The role of coastal processes in the management of the mouth of the River Murray,Australia: Present and future challenges

The Murray–Darling Basin is the largest river system in Australia to enter the sea. Prior to regulation of water flows, the Murray Mouth remained open to the sea even during droughts. An open mouth assists in sustaining the ecology of a Ramsar listed wetland and enables the flushing of salt, nutrients, and suspended sediments to the sea. Construction of barrages designed to prevent saltwater ingress has separated the estuary into two sections, a set of freshwater lakes and a saline tidal lagoon area, creating a unique set of management challenges. Under current overextraction of water resources upstream, river flows have been largely insufficient to counter wave and tide processes, which propel marine sands thereby constricting the Murray Mouth. Dredging has been required to maintain an open entrance. Managing this system is part of a 2012 agreement between state and federal governments, through the Murray–Darling Basin Plan. This plan recognizes a healthy end of system; however, the hydrological models failed to factor in the power of the sea in blocking the Murray Mouth. The plan requires that there will be sufficient river flows for the mouth to be open 95% of the time without dredging. Currently, sand ingress from the sea requires dredging most of the time. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient river flows to counteract continued sequestration of marine sand into the mouth. Sea level rise and decreased rainfall in the southern half of the Basin under climate change conditions will require a review of management options to prevent the long‐term degradation of the end of system.     

The politics of water reform and environmental sustainability in the Murray–Darling Basin

This paper examines three actions by national and state governments – the role of the Cap, the Living Murray (TLM) and the National Action Plan for Water Security/Water for the Future, embodying the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) Plan – in the Murray–Darling Basin over a 20-year period. The three actions sought to address declining environmental conditions through water policy reform. All were significant in their own way, but only the third offers the prospect of improving environmental outcomes. Taken together, the case studies illustrate that in real life and in complex, multilevelled policy-making, politics is central to water policy decision-making.     

Management pathways for the floodplain wetlands of the southern Murray–Darling Basin: Lessons from history

The condition of floodplain wetlands of the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) reflects the combined effects of climate variability, river regulation, vegetation clearance, and the impacts of human settlement and industry. Today, these systems are degraded, in large part due to changes in the hydroecology of waterways arising from water diversion and abstraction to sustain irrigated agriculture. The MDB Plan directs substantial investment towards the restoration of ecosystems largely via the buy‐back of water allocations, under a cap‐and‐trade system, for use as environmental flows. This region is projected to receive less winter rainfall and run‐off, which could exacerbate the impact of water diversions. Long‐term climate records suggest a higher level of resilience to drying than may be inferred from modern studies. Further, palaeoecological records of change reveal that many wetlands that are perennial today were once naturally seasonal or intermittent, and that much wetland degradation predates regulation and can be attributed to declines in water quality, rather than quantity. A mix of approaches to rehabilitate this long‐degraded system, planned and implemented over an extended period, may meet the demands of the Water Act of 2007, but also support the regional economy. An adaptive management approach offers a framework within which to map system vulnerabilities, characterize climate pressures, identify adaptation options, and monitor outcomes along a pathway to a sustainable future. Early lessons show the extent to which such a deliberative framework can assist water reform under changing socio‐economic priorities and external hydroclimatic pressures.     

Learning from concurrent adaptive management in multiple catchments within a large environmental flows program in Australia

Adaptive management is central to improving outcomes of environmental water delivery. The Australian Government's Murray?Darling Basin (MDB) Plan 2012 explicitly states that adaptive management should be applied in the planning, prioritisation and use of environmental water. A Long Term Intervention Monitoring (LTIM) program was established in 2014 to evaluate responses to environmental water delivery for seven Areas within the MDB, with evaluation also undertaken at the Basin scale. Adaptive management at the Area scale was assessed using two approaches: (a) through a reflective exercise undertaken by researchers, water managers and community members and (b) through an independent review and evaluation of the program, where relevant reports were reviewed and managers and researchers involved in the LTIM program were interviewed. Both assessment approaches revealed that the scale of management actions influenced the extent to which learnings were incorporated into subsequent actions. Although there were many examples where learnings within an Area had been used to adaptively manage subsequent environmental water deliveries within that Area, there was inconsistent documentation of the processes for incorporating learnings into decision making. Although this likely limited the sharing of learnings, there were also examples where learnings from one Area had influenced environmental water management in another, suggesting that sharing between concurrent projects can increase learning. The two assessments identified ways to improve and systematically document the adaptive management learnings. With improved processes to increase reflection, documentation and sharing of learnings across projects, there is an opportunity to improve management of environmental water and ecosystem outcomes.     

