p
rese
rve
iden
tifie
d va
lues
dow
nstr
eam
of t
his
wat
er
sour
ce, c
ondi
tiona
l on
clim
atic
var
iabi
lity,
(i)
pro
tect
wet
land
are
as w
ith tr
aditi
onal
nat
ive
aqua
tic p
lant
s us
ed b
y A
borig
inal
peo
ple
for
food
, med
icin
es a
nd h
abita
t, (j)
res
pect
and
pro
tect
Wira
djur
i her
itage
site
s an
d cu
lture
thro
ugh
the
man
agem
ent o
f wat
er
extr
actio
n fr
om th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
(k
) re
cogn
ise
and
prot
ect a
ny o
ther
trad
ition
al
valu
es o
f wat
er to
Abo
rigin
al p
eopl
e,
(l) c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
achi
evem
ent o
f wat
er q
ualit
y to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of th
is w
ater
so
urce
. N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ualit
y.
Alth
ough
ther
e a
re n
o sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gies
dire
ctly
rel
ated
to
52 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
deci
sion
s.
flow
cla
sses
, (i)
pro
tect
and
enh
ance
wat
er
depe
nden
t eco
syst
ems,
th
reat
ened
spe
cies
and
en
dang
ered
eco
logi
cal
com
mun
ities
by
man
agin
g ac
cess
to
flow
s (j)
rec
ogni
se a
nd p
rote
ct
Abo
rigin
al h
erita
ge s
ites
and
valu
es th
roug
h ac
cess
m
anag
emen
t, an
d in
wat
er
licen
sing
dec
isio
ns.
adop
t effi
cien
t pra
ctic
es d
urin
g pe
riods
of v
ery
low
flow
(f
) re
cogn
ise
and
prot
ect A
borig
inal
he
ritag
e si
tes
and
valu
es in
acc
ess
man
agem
ent a
nd w
ater
lice
nsin
g de
cisi
ons.
this
obj
ectiv
e in
this
Pla
n, t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
Ad
elo
ng
Cre
ek
Tar
cutt
a C
reek
P
hill
ips
Cre
ek, M
oo
ki R
iver
, Q
uir
ind
i an
d W
arra
h C
reek
s U
pp
er B
run
swic
k R
iver
11(a
) pr
otec
t bas
ic la
ndho
lder
rig
hts
incl
udin
g na
tive
title
rig
hts,
(b
) m
inim
ise
impa
ct o
n na
tura
l w
ater
leve
ls in
riv
er p
ools
and
w
etla
nds
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
w,
(c)
prot
ect n
atur
al lo
w fl
ow
regi
mes
, (d
) pr
otec
t a p
ortio
n of
fres
hes
and
high
flow
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n th
e na
tura
l in
unda
tion
patte
rns
and
dist
ribut
ion
of fl
oodw
ater
s su
ppor
ting
natu
ral w
etla
nds
and
flood
plai
n ec
osys
tem
s,
(f)
mai
ntai
n or
imita
te n
atur
al fl
ow
varia
bilit
y in
all
river
s,
(g)
mai
ntai
n gr
ound
wat
er w
ithin
na
tura
l lev
els
and
varia
bilit
y to
su
stai
n cr
itica
l sur
face
flow
s an
d ec
osys
tem
s,
(h)
defin
e an
d pr
ovid
e fo
r to
wn
wa
ter
acce
ss,
(i) p
rovi
de, w
here
pos
sibl
e,
adeq
uate
flow
con
ditio
ns fo
r
11(a
) pr
otec
t bas
ic la
ndho
lder
rig
hts,
incl
udin
g na
tive
title
rig
hts,
