peel-harvey catchment water quality improvement plan … · 2014-09-09 · peel harvey catchment...

Peel-Harvey Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan Implementation Review 2008-2011 Managing the Peel’s Natural Assets Project Prepared for the Peel Development Commission February 2013

People Working Together for a Healthy Environment

2

This page has been left blank intentionally

Peel Harvey Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan

Implementation Review – 2008 2011

February 2013

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared as part of the Managing the Peel’s Natural Assets project funded

through the State Government’s Royalties for Regions Program. The Peel-Harvey Catchment

Council (PHCC) acknowledges the State Government and particularly the Peel Development

Commission for their funding and support.

Thanks go to all organisations taking action towards water quality improvement in the Peel-

Harvey, and for providing feedback to enable the preparation of this report. Thanks to Bob

Pond from Department of Water and PHCC team members Kim Wilson, Juan Luis Montoya,

Amy Ng and Jane O’Malley for their assistance in the preparation of the review.

Thank you also to the Managing the Peel’s Natural Assets Steering Committee members:

- Jan Star, AM (Chair)

- Andy Gulliver

- Dr Peter Hick

- Bob Pond

- Jim McNamara

- Jane O’Malley

- Kim Wilson

- Juan Luis Montoya

The preferred reference for this document is Peel-Harvey Catchment Council (2013) Peel-

Harvey Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan Implementation Review 2008-2011 Report

prepared by the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council, Mandurah, Western Australia.

Peel-Harvey Catchment Council, 58 Sutton Street, Mandurah, Western Australia 6210

(08) 9583 5128 www.peel-harvey.org.au

People Working Together for a Healthy Environment

http://www.peel-harvey.org.au/

4

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 7

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

3. SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 10

4. RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE WQIP 16

5. FINDINGS AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW 19

6. ASSESSMENT ON THE LEVEL OF WQIP IMPLEMENTATION 21

6.1 Core Enablers/ Major Recommendations 22

6.2 Rural Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.1) 23

6.3 Urban Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.3) 27

6.4 Sewerage management in existing homes, dwellings and Wastewater

Treatment Plants (Management Measure 4.1.4), and All New Developments to

be Connected to Sewerage and ATUs (Management Measure 4.1.8) 28

6.5 Improve other agricultural practices to reduce phosphorus discharges

(Management Measure 4.1.6) a) perennial pastures 30

6.6 Water Sensitive Urban Design (Management Measure 4.1.11) and Drainage

Reform (Management Measure 4.1.12) 32

6.7 Minimising the impacts of future urban growth on water quality and

environmental flow (Section 4.3); Incorporating measures into Local Planning

Policies, strategies, planning conditions and State policies (Management

Measure 4.1.10) 35

6.8 Wetland and Waterway protection and revegetation (Management Measure

4.1.13) and Reafforestation of Agricultural Lands (Management Measure 4.1.7) 39

6.9 Rural Soil Amendment (Management Measure 4.1.2) and Urban Soil

Amendment (Management Measure 4.1.9) 42

5

6.10 Zero discharge for licensed agricultural premises (Management Measure

4.1.5) 45

6.11 River Flow Objectives (Section 4.2) 47

6.12 Use of Market-based Instruments (Section 4.4) 48

6.13 Use of Economic Incentives (Section 4.5) 49

6.14 Institutional and Organisational Reforms (Section 4.6); Regulatory Reforms for

Improved Water Quality and Environmental Flows (Section 4.7) 50

6.15 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) (Section 5 and 6) 52

7. CONCLUSIONS 55

Figures

1 Average annual phosphorus loads per cleared area for the reporting catchments

2 Peel-Harvey Catchment and administrative boundaries

3 Subcatchment Implementation Plan – Selected Subcatchments

Appendicies

1 Outline of WQIP Recommendations, Monitoring, Reporting and Review

2 Primary Stakeholders requested to participate in the Review

3 Copy of review form provided to stakeholders with request to complete – September

2011

4 WQIP Implementation summary table – Collation of responses received by agency

stakeholders on current and future commitment

5 Summary of Recommended Projects of the Subcatchment Implementation Plan For

water quality improvement for selected subcatchments: Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-

Punrak and Mayfield

PHCC Review of the implementation of the Peel-Harvey WQIP Nov 2008 to Sept 2011

6

Acronyms

ATU Alternative Treatment Unit

FM Rural Fertiliser Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CE Core Enabler

DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia

DEC

DoP

DoH

Department of Environment and Conservation

Department of Planning

Department of Housing

DoW Department of Water

EI EI – Economic Incentives

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EPP Environmental Protection Policy

HRRT Harvey River Restoration Taskforce

IOR Institutional and Organisational Reform

LaBC Lime-amended BioClay (a Water Corporation product)

LAP Licensed Agricultural Premises

LPP Local Planning Policy

LMU Load Measuring Unit

MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge

Mb Market Based Instruments

MR MR – Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement

NRM Natural Resource Management

NUA Neutralised Used Acids (or Iron Man Gypsum)

OAP Other Agriculture Practices

PDC Peel Development Commission

PHCC Peel-Harvey Catchment Council

REW Resource Enhancement Category Wetland

RF River Flow Objectives

RSNA Regionally Significant Natural Area

SIP Subcatchment Implementation Plan

SM Sewerage Management

SRT Swan River Trust

SWCC South West Catchments Council

TP Total Phosphorus

TN Total Nitrogen

UF Urban Fertiliser Management

UG Urban Growth

UNDO Urban Nutrient Decision Outputs (software program)

WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission

WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

WW Wetland and Waterways


7

1. INTRODUCTION

The Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Rivers and Estuary of the Peel-Harvey System –

Phosphorus Management, used the findings of seven Coastal Catchments Initiative projects to

recommend a combination of management measures to reduce phosphorus discharges to the

estuarine waters of the Peel-Harvey.

The Water Quality Objective of the WQIP is:

“Median loadings of total phosphorus to estuarine waters should be less than 75 tonnes per

annum in an average year with the median total phosphorus flowing in the estuary from the:

1. Serpentine River being < 21 tonnes

2. Murray River being < 16 tonnes

3. Harvey River being < 38 tonnes

Water qualities in streams in winter are to meet mean concentrations of 0.1 mg/l at current

mean flows” 1.

The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council has undertaken a review to determine the level of uptake of the

recommendations of the WQIP by identifying the implementation that has taken place since

publication (November 2008) to September 2011. The objective was to determine which WQIP

recommendations have been implemented, what plans stakeholders have for future implementation

and to identify the gaps where future efforts may need to be directed.

22 stakeholders, covering State and Local governments, non-government NRM groups and

Universities were identified as potentially having a role in implementing the WQIP and asked to

address items listed in the matrix table of WQIP recommendations that related to their “area of

responsibility or involvement with the Peel-Harvey WQIP” (Appendix 3). 15 responses were received

in total (Appendix 4).

This report assesses the level of implementation that has taken place with regard to the

recommendations of the WQIP through the provision of examples of progress against each of the

WQIP’s Management Measures, as well as its Monitoring, Modelling, Reporting and Review

recommendations. Barriers to implementation and associated issues are discussed and

recommendations made. Roles, responsibilities and resourcing are discussed and key

implementation considerations are presented.

1 EPA (2008). The Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Rivers and Estuary of the Peel-Harvey System –

Phosphorus Management. Western Australia. P V.


8

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The findings from this review show that the Peel-Harvey WQIP is a long way from full

implementation, with many barriers and issues for each management measure still remaining.

The WQIP is a plan, with a broad target of a reduction of 75 tonne of P load entering the Peel-

Harvey Estuary, but no practical means to measure this target. Moreover the plan lacks specific

milestones or key performance indicators to which implementation can be measured, and

overlooks a number of water quality concerns including nitrogen and sediments. The lack of

costing, even as an estimative guide, has left the plan with no benchmark to assess if the level of

resourcing and commitment has been sufficient to make a measurable improvement in water

quality in the Peel-Harvey. Figure 1 provides updated modelling results estimating the

Phosphorous loads for the 17 coastal sub-catchments of the Peel-Harvey Catchment (Figure 2).

There is no defined prioritisation, or timeframe within which the full implementation of all WQIP

recommendations will occur. The scale of monitoring required to effectively apply the “Adaptive

Management Strategy” identified in the WQIP is not defined.

Further, or perhaps due to the above, only a limited amount of implementation has taken place. It

can be argued the implementation approach has been fractured, relying on the interest of the

more powerful players and the priorities of funding bodies rather than the most pressing needs

of the Peel-Harvey catchment being identified and resourced by a sound governance approach.

The review has also identified a disconnect between planning decisions and subsequent

environmental consequences and on-going management requirements as a major barrier for

implementation, that partly explains the little progress made to date in including WQIP targets

and recommendations as part of the statutory planning framework and the absence of a

Catchment Management Plan.

To overcome these barriers and issues 40 recommendations are provided, with five of them being

critical core enablers (CE), that are essential if the WQIP is to be implemented at the scale

required for water quality targets to be achieved.

Although the implementation of the WQIP is not an easy task, it is must be a priority, given the

socio economic importance of the Estuary and its waterways for the region. All levels of

government, community, industry, and business need to collaborate and commit to implementing

the recommendations to avoid another collapse in the system, and all the social, economic and

environmental issues that this will bring.


9

Figure 1 - Average annual phosphorus loads per cleared area for the reporting catchments

Source: Kelsey et al, 2011, p73 fig 4.7

Figure 2 - Peel-Harvey Catchment and administrative boundaries

Source: Land Assessment, 2005)


10

3. SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Forty (40) recommendations are provided from this review. These have been developed based on

the findings of the reported progress of implementation by stakeholders, and the work done by

the PHCC on the Subcatchment Implementation Plan for Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-Punrak and

Mayfield (SIP) project (2011-13), refer figure 3. Although all of the recommendations are relevant

to coordinate and accelerate the implementation of the WQIP, there will be little progress towards

achieving water quality targets if the five core enablers identified in this review are not addressed

as a priority. The importance of integrating WQIP recommendations and landuse planning cannot

be over-emphasised.

The recommendations provided in this review are included in each section against the particular

management measure which they address. For greater context and information see Section 6.

It is suggested that within 12 months of the delivery of this report a review of the level of

implementation of these recommendations be presented to the community.

3.1 Core Enablers/ Major Recommendations

CE1-IOR1 State Government lead a shift in Governance that secures the adequate

level of resourcing and influence to a lead agency or a

consortium/partnership to be responsible for the whole WQIP strategy

implementation. This lead agency or consortium will also ensure

monitoring and evaluation is carried out so progress on the

implementation can be assessed.

CE2-FM1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural fertiliser

management program to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural

activities, through a regulatory and/or incentive scheme.

CE3-SA1 Government establish a clear policy and approvals framework for the

use of soil amendment products to improve water quality in the Peel-

Harvey.

CE4-UGP1 State Government (WAPC) ensure that WQIP water quality targets are

incorporated into all levels of land use decision making.

CE5-UGP2 State Government (WAPC) integrate WQIP recommendations into the

landuse planning process, including the preparation of a Catchment

Management Plan endorsed by the Western Australia Planning

Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority.


11

3.2 Rural Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.1)

CE2-FM1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural fertiliser management

program to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural activities, through a regulatory

and/or incentive scheme.

FM2 Secure funding to implement SIP Strategy B – Better Soils for Improved

Productivity, Program ‘Rural Fertiliser Management’ – (Appendix 5).

FM3 State Government (DAFWA) to communicate the results of their assessment of

the effectiveness of the Fertiliser Partnership projects implemented to date.

3.3 Urban Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.3)

UF1 Implement campaigns to change behaviour among Peel-Harvey community

members with regard to urban fertiliser use and water quality decline.

3.4 Sewerage Management in Existing Homes, Dwellings and Wastewater Treatment

Plants (Management Measure 4.1.4), and All New Developments to be Connected

to Sewerage and ATUs (Management Measure 4.1.8)

SM1 State Government continue the implementation of the sewerage infill

infrastructure program in the Peel-Harvey Catchment, with a priority on areas

within close proximity of natural waterways.

SM2 State Government modify policy to require 100% connection rates to sewerage,

and subsequent decommissioning of redundant septic systems, within 3 years of

sewerage availability.

3.5 Improve Other Agricultural Practices to Reduce Phosphorus Discharges

(Management Measure 4.1.6[a]) Perennial Pastures

OAP1 Increase support for research into alternative agricultural land management

practices including perennial pastures.


Reform (Management Measure 4.1.12)

WS1 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy D – Improved Drainage, Watercourse

and Wetland Management, Program ‘Better Rural Drainage for Water Quality’ –

Project 45 (Appendix 5).


12

WS2 Comprehensively assess the hydraulic capacity of major drains in the catchment

to determine appropriate management options in order to develop and

implement a regional drainage policy for the Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain

Catchment.

WS3 State Government review the Water Corporation’s Rural Drainage Licence

conditions to incorporate total water cycle management and water quality

considerations.

WS4 Resource the implementation of Local Government Stormwater Management

Strategies.

3.7 Minimising the Impacts of Future Urban Growth on Water Quality and

Environmental Flow (Section 4.3); Incorporating Measures into Local Planning

Policies, Strategies, Planning Conditions and State Policies (Management Measure

4.1.10)



CE5-UGP2 State Government (WAPC) integrate WQIP recommendations into the landuse

planning process, including the preparation of a Catchment Management Plan

endorsed by the Western Australia Planning Commission and the

Environmental Protection Authority.

UGP3 State Government (WAPC) amend SPP 2.1 to reflect the recommendations of

the WQIP and ensure it is implemented fully through landuse decision making

processes.