Towards a systems approach for river basin management—Lessons from Australia's largest river

Globally, large river systems have been extensively modified and are increasingly managed for a range of purposes including ecosystem services and ecological values. Key to managing rivers effectively are developing approaches that deal with uncertainty, are adaptive in nature, and can incorporate multiple stakeholders with dynamic feedbacks. Australia's largest river system, the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB), has been extensively developed for shipping passage, irrigation, hydroelectric development, and water supply. Water development in the MDB over the last century resulted in overallocation of water resources and large‐scale environmental degradation throughout the Basin. Under the pressure of a significant drought, there was insufficient water to supply critical human, environmental, and agricultural needs. In response, a massive programme of water reform was enacted that resulted in considerable institutional, social, and economic change. The underlying policy was required to be enacted in an absence of certainty around the scientific basis, with an adaptive management focus to incorporate new knowledge. The resulting institutional arrangements were challenged by a need to generate new governance arrangements within the constraints of existing state and national structures. The ongoing reform and management of the MDB continues to challenge all parties to achieve optimization for multiple outcomes, and to communicate that effectively. As large‐scale water reform gains pace globally, the MDB provides a window of insight into the types of systems that may emerge and the challenges in working within them. Most particularly, it illustrates the need for much more sophisticated systems thinking that runs counter to the much more linear approaches often adopted in government.     

A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations

Many river restoration projects are focusing on restoring environmental flow regimes to improve ecosystem health in rivers that have been developed for water supply, hydropower generation, flood control, navigation, and other purposes. In efforts to prevent future ecological damage, water supply planners in some parts of the world are beginning to address the water needs of river ecosystems proactively by reserving some portion of river flows for ecosystem support. These restorative and protective actions require development of scientifically credible estimates of environmental flow needs. This paper describes an adaptive, inter‐disciplinary, science‐based process for developing environmental flow recommendations. It has been designed for use in a variety of water management activities, including flow restoration projects, and can be tailored according to available time and resources for determining environmental flow needs. The five‐step process includes: (1) an orientation meeting; (2) a literature review and summary of existing knowledge about flow‐dependent biota and ecological processes of concern; (3) a workshop to develop ecological objectives and initial flow recommendations, and identify key information gaps; (4) implementation of the flow recommendations on a trial basis to test hypotheses and reduce uncertainties; and (5) monitoring system response and conducting further research as warranted. A range of recommended flows are developed for the low flows in each month, high flow pulses throughout the year, and floods with targeted inter‐annual frequencies. We describe an application of this process to the Savannah River, in which the resultant flow recommendations were incorporated into a comprehensive river basin planning process conducted by the Corps of Engineers, and used to initiate the adaptive management of Thurmond Dam. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Fish assemblage patterns across a gradient of flow regulation in an Australian dryland river system

Hydrological regime, physical habitat structure and water chemistry are interacting drivers of fish assemblage structure in floodplain rivers throughout the world. In rivers with altered flow regimes, understanding fish assemblage responses to flow and physico‐chemical conditions is important in setting priorities for environmental flow allocations and other river management strategies. To this end we examined fish assemblage patterns across a simple gradient of flow regulation in the upper Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. We found clear separation of three fish assemblage groups that were spatially differentiated in November 2002, at the end of the winter dry season. Fish assemblage patterns were concordant with differences in water chemistry, but not with the geomorphological attributes of channel and floodplain waterholes. After the summer‐flow period, when all in‐channel river sites received flow, some floodplain sites were lost to drying and one increased in volume, fish assemblages were less clearly differentiated. The fish assemblages of river sites did not increase in richness or abundance in response to channel flow and the associated potential for increased fish recruitment and movement associated with flow connectivity. Instead, the more regulated river's fish assemblages appeared to be under stress, most likely from historical flow regulation. These findings have clear implications for the management of hydrological regimes and the provision of environmental flows in regulated rivers of the upper Murray–Darling Basin. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Establishing Environmental Water Requirements for the Murray–Darling Basin,Australia's Largest Developed River System