(b
) m
inim
ise
the
impa
ct o
f ex
trac
tion
on n
atur
al w
ater
leve
ls
in r
iver
poo
ls a
nd w
etla
nds
durin
g pe
riods
of n
o flo
w,
(c)
prot
ect n
atur
al lo
w fl
ow
regi
mes
, (d
) pr
otec
t a p
ortio
n of
fres
hes
and
high
flow
s,
(e)
mai
ntai
n th
e na
tura
l inu
ndat
ion
patte
rns
and
dist
ribut
ion
of
flood
wat
ers
supp
ortin
g na
tura
l w
etla
nds
and
flood
plai
n ec
osys
tem
s,
(f)
mai
ntai
n or
imita
te n
atur
al fl
ow
varia
bilit
y in
all
river
s,
(g)
mai
ntai
n gr
ound
wat
er w
ithin
na
tura
l lev
els
and
varia
bilit
y to
su
stai
n cr
itica
l sur
face
flow
s an
d ec
osys
tem
s,
(h)
defin
e an
d pr
ovid
e fo
r to
wn
wa
ter
acce
ss,
(i) p
rovi
de, w
here
pos
sibl
e,
adeq
uate
flow
con
ditio
ns fo
r
11(a
) im
plem
ent t
he R
iver
Flo
w
Obj
ectiv
es li
sted
in A
ppen
dix
4, to
pr
otec
t, pr
eser
ve, m
aint
ain
or
enha
nce
the
impo
rtan
t riv
er fl
ow
depe
nden
t env
ironm
enta
l fea
ture
s,
and
cultu
ral a
nd A
borig
inal
her
itage
va
lues
of t
he P
hilli
ps C
reek
, Moo
ki
Riv
er, Q
uirin
di C
reek
and
War
rah
Cre
ek W
ater
Sou
rces
, and
to
prov
ide
wat
er fo
r do
wns
trea
m
subc
atch
men
ts,
(b)
man
age
in-r
iver
wat
er r
esou
rces
of
the
Phi
llips
Cre
ek, M
ooki
Riv
er,
Qui
rindi
Cre
ek a
nd W
arra
h C
reek
W
ater
Sou
rces
to e
nsur
e eq
uita
ble
shar
ing
of w
ater
bet
wee
n al
l use
s an
d us
ers,
incl
udin
g ba
sic
right
s,
and
to m
inim
ise
any
adve
rse
soci
o-ec
onom
ic im
pact
s in
reg
ard
to
com
mun
ities
and
indi
vidu
als
in
thes
e w
ater
sou
rces
, (c
) pr
otec
t the
wat
er r
esou
rces
of
the
Phi
llips
Cre
ek, M
ooki
Riv
er,
Qui
rindi
Cre
ek a
nd W
arra
h C
reek
W
ater
Sou
rces
by
ensu
ring
that
11(a
) pr
ovid
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r ac
cess
to w
ater
in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e fo
r do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
pu
rpos
es, w
hils
t enc
oura
ging
and
sup
port
ing
effic
ient
, inn
ovat
ive
wat
er u
se, a
ltern
ativ
e w
ater
so
urce
s an
d dr
ough
t man
agem
ent s
trat
egie
s,
(b)
ensu
re A
borig
inal
cul
tura
l nee
ds a
re
cons
ider
ed in
flow
man
agem
ent d
ecis
ions
for
this
wat
er s
ourc
e, to
ena
ble
mai
nten
ance
and
pr
otec
tion
of v
alue
s an
d pl
aces
of i
mpo
rtan
ce
unde
r tr
aditi
onal
law
s, c
usto
ms
and
prac
tices
, (c
) pr
otec
t the
var
iabi
lity
of n
atur
al fl
ow
cond
ition
s th
ereb
y m
aint
aini
ng a
nd im
prov
ing
the
over
all h
ealth
of t
his
wat
er s
ourc
e an
d re
late
d ec
osys
tem
s, in
clud
ing
thre
aten
ed
spec
ies,
(d
) pr
eser
ve a
nd m
aint
ain
the
func
tions
of
natu
ral l
ow fl
ows
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
