techniques for targeting protection and rehabilitation of ... · techniques for targeting...

CSIRO Land and Water

Techniques for Targeting Protection and Rehabilitation of Riparian Vegetation In the Middle and Upper Murrumbidgee Catchment

Scott Wilkinson1, Amy Jansen2, Robyn Watts2, Arthur Read1, Tristram Miller1 1 CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666 Canberra ACT 2601 2 Johnstone Centre, School of Science and Technology, Charles Sturt University, LMB 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678

CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report No. 37/04

October 2004

CSIRO Land and Water Page i

Copyright and Disclaimer © 2004 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO Land and Water.

Important Disclaimer:

CSIRO Land and Water advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO Land and Water (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

Cover Photograph:

Umbango Ck upstream of Humula. Photographer: Scott Wilkinson © 2004 CSIRO

ISSN 1446-6171

CSIRO Land and Water Page ii

Techniques for Targeting Protection and Rehabilitation of Riparian Vegetation In the Middle and Upper Murrumbidgee Catchment

Scott Wilkinson1, Amy Jansen2, Robyn Watts2, Arthur Read1, Tristram Miller1 1 CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666 Canberra ACT 2601 2 Johnstone Centre, School of Science and Technology, Charles Sturt University, LMB 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678

Technical Report No. 37/04

October 2004

CSIRO Land and Water Page iii

Acknowledgements This work was funded by the National Rivers Consortium through Land & Water Australia, as part of the project “Catchment Assessment Techniques to help determine priorities in river restoration”. The authors thank Ian Prosser and Alistair Robertson for their leadership in the early stages of the project. We also thank Dr Jon Olley and Dr Gary Caitcheon for constructive reviews of this report.

This report was prepared to assist the River Restoration project BG6_04, which is funded by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority 2004)

CSIRO Land and Water Page iv

Executive Summary This report presents assessment techniques for setting catchment-scale priorities for protection and restoration of riparian vegetation in the Upper and Middle Murrumbidgee catchment. Erosion sources and sediment transport are assessed using the SedNet model, and the condition of existing riparian vegetation is assessed using the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC) method. The report describes and demonstrates several different ways in which the techniques can be used to set priorities, depending on the objective of the works.

The SedNet assessment indicates that erosion control should target riverbank and gully erosion as the primary sediment sources. Two contrasting methods for spatially targeting bank and gully erosion control are discussed and demonstrated. One method addresses the objective of reducing total sediment supply to the river network, and the other addresses the objective of reducing suspended sediment export from the catchment outlet. For each method, three levels of priority are defined.

Tree cover mapping is used to assess riparian condition according to the RARC. Priorities for improving riparian condition follow in descending order of the amount of existing riparian vegetation. The SedNet and RARC priorities are combined to produce overall priorities for protection and restoration of riparian vegetation. Implementing the techniques in the catchment should also involve field investigation of erosion hazard and riparian condition.

CSIRO Land and Water Page v

Table of Contents Copyright and Disclaimer i

Acknowledgements iii

Executive Summary iv

1 Introduction 1

2 SedNet assessment of sediment budgets 4

2.1 Method for constructing SedNet sediment budgets 4

2.2 SedNet results for the Murrumbidgee catchment 6

3 RARC assessment of riparian condition 13

3.1 Background on RARC 13

3.2 Extending the RARC to enable assessment of riparian condition at catchment scales 13

3.3 Assessment of riparian zone canopy cover in the upper and middle Murrumbidgee catchment 15

3.4 Using riparian zone canopy cover to set priorities for protecting and restoring riparian condition 17

4 Scenarios that combine priorities from SedNet and RARC 18

4.1 Introduction 18

4.2 Scenarios with reducing sediment supply as the primary objective 18

4.2.1 SedNet priorities for bank erosion control 19

4.2.2 Gully erosion 21

4.2.3 Lengths of bank and gully in each priority level 21

4.2.4 Partial treatment of bank and gully erosion 21

4.2.5 Predicted impact of the sediment supply scenarios 22

4.2.6 Within-level priorities for improving riparian condition 23

4.2.7 Within-level priorities for gully erosion control 25

4.3 Scenarios with reducing suspended sediment export as the primary objective 25

4.3.1 SedNet priorities for reducing suspended sediment export 25

4.3.2 Lengths of bank and gully in each priority level 28

4.3.3 Impact of the sediment export scenarios 28

4.3.4 Within-level priorities to improve riparian condition 29

4.4 Scenarios with emphasis on improving riparian condition 29

5 Conclusions 30

6 References 31

CSIRO Land and Water Page 1

1 Introduction There is a growing worldwide interest in restoring rivers. In many cases the restoration work required exceeds the resources available. Consequently, management actions need to be targeted to achieve the greatest environmental benefit. In this report we describe two catchment-scale techniques for assessing river condition, and demonstrate their application to targeting protection and restoration of riparian vegetation in the Murrumbidgee catchment.

This report builds on a considerable research effort, over more than a decade, into water-borne sediment sources in the Murrumbidgee catchment (e.g: Olley et al. 1993; Prosser and Winchester 1996; Wallbrink et al. 1998; Olley and Wasson 2003). Using sediment tracing and geomorphology techniques, this work has consistently identified riverbank and gully erosion in tributary streams as the primary sources of sediment in the Murrumbidgee catchment (Olley and Wallbrink 2004; Wallbrink and Olley 2004).

This report seeks to build on the understanding of the erosion processes described above, by developing and applying the SedNet model (Sediment budgets for river Networks) to assess spatial patterns in the erosion processes within the catchment. The results are used to recommend priorities about where to implement erosion control measures, to improve riverine water quality and reduce habitat sedimentation (Section 2).

There has also been a considerable research effort into the extent and causes of riparian zone degradation in the Murrumbidgee region (e.g. Robertson and Rowling 2000, Jansen and Robertson 2001). This has been accompanied by development of the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition technique (RARC); a site-based method for assessing the condition of riparian zones (Jansen et al. 2004). This method has identified extensive degradation of riparian zones in the Murrumbidgee catchment due to clearing and grazing by domestic livestock.

This report builds on the RARC, by using catchment-scale vegetation data to provide an assessment of riparian condition across the Murrumbidgee catchment (Section 3). This assessment is used to recommend priorities for protecting and restoring riparian vegetation to improve riparian condition.

We demonstrate several ways in which the priorities from SedNet and RARC can be combined to produce overall priorities for protection and restoration of riparian vegetation across the Upper and Middle Murrumbidgee catchment (Section 4). The most appropriate way of combining these priorities will depend on the management objective.

The report was written as part of the “Catchment Assessment Techniques to help determine Priorities in River Restoration” project. The Murrumbidgee is one of three focus catchments in which the assessment techniques are being developed and demonstrated.

The NAP Project

This report is intended to assist the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority in setting priorities for the River Restoration Project BG6_04 (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority 2004), hereafter referred to as “the NAP Project”. This report is also intended to assist working towards longer term management targets specified in the Murrumbidgee Catchment Blueprint (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Board 2003).

The specified outcomes of the NAP Project (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority 2004) are:

“Primary Outcome:

• Improved water quality through reduced in-stream sediment (both suspended and bedload).


