Copyright in this report is vested in the State of NSW.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Copyright in this report is vested in the State of NSW."

Transcription

1 I

2 This document has been prepared on behalf of the NSW Marine Parks Authority as a draft final report for the Manning Shelf Bioregional Assessment Project. Research and collation of information presented was undertaken with funding from Environment Australia for the Marine Protected Areas Program and the NSW Marine Parks Authority. Copyright in this report is vested in the State of NSW. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Director of National Parks, the NSW Marine Parks Authority or the NSW Government. This report may be cited as: Breen D.A. and R.P. Avery. (2002). Broad-scale biodiversity assessment of the Manning Shelf marine bioregion. Draft final report for the NSW Marine Parks Authority. Copies of the report may be borrowed from the library: Environment Australia, GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia. II

3 Acknowledgments Steering Committee Nick Otway Andrew Read Kevin Shanahan Julianne Smart Data and Information Support: Ed Knowles (NPWS GIS Group) Dave Scotts, Kevin Taylor, Mark Graham Conservation Assessment and Data Unit, Northern Directorate, NPWS Bob Pressey, Tom Barrett, Matthew Watts, and Mal Ridges (C-Plan support, NPWS Armidale) All those individuals and organisations who assisted by providing data sets, information and advice. Bob Creese, Nick Otway, Andrew Read, Kevin Shanahan, Rodney James, Steve Kennelly, Bruce Pease, Paul O Connor, Michael Wright, Anne Guzman, Robert Williams, Alan Genders, Brett Louden and Greg West for comments on the draft. Research and collation of information presented was undertaken with funding from Environment Australia for the Marine Protected Areas Program and the NSW Marine Parks Authority. III

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgments... III Summary Introduction Geographic extent MPAs in NSW and the Manning Shelf Bioregion Marine Parks Aquatic Reserves National Parks and Nature Reserves Commonwealth MPAs Other non-mpa conservation tools Goals and criteria for marine protected areas National and NSW goals and criteria Protection of biodiversity and ecosystem viability Comprehensiveness Representativeness Adequacy Managing and providing for human activities Methods to assess criteria Review of methods to map biodiversity Environmental classifications as predictors of habitat Surveys of communities and species populations Predictive modelling of species/community spatial distribution Delphic assessment - consensus of expert opinion Methods used by other Australian marine conservation agencies An environmental classification of marine biodiversity for NSW Estuary ecosystem units Ocean ecosystem units Seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh habitats Intertidal rocky shore habitats Intertidal beach habitats Island habitats Subtidal reef habitats Subtidal sediment habitats Data for individual species, condition, threat, vulnerability and other conservation values Methods to assess MPA options Data storage Geographic Information Systems Planning frame Planning units Graphical summaries and qualitative scores Irreplaceability analysis Multiple criteria analysis IV

5 5 Assessment of identification criteria Assessment of comprehensiveness Estuarine ecosystems Ocean ecosystems Seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh habitats Intertidal rocky shore Beaches Islands Subtidal reef Representativeness - species Estuarine juvenile fish and invertebrates NSW Fisheries commercial catch data Birds of International Importance (JAMBA/CAMBA/Significant nesting sites) Threatened Birds - National Parks and Wildlife Service Threatened Grey Nurse Shark NSW Fisheries threatened species database Marine mammals and reptiles RAMSAR sites - Nationally and Internationally important wetlands Directory of important wetlands in Australia Ecological importance, condition and vulnerability Independent inquiry into coastal lakes Environmental inventory of estuaries and coastal lagoons Australian Estuaries Database Coastal rock platforms (Total Environment Centre) Intertidal platform survey (Griffiths, 1982) Oceanography - East Australian Current / marine sediments / up-welling Adjacent national parks & nature reserves State forest SEPP 14 wetlands Wilderness SEPP 26 littoral rainforest Land capability Built-up areas Acid Sulphate Soils ARCCD Australian River and Catchment Condition Database Irreplaceability analysis for ecosystem and habitat units Multiple criteria decision analysis Identification of MPA options A large, multiple-use Marine Park in the Manning Shelf Bioregion Significant areas in relatively unimpacted, small estuaries Khappinghat Creek Lakes Innes & Cathie Camden Haven River, Queens Lake, Watson Taylors Lake and Gogleys Lagoon Korogoro Creek South West Rocks Creek Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon Killick Creek Unamed Creek (Big Hill Point) Significant areas in less impacted parts of the major estuaries Limeburners Creek & Saltwater Lake - Hastings River Kooragang Island & Fullerton Cove Macleay River Delta and Macleay Arm Warrell Creek Nambucca River Manning River (Harrington) & Manning River South Channel (Farquhar Inlet) Significant intertidal rocky shores and inshore reefs Significant offshore reefs, islands, and aggregations of Grey Nurse Sharks Conclusion Glossary Abbreviations References Appendix 1. Map Index for CD-Rom - Ecosystems, habitats and communities of the Manning Shelf Bioregion 150 Appendix 2. Map coordinates for the project 151 Appendix 3. Project evaluation 151 V

6 List of Figures. Fig. 1. NSW IMCRA bioregions...5 Fig. 2. Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA)...5 Fig. 3. Protected areas in the Manning Shelf Bioregion...9 Fig. 4. NSW Marine Parks Fig. 5. NSW Aquatic Reserves...10 Fig. 6. National parks and nature reserves with marine components or adjacent to marine environments.11 Fig. 7. Primary and secondary goals for a system of marine protected areas...16 Fig. 8. Criteria for comprehensiveness...16 Fig. 9. Criteria for representativeness...16 Fig. 10. Criteria for adequacy...17 Fig. 11. Criteria for human activities Fig. 12. Broad-scale planning units and 'ecosystem' level indicators of biodiversity Fig. 13. Open water area of broad-scale planning units for estuaries and exposed coast and ocean...44 Fig. 14. Fine-scale planning units derived from 1km 2 hexagons...45 Fig. 15a-l. Oblique aerial photographs of major estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion...50 Fig. 16a-d. Open water area (km 2 ) of Manning Shelf estuarine environments...51 Fig. 19a-g. Habitat classes for estuaries and sections of exposed coast and ocean...56 Fig. 20a-d. Area of mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh habitats for major estuaries...58 Fig. 21a-d. Lengths (km) of intertidal habitats mapped for sections of ocean coast...60 Fig. 22a-c. Area (ha) of rocky intertidal habitats for sections of ocean coast...61 Fig. 23. Significant rocky intertidal shores identified in previous assessments Fig. 24a-d. Area (ha) of intertidal beach habitat mapped for sections of ocean coast and estuaries...64 Fig. 25a-d. Area of intertidal habitat mapped for estuaries and islands...65 Fig. 26a-c. Area within a 100m buffer of islands...67 Fig. 27a-d. Areas and number of reefs mapped Fig. 28a-g. Number of species of juvenile fish and invertebrates sampled by seine net...71 Fig. 29a-c. Total number of species, percentage contribution to bioregional species total and summed irreplaceability for juvenile fish and invertebrate species at varying numbers of sites...72 Fig. 30a-c. Total number of species, percentage contribution to bioregional species total and summed irreplaceability for juvenile fish and invertebrate species at a reduced number of sites...73 VI

7 Fig. 31a-c. Number of species, summed irreplaceability and size (tonnes) of commercial fishing catch for estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion during 1997/ Fig. 32a-c. Number of species, summed irreplaceability and size (tonnes) of commercial fishing catch for ocean ports in the Manning Shelf Bioregion in 1997/98 and 1996/ Fig. 33a-d. Number of species and summed irreplaceability for sea and shore birds...78 Fig. 34a-d. Areas of important estuary and ocean coast for birds protected by international treaties or the Threatened Species Act 1995 and for other native birds...79 Fig. 35. Maximum numbers of Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus) observed at dive sites...83 Fig. 36a-c. Maximum, mean maximum (+ s.e.) and percent occurrence of Grey Nurse...84 Fig. 37a-c. Broad-scale oceanographic processes off the NSW continental shelf...93 Fig. 38. Airborne infrared scanner images over Fish Rock and Black Rocks...94 Fig. 39a & b. Marine sediment distribution in the southern Manning Shelf Bioregion...95 Fig. 40a-d. Percentage area of land adjacent (within 1km) to waterways with protection...97 Fig. 41a-d. Percentage area of land within 1km of ocean coast with NSW Government protection...98 Fig. 42a-c. Percentage of land within 1km of ocean coast: as wilderness; in built-up areas; or with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils Fig. 43a-d. Percentage of land within 1km of waterways classed by land capability Fig. 44a-c. Percentage of land within 1km of ocean coast classed by land capability Fig. 45. Australian River and Catchment Condition index for the Manning Shelf Bioregion Fig. 46a-d. Percentage of land within 1km of estuaries with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils; and mean Australian River and Catchment Condition indices for estuarine subcatchments Fig. 47a-d. Australian River and Catchment Condition indices for estuarine subcatchments (cont) Fig. 48a-c. Mean catchment and river condition measures for land within 5 km of ocean coast Fig. 49a-d. Mean river and catchment condition measures for land within 5km of ocean coast Fig. 50. Site irreplaceability of fine-scale planning units for ecosystem and habitat units Fig. 51. Summed irreplaceability of fine-scale planning units for ecosystem and habitat units Fig. 53a-c. Summed irreplaceability of broad-scale sections of exposed coast and ocean Fig. 54 a & b. Multiple criteria scores of estuaries for comprehensiveness and representativeness Fig. 55a & b. Multiple criteria decision scores of estuaries for adequacy Fig. 56a & b. Multiple criteria scores for ocean units for comprehensiveness and representativeness Fig. 57a & b. Multiple criteria decision scores for ocean units for adequacy VII

8 List of Tables Table 1. Goals of the National Representative System of MPAs 13 Table 2a. National Identification Criteria for MPAs 14 Table 2b. National Selection Criteria 15 Table 3. Common features of adequate, representative MPAs and scientific methods 23 Table 4. Description of estuarine ecosystem units 30 Table 5. Description of ocean ecosystem units 31 Table 6. Description of estuarine vegetation habitats 32 Table 7. Description of intertidal rocky shore habitats 34 Table 8. Description of intertidal beach habitat 34 Table 9. Description of island and rock habitats 36 Table 10. Description of subtidal reef habitats 38 Table 11. Description of subtidal sediment habitats 39 Table 12. Threatened intertidal waders and sea birds 80 Table 13. Important Wetlands in the Manning Shelf Bioregion 88 Table 14. Classification of coastal lakes in the Manning Shelf Bioregion 89 Table 15. Measures of comprehensiveness and representativeness for estuarine units 118 Table 16. Measures of adequacy for estuarine units 119 Table 17. Measures of comprehensiveness and representativeness for ocean units 120 Table 18. Measures of adequacy for ocean units 121 VIII

9 Summary The Manning Shelf Bioregion extends from north of the Hunter River at Stockton (32 o 54 S.) to north of Nambucca Heads (30 o 39 S.) and includes all estuarine, coastal and offshore waters to the edge of the continental shelf (approximately the 200m depth contour). The bioregion is one of 65 Australian marine bioregions and provinces that together provide a national framework for consistent, ecologically based planning of marine protected areas (MPAs). This report describes the range of biodiversity found within the bioregion and identifies ways to incorporate that biodiversity within a national representative system of MPAs. The information, criteria and methods applied in the report also provide a basis for ongoing assessment, selection, and management of MPAs in NSW. Information used in this report was derived from: national criteria for identification of MPAs; a broad-scale atlas of NSW marine ecosystems and habitats; existing broad-scale scientific surveys of habitats, communities and species; existing data, maps, aerial photographs, literature and conservation assessments; new data coverages and analyses generated for this study; ecological guidelines for reserve design; and preliminary discussions with scientists, managers and the community. Broad-scale (100 s km 2 ) and fine-scale (1km 2 ) planning units were used to assess potential locations for MPAs against over 50 specific criteria derived from state and national guidelines. Assessments were assisted by mapped displays in a Geographic Information System (GIS), irreplaceability analysis in C-Plan reserve selection software, and multiple criteria decision analysis. Given the uncertainty involved in assessing biodiversity and the role of this study in ongoing selection and management, we placed a strong emphasis on presenting information to allow a range of options to be examined. A separate selection process is now required for more detailed site assessment and consultation with the community to consider social, economic and cultural criteria. The following summary lists one possible location for a large, multiple-use marine park and also identifies a range of other areas with important conservation values. 1. A large, multiple-use marine park at the southern end of the bioregion, within the area bounded by Stockton Beach and Forster. This area was identified for the many outstanding ecosystems, habitats and species occurring within one region. It meets criteria for comprehensiveness and representativeness for all mapped ecosystem and habitat units; has a high degree of naturalness and catchment protection; includes areas recommended from previous conservation assessments; consistently scores highest in quantitative analyses for a range of criteria; and complements existing MPAs and conservation management strategies. No specific boundaries are proposed, but some of the features that could be incorporated within the park are: Port Stephens and the Karuah River estuary, including the largest area of mangrove and saltmarsh in NSW and the only tide dominated river valley in the bioregion; Myall Lakes, the largest system of coastal brackish lakes in the state and the only major example of this ecosystem type in the bioregion; Smiths Lake, the largest intermittent lagoon in the state; Wallis Lake, including the largest area of seagrass in the state and the largest example of a wave dominated estuary in the bioregion; and the adjacent exposed coast and ocean to at least 3 nm offshore including the whole range of mapped ocean ecosystems and the greatest area and number of mapped island, subtidal reef, intertidal rocky shore and beach habitats in the bioregion. 1

10 2. Other areas of high conservation value A range of other locations within the bioregion also have high conservation values. These locations (listed under various categories below) could be used to develop different marine park proposals. Alternatively, one or more of the locations might be included within the MPA network (along with a marine park in the southern part of the bioregion) to represent geographic variation in biodiversity throughout the bioregion and assist in fulfilling the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness. Where possible, any MPAs should aim to include neighbouring habitats to increase the range of biodiversity represented and accommodate the movement of organisms among these areas. The categories and locations are: a) small, relatively unimpacted estuaries; Khappinghat Creek and adjacent ocean areas as the largest intermittent creek in the bioregion and one of the few estuaries with relatively unimpacted waters and catchment; Lakes Innes and Lake Cathie and adjacent ocean areas including the largest single area of saltmarsh in the bioregion and a high degree of catchment protection; Camden Haven estuary including the third largest area of seagrass in the bioregion (after Wallis Lake and Port Stephens) and a high degree of catchment protection; Korogoro Creek and adjacent beach and rocky shores for its connection with extensive freshwater wetlands and coastal dune habitats and extensive catchment protection; South West Rocks Creek for the high proportion of this small creek occupied by mangrove, saltmarsh and seagrass within close proximity to built up areas; and Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon for their high natural sensitivity, surrounding wetlands and proximity to built up areas. Each of these estuaries adjoins national parks or nature reserves, represents geographic variation in biodiversity and may help maintain connectivity among a range of coastal habitats. b) the least impacted subcatchments of the major estuaries; Limeburners Creek and Saltwater Lake in the Hastings River for the low degree of disturbance and high level of subcatchment protection in an estuary otherwise disturbed by flood mitigation works and adjoining land use; Kooragang Island and Fullerton Cove in the Hunter River for their large areas of mangrove and saltmarsh, importance to migratory wading birds, and the wetlands still remaining in a healthy condition despite significant modifications to the area; Macleay River delta and the Macleay Arm in the Macleay River for the large areas of mangrove, saltmarsh and seagrass, adjacent wetlands and importance to migratory waders and other bird life; Warrell Creek in the Nambucca River for the adjacent wetlands, importance to bird fauna (including the threatened Little Tern) and the low degree of disturbance to this arm of the estuary; and Farquhar Inlet and the Manning River Channel in the Manning River for the remaining estuarine vegetation and nesting areas for Little Tern. These sites were chosen as those important estuarine areas in reasonable condition, remaining within large catchments disturbed by land use, flood mitigation, and urban and industrial development. 2

11 c) intertidal rocky shores, beaches, and inshore reefs; NSW Fisheries (Otway and Morrison in prep.) are currently collecting and analysing species composition data for rocky intertidal shores in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. This information will soon be available for identifying and selecting MPAs in these habitats. Initial surveys have mapped 52 shores and scored the number of community types (platform, boulder, cobble, pool, crevice) present on each shore. Twenty one shores included all five community types, 15 shores included four community types and 15 shores included three community types. The National Trust Headland and Rock Platform survey in 1982 identified only one rock platform, Bald Head, for protection in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. The survey carried out by the Total Environment Centre in 1995 identified 19 rock platforms in the Manning Shelf Bioregion for protection. More detailed surveys of these areas will soon be complete and more specific conclusions should be made when this information becomes available. d) offshore reefs, islands and Grey Nurse Shark aggregations at; Fish Rock and Green Island near South West Rocks; the Cod Grounds near Laurieton; the Pinnacles and Latitude Rock near Forster; Big Seal and Little Seal Rocks near Sugar Loaf Point; and Broughton Island near Port Stephens. These sites were identified for their importance for: conservation of the threatened Grey Nurse Shark (Otway and Parker 2000; Environment Australia 2000); sightings of other threatened species; their high productivity; potential sources of larvae for areas downstream; a high diversity and abundance of fish and invertebrates; representing offshore island, reef and pelagic ecosystems influenced by the interaction of the East Australian Current and cooler temperate waters; and for their vulnerability to existing and future levels of use. Identification of possible MPAs for conservation of the Grey Nurse Shark from among these locations is being considered in the development of the NSW Recovery Plan for the threatened Grey Nurse Shark (NSW Fisheries in prep.). Extensive areas of subtidal reef were also mapped offshore of the: coast between Crowdy Head and Diamond Head; and the coast between Hallidays Point, Khappinghat Creek and the Manning River. Many other offshore areas of reef and sediment on the NSW shelf have not been mapped in detail and little is known of broad-scale patterns in the distribution of many offshore biota. There may be many areas in deeper environments with significant conservation values and these require further investigation. 3

12 1 Introduction This assessment aims to identify potential locations for marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Manning Shelf Bioregion between Stockton (north of Newcastle) and Nambucca Heads (Fig. 1). The Manning Shelf is one of 65 Australian marine bioregions and provinces (Fig. 2; IMCRA 1998) identified by scientists and conservation managers to assist in planning a national system of marine protected areas. Including the characteristic biodiversity of each bioregion within a system of MPAs aims to ensure that all Australian marine ecosystems are managed for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use. National guidelines and criteria have been developed to identify and select MPAs in each bioregion (ANZECC TFMPA 1998ab, 1999) in accordance with international, national and state strategies (Commonwealth of Australia 1992ab UNEP 1994, Commonwealth of Australia 1996, NSW Government 1997, NPWS 1999, NSW Marine Parks Authority 2000). Methods to apply these criteria are described in Sections 1-4 of this report. Identification of potential sites is based primarily on available broad-scale ecological information. A separate selection process with community consultation is required to assess cultural, social and economic criteria (Table 4b) before specific locations are selected for declaration as MPAs. 1.1 Geographic extent The Manning Shelf Bioregion is defined by the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia and includes estuaries, coast and offshore waters out to the continental shelf break at a depth of about 200m. The northern boundary of the bioregion is defined by a line of latitude (30 o 39 S.) just north of the Nambucca River mouth. The southern boundary is defined by a line of latitude (32 o 54 S.) just north of the Hunter River mouth at Stockton (IMCRA Technical Group 1998). Though not strictly within the defined Manning Shelf Bioregion, the Hunter River estuary was included in the assessment because it was a major estuary with important conservation values occurring on the edge of a fairly arbitrary boundary. We preferred to adopt a precautionary approach in examining all options for a network of MPAs, rather than initially excluding any possible alternatives. 4

13 Tweed-Moreton Nambucca Heads Manning Shelf Stockton Sydney Hawkesbury Shelf Shellharbour Tathra Batemans Shelf Twofold Shelf NSW Marine Bioregions Fig. 1. NSW IMCRA bioregions. Fig. 2. Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA). 5

14 2 MPAs in NSW and the Manning Shelf Bioregion According to the definition adopted by the NSW Government (IUCN 1994), three types of marine protected areas occur in NSW: marine parks - managed under the Marine Parks Act 1997 by the NSW Marine Parks Authority comprising the Director-General of the Premier s Department, the Director- General of National Parks and Wildlife and the Director of Fisheries; aquatic reserves - managed by NSW Fisheries under the Fisheries Management Act 1994; and the marine components of national parks and nature reserves - managed by NSW National Parks and Wildlife under the National Parks and Wildlife Act In the Manning Shelf Bioregion there are currently: no marine parks; one aquatic reserve at Fly Point / Halifax Park, Port Stephens (~0.8km 2 ); eleven national parks and nature reserves recognised as having marine components (~130km 2 ) but having no dedicated marine protected area management or direct protection for fish or aquatic invertebrates (Fig. 3.) 2.1 Marine Parks The Marine Parks Act 1997 aims to conserve marine biological diversity, habitats and ecological processes in marine parks. Where consistent with these objectives, it also aims to provide for the ecologically sustainable use of fish and marine vegetation (including both commercial and recreational fishing) and provide opportunities for public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of marine parks. Although possible to declare marine parks as relatively small, no take reserves, the three marine parks declared in NSW so far (Solitary Islands, Jervis Bay and Lord Howe Marine Parks (Fig. 9 & 12).) have been large, multiple-use MPAs. These parks are zoned to allow for a range of human activities including commercial and recreational fishing, while including sanctuary zones where plants and animals are protected. However, marine parks are not concerned solely with managing fishing. They also assist in managing pollution, visitor use, activities on adjacent lands, marine pests and a wide range of human activities, species and environments. As well as zoning and other forms of regulation, marine parks use education, consultation, research and monitoring and best practices to manage not just what activities occur, but how activities can be are carried out sustainably. Even the actual declaration of a marine park promotes the value of marine ecosystems to communities, businesses and governments locally and abroad, and encourages more careful consideration of marine environments and their management. Large marine parks can potentially include a range of interconnected ecosystems and habitats, with more insulation from external threats, increased protection for more mobile or widely dispersed populations and the capacity to manage a wider range of impacts. Having many features spread over broader areas within a large marine park also provides for greater flexibility in multiple-use zoning with more opportunities to meet community and stakeholder requirements while still meeting conservation goals. A Marine Parks Advisory Council with members representing a range of community and stakeholder interests advises the Ministers for the Environment and Fisheries and the Marine Parks Authority on all existing NSW marine parks and the declaration of new marine parks. For each individual marine park, a Marine Park Advisory Committee provides community and stakeholder input into planning and management at a local level. 6

15 2.2 Aquatic Reserves Aquatic reserves aim to conserve the biodiversity of fish and marine vegetation and where consistent with that purpose, protect fish habitat, threatened species, populations and ecological communities and facilitate educational activities and scientific research. There are currently eight aquatic reserves in NSW covering a total of 880 ha. Most are relatively small (2-150 ha), and with the exception of Towra Point, protect rocky intertidal shores and inshore reefs. Regulations for aquatic reserves can prohibit or regulate the taking of fish or marine vegetation from aquatic reserves, where fish in the Fisheries Management Act 1994 means: marine, estuarine or freshwater fish or other aquatic animal life at any stage of their life history (alive or dead), or oysters and other aquatic molluscs, or crustaceans, echinoderms, beachworms and other aquatic polychaetes but does not include whales, mammals, reptiles, birds or amphibians. Aquatic reserves can theoretically be made large enough to encompass processes at the ecosystem scale. However, most aquatic reserves are relatively small and targeted at specific habitats, communities and species. Their current role tends to be in complementing other MPAs in conserving a comprehensive range of ecosystems and in addressing specific issues and concerns for biodiversity. Aquatic reserves are also the only MPA type that is used specifically for fisheries enhancement and management purposes. Flexibility in regulation and zoning, mean that aquatic reserves can, where appropriate, also attempt to accommodate a range of human activities while still aiming to conserve biodiversity. An Advisory Committee on Fisheries Conservation (ACFC) including stakeholders with conservation, recreational and commercial fishing, aquaculture, research and indigenous interests has recently been established to advise the Minister for Fisheries on fisheries conservation, threatened species, habitat conservation and declaration and management of aquatic reserves. 2.3 National Parks and Nature Reserves Marine protected areas occur where national parks and nature reserves are specifically gazetted over subtidal or intertidal areas. In NSW, there are currently 42 national parks or nature reserves with recognised marine components. MPAs within the Nadgee and Limeburners Creek Nature Reserves have also been declared or identified as wilderness areas. These areas can protect animals, vegetation and substrata but cannot directly protect fish or aquatic invertebrates as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 1994 except through the prohibition of spear-guns, fish traps and nets other than landing nets. Conservation of these species can be enhanced through protection of habitat and general management of use including control over moorings, motor vessel access and the construction of marinas and other structures, and protection of adjacent terrestrial habitat. Direct protection of fish can be achieved by arrangement with NSW Fisheries through aquatic reserves, fishing closures or other arrangements. MPAs within national parks and nature reserves exist as components of a broader terrestrial reserve system. Generally they include large areas of intertidal and subtidal estuarine habitats and smaller areas of intertidal and subtidal coastal habitat. Offshore ecosystems have not been, and are unlikely to be targeted for protection. Therefore on their own, national parks and nature reserves are not likely to include the full range of ecosystems required to meet comprehensiveness criteria in state and national systems of MPAs. However they can, as a part of an integrated system of MPAs, make a complementary contribution to comprehensiveness, particularly in coastal and estuarine areas. The number and area of MPAs in national parks and nature reserves is substantial, and several are 7

16 large enough (e.g. Myall Lakes, 97 km 2 ) to include a range of habitats and ecosystem processes. Because of their relationship with terrestrial reserves, MPAs managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service can bridge gaps in protection for salt marsh, mangrove, rocky shore, beach and other coastal transition areas. The associated terrestrial reserves also provide protection for catchment and coastal ecological processes that critically affect biodiversity in the land and sea. In particular, the protection of shoreline and catchment from habitat clearing, development and pollution sources provides an important buffer for nearshore environments. Agreements with other management agencies (e.g. NSW Fisheries) can provide direct protection for fish in MPAs and assist in integrating conservation strategies for marine and terrestrial environments. The National Parks and Wildlife Act requires a plan of management to be prepared for national parks and nature reserves, as soon as practicable after reservation. However these plans do not generally deal specifically with the management of marine protected areas or the marine biodiversity within them. Current issues for NPWS in this area include the control of vehicle access along beaches and control of dogs in intertidal areas which threaten the conservation of wader birds and other biodiversity. A National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council including community representatives advises the Minister for the Environment on protected area management and wildlife conservation and advisory committees are also established for each region. National parks and nature reserves differ substantially from aquatic reserves and marine parks in that there is no zoning or regulation for multiple use. 8

17 Fig. 3. Protected areas in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 9

18 Byron Bay Grafton Coffs Harbour Kempsey Taree Newcastle Solitary Islands Marine Park 711 km 2 Lowe Howe Island Marine Park 480 km 2 Sydney Wollongong Nowra Ulladulla Batemans Bay Jervis Bay Marine Park 214 km 2 N Bega Fig. 4. NSW Marine Parks. Byron Bay # # Cook Island 0.8 km2 Julian Rocks 0.8 km2 Grafton Coffs Harbour Kempsey Ulladulla Batemans Bay Taree # Newcastle Sydney ## # Wollongong # Nowra Fly Point/Halifax Bushrangers Bay 0.03 km2 0.8 km2 Long Reef 0.6 km2 North (Sydney) Harbour 2.5 km2 Towra Point 3.3 km2 Ship Rock 0.02 km2 N Km Bega Fig. 5. NSW Aquatic Reserves. 10