pa
rtic
ular
ly d
urin
g dr
y pe
riods
, (e
) pr
ovid
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r ac
cess
to w
ater
for
irrig
atio
n an
d ot
her
com
mer
cial
pur
pose
s in
this
w
ater
sou
rce,
(f
) en
hanc
e th
e do
wns
trea
m h
ealth
of t
he lo
wer
B
runs
wic
k R
iver
by
ensu
ring
adeq
uate
flow
co
ntrib
utio
ns fr
om th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to th
e es
tuar
y
53 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
recr
eatio
nal a
nd c
ultu
ral u
se a
nd
amen
ity,
(j) d
efin
e lic
ense
d w
ater
use
rs
acce
ss to
a s
hare
of a
vaila
ble
wat
er, t
o pr
ovid
e fo
r su
stai
nabl
e cu
rren
t and
futu
re w
ater
use
s,
with
in th
e lim
its o
f the
Mur
ray
Dar
ling
Bas
in M
inis
teria
l Cou
ncil
Cap
, (k
) fa
cilit
ate
wat
er u
se e
ffici
ency
to
pro
tect
riv
er fl
ows,
(l)
rec
ogni
se a
nd p
rote
ct
Indi
geno
us r
ight
s to
a s
hare
of
flow
for
cultu
ral h
erita
ge
(esp
ecia
lly w
ithin
wet
land
s,
flood
plai
n, r
iver
bank
s an
d tr
ibut
arie
s on
Cro
wn
Land
s) a
nd
trad
ition
al u
ses,
(m
) im
prov
e di
vers
ity a
nd
abun
danc
e of
loca
l nat
ive
spec
ies,
esp
ecia
lly fo
r th
e re
cove
ry o
f thr
eate
ned
spec
ies,
(n
) co
ntrib
ute
to fl
ows
occu
rrin
g in
the
Mur
rum
bidg
ee R
iver
, (o
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y su
itabl
e fo
r id
entif
ied
valu
es in
this
wat
er
sour
ce, i
nclu
ding
aqu
atic
ec
osys
tem
s, v
isua
l am
enity
, se
cond
ary
and
prim
ary
cont
act
recr
eatio
n, li
vest
ock,
irrig
atio
n an
d ho
mes
tead
wat
er s
uppl
y,
drin
king
wat
er a
nd a
quat
ic fo
ods
(coo
ked)
. N
ote
. O
bjec
tive
(o)
refe
rs t
o m
aint
aini
ng
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
on in
this
Pla
n m
akes
a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
recr
eatio
nal a
nd c
ultu
ral u
se a
nd
amen
ity,
(j) d
efin
e lic
ense
d w
ater
acc
ess
to
a sh
are
of a
vaila
ble
wat
er, t
o pr
ovid
e fo
r su
stai
nabl
e cu
rren
t and
fu
ture
wat
er u
ses,
with
in th
e lim
its
of th
e M
urra
y D
arlin
g B
asin
M
inis
teria
l Cou
ncil
Cap
, (k
) fa
cilit
ate
wat
er u
se e
ffici
ency
to
prot
ect r
iver
flow
s,
(l) r
ecog
nise
and
pro
tect
In
dige
nous
rig
hts
to a
sha
re o
f flo
w fo
r cu
ltura
l her
itage
(e
spec
ially
with
in w
etla
nds,
flo
odpl
ain,
riv
erba
nks
and
trib
utar
ies
on C
row
n La
nds)
and
tr
aditi
onal
use
s,
(m)
impr
ove
the
dive
rsity
and
ab
unda
nce
of lo
cal n
ativ
e sp
ecie
s,
espe
cial
ly in
rel
atio
n to
the
reco
very
of t
hrea
tene
d sp
ecie
s,
(n)
cont
ribut
e to
flow
s oc
curr
ing
in
the
Mur
rum
bidg
ee R
iver
, (o
) co
ntrib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y su