UGP4 State Government (DoW) continue the development of water quality

assessment models including subcatchment scale decision making tools (e.g.

UNDO model) to quantify impacts of proposed landuse change on water

quality.

3.8 Wetland and Waterway Protection and Revegetation (Management Measure

4.1.13) and Reafforestation of Agricultural Lands (Management Measure 4.1.7)

WW1 Determine adequate and appropriate economic incentives to achieve nature

conservation in privately owned, critical areas of the catchment.

WW2 State Government consolidate and adequately fund the management of the

Waterways and Regional Open Space abutting the Waterways identified and

zoned in the Peel Region Scheme.

WW3 Secure funding to implement the Strategy of the Peel-Yalgorup System Ramsar

Site Management Plan to Protect Fringing and Terrestrial Environments.


13

WW4 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy D - Improve Drainage, Watercourse

and Wetland Management - (Appendix 5).

WW5 State Government review the reclassification process and provide greater

protection for existing wetlands, of all categories.

3.9 Rural Soil Amendment (Management Measure 4.1.2) and Urban Soil Amendment

(Management Measure 4.1.9)

CE3-SA1 Government establish a clear policy and approvals framework for the use of

soil amendment products to improve water quality in the Peel-Harvey.

SA2 Government commit to exploring policy options that create market

opportunities for the application of Soil Amendments.

SA3 Secure funding to implement SIP Strategy B – Better Soils for Improved

Productivity, Program ‘Application of Soil Amendment on Rural Lands’ –

Projects 17 – 21 (Appendix 5).

SA4 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder Capacity to

Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Urban Soil Amendments’ – Projects 41 and 42

(Appendix 5).

3.10 Zero Discharge for Licensed Agricultural Premises (Management Measure 4.1.5)

LAP1 State Government prepare and apply a “catch-all” regulation for licensed

premises to achieve zero nutrient discharge for all new industries.

LAP2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder Capacity to

Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Point Source Agricultural Operators’ – Projects

32 and 33 (Appendix 5).

3.11 River Flow Objections (Section 4.2)

RF1 Based on relevant scientific evidence State Government determine appropriate

Environmental Water Requirements and set appropriate Provisions, with

associated flow objectives for the Peel-Harvey Catchment, to meet water quality

objectives.

RF2-MR5 Develop a Science Program to support the identification of environmental flow

requirements and provisions for all watercourses in the Peel-Harvey Catchment

to meet water quality objectives.


14

3.12 Use of Market-based Instruments (Section 4.4)

Mb1 Support the investigation of potential market based instruments suitable to the

characteristics of the Peel-Harvey Catchment that will enable the

implementation of the WQIP.

Mb2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder Capacity to

Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Strengthening Local Government policy and

practice’ – Project 39 (Appendix 5).

Mb3-SA2 Government commit to exploring policy options that create market


3.13 Use of Economic Incentives (Section 4.5)

CE2-EI1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural fertiliser

management program to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural activities,

through a regulatory and/or incentive scheme.

EI2-WW1 Determine adequate and appropriate economic incentives to achieve nature

conservation in privately owned, critical areas of the catchment.

3.14 Institutional and Organisational Reforms (Section 4.6); Regulatory Reforms for

Improved Water Quality and Environmental Flows (Section 4.7)

CE1-IOR1 State Government lead a shift in Governance that secures the adequate level

of resourcing and influence to a lead agency or a consortium/partnership to

be responsible for the whole WQIP strategy implementation. This lead

agency or consortium will also ensure monitoring and evaluation is carried

out so progress on the implementation can be assessed.

IOR2 State Government formally establish and resource a strategic partnership to

co-ordinate the delivery of the WQIP.

IOR3 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy A – Implementing the Plan -

Programs (Appendix 5):

a. Coordination of Plan Implementation.

b. Whole of Catchment Monitoring.

c. Best management practice assessment and implementation.


15

3.15 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Sections 5 and 6)

MR1 State Government secure resources for regular and consistent water quality

monitoring, analysis (Catchment and Estuarine) and report results to the

community on an annual basis, to enable long term application of the

Adaptive Management Strategy as required by the WQIP.

MR2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy A – Implementing the Plan,

Program ‘Whole of the Catchment Monitoring’ (Appendix 5).

MR3 Support ongoing research initiatives, site trials and citizen science as

fundamental elements of Adaptive Management to improve water quality.

MR4 State Government continue to support the upgrading of water quality

models for the catchment and report outcomes to the community on an

annual basis.

MR5-RF2 Develop a Science Program to support the identification of environmental

flow requirements and provisions for all watercourses in the Peel-Harvey

Catchment to meet water quality objectives.

MR6 Develop a Science Program to address research needs to measure and

analyse the effectiveness and efficacy of best management practices being

applied for water quality improvement, including a three yearly forum to

engage with land managers throughout the catchment.

MR7 State Government fund a re-draft of the Peel-Harvey WQIP following an

adaptive management methodology and utilising the most up to date water

quality modelling to enable a more effective and auditable implementation

strategy to provide a more integrated approach to water quality

management, i.e. include nitrogen, sediments and other water quality

parameters.


16

Figure 3 – Subcatchment Implementation Plan – Selected Subcatchments

Source: PHCC (2013) Subcatchment Implementation Plan for Water Quality Improvement for Nambeelup, Dirkbrook-Punrak

and Mayfield.


17

4. RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE WQIP

The WQIP presents a range of recommendations and best management practices to reduce

phosphorus discharge (Chapter 4, including Tables 7 and 8), to model and monitor water quality

(Chapter 5) and to report and review (Chapter 6).

Chapter 4 presents the “Management Measures and Control Actions”. Page 42 states;

“A major objective of the Plan2 is to find the best mix of practical and reasonable

actions, to be applied across the Peel-Harvey Catchment, to meet the target of less

than 75 tonnes of total phosphorus load in an average year. The proposed actions are a

mix of voluntary and regulatory measures. The mix selected may possibly change over

time if, for instance, either landuses change following further development approvals or

if longer term monitoring reveals that water quality is not improving. Appropriateness

of a measure is also dependant on soil type.

The Environmental Protection Authority has set a longer term target of 75 tonnes to be

monitored over 10 years after full implementation and the management actions

adapted as appropriate”.

There are fifteen “Management Measures to meet phosphorus reductions”, 4.1.1 to 4.1.13 plus

another seven ‘actions’ (Appendix 1).

Chapter 4 also includes, Table 7: “Recommended Actions of Best Management Practices for the

Peel-Harvey Water Quality Improvement Plan”; and Table 8: “Recommended Actions for

implementation of the plan”.

Chapter 5 identifies both modelling and monitoring strategies for water quality. The monitoring

strategies include Catchment Monitoring and identify sampling sites (Load Measuring Units –

LMUs) that are either existing or required the Catchment Sampling Regime and the requirements

for the monitoring of the estuarine waters. The WQIP notes the importance of monitoring to

determine the “Effectiveness of management measures and control actions” (5.2.3, p.56), and the

need for river flow objectives to also be monitored (5.2.4, p.58). This monitoring regime will then

enable the implementation of the Plan to be monitored (5.3, p.58) and to inform the “Adaptive

Management Strategy” (5.4, p.58). This strategy relies, in part, on “additional information derived

2 The Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Rivers and Estuary of the Peel-Harvey Catchment – Phosphorus

Management (EPA 2008; WQIP) is referred to within the document itself as the “Plan”. However, current convention is to refer to the document as the WQIP. This convention is applied within this report except for when text is cited and therefore quoted as the “Plan”.


18

from expanded monitoring at appropriate small scales, including the effectiveness of management

measures and control actions” (5.4, p. 58).

The monitoring information and data gathered in accordance with Chapter 5 then supports

Chapter 6 and enables the “Reporting of the implementation of the Plan” (6.1, p.59) and “the

Plan’s review” (6.2, p.59).

Within item 6.1 it is stated that, “There will be financial implications associated with the

implementation of this Plan that have not been reported here. These will need to be addressed

through appropriate parts of Government along with the clarification of the roles and

responsibilities for implementation…. All levels of Government…. will have important roles in

implementing the Plan…. The Environmental Protection Authority recommends that Western

Australian government agencies agree on indicative costings and timelines to implement the

recommended measures and actions of this Plan within 6 months of publication of this final

Plan”3.

3 Ibid. p 59.


19

5. FINDINGS AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE REVIEW

The EPA’s recommendation that, “Western Australian government agencies agree on indicative

costing and timelines to implement the recommended measures and actions within 6 months

of publication of this final Plan” has not occurred.

As a consequence there is no defined prioritisation, or timeframe within which the full

implementation of all WQIP recommendations will occur. Neither is the scale of monitoring

required to effectively apply the “Adaptive Management Strategy” identified in the WQIP. A

Senior Officers Group was formed with respect to the Fertiliser Action Plan but there has been

no agreement from the agencies with respect to the implementation of the WQIP with its

breadth and depth of recommendations; nor is there any defined indication of where

implementation of the WQIP sits within State agency priorities.

Further, or perhaps due to the above, only a very limited amount of consolidated revenue has

been committed to a minimal level of water quality monitoring. The majority of actions

implemented, have been reliant on the success of applications for State NRM and

Commonwealth Caring for Our Country funds. Lack of funding has led to a limited amount of

implementation taking place. It can be argued the implementation approach has been

fractured, relying on the interest of players and the priorities of funding bodies rather than

the most pressing needs of the Peel-Harvey catchment being identified and resourced by a

sound governance approach.

The governance issue is well summarised in the URS Report as follows:

“a report on the progress and compliance with the Environmental Conditions set by the

Minister for the Environment in 1989, 1991 and 1993 acknowledged the challenges to

implementing an integrated management strategy for the Peel-Harvey and suggested the

implementation of the whole strategy would be assisted by having a single person who is

responsible for ensuring that the whole strategy is implemented (EPA, 2003: 10). The

“governance” situation in the Peel-Harvey has not significantly changed since that report

was published. Ultimate accountability for improving the water quality in the Peel-Harvey

Catchment remains fragmented and until resolved will represent a sufficient barrier to

change”4.

4 URS (2009). Implementation Measures that Support, Influence, Encourage or Require Uptake of Best

Management Practices for Nutrient Management. Report by URS Sustainable Development for the Department of Food and Agriculture of Western Australia. Pertn, Western Australia.


20

In May 2010, a revision of the relationship between DEC and the Office of the EPA led to a

redefinition of the role of the EPA and subsequently restructuring of Departments occurred.

At this time, formal responsibility for the WQIP was transferred, through an exchange of

letters, from the Environmental Protection Authority to the Department of Water (DoW).

However, no budget was allocated for this new responsibility.

The Department of Water has no internal budget resources specifically targeting WQIP

implementation, but has managed to access $2.7M through State NRM ($1.2million 2011-12)

and Commonwealth Caring for our Country funds ($1.5 million 2011-13) to in part address

management measures. The construction of biofilters, management of priority riparian areas,

wetland restoration, stormwater retro-fitting and sub-catchment planning are the actions

covered.

DoW engaged the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council to deliver these projects through the

“Filtering the Nutrient Storm” banner which, to date, is the biggest WQIP implementation

effort, closely followed by DAFWA’s Fertiliser Partnership programs and the work done by

local governments.

Although these are all positive efforts towards implementing the WQIP, they fall well below

the necessary resources to achieve the phosphorus load reductions. To put it in perspective,

the $2.7M attracted by DoW for work throughout the catchment is only 7.16% of the

estimated resources required to implement the Subcatchment Implementation Plan (SIP)5 for

three of the 17 Peel-Harvey subcatchments (within the Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment).

If we continue this rate of implementation, in which one localised project (e.g. Lake Mealup

Recovery Program) is delivered every two years, it will take more than 150 years will be

required to achieve water quality targets. If we include population growth in the equation, the

very future of the ecosystem and the services it provides is less than promising.

Major shifts in resourcing towards water quality improvement need to occur immediately if

the WQIP targets are to be achieved. If appropriately resourced and empowered, the PHCC

appears to be best positioned to guide collaborative implementation of the WQIP. The

approach outlined in the SIP could be a fundamental step towards this objective.

5 PHCC (2013). Subcatchment Implementation Plan for Water Quality Improvement for Nambeelup,

Dirkbrook-Punrak, and Mayfield. A report prepared by Adndrew del Marco and Juan Luis Montoya for the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council. Mandurah, Western Austraia


21

6. ASSESSMENT ON THE LEVEL OF WQIP IMPLEMENTATION

The biggest challenge to reviewing the WQIP’s impact to date is the inability to quantitatively

assess its level of implementation. The WQIP is general in its recommendations (lacking/does

not include SMART objectives), and includes best management practices, management

measures and control actions and modelling and monitoring strategies. No follow up was

done to determine costing and responsibilities.

The WQIP is a plan with a broad target (reduction of 75 tonne of P load entering the estuary)

but no practical means to measure it.

Moreover it lacks specific milestones or key performance indicators to which the

implementation can be measured. Finally the lack of costing, even as an estimative guide, has

left the plan with no benchmark to assess if the level of resourcing and commitment has been

sufficient.

Due to the above this review has focused on experience and comments provided by the

stakeholders involved (or responsible) in the WQIP implementation (Appendicies 2 and 3).

This section (Section 6) discusses each of the WQIP’s broad management measures, provides

examples of implementation progress as provided by stakeholders that participated in this

review. It then discusses the barriers and issues hindering implementation, followed by

recommendations to overcome these. A copy of the full response matrix can be provided on

request. Recommendations include five (5) critical Core Enabler recommendations, without

which water quality targets for the Peel-Harvey cannot be reached.