19 Cook Is. NR Stotts Is. NR Brunswick Heads NR Julian Rocks NR Broken Head NR Little Pimlico Is. NR Tuckean NR Iluka NR North Solitary Is. NR North Rock NR North West Solitary Is. NR South West Solitary Is. NR Moonee Beach NR Split Solitary Is. NR Muttonbird Is. NR Clybucca HS Sea Acres NR Kattang NR Crowdy Bay NP Coocumbac Is. NR Susan Is. NR Regatta Is. NR Coolongolook NR Mills Is. NR Bandicoot Is. NR Wallis Is. NR Yahoo Is. NR Booti Booti NP Seal Rocks NR Stormpetrel NR Little Broughton Is. NR John Gould NR Boondelbah NR Snapper Is. NR Tomaree NP Awabakal NR Moon Is. NR Pulbah Is. NR Bird Is. NR Wyrrabalong NP Brisbane Waters NP Lion Is. NR Spectacle Is. NR Dharug NP Long Island NR Garigal NP Lane Cove NP Sydney Harbour NP Botany Bay NP Georges River NP Five Is. NR Berkeley NR { Ukerabagh NR Billinudgel NR / Cudgen NR Tyagarah NR Ballina NR / Richmond River NR Broadwater NP Bundjalung NP Yuraygir NP Hat Head NP Limeburners Ck NR Lake Innes NR Myall Lakes NP Kooragang NR Wamberal Lagoon NR Bouddi NP / Cockle Bay NR / Pelican Is. NR / Rileys Is. NR Ku-ring-gai Chase NP/ Muogamarra NR/ Marramarra NP Towra Point NR Royal NP Bongil Bongil NP Khappinghat NP NSW Jervis Bay NP Conjola NP Narrawallee Creek NR Brush Is NR Belowla Is. NR Murramarang NP Tollgate Is. NR Broulee Is. NR Montague Is. NR Wallaga Lake NP Mimosa Rocks NP Eagles Claw NR Seven Mile Beach NP Comerong Is. NR Cudmirrah NP Eurobodalla NP RESERVE TYPES RESERVE TYPES NPWS NP NPWS National Park NR NP Nature National Reserve Park NR Nature Reserve Bournda NP Ben Boyd NP Nadgee NR RESERVES EXTENDING TO MEAN HIGH WATER (68) RESERVES INCLUDING THE INTERTIDAL ZONE (41) Fig. 6. National parks and nature reserves with marine components or adjacent to marine environments. 11

20 2.4 Commonwealth MPAs The NSW State jurisdiction represents only 30% of the Manning Shelf Bioregion which extends well beyond the state limit to the edge of the continental shelf break at the 200m depth contour. MPAs beyond the three nautical mile limit of state territorial waters are managed under Federal government jurisdiction by Environment Australia. Ecological gradients across the shelf, and habitats at the shelf break and slope are associated with a distinct, but largely undescribed diversity of organisms and processes with widespread importance to oceanic ecosystems. Dramatic changes in depth and sea floor topography create unique habitats for benthic invertebrates and demersal fishes and produce unique oceanographic conditions. Currents and upwelling in these areas have critical roles in the feeding and migration patterns of many pelagic fishes, cephalopods, birds, reptiles and mammals. It is important that these areas receive adequate protection within MPAs and cooperation between State and Commonwealth jurisdictions will assist in achieving this. Currently, the Solitary Islands and Lord Howe Island Marine Parks are declared out to the 3 nautical mile state limit with complementary Commonwealth MPAs established further offshore. 2.5 Other non-mpa conservation tools Marine protected areas are not the only means by which marine biodiversity is conserved in NSW. Fishing closures and habitat protection plans, implemented under the Fisheries Management Act (1994), provide direct protection for marine and estuarine areas. Fishing activities are also managed by limiting fishing gear, the quantity, type and size of fish taken, and the numbers of commercial fishers. Terrestrial national parks and nature reserves provide important buffers against inappropriate land use, complementary management of intertidal ecosystems, protection of hydrology, and can provide for complementary compliance and education programs. Other NSW organisations with important roles in marine and coastal management include the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC); Environmental Protection Authority; Waterways Authority; Department of Urban Affairs and Planning; and various water, waste management and port authorities; Local Councils; Land Councils; universities and community organisations. These agencies are often involved in significant research, monitoring, planning, and community consultation on marine and coastal issues. This work includes community conservation initiatives, joint management agreements, recovery and threat abatement plans, state environment and planning assessments, and water catchment, acid sulphate soil and estuarine management programs. For example, DLWC administers an estuary management program which coordinates collection of data, estuary process studies, the development and implementation of management plans and consultation with local committees of stakeholders for each NSW estuary. To meet MPA goals, coordination among these organisations is vital and many have played a significant role in providing information for this assessment. 12

21 3 Goals and criteria for marine protected areas 3.1 National and NSW goals and criteria This assessment is based on national goals and criteria adopted by the NSW Marine Parks Authority (ANZECC / TFMPA 1998a 1999ab, NSW Marine Parks Authority MPA Strategy Working Group 2001). These goals and criteria reflect over 30 years of international and national discussion, published research and practical management experience in protected areas (e.g. Kenchington and Kelleher 1991). Table 2 lists national goals while Tables 4a and 4b list criteria. Identification criteria are intended for identifying potential MPA options on ecological grounds. Selection criteria are then used to choose from among the ecological options identified, sites that best meet social, economic and cultural goals. For management to be transparent and accountable, a systematic approach was used to help define the criteria and information used and the assumptions and limitations involved. Hierarchical tree models of goals, criteria and information sources were used to interpret goals and criteria in terms of specific information (Fig. 7, Fig. 8 & Fig. 9). The models were also used (in Section 5.5) to quantitatively assess goals and criteria using a range of specific data. These techniques provide a standard framework for subsequent assessments and for the consistent application of goals and criteria in subsequent planning, research, and review of MPA management. Table 1. The primary goal of the National Representative System of MPAs is to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of MPAs to contribute to the long term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Australia's biological diversity at all levels. The secondary goals are: To promote development of MPAs within the framework of integrated ecosystem management; To provide a formal management framework for a broad spectrum of human activities, including recreation, tourism, shipping and the use and extraction of resources; To provide scientific reference sites; To provide for the special needs of rare threatened or depleted species and threatened ecological communities; To provide for the conservation of special groups of organisms - for example, species with complex habitat requirements or mobile or migratory species or species vulnerable to disturbance and which may depend on reservation for their conservation; To protect areas of high conservation value including those containing high species diversity, natural refugia for flora and fauna and centres of endemism; To provide for recreational, aesthetic, and cultural needs of indigenous and non indigenous people. 13

22 Table 2a. National Identification Criteria for MPAs 1. Representativeness (Fig. 7 and Fig. 9) Will the area: represent one or more ecosystems within an IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree; add to the representativeness of the NRSMPA, and to what degree; or reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine ecosystems from which they derive. 2. Comprehensiveness (Fig. 7 & Fig. 8) Does the area: add to the coverage of the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion; or add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA. 3. Ecological importance (Fig. 9) Does the area: contribute to the maintenance of essential ecological processes or life-support systems; contain habitat for rare or endangered species preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species; or contain areas on which species or other systems are dependant e.g. contains nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species; contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self-sustaining ecological unit. 4. International or national importance (Fig. 9) Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list, or declared a Biosphere Reserve or subject to a international or national conservation agreement. 5. Uniqueness (Fig. 9) Does the area: contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems; or contain unique or unusual geographic features. 6. Productivity (Fig. 9) Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity. 7. Vulnerability assessment (Fig. 10) Are the ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes. 8. Biogeographic importance (Fig. 9) Does the area capture important biogeographic qualities. 9. Naturalness (Fig. 10) The extent to which an area has been protected from, or has not been subjected to, human induced change. 14

23 Table 2b. National Selection Criteria 1. Economic interests (Fig. 11) Does the site: make an existing or potential contribution to economic value by virtue of its protection e.g. for recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area or source of supply for economically important species; have current or potential use for the extraction of or exploration of resources; have importance for shipping and/or trade; have usage by traditional users including commercial fishers; or have value due to its contribution to local or regional employment and economic development. 2. Indigenous interests (Fig. 11) Does the site: have traditional usage and/or current economic value; contain indigenous cultural values; have native title considerations; or have importance for maintaining indigenous ecological knowledge. 3. Social Interests (Fig. 11) Does the site: have existing or potential value to the local, national or international communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional aesthetic, educational, recreational or economic values. 4. Scientific Interests (Fig. 11) Does the site have existing or potential value for research or monitoring. 5. Practicality/feasibility (Fig. 10) Does the site: have a degree of insulation from external destructive influences; have social and political acceptability, and a degree of community support; have access for recreation, tourism, education; have compatibility between a MPA declaration generally and uses; or have relative ease of management, and compatibility with existing management regimes. 6 Vulnerability assessment (Fig. 10) Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human-induced changes and threatening processes. 7. Replication (Fig. 10) Will the site provide replication of ecosystems within the bioregion. 15

24 Fig. 7. Primary and secondary goals for a system of marine protected areas. Fig. 8. Criteria for comprehensiveness. Fig. 9. Criteria for representativeness. 16

25 Fig. 10. Criteria for adequacy. Fig. 11. Criteria for human activities. 17

26 3.2 Protection of biodiversity and ecosystem viability The tree models can be used to group MPA identification and selection criteria into two main branches (Fig. 7), primary goals to protect biodiversity and ecosystem viability and secondary goals to provide for human use. This study is restricted to identifying candidate MPAs by assessing the primary goals on the basis of ecological criteria. These criteria for the protection of biodiversity can be organised under three main branches: comprehensiveness, representativeness and adequacy Comprehensiveness Comprehensiveness is defined as including the full range of marine ecosystems and habitats within MPAs (ANZECC TFMPA 1998). Strictly speaking, ecosystems and habitats are too complex and dynamic to define and map accurately. However, surrogate measures or indicators can be used to approximately map generally recognised broad-scale patterns in biodiversity. For the assessment, ecosystems and habitats (Fig. 8) were defined in an environmental classification based on broad-scale differences in geomorphology, depth, substratum and exposure. These largely physical differences in environments were assumed to reflect a corresponding diversity in different habitats, species, and ecological processes Representativeness Representativeness means that areas included in MPAs should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine ecosystems from which they derive" (ANZECC TFMPA 1998). That is, while comprehensively sampling the range of biotic variation, MPAs should also include a reasonably unbiased and sufficiently large, representative proportion of the variation within this range. An important outcome of this approach is to protect typical species, processes and areas rather than protecting only well known, charismatic, rare, threatened, scenic, recreational or convenient elements of biodiversity. Vulnerable and unique elements should however, not be ignored, and a representative system of MPAs should protect both typical and special components of biodiversity. (Inglis 1992; Jones et al. 92; Jones and Kaly). Fig. 9 describes representativeness as a function of typical and special communities and species. Typical communities and species are represented through finer scale physical indicators, available broad-scale surveys, incidental sightings, and descriptive records of communities and species populations. Special species and communities in Fig. 9 include rare, endemic, threatened, ecologically important, unique, productive, biogeographically and internationally or nationally important communities and specie. Threatened communities and species include those communities, populations and species listed as endangered and vulnerable under the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 and Threatened Species Conservation Act

27 3.2.3 Adequacy Adequacy is defined as "the required level of reservation to ensure the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities" (ANZECC TFMPA 1998). Adequacy includes criteria that affect the ability of MPAs to sustain the biodiversity they aim to conserve and involves consideration of vulnerability, condition, reserve design, connectivity and practical MPA management (Fig. 10) Vulnerability Vulnerability may be interpreted in two ways. Where there is a range of options available for protection of a feature it may be preferable to include areas that are least threatened to increase their probability of survival. This approach may apply when threats originate from outside the MPA and are beyond the immediate control of MPA management. An example might be in selecting marine areas with catchments protected by National Park. However, where there are only a few examples of a habitat or species, there may be urgent reasons for protecting the areas most threatened, particularly where threats operate inside the MPA and are under some control by MPA management. This priority is now incorporated implicitly in terrestrial reserve selection methods (Cowling 1999; Faith and Walker 1996; Pressey and Taffs In press). An example might be a rare habitat that would otherwise be subject to severe disturbance without the protection afforded by an MPA Condition Condition or naturalness reflects whether an area has already undergone some degree of impact. If an area has been affected by pollution, disturbance, pests, disease, habitat loss, or over exploitation, the ecological viability of the area, as well as the diversity of organisms present may be affected Ecological guidelines for reserve design Ecological viability requires consideration of reserve design including size, shape, replication and the configuration of reserves within a network. Reserve design criteria aim to ensure that individual MPAs and the overall reserve system remain ecologically viable. Basic reserve design guidelines include to: Establish clear objectives. The primary objectives of any MPA need to be stated clearly as a reserve s location, design and management should reflect it s intended purpose. Reserve design for fisheries management, sedentary organisms, birds and whole ecosystems may differ considerably (Planes et al. 2000, Agardy 2000, Robert and Hawkins in prep., Salm et al. 2000). Select, design and manage the MPA in line with these objectives. The biology of the target organisms including their life cycles, movements, feeding, behaviour and physiology all need to be considered in reserve design. Even where a range of biodiversity is targeted, careful consideration should be given to the ecology of the organisms the MPA is designed to protect. Conduct site assessments. Once candidate MPA sites have been identified at a regional level, more detailed site studies are required to assess the validity of broad-scale predictions, assess any detailed information available and specifically assess local patterns of biodiversity and threats and issues for future management. 19

28 Use natural boundaries and where possible include whole ecosystems and habitats. Where possible, the natural limits of ecosystems or habitats should be used to define marine protected area boundaries (Salm et al. 2000). Where an entire ecosystem or habitat is important for conservation, all of its area should be protected. (Roberts & Hawkins in prep, Salm et al. 2000). Reservation of an entire system enhances biodiversity protection by: taking advantage of the unit s natural isolation from threatening processes; inhibiting excessive spillover of mobile organisms from the reserve; and protecting the full range of variation occurring within a unit. Use core and buffer zones. Highly protected core conservation areas should be surrounded by an appropriate buffer zone to avoid sudden transitions from highly protected areas to areas with relatively little protection. High value conservation sites that are vulnerable to human use should be protected in core protection zones. Buffer zones may also provide important corridors between core conservation areas. Use highly protected areas. The concept of minimum or optimum MPA size should be applied to core sanctuary zones, not to the total extent of a multiple-use MPA (Salm et al. 2000). Most evidence of the beneficial effects of MPAs is related to core sanctuary (or no take ) areas where extractive use is prohibited. Ensure adequate size and number of reserves. There are few general rules for determining the best size and arrangement of MPAs as biologies and life histories vary widely among species, and with season and location (Roberts and Hawkins 1997; Roberts 2000; Crosby 2000; Salm et al. 2000). However, protected areas should be as large as possible and should not be smaller than the average size for a given habitat type (Salm et al. 2000). Where MPAs target particular species, and where sufficient data exists, attempts can be made to estimate the optimum MPA size and configuration. Optimal MPA size may also be determined by examining the percentage of species richness represented with increasing reserve size (Salm et al. 2000), or through fisheries and other modelling techniques (Crosby 2000). Regardless of the taxa involved, one trend persists the larger the MPA, the more species that will be represented, and the more likely their populations are to survive disturbances (Salm et al. 2000). Maximise habitat complexity. Representation of species and habitat diversity can be maximised by establishing MPAs in locations with a wide range of physical environments (e.g. estuaries, islands and headlands with significant depth gradients and both protected and exposed aspects). Different organisms associate with different marine structures, and high habitat complexity is often associated with high species diversity. For example the species richness of rocky reef fish communities is greatest in areas with high habitat complexity (Garcia-Charton et al. 2000). Maximise the connection between neighbouring habitats (Salm et al. 2000). Many species selectively use different habitats at different times, seasons or stages in their life history. Protection of organisms in one habitat may be compromised, unless other locations on which they depend are also managed for conservation. 20

29 Complement existing MPAs Reserve design should consider the role of individual MPAs in contributing to the overall complement of biodiversity represented in reserves and should also consider the role of MPAs in the ecological functioning of the reserve system (Salm et al. 2000, Crosby 2000). Coordinate management across marine and terrestrial environments. Coordinated management of marine and terrestrial systems can help conserve ecosystem function across the coastal interface, and mitigate against catchment based threats. Increasing urban development and inappropriate land use in coastal catchments are recognised as major threats to marine biodiversity in NSW. With the population in the nonmetropolitan coastal areas of NSW increasing by 45% between , the terrestrial reserve system and improved integrated planning are seen as key mechanisms for conserving marine and coastal biodiversity (NSW Government 1997). Develop a network of MPAs for all ecosystems, communities and species to: represent the full regional range of marine biodiversity; insure against risk through replication; ensure connectivity between ecosystems and populations; provide scientific reference sites; intersperse replicate study sites for research, monitoring and adaptive management; promote spill over effects to surrounding areas; provide for the recovery of damaged environments; provide opportunities for understanding, sustainable use and enjoyment; and provide opportunities for community input and stewardship. Exercise risk management and the uncertainty principle. Information for management of marine biodiversity will never to be perfect and identification and selection criteria can only hope to approximate ideal objectives and goals. In setting and implementing criteria, the NSW Government has adopted a precautionary approach in managing MPAs. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. (National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992) Management practicalities Management practicalities also affect the ability of MPAs to adequately conserve biodiversity. Logistic criteria that need to be considered in identifying MPAs include: education (recognition of values, regulations and boundaries); cooperation (best practices, consultation, voluntary compliance, volunteer work); planning, regulation and enforcement considerations; research and monitoring design for adaptive management; benefits from integrated ecosystem management of surrounding areas; ease of administration, planning, permitting, impact assessment and finance; and political and community support to establish and make the MPA system work. Education For a system of MPAs is to be effective, community support and cooperation is essential. Support can only be gained if people are properly informed and educated about the value of MPAs. For management processes to be seen as transparent, people need to be made aware of the reasons for MPAs and how decisions are made. The complexities of MPA management can also lead to misinterpretation of management strategies. Education can help avoid confusion and allay unjustified fears in the community. 21

30 Although education can and should be provided to all areas some locations are particularly suited to these activities and may already have education programs in place. Areas recognised for their high natural values are often suitable subjects for documentaries and printed articles on marine environments that can be entertaining, informative and promote marine conservation to audiences internationally. Providing information for local displays, tours and existing agencies, businesses and schools provides tangible benefits to the community and opportunities for community input. In these instances, education can involve all age and community groups including children and the broader community, as well as those stakeholders most directly affected by MPAs. Planning, regulation and enforcement In an integrated system of MPAs there needs to be coordination of planning and day to day compliance among MPAs, and between management jurisdictions. With three NSW agencies responsible for MPA management, and several other regulatory agencies in NSW with marine responsibilities, there is considerable scope for cooperation in management strategies and for confusion over jurisdiction. In addition, responsibilities for bioregions off the NSW coast are shared with the Federal government (e.g. for part of Jervis Bay and waters more than 3 nm offshore) and with neighbouring state governments (for the Tweed- Moreton and Twofold Shelf bioregions). MPA design needs to take into account existing strategies and restrictions already put in place by other agencies. In this way they may take advantage of existing regulations, programs and facilities, avoid legal complications, minimise additional impacts on existing use and generally manage for conservation in a more effective manner. Care should be taken to ensure that ecological objectives are not compromised by gaps in jurisdiction. For example, where MPAs are declared to the high water mark, measures should be in place to ensure that the mangrove and saltmarsh habitats inland of this boundary are conserved. In this instance, integrated management with agencies responsible for adjacent terrestrial environments may be appropriate. This approach applies to management for a wide range of issues including catchment management, agriculture, development, fisheries, national parks, pollution, shipping, waste management and law enforcement. Opportunities for integrated management exist in surveillance, research and monitoring, education, development of best practices, pest control, risk assessment and rehabilitation. Research MPAs have a crucial role as reference sites in the scientific understanding of changing marine environments and the impact of human activities. Without reference sites where impacts are virtually absent or at least controlled, there are no baselines for distinguishing natural from human disturbances or for differentiating the causes of impacts from sources as diverse as fishing, land use, pollution, pests, development or climate change. Without this knowledge, our ability to detect problems or develop (and test) effective solutions is severely limited. In particular, without consideration of experimental design in the identification and selection of MPAs it may be very difficult to assess whether the reserves are even effective in achieving their objectives. Conveniently, scientific research designs to clearly describe and explain change share several key characteristics with the design of adequate and representative systems of MPAs (Kingsford in prep.; Table 5). Changes in reserve configuration to accommodate research designs may therefore be quite small, but will be critical in influencing the validity and value of research to come for many years. 22

31 The partnership between research and management should be regarded as an ongoing and iterative process to gradually improve management and understanding of marine environments. However this partnership is critical in the design phase of MPA networks to ensure that reliable feedback on performance is even possible. Important considerations here are the (preferably) balanced replication of areas within a range of habitats and levels of protection, interspersed (if not random) allocation of replicates (Hurlbert 1984) and ensuring that designated levels of protection are in fact complied with. As research in marine environments is often difficult and costly there may be significant advantages in cooperative research among MPA agencies and the many other agencies, universities, industries and organisations engaged in marine research in NSW. Consideration of existing research programs and infrastructure at potential MPA sites may therefore have logistic benefits for research, monitoring and biodiversity conservation. Table 3. Common features of adequate, representative MPAs and scientific methods. Management of MPA systems Unbiased representation of biodiversity. Identify MPAs within major known, sources of physical and biological variation (e.g. ecosystems, habitats). Manipulate levels of use in MPAs and compare with areas outside of MPAs. Aim to replicate reserves against the risk of disturbance. Intersperse MPAs for increased connectivity and insurance against localised disturbance. Need to assess the effects of MPAs against a background of natural change. Select MPAs from sets of candidate sites. Need to understand natural patterns and processes and how they interact with humans. Findings used to evaluate initial management strategies, improve management model, and reassess. Research methods Unbiased sampling of statistical populations. Assign sampling units to major, known sources of variation in stratified sampling designs. Manipulate treatments of interest, comparing results with unmanipulated controls. Replicate sample units against the risk of error. Intersperse treatment and control sample units to insure against systematic error. Need to assess the effects of treatments against a background of natural change. Randomly sample from statistical populations of interest. Need to understand natural patterns and processes and how they interact with humans. Findings used to evaluate hypotheses, improve scientific models and test new hypotheses. 23

32 3.3 Managing and providing for human activities Table 4b and Fig. 7 and Fig. 11 list criteria under the secondary goal to: 'Manage and provide for human activities'. Criteria for human activities are scheduled by national guidelines into a separate site "selection" process. Where consistent with ecological goals, the selection process aims to minimise restrictions on human activities, and even enhance cultural, social and economic values. Often the ecological options for MPAs are flexible enough to allow for a variety of human use. Press releases, magazine articles, brochures, seminars and community information meetings were used in the Manning Shelf Bioregion to increase general awareness of MPAs and the identification and selection processes planned. Fig. 11 lists just some of the interests potentially affected by MPAs. It is evident, in even this simplified view, that there is potential for conflict between conservation values and competing interests. Careful consideration of human activities is therefore required if MPAs are to be implemented. In addition, stakeholders often spend many professional and recreational hours observing marine ecosystems and can often contribute valuable information on species distributions, habitats, vulnerability, condition and threats. When used cautiously such information may lead to more realistic MPA designs and strategies that adapt more ideally to local conditions, habitats and organisms (Johannes et al. 2000). Subject to intellectual property rights, Indigenous knowledge should also be included in MPA assessments, research programs and management, and incorporated into MPA interpretation and education strategies. Davey (1998) lists eleven reasons why plans for MPAs fail, six of which involve stakeholder input: they do not address key issues; they fail to involve stakeholders; they rely too much on external experts and fail to involve local people; they are weak on implementation; they fail to raise political support for protected areas as a worthwhile concern; and they are poorly publicised. There are many ways in which consultation can be enhanced through all forms of the media, advisory committees, community meetings, information sessions, displays and through the general availability of staff for public communication. Effective consultation will encourage public confidence and a sense of ownership and contribute to the effectiveness of MPAs in adequately conserving marine biodiversity. 24

33 4 Methods to assess criteria Information used to assess options for marine protected areas included: MPA goals and identification and selection criteria (Section 3); guidelines for implementation of reserve types described (Section 3); an environmental classification of marine ecosystems, habitats and communities; available broad-scale surveys of marine communities and species; derived measures from related conservation assessments; and maps of existing marine protected areas. Methods used to identify potential MPA locations from this information included: summary statistics displayed in graphs and tables; Geographical Information System (GIS) maps and spatial analyses; irreplaceability analysis of the likelihood that a site is required to meet goals; multiple criteria decision analysis to combine scores for many criteria; and review of literature. 4.1 Review of methods to map biodiversity To protect biodiversity within MPAs requires information on where organisms are found. However, marine ecosystems are complex, constantly changing and difficult to map at the broad spatial scales required by regional planning. In most situations, planning must rely on approximate indicators or surrogate measures to estimate major broad-scale spatial patterns in biodiversity. Methods to derive and map these measures include: broad-scale environmental classifications as predictors of habitat and related biota systematic surveys of the distribution and abundance of organisms; models to predict the distributions of organisms from physical data; and delphic consensus of expert opinion Environmental classifications as predictors of habitat To assess criteria for comprehensiveness and representativeness, this assessment relied primarily on an environmental classification to approximate broad-scale patterns of biodiversity. This was the most rapid and cost effective way of summarising conspicuous patterns in biodiversity for large areas, as extensive physical surveys were often available and could provide at least approximate predictors of broad-scale patterns of biodiversity. The approach has the potential to capture undescribed components of biodiversity and avoid biases that may result from relying on the distributions of selected species, favoured research locations or limited sampling. Physical predictors are likely to be more stable through time than temporally variable distributions of organisms, and including a range of physical environments within MPAs may assist in maintaining the processes on which biodiversity and its continued evolution depend. Sources of information include bathymetric surveys of the seabed, geomorphological classifications of coastline, estuaries and topographic features, and surveys of oceanography and sediment types. The increasing application of technologies such as sonar, aerial photography and satellite imagery mean that almost continuous coverages can be obtained for large areas. 25

34 On the other hand, physical predictors are a less direct means of measuring biodiversity, and the approach assumes that the features mapped, correlate with variation in ecological processes, habitats and the organisms themselves. For broad-scale patterns in biodiversity, general relationships of this sort are well documented, or can be assumed on the basis of ecological theory and past observation. These assumptions, however, should not remain untested and any conservation program should aim to understand the relationships and review their management accordingly. The broad-scale environmental classification is summarised in Fig. 8 & Fig. 9 and described more fully in Tables Surveys of communities and species populations Direct observations on the location, abundance and diversity of marine organisms range from incidental sightings, museum collections, and commercial harvest data to systematic surveys designed to provide statistical estimates of abundance and variation. Where available, the latter data may provide reliable indicators of biodiversity for the organisms sampled, and approximate indicators for other organisms indirectly associated with the sampled biota. However in NSW, broad-scale ecological surveys across whole bioregions are limited. Exceptions include surveys of estuarine vegetation (West et al and recent surveys in progress, R.J. Williams pers. comm.), juvenile fish biodiversity in estuaries (R. Williams pers. comm.), intertidal rocky shores (Otway 1999, Otway and Morrison, in prep.) and of threatened Grey Nurse Shark (Otway and Parker 2000). Other, less systematic data sources for species include analyses of commercial fish catch data (Pease 1999), fish and invertebrate specimen databases from the Australian Museum, and sightings databases kept by NSW Fisheries and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Although they measure biodiversity more directly than physical surrogates, these data sources all have particular biases associated with how the data were collected. In particular, surveys tend to target specific groups of organisms and thus may be biased against less well studied organisms Predictive modelling of species/community spatial distribution Where reliable sample data on species and community distributions are available across the entire area of interest, statistical and spatial models can be used to predict distributions for intervening areas from more readily available physical and spatial attributes. Such techniques have been successfully applied in terrestrial situations and more recently in marine protected areas (Nicholls 1991, De Ath and Fabricius 2000, Day et al. submitted; Kerrigan et al. in prep.). At present, there are few biological data sets available at broad enough spatial scales to usefully carry out such analyses for entire marine bioregions in NSW. There are, however, a number of studies underway that could potentially provide information for some groups of organisms. Systematic field and analytical studies in this area should be a research priority Delphic assessment - consensus of expert opinion This technique involves experts in relevant fields reviewing available information and using their combined experience to summarise information, identify patterns and make recommendations. The method may be prone to subjective biases, in particular towards specific fields of research and research locations. However, expert interpretation has the advantage of combining knowledge of both data collection methods (and their limitations) and the underlying ecology of the organisms concerned. The approach also benefits from field experience and intuition not available in formal data sets or literature. 26

