Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water ...€¦ · Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach

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.


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


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




A2.3.3 Upper Dorrigo water sharing plan ......................................................................... 30



ii | NSW Office of Water, August 2012



A2.3.4 Jilliby Jilliby Creek water sharing plan................................................................... 31




A2.3.5 Kangaroo River water sharing plan ....................................................................... 33




A2.3.6 Upper Karuah River (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan) ...................... 35




A2.3.7 Mammy Johnston (part of the Karuah River water sharing plan).......................... 36




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


A2.3.9 Ourimbah water sharing plan ................................................................................ 39




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




A2.3.12 Tenterfield Creek water sharing plan .................................................................. 44


iii | NSW Office of Water, August 2012




A2.3.13 Upper Brunswick River water sharing plan ......................................................... 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


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


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


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. 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



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



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.



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.




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.


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.


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.




Existing water

sharing plan Name

Initial 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).



Existing water

sharing plan Name

Initial 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.


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


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.



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.



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


C

Coopers

Kangaroo

Dorrigo

Tenterfield

Medium Env Risk D E



Upper Brunswick

F

Commissioners


Adelong

Tarcutta

Ourimbah

Low Env Risk G

Aspley

Toorumbee

Upper Billabong


H

Wandella

Mandagery

Lower Horton Rocky, Cobbadah, Upper Horton



I


Wybong



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



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.


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


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




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


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.


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,


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



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



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.


http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/home_species.aspx

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66633

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66633

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Archaeophya_adamsi

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/taxa/Archaeophya_adamsi

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/species-conservation/what-current

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/species-conservation/what-current



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

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’


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



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.



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


C

Upper Brunswick

Coopers

Kangaroo

Commissioners


Dorrigo

Tenterfield


Medium Env Risk

D E



F

Ourimbah

Low Env Risk G

Aspley

Toorumbee

Upper Billabong

Rocky, Cobbadah, Upper Horton



H

Wandella

Mandagery

Lower Horton (part of Rocky et al plan)



I

Wybong

Adelong

Tarcutta


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.




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.


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



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).



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


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



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).


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).




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.


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



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.


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.


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.


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.



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).




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).


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.


A2.3.5 Kangaroo River water sharing plan


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.



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.




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).


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.


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



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.


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).


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



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.


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.


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.


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).



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.



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).


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


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



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.


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).


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).



A2.3.10 Mooki River water source - part of the Phillips Creek, Mooki River, Quirindi Creek and Warrah Creek water sharing plan


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.


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.



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).


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.


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



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.


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).




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.


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



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.


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.


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).



A2.3.13 Upper Brunswick River water sharing plan


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).


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.



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.


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 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).




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 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.

Documents

Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water ...€¦ · Priorities for implementation of unregulated river water sharing plans - a risk assessment approach