Water resources - Management and Development - Tasmania
Basin & Surface Water Management Area: King Island
Introduction
As resource demands and pressure increases so to do the requirements of both management and information needs. Outlined below are the key issues facing the region as determined by the State / Territory water management agency.
What is the estimated demand for surface water in King Island?
| Use and Sustainable Yield | |
|---|---|
Comment about sustainable yield figure: | Sustainable yield was calculated by taking the difference between the annual median flow and the estimated environmental flow. The method of determininong the environmental flow is set out below The NLWRA's Environmental Flows Method (for Use in The National Land and Water Resources Audit only) The following method has been developed for application in the Tasmanian section of the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA) only. While the method is broadly based upon that of Tennant (Tennant, 1976; also known as the Montana Method) it is only being used as an expedient means of assessing environmental water requirements for the Audit. The estimates should not be taken to represent true environmental water requirements. Tennants method is based upon a consideration of annual average flow, basically allocating proportions of this flow to a summer and a winter period as average flow requirements for habitat maintenance. Various categories of narrative description (or habitat protection) have been used by Tennant to determine the appropriate proportion for a given purpose. His categories include Outstanding, Excellent, Good, Fair or Degrading, Poor or Minimum and Severe Degradation. The method appears to provide elevated summer flows compared with those which might be expected in Australia possibly as a result of snow-melt dominance in America. These discrepancies appear to occur as the result of the application of proportions to annual average flows to estimate summer flow requirements. In Tasmania the method has been used in a variety of modified forms including application of proportions to monthly or seasonal flow regimes. Results from these analyses have also been compared with more detailed estimates based upon the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (Bovee, 1982). However, at this time there is insufficient information to adopt a particular narrative description category for common use. Indications are that an Excellent category may be suitable. Under the NLWRA it is necessary to consider both an annual period of flows as well as a critical period. In Tasmania, the critical period for most purposes occurs over summer and has been adopted as December 1st to April 30th inclusive. Issues in the adoption of a modified method are therefore:
Habitat Protection Category For the purposes of the NLWRA's Method the Good category has been adopted. This category has been adopted as a conservative means of identifying stressed river systems. While comparison of Tennant method estimates with IFIM estimates at a few sites indicates that an Excellent category could be chosen it is important to recognise the transient nature of the method adopted here. Summer Flow Discrepancies The apparent over-estimates of summer flow requirements using Tennants Method appear to arise as a result of the use of a proportion of annual average flow. The easiest way to overcome this is to utilise Tennants proportions on the relevant critical period flow. Since we are interested in the typical critical period flow, a median flow has been adopted rather than the mean. In many cases these figures will be similar, however, in stream subject to significant variations in flow, median flows would always be preferred. Use of the Results The NLWRA's Method has been developed only for the purposes of the National Land and Water Resources Audit. Nevertheless, the estimates could also be used as a simple means of assessing the stress that river systems are under in Tasmania as an aid in the prioritising more detailed environmental flows work. Summary of the Method
References Bovee, K.D., 1982 A guide to instream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodlogy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/26, Instream flow information paper 12. 248 p. Tennant, D., 1976 Fisheries, Vol. 1, Issue 4 pp359 373 |
Sustainable yield (ML/yr): | 152,483 |
Threshold year for sustainable year: | no data |
Diversion Volume 1996 (ML): | 263 |
Current resource development categorisation: | LOW DEVELOPMENT |
| Estimated in 2020 | |
|---|---|
Estimated use in 2020(ML): | 350 |
% change from 1996: | 33 |
Resource development categorisation: | LOW DEVELOPMENT |
| Estimated in 2050 | |
|---|---|
Estimated use in 2050(ML): | 550 |
% change from 1996: | 109 |
Resource development categorisation: | LOW DEVELOPMENT |
How was this assessment undertaken in the King Island Surface Water Management Area?
Development Potential:
The principle data source currently available to the State for use in assessing development potential for irrigation is farm dam growth. Unfortunately this information could not be broken down to a surface water management area (SWMA) level but was only available on a State scale. Due to the coarsness of this information it was not considered to be particularly suitable as a tool at SWMA level for estimating growth. The other source of information available was from a joint study project by the Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering and the Insitution of Engineers Australia titled "Water and the Australian Economy April 1999"(ISBN 1875618 50 3). This report arrived at a growth rate of 1.3 percent for Tasmania. It was found that the information available on farm dam growth inn the State and some landholder estimates in relation to there future irrigation requirements generally supported this growth. Currently in the State there are a number of proposals for large storage development. These are all at a very preliminary stage and information cannot be made available on there affects on development potential in time for this Audit. At this stage there are no storages plaanned for this SWMA. It was assumed that domestic demand on a State and SWMA basis would remain static. Population growth has not been forecasted to 2050 and indeed ABS actually forcast a negative growth. Industrial growth cannot be forecast accurately either at a State or SWMA level with any degree assurity at this stage without further studies. It is envisaged that growth will occur in the State but reliable data is not available to predict with any degree of accuracy.
Estimated Use:
Developed potential for use was assessed on the basis of a 1.3 percent growth rate applied to the use estimate for 1996/97. Reliability of the 1.3 % growth is unknown and is further compounded by it being applied to approximate water use estimates for 1996/97.