35 Often, the range of physical and biological expertise within a group can be used to synthesise more functional ecological models, leading to a greater understanding of the organisms, their distribution, and mechanisms for conservation. This method has not yet been employed in the identification phase. However, workshops of this kind may provide a suitable forum to integrate, and ground-truth the information and analyses resulting from this assessment. The interactive data exploration tools provided by this study are likely to greatly assist the exchange and development of ideas in such groups Methods used by other Australian marine conservation agencies In South Australia, eight basic habitat units were defined by physiographic features (including substratum type and geology) using remote sensing techniques. This was later supported by statistically sampling and modelling the distributions of benthic flora and fauna. Biological variation within these habitats over distances of 10 s to 100 s of kilometres was then partitioned into smaller biounits along the coast and across the continental shelf. These areas were delineated according to the proportion of different habitats occurring within biounits, combined with other physiographic attributes such as depth (Edyvane 1999ab). The NSW Marine Parks Authority applied a similar approach to delineate marine habitats for the NSW portion of the Tweed-Moreton Bioregion (Avery 2001). Habitat units (e.g. reef systems) were identified from secondary data sources (e.g. nautical charts), and assumed regional (10 s-100 s km) variation was identified on the basis of: cross shelf gradients by dividing subtidal habitat units into three depth classes; long shelf gradients where there was evidence of biogeographic variation; differences in estuary geomorphology. In Victoria, marine physical environments were mapped using remote sensing techniques (i.e. LandSat TM imagery, side-scan sonar and submersible video) in a process similar to that used in South Australia. Biological data is now being collected that is capable of detecting within habitat variation and validating the chosen surrogate measures. In Tasmania (Edgar et al. 1997), systematic biological surveys were used to identify broadscale bioregions and assess representativeness within habitats. Sonar, aerial photographs and submersible video were used to identify habitats from physiographic features (e.g.. substrate) and the occurrence and density of seagrass (Barrett et al.). In the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the locations of reefs, islands, coast and estuaries were mapped by remote sensing and information was also available on bathymetry, aspect, slope, exposure, sediments, tidal range, reef morphology, climate, oceanography, hydrology and other physical variables. These data together with broad-scale systematic surveys of algae, hard and soft corals, fishes, seagrasses, invertebrates, records of the Queensland Museum and delphic regionalisations from individual interviews (Kerrigan and Breen 2000) and workshops (Wachenfield 1998) were summarised as layers in a GIS (Day et al. 2000; Kerrigan et al. 1999a). Multivariate regression tree techniques (De Ath and Fabricius 2001) were then used to model relationships between the biological sample data and coordinates identifying across and along shelf position. These relationships were then used to define regions of similar species composition with associated estimates of classification error (Kerrigan et al. 1999b). The derived classifications were refined in expert delphic workshops using GIS displays of data sets, analyses and alternative regionalisations (Kerrigan and Breen 2000). Experts were able to help verify patterns identified in surveys and analyses and add many direct observations from field experience. 27

36 4.2 An environmental classification of marine biodiversity for NSW An environmental classification developed in conjunction with the NSW Marine Parks Authority Research Committee was used to represent progressively finer scales of biological variation in NSW marine environments. Levels in the hierarchy are: IMCRA bioregions (Fig. 1); large scale ecosystem units based on five main groups of coastal water body (Roy et al., 2001) and four cross shelf depth zones (Fig. 8); smaller scale habitat units based on substrate, tidal exposure and the presence of estuarine vegetation (Fig. 8); finer scale community level variation based on more detailed physical surrogates, dominant biota or species associations; and the estimated distributions and abundances of species and populations. The assessment focused on mapping variation at the ecosystem and habitat level. The area, number and size of these ecosystem and habitat units were then used to assess the comprehensiveness of existing and proposed networks of MPAs. The methods used for mapping the marine ecosystems, habitats and community level attributes are discussed in detail below, along with a description and validation of each unit (Tables 7-14). Maps showing the location and extent of the different ecosystems and habitats mapped throughout the bioregion can be viewed at on the attached CD-ROM and in Fig. 12 and Fig. 19. The mapping process applied in the Manning Shelf assessment was rapid, low cost, and based largely on the modification of existing data into an appropriate GIS format. The principal constraint on the mapping was the scarcity of biological data for community and species level variation across the bioregion, and the absence of detailed maps of subtidal substrate (i.e. reef and soft sediments) beyond the nearshore zone. In general, methods reflected the overall urgency for basic data and a significant byproduct of this work is in identifying gaps in our knowledge of marine biodiversity in NSW. The ecological classification presented here lays foundations for future research, and is flexible enough to incorporate new information as it becomes available. Once options for MPAs are identified at the bioregional level, finer scale data will be required for planning, management, research and monitoring within MPAs. The broad-scale environmental classification provides a framework for these studies and will assist in applying MPA objectives to ongoing planning, zoning and management as well as reserve establishment. 28

37 4.2.1 Estuary ecosystem units Mapping Coastal waterbodies from the NSW Waterways GIS coast coverage (1:25,000 scale) were classified into five main groups according to a classification of NSW estuaries (Roy et al. 2001) (Tables 7a and 8). Ecological validation Roy et al. (2001) identified five main types of coastal waterbody based on coastal geology, entrance type and tidal exchange. Four sedimentary zones (marine tidal delta, central mud basin, fluvial delta and riverine channel/alluvial plain) were also identified within each waterbody (Roy et al. 2001). These groups and zones reflect characteristic ecosystems responding to variation in morphology, hydrology and sediments (Table 8). Limitations The large-scale, whole estuary units do not address finer scale variation among tributaries and sedimentary zones (e.g. Limeburners Creek within the broader Macleay River system) Ocean ecosystem units Mapping The continental shelf was partitioned into four depth zones 0-20 m, m and m with a fourth zone (>200 m) extending beyond the outer edge of the continental shelf (Table 7a and 9). Zones were mapped directly from the Waterway Authority s GIS layer of depth contours (derived from Australian Hydrographic Office data). The number and location of zones is not based on any defined ecological boundary, but rather reflects general patterns in the cross shelf variation in oceanography, sediments and biological diversity. Ecological validation The invertebrate fauna of the NSW continental shelf is highly diverse, with diversity tending to be higher offshore (Jones 1977 in Ward & Blaber 1999). The depth zones account for the dominant ecological gradients in light, wave action, and currents. These gradients are reflected in a wide range of biotic and abiotic diversity across the shelf including: algae (Womersley 1981), sponges (Roberts & Davis 1996), benthic fauna (Coleman et al. 1997, Gray 1997), fish assemblages, and sediments, currents, temperature, salinity, and water chemistry (Short 1993, Chapman et al pp29-35, Skene & Roy 1986, Colwell et al. 1981, Rochford 1975., Godfrey et al. 1980). Limitations Using depth alone to predict ocean biodiversity is an oversimplification of a complex environment. 29

38 Ecosystem units Description I. Ocean Embayment II. Tide dominated drowned river valley III. Wave dominated barrier estuaries, lagoons and interbarrier estuaries. IV. Intermittently open saline lagoon & coastal creeks V. Brackish barrier lakes Semi-enclosed bays protected from the action of ocean waves. Not true estuaries but transition zones between estuaries and ocean having transitional communities of both. Minimal influence from freshwater discharge. Characterised by sandy beds, seagrass beds in protected areas, low turbidity, ocean tidal ranges and salinities, and well flushed by ocean waters (e.g. Botany Bay). This ecosystem type is not found in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Generally deep, narrow estuaries with rocky sides e.g. Sydney Harbour & Port Stephens. Fully tidal. Large submerged tidal delta sand bodies extend up the estuary behind which fine river sediments (mud) accumulate. Port Stephens is the only example of this type in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Young estuaries in early stages of infilling with large shallow lagoons and low energy environments away from the main tidal channels. Often densely covered by seagrass. Examples include Camden Haven and Wallis Lake. Mature estuaries in the late stages of infilling form a riverine estuary with extensive flood plains and coastal wetlands, often with narrow, elongated entrance channels and broad barrier sand flats. Examples include the Nambucca, Macleay, Hastings, Manning and Myall River and Korogoro Creek. Includes coastal lagoons and creeks intermittently open to ocean. Usually associated with small catchments in coastal valleys and small fluvial inputs. Often brackish but non-tidal. Waters occasionally become hyper-saline. Mangroves generally absent, with sea rush (Juncus kraussi) often dominant Benthic species diversity generally low, but with some extreme variations in abundance. Examples include Innes, Cathie & Smiths Lakes, Killick Creek, Khappinghat Creek, South West Rocks Creek, Saltwater Creek, and Saltwater Lagoon. Bodies of fresh to slightly brackish water with a tenuous connection to the sea. Relatively rare in NSW. Vegetation dominated by freshwater species. Mature form is a terrestrial swamp. Examples include the Myall Lakes. Table 4. Description of estuarine ecosystem units (after Roy et al. 2001). 30

39 Ecosystem units Coastal depth zone (0-20 m) Offshore depth zone (20-60 m) Shelf depth zone ( m) Oceanic depth zone (> 200 m) Description Generally coarse well sorted quartzose sand above 20-30m representing heavily reworked Holocene sand deposits (Chapman et al 1982, Short 1993). High intensity and duration of wave energy, and predominant northward longshore drift. High light intensity supporting a high diversity of green, brown and red algae. High diversity of habitats (Underwood et al. 1991). Fronts from tidal estuaries, riverine plumes, and wakes down current of headlands and islands (i.e. associated with larval transport) are common and may extend well into the 20-60m zone (Kingsford, 1990). Medium to coarse grained quartzose sands extend from 20 to 50-70m (Colwell et al. 1981, Chapman et al. 1982). Intermittent reworking of surface sediments with a superficial veneer of black mud a few millimetres thick (Colwell et al. 1981). A relatively steep seafloor gradient between 45-75m occurs south of Forster (Colwell et al. 1981). Medium to low intensity and duration of wave energy during storm events. Significant gradient in light from moderately high (supporting brown and red algae) to very low light (supporting predominantly red algae) (Womersley 1981). Sponge diversity predominant and increasing with depth (Roberts & Davis 1996). Muddy calcareous sands and mud occur in the mid-shelf region between m. The outer shelf region between m is dominated by poorly sorted coarse grained calcareous sand and gravel (Colwell et al. 1981, Chapman et al. 1982). Very low to no light. Effects of the East Australian Current dominate, particularly north of Sugarloaf Point. Increasing soft sediment fauna diversity. Reef systems rare. Steep continental shelf slope extending out into the Tasman trough. Cool nutrient rich waters. Benthic fauna diverse (Gray 1997). Table 5. Description of ocean ecosystem units. 31

40 4.2.3 Seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh habitats Mapping Distributions of seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh habitats were estimated from a GIS coverage digitised by the NPWS from maps of estuarine vegetation produced by West et al. (1985) (Tables 7b and 14). Ecological Validation In NSW, mangroves, saltmarsh and seagrass communities are found mostly within the shelter of estuarine environments. Mangrove and salt marsh communities contribute significantly to the productivity of estuaries through nutrient cycling and trapping of sediments and detritus. They provide habitat for a wide variety of characteristic and highly diverse assemblages of fish, birds and invertebrates (Hutchings and Recher 1982, Saenger 1999). Seagrass beds are widely recognised for their role in providing habitat for a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna, including algal epiphytes, crabs, shrimps, fishes, hydroids, sponges, bryozoans, ascidians, amphipods, polychaetes, gastropods, bivalves and holothurians (Howard & Edgar 1999; Hannan and Williams, 1998; Bell and Pollard, 1989). Limitations Despite concerns over the spatial precision of the digitised data and the amount of time elapsed since the surveys took place, the West et al. (1985) estuarine vegetation maps represent the best available broad-scale coverage of estuarine vegetation communities in the State. A NHT funded program at NSW Fisheries is currently re-mapping the distribution of seagrass, mangroves and saltmarshes for all NSW estuaries (R.J. Williams pers. comm.). Habitat Community Description Mangrove - Salt Marsh - Seagrass Ruppia spp. Halophila spp. Zostera spp. Posidonia spp. Vegetation types mapped include mangroves (all species combined), saltmarsh (all species combined), and seagrass including, Zosteraceae (Zostera capricorni, Z. muelleri, & Heterozostera tasmanica), Posidonia australis, Halophila spp. (Halophila ovalis & H. decipiens) and Ruppia spp. (Ruppia megacarpa, R. polycarpa & R. maritima). Table 6. Description of estuarine vegetation habitats. 32

41 4.2.4 Intertidal rocky shore habitats Mapping A linear GIS coverage of intertidal rocky shore was prepared by defining lengths of rocky shore along the AMBIS (Australian Land Information Group s Australian Marine Baseline Information System) high water coastline using 1:25,000 topographic maps provided by the NSW Land and Property Information Centre (LPIC). Segments of rocky shore were then scored for the presence of five community level substrata (platform, boulder, cobble, pool, crevice) identified by Otway and Morrison et al. (in prep.) during field trips to accessible sites. Areas of intertidal rocky shore were mapped as the difference between high and low water AMBIS coastlines and 1:10,000 scale aerial photographs provided by DLWC were used to categorise two community level surrogates bedrock (including platforms, sloping faces and cliffs) and boulders/gravel (Table?b and?10). This method only partially mapped rocky cliffs, excluding those that had horizontal intertidal widths less than about 5m. Ecological validation Intertidal rocky shores occupy a transition zone between marine and terrestrial characterised by strong vertical zonation of intertidal species (Zann 1995). Previous studies (in Otway 1999) have identified a range of zones within rock platforms including: (1) a high-shore area dominated by littorinid snails; (2) wave-exposed, mid-shore areas occupied by barnacles and limpets; (3) sheltered mid shore areas dominated by barnacles and grazing snails such as Nerita atramentosa, Bembicium nanum and Austrocochlea constricta; (4) low-shore areas dominated by the encrusting tube worm Galeolaria caespitosa and: (5) a low shore algae community with a range of animals including solitary ascidians (Pyura stolonifera) and macro-algal grazing chitons. Local variations in the distribution of organisms are due principally to levels of exposure, wave stress and biological interactions. While some organisms occupy a range of habitats, many are restricted to certain environments. Otway (2000) suggests therefore, that the overall number of species for a given shore will increase with an increasing number of different habitats present. Studies of intertidal communities in the Hawkesbury and Batemans Shelf Bioregion (Otway 2000), and more recently in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (Otway and Morrison in prep.), confirm this relationship, and field studies to further assess community structure are continuing. Limitations Mapped length of intertidal zone ignores the areal extent of rocky intertidal habitat; mapped area of intertidal zones ignores areas of steep cliff less than 5 m in width; community types do not necessarily reflect the degree of exposure of shores to waves; shores are not always accessible for field description of community types; and mapped areas do not include the intertidal zones above high water. 33

42 Habitat unit Community Description a. Area of intertidal rocky shore areas of shore categorised from aerial photographs. b. Length of intertidal rocky shore lengths of shore scored for presence of communities from field assessment (Otway and Morrison, in prep.). Bedrock Boulders/ gravel Platform Crevice Rock pools The bedrock class includes a range of rock platforms, sloping or massive rock surfaces with less than 20% cover of sand or boulder-gravel size particles. The boulder gravel class includes intertidal areas with >20% covered by particles between 2mm and 2m. Boulder-gravel shores are predominant on the protected northern side of headlands and in well protected coves. Bedrock and boulders/gravel classes are mutually exclusive. A range of massive platforms and sloping rock surfaces. Crevices were defined as cracks with a minimum depth of 20 cm, though most crevices exceeded 50 cm in depth. Rock pools were defined as depressions in platforms that retained seawater. Boulders Rocks with diameters over 1m. Cobbles Rocks with diameters between 100 mm and 1m. Table 7. Description of intertidal rocky shore habitats. Habitat unit Community Description Intertidal beach Table 8. Reflective Intermediate Dissipative Estuarine beach Estuarine intertidal flats Reflective beaches are generally steep, narrow, composed of coarse sand (& occasionally gravel, cobble or boulders) and occur in low energy wave environments (e.g. On the northern side of headlands and in small well protected coves away from the predominant south east swell). They generally have no sand bars and rip currents. Intermediate beaches are characterised by a surf zone with bars and rips, occur in intermediate wave energy environments, tend to be longer than reflective beaches, have fine to medium sands, and are the most common of NSW beaches. Dissipative beaches are rare in NSW, and are characterised by wide surf zones, relatively fine sand and high wave energy environments. This beach type is more typical of Australia s northern coast. Sandy estuarine shores identified from DLWC Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Maps. Mud and sand flats of estuaries identified from the Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Maps. Description of intertidal beach habitat. 34

43 4.2.5 Intertidal beach habitats Mapping A linear GIS coverage of the length of individual ocean beaches was derived by splitting the AMBIS high water coastline according to digitised 1: 25,000 topographic maps (provided by LPIC). Individual beaches were then classified according to Short (1993). Areas of intertidal beaches were mapped as the difference between the AMBIS high and low water GIS ocean coastlines (Table 7b and 10) and individual beaches identified using 1:10,000 scale aerial photographs (provided by DLWC). Ocean beaches were assigned to one of two morpho-dynamic categories (intermediate and reflective) defined by Short (1993). Where required, long beaches were split to reflect differences in beach state between the northern and southern ends of the beach. Areas of estuarine beaches and intertidal flats were estimated from GIS coverages of the Acid Soils Risk Maps produced by the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC). Ecological validation Different environments within beach systems support characteristic assemblages. Typical invertebrate macro-fauna associated with a range of northern NSW beaches includes: Pseudolana elegans (isopod), Urohaustoriius gunni (amphipod), Scolelepis normalis and Nepthys australiensis (polychaetes), and Donax veruinus and D. deltoides (bivalve molluscs) (Hacking 1998a). The waters over beaches and intertidal flats also support characteristic phytoplankton (Lewin & Shaefer 1983, in Robertson 1999), and fish assemblages including pilchards, anchovies, silverside, whiting and mullet (Robertson 1999). The surf zones of exposed sandy beaches are important nursery grounds for fish previously considered to be estuary dependant (Lenanton & Caputi 1989, in Robertson 1999). Detached macrophytic algae material, commonly found drifting in the surf-zone following heavy seas, supports characteristic communities of organisms different to those found on plants of nearby reefs (Robertson 1999). Within the Manning Shelf Bioregion, dunes and sand spits above the immediate littoral zone, provide important nesting and feeding sites for a range of wader and seabirds. These include, the threatened Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) and Beach stone-curlew (Esacus neglectus), and the vulnerable Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus) and Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa). Justification for using the community level classification of beaches in NSW is provided in part by Hacking (1998ab), and is based on relationships described in Brown and McLachlan (1990). In general, the species richness and abundance of invertebrate macrofauna increases from low (reflective) to high (dissipative) energy beaches (Hacking 1998a, Brown and McLachlan 1990). Classification of beaches along this gradient is based on a Beach State Index of beach morphology, wave breaker height, grain size and wave period. In NSW, beaches tend to be either intermediate or reflective in form, with the majority being intermediate (Short 1993). Limitations Beach systems extend beyond the intertidal zone to the highest level reached by waves and spray and to the outer limit of the surf zone and surf circulation cell (Robertson 1999). Protection of the mapped intertidal beach area should be considered in conjunction with other areas of the broader beach system including dunes, sand spits, surf-zones and surf circulation cells. 35

44 4.2.6 Island habitats Mapping Islands and rocks were mapped using the AMBIS GIS low water coastline and emergent rocks. An 100 m buffer was extended around the low water mark to represent the pelagic zone around islands and rocks (Tables 7b and 12). These areas were categorised into those within 1 km of the shore and those greater than 1 km offshore. Ecological validation Islands and their surrounding waters provide unique and important habitats for seabirds, marine mammals, fish, invertebrates and other species. They have been shown to interact with southward and northward flowing currents to generate fronts, wakes and other oceanographic features that extend well beyond the rock or island. These features have been studied in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (e.g. at Fish Rock and Black Rocks near Smoky Cape) using airborne infra-red scanner images (Cresswell et al. 1983). Surface wakes, fronts, upwelling, shelter, and entrainment around rocks and islands are important for the transport and entrapment of larvae and the feeding ecology of many fish and invertebrate species (Kingsford and Choat 1986, Kingsford 1990, Kingsford and Suthers 1994, 1996, Wolanski 2000). Limitations The 100m buffer provided an arbitrary representation of the effect of islands on surrounding marine environments. In many cases it will under represent the island s true influence. Distance offshore provides only an approximate community level classification. Habitat Islands and rocks Community Within 1 km of coast More than 1 km offshore Description Generally located in shallow water, subject to coastal influences including terrestrial runoff and sediments, longshore transport of sand and increased turbidity. Located in deeper water and subject to greater gradients in depth and light, less likely to be influenced by coastal processes and more likely to be affected by deeper water bodies and the East Australian Current. Table 9. Description of island and rock habitats. 36

45 4.2.7 Subtidal reef habitats Mapping Two separate methods were used to define prominent reef habitats (Table 7b). Two additional reef mapping methods were investigated, but were not fully implemented in the assessment. Shallow near-shore reef systems were mapped from existing unrectified 1:10,000 1:25,000 scale aerial photographs, held by the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Reef boundaries and intervening sediment patches were mapped to a depth of m depending on sea conditions at the time the photographs were taken. This coverage of mostly inshore reefs was supplemented (particularly in deeper offshore waters) with an additional GIS map coverage derived from the commercially available nautical chart series (Australian Hydrographic Service, 1:150,000 scale charts). This method provided a crude indication of the position and extent of the more prominent reef systems (i.e. those having a high vertical relief). These data provide no information on the extensive low relief reef systems which are known to exist on the NSW inner continental shelf to depths of at least m (NSW Government 1989 Seabed Information Map Series). The combined GIS coverage derived from the aerial photographs and nautical charts was then classified into reefs within 1 km of the coast, and reefs more than 1 km offshore. A high resolution (estimated horizontal accuracy of +/ m) hydrographic coverage was derived from existing Royal Australian Navy hydrographic survey manuscripts. Paper manuscripts were scanned and their images georectified. Contours of 5m intervals were then manually digitised over the image to produce a separate line cover. High relief hydrographic features (i.e. features with a vertical relief of >10 m over a horizontal distance of ~150 m) were then identified and mapped. These data were not directly used in the assessment due to it s restricted coverage but provided validation for deeper reef systems mapped from nautical charts, and for the NSW Waterways Authority s bathymetric cover used to define the three depth zones across the continental shelf. Definition of reef systems from Landsat 5 satellite imagery was trialed by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Spatial Systems Unit on images of the Coffs Harbour area. This area was chosen as a number of independent reef and hydrographic data sets were available for validation purposes. The trial revealed no discernible reef boundaries suggesting that a more comprehensive search for images with clear atmospheric and water conditions may be required for this application to succeed in NSW. In other areas, LandSat TM have proven to be effective at detecting reef systems at depths to 30-50m (Ferns & Hough 1999). Ecological validation. Subtidal rocky reef areas in NSW provide habitat for distinctive assemblages of invertebrates, algae and fishes. The distribution of habitats within shallow rocky reefs have been described by Underwood et al. (1991) as a mosaic seemingly related to depth, wave exposure and a number of biological processes, particularly herbivory. However interactions between these and other factors are complex, and the distribution of different communities is patchy and difficult to predict. However, recurring subtidal assemblages have been described by Andrew (1999) and Underwood et al.: A fringe habitat (or upper sublittoral (Womersley 1981)) in depths of 2-3m adjacent to the intertidal zone is characterised by the large brown algae Eklonia radiata, Sargassum, Cystophora and cunjevoi (Pyura stolonifera). Distinctive cunjevoi habitats on shallow reefs can cover large areas and may almost exclude large brown algae in some areas. Eklonia forests cover large areas of inshore reef in deeper areas on exposed coast and within sheltered bays, particularly in central NSW. 37

46 Crayweed (Phyllospora) forms dense forests in southern areas often associated with commercially important species like Blacklip Abalone (Haliotis rubra) and Eastern rock lobster (Jasus verreauxi). Bull Kelp (Durvillaea) also forms forest habitats on the far south coast, though these are less extensive than those of southern Victorian and Tasmanian waters. Barrens habitats dominate much shallow reef in central and southern NSW. These habitats are mostly devoid of large brown algae, are characterised by crustose and turfing corralline algae, grazing sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersi) and limpets. These areas are often interspersed with other habitats. Turfing corralline algae (Amphiroa and Corallina) and small brown (Dictyota and Zonaria) and red algae (Delisea and Asparagopsis) form a distinctive habit associated with turban snails (Turbo torquata) where canopies of large brown algae are lost to storms, or to grazing by sea urchins. Scleractinian coral assemblages on rocky reefs in northern NSW (i.e. Solitary Islands, Cook Island, Julian Rocks, South West Rocks and other inshore sites). These corals are at the southern extreme of their range and do not form reefs, but grow on rocky reef among macroalgae, ascidians, sponges and other invertebrates. The western lagoon at Lord Howe Island is bordered by one of the southern most coral reefs in world supporting abundant, low diversity coral communities and several endemic species (Veron 1986). Reefs deeper than 20m are less well studied as they are less accessible to SCUBA divers. However, studies using a remotely operated jump camera off Sydney have recorded diverse and largely undescribed assemblages of organisms at depths to 50m (Roberts and Davis 1996). While encrusting red algae dominated most areas of deep reef, Roberts and Davis (1996) identified over 50 species of sponge as well as other invertebrates including ascidians and soft corals. Species richness for sponges increased with depth, as did the number of massive and upright forms. Mapping these diverse assemblages over large areas was not possible within the scope of this project. As a very coarse, but easily measured surrogate, prominent reefs were categorised by their distance offshore. Offshore reefs generally rise from deeper water, are subject to greater gradients in depth and light, and this is likely to be reflected in a greater diversity of subtidal reef habitats. Offshore reefs are also less likely to be influenced by terrestrial influences, are potentially influenced by deeper water masses, and are more likely to be affected by the southward flowing waters of the East Australian Current (EAC). Subtidal reef systems were defined using methods considered the best available given the available time and funds of the current assessment. However, these important marine habitats are among the least studied and should be prioritised for future research. Limitations Little knowledge of deeper, less prominent reefs or on variation along the coast; and little information on relief, depth, exposure to swell, or biological communities for large areas of subtidal reef. Habitat Community Description Subtidal reef Table 10. Within 1 km of coast More than 1 km offshore Description of subtidal reef habitats. Differences in recognised biological community types were impractical to map for the large areas required by this assessment. As a coarse measure of community variation, distance offshore was used to divide reefs into those within 1 km of the mainland and those over 1 km from the coast. 38

47 4.2.8 Subtidal sediment habitats Mapping Nearshore subtidal sediment was mapped using aerial photo interpretation as described for the mapping of nearshore subtidal reef systems (Tables 7b and 13). However no attempt was made to classify sediment types within the nearshore zone or to delineate the remaining areas of soft sediment beyond the nearshore zone or in estuaries as little digital information was available within the time and cost constraints of the project. Ecological Validation In addition to a simplified model of cross shelf variation in sediment distribution, there is evidence for localised patterns due to currents and sediment inputs from the larger coastal rivers. Godfrey et al. (1980) examined sediment distribution near the separation of the East Australian Current around Sugarloaf Point. Shepard (1970 in Godfrey 1980) examined the distribution of the rare heavy mineral epidote within the region. Epidote is deposited onto the shelf in this region almost exclusively from the Manning River. Maps of epidote concentrations reveal above average concentrations offshore of the mouth of the Manning (5-28% of the heavy mineral fraction) with a high concentration belt tending south across the shelf past Sugarloaf Point, with a concentration less than 2% south of Port Stephens (Fig. 39a,b from Godfrey 1980). Although this work has yet to be mapped, work on the Sonne Cruise in 1980 suggests that a distinct difference in sediment grainsize, mineralogy and chemistry occurs south of the main split in the EAC (off Newcastle) and north of the EAC split (off Cape Hawke). While benthic fauna is known to vary significantly with depth and grain size (Poore et al in Ward & Blaber 1999, Coleman et al. 1997) there is currently little information regarding their distribution in relation to these major sediment types. Limitations Only mapped in the nearshore zone. The use of depth zones across the continental shelf is an over simplification of sediment distribution patterns within the region. The seaward boundaries and area of inshore sediment mapped were strongly related to the depth limits of aerial photo interpretation. Areas not mapped as reef, seagrass or other habitats cannot be assumed to represent soft sediment without verification. Soft sediments were not analysed quantitatively as the above artefacts were likely to confound interpretation. Further research and collation of existing data is required in this area. Habitat Community Description Nearshore sediments - Sediments in the nearshore zone were mapped to a maximum depth of to 15-20m based on the limit of visibility through water column as viewed from aerial photos. At this depth the majority of the soft sediment is likely to be terrigenous sands as finer sediments continually being resuspended and transported off shore. (Short 1993). Off beaches this sediment represents the subtidal component of the beach systems including bars, channels, rip zones and circulation cells which on average extend to a depth of about 20m on the NSW coast (Short 1993, Robertson 1999) Table 11. Description of subtidal sediment habitats. 39