itabl
e fo
r id
entif
ied
valu
es in
this
wat
er
sour
ce, i
nclu
ding
aqu
atic
ec
osys
tem
s, v
isua
l am
enity
, se
cond
ary
and
prim
ary
cont
act,
recr
eatio
n, li
vest
ock,
irrig
atio
n an
d ho
mes
tead
wat
er s
uppl
y, d
rinki
ng
wat
er a
nd a
quat
ic fo
ods
(coo
ked)
. N
ote
. O
bjec
tive
(o)
refe
rs t
o m
aint
aini
ng
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in t
his
Pla
n m
akes
a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
extr
actio
n m
inim
ises
any
adv
erse
en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
cts,
(d
) en
sure
wat
er e
xtra
ctio
n fr
om th
e P
hilli
ps C
reek
, Moo
ki R
iver
, Q
uirin
di C
reek
and
War
rah
Cre
eks
Wat
er S
ourc
es is
man
aged
with
in
Mur
ray
Dar
ling
Bas
in C
ap fo
r th
e N
amoi
Wat
er M
anag
emen
t Are
a,
(e)
prov
ide
rule
s fo
r m
arke
t bas
ed
trad
ing
of a
cces
s lic
ence
sha
re
com
pone
nts
and
indi
vidu
al d
aily
ex
trac
tion
limits
in th
e P
hilli
ps
Cre
ek, M
ooki
Riv
er, Q
uirin
di C
reek
an
d W
arra
h C
reek
Wat
er S
ourc
es
(f)
cont
ribut
e to
the
achi
evem
ent o
f w
ater
qua
lity
to s
uppo
rt th
e en
viro
nmen
tal v
alue
s of
the
Phi
llips
C
reek
, Moo
ki R
iver
, Qui
rindi
Cre
ek
and
War
rah
Cre
ek W
ater
Sou
rces
. N
ote
. O
bjec
tive
(f)
refe
rs to
pro
tect
ing
and
impr
ovin
g w
ater
qua
lity.
Alth
oug
h th
ere
are
no s
peci
fic s
trat
egie
s di
rect
ly r
elat
ing
to th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
shou
ld m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
mai
ntai
ning
wat
er
qual
ity.
(g)
prot
ect a
nd im
prov
e w
ater
qua
lity
in th
is
wat
er s
ourc
e th
roug
h th
e m
anag
emen
t of f
low
s.
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qua
lity.
A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed to
th
is o
bjec
tive
in th
is P
lan,
the
env
ironm
enta
l wat
er p
rovi
sion
s in
this
Pla
n m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
mai
ntai
ning
wat
er
qual
ity.
54 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
55 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
qual
ity.
Co
op
ers
Cre
ek
Wan
del
la C
reek
K
ang
aro
o R
iver
D
orr
igo
Pla
teau
11
(a)
prov
ide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
acce
ss to
wat
er in
this
wat
er
sour
ce fo
r do
mes
tic a
nd s
tock
pu
rpos
es w
hile
enc
oura
ging
and
su
ppor
ting
effic
ient
, inn
ovat
ive
wat
er u
se, a
ltern
ativ
e w
ater
so
urce
s an
d dr
ough
t m
anag
emen
t str
ateg
ies,
(b
) en
sure
Abo
rigin
al c
ultu
ral
need
s ar
e co
nsid
ered
in fl
ow
man
agem
ent d
ecis
ions
for
this
w
ater
sou
rce,
to e
nabl
e m
aint
enan
ce a
nd p
rote
ctio
n of
va
lues
and