Secondary Outcomes:

• Reduction of in-stream nutrients.

• Improved riparian biodiversity and ecological connectivity.

• Increased protection of significant natural and cultural heritage sites.

• Increased community capacity to identify degraded river and stream reaches, develop options and implement Riparian Protection and Restoration Works Plans.”

The NAP Project will include approximately 150 km of protection (60%) and restoration (40%) of riparian vegetation; approximately 5 km of structural erosion control; and approximately 70 km of willow removal.

In this report, we define protection to mean stock exclusion from the riparian zone by fencing, and restoration to mean revegetation of the riparian zone with trees and shrubs, in addition to stock exclusion by fencing. These are the definitions used in the NAP Project brief (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority 2004).

The report assists setting priorities for the primary outcome of the NAP project (improved water quality) through:

• SedNet assessment of sediment erosion.

The report assists setting priorities for the secondary outcomes of the NAP project (improved water quality) through:

• Reduction of in-stream nutrients: Since a large proportion of in-stream nutrients are also delivered and transported in association with suspended sediment, the SedNet recommendations will assist meeting this outcome.

• Improved riparian biodiversity and ecological connectivity: RARC assessment of riparian condition has been demonstrated to be related with riparian biodiversity and ecological connectivity. The RARC will be used for setting priorities to meet this outcome.

• This report does not address protection of natural and cultural heritage sites.

• Increased community capacity to identify degraded river and stream reaches, develop options and implement Riparian Protection and Restoration Works Plans: The assessments and recommendations developed by this project will help improve the capacity of the NAP Project team and the community to undertake riparian protection and restoration.

Scope of the report

The recommended priorities for riparian protection and restoration are made for the entire Upper and Middle Murrumbidgee catchment (Figure 1), but not for the Lower Murrumbidgee catchment.

This report presents catchment-scale priorities. Designing protection and restoration measures at the site-scale should rely on field surveys and established design procedures.

No recommendations are made about priorities for structural erosion control. The scale of structural erosion control, potentially applied in sections of river as short as 100 m, is too small to be targetted on the basis of catchment-scale assessments. Field investigations should instead be used.

The release of this report is timed to assist implementation of the NAP Project. Research into spatial patterns of erosion and sediment movement in the catchment is ongoing, and the recommended priorities represent our understanding to date.


!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

LAKE BURRINJUCK

TALBINGO RESERVOIR

TANTANGARA RESERVOIR

GOOGONG RESERVOIR

CORIN DAM

LAKE BURLEY GRIFFIN

BENDORA DAM

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Mu

rrum

bid

gee R

iver

Legend

!( Locations

Streams

Roads

Reservoirs

Murrumbidgee Catchment

Murrumbidgee River

Go

od

radig

bee R

iver

Figure 1: Upper and Middle Murrumbidgee catchment


2 SedNet assessment of sediment budgets

2.1 Method for constructing SedNet sediment budgets The SedNet model was developed for the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA; Prosser et al. 2001) and is a physically-based process model that identifies the major sources, sinks and loads of sediment. We have applied this model to the Murrumbidgee catchment, with some modifications described below.

In the model, the river network is divided into a series of links which are the basic unit of calculation for the sediment budget. The links can be seen as the individual branches of the river network (Figure 1). Each link extends between adjacent stream junctions or nodes and has a sub-catchment, which drains into the link between its upper and lower nodes. ArcInfoTM AML scripts are used to define the river network and sub-catchments from a 25 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The catchment area at the upstream end of first order streams is set using a threshold; 20 km2 is used in the Murrumbidgee catchment.

The river network defined in SedNet is used throughout this report as the basis for setting priorities for riparian protection and restoration.

Using the ArcInfoTM environment, separate budgets for bedload and suspended sediment are then calculated for each link. The two budgets have a similar structure. The total sediment yield ( xY ) from a link is given by:

xxxxxxxx RCFTBGHY −−−+++= (1)

Sediment inputs to each link come from hillslope ( xH ), gully ( xG ) and riverbank ( xB )

erosion, and from upstream tributaries ( xT ). Both suspended and bedload sediments are

deposited in reservoirs ( xR ), suspended sediment can be deposited within the link on

floodplains ( xF ), bedload sediment can be deposited in channels ( xC ), with the remainder

transported downstream and delivered to the next link ( xY ). The link budget is illustrated in

Figure 2, where HSDR is Hillslope Sediment Delivery Ratio.

This process is carried out in each river link of the river network, from upstream to downstream. Sediment budgets for both pre-European and present-day conditions were determined, and the present-day or contemporary budget can be considered to be a mean-annual budget for the period 1970-2000.

Floodplain area

Tributary supply (t/y)

Hillslopeerosion (t/y)

Riverbankerosion (t/y)

Gullyerosion (t/y)

HSDR

Downstream yield (t/y)

Figure 2: Sediment input and outputs in the SedNet river link sediment budgets

Bedload deposition


Hillslope Erosion: The input from hillslope erosion is estimated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation, as applied in the NLWRA (Lu et al. 2001). Most of the sediment eroded on hillslopes is trapped on the hillslope and so the sediment delivered to streams ( xH ) is

modified by the hillslope sediment delivery ratio (HSDR). A uniform HSDR of 0.05 is used for this study. It is assumed that all hillslope sediment contributes to the suspended sediment budget.

Gully Erosion: The linear extent of gully erosion in the Murrumbidgee catchment has been mapped by the New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. We assumed gully erosion was negligible prior to the arrival of Europeans, the average rate of suspended sediment supply since, from gullies in each sub-catchment ( xG ),

is the product of gully length ( xL ), cross-sectional area ( a =12 m2), the proportion of fine

sediment ( fp ; set at 0.5), and average dry bulk soil density ( sρ =1.5 t/m3), divided by the

average time over which gullies have developed (τ = 120 years). A historical survey in the Murrumbidgee (Wasson et al. 1998) and recent measurements (Caitcheon 2004) indicate that current gully sediment generation rates have declined from their peak; and are of the order of 50% of the long term average. Consequently, suspended sediment supply from the gullies in each sub-catchment ( xG ) is estimated as:

xsf

x Lap

G ××=τρ

5.0 (2)

Riverbank Erosion: Bank erosion rate, xBE (m/y), is determined as proportional to stream

power xbf SgQρ , where ρ is the density of water, g the acceleration due to gravity, bfQ is

bankfull discharge in m3/s and xS is the energy slope approximated by the channel gradient

(Rutherfurd 2000). It is known that degradation of riparian vegetation, and flow regulation that confines a greater proportion of flow within the channel, have resulted in widening of Australian river channels. We assume negligible bank erosion in the proportion of the link length that has fully intact riparian vegetation ( xPR ), as determined from LANDSAT imagery

with 30 m pixels (Barson et al. 2000). We also reduce the bank erosion rate in narrow valleys having exposure of rock and other unerodible materials; limited measurements suggest an exponential relationship between rock exposure and floodplain width Fw, (m) (Hughes et al. 2003). Thus:

))008.0exp(1)(1(0001.0 wxxbfx FPRSgQBE −−−= ρ (3)

The coefficient was calibrated to achieve a maximum bank erosion rate of 0.5 m/y; in accordance with observations of channel widening rates in some highly eroded, steep and unvegetated foot-hill streams. Thus, the amount of suspended sediment supplied from bank erosion, )( xxsfx BELhpB ρ= where h is bank height (3 m), xL is link length, and fp , sρ

are as previously defined. Bank erosion is considered to be along one bank only, generally the outside of meander bends.