48 4.3 Data for individual species, condition, threat, vulnerability and other conservation values While this assessment relied primarily on a environmental, and mostly physical classification of biodiversity, finer scale information was available for some communities and species including estuarine juvenile fish and invertebrates, NSW Fisheries commercial catch data, birds of international importance, threatened birds, threatened Grey Nurse Shark, threatened fish species and marine mammals and reptiles. Where available we have presented mapped and graphical summaries of species data to supplement the more general use of broad-scale environmental surrogates for biodiversity. Conservation assessments relevant to MPA identification have previously been made for environments and communities including wetlands, estuaries, rock platforms and bird habitats. The results of these assessments are also summarised and related to MPA identification and selection criteria in Section 5. These studies include the NSW Coastal Lakes Inquiry, an environmental inventory of NSW estuaries and coastal lagoons, the Australian Estuaries Database, the directory of important wetlands in Australia, coastal rock platform surveys, and relevant descriptive information from oceanographic and geological surveys and coastal management plans. Little direct information on condition, threat and vulnerability of marine habitats were available across the whole bioregion. However data sets indicative of condition, potential threats and vulnerability were available for adjoining terrestrial areas. These included GIS map data sets of a national parks and nature reserves, state forest, SEPP 14 wetlands, wilderness, SEPP 26 littoral rainforest, land capability, built-up areas, acid sulphate soils, and the Australian River and Catchment Condition Database. Approximate indices of the percentage area of these attributes within catchments and immediate shoreline areas were calculated for estuaries and sections of coast. More detailed descriptions of individual measures are provided in Section Methods to assess MPA options A systematic approach to the assessment of MPA options was used to clearly document alternatives, and assist in interpreting the many criteria and data in an organised way. The project makes extensive use of digital data sources and computer intensive methods, but these are intended only as tools to help interpret and document the diversity of criteria, information and options available. Ideally this work should form a basis for further understanding through consultation and discussion, rather than dictating absolute outcomes. A systematic approach will assist the development of a system of MPAs through: informed decision making; exploration of a range of alternative MPA options; providing support and evidence for implementing decisions; creating precise records of management policy, priorities, and processes; establishing a structured framework for ongoing management; and providing a basis for testing assumptions, developing performance indicators, research and monitoring design and more effective conservation through adaptive management. The methods and information used in this project are applicable to other areas of marine conservation management and research and are designed to allow for the addition of new information and ongoing evaluation. The following sections briefly describe these methods and some of the resources now available to managers. 40

49 4.4.1 Data storage The variety of information sources used in the project required systematic management of data storage, documentation and analysis. Efficient storage and documentation of information on biodiversity is now a global concern and major initiative of many national and international projects (Grassle et al. 2000). An organised system of computer databases was used to: integrate information from different sources and formats including scientific surveys, analyses, modelling, literature, expert opinion and community input; securely store and document information in accessible formats; display and explore relationships in GIS and multiple criteria analyses; incorporate new information, criteria and methods as they became available; integrate project outputs with other management strategies; and document assumptions and limitations, assess performance and prioritise further research. Wherever possible, information collected was converted to, and stored in digital format on catalogued, centralised data servers. This relatively simple undertaking helps ensure that the data behind decisions is available for review, and the information base for management continually improves rather than starting from scratch at each stage in ongoing management Geographic Information Systems Where possible, data was mapped in ArcView GIS. Identifying options for MPAs is a problem in defining where MPAs can be located given certain criteria and information. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide an ideal tool to quickly and accurately display and explore solutions to this spatial problem. GIS also permits data in different formats and scales to be linked and analysed on one universally common attribute, geographic location. To do this using a conventional database approach would be prohibitive for the range of data sets in this study. ArcView GIS was used to: map and assess the area, number, and size of different features and their proximity to other features; summarise and link databases to planning units to assess locations against multiple criteria; and exchange data and results with C-Plan reserve selection software to interactively assess alternative reserve networks. Visual inspection of the GIS maps is the most basic way to interpret and assess how well different areas meet criteria (Maps 1-21 on the attached CD-ROM or at However, because of the number of criteria and possible MPA locations, various measures and planning tools were used to help summarise and evaluate different options. The following sections describe some of the tools used and how measures to assess criteria were derived Planning frame To represent the Manning Shelf Bioregion on GIS, a digital map coverage was created from: the Australian Maritime Boundaries Information System (AMBIS) high water mark for the ocean coast of the bioregion; a coverage of estuaries from the Waterways Authority of NSW; areas of saltmarsh and mangrove on the landward side of these boundaries; revised latitudinal and seaward (~200 m contour) limits of the bioregion from the national IMCRA coverage from Environment Australia; and the AMBIS 3 nm limit of State waters. 41

50 Separate coverages for estuary and exposed coast were combined as each contained unique information not present in any one data set. The AMBIS coast provided more detail of coast, rocks and islands, while the Waterways coast provided greater information on estuaries. The planning area was also extended to include areas of marine vegetation extending onto land (~ 40% of the bioregion s saltmarsh and mangrove) beyond the mapped coastline defined by open water. The seaward limits of the Manning Shelf Bioregion were taken from the IMCRA GIS coverage held by Environment Australia but the latitudinal limits were corrected to reflect those stated in Pollard et al. (1997) and the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia Technical Group (1998), that is just north of Stockton at latitude 32 o 54 S., to north of Nambucca Heads at 30 o 39 S. The Hunter River estuary was added to the planning frame because it was a major estuary with important conservation values occurring on the edge of a fairly arbitrary boundary Planning units To compare among different locations, standard planning units were used to summarise data for a range of criteria and information sources. Planning units subdivided the planning area into contiguous non-overlapping polygons in the GIS. Each unit was then linked to tables of values estimating how well that area scored on different assessment criteria. Typical measures included the area and number of different ecosystems, habitats and communities represented within a planning unit, the presence of different species, or indices estimating levels of protection, threat and condition. The size of planning units should reflect the scale and accuracy of the information used, the desired scale at which MPA options need to be identified and the computational requirements of any analytical software used. Empirical trials have shown that planning unit size can significantly affect the outcome of different analyses (Pressey & Logan 1998). After initial trials, two main types of planning units were used: thirty, relatively large, broad-scale units representing either whole estuaries or sections of coast and ocean between estuaries (Fig. 12 & Fig. 13). For some estuaries, separate tributaries were used as planning units where information was available at that scale; and fine-scale plan units formed by intersecting a grid of 1 km 2 hexagonal cells with the boundaries of the planning area (Fig. 14) resulting in: ~7,500 plan units covering NSW waters, mangroves and saltmarshes and islands; ~7,500 units covering Commonwealth waters beyond 3nm; ~5,000 units on adjacent land and catchment. The large planning units were useful for summarising broad-scale regional patterns, analysing patchy data with low spatial precision and identifying options for MPAs at medium to broad scales. Large units were also useful in identifying where regional combinations of different habitat and ecosystem surrogate units occurred together. The smaller planning units were useful in identifying finer scale local patterns for data with reasonable spatial precision and continuous cover, and in identifying smaller scale options for MPAs. In this broad-scale assessment, we relied more heavily on the larger planning units. However, for more detailed analysis in the actual selection of MPAs, in reserve design and for smaller areas of interest the fine-scale plan units may be more suitable. 42

51 Manning Shelf Bioregion - Broadscale planning units and "ecosystem" level indicators of biodiversity from the marine environmental classification. Estuarine Ecosystem Units Brackish barrier lake Intermittent lagoons and creeks Tide dominated drowned river valley Wave dominated barrier estaury Ocean Ecosystem Units 0-20m Coastal 20-60m Offshore m Shelf >200m Oceanic South West Rocks and Saltwater Cks Unamed Ck. Limeburners Ck. Hastings R. L. Innes/ L.Cathie Nambucca R. Macleay R. Korogoro Ck. Killick Ck. Nambucca-Macleay Macleay-Korogoro Ck. Korogoro-Killick Ck. Killick-Hastings R. Hastings-L.Cathie Camden Haven (Queens L. and Watson-Taylors L.) L.Cathie-Camden Haven Estuarine planning units Manning R. Camden Haven-Manning R. Manning-Khappinghat Ck. Khappinghat Ck. 3 nm limit of NSW waters Khappinghat-Wallis L. Wallis L. Port Stephens (Karuah R., Tiligerry Ck.) Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis-Smiths L Smiths-Myall L. Ocean planning units Myall R. Myall L.-Port Stephens Hunter R. Port Stephens-Stockton Beach Stockton Beach-Hunter R. Broadscale planning units comprising whole estuaries and sections of coast and ocean between estuaries. Planning units are used to summarise regional patterns for broadscale identification of MPAs. They do not necessarily suggest specific boundaries for MPA proposals. Large scale estuarine and ocean "ecosystem" units from the environmental classification are shown in colour. N Km W E S PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions Fig. 12. Broad-scale planning units and 'ecosystem' level indicators of biodiversity. 43

52 a. Area of broadscale estuary plan units Area (km 2 ) Macleay R.-Koro... Nambucca R Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck Camden Haven L. Cathie/Innes Khappinghat Ck. Manning R Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L Hunter R. Port Stephens Myall R. b. Area of broadscale coastal plan units (inside 3 nm) Area (km 2 ) Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths to Wallis to Khappinghat to Manning to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings to Killick to Korogoro to Macleay to Nambucca to c. Area of broadscale coastal plan units (outside 3 nm) Area (km 2 ) Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths to Wallis to Khappinghat to Manning to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings to Killick to Korogoro to Macleay to Nambucca to Fig. 13. Open water area of broad-scale planning units for estuaries and latitudinal sections of exposed coast and ocean. 44

53 Major marine and terrestrial zones Fine scale planning units (Port Stephens area only) derived from 1 square kilometre hexagons and major marine and terrestrial features. The units are linked to relational databases holding surrogate biodiversity measures for ecosystems, habitats, communities and species, values indicating environmental condition, threat, and vulnerability and to measures of current patterns of human use and management. The units provide an interactive graphical interface to spatially query databases and provide input values to, and display output from reserve selection modelling tools like CPLAN (NPWS 2001). Water Ocean Island Estuarine Island Estuarine Vegetation - Land Estuarine Vegetation - Island Adjacent lands Kilometres PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions Fig. 14. Fine-scale planning units derived from 1km 2 hexagons and major marine and terrestrial features. W N S E 45

54 4.4.5 Graphical summaries and qualitative scores Broad-scale planning units (Fig. 12) were used to summarise regional patterns in the area, number and size of different ecosystems, habitats and communities and populations. These measures were graphed, mapped (Fig ) and summarised in tables (Tables 19-23) with the results of other analyses and related conservation assessments. Section 5 describes each information source, the criteria addressed, the derived assessment measures used and how different broad-scale planning units scored against each measure Irreplaceability analysis A number of computer assisted techniques take into account the 'complementarity' (Pressey et al. 1994) of different areas in jointly achieving targets for a range of conservation features. These targets are usually defined in terms of a desired area or proportion of a habitat, or representation of a given number of occurrences of a species. The complementary value of a site to a reserve network is not only related to how many features (e.g. species or habitats) it includes, but to how that site may complement the range of features already represented in MPAs. Thus a site with many species and habitats may not be able to add anything to an existing network, if all goals have been met for those features. However a site with one feature not found elsewhere, may be virtually irreplaceable, and an essential requirement if a system of reserves is to meet a particular conservation goal. Including new locations in a reserve continually alters the potential value of remaining areas in meeting overall goals, and a site s value is also affected by the order in which new areas are included. These changing values are difficult to quantify within a static measure, but have been statistically estimated as 'irreplaceability' i.e. "the likelihood that an area will be required as part of a conservation system that achieves the set of targets or the extent to which the options for achieving the set of targets are reduced if the area is unavailable for conservation" (Pressey et al. 1994). Statistical estimators for irreplaceability can be computed relatively quickly (Ferrier et al 2000), while other goal seeking algorithms like integer linear programming (Cocks and Baird 1989; Underhill 1994), iterative heuristic algorithms (Margules et al. 1988; Nicholls and Margules 1993; Pressey et al. 1997), and simulated annealing (Possingham et al. in press) may have long computing times, particularly where there are many sites and criteria. The National Parks and Wildlife Service reserve selection software C-Plan (NPWS 2001) was used to compute irreplaceability for the following data sets: ecosystem units (estuary type and ocean depth zone) habitat units (seagrass, mangrove, saltmarsh, rocky intertidal shore, beach, rocky subtidal reef, and islands) NSW Fisheries juvenile estuarine fish and invertebrate survey data; NSW Fisheries commerical fish catch data for estuaries and ports of landing; bird sightings data; NPWS threatened species data; and a survey of rock platforms (Griffiths, 1982). 46

55 Hypothetical conservation targets of 20% of the total area of each ecosystem and habitat in the bioregion were used to calculate and map irreplaceability indices. C-Plan requires a conservation target to be set as a computational necessity. For this assessment, 20% goals were set as arbitrary targets to allow relative irreplaceability values to be calculated. For species data sets, a hypothetical target to represent each species at least once in an MPA system was used to calculate relative irreplaceability values. If targets are set at 100%, all planning units are irreplaceable; if set at 0%, no locations are required. Setting a target between these extremes allowed the relative merits of alternative MPA systems to be assessed. C-Plan is intended to make use of predetermined feature targets and explicitly set reservation targets have been suggested for various terrestrial and marine protected area systems around the world. However, this study was unable to confidently determine an appropriate percentage goal for representation. If such an approach is adopted, there should be careful consideration of a range of criteria, as the ultimate test of an MPA system is in how effectively it conserves marine biodiversity, not necessarily in whether it simply meets area targets. Two different irreplaceability measures, site irreplaceability and summed irreplaceability, were calculated for the broad-scale and fine-scale planning units. Site irreplaceability is a measure of the overall likelihood that an area will be required as part of a conservation system to achieve a set of conservation targets. The measure is not binary but identifies a spectrum of values from totally (100% or 1.0) irreplaceable to zero irreplaceable areas can have any value between these two extremes. If an area is totally irreplaceable, then no matter how a system of conservation areas is designed for a region, it will have to include that area. Put the other way, if that area loses its conservation values one or more of the conservation targets for the study area will become unreachable. Areas with progressively lower irreplaceabilities have progressively more replacements in the region, less likelihood of being required as part of a system of conservation areas, and less impact on the achievement of targets if destroyed or unavailable for conservation. Areas with zero irreplaceability contain only features that have already had their conservation targets met in existing protected areas (Pressey 1994). A site irreplaceability of 1.0 may indicate that a planning unit is irreplaceable for one, or for several conservation targets. Summed irreplaceability provides an indication of how many conservation targets a planning unit is likely to contribute to. It is derived by summing the individual site irreplaceabilities estimated separately for each conservation target and can therefore range from 0 to greater than 1. For most data sets, site irreplaceability values indicated that many options were available for meeting feature targets and only a few planning units were totally irreplaceable for some targets. In general, we present results for summed irreplaceability of the broad-scale plan units as these provided the most easily summarised, general interpretations of the data. However for resolving small scale pattern and building detailed reserve networks, the fine-scale units and a variety of diagnostic measures and tools could be used. Links between C-Plan and ArcView GIS allow operators to quickly map the results of analyses and include or exclude potential sites from MPA networks while assessing the consequences of alternative decisions. These rapid display and analysis capabilities of C-Plan make it a useful tool in group discussion workshops and in exploring potential scenarios during actual decision making. 47

56 4.4.7 Multiple criteria analysis The multiple criteria decision trees described in Section 3 (Fig. 7 & Fig. 11) were used to build quantitative models using the software Criterium Decision Plus (InfoHarvest 2000). The trees were used to estimate the relative performance of broad-scale planning units in meeting an overall goal as a function of combined scores for many criteria. These methods have been applied extensively in marketing and management (Edwards 1977), and have also been used in environmental impact assessment, fisheries (Mardle and Pascoe 1999) and in the selection of reserve networks (Bakus 1982; Edwards 1977; Fernandes 1996; Rothley 1997). The technique allows for weighting of different criteria, representation of uncertainty, sensitivity analyses of the relative influence of criteria, and the ability to combine and assess alternative models. The associated sensitivity analyses may be particularly valuable in achieving consensus where differences of opinion occur among experts and stakeholders. In this assessment, multiple criteria analyses were used to evaluate comprehensiveness, representativeness, condition and vulnerability. However C-Plan and the multiple criteria analyses can also be used to explore options in workshops and discussion groups and this may be a valuable application of this work. 48

57 5 Assessment of identification criteria This section describes each information source, what criteria were addressed, the measures used to assess criteria and the degree to which different planning units meet those criteria. 5.1 Assessment of comprehensiveness Estuarine ecosystems Data source Roy et al. (2001). Structure and function of southeast Australian estuaries. Data description GIS cover of estuaries from NSW Waterways classified by estuary group from Roy et al. (2001) (Fig. 12 & Fig. 16). Criterion Comprehensiveness Assessment measures Area and number of estuaries. Assessment Options for representing brackish barrier lakes and tide dominated drowned river valleys (Fig. 16c & d) are restricted but there are several options for representation of barrier and intermittent estuaries in MPAs. Of the 18 waterways assessed in the bioregion, there were 9 wave dominated barrier estuaries, 6 intermittent creeks and lagoons, but only one major system of brackish barrier lakes and one tide dominated drowned river valley (Fig. 15 & Fig. 16). With the possible exception of Saltwater Lake on Limeburners Creek in the Hastings estuary system, the Myall Lakes are the only major examples of brackish barrier lakes in the bioregion and the largest (102 km 2 ) of their kind in NSW. Myall Lakes are included within Myall Lakes National Park (Fig. 3) but the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 provides no direct protection for fishes or aquatic invertebrates. Port Stephens is the only example of a drowned river valley in the bioregion and the largest (133 km 2 ) estuary of any type in NSW (Fig. 15 & Fig. 16). Fly Point/Halifax (Fig. 3), is the only aquatic reserve in the bioregion and protects approximately 0.8 km 2 of estuarine rocky shore, beach, subtidal reef and soft sediments. Corrie Island, Tiligerry, Worimi and Karuah Nature Reserves (Fig. 3) also protect areas of mangrove, saltmarsh, estuarine beach, intertidal flat and some adjacent waters within the limitations of the National Parks and Wildlife Act There are more alternatives for wave dominated barrier estuaries and intermittent creeks and lagoons (Fig. 12, Fig. 16a & b). Wallis Lake is the largest wave dominated estuary (86 km 2 ) in the region and the 3rd largest estuary of this type in the state. However the Nambucca (8 km 2 ), Macleay (18 km 2 ), Hastings (17 km 2 ), Camden Haven (28 km 2 ), Manning (25 km 2 ), and Hunter (30 km 2 ) are also significant barrier estuaries. The Myall River (4 km 2 ) is unique in that it links the brackish Myall Lakes with the Port Stephens tide dominated estuary. Korogoro Creek (0.2 km 2 ) is the smallest estuary of this type in the bioregion (Fig. 16). There are currently no marine protected areas within Wallis Lake or the Nambucca, Macleay, Manning or Myall River barrier estuaries. Most of Watson Taylors Lake in Camden Haven (Crowdy Bay National Park), the upper reaches of Limeburners Creek in the Hastings estuary (Limeburners Creek Nature Reserve), and Korogoro Creek (Hat Head National Park) are included in marine protected areas but they do not have dedicated MPA management or legislation protecting fish or aquatic invertebrates. In the Hunter River a large area of wetland and estuary (24.6 km 2 ) is protected in Kooragang Nature Reserve with a much smaller area included in Hexham Swamp Nature Reserve (Fig. 3). 49

58 a. Nambucca River b. Macleay River and c. South West Rocks Creek d. Saltwater Creek & Lagoon e. Korogoro Creek f. Killick Creek g. Hastings River h. Lake Innes i. Camden Haven j. Manning River k. Khappinghat Creek l. Wallis Lake m. Smiths Lake n. Myall River o. Karuah R. & Port Stephens p. Port Stephens q. Port Stephens (Tomaree) r. Hunter River Fig. 15a-l. Oblique aerial photographs of major estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (provided by the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation). 50

59 a. Wave dominated (barrier) estuaries. Estuary area km Nambucca Macleay Korogoro Ck. Hastings Camden Haven Manning Wallis L. Myall R. Hunter b. Intermittent (creek and lagoon) estuaries. 10 Estuary area km SW Rocks Ck. Saltwater Ck. Killick Ck. L. Cathie Khappinghat Ck. Smiths L. c. Brackish barrier lakes. Estuary area km Myall L. d. Tide dominated (drowned river valley) estuaries. 150 Estuary area km Karuah R. Port Stephens Fig. 16a-d. Open water area (km 2 ) of Manning Shelf estuarine environments (values from West et al., 1985). 51

60 There are two relatively large intermittent lagoons (Lake Innes/Cathie km 2 and Smiths Lake km 2 ) in the bioregion and five much smaller intermittent creeks (South West Rocks, Saltwater, Killick, Unamed and Khappinghat Creeks), the largest being Khappinghat Creek (1 km 2 ; Fig. 16). Almost all of the upper reaches of Lake Innes and Lake Cathie are within Lake Innes Nature Reserve, while Smiths Lake is not protected within any form of MPA. Almost all of Khappinghat Creek is included within Khappinghat Nature Reserve and the Saltwater Lagoon section of Saltwater Creek near South West Rocks falls inside Hat Head National Park (Fig. 3). South West Rocks, Killick and Unamed Creeks are not included in any form of MPA. In summary, 23% of the bioregion s wave dominated barrier estuary, 43% of intermittent lagoon and creek, 100% of brackish lake and 2.7% of the area of tide dominated drowned river valley are included within nature reserve or national park, but without dedicated MPA management and the legislative power to directly protect fish or aquatic invertebrates. Only the 0.06% of the tide dominated estuary protected in Fly Point/ Halifax Aquatic Reserve (Fig. 3) has protection for fish and aquatic invertebrates, representing less than 0.02% of the total area of estuary in the bioregion. Representation of each of these ecosystem types in the Manning Shelf Bioregion would require adequate MPAs for the Myall Lakes brackish lake system, the Port Stephens/Karuah River tide dominated, drowned river valley system and adequate MPAs in at least one of the barrier estuaries and intermittent lagoons or creeks Ocean ecosystems Data source Derived from NSW Waterways and Australian Hydrographic Office data. Data description Four depth zones (0-20 m, m, m and > 200 m) derived from AHO hydrographic chart depth contours digitised by NSW Waterways (Fig. 12, Fig. 17 & Fig. 18). Naval fairsheets data digitised by R. Avery. Criterion Comprehensiveness Assessment measures Area of depth zones within broad-scale planning units (sections of exposed coast and ocean). Assessment Options for representation of the defined ocean ecosystems are spread fairly evenly throughout the latitudinal extent of the bioregion if both Commonwealth and State waters are considered (Fig. 17). However, if only NSW waters within the 3nm limit are considered, representation of the m depth zone can only be achieved in the north (Nambucca-Hastings) or south (Wallis L.- Hunter R.) of the bioregion as this zone does not occur within 3 nm of the coast between the Hastings River and Wallis Lake (Fig. 18). Small areas of the 0-20 m depth zone are protected in Limeburners Creek and Darawank Nature Reserves and Myall Lakes National Park, representing a total of 0.1% (45 ha) of the area of this habitat and the only representation of exposed coast or ocean for the whole bioregion. Depths greater than 200 m occur beyond the shelf break on the seaward boundaries of the bioregion. This area includes some very distinctive and important ecosystems. Although not within the immediate scope of this study, the significant conservation values in these areas also require consideration. 52

61 Ocean area km a. Coastal ecosystems, depths 0-20 m. Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L to Khappinghat Ck... Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Ocean area km b. Offshore ecosystems, depths m. Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Ocean area km c. Shelf ecosystems, depths m. L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to Ocean area km d. Oceanic ecosystems, depths >200 m. Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L to Khappinghat Ck. to Fig. 17a-d. Estimated areas of Manning Shelf ocean ecosystems in four depth zones (derived from AHO nautical charts digitised by NSW Waterways). 53

62 Ocean area km a. Coastal ecosystems, depths 0-20 m within 3 nm. Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick CK. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Ocean area km b. Offshore ecosystems, depths m within 3 nm. Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick CK. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Ocean area km c. Shelf ecosystems, depths m within 3 nm. Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick CK. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to 30 d. Oceanic ecosystems, depths >200 m within 3 nm. Ocean area km Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick CK. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to 0 Hunter R. Stockton Beach to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Fig. 18a-d. Estimated areas of Manning Shelf ocean ecosystems in four depth zones within the 3 nm state limit (derived from AHO nautical charts digitised by NSW Waterways). 54

63 5.1.3 Seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh habitats Data sources Estuarine vegetation mapping from West et al. (1985) digitised by the NPWS. Data description Estuarine plant communities were mapped between 1981 and 1984 using 1:25,000 scale aerial photographs and a 1:25,000 scale topographic map base. Vegetation types identified in the digitised GIS data coverage include saltmarshes, mangroves and seagrasses (Fig. 19 & Fig. 20). Criteria Comprehensiveness and representativeness. Assessment measures Area and number of habitats and their mean, maximum and proportional size. Assessment Significant mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh habitats occur in most estuaries in the region (Fig. 19 & Fig. 20). With the exception of Myall Lakes, the area of these habitats is strongly related to the overall size of each estuary. Port Stephens is the largest estuary in NSW and also has the largest areas of mangroves (27 km 2 ) and saltmarshes (12 km 2 ). Wallis Lake is the largest barrier estuary in the bioregion and has the largest area of seagrass (31 km 2 ) in the bioregion and the State. Port Stephens and Wallis Lake also have the largest number of mangrove, saltmarsh and seagrass habitats and the biggest individual patches of mangrove forest and seagrass bed. Lake Cathie has the largest individual patch of saltmarsh and highest mean saltmarsh size. Port Stephens has the largest mean patch size for mangrove forest, the Myall River has, on average, the largest patch size for seagrass. With habitat area standardised as a percentage of overall estuary size, South West Rocks Creek (67%) and Korogoro Creek (36%) score highest for mangroves; the Myall River scores highest for seagrass (71%); and Lake Cathie/Innes (51%) and the Karuah River (30%) score highest for saltmarsh. Mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh habitats are included within the recognised marine components of 13 separate national parks and nature reserves. Mangroves and saltmarshes are also found in an additional 12 other national parks and nature reserves inland of the mapped coastline. This area represents a transition zone between marine and terrestrial environments which in low lying coastal areas can occupy many square kilometres. In total, 29% of the area of mangrove habitats in the Manning Shelf Bioregion is represented in currently recognised marine components of national parks and nature reserves. This percentage increases to 43% of the bioregion s mangrove habitat when all areas of national park or nature reserve are considered (including those areas inland of the mapped coastline). For saltmarsh, 4% of the total area in the bioregion is located in national parks and nature reserves seaward of the mapped coastline, but this value increases to 47% if all areas of national park and nature reserve are considered. Almost half of the area of mangrove and saltmarsh habitat as mapped by West et al. (1985) therefore already lies within national park or nature reserve. However, there is no dedicated MPA management of these areas and fish or aquatic invertebrates are not protected. Most of the protected mangrove habitat is found in Kooragang (24.6% of the total area of mangrove habitat), Worimi (8%) and Karuah Nature Reserves (4.6%). Most of the protected saltmarsh habitat is found in Lake Innes (20.5% of the total area of saltmarsh) and Kooragang Nature Reserves (10.9% of the total saltmarsh area). No mangrove, seagrass or saltmarsh habitats as mapped by West et al. (1985) are protected within aquatic reserves in the Manning Shelf Bioregion though these reserves have the legislative power to protect fish and aquatic invertebrates. 55

64 Fig. a Nambucca to Macleay R. Fig. b. Macleay R. to Korogoro Ck. 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Fig. c Korogoro Ck. to Killick Ck Fig. d Killick Ck. to Hastings R. 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Fig. e Hastings R. to L. Cathie/Innes Fig. f L. Cathie/Innes to Camden Haven 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Habitat classes Offshore islands Offshore subtidal reef Intertidal rocky shore Fig. g Camden Haven to Manning R. Intertidal beach Seagrass Mangrove Saltmarsh 0 5 Km Coastal sections and shoreline Fig. 19a-g. Habitat classes for estuaries and sections of exposed coast and ocean in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 56

65 Fig. h Manning R. to Khappinghat Ck. Fig. i Khappinghat Ck. to Wallis Lake 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Fig. j Wallis L. to Smiths L. Fig. k Smiths L. to Myall L. 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Fig. l Myall L. to Port Stephens Fig. m Port Stephens to Stockland Beach 0 5 Km 0 5 Km Habitat classes Offshore islands Offshore subtidal reef Intertidal rocky shore Intertidal beach Fig. n Stockland Beach to Hunter R. 0 5 Km Seagrass Mangrove Saltmarsh Coastal sections and shoreline Figures 19h-n. Habitat classes for estuaries and sections of exposed coast and ocean in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 57

66 area km a. Area of mangrove habitats. Korogoro Ck. Saltwater Ck. SW Rocks Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Karuah R. Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Killick Ck. area km b. Area of seagrass habitats. Korogoro Ck. Saltwater Ck. SW Rocks Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Karuah R. Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Killick Ck. area km c. Area of saltmarsh habitats. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Killick Ck. Korogoro Ck. Saltwater Ck. SW Rocks Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Karuah R. Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. area km d. Total area of mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Killick Ck. Korogoro Ck. Saltwater Ck. SW Rocks Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Karuah R. Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Fig. 20a-d. Area of mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh habitats for major estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (derived from West et al., 1985). 58