pla
ces
of im
port
ance
un
der
trad
ition
al la
ws,
cus
tom
s an
d pr
actic
es,
(c)
prot
ect t
he v
aria
bilit
y of
na
tura
l flo
w c
ondi
tions
ther
eby
mai
ntai
ning
and
impr
ovin
g th
e ov
eral
l hea
lth o
f thi
s w
ater
so
urce
and
rel
ated
eco
syst
ems,
in
clud
ing
thre
aten
ed s
peci
es,
(d)
pres
erve
and
mai
ntai
n th
e fu
nctio
ns o
f nat
ural
low
flow
s in
C
oope
rs C
reek
and
its
trib
utar
ies,
par
ticul
arly
dur
ing
dry
perio
ds,
(e)
prov
ide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
acce
ss to
wat
er fo
r irr
igat
ion
and
othe
r co
mm
erci
al p
urpo
ses
in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(f)
enha
nce
the
heal
th o
f the
W
ilson
s R
iver
and
the
Ric
hmon
d es
tuar
y by
ens
urin
g ad
equa
te
dow
nstr
eam
flow
con
trib
utio
ns
from
Coo
pers
Cre
ek W
ater
S
ourc
e
11(a
) pr
eser
ve a
nd m
aint
ain
the
natu
ral f
unct
ions
of p
ools
(in
clud
ing
wat
er q
ualit
y) in
W
ande
lla C
reek
and
its
trib
utar
ies,
pa
rtic
ular
ly d
urin
g dr
y pe
riods
, w
hich
incl
udes
the
natu
ral r
ates
of
dryi
ng,
(b)
pres
erve
and
mai
ntai
n th
e fu
nctio
ns o
f ver
y lo
w fl
ows
(incl
udin
g th
e m
aint
enan
ce o
f w
ater
qua
lity)
in W
ande
lla C
reek
an
d its
trib
utar
ies,
par
ticul
arly
du
ring
dry
perio
ds,
No
te. I
n pr
actic
e, a
min
imum
flow
, ad
equa
te to
pre
serv
e en
viro
nmen
tal
heal
th,
will
be
prot
ecte
d fr
om e
xtra
ctio
n,
and
a vi
sibl
e su
rfac
e flo
w is
to b
e m
aint
aine
d at
spe
cific
nom
inat
ed p
oint
s fo
r as
long
as
flow
s pe
rsis
t.
(c)
prov
ide
for
the
sust
aina
ble
leve
ls o
f wat
er s
harin
g fr
om B
and
C
cla
ss fl
ows
to im
itate
nat
ural
flo
w v
aria
bilit
y,
(d)
prov
ide
for
sust
aina
ble
leve
ls
of w
ater
ext
ract
ion
from
B, C
and
D
cla
ss fl
ows,
so
that
initi
al s
torm
fr
eshe
s an
d riv
er fu
nctio
ns
(incl
udin
g th
e pr
otec
tion
of w
ater
qu
ality
) ar
e pr
otec
ted,
(e
) m
anag
e de
velo
pmen
t of n
ew
wat
er s
tora
ge d
ams
and
wei
rs in
th
is w
ater
sou
rce
in s
uch
a w
ay
that
nat
ural
floo
ding
and
sto
rm
fres
h re
gim
es a
re m
aint
aine
d an
d th
at n
ativ
e fis
h pa
ssag
e is
su
stai
ned,
(f
) m
aint
ain
a co
ntrib
utio
n of
flow
s fr
om th
e th
is w
ater
sou
rce
to w
ater
11(a
) ke
ep th
e po
ols
of th
is w
ater
so
urce
full
durin
g pe
riods
of l
ow
flow
s an
d ve
ry lo
w fl
ows,
with
na
tura
l dry
ing
proc
esse
s m
aint
aine
d du
ring
perio
ds o
f no
flow
, (b
) pr
otec
t ind
icat
or r
iffle
s du
ring
perio
ds o
f low
flow
s an
d ve
ry lo
w
flow
s,
No
te. I
ndic
ator
riff
les
will
be
iden
tifie
d b
y th
e M
inis
ter
as p
art o
f the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
this
P
lan.