There is a global need for management of river flows to be informed by science to protect and restore biodiversity and ecological function while maintaining water supply for human needs. However, a lack of data at large scales presents a substantial challenge to developing a scientifically robust approach to flow management that can be applied at a basin and valley scale. In most large systems, only a small number of aquatic ecosystems have been well enough studied to reliably describe their environmental water requirements. The umbrella environmental asset (UEA) approach uses environmental water requirements developed for information‐rich areas to represent the water requirements of a broader river reach or valley. We illustrate this approach in the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) in eastern Australia, which was recently subject to a substantial revision of water management arrangements. The MDB is more than 1 million km² with 18 main river valleys and many thousands of aquatic ecosystems. Detailed eco‐hydrologic assessments of environmental water requirements that focused on the overbank, bankfull and fresh components of the flow regime were undertaken at a total of 24 UEA sites across the MDB. Flow needs (e.g. flow magnitude, duration, frequency and timing) were established for each UEA to meet the needs of key ecosystem components (e.g. vegetation, birds and fish). Those flow needs were then combined with other analyses to determine sustainable diversion limits across the basin. The UEA approach to identifying environmental water requirements is a robust, science‐based and fit‐for‐purpose approach to determining water requirements for large river basins in the absence of complete ecological knowledge. © 2015 The Authors. River Research and Applications published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reflexive learning in adaptive management: A case study of environmental water management in the Murray Darling Basin,Australia

Adaptive management is a structured approach for people who must act despite uncertainty and complexity about what they are managing and the impacts of their actions. It is learning‐by‐doing through deliberate cycles of experimentation, review, and synthesis. However, understanding the processes of learning and how they relate to achieving resource management goals is in its infancy. Reflexive learning—a process of identifying and critically examining assumptions, values, and actions that frame knowledge—is critical to the effectiveness of adaptive management. It involves adaptive feedbacks between stakeholders as they examine assumptions, values, and actions. Adaptive management has been applied to environmental flows because it offers a system for making decisions about tradeoffs. In the Murray Darling Basin (MDB), Australia, adaptive management is applied as a cycle of plan, do, monitor, and learn, facilitated by short‐ and long‐term learning among stakeholders. An alternative conceptualization of adaptive management as an integration of single‐, double‐, and triple‐loop learning across multiple levels of governance is presented. This is applied to environmental flows in the MDB to map adaptive feedbacks of reflexive learning. At the lowest level of governance (Water Resource Planning Area), goals are assessed as Thresholds of Potential Concern related to flow‐ecology responses, which are reviewed every 3–6 years. At the second level of governance (Basin‐States), Water Management Targets are the key goals; reviewed and reframed every 6–10 years. The highest level of governance (the MDB) is concerned with policy targets, with review and reframing over 8–15 years. Feedbacks that generate reflexive learning are complex and require commitment to move through the modes of single‐, double‐, and triple‐loop learning. Effective adaptive management of environmental water requires practitioners to situate themselves within a matrix of information flow across modes of learning, levels of governance, and components of a social‐ecological system, where reflexive learning drives the achievement of management goals.     