67 5.1.4 Intertidal rocky shore Data sources AMBIS (AusLIG) high water coast (length of coastline). Land and Property Information Centre 1: topographic maps. Otway and Morrison (in prep.) Difference in area between AMBIS high and low water. 1: 10,000-25,000 aerial photographs from DLWC. Data description Length of rocky intertidal shore for the whole coast at the AMBIS high water mark was identified from 1: 250,000 topographic maps and for accessible sites scored for the presence of platform, boulder, rubble, pool and crevice communities from field surveys made by Otway and Morrison (in prep. Fig. 21 & Fig. 23). Area of rocky intertidal shore between AMBIS high and low water marks was identified from aerial photographs (where this zone was greater than 5m wide) and categorised as either bedrock or cobble communities (Fig. 19 & Fig. 22). Criteria Comprehensiveness and representativeness. Assessment measure Length and area of shore within broad-scale plan units (sections of exposed coast and ocean). Assessment The longest stretch of exposed coast occurs for the coastal section from north of Port Stephens to Stockton Beach (Fig. 21a). However, the interval of latitude spanned by this section and the length along a straight line parallel to the section s coast were small relative to other sections. The differences among these measures for the same section of coast reflect differences in the orientation and complexity of the coastline. The Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section includes the longest total length of intertidal rocky shore (33 km) followed by the Wallis L.-Smiths L. section (20 km; Fig. 21b). The L. Cathie- Camden Haven, Manning-Khappinghat, Myall L.-Port Stephens, and Stockton Beach-Hunter R. sections are distinct in that they include less than 2 km of rocky coast. The greatest number of individual intertidal rocky shores are found in the Hastings-L.Cathie (17) and Port Stephens-Stockton Beach (17) sections but the average length of these shores is greater for the latter section. The total area of intertidal rocky shore is highest for the Wallis L.-Smiths L. section and the largest area of rock platform and boulder beach is also found there (Fig. 22a-c). NSW Fisheries are currently surveying rocky shores in the bioregion to identify potential sites for intertidal aquatic reserves. As a surrogate measure for community level biodiversity, the presence of platform, crevice, pool, cobble, and boulder communities have been assessed in field surveys for the bioregion. The Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section included the highest number of rocky shores (5 shores) containing all 5 communities. This section also included the only rocky shore in the bioregion recommended for protection by the Coastal headland and rock platform survey (National Trust 1982) at Bald Point north of Smiths Lake. This shore is also recommended by another rock platform survey (TEC 1995) along with another thirteen shores in the bioregion (Fig. 23). Other sections with shores containing all five community types were the Killick-Hastings (2 shores), Hastings-L.Cathie (1 shore), L. Cathie-Camden Haven (1 shore), Camden Haven- Manning (3 shores), Khappinghat-Wallis (3 shores) and Wallis-Smiths L (1 shore) sections of ocean coast. Currently, a total of 4.7% (9.4 ha) of exposed rocky intertidal shore in the bioregion is represented in Limeburners Creek and Darawank Nature Reserves and Myall Lakes National Park with another 2 km of estuarine rocky shore represented in the Fly Point / Halifax Aquatic Reserve. 59

68 40 a. Total length of ocean coast. Km 20 0 Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Km Nambucca R. to b. Length of exposed rocky intertidal shores. Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Khappinghat Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Km Nambucca R. to c. Length of ocean beaches. Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to 1.0 d. Length of artificial rocky intertidal shores (ocean breakwaters). Km Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Fig. 21a-d. Lengths (km) of intertidal habitats mapped for sections of ocean coast in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 60

69 40 a. Total area of ocean intertidal rocky shores. Area (ha) 20 0 Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Area (ha) b. Area of intertidal rock platform. Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Area (ha) c. Area of boulder/cobble. Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Fig. 22a-c. Area (ha) of rocky intertidal habitats for sections of ocean coast in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 61

70 Number of rocky habitats (NSWF 2001) # # Rock platform survey (TEC 1995) Recommended for protection Not recommended for protection Coastal headland & rock platform survey (National Trust 1982) Recommended for protection ð # # ## # # 4 # # # # # 3 4 NAMBUCCA NORTH HEAD GRASSY HEAD SW ROCKS MONUMENT POINT LAGGERS PT,THE LEDGE,SMOKY C. HAT HEAD (KOROGORO POINT) CRESCENT HEAD RACECOURSE BIG HILL POINT POINT PLOMER 3 ## GREEN MOUND NOBBY HEAD SHELLY BEACH HEADLAND TACKING POINT # # # GRANTS HEAD PERPENDICULAR PT. CAMDEN HEAD DIAMOND HEAD # 5 CROWDY HEAD # # 3 5 # # WALLABI POINT RED HEAD BLACK HEAD BENNETTS HEAD CAPE HAWKE # ð ## SEAGULL POINT TO CHARLOTTE HEAD BOOMERANG POINT BALD HEAD SEAL ROCKS TREACHERY HEAD & YAGON GIBBER # DARK POINT # # ### 5 YACAABA HEAD TOMAREE HEAD PT. STEPHENS TO FINGAL HD/SNAP MORNA POINT BOAT HARBOUR POINT BIRUBI POINT # ## # # Figure 31. Rocky intertidal shore surveys. Data: Otway and Morrison (in prep.) Total Environment rvey Centre (Otway(1995). & Morrison et al. in progress) National National Trust of Trust Australia of Australia (1982) Coastal (1982). headland and rock platform survey Kilometers N PROJECTION: AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or ommission. The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act Fig. 23. Significant rocky intertidal shores identified in previous assessments. W S E 62

71 5.1.5 Beaches Data sources AMBIS (AusLIG) high water mark (length of coastline). Land and Property Information Centre 1: topographic maps. Area between AMBIS high and low water. 1: 10,000-25,000 aerial photographs from DLWC. Data description Length of beaches for the whole coast at the AMBIS high water mark was identified from 1:25,000 topographic maps. Area of beach between AMBIS high and low water marks was identified from aerial photographs and categorised as either intermediate or reflective. Areas of estuarine beach and intertidal flat were identified from DLWC acid sulphate risk maps (Fig. 24 & Fig. 25). Criteria Comprehensiveness and representativeness. Assessment measure Length and area of shore for broad-scale plan units (sections of exposed coast and ocean). Assessment The total length of beach in each section of exposed coast ranged from 29 km for the Camden Haven-Manning and Smiths-Myall sections down to 9.3 km for the L.Cathie-Camden Haven section (Fig. 21c). Most beaches occurred in the Hastings-L.Cathie and Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section, but on average these were less than a kilometre in length. The Myall L. to Port Stephens and Stockton Beach-Hunter R. sections included the largest area of intermediate beach while the Wallis L.-Smiths L. and Macleay-Korogoro sections included largest area of reflective beach. Reflective beaches were not found between the Hastings R. and Khappinghat Ck. nor in the Myall L.-Port Stephens or Stockton Beach-Hunter R. sections (Fig. 24bc). The largest area of estuarine beach, intertidal flat, supratidal flat and offshore island beaches occurred in Port Stephens (Fig. 24 & Fig. 25). Currently, a total of 7.1% (114 ha) of the bioregion s ocean beach is represented in Limeburners Creek and Darawank Nature Reserves and Myall Lakes National Park, with another 300 m of estuarine beach included in Fly Point / Halifax Aquatic Reserve. 63

72 Area (ha) a. Total area of coastal intertidal beach. Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Area (ha) a. Area of coastal intermediate beaches. Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Area (ha) c. Area of coastal reflective beach. Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Area (ha) Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. d. Area of estuarine beach. Hunter R. Port Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Fig. 24a-d. Area (ha) of intertidal beach habitat mapped for sections of ocean coast and estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 64

73 Area (ha) Hunter R. Port Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. a. Area of estuarine intertidal flat. 150 b. Area of estuarine supratidal flat. Area (ha) Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Area (ha) c. Area of island rocky intertidal shores. Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to 6 d. Area of island beaches. Area (ha) Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Fig. 25a-d. Area of intertidal habitat mapped for estuaries and islands in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 65

74 5.1.6 Islands Data source AMBIS (AusLIG) GIS cover of islands and emergent rocks. Data description Arbitrary 100 m buffers extending out from the low water mark of oceanic islands and exposed rocks were used to represent the influence of islands on adjacent waters. Islands were classified by distance offshore (more or less than 1 km) as an indicator of differences. Criteria Comprehensiveness and representativeness. Assessment measure Number of islands and area of island buffers within broad-scale plan units. Assessment The greatest number of islands and rocks (77) occurred along the Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section of exposed coast. This section also included more islands within 1km of the mainland (56), and the second highest number of islands over 1 km offshore (21) after the Myall Lakes-Port Stephens section (30 islands). Otherwise islands over 1 km from shore occurred only in the Macleay-Korogoro (2 islands), Hastings-L.Cathie (1 island) sections and between Smiths L. and Myall L. (2 islands). The greatest area of water within 100m of islands occurred in the Myall L.-Port Stephens and Port Stephens-Stockton Beach sections (Fig. 26). The former section had the greatest area around islands more than 1 km offshore, while the latter had the greatest area around islands less than 1 km offshore Currently a total of 0.01% (0.9ha) of waters within 100m of islands is represented in Limeburners Creek and Darawank Nature Reserves and no island waters are represented in aquatic reserves. 66

75 area (ha) a. Total area of water within 100m of offshore islands. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to area (ha) b. Area around islands less than 1km offshore. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to area (ha) c. Area around islands more than 1km offshore. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Fig. 26a-c. Area within a 100m buffer of islands for sections of exposed coast and ocean in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 67

76 5.1.7 Subtidal reef Data source Near shore reefs digitised from DLWC aerial photography. Offshore reefs digitised from Australian Hydrographic Survey Charts. Data description Near shore reefs digitised from high resolution aerial photography interpretation. Offshore reefs digitised from AHO charts. Reefs classified by distance offshore (more or less than 1 km). Criteria Comprehensiveness and representativeness. Assessment measures Number and area of reefs in broad-scale plan units (section of exposed coast and ocean). Assessment The largest total area of mapped subtidal reef (9 km 2 ) occurred in the Myall L.-Port Stephens section followed by the Port Stephens Stockton Beach, Khappinghat-Wallis L. and Camden Haven-Manning R. sections. The least area of mapped subtidal reef occurred in the Nambucca- Macleay and Korogoro-Killick Ck. sections (Fig. 27a). The Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section included the most reef area within 1 km of shore, while the Myall L.-Port Stephens section included the most reef over 1 km offshore (Fig. 27b,c). The Hastings-L. Cathie section included the greatest number of reefs (Fig. 27d). These occurred mostly within 1 km of the coast and on average, were relatively small in size. On average, the largest reefs occurred in the Port Stephens-Stockton Beach section. The highest number of reefs more than 1 km offshore occurred in the two sections between Smiths Lake and Port Stephens and their average size was greatest in the Myall L.-Port Stephens section. There is currently no subtidal reef represented in nature reserve or national park but an unmapped area of subtidal estuarine reef is found within the 80 hectares of the Fly Point / Halifax Aquatic Reserve. 68

77 900 a. Total area of subtidal reefs. Area (ha) Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to 500 b. Areas of reefs within1km of coast. Area (ha) Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to 900 c. Areas of reefs more than 1km offshore. Area (ha) Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to No. reefs d. Total number of reefs. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton Beach to Port Stephens to Myall L. to Fig. 27a-d. Areas and number of reefs mapped for sections of exposed coast and ocean in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 69

78 5.2 Representativeness - species Estuarine juvenile fish and invertebrates Data source Juvenile fishes and invertebrates were sampled by seine haul along estuarine shores in a project undertaken by the NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation and funded by a Natural Heritage Trust grant (R.J. Williams, pers. comm.). Data description Habitats sampled include vegetated and bare substrata, and 2-3 zones between the estuary mouth and riverine habitats. Currently 500,000 fish from 176 taxa have been collected throughout NSW. The survey has not yet sampled all estuaries or analysed all data. Further information will be available in the future (R.J. Williams, pers. comm.; Fig. 28, Fig. 29 & Fig. 30). Identification criterion Representativeness. Assessment measures Number of species per estuary and summed irreplaceability for representation of at least one of each species. Assessment The number of fish and invertebrate species caught in seine net surveys along estuary shores is shown in Fig. 28a-g. Clear differences in species richness are evident between seagrass and bare habitats and, although there is variation within estuaries, species richness for some locations, such as the Manning River estuary, appears to be consistently higher. When the total number of species for each estuary is pooled for all sites sampled (n=between 4 and 12 sites), or for a reduced but even number of sites per estuary (n=4), species richness is similar for most estuaries but lower for Smiths Lake and the Hunter River (Fig. 29). When all sites sampled are considered, summed irreplaceability for representation of each species at least once is highest for Port Stephens (Fig. 29c). However this location was sampled most frequently and therefore more likely to sample additional species. If an equal number of sites are analysed (n=4), summed irreplaceability is similar for most estuaries but highest for Port Stephens, the Manning River and Wallis Lake (Fig. 30c). Only a subset of estuaries from the Manning Shelf Bioregion have been sampled and temporal variation in fish populations, especially for juveniles, may alter these patterns. This data is therefore only used to supplement the use of broader scale biodiversity surrogates although the potential for using such systematic biological survey data in MPA planning is considerable. 70

79 Fig. a. Nambucca R. Fig b. Macleay R. % %%% # % % # % #% # ### # % % %%% % %% % ## % %% ## % # ## % % %% % % Fig. d. Manning R. # ## #% # # %%%%% #### % # # % %# #%%% # #% % % # % # # # % # #% %% % % % %% % # ## # %%%% % % #%# % %% # # % Fig. c. Hastings R. #%% # # # #% % ## %% % % # % % % # % # # % %% % % # # #% ## %% # # % % % % % # % #% # Fig. f. Port Stephens # ## % # % % # % # ## % #% # %% Fig. e. Wallis Lake % % % % % % Fig. g. Hunter R. % % % % % % No. of fish species on bare substrates % 1-8 % 9-12 % % % No. of fish species on vegetated substrates # 2-8 # 9-12 # # # Fig. 28a-g. Number of species of juvenile fish and invertebrates sampled by seine net along estuary shores in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Data provided by the NHT funded, NSW Fisheries, Office of Conservation, Estuarine Fish Biodiversity project (pers. comm. R.J. Williams). 71

80 80 Fig. a. Number of fish species sampled in estuary. No. species Hastings R. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Wallis L. Manning R. Smiths L. Hunter R. P. Stephens / Karuah R. Percent of all species Figure b. Percent of species (111 species total) sampled for whole bioregion. Hastings R. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Smiths L. Wallis L. Manning R. Hunter R. P. Stephens / Karuah R. Summed irreplacibility index c. Summed irreplaceability for at least one representation of each species. Macleay R. (5) Nambucca R. (6 sites) Manning R. (8) Hastings R. (8) Smiths L. (6) Wallis L. (8) Hunter R. (3) P. Stephens/Karuah R. (11) Fig. 29a-c. Total number of species, percentage contribution to bioregional species total and summed irreplaceability for juvenile fish and invertebrate species sampled at varying numbers of sites along estuary shores in the Manning Shelf Bioregion during 1999/2000. Data provided by NHT funded NSW Fisheries, Office of Conservation, Estuarine Fish project (pers. comm. R.J. Williams). 72

81 Fig. a. Number of fish species sampled in estuary. No. species Hastings R. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Wallis L. Manning R. Smiths L. Hunter R. P. Stephens / K... Percent of all species Fig. b. Percent of species (111 species total) sampled for whole bioregion. Hastings R. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Smiths L. Wallis L. Manning R. Hunter R. P. Stephens / Karuah R. Summed irreplacibility index Fig. c. Summed irreplaceability for at least one representation of each species. Nambucca R. (4 sites) Macleay R. (4) Hastings R. (4) Manning R. (4) Wallis L. (4) Smiths L. (4) Hunter R. (3) P. Stephens/Karuah R. (4) Fig. 30a-c. Total number of species, percentage contribution to bioregional species total and summed irreplaceability for juvenile fish and invertebrate species sampled at a reduced number of sites along estuary shores in the Manning Shelf Bioregion during 1999/2000. Data provided by NHT funded NSW Fisheries, Office of Conservation, Estuarine Fish project (pers. comm. R. Williams). 73

82 5.2.2 NSW Fisheries commercial catch data Data Source NSW Fisheries Commercial catch database. Tanner and Liggins (1999). New South Wales Commercial Fisheries Statistics 1993/94 to 1997/98. NSW Fisheries Research Institute. Data description Commercial fish and invertebrate catch, effort and value data from mandatory catch return forms submitted by commercial fishers (Fig. 31 & Fig. 32). Criteria Representativeness, productivity, potential threats and human use. Assessment measures Number of species, summed irreplaceability for representation of each species and catch (tonnes). Assessment The number of species represented in commercial estuarine fish and invertebrate catches was highest for Myall Lake/Port Stephens and Wallis Lake, high for most other estuaries, but reduced for Lake Innes/Cathie and Smiths Lake (Fig. 31a). Summed irreplaceability for representation of each species at least once was also highest for Myall Lake/Port Stephens and Wallis Lake, and these areas also recorded the highest catch in tonnes (Fig. 31b-c). The number of species in commercial catch recorded for ocean ports of landing and summed irreplaceability for representation of at least one species was highest for Port Stephens and Newcastle. Catch was also high for these areas but similar to that for Crowdy Head, Tuncurry and South West Rocks (Fig. 32). These data are only used cautiously to supplement the broad-scale habitat information. Possible problems in its use are a bias in species richness towards ports receiving more catch, misreporting of catch and difficulties in determining exactly where catch was caught as opposed to landed. More detailed analyses of catch data have been made by Pease (1999). 74

83 60 Fig. a. Number of species in estuarine commercial catch from 1997/98. No. species Hastings R. Macleay R. Nambucca R. Manning R. Camden Haven R. L. Innes/Cathie Hunter R. Myall L./P. Stephens Smiths L. Wallis L. Summed irreplaceability index Fig. b. Summed irreplaceability index for representation of each species present in the total estuarine catch for the bioregion. Nambucca River Macleay River Hastings River Camden Haven River Lake Innes/Lake Cathie Manning River Wallis Lake Smiths Lake Myall/Port Stephens Hunter River 600 Fig. c. Total catch (tonnes) for each estuary in 1997/98 Catch (tonnes) Macleay R. Nambucca R. L. Cathie Hastings R. Wallis L. Manning R. Camden Haven Smiths L. Hunter R. P. Stephens/Myall R Fig. 31a-c. Number of species, summed irreplaceability and size (tonnes) of commercial fishing catch for estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion during 1997/98. Data provided by NSW Fisheries Catch Records Section and Tanner and Liggins (1999). 75

84 120 Fig. a. Number of species in catch for ocean ports of landing, 1997/98. No. species Port Macquarie South West Rocks Nambucca Heads Taree Crowdy Head Camden Haven Myall L. Smiths L. Tuncurry Newcastle P. Stephens Summed irreplaceability index Fig. b. Summed irreplaceability index for representation of each species present in the total ocean catch for the region in 1997/98. Laurieton Port Macquarie South West Rocks Nambucca Heads Taree Crowdy Head Tuncurry Newcastle Port Stephens 1500 Fig. c. Total catch (tonnes) for each ocean port in 1996/97 Catch (tonnes) South West Rocks Nambucca Heads Laurieton Port Macquarie Taree Crowdy Head Tuncurry Newcastle Port Stephens Fig. 32a-c. Number of species, summed irreplaceability and size (tonnes) of commercial fishing catch for ocean ports in the Manning Shelf Bioregion in 1997/98 and 1996/97. Data provided by NSW Fisheries Catch Records Section and Tanner and Liggins (1999). 76

85 5.2.3 Birds of International Importance (JAMBA/CAMBA/Significant nesting sites) Data source Transport Safety Bureau s NSW Oil Spill Response Atlas V 2.2 (CD-ROM June 2000). Data description Sightings and important areas of habitat for threatened birds and birds protected under JAMBA/CAMBA international treaties and other native birds (Fig. 33 & Fig. 34). Identification criteria International and national importance, threatened species, representativeness. Assessment measures Number of species, summed irreplaceability, area of bird habitat. Assessment The number of bird species sighted near estuaries was highest for the Hunter River, but also high for other estuaries including Wallis Lake and the Nambucca, Macleay, Hastings, and Manning Rivers (Fig. 31a). Summed irreplaceability for representation of at least one of each species was also highest for the Hunter River (Fig. 33b). The number of bird species sighted near exposed coast and ocean was equally high for several sections between Smiths Lake and Port Stephens, and between Stockton Beach and the Hunter River (Fig. 33c). However, summed irreplaceability for at least one representation of each species was highest for the section of coast between the Hastings River and Lake Innes/Cathie (Fig. 33d). Area of important habitat for threatened and JAMBA/CAMBA bird species near estuaries was highest for the Hunter River and also high for Port Stephens, Hastings River, Macleay River and Lake Cathie (Fig. 34a). There was a similar pattern for habitat of other bird species with Wallis Lake and Camden Haven also supporting large areas of important bird habitat (Fig. 34b). The sections of exposed coast between Wallis Lake and the Hunter River supported the most area of important habitat for threatened and JAMBA/CAMBA species and other bird species (Fig. 34cd). 77

86 No. bird species a. Number of bird species (CRA-OS) for estuary units. Macleay-Korogoro Nambucca R. Hunter R. P. Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Summed irreplaceability b. Summed irreplaceability for representation of at least one of each bird species (CRA-OS) for estuary units. Hunter R. P. Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Macleay-Korogoro Nambucca R. No. bird species c. Number of bird species (CRA-OS) for exposed coast and ocean. Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Summed irreplaceability d. Summed irreplaceability for representation of one of each bird species (CRA-OS) for exposed coast and ocean. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to Myall L to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Fig. 33a-d. Number of species and summed irreplaceability for sea and shore birds in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (data derived from Department of Transport NSW coastal resource atlas for oil spills v. 2.2). 78

87 Area (ha) a. Area of estuarine habitat for threatened bird species and those birds protected by JAMBA/CAMBA treaty. 0 Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Macleay -Korogoro Nambucca R. Myall R. Wallis L. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hunter R. P. Stephens Area (ha) b. Area of estuarine habitat for other birds. 0 Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Macleay -Korogoro Nambucca R. Hunter R. Port Stephens Myall R. Smiths L. Wallis L. Area (ha) c. Area of ocean coast habitat for threatened bird species and those birds protected by JAMBA/CAMBA treaty. 0 Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L. Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Area (ha) d. Area of ocean coast habitat for other birds. Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck... Manning R. to Camden Haven to L. Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Fig. 34a-d. Areas of important estuary and ocean coast for birds protected by international treaties or the Threatened Species Act 1995 and for other native birds. 79

88 5.2.4 Threatened Birds - National Parks and Wildlife Service Data source Sightings of threatened species were extracted from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service s Wildlife Atlas. Significant nesting sites of the endangered Little Tern and Gould s Petrel were derived from the Little Tern and Gould s Petrel Draft Recovery Plans (NPWS 2000ab). Data description The NSW Wildlife Atlas records 32 species of intertidal wader and sea birds in NSW listed as threatened (i.e. endangered or vulnerable) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act Of these, 24 occur in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (Table 15), with three of the 24 species listed as endangered. Two of these species have significant nesting/breeding sites in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (Fig ). Table 12. Threatened intertidal waders and sea birds recorded in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Endangered (TSC 1995) Beach Stone-curlew Esacus neglectus Gould's Petrel Pterodroma leucoptera Little Tern Sterna albifrons* Vulnerable (TSC 1995) Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus Black Bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis Black-browed Albatross Diomedea melanophrys Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Broad-billed Sandpiper Limicola falcinellus Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius Flesh-footed Shearwater Puffinus carneipes Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii Grey Ternlet Procelsterna cerulea Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus Little Shearwater Puffinus assimilus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris Providence Petrel Pterodroma solandri Sanderling Calidris alba Shy Albatross Diomedea cauta Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus White Tern Gygis alba 80

89 Assessment Gould s Petrel Gould's Petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera) breeds on Cabbage Tree and Boondelbah Islands off the coast of Port Stephens and has been sighted within Wallis Lake. The species is pelagic and feeds primarily on surface fish, small squid and krill. Documented threats to this species include: competition with rabbits; entanglement in the sticky fruits of the bird-lime tree; predation by currawongs and ravens; disturbance from jet aircraft; and inappropriate recreational use by day visitors (NPWS 2000a). It has been suggested that oceanic events, such as the pilchard die-off, have led to a decrease in food availability leading to decreased body condition and the unexplained breeding failure (Priddell & Carlile 1997). The terrestrial components of Cabbage Tree and Boondelabah Islands are protected within John Gould Nature Reserve and Boondelbah Nature Reserves respectively Little Tern The Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) is strictly a coastal species, nesting close to the entrances of estuaries and coastal creeks on sand spits or coastal beaches, and feeding in nearby waters. Nests are generally located on open sand within 150 m, and less than 1.5m above, the high tide mark (NPWS 2000b). Key threats include nest disturbance by recreational beach users, nest flooding and foreshore development. While no areas of Little Tern habitat have been listed as critical habitat under the Act (1995), a number significant nesting sites have been identified in the region, including: Nambucca Heads, Harrington and Farquhar Inlet (Old Bar) on the Manning River, and at Wallis Lake near Forster. The Little Tern has also been sighted in Lime Burners Creek Nature Reserve, Myall Lakes National Park, Port Stephens and Kooragang Nature Reserve in the Hunter River Beach Stone-curlew The Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus neglectus) is at the southern extent of its range and no significant or critical sites (including nesting / breeding sites) have been identified within the region Other species Sightings for threatened species occurred for all estuaries with the greatest number of species recorded for the Hunter River, followed by the Manning, Macleay, Hastings, Wallis Lake, Port Stephens and the Nambucca River. Summed irreplaceability for representation of each species was highest for the Hunter River followed by the Nambucca and Manning Rivers and Port Stephens. Sightings for threatened species occurred for all sections of exposed coast with the highest number of species recorded for the Nambucca-Macleay, Wallis L.-Smiths L. and Khappinghat-Wallis L. sections. Summed irreplaceability however, was highest for the Hastings-L. Cathie section. 81

90 5.2.5 Threatened Grey Nurse Shark Data source A GIS coverage of significant Grey Nurse Shark aggregation sites was prepared from data provided by Otway and Parker (2000) and from unpublished data collected during subsequent surveys up until October Data description The Grey Nurse Shark is listed as endangered under the Fisheries Management Act NSW Fisheries staff and volunteer SCUBA divers have surveyed approximately 65 sites during 4 week survey periods in each season (Summer, Autumn, Winter, Spring) between November 1998 and October The maximum number of sharks counted from multiple dives during the 4 week survey period was taken as the sample estimate for each site and season. (Fig. 35 & Fig. 36) Criteria Representativeness, ecological importance, threatened species. Assessment measure Maximum number of sharks, % of observed population. Assessment A recovery plan for Grey Nurse Shark being developed by NSW Fisheries will consider in detail where marine protected areas are required for conservation of this species. On the basis of initial surveys Otway and Parker (2000) note that if the sites in Table 16 were declared as marine protected areas they would protect 50-57% of observed Grey Nurse Sharks along the NSW and southern Queensland coast. They recommend that these sites be considered for declaration as aquatic reserves for the long-term conservation of the Grey Nurse Shark. Maximum numbers of sharks observed at sites in the Manning Shelf Bioregion are shown in Fig. 35. For the last eight survey seasons between Summer 1998 and Spring 2000 an average of 65% of the Grey Nurse Sharks sighted by divers participating in surveys throughout NSW were sighted in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Over 11% were sighted at Fish Rock and Green Island near South West Rocks, 14% at the Cod Grounds and Mermaid Reef near Laurieton, 16% at the Pinnacle and Latitude Rock near Forster, 12% at Seal Rocks near Sugar Loaf Point and 10% at Broughton Island near Port Stephens. None of these sites are included within marine protected areas. A similar pattern among these sites can be seen for the maximum numbers recorded, mean maximums for each season and percent occurrence (Fig. 36b-c). Initial research indicates that the male and female sharks have specialised patterns of migration and that most of the above sites can be important at some time. For example, 50% of the sharks sighted during the Spring 2000 survey were sighted at one site, the Cod Grounds, and seasonal peaks in the number of male sharks occur near South West Rocks. If the sharks do migrate between sites on a regular basis, potential threats may need to be considered at all sites involved. 82

91 # # Green Is. Fish Rock Black Roc # # Mermaid Reef Cod Grounds # # Latitude Rock Pinnacle # Skeleton Rock # Sawtooth Rocks ## # Big Seal Little Seal Edith Breaker Broughton Is. # Boondelabah Is. Maximum number of sharks # 1 # 2-5 # # # # Kilometers W N E Data from N. Otway and P. Parker (unpublished data), NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation. PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions S Fig. 35. Maximum numbers of Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus) observed at dive sites in the Manning Shelf Bioregion during eight survey seasons in 1998 and