It should be noted that other actions may be taking place but the review only includes

information provided by stakeholders who provided a response and complementary

information gathered through the Subcatchment Implementation Plan (SIP) project. Appendix

4 provides an overview of areas where activity is taking place.


22

6.1 Core Enablers/ Major Recommendations

CE1-IOR1 State Government lead a shift in Governance that secures the adequate

level of resourcing and influence to a lead agency or a





CE2-FM1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural fertiliser

management program to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural activities,

through a regulatory and/or incentive scheme.

CE3-SA1 Government to establish a clear policy and approvals framework for the


Harvey.



CE5-UGP2 State Government (WAPC) integrate WQIP recommendations into the

landuse planning process, including the preparation of a Catchment

Management Plan endorsed by the Western Australia Planning

Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority.


23

6.2 Rural Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.1)

6.2.1. Examples of Implementation Progress

Efforts to implement this management measure have built on previous experiences,

particularly the programs carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Food of

Western Australia (DAFWA).

“In the period from the early 1980s to 1990s DAFWA was heavily involved in

researching the impacts of fertilisers on the deteriorating water quality for the rivers

and estuary of the Peel-Harvey. An extensive extension campaign, supported by free

soil testing, undertaken between 1984 and 1992, was partially successful in promoting

changes in fertiliser management practices”6.

A decade later DEC, with support from Department of Agriculture and Food, carried

responsibility for the 2007 Fertiliser Action Plan (FAP), a program targeting the

phasing out water soluble phosphorus fertilisers across the Swan Coastal Plain.

Overtime, and in response to a change of Government the FAP was shelved and a

related new policy direction was established through the interagency Senior Officers

Group (established in 2009). Kelsey found that “if the Fertiliser Action Plan were

implemented in rural areas only, the estimated decrease in phosphorus load to

the estuary would be approximately 44 tonnes (30%) [of the WQIP target]”7.

6 PHCC (2011, unpublished). An overview of Australian Fertiliser Management Programs– informing

approaches in the Peel-Harvey. A report prepared by Theo Nabben for the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council. Mandurah, Western Australia 7 Kelsey, P., Hall, J., Ketschmar, P., Quinton, B., and Shakya, D. (2011). Hydrological and Nutrient Modelling

of the Peel-Harvey Catchment. Perth, Western Australia.

Respondents: DAFWA, SWCC, and PHCC

Delivery of Fertiliser Partnership Programs (Soil testing/mapping on the farm).

Several pilots implemented in the catchment through DAFWA and SWCC, with

the support of PHCC, Landcare and the Harvey River Restoration Taskforce

(HRRT).

Inclusion of Fertiliser Management Projects in the Water Quality Improvement

Subcatchment Implementation Plans for Nambeelup, Dirkbrook-Punrak and

Mayfield (SIP).

Listed as item D.1 Rural Land Use No. 25 in the PHCC’s Catchment Conditions

and Priorities Report.


24

The initial concept of the FAP changed to the non-statutory, public statement of

commitment approach, the “Fertiliser Partnership 2011-2015”. Nearly four years later

the Fertiliser Partnership remains un-formalised, inadequately resourced and awaiting

sign-off from partners. However, some progress is reported:

DAFWA and SWCC have implemented projects in the Mayfield subcatchment

targeting improved fertiliser management (over 25 landholders) which builds on

the HRRT/PHCC’s State NRM funded landholders surveys in the Mayfield.

The PHCC has provided a letter of support and has a MoU with DAFWA for

potential delivery of components of the proposed fertiliser extension project

submitted to and approved by State NRM targeting 50 landholders (2013).

Inclusion of Fertiliser Management Projects in the Water Quality Improvement

Subcatchment Implementation Plans for Nambeelup, Dirkbrook-Punrak and

Mayfield (SIP).

Strategy B Better Soils for Improved Productivity of the SIP includes a complete

program for Fertiliser Management and Soil Testing to specifically address this

management measure in Nambeelup, Dirk Brook- Punrak and Mayfield

subcatchments.

The PHCC has highlighted the need to prioritise action on this recommendation

through various forms of engagement at a regional level.

Specifically, with respect to the WQIP recommendation from Table 7, Item 1, p. 39,

Use soil testing to make fertiliser decisions and if possible use nutrient budgeting to

assist, the Commonwealth Caring for Our Country funded Nutrient Mapping Extension

Project builds on the landholder surveys conducted in the Mayfield Catchment by the

Harvey River Restoration Taskforce (HRRT). The HRRT/PHCC partnership project,

engaged landholders in the Mayfield Main Drain catchment who have now been

linked to the DAFWA/SWCC program that undertakes soil testing and farm nutrient

mapping. The HRRT’s “foundational activity” though one-one engagement has then

enabled the ‘next steps’ (soil testing and nutrient mapping) to be implemented. One-

on-one landholder engagement was identified as a crucial tool to increase the level of

participation within community members.


25

6.2.2 Barriers and Issues

The lack of continuation of all the programs attempted to date is the biggest issue for

the implementation of this management measure.

This lack of continuation has harmed landholders’ motivation and trust of government

agencies, making future implementation more challenging than in the past. This

management measure is about behavioural change and this change needs to be

maintained in the longer term.

Information from a survey of landholders undertaken in 2012 as part of the SIP project

found that frequent soil testing by farmers in the region will need a form of incentive,

or stronger regulation if adequate incentives are not available. The current DAFWA

project plans to subsidize soil testing to entice landholders. However, the long term

plan is to leave soil testing as a voluntary commitment, with the only incentive for

landholders being their potential savings from reduced fertiliser use.

This is a recipe for failure, tested and proven on previous occasions, and likely to

further damage the reputation of Government Agencies and the fertiliser management

programs.

In addition to the issues identified, another major challenge for the implementation of

this management measure is the inadequate scale at which the programs are

delivered. It is estimated that only 200 properties in the Peel-Harvey have completed

nutrient mapping. The total number of rural properties in the catchment is in excess of

5,000.

Furthermore, the program has not been assessed to date and its level of success

remains unknown.

Finally, it is important to highlight that an analysis is needed to understand the true

cost of an ‘engagement’ approach to achieve success versus a regulation approach.

Appropriate levels of incentives and/or regulation need to be determined.


26

In summary the major barriers identified for this management measure are:

Lack of continuity of fertiliser management programs.

Inadequate scale in which programs are implemented.

Advice on fertiliser management is at odds with farm practice and convenience.

Problems with the distribution and availability of alternatives to superphosphate.

Limited landholder involvement in program planning.

Lingering scepticism and alienation with the government involvement and a sense

of farmers being blamed for the problems of the Estuary.

Discrepancy in the interpretation of test results and the related advice provided

between government and private companies.

Fertiliser companies are providing advice on fertiliser application, which could

create conflict of interests.

6.2.3. Recommendations (Rural Fertiliser Management)

CE2-FM1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural

fertiliser management program to reduce nutrient loss

from agricultural activities, through a regulatory and/or

incentive scheme.

FM2 Secure funding to implement SIP Strategy B – Better Soils

for Improved Productivity, Program ‘Rural Fertiliser

Management’ (Appendix 5).

FM3 State Government (DAFWA) to communicate the results of

their assessment of the effectiveness of the Fertiliser

Partnership projects implemented to date.


27

6.3 Urban Fertiliser Management (Management Measure 4.1.3)


Respondents: SWCC and Swan River Trust

Urban Users Working Group progress on fertiliser content regulations and

fertiliser information brochure.

Great Garden workshops.

Pilot Study in Meadow Springs on urban nutrient behavioural change.

To date the Fertiliser Partnership remains un-formalised and FERTCARE has very

limited application locally. However, the Urban Users Working Group has made

progress as indicated by the gazettal of the urban fertiliser content regulations (2010)

and associated implementation and compliance actions, plus the publication of a

fertiliser information brochure by the Swan River Trust (SRT).

SWCC through the Commonwealth Caring for Our Country funds have implemented a

series of ‘Great Garden’ workshops across the Peel-Harvey Catchment which address

in part, urban fertiliser use through community engagement for behaviour change.

SWCC also reported that, “along with a series of ‘Great Garden’ workshops across the

Peel-Harvey Catchment (they) undertook a pilot study in Meadow Springs on urban

nutrient behavioural change, and a literature review of urban behavioural change

programs in Australia and abroad.

6.3.2. Barriers and Issues

There is still a low level of knowledge among some sectors in the community

regarding the causal relationship between urban fertiliser and water quality

decline.

Awareness and education programs need to increase their scale to include a larger

portion of urban residents. Effectiveness also needs to be measured.

Supporting programs, particularly those advocating the use of native plants, need

to be reinforced.

6.3.3. Recommendations (Urban Fertiliser Management)

UF1 Implement campaigns to change behaviour among Peel-Harvey

community members with regard to urban fertiliser use and water

quality decline.


28

6.4 Sewerage management in existing homes, dwellings and Wastewater

Treatment Plants (Management Measure 4.1.4), and All New

Developments to be Connected to Sewerage and ATUs (Management

Measure 4.1.8)

6.4.1 Examples of Implementation Progress

The EPA highlights the poor health of the Murray River and the “impact of nutrients

and bacteria leaching from conventional septic systems” as a “key contribution factor”.

Modelling undertaken by Zammit et al 2006, predicted that full connection to the

infill sewerage would reduce the total loading to the estuary from the Murray

River by 27 per cent (22% overall) (EPA, 2008).

Further support for the implementation of this management measure is included in

the SIP document; projects 34 ‘Lobby for expansion of reticulated system in town sites

and light industrial areas’ and 35 ‘Improving performance of Alternative Treatment

Units (non-reticulated sewerage management)’ of strategy C ‘Building stakeholder

capacity and increasing behaviour change to improve water quality’ (Appendix 5).

The community group Friends of Rivers Peel recognised this issue early last decade

and lobbied various channels to have connection to sewer and decommissioning of

septic systems a requirement for all households with access to sewer in the Murray

River catchment, with a particular focus on North and South Yunderup. The Water

Corporation provided little support in this regard as the level of connectivity exceeded

their 75% target. The Shire of Murray took up the cause, instigating a formal “Sewer

Connection Program”, to ensure the connection of properties to the available sewer

infrastructure for public health and environmental reasons. It was recognised, amongst

other matters such as nutrient leaching, that in low lying areas onsite effluent can

overflow with high winter water table levels creating public health impacts.

Respondents: Shire of Murray, Friends of Rivers Peel

Increased connections to sewer treatment in North and South Yunderup

(Murray River).

Connection of Murray Bend to sewer.


29

The Shire of Murray reported that, “In July 2009, the Shire contacted numerous

homeowners to connect their properties to sewer if sewer was available but not yet

connected. In May 2010, the Shire further conducted follow-up requests for

homeowners to connect to sewer. In 2011 and ongoing, a new campaign has

enforced the majority of landowners to connect to sewer and it is anticipated that all

remaining homeowners that are not yet connected (approximately 10) will be

connected by the end of 2011.”

The Friends of Rivers Peel and Shire of Murray have also campaigned for the

community of Murray Bend on the Murray River to be connected to sewer. Rising

water tables cause a particular issue for this small riverside community with septics

over-flowing and backing up sewerage into homes. The Shire has reported that, “The

Shire together with other stakeholders has been successful in lobbying the State

Government to connect the Murray Bend area in Ravenswood to reticulated sewer.

Construction is imminent and landowners are expected to connect to sewer from

August 2012.”


The major issue for this management measure is that the target set in current policy

for connection rates to sewerage limits reconversion and decommissioning.

Another issue is that works have mostly focused on the Murray River.

6.4.3. Recommendations (Sewerage)

SM1 State Government continue the implementation of the sewerage infill

infrastructure program in the Peel-Harvey Catchment, with a priority on

areas within close proximity of natural waterways.

SM2 State Government modify policy to require 100% connection rates to

sewerage, and subsequent decommissioning of redundant septic

systems, within 3 years of sewerage availability.


30

6.5 Improve other agricultural practices to reduce phosphorus discharges

(Management Measure 4.1.6) a) perennial pastures


Greening Australia (WA) reported that in partnership with Alcoa Farmlands, they have

committed to convert 30 hectares of its Pinjarra land holdings into sustainable

agriculture paddocks using a mixture of native perennial grasses, shrubs, and trees, in

alignment with Greening Australia’s WOPR (Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation)

programmes of the ACT and WA’s Avon.

This new programme is currently being implemented and is being informed through

consultations with SWCC’s Sustainable Agriculture programme. Additionally the

programme is being designed to ensure that through collaborations with CSIRO’s

ENRICH programme and UWA’s Animal Behaviour programme, research will be

focused on 1) which perennial species to establish, 2) best design/architecture to

facilitate best grazing results and 3) data collection.

The UWA is also leading the ARC linkage Trans-disciplinary project (plant-soil-water

sciences) during 2011-2012. This was founded by Greening Australia-ALCOA

Foundation US to investigate the use of novel plants to mitigate P losses towards

sustainable landscapes in the Peel-Harvey and to better understand how P moves

through the landscape (Associate Professor Megan Ryan, Associate Professor Mark

Tibbett, Professor Edward Barrett-Lennard, Dr Carlos Ocampo, 2011).

Respondents: HRRT – Greening Australia – UWA – Alcoa

Conversion of 30 ha of Alcoa Farmlands to sustainable agriculture paddocks

in align with Whole of Paddock Rehabilitation Programmes.