Summary of improvements to SedNet

The Catchment Assessment Techniques project has made several improvements to the original NLWRA version of SedNet, to make it more suitable for catchment-scale priority setting. These have been applied in developing priorities for the NAP Project and are listed below.


• Stream flow is predicted using a revised water balance approach (Wilkinson et al. submitted), rather than the method used in the NLWRA (Prosser et al. 2001).

• Riparian tree cover is mapped using 30 m resolution data from the BRS Land Cover Change Project (Barson et al. 2000), rather than the 250 m data used in the NLWRA.

• Bank erosion is based on bankfull stream power (Wilkinson et al. 2004) rather than bank full flow (Prosser et al. 2001).

• Floodplain extent is defined using terrain analysis of the 25 m DEM (Gallant and Dowling 2003) rather than hydraulic modelling of the 250 m DEM (Pickup and Marks 2001).

• Noise in channel slope predictions due to DEM irregularities has been removed.

• Gully density is determined directly from the mapped gully extent (DIPNR), rather than by modelling (Hughes & Prosser 2003).

• Suspended sediment generation from gully erosion has been reduced to 50% of the long-term average rate, because recent measurements indicate that most gullies in the catchment have declined in activity considerably since their peak of sediment production (Caitcheon 2004).

2.2 SedNet results for the Murrumbidgee catchment The defined stream network in the Upper and Middle Murrumbidgee catchment has a total length of 5,600 km. The network is composed of 745 separate river links, with 6.5 km average length. The total catchment area is 29,000 km2, with each sub-catchment having an average area of 35 km2. The network defines only large streams. The sub-catchments associated with each link may also contain smaller tributary streams that can be considered to have riparian zones.

When each term in the bedload and suspended sediment budgets is totalled across the whole river network, the proportions of each source and loss term indicate the dominance of riverbank and gully erosion as sediment sources (Table 1). Bank and gully erosion can be grouped as “channel erosion”, with gullies representing small, incised streams that drain to the river network. Radionuclide tracer observations also support the SedNet prediction of channel erosion (riverbank and gully) as the dominant sediment source (Wallbrink et al. 1998).

Reservoirs are the dominant sediment sinks in the catchment, trapping approximately 36% of total sediment (20 + 16%). Bedload deposition in the channel network (21%) and floodplain deposition of suspended sediment (9%) are also important sediment sinks. As a result of deposition, the amount of sediment exported from the catchment outlet is approximately one third of the sum of the total sediment input to the river network.

The long-term average suspended sediment load at Wagga Wagga predicted by SedNet modelling is 578 kt/y, which is similar to the observed load of 600 kt/y (Olive et al. 1996).

The SedNet stream network generally follows the topographically mapped stream network. However, there is one exception, where the trunk of the Murrumbidgee downstream of Wagga Wagga is defined as following an anabranch, rather than the main channel, for several km, due to the flatness of the DEM in this region. This error is the only one of its type detected in this catchment, and is retained in the results to illustrate the potential problem. The error results in erroneous riparian vegetation, and predicted bank erosion rate in this river link.


Table 1: Relative proportions of sediment sources and losses in the contemporary SedNet budget, totalled across the upper-mid Catchment Inputs % of total Outputs % of total

Hillslope suspended supply 19 Floodplain suspended deposition 9

Gully suspended supply 12 Channel bedload deposition 21

Gully bedload supply 24 Reservoir suspended deposition 20

Riverbank suspended supply 23 Reservoir bedload deposition 16

Riverbank bedload supply 23 Export suspended sediment 24

Export bedload sediment 9

Total supply 100% Total output 100 %

A map of bank vegetation (Figure 3) shows large areas of the river network have less than 40% tree cover along the riparian zone of each river link. For SedNet, the riparian zone extended 50 m either side of the river channel.

The low levels of riparian vegetation contribute to high rates of predicted bank erosion (Figure 4), particularly in steep, non-vegetated foothill areas. The Monaro tablelands area upstream from Canberra was naturally grassy rather than tree-covered, and it could be argued that it is incorrect to predict high bank erosion rates along these naturally grassy streams. However, the channel network there is now incised, where it was once swampy meadows, and so fencing and vegetation cover is now required to prevent erosion.

Hillslope erosion (Figure 5) is predicted to be low in the alpine and other forested areas, and high in the Monaro and intensively farmed tableland areas in the Murrumbidgee valley.

Gully density (Figure 6) shows high rates on the Monaro upstream of the ACT, in the Yass, Jugiong and Tarcutta catchments. Across the catchment a total length of 7,500 km of gully supplies slightly less sediment than is supplied from bank erosion along the 5,600 km of river. Controlling gully erosion, particularly in areas of high gully activity, should therefore be an important part of efforts to improve water quality in the catchment, as discussed in Section 4.

Suspended sediment load in the river network (Figure 7) is highest along the main Murrumbidgee channel, both upstream and downstream of Burrinjuck Dam.

At the scale of individual links, there are considerable uncertainties in each of the budget terms. The sources of uncertainty include simplifications in the erosion process algorithms, and uncertainties in the data used to parameterise the algorithms. Over larger areas, the uncertainty is smaller, due to spatial averaging. Comparisons between predictions and measured observations suggest that the uncertainty in each erosion process is less than 30% for catchments larger than 3,000 km2. Implications of uncertainty are discussed in Section 4.


!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

% Riparian Vegetation0 - 0.1

0.1 - 0.4

0.4 - 1

Figure 3: Proportion of riparian vegetation used in SedNet


!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Bank Erosion (m/y)0 - 0.01

0.01 - 0.03

0.03 - 0.57

Figure 4: Mean annual bank erosion rate predicted by SedNet


!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Hillslope Erosion (t/ha/y)

0 - 2

2 - 7

7 - 263

Figure 5: Mean annual hillslope erosion rate used in SedNet


!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Gully Density (km/km2)

0 - 0.2

0.2 - 0.78

0.78 - 1.13

1.13 - 2.2

Reserves

Figure 6: Gully density in each sub-catchment, calculated from DIPNR gully mapping.


!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Suspended Sediment Load (kt/y)

0 - 3

3 - 100

100 - 530

Figure 7: Mean annual suspended sediment load predicted by SedNet


3 RARC assessment of riparian condition 3.1 Background on RARC The Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition (RARC) was developed as a tool for on-ground assessment of riparian habitats. It is simple and relatively quick to apply in the field, and studies have shown there is a clear relationship between the RARC and more detailed measures of riparian zone biodiversity and function (Jansen and Robertson 2001a,b; Jansen et al. 2004). The RARC uses indicators to reflect functional aspects of the physical, community and landscape features of the riparian zone, as defined by Naiman and Decamps (1997). The RARC index is made up of five sub-indices, each with a number of indicator variables (see Table 1). The indicators chosen reflect a variety of functions of riparian vegetation, including reducing bank erosion, providing organic matter and habitat for fauna, and providing connections in the landscape. Each sub-index is scored out of 10, with a total possible score of 50 representing best condition. For details of the RARC, see Jansen et al. (2004).