92 Max no. of sharks Fig. a. Maximum counts (for 8 survey seasons) of Grey Nurse Sharks. Boondelabah Is. Broughton Is. Edith Breaker Little Seal Big Seal Sawtooth Rocks Skeleton Rock Pinnacle Latitude Rock Rf Mermaid Reef Cod Grounds Black Rock Green Is. Fish Rock Mean max no. of sharks Fig. b. Mean (+s.e.) maximum counts of Grey Nurse Sharks. Little Seal Big Seal Sawtooth Rocks Skeleton Rock Pinnacle Latitude Rock Rf Mermaid Reef Cod Grounds Black Rock Green Is. Fish Rock Boondelabah Is. Broughton Is. Edith Breaker % of survey seasons present Fig. c. Percent occurrence for eight survey seasons. Boondelabah Is. Broughton Is. Edith Breaker Little Seal Big Seal Sawtooth Rocks Skeleton Rock Pinnacle Latitude Rock Rf Mermaid Reef Cod Grounds Black Rock Green Is. Fish Rock Fig. 36a-c. Maximum, mean maximum (+ s.e.) and percent occurrence of Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus) for dive sites in the Manning Shelf Bioregion for eight survey seasons between 1998 and 2000 (data from Otway and Parker (in prep.), NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation). 84

93 5.2.6 NSW Fisheries threatened species database Data Source NSW Fisheries threatened species database. The NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 includes provisions to declare threatened species of fish and marine vegetation, endangered populations and ecological communities and key threatening processes. Four marine species have been declared threatened: Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias); Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus); Black cod (Epinephelus daemelii); and Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron). Seven other marine species are protected in NSW waters: Ballina angelfish (Chaetodontoplus ballinae); Bleeker s devil fish (Paraplesiops bleekeri); Common sea dragon (Phyllopteryx taeniolatus); Elegant wrasse (Anampses elegans); Estuary cod (Epinephelus coioides); Herbsts Nurse Shark (Odontaspis ferox); and Queensland Groper (Epinephelus lanceolatus). Other species protected from commercial fishing include: Black marlin (Makaira indica); Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans); Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax); and Blue groper (Achoerodus viridis). Data Description Sightings in the NSW threatened species database depend on voluntary reports and are currently limited to 75 records for the Manning Shelf Bioregion. While the data are probably too sparse for quantitative analysis, they provide descriptive, site specific information. Criteria Representativeness Assessment measure Descriptive summary Assessment Sightings include: Ballina Angel Fish at Cattie Creek; Black Cod near Seal Rocks, Taree and several sightings at Fish Rock; Bleeker s Devil Fish at Nambucca Heads; Elegant Wrasse at Broughton Is. and Lake Cathie; Queensland Grouper at Fish Rock and Nambucca Heads; estuary cod at Lake Cathie, Harrington, Fish Rock, Manning River, Nambucca Heads and Wallis Lake; Great White Shark at Green Is., the Pinnacle and Edith Breaker; and Grey Nurse Shark near Nambucca Heads, South West Rocks, Forster, Seal Rocks, Broughton Is. and Nelson Bay. 85

94 5.2.7 Marine mammals and reptiles Data sources Environment Australia Species of National Environmental Significance database. Transport Safety Bureau s NSW Oil Spill Response Atlas V 2.2 (CD-ROM June 2000). Data Description The database held by Environment Australia holds broad-scale distribution maps and taxonomic, ecological and management information about Species of National Environmental Significance as listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act The NSW Oil Spill Response Atlas includes sightings data for marine mammals in NSW. Criteria Representativeness, threatened species. Assessment measures Descriptive summary. Assessment Marine mammal species of national significance with mapped distributions that include the Manning Shelf Bioregion include the Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Southern Right whale (Eubalaena australis), Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), and the Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus). Marine reptile species of national significance with mapped distributions that include the bioregion are the Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Elegant sea snake (Hydrophis elegans), and the Yellow Bellied sea snake (Pelamis platurus). The distributions of these species extend well beyond NSW and several species are at the limit of their range (Gill et al. 2000). The NSW Oil Spill Response Atlas includes 284 sighting records of marine mammals in the bioregion (851 in all NSW) including the Humpback whale, Bryde s whale (Balaenoptera edeni), False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Long finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), Melon-head whale (Peponocephala electra), Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Pygmy Sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), Southern Right whale, Straptooth beaked whale (Mesoplodon layardii), Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Fraser s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), Risso s dolphin (Grampus griseus), Spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), Dugong (Dugong dugon), Leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx), and Australian Fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus). Again, the distributions of these mammals extend well beyond the bioregion and several are at the extreme limit of their range. A number of species are relatively common throughout the bioregion. Humpback whales are regularly observed off the NSW coast in June and July migrating to winter breeding grounds off Queensland and returning south between October and November to summer cold water feeding areas. This east Australian population of humpbacks was estimated to have declined from to 500 whales during the first half of the 20 th century but is increasing slowly each year (Baker 1983, Paterson and Paterson 1989, Smith 1997). These whales often pass relatively close to the coast, particularly near prominent headlands, and whale watching tourism is becoming established in several coastal ports including Port Stephens, Forster and Port Macquarie. Allen et al. (1999, 2000) have made surveys of inshore bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in Port Stephens, identified by photograph 122 individuals, made observations of dolphin interactions with some of the 14 listed dolphin watching vessels, and made recommendations for management of these activities. 86

95 5.2.8 RAMSAR sites - Nationally and Internationally important wetlands Data Source The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an intergovernmental treaty signed by 123 parties for the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Contracting parties designate wetlands for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of International Importance. Data Description Criteria for identifying Ramsar sites include representativeness and uniqueness of wetlands, the flora and fauna present (including fish habitat values ) and specific criteria for waterfowl. Criteria Representativeness, threatened species. Assessment measures Presence and area of Ramsar sites. Assessment Two Ramsar internationally important wetlands are identified in the Manning Shelf bioregion: Kooragang Nature Reserve (including Fullerton Cove, Hexham Swamp & Kooragang Island) identified for its representative wetlands, general flora and fauna, and for its significance as a feeding and roosting site for international waders and waterbirds. Myall Lakes National Park including: Myall Lakes; Broughton Island and Little Broughton Island Nature Reserve; the northern headland (Yaccaba) of Port Stephens; Fame Cove and Corrie Island Nature Reserve in Port Stephens; the southern shores of Smiths Lake; most of the ocean coast between Smiths Lake and Port Stephens. The Myall Lakes Ramsar site is known for its coastal brackish lake systems not greatly modified by human activities and for its floristic diversity (over 600 species of plants) and complex variety of habitats ( Wetland types include rocky marine shores; sand, shingle or pebble beaches; estuarine waters; intertidal mud, sand or salt flats; intertidal marshes; intertidal forested wetlands; brackish to saline lagoons and marshes with one or more narrow connections with the sea; freshwater lagoons and marshes in the coastal zone; and permanent inland saline/brackish lakes Directory of important wetlands in Australia Data Source The Directory of Important Wetlands (ANCA 1996) is a cooperative project between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia, coordinated by Environment Australia to identify nationally important wetlands. Data Description The wetlands listed in the Directory are those which meet the criteria of national importance as revised by the ANZECC Wetlands Network in August All wetlands which meet the criteria have been listed, not just the best representatives of a wetland type. The criteria used to assess Important Wetlands are, is the area: a good example of a wetland type occurring in the bioregion; a wetland that plays an important ecological or hydrological role in the natural functioning of a major wetland system/complex; wetlands that are important as habitat for animal taxa at a vulnerable stage of their life cycles, or provide refuge when adverse conditions such as drought, prevail; supporting 1% or more of the national population of any plant or animal taxa; supporting native plant or animal taxa or communities which are considered endangered or vulnerable at the national level; and 87

96 wetlands of outstanding historical or cultural significance. Criteria Representativeness, International National Importance. Assessment measures Presence of nationally important wetlands. Assessment Table 13. Important Wetlands in the Manning Shelf Bioregion: Wetland name Location description Area (ha) Clybucca Creek Estuary Swan Pool / Belmore Swamp Crowdy Bay National Park Limeburners Creek Nature Reserve Wallis Lake and adjacent estuarine islands Myall Lakes Port Stephens Estuary Kooragang NR Macleay estuary delta including Macleay Arm, Macleay River down river of Pelican Reach, Clybucca Creek down from Clybucca township Coastal floodplain swamp (i.e. fresh meadows, seasonal fresh swamps, and reef swamps) on the Upper Macleay River west of Hat Head. Coastal plains including dune wetland systems (i.e. sand dunes, wet heath, sedgeland & forested swamp) Subcatchment of the Hastings River system incorporating natural dunal wetland system & brackish lake Tidal waters wetlands of Wallis Lake extending up Coolongolook River to Minimbah Creek, and to the mouth of the Wallamba River. Myall Lakes NP coastal plains including coastal lagoon complex and low lying dunal wetland complex. Tidal waters and intertidal wetlands up the Myall River to Myall lakes NP, up the Karuah River to Karuah, and including all of Tilligerry Creek and Twelve Mile Creek. Tidal and intertidal wetlands on the north side of the Hunter River Hexham Swamp Hunter River system

97 5.3 Ecological importance, condition and vulnerability Independent inquiry into coastal lakes Data Source Provisional classification of coastal lakes from Healthy Rivers Commission (2000) Independent Inquiry into Coastal Lakes Draft paper, Sydney October Data Description The classification draws on data collected, analysed and collated by the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation in its Estuary Inventory and on information collated for the Commonwealth Government s National Land and Water Audit. Within the classification system the following broad factors influence the class to which a lake is assigned: natural sensitivity to human activities (e.g., potential nutrient inflow, flushing capacity, entrance behaviour); existing condition of catchment and lake (e.g. land clearing, land use and water quality); recognised natural and resource conservation values (e.g. presence of threatened species, ecological uniqueness, representativeness and commerical values, reserves). Criteria Representativeness, uniqueness, threatened species, naturalness, vulnerability, management practicality and human use. Assessment measures Qualitative ranks for natural sensitivity, existing catchment and lake condition, recognised conservation value, potential to improve and orientation for management. Assessment The assessment examined seven coastal lake systems in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Coastal Lake Natural Sensitivity Existing Condition Recognised Conservation Value Catchment Lake Saltwater Extreme Severely Unknown Unknown 3 Lagoon Modified Saltwater Lake Unknown Near pristine* Unknown Unknown 1 Innes/ Insufficient data to assess lakes separately at this stage 2* Cathie 3* Queens/ Insufficient data to assess lakes separately at this stage 2* Watsons Taylor 3* Wallis High Modified Slightly High 3 affected Smiths High Largely Slightly Moderate 2 unmodified* affected Myall Extreme Largely Considerably High 2 unmodified affected Classification for Management Orientation 1 Table 14. Classification of coastal lakes in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (after Healthy Rivers Commission 2001). 1 Classifications for management orientation: 1. Comprehensive protection, 2. Significant protection, and 3. Healthy modified conditions. * indicative classification based on limited available information. 89

98 5.3.2 Environmental inventory of estuaries and coastal lagoons Data source Bell and Edwards (1980). An inventory of estuaries and coastal lagoons in New South Wales. Data description Bell and Edwards (1980) conducted inventories of NSW estuaries including a description of recreation/tourism significance, degree of disturbance, area, mean annual rainfall, mean annual runoff and conservation features. While these data may not be current in regards to coastal development and catchment use, they provide a relative measure of differences among estuaries and a useful check against more recent inventories. Criteria Naturalness, vulnerability. Assessment measures Qualitative score between 1-4 for shore/water disturbance and for catchment disturbance. Verbal description of conservation and human-use values and threats. Assessment Scores for disturbance of shore and water range from very low for Myall Lakes and Myall River to very high for the Macleay, Hastings and Hunter Rivers. Scores for catchment disturbance range from low for the Nambucca River, Lake Cathie/Innes, and Killick and Limeburners Creeks to high for the Macleay River and Wallis Lake. Table 20 lists scores for nineteen estuaries Australian Estuaries Database Data source Digby, M. J., Buchner, D., Saenger, P., Whelan, M. B., McConchie, D., Eyre, B. and Holmes, N. (1998) Australian Estuarine Database. Prepared for the National River Health Program, Urban Sub Program by the Centre for Coastal Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. Data description The Australian Estuarine Database (AED) is derived from Buchner and Saenger (1989) with the revision of some of the spatial data, and the inclusion of additional geographic and climatic data. Data were available for 11 estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion (Nambucca R., Macleay R., Hastings R., L. Cathie, Camden Haven R., Manning, R., Khappinghat C., Wallis L., Smiths L., Port Stephens, Hunter R.) Criteria Ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability, human use. Assessment measures Qualitative scores for conservation value and threat, fisheries value and threat, ecological status and water quality. Assessment Conservation value ranged from high for the Macleay and Hunter River to low for the Hastings River, Lake Cathie/Innes, Camden Haven and Khappinghat Creek. Conservation threat ranged from none for the Hastings River, Lake Cathie/Innes, Camden Haven and Khappinghat Creek to real for the Macleay and Hunter Rivers. Fisheries value ranged from high for Macleay, Hastings and Manning Rivers and Camden Haven, Wallis Lake and Port Stephens to low for Lake Cathie/Innes and Khappinghat Creek. Fisheries threat ranged from high for the Macleay and Hunter to low for the Hastings River, Lake Cathie/Innes, Camden Haven and Khappinghat Creek. Ecological status was slightly affected for most estuaries, moderately affected for the Macleay and Hastings Rivers, and considerably affected for the Hunter River. For most estuaries there were no data available for water quality, but the Macleay and Hunter Rivers were rated as Poor (significant effect on the ecology of the estuary) and the Hastings River was rated as moderate (effect on biota not substantial). 90

99 5.3.4 Coastal rock platforms (Total Environment Centre) Data source Short JM (1995) Protection of coastal rock platforms in NSW. National Estate Grant Project NEP Total Environment Centre, Sydney. Data description This database of significant rock platforms identifies 198 separate rock platforms in NSW, 33 of which lie in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Criteria Representativeness, uniqueness, naturalness (condition). Assessment measures The data base includes attributes relating to: location, access, platform dimensions, physical characteristics, geology, biology, impacts, existing management, other data and recommendations. Assessment Based on the assessment of the characteristics described above, Short (1995) recommended 15 of the 33 headlands investigated in the Manning Shelf Bioregion for protection. These are shown mapped in Fig Intertidal platform survey (Griffiths, 1982) Data source Quint. G. (1982) Headland Survey - Parts 1-3. In Coastal Headlands Survey. National Trust of Australia, Sydney. Griffiths, O. (1982) Intertidal Platform Survey. In Coastal Headlands Survey. Parts 4-5. National Trust of Australia, Sydney. Data description The coastal headland survey (Parts 1-3) provides a detailed summary of the vegetation and geology of 193 NSW headlands, 35 of which are in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Parts 4-5 provide a comprehensive geomorphological investigation of 185 rock platforms, 32 of which are in the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Of these 185 NSW platforms, a detailed biological survey was conducted on 45, 5 of which occur in the region. Criteria Representativeness, ecological importance, naturalness (condition). Assessment measures The biological surveys of rock platforms sampled over 100 species from a range of families including gastropods, cephalopods, crustacea, annelids, echinoderms, coelenterates, sponges and algae. Identification measures included the survey assessment, number of species and summed irreplaceability. Assessment Bald Head (near Smiths lake; Fig. 23) was the only site recommended for protection in the Manning Shelf Bioregion, and was recommended for both its headland and rock platform values. Species data from the survey were analysed in C-Plan for the five sites within the Manning Shelf Bioregion. Bald Head had most species and the highest summed irreplaceability value for representation of at least one of each species. 91

100 5.3.6 Oceanography - East Australian Current / marine sediments / up-welling Data source A summary of the key oceanographic processes operating in the Manning Shelf Bioregion was drawn from a number of published sources: Godfrey et al. (1980), Cresswell et al. (1983), Rockford (1975), Cresswell (1998), and Colwell et al. (1981). Criteria Comprehensiveness, representativeness, ecological importance, productivity. Data description and assessment Godfrey et al. (1980) used merchant shipping, a current atlas and continental shelf sediments to demonstrate that Sugar Loaf Point (Seal Rocks) was a common separation point for the East Australian Current (EAC), particularly during the summer months. Cresswell (1983, 1998) showed that although Sugar Loaf Point is a common separation point, headlands to the north can also be important separation points for the current (Fig. 37a-c) Using airborne infrared imagery for the section of coast between Smokey Cape (South West Rocks) and Sugar Loaf Point, Cresswell (1983) noted that the interaction of the EAC with the coast created a variety of nearshore current phenomenon. These include nearshore wakes and fronts down current of headlands and rocks, and cool northward flowing counter currents (Fig. 38). Recent evidence suggests that these oceanographic processes are of biological importance, particularly for their influence on the transport and survival of larvae and juveniles (Kingsford 1990). Rochford (1975) investigated the episodic upwelling of cool, nutrient enriched continental slope waters at Laurieton (31 30 S). Upwelling of slope water along the NSW coast generally occurs in spring and summer at a number of locations, including Laurieton. The source of up-welled water at Laurieton has been fixed at m (Rockford 1975, 1984). These localised intrusion events constitute a prime source of nitrates for NSW coastal waters and there are indications that high phytoplankton concentrations are associated with these intrusions. Hallegraeff and Jeffrey (1993) recorded a phytoplankton maximum in October 1981 at a depth of m in a mid-shelf position (90 m isobath) off Cape Hawk. This corresponded with the upper surface of the enriched intrusion waters. While the Laurieton upwelling zone is one of the most prominent on the NSW coast, its broader effect on biodiversity is poorly understood. Colwell et al. (1981), conducted an investigation of the stratigraphy and depositional environments of East Australian shelf sediments. Survey methods included seismic tracks, side scan survey, video sled, sediment grabs and sediment cores. Four major lithologies were identified in the Newcastle to Forster area in water between 22 m and 144 m deep (Fig. 39). In general, nearshore brown medium to coarse grained quartzose sands were replaced in the mid-shelf zone by dark grey muddy sands and muds. On the outer shelf brown coarse-grained carbonate sands and olive grey and brown calcareous sands occurred. A fourth muddy fraction was observed south of Sugar Loaf Point off Newcastle in water depths of m. 92

101 Laurieton Up-welling Zone. a. CB.. SWR L SLP. JB b CB. c. CB SLP... SWR L SLP.. SWR L. JB. JB a. Typical departure of the southward flowing East Australian current (EAC) from the NSW coast - initial departure at Laurieton, further deflection of Sugar Loaf Point before crossing the shelf break off Port Stephens (Dec 1993). b. Cold water upwelling off Laurieton with cool northward flowing counter current (Oct 1992). c. Breakup of the EAC, deflection off Sugar Loaf Point and formation of anti-cyclonic eddy south of Sugar Loaf Point (Dec1993). CB-Cape Byron, SWR-South West Rocks, SLP-Sugar Loaf Point, JB-Jervis Bay. Fig. 37a-c. Broad-scale oceanographic processes off the NSW continental shelf represented by sea surface temperature (SST) NOAA11 TM45S satellite images (after Cresswell 1993). 93

102 Fig. 38. Airborne infrared scanner images over Fish Rock and Black Rocks. Airborne infrared scanner images for successive passes over Fish and Black Rocks (at South West Rocks) at 0647 h (a) and 0653 h (b) EST 8 November Width of passes 2.1 km. The effect of Fish Rock on the southward flow of warm water of the East Australian Current was to produce overturn with the cooler waters creating a readily detectable wake. At Black Rock, in less that 20m of water and 800m from the beach, streamer like waves indicate a northward flowing counter current. The second pass confirmed that there was very little change in the 6 minute interval. (Figure and interpretation after Cresswell 1983). 94

103 Fig. 39a & b. Marine sediment distribution in the southern Manning Shelf Bioregion. Separation of the East Australian Current from the NSW continental shelf and its effect on marine sediment distribution in the lower Manning Shelf Bioregion. a). The percent epitote (a component of Manning River sediments) in total heavy minerals in bottom sediments from the NSW continental shelf: heavy dots are station points; stippled areas, 2-5% epitote; and shaded areas, >5% epitote. b). the percentage silt and clay in sediments from the NSW continental shelf: stippled areas, 10-20% silt and clay; shaded areas, 20-40%; darkened areas, >40%. Dashed lines show the inferred line of the East Australian Current. (Figures and explanation after Godfrey et al. 1980). 95

104 5.3.7 Adjacent national parks & nature reserves Data source NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) Data description Data includes boundaries of existing national parks, nature reserves, state recreation areas, historic sites, Aboriginal areas, and regional parks declared under the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Act National parks and nature reserves are generally declared on the basis of their high conservation values and high natural condition. Their declaration ensures long term protection of those values, and provides an important permanent buffer for estuaries and coastal environments against the effects of inappropriate land use (Fig. 40a and Fig. 41a). Criteria Ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands managed as national park or nature reserve within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of the high water mark for sections of exposed coast. These, and the following vulnerability measures, were also calculated for lands within 5 km of the high water mark and as a percentage of all lands within each estuarine subcatchment. The latter measures provided similar information and so results are not reported here. Assessment For estuaries, the highest percentage of adjacent lands managed as national park or nature reserve occurred for Korogoro, Limeburners, and Khappinghat Creeks and the Myall Lakes and Myall River (all > 50% national park or nature reserve within 1 km; Fig. 40a). The lowest percentages of adjacent national park and nature reserve occurred for the Nambucca, Macleay, Hastings, Manning and Hunter Rivers. Sections of exposed coast between the Macleay River and Killick Creek, between Camden Haven and the Manning River and between Smiths Lake and Port Stephens all had over 50% of lands within 1 km of the coast managed as national park or nature reserve. Nambucca-Macleay R., Lake Cathie-Camden Haven, Manning-Khappinghat and Stockton Beach-Hunter R. all had less than 5% of lands within 1 km managed as national park or nature reserve (Fig. 41a) State forest Data Source GIS cover of areas managed as NSW State forest. Data description Data identify the location and extent of lands managed as State Forest (Fig. 40b). Criteria Ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands managed as State Forest within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment Most state forest was found around the upper reaches of the Nambucca River, around Watson Taylor Lake and Port Stephens (4-8%, Fig. 40b). There were no areas of State Forest within 1 km of the coast. 96

105 Fig. a. Percent of adjacent land within NPWS reserve Nambucca Heads South West Rocks Fig. b. Percent of adjacent land within State forest Crescent Head Port Macquarie % NPWS reserve within 1km of waterway 0-5 % 5-10 % % % % Harrington Laurieton % State forest within 1km of waterway % % 2-4 % 4-8 % Forster-Tuncurry Sugarloaf Point Nelson Bay N 0 20 Km Fig. c. Percent of adjacent land under SEPP14 protection Fig. d. Percent of adjacent land identified as wilderness by NPWS % SEPP14 land within 1km of waterway 0-5 % 5-10 % % % % % wilderness within 1km of waterways 0-1 % 1-2 % % % Fig. 40a-d. Percentage area of land adjacent (within 1km) to waterways with protection by NSW Government. 97

106 Percent area a. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast in national park or nature reserve. Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to 50 b. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast classed as SEPP14 wetland. Percent area 25 0 Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Percent area c. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast classed as SEPP26 littoral rainforest. Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Fig. 41a-d. Percentage area of land within 1km of ocean coast with NSW Government protection (derived from data provided by NPWS). 98

107 5.3.9 SEPP 14 wetlands Data Source GIS coverage produced by the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). Data description Data identifies coastal wetlands protected under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 (SEPP14) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Scale 1: (Fig. 40c & Fig. 41b). Criteria Ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands managed under SEPP 14 within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment Estuaries with the highest percentage of SEPP 14 wetland within 1 km were Limeburners Creek (70%) and Lake Cathie (55%), followed by Korogoro Creek, Maria River (Hastings), Khappinghat Creek, Wallis Lake, Myall River and Port Stephens with 15 and 20% of land within 1 km managed under SEPP 14 (Fig. 40c). Sections of coast between the Macleay and Hastings Rivers and between Camden Haven and the Manning River all had over 25% of lands within 1 km managed under SEPP 14 (Fig. 41b) Wilderness Data source NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service - Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA). Data description Wilderness identified through the Lower North East Comprehensive Regional Assessment process (Fig. 40d & Fig. 42a). Identification criteria Ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands managed as wilderness within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment Limeburners Creek (51%), Unamed Creek (40%) and the Maria River (1.6% Hastings) were the only estuaries with Wilderness within 1 km (Fig. 40d). The Killick-Hastings R. section was the only exposed coast to have wilderness within 1 km (48%; Fig. 42a) SEPP 26 littoral rainforest Data source GIS coverage produced by the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP). Data description Data identify littoral rainforest protected under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26 (Fig. 41c). Criteria Representativeness, ecological importance, naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands managed under SEPP 26 within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment Small areas of littoral rainforest (1-4%) occurred within 1 km of all coastal sections except Korogoro-Killick Ck, Myall L.-Port Stephens and Stockton Beach-Hunter R. (Fig. 41c). 99

108 Percent area Nambucca R. to a. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast identified by NPWS as wilderness. Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to 40 b. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast in built up areas. Percent area Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. 50 c. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils. Percent area 25 0 Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Fig. 42a-c. Percentage of land within 1km of ocean coast: as wilderness; in built-up areas; or with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils. (Derived from data provided by NPWS, AUSLIG and DLWC.) 100

109 Land capability Data Source GIS coverage of land capability from Land capability mapping, Soil Conservation Service, NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Data description NSW lands classed by the capability of different soils and terrains to support 8 main categories of land use. The categories can be grouped into classes suitable for cultivation (1-3), suitable for grazing (4-6), or suitable for forest or left with natural vegetation (7-8) (Fig. 43a-c & Fig. 44a-c). Identification criteria Vulnerability, naturalness (condition). Assessment measure Percentage of adjacent lands in each land capability group within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment for estuaries Land capability for forest or land to be left under natural vegetation (Fig. 43a). South West Rocks Creek (40%), Saltwater Creek (36%) and Lake Cathie/Innes (54%) had the highest percentage of land within 1 km classed most suited for forestry or being left as natural vegetation. Korogoro Creek (26%), Wallis Lake (22%), Smiths Lake (20%) and Port Stephens (25%) also had large proportion of adjoining areas suitable for forestry or for being left with natural vegetation. Less than 2% of land adjoining the Hastings River was classed as suitable for this purpose. Land capability for cultivation (Fig. 43b). The Macleay (42%), Nambucca (24%), Hastings (31%), Manning (29%) and Hunter (33%) had the highest percentage of land within 1 km suitable for cultivation. South West Rocks, Saltwater, Korogoro, Unamed, Killick and Limeburners Creek, Lake Cathie/Innes, Queens Lake, Khappinghat Creek, Wallis Lake, Smiths Lake, Myall Lakes, Myall River and Port Stephens all had less than 5% of adjacent lands suitable for cultivation. Land capability for grazing (Fig. 43c). Most estuaries, particularly in the upper catchments, had a high (20-90%) percentage of adjacent land suitable for grazing. South West Rocks (16%) and Korogoro Creeks (7%) were the only estuaries classed as having less than 20% of their adjoining land within 1 km suitable for grazing. Assessment for sections of exposed coast Land capability for forest or land to be left under natural vegetation (Fig. 44c). The Port Stephens-Stockton Beach and Stockton Beach-Hunter River sections of coast had the highest percentage of land within 1 km suitable for forestry or natural vegetation. Nambucca-Macleay and Lake Cathie-Khappinghat also had a high percentage of adjacent land in this class. Land capability for cultivation (Fig. 44a) Less than 2% of lands within 1 km of coast were capable of cultivation in the Nambucca- Macleay, Hastings-Lake Cathie, and Manning-Khappinghat sections. Land capability for grazing (Fig. 44b) The Khappinghat-Wallis, Nambucca-Macleay, Killick-Hastings, and L. Cathie-Camden Haven coastal sections all had over 30% of adjacent lands within 1 km suitable for grazing. 101

110 Fig. a. Percent of adjacent land suitable for timber or preservation of natural vegetation Fig. b. Percent of adjacent land suitable for cultivation % land within 1km of waterway 0-5 % 5-10 % % % % % land within 1km of waterway 0-5 % 5-10 % % % % N 0 20 Km Fig. c. Percent of adjacent land suitable for grazing Fig. d. Percent of adjacent land within built up areas % land within 1km of waterway 5-30 % % % % % % land within 1km of waterway 0-1 % 1-5 % 5-10 % % % Percentage of land adjacent (within 1km) to waterways classed by land capability as potentially suitable for timber or natural vegetation, cultivation or grazing or currently within builit up areas. Derived from DLWC Soil Conservation Service data and AUSLIG GEODATA TOPO-250K database. Fig. 43a-d. Percentage of land within 1km of waterways classed by land capability. 102

