Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SV001668 – W2 26MAR2007 Waterway Health Sub-strategy Framework Workshop 2 (the approach to development of the strategy) & Investment Decision Support Tool.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SV001668 – W2 26MAR2007 Waterway Health Sub-strategy Framework Workshop 2 (the approach to development of the strategy) & Investment Decision Support Tool."— Presentation transcript:

1 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Waterway Health Sub-strategy Framework Workshop 2 (the approach to development of the strategy) & Investment Decision Support Tool Concepts Data Audit Preliminary Findings 26 February 2007

2 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Purpose Discussion & Agreement on key aspects of the Strategy approach including:  Spatial Representation  Waterway & Estuary Asset Attributes  Waterway & Estuary Asset Threats  The Priority Setting Framework  Applicable Spatial Information  Reporting Requirements

3 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Proposed Agenda  Introduction  Project Overview and Outputs  Project Team  Strategy Development Process & Timelines  WHSS – Spatial Representation  Morning Tea  WHSS – Priority Setting Framework  WHSS – Asset Attributes  WHSS – Asset Threats  Lunch  WHSS – Reporting Needs  Data Audit Summary  Afternoon Tea  IDSS Concept  Next Steps  Workshop Review & Close

4 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Project Overview & Outputs  Develop an overall strategic approach to waterway health and water quality recovery investment in the South West based on SWCC Investment Planning Principles and an understanding of SWCC waterway assets, values, threats. The identification of broad management responses and management actions required to maintain and improve the status of water related assets, values.  Incorporating management actions into the development of a Waterway Health sub-Strategy that complements the SW Regional Strategy. This will include demonstrated consideration of:  Logic framework principal adopted by the SWCC Region;  Options of measurable indicators; and  Embedded assumptions.

5 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Project Overview & Outputs  Translate the strategy into a functional GIS-based Investment Decision Support System (IDSS) to provide SWCC with a transparent, logical and defensible mechanism of prioritising its investment in waterways throughout the region.  An IDSS with flexibility to work at different scales for prioritising investment such as: Regional; Catchment; Sub catchment; Rivers; Tributaries; and Reaches.  Enable SWCC to integrate the prioritisation results with other datasets via GIS.  Develop an IDSS that will enable SWCC to prioritise investment in Waterway Health  An IDSS capable of providing recommendations for prioritisation to facilitate the Investment Plan for across the South West for water related assets.

6 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Waterway Strategy Project Team Milos Pelikan Shelley Heron Tim Doeg Helen Arundel SV Developers Sasha Taylor Systems Development Consultation NRM SWCC Project Coordinator Steering Committee Technical Reference Panel Stakeholders Graeme Martin

7 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Strategy Development Process

8 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Strategy Development Process

9 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Strategy Development Process

10 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Timelines

11 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Spatial Representation of Assets  What level of geographic detail? – WHSS has a strategic focus  What level of classification? – WHSS reporting needs  Implementation practicality? – accommodation of anecdotal information & information editing

12 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Spatial Representation of Assets – Wetlands & Estuaries EstuariesWetlands

13 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Spatial Representation of Assets – Estuaries Estuaries

14 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Spatial Representation of Assets – Waterways DoW - (250K)250KDoW detailDEC

15 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Summary

16 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Spatial Representation Summary Hydro Hierarchy  Right level of geographic detail a strategic viewpoint  Right level of classification detail  Right level of asset naming

17 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Tea Break (10 minutes)

18 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Priority Setting Framework

19 SV – W2 26MAR2007 WHSS – Asset Attributes Criteria used to determine suitable attribute:  represent a meaningful component contributing to the overall value of the asset or asset class;  measurable (i.e. through survey, measurement or opinion, numerical or presence/absence data should be able to describe the condition of the attribute at a particular point in the region);  scalable into a form that represent increasing contribution to the value of the asset or asset class (either on a 1-5 scale, or as High, Medium or Low);  spatially based, quantitative or semi-quantitative data available for the attribute;  information about the likely impact of various threats on the value of the attribute; and  amenable to management by typical river/estuary management actions.