Table 2: Sub-indices and indicators used in the Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition Sub-index Indicators

HABITAT (Habitat continuity and extent)

• Width of riparian vegetation • Longitudinal continuity of riparian

vegetation COVER (Vegetation cover, structural complexity)

• Canopy (>5 m tall) • Understorey (1-5 m tall) • Ground (<1 m tall) • Number of layers

DEBRIS (Standing dead trees, fallen logs, leaf litter)

• Leaf litter • Standing dead trees (>20 cm dbh) • Fallen logs (>10 cm diameter)

NATIVES (Dominance of natives vs exotics)

• Canopy (>5 m tall) • Understorey (1-5 m tall) • Ground (<1 m tall) • Leaf litter

FEATURES (Indicative features)

• Native canopy species regeneration • Damage to regeneration • Native shrub/sub-canopy regeneration • Reeds

3.2 Extending the RARC to enable assessment of riparian condition at catchment scales

Since many catchments are large and field time is expensive, for catchment-scale assessment we have developed a method of assessing riparian condition that does not require on-ground visits. Development of the method involved testing whether existing vegetation cover mapping, derived from satellite imagery, and could be used to assess riparian condition as measured by the RARC. The indicators which potentially could be measured from remotely sensed data included canopy cover, riparian vegetation width and longitudinal continuity of riparian vegetation. On-ground measurements were made at 57 sites on the main channel of the Murrumbidgee River and 15 sites on tributaries in the Upper and Middle catchment (Figure 8). Using these site assessment data we investigated the relationship between the total RARC score for a site and the scores for those three indicators.


Figure 8: Location of 57 sites on the main channel and 15 sites on the tributaries of the Murrumbidgee River where on-ground measurements of RARC scores were made.

Site assessments of canopy cover explained 50% of the variance in the total RARC score on the Murrumbidgee main channel and and 86% of the variance in the total RARC score on its tributaries. Adding riparian vegetation width and longitudinal continuity of riparian vegetation increased this to between 85 and 90% respectively (Figure 9).

Murrumbidgee main channel

Canopy cover score50%

Remainder15%

Riparian width score35%

Continuity score<1%

Murrumbidgee tributaries

Continuity score2.7%

Riparian width score5.8%

Remainder9.7%

Canopy cover score86%

Figure 9: Variance explained in the total RARC score by adding additional components of the score which could be measured remotely in the Murrumbidgee (main channel 57 sites, tributaries 15 sites).

Given the ease of measuring canopy cover automatically using spatial datasets, and the large proportion of the variance in the total RARC score that it explains, we used canopy cover alone to assess riparian condition at catchment scale. As a test of this approach, we derived canopy cover measures from satellite imagery, at the sites where on-ground measurements were made. The imagery we used for the Murrumbidgee was the BRS landcover classification of LandSat TM data with 30m pixels (Barson et al. 2000). Figure 10 shows the relationship between the on-ground total RARC score, and the canopy cover derived from the satellite imagery at the same sites. Measurement of canopy cover explained 45% of the variance in the on-ground RARC scores for the tributaries but only 5% of the variance for the main channel sites.


Murrumbidgee main channel

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Proportion vegetated

To

tal

RA

RC

sco

re

Murrumbidgee tributaries

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Proportion vegetated

To

tal

RA

RC

sco

re

Figure 10: Measurement of canopy cover (proportion vegetated) derived from satellite imagery in relation to total on-ground RARC scores at 57 sites on the main channel of the Murrumbidgee River and 15 sites on its tributaries.

The poor relationship found for the main channel of the Murrumbidgee River is likely due to the relatively low resolution of the imagery used. In other catchments where we have access to higher resolution data, there is a strongly significant relationship between on-ground RARC scores and canopy cover measured from remotely sensed data. This suggests that the low resolution imagery is limited in its ability to detect narrow strips of trees (as they are likely to occur in riparian zones) and particularly sparsely scattered trees that are characteristic of old River Red Gums on the Murrumbidgee floodplain.

It is also apparent from Figure 10 that most of the error appears at the low end of the canopy cover scale. Given these limitations, it is likely that predictions of riparian canopy cover from the BRS data will be poor for the lower, floodplain reaches of the river which have little riparian zone vegetation. However, the majority of the Murrumbidgee catchment being assessed for this study more closely resembles the tributaries than the main channel. Thus, it is likely that prediction is much better in the upper tributaries and areas with larger patches of vegetation.

3.3 Assessment of riparian zone canopy cover in the upper and middle Murrumbidgee catchment

We used the BRS landcover data to assess riparian zone canopy cover for each link in the SedNet stream network (Figure 11). As for the site-scale RARC, the width of the riparian zone was defined as four times the width of stream channels, or 40 m wide for channels less than 10 m wide. Stream links entirely within conservation reserves were excluded from the analysis.


!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

TARCUTTA CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

% Riparian Vegetation in Riparian Zone

0 - 20

20 - 40

40 - 60

60 - 80

80 - 100

Reserves

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometers

Figure 11: Assessment of riparian zone canopy cover across all stream links in the upper and middle Murrumbidgee catchment within riparian zones four times the channel width (or 40 m wide for channels less than 10 m wide).


3.4 Using riparian zone canopy cover to set priorities for protecting and restoring riparian condition

For prioritising protection and restoration to improve riparian condition, we recommend giving highest priority to links with large proportions of existing riparian vegetation cover. The relationship between proportion of canopy cover and RARC score described above means that this approach is targeting works to links with generally the best existing riparian condition, as assessed by RARC. This approach is in line with the ‘protect and conserve first, restore and rehabilitate second’ approach outlined by others (eg. Rutherfurd et al. 2000, Bennett et al. 2002). It is based on the principle that it is usually more cost-effective and efficient to protect the sections of rivers that remain in good condition, rather than to undertake expensive restoration works to fix badly damaged reaches.

The following priorities are recommended:

• River links having the highest riparian zone canopy cover (>80% canopy cover) are given the highest priority. This follows the principle that we should protect the streams that are in the best general condition before trying to improve those that are in poor condition (Rutherfurd et al. 2000, Bennett et al. 2002).

• The prioritisation then continues into each subsequent category: 60-80%, 40-60%, 20-40%, and finally <20% canopy cover. It follows the principle that it is better to protect and improve deteriorating reaches rather than re-vegetating reaches that are in very poor condition and have little chance of recovering without intervention over time (Rutherfurd et al. 2000).

• We have assumed reserves to be low priority for protection and restoration by the NAP Project. However, reserves equate to the category zero (Rutherfurd et al. 2000), and there may be threatening processes in these areas, such as feral animals and fire, which need to be managed.

