Read Redlands Waterway Recovery Report text version

Draft Redlands Waterway Recovery Report

2009

Mayor's forward

Incl. Acknowledgement, copyright, `cite as' etc at bottom of page

Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 Redlands catchments ............................................................................................................. 2 Background.............................................................................................................................. 2 Whole of Redlands summary............................................................................................... 3 Waterway Recovery Indicators ............................................................................................ 5 Guide to report...................................................................................................................... 10 Catchment Results Tarradarrapin Creek catchment................................................................................... 11 Hilliards Creek catchment............................................................................................ 14 Cleveland and Thornlands catchments...................................................................... 17 Eprapah Creek catchment ............................................................................................. 20 South-eastern catchments ............................................................................................. 23 Southern catchments...................................................................................................... 26 Upper Tingalpa Creek catchment ............................................................................... 28 Lower Tingalpa Creek catchment ............................................................................... 31 North Stradbroke Island catchments.......................................................................... 34 Southern Moreton Bay Island catchments ................................................................ 36 City-wide Status ................................................................................................................... 38 Major issues for improving health of waterways .......................................................... 42 References.............................................................................................................................. 44 Appendix 1 ­ Management actions to date ..................................................................... 45 Appendix 2 ­ Environmental Values identified for each waterway .......................... 48 Appendix 3 ­ Median values for water quality and biota data ................................... 49 Appendix 4 ­ Rating water quality and biota indicators.............................................. 50

1

Introduction

Welcome to the first Redlands Waterway Recovery Report.

The Redlands Waterway Recovery Report looks closely at a group of vital statistics and measures to provide a snapshot of the condition of Redlands waterways. It's a bit like a regular health check for our creeks. It can identify important issues and help set priorities for planning and management ­ so it is also much like the State of the Environment Report except more detailed and just concerned with waterways. It can also help us to track the recovery of Redlands waterways as we improve their management and fix health problems. Read on to find out the condition your local waterway is in. Did you know that Redlands is home to three types of rare fish? And that three types of native fish were recently discovered that hadn't been identified in Redlands before? There is even a creek that supports a healthy fish community in naturally very low pH (acidic) water. Some of the semi-aquatic species that rely on our creeks include nineteen species of frogs, four species of turtles, water dragons, a freshwater snake species (Keelback), water skinks and water rats 1 . Even though you may not live next to or near one of these waterways, we all live in a water catchment. A catchment is the area of land bounded by ridges, hills or mountains, from which rainfall gathers and flows to a low point (a creek, river or wetland) and eventually to the sea ­ in our case to Moreton Bay. When it rains, any pollutants on the land such as fertilisers, grease and oils from roads, and litter in gutters and on pathways all wash into the stormwater system and into the creeks, wetlands and estuaries. Do you know which catchment you live in? Work in? Play in? Because of the connectivity between the land and waterways, our day-to-day activities within the catchments can have an effect on the quality of the water and habitat in the creeks ­ and ultimately the water and habitat quality in the bay. Find your creek catchment using the map in figure xxx. Redland City has many wonderful waterways including unique freshwater lakes and wetlands on North Stradbroke and the Bay islands, inter-tidal areas along extensive foreshores, many small saltwater estuaries, and freshwater creeks, wetlands, lakes and dams. Many of the creeks are small, flow infrequently and only after rains. There are no large rivers in the City although the Logan River mouth forms a small part of the City's southern boundary.

How healthy is your local waterway?

The name of this report highlights the need for a recovery in our creeks. The health of our waterways is generally poor and declining. There continues to be downward trends in water quality and waterway health data in recent years. Redland City is under continued pressure to cope with new development and intensified land use. The health of our waterways is threatened by pollutants in rain run-off, removal of vegetation, ,erosion and sediment, damming/alteration of the watercourse, and sealing roads and concreting, leading to increased volume and speed of run-off. These threats combine to create unhealthy pools with too many exotic fish or devoid of insects and other life; too often cleared of vegetation or with eroding banks and overtaken by weeds. The people who see this first hand are those who use the local waterways for: · Recreation ­ water-based fun like swimming, fishing, sailing, canoeing or other water sports in the Redlands waterways or Moreton Bay

1 Hilliards Creek Corridor Biodiversity Assessment 2007/2008 and Eprapah Creek Corridor Biodiversity Assessment 2008/2009, Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd.

2

· ·

Aesthetics ­ visiting special water places or seeing the plants animals live in or near the water, such as native fish, frogs and turtles Providing water from a dam on their property for livestock or irrigation

A healthy waterway can process and cope with a certain amount of pollutants; however this capacity is greatly reduced when the health of the waterway declines.

Redlands catchments

Indicative mapping - Will be clearer map from GIS in final report. Will include suburbs and major roads so readers can identify which catchment they live in.

1 2 12 3 4 5 14 13

15 6 7 17 10 9 8 18 16

11

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tarradarrapin Creek Catchment Hilliards Creek Catchment Cleveland Catchment Thornlands Catchment Eprapah Creek Catchment Moogurrapum Creek Catchment Southern Redland Bay Catchment Serpentine Creek Catchment Native Dog Creek Catchment

10. California Creek Catchment 11. Upper Tingalpa Creek Catchment 12. Lower Tingalpa and Coolnwynpin Creek Catchment 13. North Stradbroke Island 14. Coochiemudlo Island 15. Macleay Island 16. Lamb Island 17. Karragarra Island

2

18. Russell Island

2

Background

Why develop a local report card?

Council has been gathering water quality data across the City monthly since 2004, and in partnership with the EPA for several years prior. The data has not been reported to the public since the EPA and Council partnership ended, except at a general level in the State of the Environment Report in 2008 for Redlands catchments as a whole. Various studies and plans have been completed by Council over the past 6 years which also contain a lot of data that was not made publicly available, including a State of the Creeks Survey, Pollutant Export Modelling, a Fish and Water-bugs Assessment and Soil Type Mapping. In recent years, Council has increased spending on waterway management significantly, upgraded sewage treatment plants, and introduced tighter controls on development. We need to be able to track improvements in waterway health over time as a result of such measures. For example, Council has recently ( XXXXX short sentence or two listing recent initiatives that mean something to average reader). The Waterway Recovery Report was developed as a new initiative by Council's Environmental Protection Unit to meet these needs. It is intended that the Report be completed each year and published so that residents can follow the progress of recovery in our waterway.

Relationship to regional EHMP reporting

The Healthy Waterways Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) Report Card has rated the ecosystem health of Redlands Freshwater catchments as an `F' rating for the past 4 years (2005-2008). This is based on seven sites across four of the 12 mainland catchments ­ Eprapah (2 sites), Hilliards (2), Tingalpa (2) and Moogurrapum (1). The EHMP functions at a regional level, comparing ecosystem health of the waterways across south east Queensland. The results of the monitoring program are standardised and averaged across the City. Using methods developed in large SEQ river catchments, the purpose of the EHMP report card is to: · · · assess the broad ecosystem responses across the region to natural pressures and human activities; allow catchment managers to evaluate and communicate overall ecosystem and community benefits from investment in environmental protection actions; and provide managers and researchers with feedback required to target investment in management of SEQ's catchments, estuaries, and Moreton Bay.

The EHMP does not provide catchment-by-catchment priorities and direction for improving waterway health through management, protection and rehabilitation actions. By comparison, the Redlands Waterway Recovery Report (Recovery Report) is intended for use at the local level where it: · provides a catchment-by-catchment snapshot of the condition based on water quality data, twice-yearly fish and water-bug data, event monitoring for nutrients and sediment, and detailed analysis of management, protection and rehabilitation priorities; allows Council to prioritise protection, planning and management actions by catchment and target objectives relevant to particular indicators;

·

3

·

provides a sensitive tool to track recovery resulting from management Council puts in place to resolve waterway health problems, and efforts to protect and enhance our waterways; and increases community awareness to the concepts of interconnectedness of actions in the catchment and effects on water quality, as well as the condition of the catchments that they live, work and play in.