111 Percent area 4 2 a. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast classed suitable for cultivation. 0 Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Percent area b. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast classed suitable for grazing. Nambucca R. to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Percent area c. Percent of land within 1km of ocean coast classed as best protected by timber or used for preservation of natural vegetation. 0 Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to Fig. 44a-c. Percentage of land within 1km of ocean coast classed by land capability. 103

112 Built-up areas Data Source AusLIG 1:250,000 topographic database. Data description GIS layer of built up areas (Fig. 3, Fig. 42b & Fig. 43d). Criteria Vulnerability, naturalness (condition), human use. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands in built up areas within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment South West Rocks (20%) and Saltwater Creeks (15%) and the Hunter River (16%) had the highest percentage of built up areas within 1 km. The Maria River (Hastings), Khappinghat Creek and the Karuah River had less than 1% and the Macleay River, Limeburners Creek, Lake Cathie, Wallis Lake, Myall Lakes and the Myall River had less than 5% built-up areas on adjoining land (Fig. 43d). Built-up areas occupied over 30% of lands within 1 km of the coast in the Hastings-L.Cathie section of exposed coast. For all other sections built up areas occupied less than 10% of the 1 km coastal buffer and for L. Cathie to Camden Haven, Khappinghat-Wallis L. and Smiths L.- Myall L. built-up areas occupied less than 1% of lands within 1 km of the coast (Fig. 42b) Acid Sulphate Soils Data source NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Data description Acid sulphate soil (ASS) risk maps predict the distribution of acid soils based on an assessment of the geomorphic environment using 1:25,000 scale aerial photograph interpretation and extensive field and laboratory soil analysis. ASS naturally occur in ancient estuarine environments such as contemporary coastal flood plains and estuaries. ASS only becomes a threat to the environment when oxidised through exposure to the air. This occurs when either the water table is lowered artificially or sediments are excavated. Most estuaries in the Manning Shelf Bioregion have ASS present, but these sediments pose no risk while left undisturbed. The threat of acid release is related to the probability of inappropriate land use, not only in the occurrence of the sediments themselves (Fig. 46a and Fig. 42c). Criteria Vulnerability. Assessment measure Percent of adjacent lands with high risk or disturbed acid sulphate soils within 1 km of each estuary (classed by subcatchment) and within 1 km of high water for sections of exposed coast. Assessment Lake Cathie (55%), Limeburners Creek (35%) and the Macleay (55%), Maria (Hastings 59%) Hunter (57%), Manning (46%) and Myall Rivers (46%) had the highest percentages of high risk or disturbed acid sulphate soils within 1 km. Smiths Lake and Korogoro, Unamed and Khappinghat Creeks had less than 10% acid sulphate soils within 1 km (Fig. 46a). Manning- Khappinghat, Camden Haven-Manning and Macleay-Hastings had the highest percentages of high risk or disturbed acid sulphate soils within 1 km of the coast (Fig. 42c). 104

113 ARCCD Australian River and Catchment Condition Database Data source Australian Rivers and Catchment Condition Database (ARCCD) produced by the Australian Heritage Commission. Reference Stein et al. (2000) The Identification of Wild Rivers: Methodology and database development. Australian Heritage Commission. Data description GIS grids with a cell size of 250m for seven catchment and flow disturbance indices calculated from a wide range of distance weighted topographic features (e.g. land use, roads, mines, weirs, vegetation). (Fig. 45-Fig. 49). Criteria Naturalness (condition), vulnerability. Assessment measure Grid values were averaged for each estuarine subcatchment and for lands within 5 km of each section of exposed coast. Assessment for estuaries Mean total river disturbance (Fig. 46b): was highest for Hunter and Macleay Rivers and Limeburners Creek and lowest for the Maria River, Camden Haven, Khappinghat, Wallis Lake, Myall Lakes, and the Myall River. Mean Catchment disturbance (Fig. 46 c): was highest for Nambucca, Macleay, Manning and Hunter Rivers; and was lowest for Maria River, Camden Haven, Khappinghat, Myall Lakes and the Myall River. Mean flow disturbance(fig. 46d): was highest for Hunter and Macleay Rivers and Limeburners Creek; and was lowest for Camden Haven, Khappinghat Creek, Wallis Lake, Smiths Lake, Myall Lakes and Myall River. Mean settlement factor (Fig. 47a): was highest for the Hunter, Hastings and Manning Rivers and Lake Cathie; and low for most other estuaries. Mean land use factor (Fig. 47b): was highest for the Macleay, Manning, Hunter, Nambucca and Hastings Rivers; and was lowest for Limeburners Creek. Mean infrastructure factor (Fig. 47c); was highest for the Hunter, Macleay and Hastings Rivers; and was lowest for the Maria River, Limeburners Creek, Wallis Lake, Smiths Lake, Myall Lakes, Myall River and Port Stephens. Mean extractive industry/pollution point source factor (Fig. 47d); was highest for the Nambucca and Hunter rivers; and was lowest for the Maria River, Limeburners Creek, Camden Haven, Manning River, and Khappinghat Creek. 105

114 Nambucca Heads South West Rocks Crescent Head Port Macquarie Harrington Forster-Tuncurry Sugarloaf Point Nelson Bay River disturbance index Newcastle N Australian River and Catchment Condition index derived from measures of river flow alteration, land use, settlement, infrastructure, pollution and extractive industry Km PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 W S E Data provided by Wilderness and Wild Rivers Section, Environment Australia. This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions Fig. 45. Australian River and Catchment Condition index for the Manning Shelf Bioregion. 106

115 Fig. a. Percent of adjacent land with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils Fig. b. Mean total river disturbance index % area within 1km of waterway 0-10 % % % % % Mean index for subcatchment N 0 20 Km Fig. c. Mean catchment disturbance index Fig. d. Mean river flow disturbance index Mean index for sucatchment Mean index for subcatchment Fig. 46a-d. Percentage of land within 1km of estuaries with disturbed or high risk acid sulphate soils; and mean Australian River and Catchment Condition indices for estuarine subcatchments. (Derived from data provided by DLWC and the Australian Heritage Commission). 107

116 Fig. a. Mean settlement factor Fig. b. Mean land use factor Mean index for subcatchment Mean index for subcatchment N 0 20 Km Fig. c. Mean infrastucture factor Fig. d. Mean extractive industry / pollution point source factor Mean index for subcatchment Mean index for subcatchment Fig. 47a-d. Australian River and Catchment Condition indices for estuarine subcatchments (cont. Derived from data provided by Australian Heritage Commission). 108

117 Mean disturbance index Nambucca R. to a. Mean river disturbance index within 5km of ocean coast. Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Mean disturbance index b. Mean catchment disturbance index for land within 5km of coast. Nambucca R. to Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Mean settlement factor c. Mean settlement factor for land within 5km of ocean coast. Nambucca R. to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Hunter R. Fig. 48a-c. Mean catchment and river condition measures for land within 5 km of ocean coast. (Derived from data provided by the Australian Heritage Commission). 109

118 Mean disturbance index a. Mean land use disturbance factor within 5km of ocean coast. Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Mean disturbance index Nambucca R. to b. Mean extractive industry/point source pollution factor within 5km of ocean coast. Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Mean settlement factor c. Mean infrastucture factor for land within 5km of ocean coast. Nambucca R. to Hastings R. to Killick Ck. to Korogoro Ck. to Macleay R. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Hunter R. Fig. 49a-d. Mean river and catchment condition measures for land within 5km of ocean coast. (Derived from data provided by the Australian Heritage Commission). 110

119 Assessment for exposed coast Mean total river disturbance (Fig. 48a): was highest for Stockton Beach-Hunter River, Port Stephens-Stockton Beach; and lowest for L.Cathie-Camden Haven and Wallis L.-Port Stephens. Mean catchment disturbance (Fig. 48b): was highest for Stockton Beach-Hunter River, Port Stephens-Stockton Beach, Hastings-L.Cathie; and was lowest for Killick-Hastings, L.Cathie- Manning and Wallis-Port Stephens. Mean settlement factor (Fig. 48c): was highest for Hastings-L. Cathie and Stockton-Hunter River; and was low for all other sections. Mean land use factor (Fig. 49a): was highest for Stockton Beach-Hunter River, Manning-Khappinghat Creek and Korogoro-Killick Creek; and was lowest for Killick-Hastings, and Wallis L. Myall L. Mean extractive industry/pollution point source factor (Fig. 49b); was highest for Port Stephens-Stockton Beach; and was lowest for Killick-Hastings, Manning-Khappinghat and Wallis L. -Smiths Lake. Mean infrastructure factor (Fig. 49c); was highest for Hastings-L.Cathie and Stockton Beach-Hunter River; and was lowest for Killick-Hastings and Wallis L.-Port Stephens. 111

120 5.4 Irreplaceability analysis for ecosystem and habitat units Irreplaceability is a measure designed to estimate the likelihood of a site being required to meet a conservation target or, the extent to which conservation options are reduced if that site is unavailable. Conservation targets are usually defined as areas, numbers or proportions for a range of different habitats, species or other features. Fig. 50 shows site irreplaceability calculated for fine-scale planning units and a hypothetical goal of 20% of the area of all ecosystem (estuary types and ocean depth zones) and habitat features (seagrass, mangrove, saltmarsh, rocky intertidal, beach, reef, island). Site irreplaceability ranges between zero and one, where a value of one means the site must be included if targets are to be met. In Fig. 50, irreplaceability for most sites is less than 0.6 and there are no sites where irreplaceability equals one. This indicates that many of the sites could substitute for each other in a reserve system and still meet goals for the above features. For the selection process, this degree of flexibility means that other criteria for reserve design, community and species data, and social, economic and cultural issues might be used to assist in selecting reserves that meet a range of different criteria. Summed irreplaceability is calculated by adding the feature irreplaceabilities for all the features in a site. High values indicate that a site is important for achieving conservation goals for many different features. Fig. 51 shows summed irreplaceability for the same data, plan units and hypothetical goal, ranked by percentile - indicating those sites more likely to contribute to targets for more than one habitat or ecosystem. Fig. 52 and Fig. 53 and show summed irreplaceability for estuaries and sections of exposed coast and ocean calculated for a hypothetical representation of 20% of mapped ecosystems and habitat units. High values for summed irreplaceability do not necessarily imply that a site is required to meet a goal, only that it is likely to contribute to more than one feature target. Myall L. and Port Stephens scored the highest summed irreplaceability for estuarine ecosystems (Fig. 52a) as they represent the only examples of their type in the bioregion. Wallis Lake and Port Stephens scored highest for representation of estuarine habitats (seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh; Fig. 52b). Summed irreplaceability measured across all estuarine ecosystem and habitat features was highest for Port Stephens, Wallis Lake, and Myall Lakes (Fig. 52c). Summed irreplaceability for 20% representation of ocean ecosystems (depth zones) was similar for most sections of exposed coast and ocean but highest for Myall L.-Port Stephens, Camden Haven-Manning R. and Port Stephens Stockton Beach (Fig. 53a). Summed irreplaceability for 20% representation of ocean habitats (rocky intertidal, beach, island and reef) was highest for Port Stephens-Stockton Beach and Myall L.-Port Stephens (Fig. 53b) and these sections also scored highest for summed irreplaceability measured for all ocean ecosystems and habitats combined (Fig. 53c). For the broad-scale planning units, irreplaceability provided a convenient index to summarise patterns among a relatively small number of sites and features. However, the measure can also be used in the context of interactive reserve design where alternatives can be more fully evaluated with experience from managers, scientists and key stakeholders. In these instances use of the small scale planning units may be more appropriate. 112

121 (CPLAN provided by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service) Snap shot of CPLAN scenario modelling software for trial reserve selection in ArcView GIS. Coloured display indicates SITE irreplaceability values for a hypothetical 20% goal of all mapped ecosystem and habitat units. For presentation purposes the display depicts just one particular example of output from the analysis. Ideally the method is used interactively to examine a range of scenarios and alternative reserve system designs. Trial Reserve Selection Scenario Initial Reserve Initial Excluded Negotiated Reserve Mandatory Reserve Partial Reserve Excluded Map Flagged Site Irreplaceability 1 (Totally Irreplaceable) >0.8 - <1 > > > >0-0.2 IRREPL = Kilometers PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions Fig. 50. Site irreplaceability of fine-scale planning units for ecosystem and habitat units. W N S E 113

122 (CPLAN provided by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.) Snap shot of CPLAN scenario modelling software for trial reserve selection in ArcView GIS. Coloured display indicates ranked SUMMED irreplaceability values for a hypothetical 20% goal of all mapped ecosystem and habitat units. For presentation purposes the display depicts just one particular example of output from the analysis. Ideally the method is used to examine a range of scenarios in conjunction with other sources of information and interpretation. Trial Reserve Selection Scenario Initial Reserve Initial Excluded Negotiated Reserve Mandatory Reserve Partial Reserve Excluded Map Flagged Summed Irrep. (Ranked) >99-100% (Top 1%) >95-99% (Next 4%) >80-95% (Next 15%) >50-80% (Next 30%) >0-50% (Lowest 50%) SUMIRR = Kilometers PROJECTION : AMG zone 56 This map is not guaranteed to be free from error or omission. The NSW Marine Parks Authority and its employees disclaim liability for any act done on the information in the map and any consequences of such acts or omissions. Fig. 51. Summed irreplaceability of fine-scale planning units for ecosystem and habitat units. W N S E 114

123 Summed irreplaceabilityu index a. Summed irreplaceability for estuarine ecosystems (wave and tide dominated, intermittent and brackish) L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R.-... Nambucca R. Hunter R. P. Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat... Manning R. Camden Haven Summed irreplaceability index b. Summed irreplaceability for estuarine habitats (mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh) Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R.-Korogoro Ck. Nambucca R. Hunter R. P. Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Summed irreplaceability index Hunter R. P. Stephens Myall R. Myall L. Smiths L. Wallis L. Khappinghat Ck. Manning R. Camden Haven L. Cathie Hastings R. Unamed Ck. Killick Ck. Macleay R.-Korogoro Ck. Nambucca R. c. Summed irreplaceability for combined estuarine ecosystems and habitats Fig. 52a-c. Summed irreplaceability for broad-scale estuarine planning units. Indices indicate the likelihood of an estuarine plan unit being required in a system of MPAs that meets the hypothetical goal of 20% representation of each estuarine ecosystem and habitat (values estimated using C-Plan reserve selection software provided by the NPWS). 115

124 Summed irreplaceabilityu index Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck to Korogoro Ck to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to a. Summed irreplaceability for ocean ecosystems (0-20m, 20-60m, m, >200m depth) Summed irreplaceability index Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck to Korogoro Ck to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to b. Summed irreplaceability for ocean habitats (reefs, islands, rocky intertidal beach) Summed irreplaceability index Hunter R. Stockton B. to P. Stephens to Myall L. to Smiths L. to Wallis L. to Khappinghat Ck. to Manning R. to Camden Haven to L.Cathie to Hastings R. to Killick Ck to Korogoro Ck to Macleay R. to Nambucca R. to c. Summed irreplaceability for combined ocean ecosystems and habitats Fig. 53a-c. Summed irreplaceability of broad-scale sections of exposed coast and ocean. Indices indicate the likelihood of a section of coast being required to meet a hypothetical goal of 20% representation of each ocean environment and habitat (values estimated using C-Plan, reserve selection software provided by NPWS). 116

125 5.5 Multiple criteria decision analysis Assessment measures for broad-scale planning units are summarised in Tables The dots summarise scores on each assessment measure with the more dots reflecting greater suitability for candidate MPAs. Fig. 54a summarises overall comprehensiveness and representativeness of estuary units as a function of these measures in multiple criteria decision trees built in Criterium Decision Plus 3.0. The equally weighted sub-criteria Ecosystems, Habitats, Communities and Species contribute to the main goals, while subsequent levels of criteria are linked to actual assessment scores for each broad-scale planning unit. Planning units are listed on the right hand side with their overall score against the main goal, calculated as a function of scores for each assessment measure and the relative weights assigned at each level in the tree. In this particular tree, adequacy and human use are weighted to zero and have no influence. The resulting scores in achieving the main goal are ranked from highest to lowest in Fig. 54b. Under these measures and equal weightings for criteria, Port Stephens, Hunter River and Wallis Lake score highest but this could change markedly if, for example, bird related measures were given less weight (e.g. scores for the Hunter would probably decrease). Modelling adequacy as a function of disturbance, protection and various qualitative conservation and condition values in Fig. 55a and Fig. 55b ranks Limeburners Creek, Unamed Creek, and the Myall River as the most appropriate candidate sites for those criteria. In Fig. 56a comprehensiveness for sections of coast and ocean is expressed in terms of area of ecosystems and habitats and representativeness in terms of a range of quantitative and qualitative measures. In this instance, the Myall L.-Port Stephens section of coast, followed by Wallis-Smiths L. and the Port Stephens-Stockton Beach sections best meet identification criteria for comprehensiveness and representativeness - at least in terms of representing more area of these particular ecosystems, habitats, communities and species (Fig. 56b). Fig. 57a models adequacy as a function of vulnerability to external threats (negatively weighted) and protection by various forms of conservation management. In this case (Fig. 57b), the Killick-Hastings R., Smiths-Myall L. and Camden Haven-Manning R. score highest against the overall goal for adequacy. In addition to these few basic scenarios a range of what if situations can be explored using different models, data inputs, and priorities for alternative opinions and differences in data reliability. One benefit of this modelling is to test how sensitive a given outcome may be to adding, removing, or changing the relative influence (weight) of measures. For example a potential MPA site that consistently scores high regardless of how traditionally conflicting criteria are weighted may represent a possible compromise. Such a situation may not always occur, but the method provides a way to simultaneously assess data from a wide range of formats while explicitly documenting what information, rules and priorities were used to reach a decision. The full value of this technique may come in interpreting choices when subjective priorities, ecological criteria, economics and other less tangible values are assessed. 117

126 Comprehensive Representative Suitability for MPA Low Medium Nambucca R. - Warrell Ck Macleay R. Macleay Arm - SW Rocks Ck - Saltwater Ck - Korogoro Ck Killick Ck Unamed Ck. Hastings R. High Wave dominated estuary Tide dominated estuary Intermittent creeks & lagoons Brackish barrier lake Ecosystem irreplaceability Mangrove habitat Seagrass habitat Saltmarsh habitat Habitat irreplaceability Summed irreplaceability No. juvenile fish spp. Juvenile fish irreplaceability No. commercial fish spp. Com. fish irreplaceability Threatened and JAMBA/CAMBA bird habitat Other important bird habitat Bird spp. irreplaceability Threatened species NPWS irreplaceability Threatened species NSW Fisheries Threatened Little Tern Significant bird sites (EA) RAMSAR w etlands Important w etlands - NPWS Table 15. Summary measures assessing estuarine plan units for comprehensiveness and representativeness. - Limeburners Ck - Maria R. L. Cathie/Innes Camden Haven - Queens L. -Watson Taylors L. Manning R. Khappinghat Ck. Wallis L. Smiths L. Myall L. Myall R. Karuah R. Port Stephens Hunter R. 118

127 Condition, Threat, Vulnerability and Conservation value Suitability for MPA Low Medium Nambucca R. - Warrell Ck Macleay R. Macleay Arm - SW Rocks Ck - Saltwater Ck - Korogoro Ck Killick Ck Unamed Ck. Hastings R. High Coastal lakes inquiry - Natural sensitivity????? - Catchment condition??? - Lake condition?????? - Conservation value?????? - Potential to improve? - Management orientation Bell and Edwards (1980) - Shore & water - Catchment Australian Estuaries Database - Conservation value - Conservation threat - Fisheries value - Fisheries threat - Ecological status - Water quality % NPWS estate within 1km % State forest within 1km % SEPP14 within 1km % Wilderness within 1km % Urban areas within 1km % Acid sulphate soils 1km Land capability- Culitvation Land Capability- Grazing Land Capability- Forest ARCCD - River disturb - Catchment disturb - Flow disturbance - Settlement - Land use - Infrastructure - Point source/extractive Table 16. Summary measures assessing estuarine plan units for adequacy. - Limeburners Ck - Maria R. L. Cathie/Innes Camden Haven - Queens L. -Watson Taylors L. Manning R. Khappinghat Ck. Wallis L. Smiths L. Myall L. Myall R. Karuah R. Port Stephens Hunter R. 119

128 Suitability for MPA Low Medium High Coastal, depths 0-20m within 3nm Offshore depths 20-60m within 3nm Shelf depths m within 3nm Oceanic depths > 200m within 3nm Summed irreplaceability - ocean ecosystems Area within 100m of Islands Area of subtidal reef Area of intertidal rocky shore Area of intertidal beach Length of intertidal rocky shore Length of beach Summed irreplaceability - ocean habitats Summed irreplaceability - ecosystems + habitats Area around Islands < 1km offshore Area around Islands > 1km offshore Area around reefs > 1km offshore Area around reefs < 1km offshore Area of platform intertidal shore Area of boulder intertidal shore Area of intermediate beach Area of reflective beach No. rocky intertidal with 5 sub habitats* No. rocky intertidal recommendedby TEC (1995) Intertidal recommended by National Trust (1982) Nambucca R. to Macleay R. to Korogoro Ck. to Killick Ck. to Hastings R. to L.Cathie to Camden Haven to Manning R. to Khappinghat Ck. to Wallis L to Smiths L. to Myall L. to Port Stephens to Stockton B. to Hunter R. Table 17. Summary measures assessing ocean plan units for comprehensiveness and representativeness. Comprehensive Representative 120

129 Suitability for MPA Low Medium High Nambucca R. to Macleay R. to Korogoro Ck. to Threatened Grey Nurse Shark sites Threatened Little Tern Threatened Gould' s Petrel RAMSAR areas Directory of Important w etlands (NPWS) Significant seabird breeding islands Bird habitat- JAMBA/CAMBA & threatened Bird habitat- other spp. No. bird species Irreplaceability bird species No. threatened bird, mammal, reptile species sights No. threatened shark and fish species sights No. species - commercial fish, port of landing Irreplaceability - commercial fish species Total catch ocean ports ' 96/' 97 % NPWS reserve w ithin 1km % SEPP14 w ithin 1km % SEPP26 w ithin 1km % Wilderness w ithin 1km % Urban area with 1km % High risk acid sulphate w ithin 1km % Land capability- Cultivation w ithin 1km % Land capability - Grazing w ithin 1km % Land capability - Forest w ithin 1km Mean ARCCD river disturbance w ithin 5km Mean catchment disturbance w ithin 5km Mean settlement factor w ithin 5km Mean land use factor w ithin 5km Mean extractive industry/pollution source w ithin 5km Mean infrastucture factor w ithin 5km Table 18. Summary measures assessing ocean plan units for adequacy. Representative Condition, threat and vulnerability Killick Ck. to Hastings R. to L.Cathie to Camden Haven to Manning R. to Khappinghat Ck. to Wallis L to Smiths L. to Myall L. to Port Stephens to Stockton B. to Hunter R. 121

130 Values to the left of criteria are cumulative weights, values to the left of alternative locations are decision scores calculated from the relative weights and data scores for those areas. Here, comprehensiveness and representativeness of estuarine plan units were prioritised equally with adequacy and human use set temporarily to zero. Fig. 54 a & b. Multiple criteria decision scores of estuaries assessed for comprehensiveness and representativeness. 122

131 Values to the left of criteria are cumulative weights, values to the left of alternative locations are decision scores calculated from relative weights and data scores for those areas. Multiple criteria were equally weighted to represent adequacy for estuarine planning units. Fig. 55a & b. Multiple criteria decision scores of estuaries assessed for adequacy. 123

132 Values to the left of criteria are cumulative weights, values to the left of alternative locations are decision scores calculated from relative weights and data scores for those areas. Priority weightings can be manipulated to reflect variation in conservation priorities and data reliability. Here, comprehensiveness and representativeness were equally weighted, with priority for adequacy and human use criteria temporarily set to zero. Fig. 56a & b. Multiple criteria decision model and ranked scores for ocean plan units assessed for comprehensiveness and representativeness. 124

133 Values to the left of criteria are cumulative weights, values to the left of alternative locations are decision scores calculated from relative weights and data scores for those areas. Multiple criteria were equally weighted to represent adequacy for ocean planning units. Fig. 57a & b. Multiple criteria decision scores for ocean plan units assessed for adequacy. 125

Twelve Apostles Marine National Park Australia

Twelve Apostles Marine National Park Australia EVALUATION REPORT Twelve Apostles Marine National Park Australia Location: Victoria, Australia coastal waters Global Ocean Refuge Status: Nominated (2017), Evaluated (2017) MPAtlas.org ID: 7703885 Manager(s):

More information

What is an Marine Protected Area?

What is an Marine Protected Area? Policies, Issues, and Implications of Marine Protected Areas Kara Anlauf University of Idaho Before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans April 29, 2003 What is an Marine

More information

Case Study: 1. The Clarence River Catchment

Case Study: 1. The Clarence River Catchment Case Study: 1. The Clarence River Catchment The NSW coastline is a great natural asset, making an enormous contribution to the economy. The resources of coastal catchments such as the Clarence River Catchment,

More information

Virginian Atlantic (Ecoregion 8)

Virginian Atlantic (Ecoregion 8) Virginian Atlantic (Ecoregion 8) Background The Virginian Atlantic Ecoregion extends from the south side of Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. The waters of the ecoregion are a mix of cold and

More information

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN COIBA NATIONAL PARK PANAMA

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN COIBA NATIONAL PARK PANAMA LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN COIBA NATIONAL PARK PANAMA WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION COIBA NATIONAL PARK (PANAMA) ID Nº 1138 Bis Background note: Coiba National Park was nominated for

More information

Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific (Ecoregion 22)

Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific (Ecoregion 22) Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific (Ecoregion 22) Background The Alaskan/Fjordland Pacific Ecoregion is an area of abundant marine resources. The ecoregion begins at Vancouver Island and moves up the Gulf of Alaska

More information

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MARINE AND COASTAL HABITATS ASIA- PACIFIC DAY FOR THE OCEAN

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MARINE AND COASTAL HABITATS ASIA- PACIFIC DAY FOR THE OCEAN TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MARINE AND COASTAL HABITATS WANNAKIAT THUBTHIMSANG PHUKET MARINE BIOLOGICAL CENTER, DMCR, THAILAND ASIA- PACIFIC DAY FOR THE OCEAN 20 NOVEMBER 2018, CONFERENCE ROOM 4,

More information

photos Department of Environment and Conservation Biodiversity Conservation

photos Department of Environment and Conservation Biodiversity Conservation photos Department of Environment and Conservation Biodiversity Conservation EcoEducation - making the connections to biodiversity conservation Do you consider experiential learning of biodiversity in the

More information

Conservation Partners for the National Reserve System Program: a Western NSW focus

Conservation Partners for the National Reserve System Program: a Western NSW focus Conservation Partners for the National Reserve System Program: a Western NSW focus Cooper, N. 1, Webber, L. 2, Nicolson, K. 3 1 Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, PO Box 788 Broken

More information

Title/Name of the area: Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar

Title/Name of the area: Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar Title/Name of the area: Chwaka Bay, Zanzibar Presented by: Dr. Charles Lugomela, Ag. Head, Department of Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35064 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

More information

Biodiversity and Protected Areas-- Ukraine

Biodiversity and Protected Areas-- Ukraine Biodiversity and Protected Areas-- Ukraine EarthTrends Country Profiles Ukraine Europe World Total Land Area (000 ha) 60,370 2,301,873 13,328,979 Protected Areas Extent of Protected Areas by IUCN Category

More information

Sizing up Australia s eastern Grey Nurse Shark population

Sizing up Australia s eastern Grey Nurse Shark population Image: David Harasti A new estimate of adult population size for Australia s eastern Grey Nurse Shark drew on widespread genetic sampling and forensic exploration of family trees. Grey Nurse Sharks are

More information

Biosphere Reserves of India : Complete Study Notes

Biosphere Reserves of India : Complete Study Notes Biosphere Reserves of India : Complete Study Notes Author : Oliveboard Date : April 7, 2017 Biosphere reserves of India form an important topic for the UPSC CSE preparation. This blog post covers all important

More information

VARGAS ISLAND PROVINCIAL PARK

VARGAS ISLAND PROVINCIAL PARK VARGAS ISLAND PROVINCIAL PARK PURPOSE STATEMENT AND ZONING PLAN February 2003 VARGAS ISLAND PROVINCIAL PARK Purpose Statement and Zoning Plan Primary Role The primary role of Vargas Island Park is to protect

More information

Access: The rocky shoreline is only accessible via private property.