Limitations of this assessment:

• The priorities are based on the assumption that highly vegetated links are in better condition. In reality, there may be valuable remnants of riparian vegetation in links with a low vegetation proportion. Small amounts of vegetation in one link may abut larger areas in adjacent links, and so gain increased priority for protection.

• The priorities are based on present condition only and do not consider the trajectory of condition (deteriorating or recovering).

• There is no scope to identify rare or endangered organisms or communities that require protection (Category 1 and 2 reaches, Rutherfurd et al. 2000)

• The assessment is based on tree cover and will not identify areas of heath or grassland that should be protected by fencing.

• The assessment only identifies existing protection in conservation reserves. Outside of reserves, the recommendations identify priority areas for protection and restoration, assuming that fencing or revegetation has not already been carried out.

• The vegetation data used is also limited in its ability to detect narrow strips of trees or sparsely scattered trees. Of course, narrow strips of vegetation have less integrity and functional value than wider strips.

• The imagery used in this assessment does not provide information on size of trees or density of tree cover.


4 Scenarios that combine priorities from SedNet and RARC

4.1 Introduction This section demonstrates several ways to combine the priorities recommended by SedNet and RARC assessments, to provide overall priorities for protection and restoration of riparian vegetation. We have developed separate priorities for erosion control, and for improving riparian condition. The most appropriate way to combine these in the Murrumbidgee catchment will depend on the management objectives that are being pursued.

There are three types of scenario described.

• Section 4.2 describes scenarios with reducing total sediment supply to the river network as the primary objective, and improving riparian condition as a secondary objective.

• Section 4.3 describes scenarios with reducing suspended sediment export from the catchment as the primary objective, and improving riparian condition as a secondary objective.

• Section 4.4 describes scenarios with greater emphasis on improving riparian condition.

The scenarios are based on the following assumptions:

1. The recommendations extend to a much larger amount of riparian revegetation than may be achieved by the NAP Project and they are intended to be useful for a significant proportion of the Murrumbidgee Catchment Blueprint, which aims to revegetate 1,500 km of riparian zone over 10 years.

2. The vegetation cover data does not indicate whether vegetation is fenced or unfenced. Therefore, the priorities indicate on which links protection and rehabilitation is required, assuming it has not already occurred.

3. We assume that protection and restoration inside conservation parks and reserves is of lower priority than elsewhere, given the protection already in place here.

4. We assume that willow removal will be followed by planting of native vegetation, and that it therefore has no long-term effect on erosion rates.

5. There is some uncertainty in the recommendations caused by differences in actual vegetation extent from the dataset used. This is due to inadequate data resolution, or clearing and revegetation since the data was constructed (1995).

6. It is assumed that restoration will return riparian zones to good condition. It is not known how long this will take or whether restoration can lead to fully functional riparian zones.

4.2 Scenarios with reducing sediment supply as the primary objective

These scenarios assume that the channel erosion control function of riparian vegetation is always of higher priority than its biological function. We define primary priority levels to reduce total sediment supply from riverbank and gully erosion. We then use RARC to define secondary priority levels within the primary bank erosion control levels.

Such scenarios may be appropriate for the NAP Project, given its Primary Outcome is to reduce in-stream sediment and the secondary outcome is “Improved riparian biodiversity and ecological connectivity.” The scenarios in this section assume that the value of reducing


sediment supply (t/y) to the stream network is spatially uniform; that is there are no areas in the catchment that should receive higher priority for improving water quality.

The SedNet assessment shows that bank and gully erosion are equally dominant erosion processes, supplying a similar amount of sediment to the stream network (Table 1). Therefore, we recommend that a similar proportion of investment, or approximately kilometres of erosion control, be allocated to controlling bank and gully erosion. The allocation between bank and gully erosion control should also be based on field inspections of the current severity of bank and gully erosion.

We define separate spatial priorities for bank and gully erosion below, to achieve the largest reduction in sediment supply from each of these erosion processes.

4.2.1 SedNet priorities for bank erosion control

To determine priorities for controlling bank erosion that are independent of existing woody vegetation cover, we calculate the predicted rate of bank erosion in the absence of riparian vegetation ( xPR = 0 in equation 3). This is termed “bank erosion hazard” and is determined

by stream power (product of channel slope and bankfull flow rate), and the amount of erodible soil along each link (Wilkinson et al., 2004a). Bank erosion hazard represents the potential erosion rate, whether or not it has been realised to date.

Bank erosion hazard is mapped in Figure 12, in three priority levels. Reserves make up a 4th priority level, since protection and restoration is generally not required in these areas (discussed in Section 3.4). The vast majority of links are either fully inside, or fully outside reserves and links with >50% of length inside reserves are classified into the 4th priority level.

Uncertainty in bank erosion hazard

It is likely that the predicted bank erosion and bank erosion hazard are under-estimates in incised streams. The bankfull stream power used to calculate bank erosion hazard assumes a constant recurrence interval for bankfull flow, while incised streams contain larger flows, and have a relatively greater stream power available to cause bank erosion. The larger bank height in incised streams will also contribute to elevated sediment supply. Bank erosion control should therefore receive higher priority in areas with deeply incised streams.

Variations in erosion resistance between soil types are not accounted for in calculating bank erosion hazard. For example, the trunk of the middle-Murrumbidgee, from Burrinjuck reservoir to the catchment outlet, passes mainly through soils that are fine-grained, stable, and well consolidated compared with those along some tributary streams. This may result in relative over-prediction of bank erosion and bank erosion hazard in lowland reaches.

Counter to the potential for over-prediction of bank erosion in lowland areas, the regulated flow in the trunk of the middle-Murrumbidgee results in reduced flooding, and an elevated proportion of flow being transported within the channel. The constant elevated in-channel flow also kills bank vegetation, reducing the resistance to bank erosion.

It is recommended that site-scale design of bank erosion control is also based on field reconnaissance of bank activity.

Accounting for uncertainties in bank and gully erosion

Defining only three priority levels of bank and gully erosion control is appropriate given the uncertainty in link-scale predictions. Although significant differences in the rate of bank and gully erosion are likely within each level, there is a high level of certainty that as a group, the 1st level has considerably higher priority than the 2nd level.


!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

Bank Erosion Hazard (m/y)Reserves

0 - 0.028

0.028 - 0.09

0.09 - 0.9

Figure 12: Priority levels for bank erosion control using bank erosion hazard; the mean annual bank erosion rate in the absence of riparian vegetation.


4.2.2 Gully erosion

The linear extent of gully erosion in the Murrumbidgee catchment has been well mapped by DIPNR. We assume that all small streams that have significantly incised below the land surface are included in this mapping, so that all channel erosion is assumed to occur either along the defined stream network, or along the mapped gullies. The model assumes that all gullies produce sediment at the same rate per kilometre, and so all gullies are regarded (in the model) as having equal priority for stabilisation.

We recommend that gully erosion control should target areas in decreasing order of gully density for several reasons:

1. Treating a large number of gullies in a small area, and across a few land-holdings, is more efficient than treating isolated gullies.

2. There is anecdotal evidence that some gullies are naturally stabilising, with a flow-on effect to sediment generation. It is likely that areas of high gully density will contain a higher density of actively eroding gullies.