·

The Redlands Waterway Recovery Report should be read in conjunction with the Healthy Waterways EHMP Report Card. It allows greater understanding of local waterway health issues and provides a more sensitive management tracking tool than the regional report.

Relationship to SoE reporting

The Recovery Report is an indicator-based analysis of waterway health similar to but more detailed than the treatment of waterways in the State of Environment reporting. Annual Recovery Reports inform the development of the State of Environment report in the following year.

Whole of Redlands summary

Environmental Values

· Specific Environmental Values have been identified for all mainland creek systems except for the Southern Catchments (Serpentine, Native Dog and California Creek Catchment). Specific environmental values have not been identified for North Stradbroke Island or Southern Moreton Bay Islands catchments. All of the waterways are valued as Aquatic Ecosystems, and this means that the water quality has to meet a set of water quality objectives at levels that allow the creek to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. All waterways are valued for visual recreation and cultural and spiritual importance. The larger creek systems (Hilliards, Eprapah and Tingalpa) have been split up into upper, middle and lower (estuarine) sections and values have been defined for these sections. The majority of upper and middle reaches are valued for either irrigation, stock watering (i.e. providing water for cows, horses etc) and farm supply, or a combination of these activities. The majority of lower reaches and estuaries are valued for recreation and as seagrass areas.

· ·

· ·

·

·

Monitoring activities

· The creeks with the highest monitoring coverage (Tarradarrapin, Native Dog, Coolnwynpin and Hilliards) tend to be those that are easily accessible by road and monitored for the majority of the programs. California Creek, Lower Tingalpa Creek and the Thornlands creeks and the Southern Moreton Bay Islands are not monitored by any program. Council's ambient monitoring program covers just over half of the creek catchments across the mainland of the City.

· ·

4

Water quality trends

· · Trends in overall water quality ratings in all creeks are either declining/worsening (most) or steady (in a few). Upper Tingalpa Creek had the highest consistent water quality rating over the last 4 years and was the only creek to be rated above `C' in 2007/2008. It should be noted that these results are from a mostly undisturbed site within Ford Road Reserve, and median organic nitrogen, dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a levels did not meet guideline values. This indicates high inputs of organic matter and subsequent breakdown by organisms. Eprapah Creek rated the lowest for overall water quality, due to fluctuating poor results for nutrients and dissolved oxygen. Median chlorophyll-a levels were low, indicating that high nutrient levels do not cause were not cause algal blooms in the creek.

·

Loads leaving the catchments

· Data currently being analysed ­ to be included in future drafting will be the findings of the E2 Catchment Model and early results of load hotspotting work.

Fish and macroinvertebrates

· · · · Ratings for fish communities in Hilliards, Eprapah and Upper and Lower Tingalpa creeks are improving. Ratings for fish abundance and community composition in Moogurrapum have declined over the years. Based on the Fish and Bug monitoring program results, fish communities rated poorly in Native Dog, Serpentine and Tarradarrapin creeks. Keeping in mind that fish and water bugs are a reflection of waterway health, the results suggest that waterway health across the city is close to natural or showing signs of minor modification from a natural state. There is high diversity of water bug species, and SIGNAL scores were above or within 80% of the guideline value in all creeks. Where ratings are below `A', this was due to low numbers of sensitive species from the `PET' families (see `Waterway Recovery Indicators ­ Indicator 6.). Hilliards Creek rated the highest for fish and water bug communities. Despite a high proportion of introduced fish, the creek supports 9-10 native species. This is thought to be due to the more consistent flow and higher dissolved oxygen levels when compared to other creeks. Upper Tingalpa Creek also had high water bug diversity, however fish communities rated relatively poorly. The site is in the upper catchment where the finding is thought to be due to downstream barriers to fish movement. Overall, North Stradbroke Island rated very well for macro-invertebrate communities and this was due mostly to a high number of sensitive species from the `PET' families. These species are affected by disturbance of the waterway, so the results suggest that the majority of the creeks are in an undisturbed state. Fish community ratings on North Stradbroke were relatively lower than water bugs ­ largely due to low numbers of native species present.

·

·

·

·

·

Waterway management and protection

5

· · ·

Waterway Management Plans have been completed for Hilliards, Tingalpa and Eprapah Creek catchments. On-ground operational rehabilitation plans have been developed to track the implementation of recommendations from the reports. Native Dog Creek catchment and the northern section of Southern Redland Bay Catchment (including Weinam Creek) are currently undergoing Integrated Waterway Planning, to minimise the impact of future development on water quality in the creeks, flooding levels and ultimately water quality in the Bay. Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft). The Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project will split the creeks into `management units' and identify broad priorities for protection, management and rehabilitation of riparian zones and in-stream habitat across the mainland catchments as a whole ­ in other words, out of all of the mainland catchments, which riparian and instream areas (management units) are most important to protect, or are most in need of management or rehabilitation?

· ·

Waterway Recovery Indicators

The following indicators were assessed to determine the health of each waterway catchment. These indicators are key measures that provide useful information and help track changes in the environment.

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Environmental values reflect qualities identified by the community based on use of and values for the waterways. They are fundamentally important because Water Quality Objectives are set to protect these values from the effects of pollution, waste discharges and deposits, to ensure healthy aquatic ecosystems and waterways that are safe and suitable for community use. The Environmental Protection Agency published the `Redland Creeks Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives' in March 2006. Reporting on this indicator will bring up gaps where values and objectives need to be set.

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Waterways need to be sampled representatively in order to determine condition and identify pressures that are impacting on waterway health. By monitoring ambient water quality, fish and bug populations and loads entering during rainfall events, Council can identify poor water quality `hotspots'. Monitoring also allows us to measure improvements in water quality and ecosystem health following implementation of management actions. The number of sites monitored under Council's Ambient, Hotspot, Event-based and Fish and Water bugs monitoring programs, and Healthy Waterways Partnership Ecosystem Health monitoring program are presented for each creek.

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

The State Government has set out guidelines detailing the level of pollutants that are acceptable in waterways without being detrimental to ecosystem health. Guidelines for other factors that affect the ecosystem health of waterways have also been set, including oxygen, pH and temperature. When pollution levels are consistently above guideline levels, the health of the waterway and the fauna and flora that rely on it can be compromised. The data

6

analysed is from Councils Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program, which has been running since 2004. Appendix 3 and 4 set out the process for rating these indicators and median values that were data analysed. The critical water quality indicators include: Physical/Chemical Indicators Dissolved Oxygen: Measure of the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water column. Most aquatic organisms `breathe' the oxygen dissolved in water. Too low can cause suffocation, too high can cause gas bubbles to form in fish's circulatory systems. Low dissolved oxygen can also cause nutrients to be released into the water column. Temperature: Rapid changes can be harmful to sensitive species and increase susceptibility to toxins and disease. Very high or low temperatures can lead to fish kills. pH: Measure of the acidity or alkalinity of water. pH varies naturally between and within catchments depending on the types of rock, soil and vegetation present. Very low or high values can cause stress or death to aquatic organisms. Changes can also affect the natural chemistry of the water and make certain toxins more available. Electrical conductivity: A measure of salinity, which includes many ions other than the typical `saltiness' of water. Aquatic plants and animals need these ions for survival. Levels outside the normal range can cause stress or even death. High levels affect the ability of plant roots to absorb nutrients. Turbidity: A measure of the muddiness or fogginess of water, caused by suspended particles of sediment or organic matter. High turbidity can smother organisms on the creek bed, irritate fish gills and reduce light penetration, which can slow plant growth. Nutrient Levels Nitrogen & Phosphorus: Measure of the amount and availability of nitrogen and phosphorus. High levels can cause plants and algae to grow too fast and impact creek health. Algal blooms block light filtering down to the creek bed, change the pH and dissolved oxygen and stress or kill-off sensitive species. Excessive growth of larger plants slows water flow and leads to stagnation and loss of dissolved oxygen. Aquatic Processes Chlorophyll-a: Measured to give an indication of the amount of algae or phytoplankton growing in a waterway, which is influenced by the availability of light, nutrients and water temperature. High values indicate a higher than normal availability of light and nutrients.