(c
) pr
ovid
e fo
r th
e pa
ssag
e of
low
flo
ws
and
very
low
flow
s th
roug
h ne
w a
nd e
xist
ing
in-r
iver
wor
ks a
nd
activ
ities
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
(d
) m
aint
ain
the
natu
ral f
low
va
riabi
lity
of a
pro
port
ion
of fr
eshe
s as
they
pas
s th
roug
h th
is w
ater
so
urce
, (e
) en
sure
equ
itabl
e ac
cess
to
wat
er fo
r ho
useh
old
cons
umpt
ion,
st
ock
wat
erin
g an
d ga
rden
ing
(in
this
ord
er o
f prio
rity)
at a
ll tim
es,
exce
pt d
urin
g pe
riods
of v
ery
low
flo
ws
and
no fl
ow,
(f)
fost
er e
cono
mic
ben
efits
rel
ated
to
the
use
of w
ater
thro
ugh
the
impl
emen
tatio
n of
this
Pla
n,
(g)
prov
ide
for
acce
ss to
ava
ilabl
e w
ater
of t
his
wat
er s
ourc
e by
all
acce
ss li
cenc
e ho
lder
s in
ac
cord
ance
with
the
wat
er s
harin
g ar
rang
emen
ts s
tate
d in
this
Pla
n,
(h)
prov
ide
rule
s fo
r w
ater
trad
ing
in
this
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(i) s
uppo
rt r
ecre
atio
nal
oppo
rtun
ities
, riv
er h
ealth
and
the
11(a
) pr
otec
t eco
syst
ems
that
dep
end
on
grou
ndw
ater
in th
is g
roun
dwat
er s
ourc
e by
es
tabl
ishi
ng a
n ex
trac
tion
limit,
and
lim
iting
ex
trac
tion
from
gro
undw
ater
, (b
) pr
otec
t and
enh
ance
wat
er q
ualit
y in
line
with
th
e H
ealth
y R
iver
s C
omm
issi
on’s
re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r th
e C
lare
nce
Cat
chm
ent
thro
ugh
the
man
agem
ent o
f sur
face
flow
s an
d gr
ound
wat
er e
xtra
ctio
ns o
n th
e D
orrig
o P
late
au,
No
te.
Thi
s ob
ject
ive
refe
rs to
mai
nta
inin
g w
ater
qua
lity.
A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed to
th
is o
bjec
tive
in th
is P
lan,
the
env
ironm
enta
l wat
er p
rovi
sion
s in
this
Pla
n m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
mai
ntai
ning
wat
er
qual
ity.
(c)
prot
ect t
he n
atur
al a
nd c
ultu
ral v
alue
s of
the
Nat
iona
l Par
ks a
nd R
eser
ves,
incl
udin
g th
e ga
zette
d W
orld
Her
itage
are
as, b
y m
anag
ing
flow
s,
(d)
prot
ect a
nd e
nhan
ce s
urfa
ce w
ater
de
pend
ent e
cosy
stem
s by
man
agin
g ac
cess
to
flow
s in
this
sur
face
wat
er s
ourc
e,
(e)
enab
le a
sec
ure
supp
ly o
f wat
er fo
r th
e D
orrig
o lo
cal w
ater
util
ity, d
omes
tic a
nd s
tock
us
ers,
incl
udin
g th
e N
orth
Dor
rigo
and
Dun
durr
abin
com
mun
ities
, and
dow
nstr
eam
us
ers,
whi
lst m
inim
isin
g th
e im
pact
of e
xtra
ctio
n on
low
flow
s,
(f)
allo
w ir
rigat
ors
acce
ss to
ava
ilabl
e flo
ws
on
the
Dor
rigo
Pla
teau
, par
ticul
arly
in th
e ar
ea o
f B
iels
dow
n an
d Li
ttle
Pla
ins
Riv
ers,
whi
lst
enco
urag
ing
inno
vativ
e an
d w
ater
-use
effi
cien
t ag
ricul
ture
, (g
) en
hanc
e th
e ov
eral
l hea
lth o
f the
Cla
renc
e R
iver
and
est
uary
by
enab
ling
flow
con
trib
utio
ns
from
the
Dor
rigo
Pla
teau
, (h
) pr
otec
t flo
ws
on th
e D
orrig
o P
late
au to
pr
even
t the
mis
use
of c
ultu
ral k
now
ledg
e of
the
Gum
bain
girr
trib
al a
reas
.