20 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes  Environmental  Biodiversity  Representativeness  Naturalness  Social  Economic  28 Asset Attributes

21 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

22 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

23 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

24 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

25 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

26 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

27 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes Main sources for attribute list:  Draft Western Australian State of the Environment Report (2006)  South West NRM Strategy and associated Technical Reports (2005)  Statewide Waterway Needs Assessment (2002)  Salinity Investment Framework Phase 1 (2003)  Consultation Paper for the development of a Draft Statewide Waterways Management Strategy (2001)

28 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes  Have you any comments on the Asset Attribute List that has been developed?

29 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Attributes

30 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Attribute ratings

31 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Attribute ratings  Detail Detail

32 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Threats

33 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats  Criteria:  known or predicted to detrimentally affect at least one of the attributes in the attribute list;  measurable (i.e. numerical data should be able to describe the level of the threat at a particular point in the region);  scalable into a form that represent an increasing hazard to attributes (either on a 1-5 scale, or as High, Medium or Low);  spatially based, quantitative or semi-quantitative data available for the threat;  amenable to management by typical river/estuary management actions.

34 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats  Water quality  Water quantity  Food & energy sources  Physical habitat  Biological interactions  18 threats

35 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats

36 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats  Direct measures.  can and has been measured directly. Eg changes to the various water quality components (salinity, nutrients, turbidity, chemical contamination), measured changes to flow regime, evaluations of the level of streambank or streambed erosion, or the presence and extent of introduced plants and/or animals.  Surrogate measures.  Where there may not be a direct measure of a threat in a particular reporting unit, a surrogate measure provides strong evidence that these characteristics will have been altered in the reporting unit. Eg presence of algal blooms (as a surrogate for nutrient status), or presence of urban areas (changes to flow regime and water quality).

37 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats ThreatMeasures Water Quality 1Level and trend in surface water salinity Direct:Surface water salinity records Surrogate:Risk due to rise in water table 2Level and trend in surface water nutrients Direct:Surface water phosphorous records Surface water nitrogen records Surrogates:Algal blooms Number of fish kills recorded 3Level and trend in surface water turbidity Direct:Surface water turbidity records Surrogate:Risk due to erosion hazard 4Level and trend in surface water pH Direct:Surface water pH records Surrogate:Presence of acid sulphate soils 5Water temperature Direct:Surface water temperature records Surrogate:Presence of low level release dam upstream 6Level of toxic chemicals Direct:Surface water chemicals records Surrogate:Contaminated sites Untreated urban run-off Point pollution sources

38 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats

39 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats

40 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats

41 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats

42 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset threats  Main sources for threat lists:  Draft Western Australian State of the Environment Report (2006)  South West NRM Strategy and associated Technical Reports (2005)  Statewide Waterway Needs Assessment (2002)  Salinity Investment Framework Phase 1 (2003)  Consultation Paper for the development of a Draft Statewide Waterways Management Strategy (2001)

43 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Threat rating

44 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Threat rating  For each threat, the rating is evaluated on a 1-5 scale, with an increasing rating representing increasing level of threat.  A value of 0 is recorded where there are no data for the threat in the particular reporting unit.  Rely on classification schemes already developed for Western Australian waterways and estuaries (e.g. classifications of water quality parameters as high, medium and low levels in the 2006 WA State of the Environment Report).  However, for most threats, an objective assessment of the level of threat on the 1-5 scale cannot be made, as the impact of varying absolute levels of the threat have never been evaluated. For these, either subjective assessments are made, or the measure is simply scaled across the possible range.  In the IDSS, there will be the facility to include a subjective estimate of the level of threat where no other data are available.

45 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Threat rating  Detail Detail

46 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Asset Threats  Have you any comments on the Asset Threat Ratings & Rules that has been developed?

47 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting

48 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting  The basic aim of the risk assessment is provide an objective measure of the hazard to a particular waterway or estuarine asset (environmental, social or economic) by a particular threat.  The risk-based analysis is expressed as a function of two components – “Consequence” and “Likelihood”.  “Consequence” is a measure of the seriousness of a potential impact that a threat can have on a particular asset in the reporting unit.  “Likelihood” is a measure of the potential that a particular threat can or will have an impact on a particular asset. Likelihood is a combination of the “threat level” (how severe the threat is), and the degree of “association” (or connectivity), between the threat and the value in question.