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

Redlands waterways flow directly into Moreton Bay, with the exception of California, Native Dog and Serpentine Creek, which are connected indirectly via the Logan River. High amounts of nutrients in the bay have been linked to algal blooms and sediment can smother sea grass, therefore loads (amount per unit per time) of nutrient and sediments contributed from Redlands creeks should be kept low.

Indicator 5. Abundance and species composition of fish communities

7

Fish are directly impacted by water quality and their communities reflect a range of natural and human-induced disturbances. Introduced fish species tend to be more resilient to disturbance and changes to water quality. They exert pressure onto native species through competition for food, refuge and breeding habitat. Fish communities are rated in this report by the number of native species found and the proportion of introduced fish in the total fish catch. The data comes from the Healthy Waterways Partnership Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) augmented by Council's `Fish and Bugs' monitoring project which was carried out for Council by Dept of Natural Resources using the EHMP methodology.

Indicator 6. Abundance and species composition of macroinvertebrate communities

Macro-invertebrates (water bugs) form a key link in the aquatic food chain. They are in close contact with and are directly affected by the water column and the sediments in it, making their presence and abundance an ideal indicator for waterway health. Certain species of water bugs are relatively more sensitive than others to adverse environmental conditions and disturbance, so their presence is used as an indicator of the level of disturbance in a waterway. Water bug communities are rated in this report by the number of species present (Taxa Richness), the number of species from the sensitive Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera families (PET score), and the average sensitivity of all species found (SIGNAL Score). The data comes from same sources as for Indicator 5 (fish communities).

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

Catchment-specific Waterway Management Plans allow for greater coordination of waterway management activities through measuring the health of the creeks in terms of waterway health, land use and ecological values. Action areas are identified and their implementation works towards improving water quality and waterway health. Reporting on this indicator will show data gaps where no planning activities have been carried out in a catchment and track the age and review period for plans.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

Riparian vegetation filters out pollutants travelling over land in runoff, strengthens banks against erosion and provides shade and habitat for riparian species. These `services' are lost when riparian vegetation is cleared or degraded, for example by weed invasion. The Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping and Prioritisation project (to be completed in June 2009) has divided the waterways into `management units' and management, rehabilitation and protection actions within these units have been prioritised. An emphasis has been placed prioritising habitats that are high quality or only slightly disturbed. Over time, reporting on this indicator will track the rehabilitation and management of the priority areas.

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

Riparian vegetation and wetlands have a greater likelihood of survival when threats are reduced through protection of catchments. Again the waterways have been divided into management units and prioritised according to protection measures needed, with an emphasis on areas that are currently in good condition (in order to prevent any future degradation). Reporting on the percentage of relatively natural (high priority) pools and habitat areas that are zoned for conservation and managed under a plan gives an indication of the likely long-term viability of those features.

8

9

Guide to report

Each catchment (or group of catchments) has a two-page spread presenting the vital statistics of the waterway and catchment and its health based on indicator analysis. The guides below explain how the data for each catchment is displayed.

Lefthand page Catchment statistics:

Catchment heading

Some catchments have been grouped (small size or limited data-set) and some have subcatchments listed.

Context map

Location of the catchment in the City.

Catchment map

Boundaries of the catchment and suburbs, waterways, major landmarks and direction of water flow are indicated.

Catchment features

The vital statistics of the catchment and waterway.

Catchment health summary

Summary of the general health of the waterway based on the indicator analysis.

Results for Indicator 1 ­ Environmental Values

The values identified for each section of the waterway, based on use and `services' provided.

10

Guide to report

Righthand page ­Indicator analysis:

Results for Indicator 2 ­ monitoring activities

Sites monitored by each program across the catchment, and the coverage (1 site/how many km)

Results for Indicator 3 ­ rating water quality against guidelines

Ratings for water quality indicators against the Qld Water Quality Guidelines from 20042008. Ratings scale from A (best) to F (worst). Trends in the data (not the overall rating) are also displayed.

Results for Indicator 4 nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

Data being analysed, will be included in following drafts.

Results for Indicator 5 and 6 ­ fish and water bug communities

Ratings for water quality indicators against the Qld Water Quality Guidelines from 2004-2008. Ratings scale from A (best) to F (worst). Trends in the data (not the overall rating) are also displayed.

Results for Indicator 7 waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

Lists management plans developed, scheduling of works as a result, and status of implementation.

Results for Indicator 8 ­ management priorities

Data being analysed, will be included in following drafts.

Results for Indicator 9 Protected priority pools and habitat areas

Data being analysed, will be included in following drafts.

11

Tarradarrapin Creek catchment

Including east branch and west branch subcatchments

Can include creek photos Monitoring sites to be added to catchment maps

Catchment features

Total catchment area Annual flow Fall source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Stream length Dominant land uses Significant wetlands 13.4 km2

This catchment has the highest coverage of monitoring sites, and is sampled by 3 of the 5 monitoring programs, due to high level of road access to the creek. Tarradarrapin creek water quality was rated as `B' from 2004-2007, however this rating fell to a `C' in 2007-2008 due to increases in nutrient concentrations and decreases in dissolved oxygen. The creek has best scores across the city for dissolved oxygen levels. Two sites in Tarradarrapin creek were monitored by the fish and water bugs program in autumn 2007. The fish communities at these sites were rated `F' due to an extremely high proportion of introduced fish (98%) and low diversity of native fish (3 species). high numbers of species (18), a high average SIGNAL score (3.72) and a poor PET score (1)combined to give a waterbug community rating of `B'. A Waterway Management Plan has not been developed for Tarradarrapin creek catchment. Management Priorities: Protection Priorities:

9.5 km total Urban, dense urban, open space RAMSAR-listed Tarradarrapin wetland is located on the eastern channel

Catchment health summary

Environmental values identified for the Tarradarrapin Creek catchment include ecosystem health, human consumer, all levels of recreation, cultural and spiritual values, irrigation and stock water supply, and oystering and seagrass in the estuarine reaches.

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

12

Waterway

Tarradarrapin Creek

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \¤ R

13

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Hotspot Eventbased EHMP 0 Fish and bugs 2 Total sites 13* Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 0.73km

No. sites monitored 4 13 0 by each program *Some of the programs sample from the same sites

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Tarradarrapin

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

B A A A A C D B

B A A A A B C A

B B A A A B C A

C C A A A C D A

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Tarradarrapin

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

Biological indicators

D B

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

No Waterway Management Plan has been completed for Tarradarrapin Catchment to date.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

14

Hilliards Creek catchment

Catchment features

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses % in public ownership Annual flow Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands 28km2 36.42km Urban, Bushland, rural nonurban. changes in nitrogen and dissolved oxygen levels. Most water quality indicators are steady or improving, however conductivity has been gradually increasing over the years. Average-poor Chl-a levels suggest that nutrient and light levels are promoting excessive algal growth. Fish community scores have been a steady `B' since 2004, due to a combination of good diversity of native species (8-10) but also a high proportion of introduced species (35-51%). Water bug communities rated a steady `A' for all years, due to consistently very good ratings for richness, SIGNAL score and PET score for all years. A waterways management plan was completed for Hilliards in 2005. Rehabilitation actions implemented from this plan include revegetation (insert areas). Management priorities: Protection priorities:

Catchment health summary

Hilliards Creek catchment has a fairly high coverage

of monitoring sites compared to other catchments. The water quality rating for the creek has fluctuated between `C' and `B' from 2004-20008, mostly due to