3. Gullies in high-density areas may also more likely to be well connected to the stream network.

Gully density for each sub-catchment is illustrated in Figure 6. The highest gully density class defined in Figure 6 (>1.13 km/km2) represents the first priority level for gully erosion control, and the second class is the second priority level. The third priority level (<0.78 km/km2) contains all other gullies outside of reserves, and due to its size this priority level has been split into two classes in Figure 6. Only 10% of all gully length exists in the bottom class (<0.2 km/km2) of the two classes that make up the 3rd priority level.

4.2.3 Lengths of bank and gully in each priority level

Table 3 shows the length of gullies and river links, and existing riverbank vegetation in each priority level. The priority levels were defined so that the 1st priority level contains approximately 1,000 km of river link, or 1,000 km of gully erosion, and the 2nd priority level approximately 1,500 km of river link, or 1,500 km of gully erosion.

Table 3: Lengths of gully and stream in each priority level for reducing sediment supply

Priority level Vegetated river length requiring protection (km)

Non-vegetated river length requiring restoration (km)

Total river length (km)

Total gully

length (km)

1st 370 610 980 976

2nd 396 1,169 1,565 1,528

3rd 350 1,553 1,903 4,946

Total outside reserves 1,116 3,332 4,448 7,450

Reserves 683 468 1,151 102

4.2.4 Partial treatment of bank and gully erosion

Excluding reserves, the total length of riverbank is approximately 4,600 km. In addition, there is a total of 7,450 km of mapped gullies outside reserves. Together, this totals more than


eight times the 1,500 km of riparian protection and restoration proposed in the Murrumbidgee Catchment Blueprint (2004 – 2014), emphasising the need to target high-priority areas to achieve maximum impact.

There are several practical reasons why 100% protection and restoration of riverbank and gully, even in high-priority areas, may be unnecessary:

• Some of the existing riparian vegetation may be already protected, or has a lower level of threat.

• Field assessment may show that some gullies have stabilised, and that stabilising only a portion of gullies will have a large impact on gully sediment supply.

• Access to sections of the channel banks may be difficult due to topography or lack of landholder support, and the extra cost involved per kilometre of treatment may reduce the priority of these areas.

• Within-link variations in the bank erosion hazard, due to variations in channel slope, channel depth, soil erodability, and location relative to the inside or outside of channel bends, means that revegetating only a part of the bank length will be sufficient to treat the highest-eroding portions, after which it may be appropriate to move to the highest-eroding channels in the next sub-catchment.

• The objective of protection and restoration programs under the Blueprint may include demonstrating the value of these activities across the catchment, and encouraging voluntary involvement to complete the remainder of these activities in each area.

We therefore suggest scenarios where 50%, or 20% of protection and restoration are implemented in each sub-catchment. That is, 50% (20%) of existing riparian vegetation is protected, 50% (20%) of presently non-vegetated riparian zone is restored, and 50% (20%) of gullies are stabilised, before proceeding to the sub-catchment of next priority.

The lengths of riverbank protection and restoration required for each of these scenarios can be determined from Table 3.

4.2.5 Predicted impact of the sediment supply scenarios

The impact on sediment supply from bank erosion for the 100%, 50% and 20% scenarios is shown in Figure 13. The first priority level gives greatest reduction in sediment supply from bank erosion because it targets links with high bank erosion hazard. The total length or protection and restoration for each scenario is represented by the right-hand end of the relevant line.

The predicted bank erosion response is subject to some assumptions:

• The SedNet model assumes a 95% reduction in bank erosion when woody vegetation (tree) cover is present (Wilkinson et al. 2004). Protection (fencing) of existing riparian vegetation has no effect on the predicted responses. In reality, excluding stock from an already vegetated riparian zone will increase the cover of ground vegetation, and so cause a (small) reduction in bank erosion. A well grassed riparian zone will also act as a sediment filter and help to reduce delivery to the stream of sediment from hillslope erosion (Prosser and Karssies 2001).

• The predicted reductions in bank erosion are relative to the present-day condition. They do not account for other changes that may occur to riparian vegetation extent, from natural dieback, voluntary revegetation, landuse or climate change.

• Reductions in bank erosion will occur progressively over time as restored vegetation grows. Several decades will be required to achieve full response.


0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Length of Works (km, both sides)

Ban

k E

rosi

on t/

y20% protection/restoration

50% protection/restoration

100% protection/restoration

1st priority level

2nd priority level

3rd priority level

Figure 13: Predicted change in sediment supply from bank erosion for implementing the protection and restoration over different percentages of each link; the response in each priority level is labelled on the 100% line.

In the SedNet model, gully cross sectional area is assumed constant. This simplification means that the predicted reduction in sediment supply from gully erosion following restoration of gullies will be linear; stabilising half of all gullies will reduce the sediment supply from gullies by half. In reality, gully size and activity will be variable, and targeting stabilisation to the largest, most active gullies will produce a disproportionately large impact on sediment supply, in a similar way to bank erosion. It is therefore difficult to determine the reduction in sediment per kilometre of erosion control.

4.2.6 Within-level priorities for improving riparian condition

Within each bank erosion control priority level, protection and restoration of riverbank vegetation should proceed in order of the RARC priority by starting with links having the largest proportion of existing vegetation and proceeding to those links with least existing vegetation (Section 3.4).

For the 1st priority level, the proportion of riparian vegetation is illustrated in Figure 14. This figure uses the same data as Figure 11, with the levels other than the 1st bank erosion priority level greyed out.

A strip of riparian vegetation, of minimum width 15 m increasing to 1.5 times the channel width for channels greater than 10 m wide, should be protected or restored to best improve riparian condition, as measured by RARC.


!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

% Riparian Vegetation in 1st Level

<20%

20 - 40%

40 - 60%

60 - 80%

>80%

Other priority levels

Reserves

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Figure 14: Percentage of existing riparian vegetation within 1st priority level


4.2.7 Within-level priorities for gully erosion control

Field surveys should be used to determine priorities for gully erosion control within each priority level. Highest priority should be given to the most active gullies within each level, and within each sub-catchment. The size and extent of individual gully networks may assist in estimating the amount of sediment they supply. There may also be some highly active gullies in areas of low gully density (2nd and 3rd gully priority levels), and a proportion of investment in gully erosion control may be required to treat large, active gullies outside the high-priority areas.

As gullies are often ephemeral, and exist away from major streamlines, we have not used a RARC-style assessment to allocate within-level priorities for gully erosion control. Within reserves, it is recommended that priorities for protection and restoration should address local threats to gully and bank erosion and riparian condition, rather than being driven by the proportion of existing tree cover.

Only 13% of the mapped gully length is under tree cover, so gully stabilisation will require restoration rather than protection of vegetation cover. A number of different techniques may be required to stabilise gullies. Large gullies can be managed using similar vegetation restoration as for river banks, and it is logical to extend protection and restoration on incised riverbanks to gullies directly upstream. Other measures may be suitable for smaller gullies. In-channel wetlands at the base of some gully networks should be protected to allow them to operate as sediment filters (Zierholz et al. 2001).