ARC linkage Trans-disciplinary project (plant-soil-water sciences) during 2011-

2012 founded by Greening Australia-ALCOA Foundation US to investigate the

use of novel plants to mitigate P losses towards sustainable landscapes in the

Peel-Harvey catchment. This will continue (2012-2015) under an ARC Linkage

Project “Farming in a biodiversity hotspot – harnessing native plants to

reduce deleterious off-site phosphorus flows” (J. Lambers and M Ryan,

School of Plant Biology, UWA).


31

Finally, the SIP states that “Project 25 ‘Promotion of perennial vegetation on farms’

focuses on getting more perennial vegetation on farms and should draw on existing

state-wide initiatives where possible. Perennial vegetation may include shelter belts,

woodlots, fodder crops, perennial pasture varieties and wildlife corridors. Water quality

modelling of the effectiveness of on-farm forestry or shelter belts has shown that

covering an additional 5% of beef and dairy farms with perennial pastures in the three

catchments would deliver reductions in nitrogen of between 5% and 16% and

phosphorus reductions of between 6% and 13%”8. Statistics on current coverage of

perennial vegetation in each of the three catchments is presented in the SIP.


One of the major barriers to progressing the implementation of this management

measure is the cost for landholders to change their land management practices. Lack

of knowledge of alternative pastures and their potential benefits is also a barrier for

the implementation of this management measure, although some of the research

currently undertaken by the UWA could close that knowledge gap within the next

three years.

6.5.3. Recommendations (Agricultural Practices)

8 Kelsey et al. op cit. p 118.

OAP1 Increase support for research into alternative agricultural land

management practices including perennial pastures.


32


Reform (Management Measure 4.1.12)


During the last decade, the Coastal Catchments Initiative (CCI) project, for “Water

Sensitive Urban Design” implemented by PHCC worked closely with Local

Governments.

The outcomes of the CCI project include the Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Water

Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines, and a supporting demonstration tour

booklet, with demonstration sites, for new and retrofitted stormwater and wetland

systems. This provides local governments with sound background knowledge and an

improved capacity to take advantage of further funding opportunities to implement

stormwater retrofitting projects. On-ground implementation has been facilitated

through the DoW/PHCC partnership “Filtering the Nutrient Storm” projects.

The FNS I (State NRM funded project) project supported the construction of three

stormwater retrofits in the Peel-Harvey Catchment. The FNS II project

(Commonwealth’s Caring for Our Country funded project) set a target to support the

construction and implementation a further six stormwater retrofits in priority locations

of the Peel-Harvey Catchment by June 2013.

Local Governments have also retrofitted some sites, where action was required due to

potential damage to nearby infrastructure or negative impacts to nearby residents

were significant.

It is estimated that the FNS I and II projects are successfully preventing 1.5 to 2

Tonnes of Phosphorus from reaching the estuary each year.

Respondents: PHCC – Local Governments – Department of Water

Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical

Guidelines.

Numerous projects completed by local governments and supported by the

FNS projects I and II.

PHCC currently delivering the ‘Local Government Stormwater Management

Strategies’ Project.


33

There have been important efforts from local governments to consolidate their

internal plans and to include WSUD principles in new development. The City of

Mandurah is currently supporting the PHCC ($450,000 over a 5 year project) to deliver

the ‘Local Stormwater Management Strategies’. The Shires of Murray and Waroona

have also contributed financially towards the implementation of this project. The

objective is to promote greater regional integration and improvement of WSUD

principles within the Catchment. Draft Local Government Stormwater Management

Strategies have been prepared by the PHCC for the Shires of Murray and Serpentine

Jarrahdale. Strategies are currently being prepared with the Shires of Waroona and

Boddington.

It is important to highlight that most of the work done to date has focused on water

sensitive urban design (management measure 4.1.11). Progress on drainage reform

(management measure 4.1.12) has mostly been on urban areas, particularly in regards

to stormwater retrofitting.

A good opportunity to commence trial preparation of a subcatchment drainage

management plan has been proposed in project 45 ‘Five year rural drainage

maintenance’ of the SIP (Appendix 5), which could lead to improved drainage

management in the whole of the Peel-Harvey.


The major barriers identified for the implementation of these management measures

are:

Most of the retrofitting of stormwater management infrastructure is subject to

external funding, given the lack of internal Local Government resources to

progress the implementation of these projects.

There is no monitoring program in place for retrofitted sites, which reduces

the capacity for strategic planning and improvement.

The cost of maintenance for some of the sites (particularly old retrofits) is a

deterrent for the management measure to be implemented more widely.

Current developers’ scheme lacks clarity when assets are handed over to the

local governments, and many of the sites do not have appropriate levels of

funding for the long term management of the asset.

There are currently no environmental objectives attached to the management

of rural drainage assets by the Water Corporation.


34

The ’72 hour’ rule that the Water Corporation’s licence uses to assess risk and

define management guidelines is out dated and is not adequate to the new

land management, climatic and drain capacity conditions and predominant

landuses in the catchment and is not based on any known parameters such as

conveyance requirements or the hydraulic capacity of the drainage system.

There is limited information on the hydraulic capacity of rural drains.

6.6.3. Recommendations (Water Sensitive Urban Design and Drainage Reform)

WS1 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy D – Improved Drainage,

Watercourse and Wetland Management, Program ‘Better Rural

Drainage for Water Quality’ – Project 45 (Appendix 5).

WS2 Comprehensively assess the hydraulic capacity of major drains in the

catchment to determine appropriate management options in order

to develop and implement a regional drainage policy for the Peel-

Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment.

WS3 State Government review the Water Corporation’s Rural Drainage

Licence conditions to incorporate total water cycle management and

water quality considerations.

WS4 Resource the implementation of Local Government Stormwater

Management Strategies.


35


environmental flow (Section 4.3); Incorporating measures into Local

Planning Policies, strategies, planning conditions and State policies

(Management Measure 4.1.10)


The past ICLEI9 and WSUD projects enabled the Peel’s Local Governments to adopt

WSUD policies into the Planning process. The Department of Water reported it is

“currently the lead agency in the recommendation and implementation of best

management practices for water sensitive urban design (WSUD) principles… DoW also

continues to update its plans, policies and guidelines in reference to WSUD”.

In February 2012, the PHCC, through funding provided by the Local Governments

initiated the Local Government Stormwater Strategy Project.

With respect to, “Table 7, Item 10, p. 41 of the WQIP, decision-making authorities are

expected to take the lead role in incorporating best management practices including

water sensitive urban design principles, criteria and outcomes in its strategic land use

planning, policies, structure plans and subdivision conditions”. The Department of

Planning reports that, “Planning for drainage and water management is well integrated

into existing planning processes. The WAPC imposes requirements for the preparation

of relevant water management plans at the rezoning, local structure planning and

subdivision phases of the planning process and the outcomes of these plans inform

land use and urban design decisions”.

9 ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, http://www.iclei.org

Respondents: PHCC- Local Governments – DoW

Implementation of ICLEI and WSUD principles into local planning policies.

DoW has provided regional support for strategic planning, including

drainage management plans and WSUD guidelines.

PHCC is delivering the Local Stormwater Management Strategies.

Subcatchment Implementation Plans for Nambeelup, Dirkbrook-Punrak

and Mayfield prepared in 2012.


36

The WQIP states, “A key aspect of successful implementation of this Plan will be the

adoption by local and state government of the best management practices/measures

listed in this Plan. Decision making authorities need to take a lead role in

implementing best management practices... Government and community need to work

co-operatively towards reaching the targets of the Plan in reducing Phosphorus to the

estuary”10.

Through State NRM funds for the Mayfield Catchment and Commonwealth Caring for

Our Country funds, a framework11 for the development of Water Quality Improvement

subcatchment plans was established in 2011. In 2012 sub-catchment implementation

plans were prepared for Mayfield Main Drain, Dirk Brook-Punrak and Nambeelup Sub-

catchments12. Though the SIP is a non-statutory document it provides a framework,

guidance and 62 projects for action which could be included as part of local and State

policies and strategic plans.

A step towards integration with the landuse planning system is project 36 of the SIP

document (Appendix 5). This project aims to “use available mapping of natural

resources to produce a spatial plan, linked to implementation mechanisms, which can

be directly integrated into subregional and district level land-use planning and

possibly subdivisional assessment”.

Further support to the implementation of this management measure is found in

projects 37, 38 and 39 of the SIP (Appendix 5). Project 39 proposes the inclusion of a

catchment offset scheme. This could be an opportunity to materialise environmental

protection and improvement while maintaining an adequate balance with

development.


The Department of Planning reported that water management is well integrated into

the planning process through the Better Urban Water Management Strategy prepared

with DoW. However, specific recommendations of the WQIP and its water quality

targets need to be built into appropriate Peel-Harvey decision making tools, e.g.

Statements of Planning Policy.

10

EPA (2008). WQIP. P 37. 11

PHCC, 2011, Subcatchment Planning Framework and Pilot Implementation: An Adaptive Management Approach. 12

PHCC (2013). Op cit.


37

The major barrier to achieving water quality improvement through effective land use

planning could be attributed to the disconnect between planning decisions and

subsequent environmental consequences and on-going management requirements.

The EPA refers to the WQIP providing a “landuse planning framework”. However, the

WQIP is a report of the EPA that is not embedded in the Planning process. This is

perhaps best illustrated by an example from the review of the WQIP’s implementation

as follows:

Management Measure 4.1.8 “All new developments to be connected to reticulated

sewerage or ATU” includes the recommendation from Table 8, Item 8, p. 44 to

“Amend where necessary and continue to implement and more actively enforce State

Planning Policy for the Peel-Harvey’. In response to this the Department of Planning

states, “SPP 2.1 is being implemented through Local Planning Strategies, Local

Planning Schemes and amendments, structure plans, subdivision and development

applications”.

Then with respect to Table 7, Item 8, p. 41 recommendation for “Connection to

reticulated sewerage or ATU to apply to non-urban development”, the Department of

Planning’s response states, “Under State Planning Policy 2.1, the Peel-Harvey Coastal

Plain Catchment, (SPP 2.1), it is not mandatory for all non-urban development to be

connected to reticulated sewerage or ATU's. Most non-urban development

applications are determined by local government and do not involve WAPC, where

appropriate consideration is given to ATU requirements during the processing of Town

Planning Scheme amendments, structure plans, subdivisions and development

applications involving non-urban development. Under SPP2.1, conventional on-site

effluent disposal systems can be considered in some instances involving non-urban

development.” Hence, until the SPP is updated to reflect the WQIP the Department of

Planning is unable to enforce the recommendations of the WQIP.

With respect to 4.1.10, p. 37 “Key aspect of successful implementation of this Plan

[WQIP] will be the adoption by local and state government of the best management

practices/measures listed in this Plan. Decision making authorities need to take a lead

role. Government and community need to work co-operatively towards reaching the

targets of the Plan in reducing Phosphorus to the estuary” the Department of

Planning reports that, “The WQIP does not form part of the current statutory town

planning framework. For this reason, the WAPC is not in a strong position to

enforce the recommendations of the WQIP.”


38

At this point it is important to note that the EPA’s Bulletin 994, “Peel Region Scheme,

Western Australian Planning Commission” recommended that, “4. Catchment

Management Plan: The Peel Region Scheme should be amended so that it is

consistent with the objectives of a management plan for the Peel-Harvey coastal

catchment once it has been prepared” (p. iv).

Whilst a Catchment Management Plan is yet to be prepared the WQIP presents key

information that would inform major parts of the Catchment Management Plan. The

Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar Site Management Plan, (PHCC, 2009) also presents primary

management, and monitoring information. This Plan was formally endorsed by the

State Government, via the Director General of the Department of Environment and

Conservation in April 2011. In June 2011 Tony Slatyer, Delegate for the Australian

Administrative Authority for the Ramsar Convention within the Wetlands Program

Section of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, advised the State Government that the Commonwealth acknowledged

that the Management Plan “…. meets EPBC Act management principles and [they] look

forward to seeing the Plan implemented.” There has been however no funding or

commitments to enable implementation, other than grants obtained by community

groups for the region.

6.7.3. Recommendations (Urban Growth – Planning)

CE4-UGP1 State Government (WAPC) ensure that WQIP water quality targets

are incorporated into all levels of land use decision making.

CE5-UGP2 State Government (WAPC) integrate WQIP recommendations into

the landuse planning process, including the preparation of a

Catchment Management Plan endorsed by the Western Australia

Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority.

UGP3 State Government (WAPC) amend SPP 2.1 to reflect the

recommendations of the WQIP and ensure it is implemented fully

through landuse decision making processes.

UGP4 State Government (DoW) continue the development of water

quality assessment models including subcatchment scale decision

making tools (e.g. UNDO model) to quantify impacts of proposed

landuse change on water quality.


39

6.8 Wetland and Waterway protection and revegetation (Management

Measure 4.1.13) and Reafforestation of Agricultural Lands (Management

Measure 4.1.7)


A range of on-ground actions13 to protect and restore in-stream, riparian and wetland

areas have and continue to be undertaken by local governments and the PHCC (e.g.

FNS and Peel Ramsar Lakes projects), SWCC, Greening Australia, Landcare S-J and the

HRRT in partnership with land managers. This work is reliant on the sourcing of

external funds such as State NRM or Commonwealth Caring for Our Country.

It is estimated that over 5636 ha have been streamlined or have undergone some kind

of restoration effort in the Peel-Harvey Catchment since 1992. From this 5636ha, over

690 km of waterways and drains have been streamlined14.

13

Please note that statistical data has been collated for a proportion of these works and is available on request. 14

PHCC (2012). Peel-Harvey Catchment Council: First Decade Report. A report prepared by Andrew del Marco for the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council. Mandurah, Western Australia.