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Hilliards Creek Upper headwaters freshwater Middle reaches freshwater Lower reaches - estuary

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

15

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Hotspot Eventbased EHMP 2 Fish and bugs 2 Total sites 13* Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 2.8km

No. sites monitored 3 8 3 by each program *Some of the programs sample from the same sites

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Hilliards

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend Steady No trend Steady Getting higher Getting lower Steady Steady Overall getting lower

B B A A A C C F

C C A A A C B D

B A A A A C B A

C C A A A C C F

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Hilliards

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

Biological indicators

B A B A B A B A

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

A Waterways Management Plan was developed by Redland City Council (Environmental Management Group) in 2005.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

16

17

Cleveland and Thornlands catchments

Catchment features

Cleveland Catchment

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses % in public ownership Annual flow Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

11.5 km2 2.6 km Urban, open space, dense urban

Catchment health summary

The Black Swamp, in Cleveland, is the only site monitored out of these two catchment areas. Black Swamp wetlands in the north-west of the catchment 9.8km2 9.8km Urban, open space, rural non-urban Based on the results for the inlet to the Black Swamp, the overall water quality was rated as a steady `C'. Dissolved oxygen levels were fair-good over the 4 years of monitoring, so the overall average rating is due mostly to very high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen. Very good Chl-a levels suggest however that nutrient and light levels are not promoting excessive algal growth. No data has been collected in relation to fish and water bug communities in either catchment. No Waterway Management Plans have been developed to guide rehabilitation and management actions in these catchments. Management priorities: Protection Priorities:

Thornlands Catchment

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Cleveland

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë\¤ R

18

Thornlands

19

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

No. sites monitored by each program Cleveland Catchment (Ross Creek) Thornlands Catchment Ambient 2 0 Hotspot 0 0 Eventbased 0 0 EHMP 0 0 Fish and bugs 0 0 Total sites 2 0 Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 1.28km No regular monitoring

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

NOTE: Only the results from the monitoring site at the inlet to the Black Swamp were rated, as there are no set guidelines for wetland water quality under the Qld Water Quality Guidelines.

Black Swamp site 2

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

C B A A A F D A

C B A A A C D A

C C A A A F D A

C B A A A F D A

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Biological indicators

No fish or macro-invertebrate monitoring has been carried out in either catchment.

Black Swamp site 2

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend No data No data

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

No Waterway Management Plan has been completed for Cleveland or Thornlands Catchment to date.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

20

Eprapah Creek catchment

Including Eprapah, Little Eprapah and Sandy Creek subcatchments

Catchment features

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses 39 km2 51.9 km Rural non-urban, urban, commercial and broad-acre agriculture.

inaccessibility of large areas under private ownership. Eprapah creek has the lowest overall water quality rating across the city. The rating has fluctuated between `C' and `D' from 2004-20008, mostly due to increases in nutrient concentrations and declines in dissolved oxygen levels. Very good Chl-a levels suggest that nutrient and light levels are not promoting excessive algal growth. Fish communities have been rated as fair to poor, due to an average overall good diversity of native species (8-10) but also a high proportion of introduced species (35-51%). Water bug communities rated a steady `A' for all years, due to consistently very good ratings for richness, SIGNAL score and PET score for all years. A Waterway Management Plan has been developed for Eprapah Creek. Management priorities: Protection Priorities:

Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

Catchment health summary

Eprapah Creek has average coverage of sampling

sites along the main channel and Little Eprapah creek, due to the size of the catchment and

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Upper main channel ­ upstream of Mt Cotton Rd Sandy Creek Middle main channel ­ Mt Cotton Rd to Luke St (east) Little Eprapah Creek - freshwater Lower main channel - Luke St (east) to

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

21

tidal limit Estuarine reaches

22

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Hotspot Eventbased EHMP 2 Fish and bugs 1 Total sites 14* Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 3.71km No. sites monitored 4 11 3 by each program *Some of the programs sample from the same sites

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Eprapah

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

C C A A A F B A

D D A A A D D A

C B A A A B C A

D F A A A F D A

Getting worse Steady Steady Steady No trend Steady Getting worse

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Biological indicators

Eprapah

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend Improving Steady

C A

C B

C A

B A

Protection, management and rehabilitation indicators

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

A Waterway Management Plan was developed for Eprapah Creek Catchment by City Design in 2004.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

23

Southeastern catchments

Including Moogurrapum Creek, Weinam Creek and Southern Redland Bay catchments

Catchment features

Moogurrapum

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses

15.1 km2 31.5 km Rural non-urban, urban, open space and intensive agriculture.

Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

Southern Redland Bay

Catchment health summary

Moogurrapum and Southern Redland Bay catchments have very low monitoring coverage compared to other catchments. Weinam Creek (Southern Redland Bay Catchment) had the highest overall rating in the City in 2004/2005; however the rating has rapidly declined from an `A' to a `D' over the last 4 years.

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

14 km2 14.7 km (Weinam Creek = 8.49 km) Rural non-urban, urban, open space and bushland.

Both catchments have overall declining water quality ratings, which have been driven by declines in dissolved oxygen and nutrient concentrations. Moogurrapum Creek rated worse overall than Weinam Creek. Biotic indicators have only been monitored in Moogurrapum, as part of the Healthy waterways EHMP. Rating for Fish indicators has declined over the three years of data, due to increasing numbers of introduced fish. The macro-invertebrate communities have fluctuated between good and very good, changes are due to changes in number of PET species. A waterway health assessment was completed for both catchments in 2003. Weinam and Torquay Creeks have been included in an Integrated Waterway Management Plan.

Several wetland areas along Weinam and Torquay Creek have been identified with high diversity of in-stream habitat

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Moogurrapum Creek Southern Redland Bay

N B W S [ d ^* DQ Ë\¤ R

24

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Hotspot Eventbased 0 0 EHMP 1 0 Fish and bugs 2 0 Total sites 4* 1 Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 7.9 km Approx 1 site every 8.49 km Moogurrapum Creek 2 0 Southern Redland Bay 1 0 *Some of the programs sample from the same sites

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Southern Redland Bay

04/05 Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend 04/05 05/06

Moogurrapum

06/07 07/08 Data Trend

A A A A A A A

B D A A A B A

B D A A A B A

D F A A A C C

C C A A A B D

C D A A A C D

C D A A A C C

D F A A A D F

F

A

F

F

F

A

C

D

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

04/05 Moogurrapum Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend Declining Steady No data No data

Biological indicators

B B C A C B

Southern Redland Bay

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

No Waterway Management Plan has been completed for Moogurrapum or Southern Redland Bay Catchments to date. A Waterway Health Assessment (WHA) was completed for both catchments in 2003 (WHA's inform the development of Management Plans). Southern Redland Bay Catchment is included in an Integrated Waterway Plan currently being developed.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

·

25

Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

26

Southern catchments

Including Serpentine Creek, Native Dog Creek and California Creek Catchments

Catchment features

Total catchment area Serpentine Creek 16.8 km2 (13.7 km2 in Redlands, 3.1 km2 in Logan) 16.5 km (in Redlands) Bushland (Logan portion is mostly rural nonurban) Native Dog Creek 32.4 km2 (11.3 km2 in Redlands, 21.1 km2 in Logan) 9.6 km (in Redlands) Non-urban, bushland, urban and intensive agriculture. California Creek 15 km2 (2.9 km2 in Redlands, 12.1 km2 in Logan) 3.5 km Rural non-urban and bushland

Stream length Dominant land uses

Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

Catchment health summary

Native Dog creek has a high coverage of monitoring sites, whereas Serpentine creek is one of the least monitored creeks. No ambient monitoring is carried out in Serpentine, Native Dog or California Creek; therefore no water quality ratings could be derived. Serpentine and Native Dog creeks were monitored for the fish and water bugs program in autumn 2007. The fish communities at the Native Dog site were rated as poor due to very high proportion of introduced fish (84%) and a low diversity of native species (3). Macro-invertebrate communities were rated average due to high richness and SIGNAL score (13, 3.46), but no PET species were found. Fish and macro-invertebrate scores were both average in Serpentine Creek, due to a very low proportion of introduced fish(2%), low diversity of native species (3), high macro-invertebrate richness and SIGNAL score (12, 2.8), but no PET species were found. No Waterway Management Plan has been completed for the three southern catchments to date. An Integrated Waterways Plan is currently being developed for Native Dog Creek.