DISCONNECTING THE FLOODPLAIN: EARTHWORKS AND THEIR ECOLOGICAL EFFECT ON A DRYLAND FLOODPLAIN IN THE MURRAY–DARLING BASIN,AUSTRALIA

Globally, dams and water extractions are well‐recognised disruptors of flow regimes in floodplain wetlands, but little is known of the hydrological and ecological impacts of floodplain earthworks constructed for irrigation, flood mitigation and erosion control. We mapped the distribution of earthworks with high‐resolution SPOT (Système Probatoire d'Observation de la Terre) imagery in an internationally recognised Ramsar wetland, the Macquarie Marshes of the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. There were 339 km levees, 1648 km channels, 54 off‐river storages and 664 tanks (0.5–5 m high), detected within the 4793 km² floodplain study area. Earthworks reduced localised flooding compared with undeveloped sites. The most pronounced disconnection of the original floodplain (73.0%) occurred where earthworks were most concentrated compared with areas with few earthworks (53.2%). We investigated relationships between hydrological connectivity and mortality of the perennial flood‐dependent river red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis at 55 floodplain sites (225 × 150 m). Over half of the river red gums were dead at 21.8% of the sites. Earthworks blocked surface flows to flood‐dependent vegetation and drowned vegetation in artificially inundated off‐river storages. Mortality was due to impacts of earthworks and potentially exacerbated by effects of river regulation, water extraction and climate. River red gums were healthiest in narrow river corridors where earthworks confined flows and flows could recede freely. Rehabilitation of flood‐dependent ecosystems should focus on reinstating lateral connectivity and protecting environmental flows. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stakeholder‐enhanced environmental flow assessment: The Rufiji Basin case study in Tanzania

Environmental flows are now a standard part of sustainable water management globally but are only rarely implemented. One reason may be insufficient engagement of stakeholders and their priority outcomes in the environmental flow‐setting process. A recent environmental flow assessment (EFA) in the Kilombero basin of the Rufiji River in Tanzania concentrated on a broad‐based investigation of stakeholders' use and perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by the river as a framework for the assessment of flow regimes that would maintain them. The EFA process generally followed the Building Block Methodology but within an enhanced stakeholder engagement framework. Engagement began with the involvement of institutional stakeholders to explain the purpose of the EFA and to elicit their priority outcomes. Extensive interactions with direct‐use stakeholders followed to investigate their uses of and priorities for the rivers. Results were used by the EFA specialist team in choosing flow indicators and defining measurable environmental objectives. The specialists then met to reach a consensus of the flow requirements. The EFA results were lastly reported back to stakeholders. During the Kilombero EFA, we learned that stakeholders at all levels have a good awareness of the natural services provided by a healthy river and can contribute to the setting of environmental objectives for the rivers and floodplain. These can be factored into the biophysical assessments of river flows required to maintain habitats, processes, water quality, and biodiversity. It is therefore important to allocate significant resources to stakeholder engagement. It now remains to be seen if enhanced stakeholder engagement, including the increased understanding and capacity built among all stakeholders, will increase support for the implementation of the recommended flows.     

Ten complementary measures to assist with environmental watering programs in the Murray–Darling river system,Australia

Restoration programmes for degraded aquatic ecosystems frequently focus on flow restoration or reinstatement, including recovery targets for volumes of water to be used for environmental benefit. Australia's Murray–Darling Basin is an example of a major system undergoing substantial water reform to balance the needs of competing users, including the environment, within the constraints of an arid climate. This reform revolves around accounting for finite volumes of water that have been shared amongst water users. We argue that while recovering water will provide good outcomes, as a sole intervention, it is not enough to deliver the desired environmental benefits of the reform given the significantly altered state of the catchment. Here, we present 10 measures that could be used to complement planned water recovery actions. These “complementary measures” integrate recovery actions, which when strategically combined with water delivery would significantly enhance water reform efforts to generate environmental outcomes in a highly modified system.     

The Australian Murray–Darling Basin Plan: challenges in its implementation (Part 2)

The most recent major water reform in the Australian Murray–Darling Basin occurred in November 2012 with the development of a new integrated water resources plan for the region (the Basin Plan). This occurred over a four-year period (2009–12). An equally challenging part of this reform is occurring now with the implementation of the Basin Plan between 2012 and 2024. This paper discusses the challenges in implementing the key tasks that must be completed in the longer term by 2024. A companion paper discusses the challenges in implementing the more immediate tasks that must be completed by June 2016.     