Prio
ritie
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
of u
nre
gula
ted
river
wat
er s
harin
g pl
ans
- a
risk
asse
ssm
ent a
ppro
ach
56 |
NS
W O
ffice
of W
ater
, Aug
ust
201
2
(g)
prot
ect a
nd im
prov
e w
ater
qu
ality
in th
is w
ater
sou
rce
thro
ugh
the
man
agem
ent o
f flo
ws.
N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is
obje
ctiv
e in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nm
enta
l w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in th
is P
lan
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
to m
aint
aini
ng w
ater
qu
ality
.
sour
ces
dow
nstr
eam
of W
ande
lla
Cre
ek a
nd to
the
Tur
oss
Riv
er
estu
ary,
(g
) lin
k im
prov
ed w
ater
m
anag
emen
t out
com
es w
ith
prog
ram
s to
impr
ove
the
river
ine
envi
ronm
ent i
n th
is w
ater
sou
rce,
us
ing
an in
tegr
ated
app
roac
h,
(h)
allo
w fo
r ad
aptiv
e m
anag
emen
t to
adj
ust t
his
Pla
n to
cat
er fo
r in
tegr
atio
n of
new
kno
wle
dge
of
this
wat
er s
ourc
e, it
s en
viro
nmen
t, co
mm
unity
and
eco
nom
ic
attr
ibut
es,
(i) r
ecog
nise
and
pro
tect
trad
ition
al
valu
es o
f wat
er to
Abo
rigin
al
peop
le,
(j) c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
achi
evem
ent o
f w
ater
qua
lity
to s
uppo
rt th
e en
viro
nmen
tal v
alue
s of
this
wat
er
sour
ce.
No
te. S
om
e of
thes
e ob
ject
ives
ref
er to
m
aint
aini
ng w
ate
r qu
ality
. Alth
oug
h th
ere
are
no s
peci
fic s
trat
egie
s di
rect
ly r
elat
ed to
th
ese
obje
ctiv
es in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nmen
tal w
ater
pro
visi
ons
in t
his
Pla
n m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
mai
ntai
ning
w
ater
qu
ality
.
aest
hetic
app
eal o
f thi
s w
ater
so
urce
thro
ugh
the
mai
nten
ance
of
pool
s, r
iffle
s an
d flo
w v
aria
bilit
y,
(j) p
rote
ct a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e cu
ltura
l pr
esen
ce o
f the
com
mun
ity o
f A
borig
inal
and
non
-Abo
rigin
al
peop
les
that
may
be
affe
cted
by
river
flow
, inc
ludi
ng p
lace
s of
he
ritag
e, a
nd s
pirit
ual s
igni
fican
ce,
scie
ntifi
c an
d ed
ucat
iona
l op
port
uniti
es a
nd r
ural
indu
strie
s,
(k)
cont
ribut
e to
the
requ
irem
ents
of
wat
er u
sers
and
oth
er w
ater
so
urce
s an
d th
eir
depe
nden
t ec
osys
tem
s do
wns
trea
m o
f thi
s w
ater
sou
rce
thro
ugh
agre
ed w
ater
sh
arin
g ar
rang
emen
ts fo
r th
is w
ater
so
urce
, (l)
con
trib
ute
to th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
wat
er q
ualit
y to
sup
port
the
envi
ronm
enta
l val
ues
of th
is w
ater
so
urce
. N
ote
. T
his
obje
ctiv
e re
fers
to m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er q
ual
ity. A
lthou
gh th
ere
are
no
spec
ific
stra
tegi
es d
irect
ly r
elat
ed t
o th
is o
bjec
tive
in
this
Pla
n, th
e en
viro
nmen
tal w
ate
r pr
ovis
ions
in
this
Pla
n m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
m
ain
tain
ing
wat
er
qu
alit
y.
No
te.
Cul
tura
l kn
owle
dge
incl
udes
spi
ritua
l, so
cial
, cul
tura
l an
d pr
actic
al (
for
exam
ple
recr
eatio
nal,
food
, med
icin
al a
nd
educ
atio
nal)
valu
es.