27

Indicator analysis

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

No Environmental Values identified ­ use default values Other freshwater tributaries

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Serpentine Creek Native Dog Creek California Creek 0 0 0 Hotspot 0 6 0 Eventbased 0 0 0 EHMP 0 0 0 Fish and bugs 1 1 0 Total sites 1 7 0 Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 16.52 km Approx 1 site every 1.38 km No regular monitoring

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

No data collected for this indicator

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Biological indicators

Southern Catchments

Serpentine Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities Native Dog Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

C C D C

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

No Waterway Management Plan has been completed for the three southern catchments to date. An Integrated Waterways Plan is currently being developed for Native Dog Creek.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

28

Upper Tingalpa Creek catchment

Including subcatchments

Catchment Features

Total catchment area 83 km2 (33.2 km2 in Redlands, 33.4 in Brisbane, 16.4 in Logan City) 84.8 km (in Redlands) Rural non-urban and bushland.

Stream length Dominant land uses Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

Catchment health summary

Upper Tingalpa Creek catchment has relatively low monitoring coverage, due to the size of the catchment and the creek flows through a lot of large blocks and reserves with limited road access. Upper Tingalpa catchment has achieved the highest overall water quality rating, with a consistent `B' rating from 2004-2008. This is due mostly to low concentrations of phosphorus and average levels of nitrogen. The rating has been brought down by low dissolved oxygen levels and very high chlorophyll-a levels over most years.

Fish communities in the catchment have rated poorly since 2004, but are improving. Proportion of introduced fish is generally low, so the rating is mostly reflecting the low diversity of native species present (1-3 species). Water bug communities have consistently scored very well for richness (21-28 Taxa), SIGNAL score (3.5-4) and PET (3-4 species). A Waterway Management Plan was developed for the Tingalpa Creek Catchment in 2003, and this included Upper Tingalpa Creek Catchment.

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Tingalpa Creek upper freshwater, including Priest Gully, Buhot Creek and Stockyard Creek

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

29

Leslie Harrison Dam - freshwater

30

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient No. sites monitored by each program 1 Hotspot 0 Eventbased 0 EHMP 1 Fish and bugs 2 Total sites 4 Monitoring coverage Approx 1 site every 8.51km

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Upper Tingalpa Catchment

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

B D A A A A B F

B D A B A A B B

B C A A A A C F

B D A A A A B F

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft. Upper Tingalpa Catchment

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend Improving Steady

Biological indicators

D A D A D A C A

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

A Waterway Management Plan was developed for Tingalpa Creek Catchment in 2003 by City Design. This was a collaborative effort between Redlands, Brisbane and Logan City Councils and included Upper and Lower Tingalpa Creek Catchments and Coolnwynpin Creek Catchment.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

31

Lower Tingalpa Creek catchment

Including Lower Tingalpa Creek and Coolnwynpin Creek catchments

Catchment Features

Total catchment area 34.4 km2 (28.8 km2 in Redlands, 5.5 km2 in Brisbane) 10.64 km (in Redlands) Urban, industrial, rural non-urban and small pockets of bushland.

Stream length Dominant land uses

Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands

The water quality of Lower Tingalpa Creek has increased from average to good in 2004, but in the last year of monitoring has declined to average. This is mostly due to increase in nitrogen, as phosphorus and dissolved oxygen have remained steady over the years. Fish communities have improved over the years, mostly due to increasing diversity of native fish. Proportion introduced fish is consistently very high. Macro-invertebrate communities rating increased from `B' to `A' in 06/07 but decreased to `B' in 07/08 due to fluctuations in the number of PET species identified. A Waterway Management Plan was developed for the Tingalpa Creek Catchment in 2003, and this included Lower Tingalpa Creek and Coolnwynpin Creek Catchments. Management priorities: Protection Priorities:

Catchment health summary

There are no water quality monitoring sites on the Lower Tingalpa Creek. The monitoring coverage along Coolnwynpin Creek is relatively high.

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

Middle freshwater ­ including Coolnwynpin Creek

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

32

Estuarine and enclosed coastal

33

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Lower Tingalpa Creek Coolnwynpin Creek Hotspot Eventbased EHMP Fish and bugs Total sites 0 3 1 3 7 Monitoring coverage No regular monitoring Approx 1 site every 1.52km

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin

Overall score Physical/Chemical DO pH Conductivity Turbidity Nutrient Levels Phosphorus Nitrogen Aquatic processing Chl-a 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

C C A A A C C F

B C A A A A C B

B C A A A B B D

C C A A A B D A

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft. Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

Biological indicators

D B C A B B

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

A Waterway Management Plan was developed for Tingalpa Creek Catchment in 2003 by City Design. This was a collaborative effort between Redlands, Brisbane and Logan City Councils and included Upper and Lower Tingalpa Creek Catchments and Coolnwynpin Creek Catchment.

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

34

North Stradbroke Island catchments

Including

Catchment Features

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers Significant wetlands 271.9 km2 Creeks have not been formally mapped. Bushland, small pockets of urban. Low ­ mostly infiltration.

Catchment health summary

Environmental values have not been set for North Stradbroke Island (NSI). Regular water quality monitoring is not carried out by council on North Stradbroke Island. Overall, North Stradbroke Island rated very well for macro-invertebrate communities and this was due mostly to a high number of sensitive species from the `PET' families. These species are affected by disturbance of the waterway, so the results suggest that the majority of the creeks are in an undisturbed state. Fish community ratings were relatively lower than water bugs and this was mostly due to low numbers of native species present.

Capembah Creek on the western side of NSI was rated `A' for fish and water bug communities, indicating that it is functioning as a healthy creek. Aranarawai creek also scored `A' for water bugs, and there were no recorded introduced fish, however low number of native species found (3) brought the fish score down. No management and protection priorities have been set for North Stradbroke Island (in the context of the whole-of-City).

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

No Environmental Values identified ­ use default values Other freshwater tributaries

N B W S [ D ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

35

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient North Stradbroke Island 0 Hotspot 0 Eventbased 0 EHMP 0 Fish and Bugs 8 Total sites Monitoring coverage Unable to be determined ­ stream length has not been formally calculated

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

North Stradbroke Island

Overall score Physical/Chemical Nutrient Levels Aquatic processing 04/05 No data No data No data No data 05/06 06/07 07/08 Data Trend

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

No data exists for this indicator.

Biological indicators

Creeks

Overall NSI score

Indicator

Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities

04/05

05/06

06/07

07/08

Data Trend

B A D C C A A A D B B A D No data* C No data* C B

Un-named creek ­ Flinders Beach Aranarawai creek Capembah Creek The Keyholes Yerrol creek Brown Lake Freshwater Creek Blue Lake outflow

Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities Fish Communities Macro-invertebrate Communities

* No `edge' habitat available for sampling.

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control) Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

36

Southern Moreton Bay Island catchments

Including Coochiemudlo, Macleay, Lamb, Karragarra and Russell Island catchments

Catchment Features

Total catchment area Stream length Dominant land uses Annual flow % in public ownership Fall from source to sea Predominant soil types Fish present Invertebrate numbers 22.9 km2 Creeks have not been formally mapped. Low-density urban and open space. Significant wetlands

Catchment health summary

The Southern Moreton Bay Islands have not had catchment-specific Environmental Values identified. Regular water quality monitoring is not carried out on the Southern Moreton Bay Islands; therefore there is no comparable data available to report on for this year's report card.