Respondents: DoW – Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) –

SWCC – Landcare NRM and community groups – Local Governments –

Greening Australia

5636 ha restoration and protection efforts since 1992 – mostly by landcare

groups and volunteers.

Over 690 km of waterways and drains streamlined since 1992.

Comprehensive strategy for Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-Punrak and Mayfield

under the SIP to protect waterways and wetlands.

Peel-Yalgorup System Ramsar Site Management Plan released in 2009,

endorsed in 2011 by the State Government and accepted by the

Commonwealth Government.

DEC released the Regionally Significant Natural Areas (RSNAS) Maps and

Bulletin.

DEC’s Healthy Wetlands Programs continues.

Lake Mealup Recovery Program is implemented with savings of up to 1.5

Tonnes of P every year.


40

The SIP Strategy D ‘Improved drainage, watercourse, and wetland management’ covers

a number of opportunities to improve water quality through better management of

drains, watercourses and wetlands in each catchment. Drains and other watercourses

directly transport water, nutrients and sediment from farms and other land uses to the

lower rivers and Estuary and importantly, wetlands provide some capacity to naturally

assimilate nutrients before they reach groundwater. Strategy D also addresses the

potential to construct or retrofit biofilters into the catchments, and support

investigations into managed aquifer recharge (MAR).

The projects under Strategy D are grouped under the following programs:

Better rural drainage for water quality

In-stream drainage structures

Riparian management program and

Wetlands, biofilters and Managed Aquifer Recharge.

The EPA has released the Peel Region’s regionally significant natural areas (RSNAS)

maps and Bulletin (Swan Bioplan) to provide guidance on the EPA’s expectation that

these areas will be protected, by requiring proposals impacting on them to undertake

a thorough biological investigation, and referral to the EPA if a significant impact is

proposed on RSNAS. There is no framework for purchase of RSNAS, as provided by

the Bush Forever areas.

DEC requests updated wetland mapping and assessment for areas subject to landuse

proposals and seeks protection of wetlands and buffers through the landuse planning

program.

The DEC Healthy Wetland program continues, with Support provided to private

landholders to undertake fencing, weed control, revegetation and feral animal control.

There have been seven successful applications from the Peel Region. Successful

applicants generally receive $10,000 to undertake wetland conservation works.

The endorsement by the State government of the Peel-Yalgorup System Ramsar Site

Management Plan in 2011 is a significant milestone in providing a framework for

protecting major wetlands and the estuary. The PHCC, in partnership with DEC, has

been the lead organisation in developing a collaborative approach to implementing

this important management plan and support at all levels will be needed to fully

implement it.


41


The Landholders’ survey and subsequent stakeholder engagement process detailed in

the SIP has identified that landholders are burnout and lack interest in this WQIP

management measure or “best management practice” (BMP).

There are also negative views towards riparian works from many landholders. They

associate riparian works with an increased risk for fires, a greater effort required for

drainage maintenance, a harbouring area for weeds, and a loss of usable land.

Another barrier to implementation of this BMP is the lack of continuity in the

programs, which in turn makes the maintenance of existing protected areas weak and

inconsistent.

The lack of resources for government agencies and other on-ground groups

combined with the vast amount of the areas that need to be actively managed is also

a major issue for the successful implementation of this management measure.

6.8.3. Recommendations (Wetlands and Waterways)

WW1 Determine adequate and appropriate economic incentives to achieve

nature conservation in privately owned, critical areas of the

catchment.

WW2 State Government consolidate and adequately fund the management

of the Waterways and Regional Open Space abutting the Waterways

identified and zoned in the Peel Region Scheme.

WW3 Secure funding to implement the Strategy of the Peel-Yalgorup System

Ramsar Site Management Plan to Protect Fringing and Terrestrial

Environments (table 11, page 32).

WW4 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy D - Improve Drainage,

Watercourse and Wetland Management - (Appendix 5).

WW5 State Government review the reclassification process and provide

greater protection for existing wetlands, of all categories.


42

6.9 Rural Soil Amendment (Management Measure 4.1.2) and Urban Soil

Amendment (Management Measure 4.1.9)

6.9.1 Examples of Implementation Progress

The WQIP and subsequent work undertaken by Kelsey et al 201115 has identified that

whilst no single management measure will achieve the required nutrient export target,

without soil amendment the target will not be reached. Whilst not a “silver bullet” soil

amendments represent arguably one of the most cost-effective methods for

reducing phosphorus pollution reaching the Estuary16.

During this review no response was received from the Chair of the Soil Amendment

Working Group. However, the Swan River Trust is currently implementing a soil

amendment project entitled the “Ellenbrook Soil Amendment Trial” in partnership with

DAFWA.

This trial is currently covering products from Alcoa (Alkaloam), Iluka (Neutralized Used

Acids - NUA) and the Water Corporation (Lime Amended BioClay - LABC), and it is

mostly focusing on pasture productivity and the capacity of soil amendments to

reduce phosphorus loss.

DAFWA has undertaken a number of trials over the years in the Peel-Harvey

catchment, mostly with Alcoa’s Alkaloam or Red Mud, but progress has stalled since

the early 2000 due to negative media surrounding the product.

Water Corporation has made good progress in developing LABC and it is close to be

released in the market. It will not be produced in sufficient quantities to supply the

volume needed for the Peel-Harvey catchment,.

15

Kelsey, et al. op cit. 16

As cited in PHCC (2013). Op cit. p 51

Respondents: DAFWA – Alcoa – Iluka – Water Corporation

Bad publicity halts the possibility to bring alkaloam to market.

New trials undertaken by the SRT on Ellen Brook Catchment (Alkaloam, NUA,

and LABC).

Watercorp is closing on getting approval for LABC.


43

Given the significant challenge and complexity of bringing any soil amendment to

market, a number of inter-related projects are proposed under the “Better soils for

improved productivity (Strategy B)” program in the SIP. The projects, outlined below,

are designed to stimulate the demand for, and/or supply of soil amendments. The

projects are:

Project 17: Soil Amendments cost-effectiveness and incentives assessment

(demand and supply).

Project 18: Soil amendments information toolbox (demand).

Project 19: Soil amendments commercial challenge (supply).

Project 20: Farmer-soil amendment brokerage service (demand and supply).

Project 21: Approvals, accreditation and governance assistance (supply).

The creation of a market for the application of soil amendments in rural lands would

also have a positive impact on the potential application of soil amendments in urban

areas. This is a significant opportunity to improve water quality as the use of soil

amendments as a landfill could provide significant savings on the Phosphorus loads


The SIP found that at present the most significant barriers to the uptake of soil

amendment is that:

1) no product is commercially available at a price which would make its use cost-

effective.

2) there is no clear process for the accreditation of new soil amendment products

and the use of these products requires the applicant to be approved to use the

product of their choosing.

3) the perceptions surrounding many of the potential soil amendments, has literally

stagnated the process, with both demand and supply end of the market being

extremely cautious.

It is probable that some of the soil amendments which may achieve cost-effective

water quality improvement are yet to be developed. For example, it is possible that

mixes of inorganic and organic materials may provide another solution to improve the

high-leaching soils of the catchment. However these mega-amendments will only be

possible in the future if greater progress is made with regard to removing the barriers

to the use of current potential soil amendments.


44

Finally, finding a fair and reasonable balance between private and public investment in

soil amendments is one of the challenges that need to be addressed in the future.

Besides the barriers already identified for the application of soil amendments on rural

lands, the use of amendments in urban areas as landfill have the added complexity of

the current legislation labelling these products as waste. This means that a levy will be

charged to developers using soil amendments (or products containing a proportion of

soil amendments) as landfill. This could prove a key economic deterrent.

6.9.3. Recommendations (Soil Amendment)

CE3-SA1 Government establish a clear policy and approvals framework for the


Harvey.

SA2 Government commit to exploring policy options that create market


SA3 Secure funding to implement SIP Strategy B – Better Soils for Improved

Productivity, Program ‘Application of Soil Amendment on Rural Lands’ –

Projects 17 – 21 (Appendix 5).

SA4 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder

Capacity to Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Urban Soil Amendments’

– Projects 41 and 42 (Appendix 5).


45

6.10 Zero discharge for licensed agricultural premises (Management Measure

4.1.5)


DEC reported that the Water Corporation's program of upgrading water treatment

plants to reduce nutrient discharges are prioritised across the State. There is a

proposal to pipe and re-use treated waste water from the Mandurah Gordon Road

plant to the Alcoa Pinjarra refinery.

DEC also reported that all piggeries and feedlots are licensed to achieve zero

discharge with license conditions requiring best practices measures. Measures include

removal of manure, recycling of waste water, evaporation of stormwater in clay lined

ponds, and groundwater monitoring.

Finally DEC reported that new regulations are in place and it is now an offence to

discharge animal waste. These regulations provide added weight, however, the

reduction of discharges is primarily achieved through license conditions and liaison.


License conditions are enforced in regards to licensed piggeries. However, dairies are

not prescribed premises and therefore not licensed or monitored. This highlights one of

the major ‘loopholes’ in this management measure, which is the existence of unlicensed

premises that pollute but are under the threshold that triggers licensing. A good

example of this is the increasing number of feedlots with just under 500 head of cattle,

therefore not requiring licensing.

The SIP has provided some recommendations to address this situation in projects 32

‘Intensive producers assistance program for licensed and unlicensed premises’ and 33

‘Expanded licensing of intensive agricultural operators’ (Appendix 5).

Respondents: DEC

Water Corporation program to upgrade water treatment plants is currently

ongoing.

New regulations are in place and it is now an offence to discharge animal

waste.


46

A specific review with DEC of licensed premises is required to determine if licences are

being effectively adjusted when they fall due for review in order for, “all licensed

agricultural premises achieve progressively a zero discharge of phosphorus to the

environment within 5 years” (WQIP p. 36) and to identify any barriers to achieving this

aim.

Licensing is presently limited to certain industries. A “catch-all” regulation for licensed

premises is required for the Peel-Harvey so that zero discharge can be applied to all

new industries that have the potential to pollute, such as the recently established free

range duck farm running 20,000 ducks.

6.10.3. Recommendations (Zero Discharge – Agricultural)

LAP1 State Government prepare and apply a “catch-all” regulation for licensed

premises to achieve zero nutrient discharge for all new industries.

LAP2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder

Capacity to Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Point Source Agricultural

Operators’ – Projects 32 and 33 (Appendix 5).


47

6.11 River Flow Objectives (Section 4.2)


No responses were received regarding River Flow objectives.


The major barrier is that this management measure has been largely ignored by most

of the stakeholders in the Peel-Harvey catchment. There is a need to understand the

issues/impacts associated with river flows. It is important to highlight that there is not

great demand for surface water allocation on the Swan Coastal Plain, which is the

mechanisms that would normally trigger discussions around river flow. This is the

reason why environmental water provisions in the coastal drainage system are not a

priority for DoW.

The major issue is the lack of knowledge to set appropriate environmental flow

requirements to ensure sustainable fish stocks, biodiversity, including healthier riparian

areas and improved water quality.

6.11.3. Recommendations (River Flow)

RF1 Based on relevant scientific evidence State Government determine

appropriate Environmental Water Requirements and set appropriate

Provisions, with associated flow objectives for the Peel-Harvey

Catchment, to meet water quality objectives.

RF2-MR4 Develop a Science Program to support the identification of

environmental flow requirements and provisions for all watercourses in

the Peel-Harvey Catchment to meet water quality objectives.


48

6.12 Use of Market-based Instruments (Section 4.4)


No responses were received regarding progress on this recommendation of the WQIP.


Key programs like rural fertiliser management and the application of soil amendments

lack the tools and strategies to facilitate market-based approaches. Simple actions like

sustainable incentives or specific support to supply and demand for mining by-

products have not progressed since the release of the WQIP. Complex mechanisms

such as tradeable permits, NRM auctions, wetland banking and offsets are not part of

current discussions in the governmental and private sector and are likely to remain

difficult to progress in the medium term.

The Australian Government recognises the benefits of market and other incentives for

managing biodiversity17. Subpriority Enhancing Strategic Investments and Partnerships

has as an outcome 1.3.1 an increase in the use of markets and other incentives for

managing biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Project 39 ‘Catchment offset conditions scheme’ of the SIP proposes the inclusion of a

catchment offset scheme. This could be an opportunity to materialise environmental

protection and improvement while maintaining an adequate balance with development.

6.12.3 Recommendations (Market Use Instruments)

17

Natural Resource Management Ministerial 2010, Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030, Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Mb1 Support the investigation of potential market based instruments

suitable to the characteristics of the Peel-Harvey Catchment that will

enable the implementation of the WQIP.

Mb2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy C – Building Stakeholder

Capacity to Improve Water Quality, Program ‘Strengthening Local

Government policy and practice’ – Project 39 (Appendix 5).

SA2 – Mb3 Government commit to exploring policy options that create market



49

6.13 Use of Economic Incentives (Section 4.5)


No responses were received regarding economic incentives.


This recommendation of the WQIP follows the guidelines stated in section 4.4. of the

WQIP. Although no responses were received regarding progress on this

recommendation, it is fundamental to stress that unless clear decisions are made to

stimulate action at a scale that will have an effect on phosphorus loads, the WQIP

targets will remain unachievable.

The WQIP is clear when it states that “Education based approaches to encourage

voluntary adoption of best management practices in the Peel-Harvey Catchment have

not been successful”18.