The Australian Murray–Darling Basin Plan: challenges in its implementation (part 1)

The latest in a set of major water reforms in the Australian Murray–Darling Basin occurred in November 2012 with completion of a new integrated water resources plan for the region (the Basin Plan). This occurred over a four-year period (2009–12) and was not without controversy. However, perhaps the most challenging part of this reform is occurring now with the implementation of the Basin Plan between 2012 and 2024. This paper discusses the key tasks to be undertaken by June 2016 and the main challenges in their implementation. A companion paper discusses the challenges in implementing the other tasks that need to be settled by 2024.     

Human impacts on suspended sediment and turbidity in the River Murray,South Eastern Australia: Multiple lines of evidence

European settlement has led to increased loads of fine suspended sediment (SS) entering the River Murray, Australia's largest, and arguably, most important river. The River Murray's anthropogenic sediment history can be divided into four periods with varying source areas, sediment loads, and seasonal patterns. The Aboriginal period (before 1840) was characterized by clear water at summer low‐flows in the River Murray and its southern tributaries, with more sediment coming from the northern catchment than the southern, and the Darling River being turbid at all flows. There is little evidence that Aboriginal burning resulted in any measurable increase in SS. SS loads peaked in the 1870s and 1880s (the gold and gully period, 1850–1930) as valley floors were incised by gullies (mostly in northern tributaries), and gold sluicing flushed huge amounts of sludge into southern tributaries. Sedimentation in wetlands and on floodplains increased by 2–10 times in this period, and the biota in wetlands switched from clear water to turbid water communities. In the hiatus period (1930–1960) sediment supply from gullies and gold mining waned and low flow SS concentrations returned to low levels. Dam construction through the 1960s and 1970s (the regulation period, 1960 on) disconnected the River Murray from catchment derived sediment. Despite this, SS levels increased again: now largely derived from instream sources including bank erosion from long duration summer irrigation flows, the spread of bottom‐feeding carp (Cyprinus carpio), and wave erosion from boats. Erosion switched from winter to summer dominated. Significant investment in securing water for the environment in the Murray‐Darling Basin could be complemented by addressing in‐channel sediment sources in the River Murray itself to reduce turbidity. Overall, European era SS concentrations remain relatively low with small sediment delivery to the ocean (0.1 Mt per annum), despite high catchment erosion rates. This is due to poor sediment delivery efficiency through the low‐gradient landscape.     

A geomorphic monitoring and adaptive assessment framework to assess the effect of lowland floodplain river restoration on channel–floodplain sediment continuity

The state of the science of lowland river floodplain restoration reflects the relatively new and experimental nature of large river floodplain rehabilitation efforts. Based on results of a case study of floodplain restoration at the lowland Cosumnes River, California, we present a geomorphic monitoring and adaptive assessment framework that addresses the need to inform and utilize scientific knowledge in lowland floodplain river restoration activities. Highlighting hydrogeomorphic processes that lead to habitat creation, we identify a discharge threshold for connectivity and sediment transfer from the channel to the floodplain and integrate discharge magnitude and duration to quantify a threshold to aid determination of when geomorphic monitoring is warranted. Using floodplain sand deposition volume in splay complexes as one indicator of dynamic floodplain habitat, we develop a model to aid prediction of the sand deposition volume as an assessment tool to use to analyze future monitoring data. Because geomorphic processes that form the physical structure of a habitat are dynamic, and because the most successful restoration projects accommodate this fundamental characteristic of ecosystems, monitoring designs must both identify trends and be adapted iteratively so that relevant features continue to be measured. Thus, in this paper, adaptive assessment is defined as the modification of monitoring and analysis methods as a dynamic system evolves following restoration activities. The adaptive monitoring and assessment methods proposed facilitate long‐term measurements of channel–floodplain sediment transfer, and changes in sediment storage and morphology unique to lowland river–floodplain interactions and the habitat that these physical processes support. The adaptive assessment framework should be integrated with biological and chemical elements of an interdisciplinary ecosystem monitoring program to answer research hypotheses and to advance restoration science in lowland floodplain river systems. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Socioeconomic Value(s) of Restoring Environmental Flows: Systematic Review and Guidance for Assessment