4.3 Scenarios with reducing suspended sediment export as the primary objective

As in Section 4.2, these scenarios assume that the channel erosion control function of riparian vegetation is always of higher priority than its biological function. Again, we define primary priority levels to reduce total sediment supply from riverbank and gully erosion. We then use RARC to define secondary priority levels within the primary bank erosion control levels.

The difference here is that the erosion control priorities are directed to reducing suspended sediment export from the outlet of the catchment (Figure 1). This is an alternative objective of erosion control that focuses on improving water quality along the middle and lower Murrumbidgee, and the Murray River downstream.

4.3.1 SedNet priorities for reducing suspended sediment export

Reducing export is most effectively achieved by targeting erosion control to riverbanks and gullies contributing the greatest amount to export. Priorities for reducing export must consider the bank and gully erosion in each sub-catchment, but also the probability of that sediment being transported through the river network to the outlet of the defined catchment, given opportunities for deposition on floodplains and in reservoirs along the way. To determine the probability of delivery to the catchment outlet, we define a river sediment delivery ratio (RSDR) for suspended sediment, between the outlet and each link of the network. For a given link, RSDR is the product of the ratio suspended sediment yield divided by suspended sediment supply, for each link between the outlet and that link (Prosser et al. 2001).

Three priority levels for bank erosion control, and gully erosion control, are defined (Figure 15 and Figure 16). Riverbank protection and restoration is prioritised in descending order of bank erosion hazard contribution (t/km), and gully stabilisation is prioritised in descending order of gully contribution (t/ha/y). These priorities target works to the middle Murrumbidgee, since the vast bulk of suspended sediment delivered to the stream network in the upper catchment is trapped in the reservoirs.


!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Contribution of Bank Erosion to Suspended Sediment

Export (t/ha/y)0 - 17.5

17.5 - 106

106 - 1798

Figure 15: Priority levels for bank erosion control to reduce suspended sediment export


!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

YASS

COOMA

TUMUT

JUNEE

BREDBO

JUGIONG

CANBERRA

GUNDAGAI

TARCUTTA

QUEANBEYAN

WAGGA WAGGA

COOTAMUNDRA

0 25 50 75 10012.5Kilometres

Contribution of Gully Erosion to Suspended Sediment

Export (t/ha/y)0 - 0.025

0.025 - 0.075

0.075 - 0.23

0.23 - 0.5

Figure 16: Priority levels for gully erosion control to reduce suspended sediment export


4.3.2 Lengths of bank and gully in each priority level

Table 4 shows the length of gullies and river links, and existing riverbank vegetation in each priority level. Thirty-six percent (2732 / (7517+102)) of all gully length exists in the bottom class (<0.025 km/km2) of the two classes in Figure 16 that make up the 3rd priority level.

Table 4: Lengths of gully and stream in each priority level for reducing suspended sediment export

Priority level Total gully length (km)

Total river length (km)

Vegetated length (km)

Non-vegetated river length (km)

1st 1026 186 32 154

2nd 1499 670 120 550

3rd (Part A) 2362 1133 202 931

3rd (Part B) 2732 3611 1446 2165

Total outside reserves 7517 4,510 1,128 3,382

Reserves 102 1,090

In the same way as for the sediment supply scenarios, protection and restoration in the sediment export scenarios can be implemented on only a proportion (e.g: 50% or 20%) of each river link and sub-catchment (see Section 4.2.4).

4.3.3 Impact of the sediment export scenarios

Compared with the scenarios to reduce sediment supply, the export scenarios are relatively more effective at reducing sediment export, but less effective at reducing overall sediment supply to the stream network. We demonstrate this comparison by running identical scenarios of 500 km riverbank restoration and 500 km of gully stabilisation, prioritised according to both objectives. For both scenarios, partial implementation of 50% restoration of the non-vegetated portion of the riverbank, and 50% stabilisation of gully erosion, is applied in each link or sub-catchment treated. Riverbank protection could also be implemented in these scenarios, but will not affect the modelled sediment budget.

The comparison between these export and supply scenarios is in Table 5. The scenario with export reduction as the objective variable gives 13% more reduction in export than the sediment supply scenario ((26-23)/23), but 11% less reduction in total sediment supply ((18-16)/18).

Table 5: Comparison between scenarios with reducing sediment supply and reducing suspended sediment export

Targeting objective Reduction in total sediment supply (hill + gully + bank) %

Reduction in Suspended sediment export %

Sediment supply 18 23

Suspended sediment export 16 26

Simulating 50% bank restoration and gully stabilisation, to reduce suspended sediment export, for different lengths of bank restoration and gully stabilisation (Figure 17), it can be


seen that the response of suspended sediment export flattens off after 500 km (250 km bank restoration and 250 km gully stabilisation).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Bank restoration and gully stabilisation (km)

Sus

pend

esd

sed

expo

rt (

kt/y

)

Figure 17: Suspended sediment export response to 50% bank and gully stabilisation

4.3.4 Within-level priorities to improve riparian condition

Secondary priority levels for improving riparian condition can be defined within each primary priority level for reducing suspended sediment export. Within each primary level, we recommend progressing from links with the highest proportion of riparian vegetation to those with the lowest proportion, in the same way as described in Section 4.2.6.

4.4 Scenarios with emphasis on improving riparian condition If improving riparian condition and biodiversity is of greater importance than reducing sediment supply or export, a different order of stepping through the priority levels is suggested. The same primary bank erosion control priority levels, for either sediment supply or export, and the same secondary riparian condition priority levels within each erosion control level, are still used. However, rather than completing all links in the 1st bank erosion control priority level, we suggest that once links in the 1st erosion control priority level with >60% existing vegetation have been treated, links with >60% existing vegetation in the 2nd, and then 3rd level should be treated, before coming back to links in the 1st erosion control level with <60% vegetation. This approach gives higher priority to protecting and enhancing large areas of existing vegetation in the 2nd and 3rd bank erosion priority levels, above links with smaller proportions of existing vegetation in the 1st channel erosion priority level.

If sediment supply is the objective for erosion control, the impact on sediment from bank erosion under the scenario described above can be compared with that illustrated in Figure 13. The comparison is illustrated in Figure 18 for the 100% scenario. By definition, links with > 60% existing vegetation require more protection, which the model assumes has no impact on erosion, than restoration. Therefore, until restoration commences in the links with <60% existing vegetation, the reductions in bank and gully erosion, or in suspended sediment export, will be considerably less from these scenarios than for those in Section 4.2 or Section


4.3. The bank erosion response, with the objective to reduce total sediment supply, is illustrated in Figure 18, for the 100% scenario. The turning point (labelled) comes after approximately 600 km of riverbank protection and restoration.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Length of Works (km, both sides)

Ban

k E

rosi

on t/

y

100%, links with >60% vegfirst100% all 1st priority level first

Start links with <60% existing vegetation

Figure 18: Bank erosion response to scenario that targets links with >60% existing vegetation first. Scenario from Figure 13 is shown dashed faint line for comparison

The above approach assumes that large areas of existing vegetation are more valuable, and in better condition, than smaller areas. This is appropriate at the regional scale. However, there may exist at a site scale small areas of high-quality vegetation and large areas of already degraded vegetation that will vary the priority for protection and restoration of biological function. Vegetation in links that have little existing vegetation but are adjacent to large areas of existing vegetation should also be protected.