6.13.3. Recommendations (Economic Incentives)

18

EPA (2008). Op cit. p47

CE2-RF1-EI1 State Government commit to a long term, effective rural fertiliser

management program to reduce nutrient loss from agricultural

activities, through a regulatory and/or incentive scheme.

WW1- E2 Determine adequate and appropriate economic incentives to achieve

nature conservation in privately owned, critical areas of the

catchment.


50

6.14 Institutional and Organisational Reforms (Section 4.6); Regulatory Reforms

for Improved Water Quality and Environmental Flows (Section 4.7)


The Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire has reported progress of this recommendation

through the development of the Biodiversity Strategy and the Biodiversity Planning

Local Planning Policy. This has included the Lower Serpentine Catchment Plan and the

Plan for the Future Integrated Water Cycle.

Similarly, the Shire of Murray reports that Environmental issues are assessed on all

scales of development proposals from structure plans to development applications

with continuous referrals to relevant State Government Departments for environmental

impact consideration (DoW, DEC, DAFWA etc.).

The City of Mandurah has reported the completion of their Stormwater Management

Plan, which has guided the inclusion of WSUD principles.

DoW implements Better Urban Water management (BUWM) and WSUD principles

through the statutory referral process via water management plans which addresses

both water quality and quantity in rezoning, local structure plans, subdivision

applications and development applications.


The major barrier is the lack of a clear governance paradigm in which the WQIP

should be framed and delivered. Accountability for improving water quality in the

Peel-Harvey Catchment remains fragmented.

Respondents: DoW – PHCC – Local Governments

Local Biodiversity Strategy prepared by Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire.

Murray Drainage and Water Management Plan released by DoW in 2011.

Stormwater Management Plan prepared by the City of Mandurah.

ICLEI campaign and WSUD principles have been included within local

planning policies.


51

Although an agreement between DoW and the EPA was reached to define the lead

organisation for the implementation of the WQIP, no roles and responsibilities were

formally identified or resources sufficiently allocated to undertake the task.

The EPA reported that no progress has been made on the implementation of this

management measure and that is currently not a priority on the Office of the EPA’s

(OEPA) program of works.

6.14.3 Recommendations (Reforms)

CE1-IOR1 State Government lead a shift in Governance that secures the

adequate level of resourcing and influence to a lead agency or a





IOR2 State Government formally establish and resource a strategic

partnership to co-ordinate the delivery of the WQIP.

IOR3 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy A – Implementing the Plan -

Programs (Appendix 5):

a. Coordination of Plan Implementation.

b. Whole of Catchment Monitoring.

c. Best management practice assessment and implementation.


52

6.15 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) (Section 5 and 6)


The Serpentine-Jarrahdale Shire reported that monitoring for water quantity and

quality is being done as part of the Better Urban Water Management Strategy.

The Department of Health (DOH) in conjunction with the City of Mandurah and the

Shire of Murray coordinates a bacterial monitoring program for recreational waters.

The City of Mandurah monitors bacterial water quality at two sites on the periphery of

the Peel Inlet.

The City of Mandurah has established an annual monitoring program for selected

sites that include some water quality parameter like TP and TN.

The Shire of Murray’s monitoring program includes a number of sites along the

Murray River. The monitoring program also includes the undertaking of a sanitary

inspection of the faecal contamination inputs that potentially may impact upon

recreational use in the vicinity of each sampling site. The sanitary inspections may lead

to more targeted investigations of faecal contamination inputs e.g. the effects of

rainfall and stormwater drains on bacterial levels.

The Shire of Murray is planning to establish a water quality monitoring program as

part of their ongoing management of public open spaces in urban areas.

Respondents: DoW – PHCC – Local Governments

Sporadic water quality monitoring programs undertaken by local

government dependant on funding availability.

Bacterial monitoring program for recreational waters currently being

delivered in partnership between DoH, City of Mandurah and the Shire of

Murray.

Stormwater Management Plan prepared by the City of Mandurah

ICLEI campaign and WSUD principles have been included within local

planning policies.

Estuary and lower reaches of the main rivers Water Quality Monitoring

undertaken by DoW.


53

The Department of Planning reported that ground and surface water modelling of

sites proposed for urban zoning is currently required to be prepared by developers.

The Department of Water’s LASCAM model has been reworked and developed into

the SQUARE model to provide options to assess landuse planning and water

management strategies in decision making. They have continued a catchment based

water sampling program, though this is reliant on external funding, currently secured

until June 2013.

There are only 3 Load Measuring Units (LMUs) in operation in the Peel-Harvey. 11

other sites are grab-sampled fortnightly through winter. Estuarine Water Quality

monitoring is generally being undertaken fortnightly by the Department of Water.

The PHCC has contributed to modelling workshops. The FNS I and II projects have

also provided funding for minimum LMU operations (3 of 11) and estuary and

catchment sampling programs by DoW.

Finally the Water Science branch of DoW is preparing Sub-catchment Report Cards for

priority areas of the Peel-Harvey catchment.


The broad nature of the WQIP target (reduction of 75 tonne of P load entering the

estuary) and the complexity of P-movement and hydraulics in the Peel-Harvey

catchment remains a challenge for monitoring and modelling.

This is worsened because adequate resources for monitoring have not been provided. The

DoW has seen its original LMU program cut to only 3 LMUs, and has had to reduce its

estuary monitoring. The grab-sampling program has been reduced, and no budget has

been allocated for 2013.

A limited amount of monitoring has taken place since the release of the WQIP as

DoW relies on funding opportunities rather than monitoring being recognised as core

business, or required to comply with approvals for the construction of the Dawesville

Cut. Funding is ad-hoc, unreliable and inadequate.


54

Resources to support community engagement to participate and volunteers in

monitoring activities has declined over the years, to the point where it is almost non-

existent.

6.15.3. Recommendations (MERI)

MR1 State Government secure resources for regular and consistent

water quality monitoring, analysis (Catchment and Estuarine) and

report results to the community on an annual basis, to enable long

term application of the Adaptive Management Strategy as required

by the WQIP.

MR2 Secure funding to Implement SIP Strategy A – Implementing the

Plan, Program ‘Whole of the Catchment Monitoring’ (Appendix 5).

MR3 Support ongoing research initiatives, site trials and citizen science

as fundamental elements of Adaptive Management to improve

water quality.

MR3 State Government continue to support the upgrading of water

quality models for the catchment and report outcomes to the

community on an annual basis.

RF2-MR4 Develop a Science Program to support the identification of

environmental flow requirements and provisions for all

watercourses in the Peel-Harvey Catchment to meet water quality

objectives.

MR5 Develop a Science Program to address research needs to measure

and analyse the effectiveness and efficacy of best management

practices being applied for water quality improvement, including a

three yearly forum to engage with land managers throughout the

catchment.

MR6 State Government fund a re-draft of the Peel-Harvey WQIP

following an adaptive management methodology and utilising the

most up to date water quality modelling to enable a more

effective and auditable implementation strategy to provide a more

integrated approach to water quality management, i.e. include

nitrogen, sediments and other water quality parameters.


55

7. CONCLUSIONS

The CCI and related projects undertaken during the last decade created a swell of planning

and on-ground momentum. Unfortunately, since publication of the WQIP the funding and

focus directed towards water quality improvement has declined in response to changing

priorities of State and Australian governments.

The EPA states, “The Environmental Protection Authority has set a longer term target of 75

tonnes to be monitored over 10 years after full implementation and the management actions

adapted as appropriate”19.

The conundrum is this: While most of the State and Commonwealth plans and projections are

done in a long term scale (10 to 20 years), the implementation of these plans is limited to

disconnected short term actions.

To move from this limiting short term implementation approach to a more sustainable

coordinated long term effort a shift in Governance to lay out the foundations for long term

programs with sufficient resources and adequate market-based tools, and a better integration

with landuse planning is needed.

Meeting the long-term water quality target for the Peel-Harvey requires a consistent, ongoing

commitment to on-ground action and appropriate landuse planning decisions. Monitoring

also needs to be ongoing and at a sufficient level to inform management decisions and

potential pathways for research and improvement.

Science tells us that it is possible to improve water quality and reach the WQIP targets. It is

therefore a matter of political will to decide what the future will look like for the Peel-Harvey

Estuary and waterways.

The Subcatchment Implementation Plan, currently in place for three of the 17 coastal

subcatchments of the Peel-Harvey, provides a golden opportunity to better-focus the

application of the WQIP’s recommendations, and improve water quality in the Peel-Harvey.

Time will tell if we were wise enough to address the issues of the past and if we were brave

enough to overcome the barriers that have prevented the implementation of the WQIP to

date. Stewardship of the catchment is a responsibility for all parts of society, government,

NGOs and residents. The whole team of stewards must play their part in order to achieve

waterway health, which is fundamental to a strong local economy and lifestyle.

19

EPA (2008). Op cit. p42

56

This page has been left blank intentionally

APPENDIX 1

Outline of WQIP Recommendations,

Monitoring, Reporting and Review

Outline of WQIP Recommendations, Monitoring, Reporting and Review

Chapter 4: Management Measures and Control Actions

4.1 Management Measures to meet phosphorus reductions

4.1.1 Rural Fertiliser Management

4.1.2 Rural Soil Amendment

4.1.3 Urban Fertiliser Management

4.1.4 Sewage management in existing homes, dwellings and Wastewater

Treatment Plants

4.1.5 Zero discharge for licensed agricultural premises

4.1.6 Improve other agricultural practices to reduce phosphorus discharges

a) Perennial Pastures

b) Effluent Management

c) Better managing irrigation systems

4.1.7 Reafforestation of agricultural lands

4.1.8 All new developments to be connected to reticulated sewerage or

ATU

4.1.9 Urban Soil Amendment

4.1.10 Incorporating measures into Local Planning Policies, strategies,

planning conditions and State policies

4.1.11 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

4.1.12 Drainage Reform

4.1.13 Wetland and Waterway protection and revegetation

4.2 River flow objectives


environmental flow

4.4 Use of market-based instruments

4.5 Use of economic incentives

4.6 Institutional and organisational reforms

4.7 Regulatory reforms for improved water quality and environmental flows

4.8 Current legislation relating to water quality within the Peel-Harvey Coastal

Catchment (use UDRs)

Chapter 5: Monitoring and Modelling

5.1 Water Quality Modelling Strategy

5.2 Water Quality Monitoring Strategy

5.2.1 Catchment Monitoring

5.2.2 Estuarine Water Quality Monitoring

5.2.3 Effectiveness of management measures and control actions

5.2.4 Monitoring of river flow objectives

5.3 Monitoring implementation of the Plan

5.4 Adaptive Management Strategy

Chapter 6: Reporting and Review

6.1 Reporting implementation of the Plan

6.2 The Plan’s review

APPENDIX 2

Primary stakeholders requested

to participate in the Review

Primary stakeholders requested to participate in the Review

Agency/Group Section Contact Response Respondent contact

Department of Water Kwinana Peel Region Leon Brouwer /

Bob Pond

Yes Bob Pond

Department of Water Water Science Branch Malcolm Robb No

Department of Planning Peel Region Cameron Bulstrode Yes Scott Haine

Peel Development Commission Colleen Yates Yes Colleen Yates

Department of Agriculture &

Food WA

Waroona District Office Rob Summers Yes Rob Summers/Dave Weaver

Department of Environment and

Conservation

Swan Coastal District – Nature

Conservation

Land Use Planning

Craig Olejnik

Lyndon Mutter

Yes

Water Corporation Sustainability Manager

Conveyance Civil Engineer

Bob Humphries

Creslygie Dangazo

No

Department of Health Public Health Division Tarun Weeramanthri Yes Michelle Vojtisek

SWCC Damien Postma /

Emily Hugues dit ciles

Yes

Emily Hugues dit Ciles

Agency/Group Section Contact Response Respondent contact

Greening Australia National Partnership manager Grey Mackay Yes Grey Mackay/Martin von Kaschke

City of Mandurah Mark Newman Yes Kim Goodfellow

Shire of Murray Dean Unsworth Yes Patrick Ruettjes

Shire of Waroona Ian Curley Yes Steve Cleaver

Shire of Harvey Michael Parker No

Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale Joanne Abbiss Yes Chris Portlock

Alcoa Chair in Sustainable Water

Management

Richard Harper No

EPA Chairman Paul Vogel Yes Darren Foster/Ruth Clarke

CSIRO Flagship Director Tom Hatton No

UWA School of Plant Biology Meg Ryan No

Murdoch University Fisheries Resources Management Peter Rogers No

Harvey River Restoration

Taskforce

Jane Townsend Yes Jane Townsend

Harvey Water Richard Yates No

APPENDIX 3

Copy of review form provided to stakeholders

with request to complete, September 2011

19

Organisation

Contact Name

Email

Phone


A Review of the Recommended Actions for Implementation of the Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Rivers and Estuary of the Peel-Harvey System –

Phosphorus Management

Please respond to items in this document that relate to your area of responsibility or involvement with the Peel-Harvey WQIP by entering your organisation’s progress of actions (Nov 1998 – July 2011) and future commitments for action and estimated timeframe into the following review table.

Please return the document via email to [email protected] by 12 September 2011.

If you would like to refer to the Peel-Harvey WQIP, it can be downloaded from http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/Policies_guidelines/other/Pages/phwqip.asp x

If you have any queries, please contact Kim Wilson on 9583 5128 or email [email protected]. Please note that Kim is on leave until 24 August 2011. Queries prior to this date can be directed to Jane O’Malley on 9583 5128 or [email protected].

Thank you.