49 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Consequence rating

50 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Association rating

51 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting  The combination of threat level, association and consequence (the risk) therefore represents a single measure of the probability that the threat will have a serious impact on the asset.

52 SV – W2 26MAR2007

53 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quence Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response All High (5)555 A high probability that the very high level of threat will influence the highly valued asset (National significance) in the short term Very High Urgent need to reduce threat level to protect asset Top priority for threat reduction.

54 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conseq uence Thre at Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response All High (4 or 5 in any order) 545 A high probability that the very high or high level of threat will influence the highly valued asset (National or State significance) in the short term. Not as high a probability as the previous category. High 1 Need to reduce threat level to protect asset. 2 nd priority for threat reduction

55 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quenc e Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response High Value, Low Threat, High Association 4 or 51 or 24 or 5 A low probability that the level of threat will influence the highly valued asset (National or State significance) in the long term. But risk could increase dramatically with an increase in threat level. High 2 Very important to prevent any increase in threat levels Top priority for threat prevention.

56 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quenc e Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response High Value, High Threat, Medium Association 4 or 5 3 A medium probability that the level of threat will influence the highly valued asset (National or State significance) in the short to medium term. Medium 1 3 rd priority for threat reduction; or Opportunistic threat reduction.

57 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quenc e Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response Medium Value, High Threat, High Association 34 or 5 A high probability that the high level of threat will influence the medium valued asset (Regional significance) in the short to medium term. Medium 2 4 th priority for threat reduction; or Opportunistic threat reduction.

58 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quenc e Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response High Value, Medium Threat, High Association 4 or 53 A medium probability that the medium level of threat will influence the highly valued asset (National or State significance) in the short to medium term. Medium 3 Monitor asset level for decline; Prevent an increase in threat level.

59 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Risk assessment & priority setting Description Conse quenc e Threat Associ ation Assessment Risk Rating Response Low Value, High Threat, High Association 1 or 24 or 5 Possibility that the low asset level is a result of the very high or high level of threat already having an influence on the asset. Low Assess whether threat is the cause of low value and act accordingly.

60 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Lunch Break (40 minutes)

61 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Reporting Needs  WHSS Reporting Requirements (x-tabulation & mapping)  Waterway  Estuary River Basin Waterway Name Waterway Section Attribute ListThreat ListPriority Summary Economic: ……………. Environmental: ……. Social: ………………… …………… … Economic: ……………. Environmental: ……. Social: ………………… All River Basin? Asset NameAttribute ListThreat ListPriority Summary Economic: ……………. Environmental: ……. Social: ………………… …………… … Economic: ……………. Environmental: ……. Social: ………………… All

62 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Reporting Needs  WHSS Reporting Requirements  What else (reporting) is required?

63 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Data Audit Summary Spatial Representation of Assets Attributes

64 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Data Audit Summary Spatial Representation of Assets Threats

65 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Tea Break (10 minutes)

66 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Investment DSS Concepts  User Profile  Technology Solution  Modular Design  Workflow

67 SV – W2 26MAR2007 IDSS Concept – user profile

68 SV – W2 26MAR2007 IDSS Concept - technology

69 SV – W2 26MAR2007 IDSS Concept - modular

70 SV – W2 26MAR2007 IDSS Concept - workflow

71 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Next Steps  Stage 1 Reports  Framework for WHSS (draft strategy)  to be completed late April / early May  Proto-type Specification for IDSS includes:  Data audit  DSS review  DoW water quality modelling integration  to be completed late April / early May  Stage 2 – Proto-type Development  Stage 3 – Final WHSS Report  3 regional workshops (this group)  Includes deployment of IDSS to SWCC

72 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Workshop Review

73 SV – W2 26MAR2007 Thank You Workshop 2 – Contact Details Joanna Huges-Dit-Ciles (08) Milos Pelikan (03) / Shelley Heron (03) Mobile


Download ppt "SV001668 – W2 26MAR2007 Waterway Health Sub-strategy Framework Workshop 2 (the approach to development of the strategy) & Investment Decision Support Tool."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google