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

Waterway

No Environmental Values identified ­ use default values Other freshwater tributaries

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤ R

37

Indicator analysis

Water quality

Indicator 2. Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Ambient Coochiemudlo Macleay Lamb Karragarra Russell Hotspot Eventbased EHMP Fish and bugs Total sites Monitoring coverage No regular monitoring No regular monitoring No regular monitoring No regular monitoring No regular monitoring

Indicator 3. Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

SMBI

Overall score Physical/Chemical Nutrient Levels Aquatic processing 04/05 No data No data No data No data 05/06 No data No data No data No data 06/07 No data No data No data No data 07/08 No data No data No data No data Data Trend

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

Biological indicators

SMBI

Indicator 5. Fish Communities Indicator 6. Macro-invertebrate Communities 04/05 No data No data 05/06 No data No data 06/07 No data No data 07/08 No data No data Data Trend

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control) Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

38

Citywide Status

The results for this section are presented in tabular form here and summarised in the `Whole of Redlands Summary' section at the start of this report. The results would be described in more detail in this section in the next drafting stage.

Water quality

Indicator 1. Waterways with defined Environmental Values

See Appendix 2 for list of Environmental Values for all catchments.

Indicator 2. Monitoring sites within all catchments

No. sites Frequency Tarradarrapin Creek Hilliards Creek Cleveland Thornlands Eprapah Creek Moogurrapum Creek Southern Redland Bay Serpentine Creek Native Dog Creek California Creek Upper Tingalpa Creek Lower Tingalpa Coolnwynpin Creek North Stradbroke Island 4 2 1 11 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 Ambient Monthly 4 3 2** Hotspot During rainfall 13 8 Eventbased During rainfall 3 EHMP Biannually 2 Fish and bugs Once-off in 07/08 2 2 Total sites Coverage

13* 13* 0 0 14* 4* 1 1 7 0

6

1

1

2

4 0

3 0

0

0

1 0

3 8

7* 8

SMBI

0

1 site every 0.73km 1 site every 2.8km No regular monitoring No regular monitoring 1 site every 3.71km 1 site every 7.90km 1 site every 8.49km 1 site every 16.52km 1 site every 1.38km No regular monitoring 1 site every 8.51km No regular monitoring 1 site every 1.52km Unable to determined ­ stream length has not been formally calculated No regular monitoring

* Some of the programs sample from the same sites ** These sites are in the Black Swamp, which does not form part of Ross Creek; therefore they are not included in the coverage.

Indicator 3. Status compared to guidelines of critical water quality indicators collectively

Catchment Tarradarrapin Hilliards Cleveland (Black Swamp) Thornlands Eprapah South-eastern Catchments Southern Catchments 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08

Moogurrapum Southern Redland Bay Serpentine Native Dog California

Upper Tingalpa Catchment Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin North Stradbroke Island

B B C no data C C A no data no data no data B C no data

B C C no data D C B no data no data no data B B no data

B B C no data C C B no data no data no data B B no data

C C C no data D D D no data no data no data B C no data

39 SMBI

no data

no data

no data

no data

40

Citywide Status

Indicator 4. Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

· NOTE: Data currently being analysed and to be included in next draft.

Catchment Tarradarrapin Hilliards Cleveland (Black Swamp) Thornlands Eprapah South-eastern Catchments Southern Catchments Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids

Moogurrapum Southern Redland Bay Serpentine Native Dog California

Upper Tingalpa Catchment Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin

Biological indicators

Indicator 5. Abundance and species composition of fish communities

Catchment Tarradarrapin Hilliards Cleveland (Black Swamp) Thornlands Eprapah South-eastern Catchments Moogurrapum Southern Redland Bay Southern Catchments Serpentine Native Dog California Upper Tingalpa Catchment Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin North Stradbroke Island SMBI 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08

no data B no data no data C no data no data no data no data no data D no data no data

no data B no data no data C B no data no data no data no data D D no data

no data B no data no data C C no data no data no data no data D C no data

D B no data no data B C no data C D no data C B B no data

Indicator 6. Abundance and species composition of macroinvertebrate communities

Catchment Tarradarrapin Hilliards Cleveland (Black Swamp) Thornlands Eprapah South-eastern Catchments Moogurrapum Southern Redland Bay Southern Catchments Serpentine Native Dog California Upper Tingalpa Catchment Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin North Stradbroke Island SMBI 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08

no data A no data no data A no data no data no data no data no data A no data no data

no data A no data no data B B no data no data no data no data A B no data

no data A no data no data A A no data no data no data no data A A no data

B A no data no data A B no data C C no data A B A no data

41

Citywide Status

Protection, management and rehabilitation actions

Indicator 7. Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans (WMP)

Catchment Tarradarrapin Hilliards 2005 Cleveland (Black Swamp) Thornlands Eprapah 2004 South-eastern Catchments Moogurrapum Southern Redland Bay Serpentine Native Dog California Upper Tingalpa Catchment Lower Tingalpa/Coolnwynpin Implementation schedule developed and being completed on-ground (insert area revegetated). Major projects undertaken at Silvara Circuit and Glover Drive Integrated Waterway Plan in preparation Integrated Waterway Plan in preparation Implementation schedule developed and being completed on-ground (insert area revegetated) Implementation schedule developed and being completed on-ground (insert area revegetated) WMP? Date completed Implementation schedule

Southern Catchments

2003

North Stradbroke Island SMBI catchments

Indicator 8. Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

Indicator 9. Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

· Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft).

42

Major issues for improving health of waterways

Outlined below are the major issues for improvements in water quality and waterway health, based on the results of indicator analysis for each creek.

Indicator 1.

·

Waterways with defined Environmental Values

No catchment-specific values have been set for the Southern Catchments ­ Native Dog, Serpentine ad California Creek catchments. Environmental values also have not been set for North Stradbroke Island or the Southern Moreton Bay Island Catchments.

Indicator 2.

·

Monitoring activities carried out within the catchment

Currently there is no regular ambient water quality monitoring carried out in Cleveland Catchment, Thornlands Catchments Serpentine creek, Native Dog Creek, California Creek, Lower Tingalpa Creek, or the North Stradbroke and Southern Moreton Bay island creeks. Without this data, a clear indication of the health of these creeks cannot be determined. Hotspot and/or event-based monitoring is carried out in Tarradarrapin, Hilliards, Eprapah and Native Dog creeks, and is helping to track down the causes of poor waterway health. Coupled with ambient monitoring data, load data would be very useful for the remaining catchments in finding and ending sediment and nutrient pollution.

· · ·

Indicator 3.

· ·

Status of critical water quality indicators compared to guidelines

Across the mainland catchments, there is a general trend of worsening ratings for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Excessive nutrients can cause algal blooms to grow in the waterway, and when these blooms collapse they deplete oxygen as the algae is broken down by bacteria, micro-organisms and other bugs in the water. Poor ratings for dissolved oxygen generally accompany poor nutrient scores, and declining trends are mirrored in both parameters. It is assumed that dissolved oxygen levels will improve as the problems caused by high nutrient levels are managed. Moogurrapum, Eprapah and the Black Swamp show the sharpest declines in nitrogen and phosphorus scores over the years ­ Moogurrapum rated `F' for nitrogen and `D' for phosphorus, and the Black Swamp and Eprapah both rated `F' for phosphorus and `D' for nitrogen in 2007/2008. The remaining (rated) catchments all show either steady (generally poor) or declining nutrient ratings. Based on the ratings, Moogurrapum and Eprapah Creek and the Black Swamp would be higher priority for nutrient reduction projects, however this is also vital action across the remaining creeks in order to improve ecosystem health. The relationship between nutrient and chlorophyll-a levels is not always as obvious, but it is assumed that since nutrients are required for algal growth decreasing nutrient levels should also decrease algae and other nuisance plant growth, and therefore reduce chlorophyll-a levels. Physical/Chemical parameters are consistently within guideline levels across the rated creeks. Council would not be aiming to manage this aspect of water quality

·

·

· ·

·

·

43

Indicator 4.