Completed by:

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/Policies_guidelines/other/Pages/phwqip.aspx





20

A Review of Recommended Actions for Implementation of the Peel-Harvey WQIP

WQIP

Ref

Management Measures & Actions (Chapter 4) and EPA Recommended Actions (Tables 7 & 8)

(EPA, 2008)

Organisation's progress of actions Nov 2008 - July 2011

Future commitments from Organisation for action &

estimated timeframe

4.1.1 Rural Fertiliser Management

Table 8, Item 1, p. 43

Implement the Fertiliser Action Plan to phase out the use of the high water soluble phosphate fertilisers.


Ensure a management entity has responsibility to oversee the implementation of the Fertiliser Action Plan.


Establish a four-year demonstration program for low water soluble phosphorus fertilisers and extension program for best practice farm fertiliser management. Extension program for better fertiliser management will extend to heavy soils as well as wet soils.


Establish an exception and accreditation scheme.


Use low water soluble/slow release fertiliser applied to sandy textured soils, applied at minimum of 25 percent reduction from current use.


Conduct regular soil and/or tissue testing and dose to required needs.


Apply fertiliser at the break of season when there is some green cover, preferably in split applications (ie. 30 percent at start of the season and 70 percent at the end of the season.


Application of fertilisers in spring when nutrient requirements are the greatest.


Maintain buffer between fertiliser application and watercourses.


Accurately calibrate your fertiliser spreaders.


Use soil testing to make fertiliser decision and if possible use nutrient budgeting to assist.


Apply RedCoat Super (bauxite residue coated granules of super, effective for two years (currently not on market) on sandy soils (between 6-45 percent P reduction).

4.1.2 Rural Soil Amendment


Engage with stakeholders on overcoming barriers to the use of soil amendments such as bauxite residue.


Amend EP Act licensing to allow the use of waste product soil amendments.

21


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


Establish a four-year extension program on the use of soil amendments covering the specifics of soil type, soil testing etc in rural areas to encourage uptake of soil amendments on farms.


Establish incentive packages for rural landholders.


If, after the four-year extension program, uptake is considered low, consider appropriate regulatory measures.


Applied to soil surface without mixing in at 10 tonnes per hectare to sandy textured soils in agricultural areas, applied every five years on sandy textured soils with PRI (phosphorus retention index) <15 with an upper rate of 25t/ha for current agricultural practices. Application rates will vary according to intended land use, soil type, soil pH and soil organic carbon level.


Ensure 10 metre buffer of untreated ground between areas of red mud and remnant vegetation.


Not to be applied to wetlands or major drainage structures.


Care must be taken to minimise dust during all stages of distribution.

4.1.3 Urban Fertiliser Management


Implement the Fertiliser Action Plan's recommendation to phase out high water soluble fertiliser and to make bagged fertiliser for lawn and garden only available to the maximum of 1% and 2.5% water soluble phosphorus respectively.


Develop a targeted public education program to promote environmentally responsible gardening, including the use of fertilisers, native plants, reduced lawn, low water use, mulching etc. (eg Peel Urban Sustainability Initiative).


Use low water soluble fertiliser applied to sandy textured soils, applied sparingly to gardens and turf.


Minimise lawn areas or plant an alternative lawn.


Fertilise only when symptoms of nutrient deficiency occur eg. yellowing.

22


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


If fertiliser is needed use a complete lawn fertiliser containing a nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.


Establish public education program on environmentally responsible gardening including the use of native plants, reduced lawn, low water use, mulching etc.

4.1.4 Sewage management in existing homes, dwellings and Wastewater Treatment Plants

Table 8, Item 4, p. 43.

Enforce full connection of all existing homes to reticulated sewerage within two years of sewerage system passing the property.


Expedite current infill program in the Peel coastal catchment, in particular sensitive areas adjacent to waterways and wetlands.


Bring forward plans to infill Peel coastal catchment suburbs outside of current program.


Establish incentive and public education program designed to encourage the upgrading of septic systems to nutrient reduction technologies or Alternative Treatment Units (ATUs) where reticulated sewerage is not available.


Through licensing, Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Peel Region must achieve progressively zero discharge of phosphorus to the environment within five years.


Required within two years of sewer passing the property for existing houses.

4.1.4 Groundwater flows from beneath WWTPs; refers to reuse or intro of new technologies

4.1.5 Zero discharge for licensed agricultural premises


Through licensing, practices of all licensed agricultural premises in the Peel region to achieve progressively zero discharge of phosphorus to the environment within five years.


Staged approach to zero offsite discharge (currently must meet 0.1mg/L), to address set- up costs for licenses.

4.1.6 Improve other agricultural practices to reduce phosphorus discharges

a) Perennial Pastures

Table 8, Item 6a, p. 44

Establish a three year targeted extension and demonstration program to promote the replacement of annual pastures with perennial pastures.

23


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


Establish an incentive program.


Replacing annual with perennial pastures in grazing areas. -apply kikuyu and paspalum to wet depressions and drainage line; -couch suited to medium to higher land; -rhodes and veldt grasses on dry sands; Follow Department of Agriculture and Food established recommendations. Ongoing returns for this BMP are expected to be $60 per hectare.

b) Effluent Management

Table 8, Item 6b, p. 44

Require effective effluent management practices to achieve progressively zero discharge of phosphorus to the environment within five years.


Audit and enforce licence conditions in regards to effluent management in dairies and piggeries.


Effective effluent management can include a range of options, such as collection, conveyance, treatment, storage and reuse of solid and liquid wastes to achieve zero offsite discharge.

c) Irrigation Management

Table 8, Item 6c, p. 44

Initiate a scoping and feasibility study to reuse effluent in irrigation practices.


Develop an Extension program for improving water quality outcomes in sandy soils and to control sediment runoff in heavy soils.


Encourage the irrigation industry to engage in the Irrigation Modernisation Planning Assistance Program to increase the efficiency of their irrigation distribution system.


Better managing irrigation systems

Irrigation system design including whole farm planning, using a qualified irrigation system designer and applying on better soils to retain nutrients; Efficient irrigation systems including

monitoring soil moisture to help

determine crop requirements; and

presence of a recycling system.

24


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe

Installation of improved irrigation systems can sometimes be a costly exercise, however, retro-fitting of specific management methods such as automatic gates and valves can be cheaper.

4.1.7 Reafforestation of agricultural lands


Identify Strategic areas for reafforestation of agricultural land and develop subsequent incentives for revegetation projects.


Strategic reafforestation of agricultural land to produce: -farm forestry; or -agroforestry. Can be applied for example as shelter belts and alley farming.

4.1.7, p. 37

Refers specifically to upper Serpentine and small areas of the Harvey; these actual areas need to be identified on a map.

4.1.8 All new developments to be connected to reticulated sewerage or ATU


All new homes in new urban development to continue current mandatory practice that they must be connected to reticulated sewerage.


All new homes in new non-urban development to be connected to reticulated sewerage or ATU.


Amend where necessary and continue to implement and more actively enforce State Planning Policy for the Peel-Harvey.


Connection to reticulated sewerage to apply to all new urban developments.


Connection to reticulated sewerage or ATU to apply to non-urban development.


Build into approvals conditions by decision- making authorities for all new subdivisions and new homes to be connected to reticulated sewerage.



Engage a university, perhaps through doctorate studies, to research the effectiveness, application rate and methodology of handling soil amendments in urban development approvals.


All new development to remediate soil in accordance with Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines.


Regulate, either through strengthening existing policy (EPP/SPP) or new regulations, to require the use of soil amendments in urban development approvals.

25


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


All new urban developments in areas with sandy soils to undergo soil remediation/amendment at the estate scale.


At the lot scale blending or applying a layer of higher PRI soil 0-50cm beneath the finished ground level can provide increased phosphorus retention.


Soil amendment materials such as bauxite residue may be used.


Remediate soil in accordance with Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines.


Take care to maintain soil permeability.

4.1.9 p. 37

Potential agents include bauxite residue, compost, organic rich soils, loam soils, natural clay and crushed limestone; also see Chapter 7 of Stormwater Management Manual for WA (doE, 2004b)

4.1.9, p. 37

After further research into effectiveness, rates and handling of soil amendments in urban situations is carried out, then existing policies should be amended to reflect the requirement for all new developments to remediate soil in accordance with the WSUD Technical guidelines.

4.1.10 Incorporating measures into Local Planning Policies, strategies, planning conditions and State policies


Local government to incorporate the relevant recommended actions and measures into local planning policies, strategies and planning conditions.


Other decision-making authorities also to take a lead role in incorporating best management practices including water sensitive urban design principles, criteria and outcomes in its strategic land use planning, policies, structure plans and subdivision conditions in accordance with the State Planning Policy (Peel-Harvey) (SPP) and the Environmental Protection (Peel-Harvey) Policy (EPP).


Government to amend, where necessary, the SPP and EPP to reflect the Plan's recommendations.


Decision-making authorities to take lead role in incorporating best management practices including water sensitive urban design principles, criteria and outcomes in its strategic land use planning, policies, structure plans and subdivision conditions.

26


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe

4.1.10, p. 37

Key aspect of successful implementation of this Plan [WQIP] will be the adoption by local and state government of the best management practices/measures listed in this Plan. Decision making authorities need to take a lead role. Government and community need to work co- operatively towards reaching the targets of the Plan in reducing Phosphorus to the estuary.

4.1.11 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)


All new development approvals to incorporate WSUD.


Strategic Landuse planning to incorporate WSUD.


Develop a capacity building program (e.g. New Waterways Program).


Develop performance based codes for new urban drainage.


All local governments adopt WUSD Technical Guidelines and Local Planning Policy.


Compliance with Environmental Quality Criteria in local planning policy.


Compliance with stormwater management policies.


Application of water sensitive urban design treatment trains.


Preparation of water management strategies.


Soil amendment.

27


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


Total phosphorus and total nitrogen import and export criteria.


Minimum percentage area of deep-rooted perennial vegetation.


Building and landscaping covenants.


Construction and building site management.



Implement the recommendations of the Drainage Reform Plan, Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment and the Department of Water's Coastal Drainage Discussion paper. Some examples of priority recommendations include:


Survey the capacity of the gazetted draining system and critical waterway reaches.


Commence trial preparation of at least one Sub- catchment Drainage Management Plan.


Establish Healthy Peel Drains for Clean Water scheme - including incentive program for drainage BMPs.


Implement Urban Stormwater Retrofitting Project.


Develop agreed processes and guidelines for reviewing and revising existing rural drainage design manuals & operating and maintenance practices.


Assess and collate information and data for coastal drainage BMP techniques.


Develop and trial a drainage management framework for coastal drainage systems.

28


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe


Modification to drainage management practices to reduce in-channel sediment movement as opportunities arise (i.e. revegetation and fencing for stock exclusion).


Drainage should be managed as a water resource as part of the total water cycle with the dual objectives of optimising stormwater runoff and reducing nutrient flows into the rivers and streams.

4.1.12, p. 38, para 1

Management of drains to reduce in-channel sediment movement and increase vegetation will provide significant reductions in phosphorus entering the estuary.

4.1.13 Wetland and Waterway protection and revegetation


Identify and protect remaining wetlands and natural waterways and revegetate degraded areas.


Establish or continue existing (eg Healthy Wetland Habitats) incentive programs for fencing for stock exclusion and revegetating degraded waterways and wetlands on private and public land.


Fencing waterways and wetlands for stock exclusion.


Revegetation of degraded areas with local native vegetation.


Repairing riparian vegetation with the outcome to increase shade, trap nutrients and sediment and stabilise stream banks.


Offstream watering and stream crossings.

4.1.13, p. 38

Restoring and preserving the natural functions of wetlands, rivers and other waterways is a high priority for all future development. This measure refers to all waterways and wetlands not covered by other measures.


4.2, p. 38

Scientific investigations are required into altered nutrient and sediment loads and transport, changes in channel morphology, floodplains and wetlands, and impacts on riparian and aquatic habitats and fauna.

4.3 Minimising the impacts of future urban growth on water quality and environmental flow

29


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe

4.3, pp. 38-46

Intensification to smaller landholdings can mean an overall increase in 20 percent phosphorus export to the estuary but significant localised increases in areas next to the estuary. Development pressures. Load from Murray increases tenfold, concentrations west of Harvey Estuary double or triple in most cases. All development proposals should aim to maintain at least 20 percent of subject land with deep rooted perennial vegetation.

4.3, p. 46

A planning framework proposed for urban catchment management (Appendix E) to:

retain and restore existing elements of the natural drainage system;

minimise pollution inputs contributed via runoff and leaching through implementation of appropriate non- structural source controls;

infiltrate rainfall as high in the catchment

as possible to minimise runoff; and

maximise water use efficiency.

4.3, p. 46

All development proposals should aim to:

maintain at least 20 percent of the subject land with deep rooted perennial vegetation; develop building and landscape covenants to include design criteria; and

connect to deep sewerage where available or to nutrient stripped on-site systems where not.


4.4, p. 46

Possible schemes include tradeable permits, NRM auctions and offsets.

4.4, p. 46

Recommended investment strategies that can deliver nutrient reductions at lease cost and deliver maximum benefits to the landholder. This will require a high level of direct and up- front government support to match the public to private benefit mix.


4.5, p. 47

Farming for the Future (F4F) links current recommended practices in nutrient reduction to a system of recognition or certification compatible with quality assurance schemes, market and regulatory requirements.


4.6, p. 47

Land use planning to occur in a holistic way and in full consideration of environmental outcomes.

30


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe

4.6, p. 47

Clear and adequately funded institutional arrangements for overall statutory policy, compliance and regulatory enforcement, operational planning and service delivery.

