1. 1 1 Quantifying the benefits of different types of protection for freshwater biodiversity Eren Turak,Simon Ferrier, Michael Drielsma, Glenn Manion, Tom Barrett, Edwina Mesley Janet Stein,Gavin Doyle and Geoff Gordon

2. 2 2 FPAs and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity Will they make a difference? How much? How do FPAs compare with other interventions? How will they be affected by change?

3. 3 3 Scenario planning: Dealing with uncertainty and uncontrollability Controllability Uncertainty Adaptive management Scenario planning Optimal control Hedging UncontrollableControllable Low High Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S., Carpenter S.R. 2002. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, Pages 358-366.

4. 4 4 Forecasting the persistence of freshwater biodiversity Scenarios: alternative futures Landscape/ riverscape scale evaluations Best spatial data and knowledge Trial in the Hunter region, SE Australia.

5. 5 5 Present Future Current local disturbance Statistical model for predicting river biodiversity at any location Ecological river type maps Species-area relationships River type similarity matrices Biodiversity (river sites) Cumulative disturbance Regional evaluation Scenarios Future cumulative disturbance Future biodiversity Future local disturbance River type evaluation Outputs

6. 6 6

7. 7 7 Regression model Relating biodiversity measures (AUSRIVAS O/E values) to disturbance* Adjusted r 2 = 0.745 *Stein, J.L, Stein J.A., Nix, H.A. 2002 Spatial analysis of anthropogenic river disturbance at regional and continental scales: identifying the wild rivers of Australia Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 1-25.

8. 8 8 Predicted river condition Current AUSRIVAS O/E values as the proportion of the predicted pristine condition

9. 9 9 LCNameWeightExplanation/Description 1Recreation/ park0.30Relatively high use areas with large proportions of planted grass where fertilizer use is common. 2Grazing-low TC0.50Light or no tree cover (<30%). Nutrient and sediment impacts on streams are likely. 3High vegetation cover0.00High tree cover (> 70%). Optimum catchment condition for aquatic ecosystems. 4Low vegetation cover0.40Light tree cover (< 30%) but little or no grazing. Nutrient and sediment impacts are likely. 5Medium vegetation cover0.15Medium tree cover (30-70%). Short-term target condition for replanting activities. 6Cropping0.75Heavy tillage operations. Significant potential for nutrient, sediment and chemical impacts. 7Grazing – Irrigated0.55Intensive grazing usually associated with dairying (usually nil tree cover). 8Grazing - Medium TC0.40Medium tree cover in grazing areas. Some impacts from stock (30-70% cover). 9Grazing - Heavy TC0.25Heavy tree cover in grazing areas (>70% cover). 10Horticulture0.60Intensive agriculture with likely input of nutrients and chemicals into streams 11Organic pollution source1.00Intensive animal production, abattoirs or sewage ponds with discharges into waterways. 12Mining0.90Significant sediment input and acid, saline discharges in to streams are likely. 13Industrial0.90Intensive land use with multiple disturbances (e.g. hydrological, sediments, contaminants). 14Waterways0.00All water courses. They are not differentiated by condition. 15Urban - Low Density0.50Rural residential areas. Similar to grazing with possible nutrient impacts (septic). 16Urban - High Density0.85High hydrological impacts and nutrient and sediment inputs into streams. 17Wetlands0.00Freshwater and estuarine wetlands and coastal lakes. They are not differentiated by condition. 18Grazing - Sustainable *0.25Best management practice for grazing. Limited nutrient and sediment impacts on the streams. 19Regrowth0.15Regrowth after clearing or native plantations. 20Exotic plantations0.25Softwood and poplar plantations. Land use classes and weights given to them (aggragated from 172 classes)

10. 10 Priority maps Landuse, Infrastructure and settlement factors hypothetically changed Catchment protection priority –Degraded condition simulated by changing all factors to 1. Catchment restoration priority:Improvement in condition was simulated by changing factors as follows If factor value ≤ 0.2 then it was adjusted to 0. If factor value > 0.2 then 0.1 was subtracted from factor value River section conservation priority: –Priority = BDI with river section-BDI without river section/ area of sub-catchment

11. 11 Catchment protection priority

12. 12 Catchment restoration priority

13. 13 River section conservation priority

14. 14 Spatial prioritisation of investment by Catchment Management Authorities: Alternative scenarios for selecting 25,000 ha of cleared land for revegetation Terrestrial: Based on priority map for terrestrial biodiversity. BAU: Business as usual (based on existing investment patterns). River: Based on priority map for terrestrial biodiversity

15. 15 FPA paradigms Protected area categories (IUCN) unsuitable for freshwaters. Place based strategies proposed (Abell. et al 2007) –Freshwater focal areas –Critical management zones –Catchment management zones Choice may be dictated by monetary and social cost. Abell, R., Allan, J. D. & Lehner, B. (2007) Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biological Conservation, 134, 48-63.

16. 16 Biodiversity forecasting and place- based strategies Freshwater focal areas –River section conservation priority –Endangered species, communities, ecosystems –HCVAE ‘s based on other criteria Critical management zones –Catchment protection and restoration priority Catchment management zones – Catchment protection and restoration priority

17. 17 Conclusion The potential effects on river biodiversity, of every type of management action or disturbance, at any location can be predicted. Freshwater Protected Areas should be considered in the context of Integrated catchment management (ICM).