Many gullies, particularly smaller gullies, will be ephemeral, and the vast majority of gully erosion is away from what is normally considered the “riparian zone.” Therefore, a higher weighting towards the biological functions of riparian vegetation would also imply a reduced proportion of investment in gully erosion control.

5 Conclusions From this study it is concluded that catchment-scale priorities for protection and restoration of riparian vegetation in the Middle and Upper Murrumbidgee catchment should aim to reduce sediment supply to the river network, or suspended sediment export, by addressing bank and gully erosion. Bank erosion control should target banks with greatest erosion hazard, and gully erosion control should target areas of highest gully density. Targeting erosion control in this way can have a significant impact on sediment supply, loads and export in the river system.

It is also concluded that improvements to riparian condition, as assessed by the RARC, should be targeted to protecting, and building outwards from, areas of existing riparian vegetation. We conclude that the erosion control and riparian condition priorities can be


combined in a number of ways, depending on the relative importance of management objectives.

6 References Barson, MM, Randell, LA, & Bordas, V 2000, Land Cover Change in Australia. Bureau of

Rural Sciences, Canberra: ftp://ftp.brs.gov.au/outgoing/longterm/lw/lcc_report.pdf

Boulton, AJ 1999, ‘An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis’, Freshwater Biology, vol. 41, pp 469-479.

Caitcheon, G 2004, Unpublished data on sediment yield from gully networks in the Murrumbidgee catchment. CSIRO Land and Water; Canberra.

Fairweather, PG 1999, ‘State of environment indicators of 'river health': exploring the metaphor’, Freshwater Biology, vol. 41, pp 211-220.

Gallant, JC & Dowling, TI 2003, ‘A multiresolution index of valley bottom flatness for mapping depositional areas’, Water Resources Research, vol. 39(12), pp 1347.

Hughes, AO & Prosser, IP 2003, Gully and riverbank erosion mapping for the Murray-Darling Basin. Technical Report 3/03 CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra

Jansen, A & Robertson, AI 2001a, ‘Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 38, pp 63-75.

Jansen, A & Robertson, AI 2001b, ‘Riparian bird communities in relation to land management practices in floodplain woodlands of south-eastern Australia’, Biological Conservation, vol. 100, pp 173-185.

Jansen, A, Robertson, A, Thompson, L & Wilson, A 2004, Development and application of a method for the rapid appraisal of riparian condition. River Management Technical Guideline No. 4. Canberra: Land & Water Australia. http://www.rivers.gov.au/publicat/guidemanual.htm

Ladson, AR, White, LJ, Doolan, JA, Finlayson, BL, Hart, BT, Lake, S & Tilleard, JW 1999, ‘Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia’, Freshwater Biology, vol. 41, pp 453-468.

Lu, H, Gallant, J, Prosser, I, Moran, C & Priestly, G 2001, Prediction of Sheet and Rill Erosion over the Australian Continent, Incorporating Monthly Soil Loss Distribution. Tech. Report 13/01, CSIRO Land and Water; Canberra.

Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority 2004, Project Brief; National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, River Restoration Project BG6_04:

http://www.murrumbidgee.cma.nsw.gov.au/pdf/bg6_04_projbrief.pdf

Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Board 2003, Murrumbidgee Catchment Blueprint, DLWC: http://www.murrumbidgee.cma.nsw.gov.au/publications.html

Naiman, RJ & Decamps, H 1997, ‘The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 28, pp 621-658.

Olive, LJ, Olley, JM, Wallbrink, PJ & Murray, AS 1996, ‘Downstream patterns of sediment transport during floods in the Murrumbidgee River, NSW, Australia’, Z. Geomorph. N.F., Suppl.-Bd. vol. 105, pp 129-140.

Olley, JM, Murray, AS, McKenzie, DM & Edwards, K 1993, ‘Identification of sediment sources in a gullied catchment using natural and artificial radioactivity’, Water Resour. Res. vol. 29, pp 1037-1043.


Olley, JM & Wasson RJ 2003, ‘Changes in the flux of sediment in the Upper Murrumbidgee catchment, SE Australia, since European settlement’, Hydrol. Processes, vol. 17, pp 3307-3320.

Olley, JM & Wallbrink, PJ 2004, ‘Recent trends in turbidity and suspended sediment loads in the Murrumbidgee River, NSW, Australia’, Sediment Transfer through the fluvial system. Proceedings of a symposium held in Moscow, August 2004. IAHS Publication 288: pp 125-129.

Pickup, G & Marks, A 2001 Identification of Floodplains and Estimation of Floodplain Flow Velocites for Sediment Transport Modelling. Tech. Report 14/01, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra.

Prosser, IP & Winchester, SJ 1996, ‘History and processes of gully initiation and development in eastern Australia’, Z. Geomorphol. Suppl. Bund. vol. 105, pp 91-109.

Prosser, IP & Karssies, L 2001, Designing filter strips to trap sediment and attached nutrient. Riparian land management technical guideline update 1; Land & Water Australia.

Prosser, I, Young, B, Rustomji, P, Moran, C & Hughes, A 2001, Constructing River Basin Sediment Budgets for the National Land and Water Resources Audit. Tech. Report 15/01, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra.

Rutherfurd, ID Jerie, K & Marsh, N 2000, A rehabilitation manual for Australian streams, Vol 1, Land and Water Australia.

Rutherfurd, ID 2000, Some human impacts on Australian stream channel morphology. In: River Management: The Australasian experience. (ed. By S. Brizga & B. Finlayson), pp 11-49. John Wiley and Sons.

Wallbrink, PJ, Murray, AS, Olley, JM & Olive, L 1998, ‘Determining sediment sources and transit times of suspended sediments in the Murrumbidgee River, NSW, Australia using fallout Cs-137 and Pb-210’, Water Resources Research, vol. 34(4), pp 879-887.

Wallbrink, PJ & Olley, JM 2004, Sources of fine grained sediment in incised and un-incised channels, Jugiong Creek, NSW, Australia. Sediment Transfer through the fluvial system. Proceedings of a symposium held in Moscow, August 2004. IAHS Publication 288, pp 165-169.

Wasson, RJ, Mazari, RK Starr, B & Clifton, G 1998, ‘The recent history of erosion and sedimentation on the Southern Tablelands of southeastern Australia’, Geomorphology, vol. 24, pp 291-308.

Wilkinson, S, Henderson, A & Chen, Y 2004, SedNet User Guide, Client Report for the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra.

Wilkinson, SN, Young, WJ & De Rose, RC (submitted) Regionalising mean annual flow and daily flow variability for sediment transport modelling.

Zierholz, C, Prosser, IP, Fogarty, PJ & Rustomji, P 2001, ‘Instream wetlands and their significance for channel filling and the catchment sediment budget, Jugiong Ck, New South Wales’, Geomorphology; vol. 38, pp 221-235.

techniques for targeting protection and rehabilitation of ... · techniques for targeting...

Documents