·

Nutrient and sediment loads leaving the catchment

Data currently being analysed and will be included in next draft of report.

Indicator 5. Indicator 6.

·

Abundance and species composition of fish communities; and Abundance and species composition of macroinvertebrate communities

On-going fish and water bug data has been collected for Hilliards Eprapah, Moogurrapum and the two Tingalpa catchments through the Healthy Waterways EHMP monitoring. An effort was made to gather comparable data for the majority of the remaining mainland catchments, and North Stradbroke Island catchments, through the Fish and Water bugs monitoring project in 2007. Creeks tested in the Fish and Water bugs project in that one year (2007) tended to rate lower in comparison to those monitored over 3 ­ 4 years under the EHMP program. Overall, North Stradbroke Island rated very well for macro-invertebrate communities and this was due mostly to a high number of sensitive species from the `PET' families. These species are affected by disturbance of the waterway, so the results suggest that the majority of the creeks are in an undisturbed state. Fish community ratings on North Stradbroke were relatively lower than water bugs ­ largely due to low numbers of native species present. Looking across the City, fish communities are rated fairly low but have improved slightly since 2004 in terms of number of native species, and proportion of introduced species. Ratings for water bug communities are generally high and trends are steady in creeks with ongoing data. Keeping in mind that fish and water bugs are a reflection of waterway health, these trends suggest that that ecosystem health is steady or improving across the City.

· ·

· · · ·

Indicator 7.

· ·

Waterways covered by Waterway Management Plans

Formal Waterway Management Plans have been developed for around a quarter of the creek catchments. In the creek catchments that have had a Waterway Management Plan developed (Eprapah, Hilliards and Tingalpa), or are in the process of Integrated Waterway Planning (Native Dog and northern half of Southern Redland Bay catchment), it is important to ensure that the recommendations from these plans are implemented to improve catchment and waterway health. Waterways without Waterway Management Planning in place lack direction for rehabilitation and management projects to improve waterway health. There is a need in the remaining catchments areas to develop some mechanism for efficiently and effectively guiding implementation of on-ground rehabilitation works, planning scheme protection, and general maintenance of already healthy areas. The Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project will help Council to identify broad protection, management and rehabilitation priority actions across the mainland catchments as a whole ­ in other words, out of all of the mainland catchments, which areas need this work the most.

· ·

·

44

Indicator 8.

· ·

Length of waterway with high and medium priority for management actions (weeding, revegetation, bank stabilisation, erosion control)

Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft). The Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project will split the creeks into `management units' and identify broad priorities for management and rehabilitation of riparian zones and in-stream habitat across the mainland catchments as a whole ­ in other words, out of all of the mainland catchments, which riparian and in-stream areas (management units) need management and rehabilitation actions implemented most?

Indicator 9.

· ·

Length of waterway with priority pools and habitat areas protected (via public land zoned for conservation and covered by management plans)

Awaiting results of the Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project (to be completed June 2009 and included in next draft). The Creek Functional Unit and Riparian Zone Mapping Project will split the creeks into `management units' and identify broad priorities for protection of riparian zones and in-stream habitat across the mainland catchments as a whole ­ in other words, out of all of the mainland catchments, which riparian and in-stream areas (management units) are most important to protect?

References

EHMP (2008) Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program 2006-07 Annual Technical Report. South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane. EHMP (2008) Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program 2005-06 Annual Technical Report. South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane. EHMP (2008) Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program 2004-05 Annual Technical Report. South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, Brisbane. ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Environment Australia, Canberra Moffatt, D. B. (2008) Ecological assessment of the Non-tidal Waterways of Redland Shire: Autumn 2007. Unpublished report to Redland Shire Council, Natural Resources and Water, Indooroopilly. EPA (2006) Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2006. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane. BAAM (2008) Hilliards Creek Corridor Biodiversity Assessment 2007/2008, Biodiversity Assessment and Management, Cleveland. BAMM (2008) Eprapah Creek Corridor Biodiversity Assessment 2008/2009, Biodiversity Assessment and Management, Cleveland.

45

Appendix 1 ­ Management actions to date

Council's management objective for waterways is to `halt and reverse the declining trend in waterway health'

The work carried out under the Waterways Recovery Actions program fits into four broad themes: 1. Establishing a City-wide waterways status 2. Finding the water quality hotspots 3. Ending sediment and nutrient pollution 4. Protection of habitat pools and core reaches from further degradation

1.

Establishing a Citywide waterways status

The Waterways Recovery Actions aim to provide a scientific basis for implementing protection and on-ground revegetation, rehabilitation and other management activities in the most strategic areas. The Waterways Recovery Actions to date have included:

State of the Creeks Survey

This was one of the first studies under the Waterways Recovery Actions program; the creeks were defined into management units in order to prioritise implementation of protection and rehabilitation actions along the creeks. Outcomes/findings · Redland City's mainland waterway health is rated as moderate or C. · The reaches of highest environmental value were contained in management units described as `currently in good condition'. · All the waterways on NSI were identified as having 'very good' (A) environmental conditions. · Half of the total mainland waterway length only received an environmental value of moderate (C), being dominated by urban, grazing and rural residential management units. · When defined by sub-catchment Serpentine, Upper Tingalpa and Hilliards Creek catchments have the highest environmental value, whilst Southern Redland Bay, Thornlands and Lower Tingalpa Creek have the lowest environmental value. · Many reaches on the mainland fall into the categories of low and very low priority for protection and conservation, whereas those on NSI all had high or very high priority rating. · On a whole, the bed and banks of the waterways of the City are highly stable against processes of erosion and sedimentation.

Pollutant export modelling

For this project, the catchments were defined into subcatchments and the levels of water run-off, nutrients and sediment leaving each subcatchment was modelled. The modelling was based on the land use (amount of impermeable surface, and general pollutants from each land use type) and the data from Council's ambient monitoring program. Outcomes/findings · Increases in predicted nutrient loads due to land use change between 2008 and 2023 (i.e. developing to the capacity that the Planning Scheme allows) will be relatively minor compared to the resulting increase from STP outputs as the population grows. · The project compared the modelled outputs from Redland Catchments to the Logan-Albert and Lower Brisbane Catchments, and the overall predicted amount of nutrients and sediments entering Moreton Bay from Redlands was significantly lower. Despite this, Redlands may be contributing higher loads from diffuse sources on a per hectare basis compared to Logan-Albert, and only just lower than the Lower-Brisbane.

Fish and macroinvertebrates assessment

A survey of the numbers and types of fish and macro-invertebrates (water bugs) in creeks on the mainland and North Stradbroke Island was carried out using the same methods as for the Healthy Waterways Partnerships Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program. Outcomes/findings · Three new native species for Redlands were discovered ­ the Swamp Eel, Estuary Perchlet and Rendahl's Catfish. · The survey identified one rare fish species on the mainland (Southern Purple-spotted Gudgeon) and two on NSI (Swamp Eel and the Ornate Sunfish). · This is the first time a study of this type has been carried out on NSI, and if taken as a benchmark, the results comply with accepted standards. The study did however identify presence of aquatic weeds (Salvinia) and introduced fish (mosquito fish ­ Gambusia) in high proportions at two sites on NSI. · On the mainland, Hilliards Creek had the best results in terms of numbers and diversity of native fish species. Tingalpa Creek also had high populations and species diversity.

46 · Several species of fish were found living in naturally very low pH in Serpentine creek.