The preservation of instream flows entails multiple benefits not only for river ecosystems but also for human well‐being. Benefits of marketed goods and services provided by water withdrawals such as irrigation, water supply and hydropower production are well‐known. Others, such as recreational, aesthetic, cultural and existence values of a well‐preserved river flows are less studied. There is an increasing interest of policy makers to understand the benefits of costly river ecosystem restoration measures. Moreover, disregarding such benefits may turn into inter‐stakeholder conflicts. This paper reviews empirically‐based literature assessing environmental flows restoration/conservation. Thus, it offers the state‐of‐the‐art on three aspects: 1) what motivations drive the socioeconomic evaluation of instream flows (policies and alternative instream flow regimes); 2) what values and benefits are associated with instream flows (e.g. the sheer existence of a well‐preserved river, productive assets and cultural attributes); and 3) what methods are employed to undertake such assessments (e.g. scenario development, monetary and non‐monetary valuations, and stakeholders engagement). Building on this, we propose a methodological framework for case‐specific assessments of the restoration of environmental flows. This proposal combines increased stakeholder participation, better understanding of ecosystem functioning, awareness of the plurality of values and an accurate choice of valuation methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Age,growth and non‐flood recruitment of two potamodromous fishes in a large semi‐arid/temperate river system

Golden perch Macquaria ambigua (Percichthyidae) and silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus (Terapontidae) are two potamodromous fish species of the Murray‐Darling river system in southeastern Australia. Ageing of these species using thin sections of the sagittal otoliths and validation with known‐age fish revealed: they live for over 26 years; male and female silver perch reach maturity at 3 and 5 years respectively; male and female golden perch reach maturity at 2 and 4 years respectively; both species exhibit sexual dimorphism with larger females; and growth varies (L_∞ silver perch 331–397 mm, golden perch 354–502 mm) among interconnected river systems. Longevity and opportunistic growth are characteristics that are well suited to the semi‐arid and temperate hydrology of this river system. A flood‐recruitment model for these two species, consistent with the ‘flood‐pulse concept’, has previously been assumed to be the main mechanism of recruitment. The model appeared appropriate for this large, low‐gradient river system with productive floodplains. However, in the middle reaches of the Murray River we found that golden perch recruitment was strong in non‐flood years and poor in flood years, and silver perch recruited in all years. These data do not preclude golden perch recruiting during floods as well, because downstream larval drift may have resulted in strong year‐classes being swept downstream of the sampling area during high flows. However, the recruitment models for these species need to be re‐evaluated to include within‐channel flows. Importantly, these flows can be manipulated by river regulation, unlike large floods, and therefore there is potential to enhance recruitment. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Restoring Murray River floodplain wetlands: Does the sediment record inform on watering regime?

The floodplain wetlands of the southern Murray Darling Basin (MDB) have been subject to the impacts of catchment and water resource development for more than a century. Their current degraded state is attributed to the regulation of the rivers and abstraction of water volume for irrigation. The MDB Plan is to return at least 2,750 Gl of mean annual flow to the system to restore the condition of waterways. Considerable recent investment in infrastructure enables water to be released into the basin's floodplain wetlands. The proposed watering regime is underpinned by modelling that suggests that, before regulation, overbank flows would have occurred regularly as discharge peaked in winter and spring. Sediment cores have been extracted from over 50 floodplain wetlands of the southern Murray Basin. Those from several, large meander wavelength billabongs extend for 1,000–5,000 years suggesting that these sites were permanently inundated over that time. Others extend to ~200 years and are presumed not to have accumulated sediment until more recently. The records of most wetlands, however, only extend to the onset of river regulation in the 1920s, suggesting that before then they were not inundated for sufficient duration for net accumulation to occur. Preserved diatoms suggest that the shallow, plant‐dominated wetlands of the past have transitioned to deep, turbid water systems today. As rivers are identified as a source of sediment to wetlands, less regular inundation, rather than more, is a viable option in restoring the ecological function of these floodplain wetlands and in slowing sediment infill.