Developed Yield:
Details on potential infrastructure development were not available for use in the Audit. However for the purposes of the Audit, the assumption adopted was that infrastructure could be developed to meet the demand forecast. Hence developed yield for years 2020 and 2050 were taken as the forecast use rounded up to the next 1000 megalitres.
Management goals and objectives:
1 Essential needs of town water supplies and stock and domestic needs, 2 Ecosystem needs,
3 Supply of water for irrigation and non essential town supply purposes eg parks and gardens,
See TAS Water Resources Assessment 2000 Report and Water Resources Assessment 2000 Technical Report for comment on methods and assumptions.
| Current 2000 | Desired 2000 | Desired 2020 | Desired 2050 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Management information | ||||
Scale of allocation planning | STATE/TERITORY | STATE/TERITORY | ||
Inputs to allocation | BROAD RESOURCE INVESTIGATION | BROAD RESOURCE INVESTIGATION | ||
Type of monitoring - quantity | LIMITED OR NONE | BROAD-SCALE | ||
Type of monitoring - quality | NONE | COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING | ||
Distribution efficiency (H,M,L) | HIGH | HIGH | ||
Use efficiency (H,M,L) | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | ||
Resource management efficiency (H,M,L) | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | ||
Degree of licensing | ALL MAJOR USES | ALL USES | ||
Water trading (None, Limited, Significant) | NONE | LIMITED | ||
Mechanism of trading | ||||
Volume traded (ML/yr) | no data | no data | no data | |
Number of transactions | ||||
Inter-basin transfers | NONE | NONE | ||
Volume transferred (ML/yr) | no data | no data | no data | |
Environmental allocation category:
| no data |
Comments on Management Responses in the King Island Surface Water Management Area
Current Management Response:
Desired (Current) Management Response:
2020 Management Response:
See database
2050 Management Response:
See database
See TAS Water Resources Assessment 2000 Report for comment on management responses.
Assessment of Monitoring
Efficacy of the network:
Provided the gaps identified in the current network are rectified, the network will generally meet current requirements in the SWMA. However these will need to be reviewed and may need to be scaled up if further development estimated for the area is realised.
Data management requirements:
All information from streamflow monitoring stations will need to be put into streamflow database (Hydrol) and water allocation and usage information put into the Water Information Management System data base (WIMS). These two systems need to be linked to GIS to provide a better managemen focus for this data.
Work will be required to gather water quality information collected from a multitude of sources in the State and placed in the Hydrol data base. In addition, rationalising the collection of current water quality information from these sources will be required to make the process more strategic and effective from both a cost and assessment perspective.
Protective management:
Current methods used in relation to these catchments should be satisfactory. Methods allow for assessment of current arrangements and for these to be modified as required.
Options for monitoring:
There is a clear need for Commonwealth assistance under some form of partnership arrangement with the State to provide resources to address information gaps. This would better position the State for providing better information for future Audits
See TAS Water Resources Assessment 2000 Technical Report for an assessment of monitoring
Data Availability, Gaps and Recommendations
Data Availability:
There is 1 stream gauging station used in the SWMA. This station is the Ettrick River u/s South Road. There are only 13 years of records for this station which are insufficient to determine a confident approximation for average annual flow.
Water use in the SWMA is very approximate and there are no reliable records of water use for use in the Audit.
There was no information readily available for salinity.
Current Gaps and Recommendations:
Data Gaps: The following have been identified as gaps in data.
1. Assumptions used in Review 85 for determining divertible yield
2. Inadequate data for estimating water usage.
3. Information on environmental water requirements was approximate due to Audit needs for a very quick estimate. These will be refined by current studies to be finalised over next two years.
4. Surface water runoff for the Island was only very approximate due to the lack of good streamflow information.
5. No salinity data readily available for streams. There is also an absence of other base line water quality data.
Recommendations:
1. Annual assessment of water usage.
2. Re estimate divertible yield for the SWMA.
3. Reassess the stream gauging network and open up new measuring stations as required for long term water water resource assessment purposes.
4. Monitor conductivity, temperature, turbidity pH and DO at streamflow stations.
Future Gaps:
To properly estimate future demands would require very detailed analysis and take considerable time. Such estimates would be subject to changes in market forces, community expectations and government policy change.
All estimates of developed yield and growth provided in this report are very approximate and are not generally considered to be satisfactory at this stage for long term planning for the State. It was assumed that the developed yield could be met by water infrastructure developments. However investigations into appropriate developments could not be undertaken in time for the Audit which is a very clear gap in information. For the purpose of long term planning a more rigorous estimate for long term growth would have to be made.
From a water resource development viewpoint, Tasmania is commencing the start of another growth period with considerable interest in irrigation expansion and storage development. Unfortunately estimates of this likely growth could not be made in time to meet Audit deadlines.
See TAS Water Resources Assessment 2000 Technical Report for a review of data availability,gaps and recommendations.
Further information
- Tasmania Water Resources Assessment 2000 Technical Report
- Link to data available for download on the Surface Water Management Areas
- Link to the Map Maker to make a map using this information.
Newsletter
What's new
New 'Land Use of Australia, Version 3' data showing irrigation, agriculture and landuse for the years 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001 have been added to the Map Maker.
More on land use data....
Australian Water Resources 2005 data has been added to the Map Maker.
More on the water data...
Key
Links to an another web site
Opens a pop-up window