Access: The rocky shoreline is only accessible via private property. 10. Whale Cove Site description: Whale Cove is a small cove fringed by private homes and condominiums with diverse and relatively undisturbed rocky intertidal and subtidal habitat located approximately

More information

The Regional Coral Reef Task Force and Action plan. 27 th ICRI. Cairns Australia July 2012

The Regional Coral Reef Task Force and Action plan. 27 th ICRI. Cairns Australia July 2012 The Regional Coral Reef Task Force and Action plan 27 th ICRI Cairns Australia July 2012 Western Indian Ocean Region East Africa mainland states Indian Ocean Islands states Biogeographic division of the

More information

How South Africa is making progress towards the Aichi 2020 Target 11

How South Africa is making progress towards the Aichi 2020 Target 11 How South Africa is making progress towards the Aichi 2020 Target 11 Montreal, Canada 2 May 2016 Oceans and Coasts Content Protected area considerations and progress 1994-2010 Terrestrial Protected Area

More information

chapter fifteen New South Wales marine parks

chapter fifteen New South Wales marine parks chapter fifteen New South Wales marine parks Introduction The New South Wales State government manages the marine area generally out to three nautical miles. The New South Wales system of marine protected

More information

Priority Species, Communities, Ecosystems, and Threats

Priority Species, Communities, Ecosystems, and Threats Priority Species, Communities, Ecosystems, and Threats East Gippsland Regional Catchment Strategy 2015/2016 1.0 Objective This document aims to assist in the preparation of project applications for 2015-2016

More information

NARRABEEN LAGOON SUMMIT am Wednesday, 13 April 2005 Warringah Council Chambers, 725 Pittwater Road, Dee Why.

NARRABEEN LAGOON SUMMIT am Wednesday, 13 April 2005 Warringah Council Chambers, 725 Pittwater Road, Dee Why. NARRABEEN LAGOON SUMMIT 9.15 9.30am Wednesday, 13 April 2005 Warringah Council Chambers, 725 Pittwater Road, Dee Why. NSW Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Debus I am very pleased to be here to

More information

SANBI PLANNING FORUM

SANBI PLANNING FORUM SANBI PLANNING FORUM SPATIAL PLANNING IN PROTECTED AREAS AND THEIR BUFFERS (South Africa) Ms Jayshree Govender, Dr Mike Knight and Mr Russell Smart 22 June 2017 OUTLINE 1) Introduction 2) Protected areas

More information

Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet

Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet Name: Doubtless Bay Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet Summary: The reef systems of Doubtless Bay and adjoining reef edges of soft bottom habitat score as a high ranking ecological area.

More information

Land Management Summary

Land Management Summary photo credit: ANGAIR Anglesea Heath Land Management Summary The Anglesea Heath (6,501 ha) was incorporated into the Great Otway National Park in January 2018. This provides an opportunity to consider the

More information

Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage. Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage

Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage. Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage NEFA BACKGROUND PAPER Assessing and Protecting the World s Heritage Prepared by: Dailan Pugh, 2014 With the NSW opposition parties threatening to open up the

More information

A GUIDE TO MANITOBA PROTECTED AREAS & LANDS PROTECTION

A GUIDE TO MANITOBA PROTECTED AREAS & LANDS PROTECTION A GUIDE TO MANITOBA PROTECTED AREAS & LANDS PROTECTION Manitoba Wildands December 2008 Discussions about the establishment of protected lands need to be clear about the definition of protection. We will

More information

REGIONAL AGREEMENT AND FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE MAMMALS CONSERVATION IN THE WCR: THE SPAW PROTOCOL AND THE MARINE MAMMAL ACTION PLAN

REGIONAL AGREEMENT AND FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE MAMMALS CONSERVATION IN THE WCR: THE SPAW PROTOCOL AND THE MARINE MAMMAL ACTION PLAN REGIONAL AGREEMENT AND FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE MAMMALS CONSERVATION IN THE WCR: THE SPAW PROTOCOL AND THE MARINE MAMMAL ACTION PLAN ALESSANDRA VANZELLA-KHOURI SPAW Programme Officer United Nations Environment

More information

Order of the Minister of Environment #39, August 22, 2011 Tbilisi

Order of the Minister of Environment #39, August 22, 2011 Tbilisi Registration Code 360050000.22.023.016080 Order of the Minister of Environment #39, August 22, 2011 Tbilisi On preparatory stages and procedure of the methodology for Elaborating structure, content and

More information

Submission to NSW Koala Strategy Consultation Process. March 2017

Submission to NSW Koala Strategy Consultation Process. March 2017 Submission to NSW Koala Strategy Consultation Process March 2017 Table of contents Opening 3 Response 3 Whole-of-government NSW koala strategy 3 State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) 44 3 The draft

More information

Criteria for the selection of marine and coastal protected areas. Note by the Executive Secretary I. INTRODUCTION

Criteria for the selection of marine and coastal protected areas. Note by the Executive Secretary I. INTRODUCTION CBD CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Distr. GENERAL UNEP/CBD/COP/5/INF/8 20 April 2000 ENGLISH ONLY CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Fifth meeting Nairobi, 15-26 May

More information

Proposed National Marine Conservation Area Reserve Southern Strait of Georgia PROJECT UPDATE Spring 2012

Proposed National Marine Conservation Area Reserve Southern Strait of Georgia PROJECT UPDATE Spring 2012 Proposed National Marine Conservation Area Reserve Southern Strait of Georgia PROJECT UPDATE Spring 2012 National marine conservation areas (NMCAs) are established to protect, conserve and present examples

More information

Use of Wetlands for Sustainable Tourism Management

Use of Wetlands for Sustainable Tourism Management Use of Wetlands for Sustainable Tourism Management Christine Lim a and Michael McAleer b a School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Griffith University (christine.lim@mailbox.gu.edu.au) b Department of

More information

Protection of Ulcinj Saline

Protection of Ulcinj Saline Strasbourg, 25 March 2015 T-PVS/Files (2015) 21 [files21e_2015.docx] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 35 th meeting Strasbourg, 1-4 December 2015

More information

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia EVALUATION REPORT Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia Location: South Pacific Global Ocean Refuge Status: Nominated (2017), Evaluated (2017) MPAtlas.org ID: 3803 Manager(s): Nancy Murillo Bohórquez

More information

NCC SUBMISSION ON EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECT: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 44 KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION

NCC SUBMISSION ON EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECT: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO 44 KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION Director, Planning Frameworks NSW Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 16 December 2016 NCC SUBMISSION ON EXPLANATION OF INTENDED EFFECT: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY

More information

INFORMATION NOTICE 15-2 Limited & Excluded Lands

INFORMATION NOTICE 15-2 Limited & Excluded Lands INFORMATION NOTICE 15-2 Limited & Excluded Lands Schedule 1 (Land Description) of onshore petroleum Agreements issued by the Department of Energy details the total hectares calculated. Total hectares are

More information

The Harwood Marine Precinct proposal More bad news for the environment

The Harwood Marine Precinct proposal More bad news for the environment The Harwood Marine Precinct proposal More bad news for the environment The Clarence Environment Centre has recently been alerted to a rezoning application to the Department of Planning through the Gateway

More information

Protected Areas & Ecotourism

Protected Areas & Ecotourism Protected Areas & Ecotourism IUCN Best Practice Guidelines, tools & protected area/ecotourism highlights from around the world Kathy Zischka, Director Annual General Meeting Australian 2 November Committee

More information

Michipicoten Island Regional Plan

Michipicoten Island Regional Plan Michipicoten Island Regional Plan This is one of twenty Regional Plans that support implementation of the Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (Strategy). The Strategy, prepared and overseen

More information

Recreational Carrying Capacity

Recreational Carrying Capacity 9 th Annual Caribbean Sustainable Tourism Conference Recreational Carrying Capacity Graham C Barrow What is Recreational Carrying Capacity? It s not about fixing absolute numbers of visitors/tourists that

More information

Global Sustainable Tourism Destinations Criteria

Global Sustainable Tourism Destinations Criteria Global Sustainable Tourism Destinations Criteria Draft destination level Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria as proposed after Destinations and International Standards joint working group meeting and follow-up

More information

ECORREGIONAL ASSESSMENT: EASTERN CORDILLERA REAL ORIENTAL PARAMOS AND MONTANE FORESTS

ECORREGIONAL ASSESSMENT: EASTERN CORDILLERA REAL ORIENTAL PARAMOS AND MONTANE FORESTS ECORREGIONAL ASSESSMENT: EASTERN CORDILLERA REAL ORIENTAL PARAMOS AND MONTANE FORESTS The Nature Conservancy, EcoCiencia y Fundación AGUA. 2005. Evaluación Ecorregional de los Páramos y Bosques Montanos

More information

Hauraki Maori Trust Board STRATEGIC PLAN

Hauraki Maori Trust Board STRATEGIC PLAN Hauraki Maori Trust Board STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE CUSTOMARY FISHERIES OF HAURAKI 2002-2052 1 This strategic planning document was developed for and approved by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board on 12 February

More information

Status of Mangroves in Belize

Status of Mangroves in Belize Status of Mangroves in Belize State of the Coastal zone Summit June 7 th 2012 Nadia Bood*, Emil Cherrington and Tim Smith Outline Introduction to mangroves Importance of mangrove to Belize National status

More information

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS LESSON PLAN Water Parks

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS LESSON PLAN Water Parks Marine Protected Areas U. S. Marine Protected Areas Lesson Plan MARINE PROTECTED AREAS LESSON PLAN Water Parks Theme U.S. Marine Protected Areas Links to Overview Essays and Resources Needed for Student

More information

4) Data sources and reporting ) References at the international level... 5

4) Data sources and reporting ) References at the international level... 5 D- 1: Protected areas (PA) 1) General description... 2 1.1) Brief definition... 2 1.2) Units of measurement... 2 1.3) Context...2 2) Relevance for environmental policy... 2 2.1) Purpose... 2 2.2) Issue...

More information

TRANSATLANTIC PLATFORM FOR ACTION ON THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (T-PAGE) 1. Background Paper on US Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

TRANSATLANTIC PLATFORM FOR ACTION ON THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (T-PAGE) 1. Background Paper on US Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) TRANSATLANTIC PLATFORM FOR ACTION ON THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (T-PAGE) 1 Background Paper on US Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) June 2007 Authors: Melanie Nakagawa, Attorney, International Program Kate Wing,

More information

Draft LAW. ON SOME AMENDAMENTS IN THE LAW No.9587, DATED ON THE PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AS AMENDED. Draft 2. Version 1.

Draft LAW. ON SOME AMENDAMENTS IN THE LAW No.9587, DATED ON THE PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AS AMENDED. Draft 2. Version 1. Technical Assistance for Strengthening the Capacity of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration in Albania for Law Drafting and Enforcement of National Environmental Legislation A

More information

Bon Portage Island Conservation Campaign

Bon Portage Island Conservation Campaign Bon Portage Island Conservation Campaign Protecting a Coastal Treasure Final Report to Nova Scotia Habitat Conservation Fund September 2012 Protection of Bon Portage Island Over the course of this two-year

More information

Bazaruto Archipelago National Park-Mozambique. Mozambique. Workshop on MPAs- Is MPAs a useful tool In Fisheries management?

Bazaruto Archipelago National Park-Mozambique. Mozambique. Workshop on MPAs- Is MPAs a useful tool In Fisheries management? Bazaruto Archipelago National Park-Mozambique Workshop on MPAs- Is MPAs a useful tool In Fisheries management? Norway ; 24-25 25 October 2006 By Paula Santana Afonso Institute for Fisheries Research Mozambique

More information

Project Manager, Cairns Airport Land Use Plan Submissions Cairns Airport Pty Ltd PO Box 57 Airport Administration Centre Cairns Airport, QLD, 4870

Project Manager, Cairns Airport Land Use Plan Submissions Cairns Airport Pty Ltd PO Box 57 Airport Administration Centre Cairns Airport, QLD, 4870 Project Manager, Cairns Airport Land Use Plan Submissions Cairns Airport Pty Ltd PO Box 57 Airport Administration Centre Cairns Airport, QLD, 4870 Dear Madam/Sir, The Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

More information

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park Philippines

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park Philippines EVALUATION REPORT Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park Philippines Location: Cagayancillo, Palawan, Philippines; Sulu Sea, Pacific Ocean Global Ocean Refuge Status: Nominated (2017), Evaluated (2017) MPAtlas.org

More information

Greens NSW National Parks and Wilderness Policy

Greens NSW National Parks and Wilderness Policy Greens NSW National Parks and Wilderness Policy Revised May 2014 Note: Annex A (as shown in this policy) is in the process of being developed and crossreferenced to the Wetlands and Marine policies. The

More information

BABIA GÓRA DECLARATION ON SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MOUNTAIN AREAS

BABIA GÓRA DECLARATION ON SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MOUNTAIN AREAS BABIA GÓRA DECLARATION ON SUSTAINABLE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN MOUNTAIN AREAS The participants of the International Workshop for CEE Countries Tourism in Mountain Areas and the Convention on Biological Diversity",

More information

Spatial Distribution and Characteristics of At-Risk Species in the Southeast U.S.

Spatial Distribution and Characteristics of At-Risk Species in the Southeast U.S. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Scoping Document Part 2 Exploratory Analysis of Characteristics and Trends of At-Risk Species in the Southeast U.S. Spatial Distribution and Characteristics

More information

Terrestrial Protected Area Nomination: Central Mangrove Wetland South-West, Grand Cayman

Terrestrial Protected Area Nomination: Central Mangrove Wetland South-West, Grand Cayman Terrestrial Protected Area Nomination: Central Mangrove Wetland South-West, Grand Cayman The attached nomination, proposing that a parcel of land in the Central Mangrove Wetland be made a Protected Area

More information

PROUDLY BRINGING YOU CANADA AT ITS BEST. Management Planning Program NEWSLETTER #1 OCTOBER, 2000

PROUDLY BRINGING YOU CANADA AT ITS BEST. Management Planning Program NEWSLETTER #1 OCTOBER, 2000 PROUDLY BRINGING YOU CANADA AT ITS BEST VUNTUT NATIONAL PARK Management Planning Program NEWSLETTER #1 OCTOBER, 2000 INTRODUCTION This newsletter launches the development of the first management plan for

More information

The KwaZulu-Natal 2012 Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. Boyd Escott GIS Analyst (Terrestrial) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

The KwaZulu-Natal 2012 Critical Biodiversity Areas Map. Boyd Escott GIS Analyst (Terrestrial) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife The KwaZulu-Natal 2012 Critical Biodiversity Areas Map Boyd Escott GIS Analyst (Terrestrial) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife KZN Systematic Conservation Plan (i) Marine, (ii) Estuarine (iii) Freshwater, and (iv)

More information

MANAGING COASTAL HAZARDS THROUGH BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED SAND AND AN ADAPTIVE WORKS STRATEGY

MANAGING COASTAL HAZARDS THROUGH BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED SAND AND AN ADAPTIVE WORKS STRATEGY MANAGING COASTAL HAZARDS THROUGH BENEFICIAL REUSE OF DREDGED SAND AND AN ADAPTIVE WORKS STRATEGY Isabelle Ghetti 1, B.Morgan 2, R.Massie 1, Gary Blumberg 2 1 Shoalhaven City Council, Nowra, NSW 2 Royal

More information

Appendix F Public authorities responses

Appendix F Public authorities responses Planning Proposal under sec 55 of the EP&A Act LEP Refinements Appendix F Public authorities responses Appendix F Public authorities responses Prior to public exhibition, consultation was made with the

More information

RE: Formal submission in strong support of a marine park with sanctuary zones in the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion.

RE: Formal submission in strong support of a marine park with sanctuary zones in the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion. NSW Marine Estate Management Authority NSW Department of Primary Industries Locked Bag 1 Nelson Bay NSW 2315 By email: submissions@marine.nsw.gov.au 27 September 2018 RE: Formal submission in strong support

More information

SUBMISSION FROM BIG SCRUB LANDCARE ON THE DRAFT NSW BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BILL AND ACCOMPANYING LEGISLATION AND CODES

SUBMISSION FROM BIG SCRUB LANDCARE ON THE DRAFT NSW BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BILL AND ACCOMPANYING LEGISLATION AND CODES TP Draft 23 June 2016 SUBMISSION FROM BIG SCRUB LANDCARE ON THE DRAFT NSW BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BILL AND ACCOMPANYING LEGISLATION AND CODES ABOUT THIS SUBMISSION 1. This submission by Big Scrub Landcare

More information

Toward a National Marine Conservation Area in the Southern Strait of Georgia

Toward a National Marine Conservation Area in the Southern Strait of Georgia Toward a National Marine Conservation Area in the Southern Strait of Georgia Bill Henwood Parks Canada Abstract Parks Canada is committed to creating a system of National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA)

More information

Forms of Natural Protection in Greece

Forms of Natural Protection in Greece Forms of Natural Protection in Greece 105 th Primary School of Thessaloniki NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS The irregular and constantly increasing human intervention in nature and the relentless exploitation

More information

Thematic Report on Mountain Ecosystems. Please provide the following details on the origin of this report. National Focal Point

Thematic Report on Mountain Ecosystems. Please provide the following details on the origin of this report. National Focal Point Thematic Report on Mountain Ecosystems Please provide the following details on the origin of this report. Contracting Party: Australia National Focal Point Full name of the institution: Department of the

More information

An NPS Wetland of International Significance!

An NPS Wetland of International Significance! An NPS Wetland of International Significance! A World Class Tourism Destination Linda Friar Chief of Public Affairs 305-242-7714 Linda_Friar@nps.gov The Everglades - International Recognition as a special

More information

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES

MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES MONTEREY REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TOPICAL QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TOPICAL RESPONSES Recurring topics emerged in some of the comments and questions raised by members of the

More information

Aquatic insect surveys at Mount Magazine State Park and Hobbs State Park Conservation Area with implementation of an educational component

Aquatic insect surveys at Mount Magazine State Park and Hobbs State Park Conservation Area with implementation of an educational component Aquatic insect surveys at Mount Magazine State Park and Hobbs State Park Conservation Area with implementation of an educational component Arkansas is home to a relatively large number of endemic invertebrates

More information

APPENDIX A TERMS OF DESIGNATION

APPENDIX A TERMS OF DESIGNATION 247 248 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT On May 11, 1994 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published the final Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations (59 FR 24586). This official

More information

Chapter 9: National Parks and Protected Areas

Chapter 9: National Parks and Protected Areas Part 9.1 Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve 9.1.1 The area set out in the Map Atlas (shown for illustrative purposes only in schedule 9-A) and described in appendix D-2 shall become a National Park

More information

SANTA-BOCA PROVINCIAL PARK

SANTA-BOCA PROVINCIAL PARK SANTA-BOCA PROVINCIAL PARK PURPOSE STATEMENT AND ZONING PLAN March 2003 SANTA-BOCA PROVINCIAL PARK Purpose Statement and Zoning Plan Primary Role The primary role of Santa-Boca Park is to provide marine-based

More information

Engineering With Nature Geographic Project Mapping Tool (EWN ProMap)

Engineering With Nature Geographic Project Mapping Tool (EWN ProMap) Engineering With Nature Geographic Project Mapping Tool (EWN ProMap) Cynthia Banks Program Manager Burton Suedel, PhD Research Biologist Michelle Bourne Research Biologist U.S. Army ERDC 23 June 2015 Dredging

More information

That Council endorses the attached submission on the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan.

That Council endorses the attached submission on the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan. 4 ORDINARY MEETING 22 OCTOBER 2014 1 REEF 2050 LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY PLAN D Walton 8/24/18-01 #4506842v2 RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorses the attached submission on the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability

More information

WORKSHEET 1 Wilderness Qualities or Attributes Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes

WORKSHEET 1 Wilderness Qualities or Attributes Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes WORKSHEET 1 Wilderness Qualities or Attributes Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes Date: 3/7/2017 Roadless Area: Ruby South Description of Project Activity or Impact to

More information

HUT POINT, ROSS ISLAND

HUT POINT, ROSS ISLAND Measure 2 (2005) Annex K Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 158 HUT POINT, ROSS ISLAND (including Historic Site and Monument No. 18, the historic Discovery hut of Captain R F Scott)

More information

AGREEMENT Between Director of the Białowieża National Park, based in Białowieża (Poland) and Director of the National Park Bialowieża Forest, based in Kamieniuki (Belarus) and Head Forester of the Białowieża

More information

Protected Planet and the World Database on Protected Areas

Protected Planet and the World Database on Protected Areas Protected Planet and the World Database on Protected Areas Brian MacSharry and Marine Deguignet powered by the World Database on Protected Areas UNEP-WCMC UNEP-WCMC is the specialist biodiversity assessment

More information

Tourism and Wetlands

Tourism and Wetlands CONVENTION ON WETLANDS (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) 43 rd Meeting of the Standing Committee Gland, Switzerland, 31 October 4 November 2011 DOC. SC43-27 Tourism and Wetlands Action requested. The Standing Committee

More information

Watchorn Provincial Park. Management Plan

Watchorn Provincial Park. Management Plan Watchorn Provincial Park Management Plan 2 Watchorn Provincial Park Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Park History... 3 3. Park Attributes... 3 3.1 Natural... 4 3.2 Recreational... 4 3.3 Additional

More information

Nicole Auil Gomez, MSc. Manatee By-Catch Pilot Project Holbox, Mexico ~ June 26-28, 2012

Nicole Auil Gomez, MSc. Manatee By-Catch Pilot Project Holbox, Mexico ~ June 26-28, 2012 Nicole Auil Gomez, MSc. National Consultant, Coastal Zone Management Authority & Institute nauilgomez@gmail.com Manatee By-Catch Pilot Project Holbox, Mexico ~ June 26-28, 2012 The Menu Geographic Reference

More information

The Design of Nature Reserves

The Design of Nature Reserves The Design of Nature Reserves Goals Maintenance of MVP s for targeted species Maintenance of intact communities Minimization of disease Considerations of reserve design 1. Disturbance regime Fire Insect

More information

Northern Pacific Sea Star

Northern Pacific Sea Star Northern Pacific Sea Star The Northern Pacific Seastar http://www.marine.csiro.au/leafletsfolder/01npseastar.html Reproduced with permission of Craig Macaulay, CSIRO http://www.marine.csiro.au/leafletsfolder/01npseastar.html

More information

Management of nature and protected areas in Greenland - Efforts in conservation, research and development

Management of nature and protected areas in Greenland - Efforts in conservation, research and development Management of nature and protected areas in Greenland - Efforts in conservation, research and development Martin Schiøtz, The Ministry of Housing, Nature and Environment, Greenland Legal and institutional

More information

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia EVALUATION REPORT Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary Colombia Location: South Pacific Global Ocean Refuge Status: Nominated (2017), Evaluated (2017) MPAtlas.org ID: 3803 Manager(s): Paola Andrea Rojas Malagón,

More information

Satoquo SEINO (Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan)

Satoquo SEINO (Graduate School of Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan) A reconsideration of horseshoe crab conservation methodology in Japan over the last 100 years and prospects for a marine protected area network in Asian seas Satoquo SEINO (Graduate School of Engineering,

More information

Ohrid Lake and Prespa Lake, Sub basin s on Crn Drim river basin International Workshop, Sarajevo, Bosna and Hercegovina May 2009

Ohrid Lake and Prespa Lake, Sub basin s on Crn Drim river basin International Workshop, Sarajevo, Bosna and Hercegovina May 2009 Ohrid Lake and Prespa Lake, Sub basin s on Crn Drim river basin International Workshop, Sarajevo, Bosna and Hercegovina 18-20 May 2009 Ms. Darinka Jantinska Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning

More information

Section 1 Introduction to Sustainable Tourism

Section 1 Introduction to Sustainable Tourism Section 1 Introduction to Sustainable Tourism What is Sustainable Tourism? In defining Sustainable Tourism it is useful to start with an understanding of sustainable development. A term popularised following

More information

Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet

Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet Significant Ecological Marine Area Assessment Sheet Name: Poor Knights Islands Summary: The reef systems of Poor Knights Islands and adjoining reef edges of soft bottom habitat score as a high ranking

More information

The Conservation Contributions of Ecotourism Cassandra Wardle

The Conservation Contributions of Ecotourism Cassandra Wardle The Conservation Contributions of Ecotourism Cassandra Wardle PhD Candidate, Gold Coast, Australia Supervisors: Ralf Buckley, Aishath Shakeela and Guy Castley State of the Environment State of the Environment

More information

IMPACTS OF THE RECENT TSUNAMI ON THE BUNDALA NATIONAL PARK THE FIRST RAMSAR WETLAND IN SRI LANKA

IMPACTS OF THE RECENT TSUNAMI ON THE BUNDALA NATIONAL PARK THE FIRST RAMSAR WETLAND IN SRI LANKA IMPACTS OF THE RECENT TSUNAMI ON THE BUNDALA NATIONAL PARK THE FIRST RAMSAR WETLAND IN SRI LANKA by C.N.B. Bambaradeniya, IUCN The World Conservation Union, Sri Lanka Country Office (Email: cnb@iucnsl.org)

More information

Marchand Provincial Park. Management Plan

Marchand Provincial Park. Management Plan Marchand Provincial Park Management Plan 2 Marchand Provincial Park Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Park History... 3 3. Park Attributes... 4 3.1 Natural... 4 3.2 Recreational... 4 3.3 Additional

More information

TOWN PLANNING SUBMISSION TO THE GREATER SYDNEY COMMISSION LANDS AT ARTARMON

TOWN PLANNING SUBMISSION TO THE GREATER SYDNEY COMMISSION LANDS AT ARTARMON TOWN PLANNING SUBMISSION TO THE GREATER SYDNEY COMMISSION LANDS AT ARTARMON March 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 2.0 THE SUBJECT SITE 4 3.0 STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT 6 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

More information

Public Submissions in response to the Bill closed on 2 July 2015 and Council lodged a copy of the submission provided as Attachment 1.

Public Submissions in response to the Bill closed on 2 July 2015 and Council lodged a copy of the submission provided as Attachment 1. 54 PLANNING AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 8 JULY 2015 3 SUSTAINABLE PORTS DEVELOPMENT BILL Neil Quinn 1/58/14 #4771706 RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorses the Submission made to the Infrastructure, Planning

More information

U.S. Activities in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Wider Caribbean. NOAA and the US Coral Reef Task Force

U.S. Activities in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Wider Caribbean. NOAA and the US Coral Reef Task Force U.S. Activities in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Wider Caribbean NOAA and the US Coral Reef Task Force U.S. Coral Reef Task Force Co-Chairs: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

More information

Parrie Yalloak addition to the Grampians National Park

Parrie Yalloak addition to the Grampians National Park Parrie Yalloak addition to the Grampians National Park Values Statement Land Stewardship & Biodiversity Department of Sustainability and Environment May 2005 This Values Statement has been written by James

More information

Comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreements for the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program

Comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreements for the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program Comments on the Draft Joint Management Agreements for the NSW Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program Introduction Humane Society International (HSI) has long since campaigned against shark control nets,

More information

Overview. Wilderness Act of Statement of Need. What is Wilderness Character. Monitoring Wilderness Character

Overview. Wilderness Act of Statement of Need. What is Wilderness Character. Monitoring Wilderness Character Overview Monitoring Wilderness Character What What & Why? How? How? Conceptual Development How? How? Implementation Future? Future? Troy Hall Steve Boutcher USFS Wilderness & Wild and Scenic River Program

More information

UNESCO s World Heritage Program California Current Conservation Complex

UNESCO s World Heritage Program California Current Conservation Complex Office of National Marine Sanctuaries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration UNESCO s World Heritage Program California Current Conservation Complex William Douros Regional Director NOAA's Office

More information

MARINE PROTECTED AREA IN MALAYSIA

MARINE PROTECTED AREA IN MALAYSIA MARINE PROTECTED AREA IN MALAYSIA AB RAHIM GOR YAMAN Director, Division of Planning and Management Department of Marine Park Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment abrahim@nre.gov.my History of

More information

A Proposed Framework for the Development of Joint Cooperation On Nature Conservation and Sustainable Tourism At World Heritage Natural sites.

A Proposed Framework for the Development of Joint Cooperation On Nature Conservation and Sustainable Tourism At World Heritage Natural sites. Introduction: A Proposed Framework for the Development of Joint Cooperation On Nature Conservation and Sustainable Tourism At World Heritage Natural sites Between The tourism industry and the UNESCO, World

More information

MARBLE RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK

MARBLE RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK MARBLE RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK PURPOSE STATEMENT AND ZONING PLAN March 2003 MARBLE RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK Purpose Statement and Zoning Plan Primary Role The primary role of Marble River Park is to protect

More information