Soils mapping project

This was the most recent Waterways Recovery Action completed and the purpose was to map the soil types across the city and to provide information on how the soils may be interacting with land use activities and influencing water quality. The resulting report and mapping grouped soils into 3 broad soil types: coastal and alluvial, basalt and upland soils. Outcomes/findings · Coastal and alluvial soils make up only 15% of the mainland but are nutrient sinks, and are likely to contain background carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus levels from 5 to 20 times that found in the middle and upper catchment areas. These are the areas where there is likely to be a significant exchange between surface waters and shallow groundwater systems impacted by land use. · The basalt soils include the `iconic' red soils, which are low activity clays with a large capacity to fix (immobilise) phosphorus. When these soils erode the clay particles will remain suspended in the water column, resulting in high turbidity (cloudiness). The particles take a long time to settle and because of this are readily transported to the estuaries and into the bay, taking the attached phosphorus particles with them. · The upland soils cover the greatest part of the mainland area. They have low to moderate potential for erosion, however this increases with slope. These soils are coarse and have limited nutrients, meaning nutrients must be added to increase productivity. They are found in all catchments, from mid- to upper catchment. · In terms of land use, a number of factors are likely to be impacting water quality: o Hydrological changes in the alluvial areas through drainage, land filling and vegetation changes are likely to be the major factors associated with nutrient and sediment hotspots in these areas. o There is increasing grazing pressure and application of nutrients in the rural upland areas, which can lead to polluted stormwater runoff. Activities monitored by Council (e.g. poultry farms) are required to control their nutrient loading rates; however this does not apply to the equine and beef grazing sectors. o Septic systems in upland soil areas may be contributing to the nutrient pollution in the creeks.

2.

Finding the water quality hotspots

The findings of the hotspot and event-based monitoring combine with the findings of the Waterways Recovery Actions to provide a scientific basis for targeting where management activities should be implemented to improve water quality and waterway health.

Focussed Hotspot Monitoring

Council implemented an intensive monitoring project to target the subcatchments and tributaries that are delivering the highest amounts of nutrients and sediment to the creeks and Moreton Bay. Monitoring is carried out following rainfall events and the results allow Council to seek out nutrient and sediment `hotspots' along the creeks by monitoring at a finer and finer scale until the sources of pollutants have been identified. The program began in Eprapah, Hilliards and Tarradarrapin creeks and now includes Native Dog and Torquay Creeks.

Trial Eventbased Monitoring

Sampling during rain is a relevant way of measuring impacts from land use on the creek systems as more pollutants can be washed in during a few large events compared to entire contribution for the remainder of the year. Automatic sampling stations have been installed along Eprapah and Hilliards creeks and these systems are capable to taking several samples during rainfall events as the water level rises, peaks and falls. The sites were selected to determine the influence of land uses and land use activities on the loads of nutrients and sediment entering the creeks. The data will also allow Council to determine the total loads leaving the catchments over the year.

3.

Ending sediment and nutrient pollution

Council is launching an extension program through Indigiscapes to tackle the nutrient and sediment pollution problem. The program will include working with the land-holders and managers of properties identified through the hotspot monitoring program to stop or decrease the loads of pollutants leaving their property. Proposed trial incentives include: organic waste removal by contractors (including manure), land and waterway rehabilitation grants and septic system inspections and subsidised upgrades. Monitoring will be continued in the hotspot areas to evaluate the effectiveness of the extension activities.

4.

Protection of habitat pools and core reaches from further degradation

Council is currently undertaking a project to identify reaches of the creeks that have significant habitat in terms of contributing to the healthy functioning of the creek. This includes serving a physical or biological function to the health of the waterway, such as riparian vegetation that filters pollutants from runoff or a permanent pool that offers refuge to aquatic fauna during dry periods. Once mapped, habitats will be prioritised for management activities. The highest priority would be protecting good quality habitat from degradation, then rehabilitating slightly moderately degraded areas, and the lowest priority would be converting highly degraded habitats back to a natural state. The rationale for this is that maintaining the habitat in its current state is more practical allowing degradation and having to implement

47 rehabilitation and revegetation activities later on. By targeting waterway rehabilitation this way, Council will get the most effective outcomes for expenditure on management activities.

48

Appendix 2 ­ Environmental Values identified for each waterway

Waterway

Tarradarrapin Creek Hilliards Creek Upper headwaters - freshwater Middle reaches - freshwater Lower reaches - estuary Cleveland Thornlands Eprapah upper main channel ­ upstream of Mt Cotton Rd Sandy Creek middle main channel ­ Mt Cotton Rd to Luke St (east) Little Eprapah Creek - freshwater lower main channel - Luke St (east) to tidal limit estuarine reaches Moogurrapum Creek Southern Redland Bay Tingalpa Creek upper freshwater, including Priest Gully, Buhot Creek and Stockyard Creek Leslie Harrison Dam - freshwater middle freshwater ­ including Coolnwynpin Creek estuarine and enclosed coastal Other freshwater tributaries (applies to Serpentine, Native Dog and California Creeks) Other estuarine tributaries (not listed above) Other wetlands, lakes and reservoirs (not included above) Other tidal canals, constructed estuaries, marinas and boat harbours (not listed above) Ground waters

N B W S [ d ^ * D Q Ë \ ¤

R

49

Appendix 3 ­ Median values for water quality and biota data

38B

Insert table of median values and sample sizes for comparison of real data (as opposed to ratings.).

50

Appendix 4 ­ Rating water quality and biota indicators

39B

Deriving ratings

15B

`Cut-off' values were set from ANZECC (2000). Percent over/under reference value 80% - 120% 60% - 79% and 121% - 140% 40% - 50% and 141% - 160% 20% - 39% and 161% - 180% 0% - 19% and >180% Condition category score 1 2 3 4 5 Interpretation Close to natural Minor modification Moderate modification Major modification Very major modification

Data from all sites in each creek were pooled and sorted into years (04/05, 05/06, 06/07, 08/08). This was decided to make the best use of available data and not discount 2004 and 2008 based on the fact that there were only just more than 6 months of data for these years. Median values for each year were determine and calculated as a percentage of the water quality objective value. A numerical score was then assigned using the rankings in table xx. For example, the guideline value for turbidity is 50 NTU. A median turbidity value of 70 NTU would be 140% above the water quality objective and would be assigned a numerical score of `3' from table xx. To determine the overall Fish and Water bug ratings, more weighting was applied to the native fish species scores and the score were then averaged. The resulting score was converted to a rating from A-F according to the cut-offs below. For Water Quality, more weighting was applied to the nutrients and dissolved oxygen components of the overall score. This is because across the City conductivity, pH and turbidity almost always meet the water quality objective and these and chlorophyll-a are not targeted by Council's management and rehabilitation programs. Combined, these parameters account for only 10% of the overall rating. The weightings applied are outlined in table xx. As for Fish and Water bugs, the overall score were then converted to a rating according to the cut-offs below.

A B C D F

4.6 - 5 3.6 ­ 4.5 2.6 ­ 3.5 1.6 ­ 2.5 1 - 1.5

Water Quality Objectives and weighting applied for ratings

230B

Parameter Water Quality Indicators

Physical/chemical Turbidity Conductivity pH Dissolved oxygen Nutrients Nitrogen Phosphorus Aquatic processing Chlorophyll-a

Water Quality Objective

Less than 50 NTU between 182-578 mS/cm between 6.5 and 8 between 85% and 100% saturation Less than 0.5 mg/l Less than 0.05 mg/l Less than 5 micrograms/litre

Weighting

0.025 0.025 0.025 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.025

Biotic Indicators

Fish Number native species counted Proportion introduced fish Water Bugs Number Taxa counted PET score SIGNAL score 0.6 0.4 0.33 0.33 0.33

Information

Redlands Waterway Recovery Report

55 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

22872


Notice: fwrite(): send of 201 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531