Things we can do now that we could not do before: Developing and using a cross-scalar, state-wide database to support geomorphologically-informed river management

Abstract

A fundamental premise of river management is that practitioners understand the resource they are working with. In river management this requires that baseline information is available on the structure, function, health and trajectory of rivers. Such information provides the basis to contextualise, to plan, to be proactive, to prioritise, to set visions, to set goals and to undertake objective, pragmatic, transparent and evidence-based decision making. In this paper we present the State-wide NSW River Styles database, the largest and most comprehensive dataset of geomorphic river type, condition and recovery potential available in Australia. The database is an Open Access product covering over 216,600 km of stream length in an area of 802,000 km2. The availability of the database presents unprecedented opportunities to systematically consider river management issues at local, catchment, regional and state-wide scales, and appropriately contextualise applications in relation to programs at other scales (e.g. internationally)–something that cannot be achieved independent from, or without, such a database. We present summary findings from the database and demonstrate through use of examples how the database has been used in geomorphologically-informed river management. We also provide a cautionary note on the limitations of the database and expert advice on lessons learnt during its development to aid others who are undertaking similar analyses.

Identifying corridors of river recovery in coastal NSW Australia, for use in river management decision support and prioritisation systems

“…They contain 84,343 km of freshwater stream length, in an area of 129,222 km 2 ( Fig 3 ). Eighty-three percent of the rivers are Confined or Partly confined [ 19 ]. The catchments of the Hastings in the Northern Rivers region, Hunter and Lower North Coast (H-LNC) on the Mid North coast and Shoalhaven in the Southern Rivers region encompass the full range of selected reach and loci combinations, and have been chosen for display purposes to demonstrate the output from this analysis ( Fig 3 ).…”

“…In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, there is an opportunity to perform such analyses using the state-wide NSW River Styles database; hereafter the database [ 55 ]. The database contains comprehensive geomorphic information for over 216,000 km of stream length [ 19 ]. NSW coastal catchment sizes range from 520 km 2 (Brunswick) to 22,716 km 2 (Clarence).…”

“…Streams from headwaters to the tidal limit have been included in the analysis. In this study, we use the geomorphic recovery potential layer in the database to undertake geomorphic corridor analysis in all coastal catchments of NSW (see [ 19 ]). In the River Styles Framework, geomorphic recovery potential is defined as the likelihood that a river reach will improve its condition over a management timeframe of 50–100 years [ 7 , 14 , 56 ].…”

Braiding knowledges of braided rivers – the need for place‐based perspectives and lived experience in the science of landscapes

“…We are now aware that every landscape is touched by man, a mosaic of recorded artifacts of historical human activity. These effects emerge from distinct perspectives that require global, local, and complex frameworks of inquiry (e.g., Fryirs et al, 2021;Fryirs & Brierley, 2012;Wohl, 2015;Wohl et al, 2019). While the Anthropocene means the emergence of a human-dominated world, the scale and geomorphic impacts of human activity are patchy; they are not universal, nor are they equitable (e.g., Koppes & King, 2020;Koppes & Montgomery, 2009;Syvitski et al, 2005Syvitski et al, , 2022.…”

How far have management practices come in ‘working with the river’?

“…This is much more that the rhetoric of cross-or trans-disciplinary science and adaptive management practice (Smedstad & Gosnell, 2013). It entails genuine commitment to integration, listening and sharingworking openly, inclusively, respectfully and collaboratively to co-produce and grow a community of practice of scholars, practitioners and citizens (Arnott et al, 2020;García et al, 2021;Lane et al, 2021;Mould et al, 2020aMould et al, , 2020bMould et al, , 2021Ruangpan et al, 2021;Tooth & Viles, 2020). Moves towards explicitly conscious conduct and performance of practices is a critical first step (Ashmore, 2015;Blue & Brierley, 2016;Gregory, 2017;Tadaki et al, 2015).…”