4.6, p. 47

Integrated catchment and waterways management initiatives.

4.6, p. 47

Governance arrangements should be reviewed to incorporate implementation of the Plan's recommendations.

4.7 Regulatory reforms for improved water quality and environmental flows

4.7, p. 48

Future nutrient reductions from licensed discharges are anticipated through use of the new regulations for the management of unauthorised discharges (Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004.

4.7, p. 48

Another set of regulations is needed to bridge the gap between the Unauthorised Discharge Regulations and the Environmental Protection Regulations. The Department of Environment is currently the way forward in regulating nutrient rich wastewater.

4.7, pp. 48-49

A zero discharge for all other agricultural practices involving effluent is required within 5 years.

4.7, p. 49

The Environmental Protection Authority will be reviewing the Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992 in the near future to take into account where appropriate the Plan's recommendations.


5.1, p. 50

Implement a modelling strategy through the continuation of the Decision Support System model.

5.1, p. 50

In order to provide managers with the best possible information and predictive modelling results, it is necessary to fund monitoring and continuous modelling for the life of the Plan. Hence two types of programs are needed to be run during this period:

Discharge and water quality monitoring; and Modelling data. This program will focus on keeping up to date all the datasets used by the predictive tools. In particular it will focus on:

Rainfall (yearly basis);

Landuse Information (two yearly basis); Point source information (two yearly

basis);

Inventory and location of management measures an control actions (yearly); and

31


WQIP Ref


(EPA, 2008)



estimated timeframe

Nutrient survey (five yearly). 5.1, p. 50

A full estuarine modelling exercise needs to be considered for at least three years and should encompass the effect of the Dawesville Channel on the water and nutrient movement in the estuary. This will have the aim of coupling the catchment and estuarine model.


5.2, p. 51

Implement the recommended Water Quality Monitoring Strategy in the catchment and estuary.


5.2.1, p. 53

Current operating LMUs


5.2.2, p. 54

A weekly monitoring program for six months would need to be established to sample this period frequently enough in order to describe critical water quality conditions (DoW, 2006).

5.2.3 Effectiveness of management measures and control actions


5.3 Monitoring implementation of the Plan



6.1, p. 59

Establish monitoring and reporting to the community (eg report cards) of the Plan's implementation.

6.1, p. 59

Deliver the 1989 Ministerial condition by developing a comprehensive catchment management plan.

6.1, p. 59

Establish an effective governance framework including the establishment of a management body to oversee implementation of the Plan's recommendations.

6.1, p. 59

Western Australian government agencies to agree on indicative costing and timelines to implement the recommended measures and actions of this Plan within six months of publication of this final Plan. (Due by June 2009)

APPENDIX 4

WQIP Implementation summary table –

Collation of responses received by agency

stakeholders on current and future commitment

Chapter WQIP Management Measure

PH

CC

WQ

Dep

t of W

ater

Pee

l

Dep

t of P

lann

ing

Pee

l

PD

C

DA

FW

A

Dep

t of H

ealth

SW

CC

Gre

enin

g

City

of M

and

Shi

re o

f Mur

ray

Shi

re o

f War

oona

Shi

re o

f SJ

EP

A

HR

RT

DE

C

DoW

WS

c

Alc

oa C

hair

Wat

er

CS

IRO

UW

A

Mur

doch

Wat

er c

orp

Har

vey

Wat

er

PH

CC

WQ

Dep

t of W

ater

Pee

l

Dep

t of P

lann

ing

Pee

l

PD

C

DA

FW

A

Dep

t of H

ealth

SW

CC

Gre

enin

g

City

of M

and

Shi

re o

f Mur

ray

Shi

re o

f War

oona

Shi

re o

f SJ

EP

A

HR

RT

DE

C

DoW

WS

c

Alc

oa C

hair

Wat

er

CS

IRO

UW

A

Mur

doch

Wat

er c

orp

Har

vey

Wat

er

4.1 Management Measures to meet phosphorus

reductions LEGEND

4.1.1 Rural Fertiliser Management response received

4.1.2 Rural Soil Amendment no response

4.1.3 Urban Fertiliser Management active

4.1.4 Sewage management in existing homes, dwellings

and Wastewater Treatment Plants passive (eg policy)

4.1.5 Zero discharge for licensed agricultural premises inactive

4.1.6 Improve other agricultural practices to reduce

phosphorus discharges commented

4.1.7 Reafforestation of agricultural lands no response

4.1.8 All new developments to be connected to

reticulated sewerage or ATU

NB.


4.1.10 Incorporating measures into Local Planning

Policies, strategies, planning conditions and State

policies

4.1.11 Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Disclaimer


4.1.13 Wetland and Waterway protection and

revegetation


4.3 Minimising the impacts of future urban growth

on water quality and environmental flow




4.7 Regulatory reforms for improved water quality

and environmental flows

4.8 Current legislation relating to water quality

within the Peel-Harvey Coastal Catchment (use

UDRs)

5.1 Water Quality Modelling Strategy




5.2.3 Effectiveness of management measures and

control actions


5.3 Monitoring implementation of the plan



6.2 The Plan's review

Response was requested

by agencies only for

sections relevant to them.

CURRENT PROGRESS (to July 2011) FUTURE COMMITMENT

WQIP Summary Table - Collation of responses received by agency stakeholders on current progress and future commitment

This table is not conclusive. It

has been compiled from

stakeholder responses and

some actions may not be

reflected.

APPENDIX 5

Summary of Recommended Projects of the

Subcatchment Implementation Plan

For water quality improvement for selected subcatchments:

Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-Punrak and Mayfield

Key to Table 2 Table 2 provides a summary of the recommended Subcatchment Implementation Plan projects. Further information on the projects is provided in Sections 4 to 7 of the SIP. Project names which are highlighted in yellow are considered to be core-enabler projects, critical to achieving the 50% phosphorus pollution reduction target. The selection of core-enabler projects is discussed in Section 8.1 of the SIP. Explanation of Table 2 headings P reduction Potential direct or indirect reduction of phosphorus loads to Estuary and lower rivers. Expressed as high (H), moderate (M) or low (L) potential to

reduce nutrient pollution.

N reduction Potential direct or indirect reduction of nitrogen loads to Estuary and lower rivers. Expressed as high (H), moderate (M) or low (L).

TSS reduction Potential direct or indirect reduction of total suspended solids loads to Estuary and lower rivers. Expressed as high (H), moderate (M) or low (L).

Reg. (Regional) capability The capability of the regional community (e.g. regional partnerships) to instigate and implement the project. Expressed as high (H), moderate (M) or low (L). Factors considered include the potential of the regional community to acquire resources to undertake the project, governance issues and alignment with organisational priorities.

Lead and key partners The organisation that could potentially instigate and coordinate the project is listed first; other potential lead and partnering organisations are also listed. The listings are indicative only, and do not indicate an organisation’s endorsement.

Immediate, Medium and Long term

Recommended implementation time frames: Immediate is 2013-2014, Medium is 2015-2017, Long term is 2018-2023

All Peel Project is best designed to cover all of the coastal plain Peel-Harvey catchment.

All three SIP catchments Project is designed to cover all these catchments: Mayfield, Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-Punrak

Mayfield, Nambeelup, Dirk Brook-Punrak

Project is targeted at these catchments.

Table 1: Summary of recommended projects

Strategy A. Implementing the plan P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

. No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Coordination of Plan Implementation

1 SIP Stakeholders Partnership Agreement

Develop partnership agreement between major stakeholders to implement the plans, and get sign off from major stakeholders

H

PHCC - DoW – DAFWA – DEC – SWCC

2 SIP Implementation Coordinator

Establish position of SIP Implementation Coordinator and apply for funding for same

M

DoW – PHCC - SWCC

3 Web-based WQIP Information Sharing Tool

Collaborative tool - Subcatchment Data Centre, possibly involving the use of Target-On web-based software

M

DoW – PHCC – DEC – SWCC

4 SIP Implementation Biennial Report Card

Implementation of biennial report card (reporting on implementation of the SIPs) M

DoW - PHCC

Whole of the Catchment Monitoring

5

Strategic Load Measuring Unit (LMU) for each subcatchment

Reactivation of existing LMUs in strategic locations in each of the three subcatchments

M

DoW - PHCC

6 Winter Water Quality Assessment Project

Gather and analyse WQ data during winter to increase robustness of data for the whole of the catchment monitoring program; Report every two years. M

PHCC - DoW

PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

. No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Whole of the Catchment Monitoring (continued)

7 Subcatchment Report Cards

Keep all stakeholders updated of the WQ status in each subcatchment and promote discussion and further research. Release new information annually and major report cards every 5 years H

DoW

8 Fortnightly Grab-sampling program

Obtain and analyse water samples at 3 strategic locations in each of the three subcatchments to develop profile and trends of nutrients and other water quality parameters M

DoW

9 Catchment hydrological and nutrient modelling

Revision of the subcatchment nutrient and hydrological model (Beyond SQUARE)

M

DoW

Best management Practice assessment and improvement

10 Three -yearly forum on BMP effectiveness

Discussion of the data and results from BMPs implemented in the subcatchments to promote discussion and further improvement of the BMPs. Report on number of BMPs implemented (type and frequency); number of hectares treated, how many kilometres of watercourse fenced M

PHCC - DoW – UDIA – DEC SWCC

11 Three -yearly published review of BMP effectiveness

Summary of the findings from discussions with stakeholders and researchers on the performance and effectiveness of BMPs. Aim is to keep everybody up to date on best practice L

DoW – PHCC

Strategy A. Implementing the plan (continued)

Strategy B. Better soils for improved productivity P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

. No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Rural fertiliser management

12 Whole of farm nutrient mapping

Whole of Farm nutrient mapping. Possibly under current proposed projects by the Department of Agriculture and Food WA and/or South West Catchments Council H L L H

DAFWA - SWCC

13 Landholder incentives for better fertiliser management.

To establish and implement an effective mechanism to provide incentives to landholders in the subcatchments to improve their fertiliser management by regularly soil testing their property and applying soil amendments and fertiliser based on the soil testing results H L L L

PHCC – SWCC State Govt. and LGs

14

Business case assessment for new soil testing and assessment service

To prepare a solid business case to set up independent providers in the Peel region with experience in NRM and water quality

H L L L

PHCC - SRT - Landcare Centres

15 Establish new soil testing service for the peel Region

To set up business providers for Best Fertiliser management (BFM) practices and related services in the Peel-Region H L L L

PHCC and/or Landcare Centres

16 Deliver ongoing soil testing and assessment service

Fertiliser Management and soil testing roll out

H L L L

Business provider

Strategy B. Better soils for improved productivity (continued) P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

par

tner

s

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Application of soil amendments on rural lands

17

Soil amendments cost-effectiveness and incentives assessment

To determine the cost-effectiveness and need for public investment (incentives/subsidies) to support initial use of soil amendments to improve water quality. H L L M

PHCC - SWCC – Soil amendmt providers

18 Soil amendment information toolbox

To provide farmers and the community with the latest information on available soil amendments suited to local conditions, and linked to existing trial sites.

H L L M

PHCC - SWCC - -DEC - Soil amendmt providers

19 Soil amendments commercial challenge

To encourage the development or commercialisation of existing and new soil amendment products and solutions. H L L L

Independent group

20 Soil amendments brokerage service

To create a service which works with farmers to offer soil amendment options, and broker the supply of those soil amendments. The project could be approached as a demonstration project OR as a commercial service. H M L L

Private sector project, soil amendmt providers

Strategy B. Better soils for improved productivity (continued) P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Application of soil amendments on rural lands (cont.)

21

Approvals, accreditation, and governance assistance

Establish accreditation processes or similar to ensure soil amendments are used in accordance with supplier's standards and State Government requirements for health, safety and environmental protection. H L L L

Soil amend-ment suppliers

22

Behaviour change program (soil amendments incentives)

Changing landowner behaviour towards use of soil management through a free-market decision-making program, rewarding landowners who effectively use soil amendments and soil testing to tailor phosphorus application to achieve production and environmental goals. H L L M

PHCC – DAFWA

23 Basic Science Assessment (BSA)

Scientific assessment of the technical and performance characteristics of soil amendment products H L L M

Research orgs.

24 BLANK

Greening the subcatchments

25 Promotion of perennial vegetation on farms

Develop and offer a new landholder program that promotes perennial vegetation as part of holistic farm management - to include farm forestry, productive crops such as Carobs, and native perennial grasses

L M L H

PHCC - DAFWA – DEC - Landcare Centres - SWCC

Strategy C. Building stakeholder capacity to improve water quality P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Community group support

26 Youth environmental action and leadership project

Form Environmental Action and Leadership projects to provide practical experiences to support university and vocational courses

M M M M

PHCC - HRRT - DoW – TOs, GAWA, SWCC

27 Strategic support to small community groups

On-ground support to small community groups in the three subcatchments

M M M M

PHCC – CLCs - HRRT - DoW - TOs

28 Biennial Community Assessments or Workshops

Hold Biennial Community Assessment and Evaluation Event

M M M H

DoW - PHCC – DAFWA SWCC

Traditional Owner involvement in catchment management

29 'Elders Council' Ideas and Strategies Workshops

To establish the priorities of Traditional Owners for the improved management of water-related ecosystems

M M M M

PHCC - TOs, SWALSC, SWCC

30

Bindjareb Noongar Priority Sites (mapping and description)

Map sites which are a priority for restoration and management within the three catchments, from the perspective of Traditional Owners

M M M M

PHCC - TOs, SWALSC

Strategy C. Building stakeholder capacity to improve water quality (continued)

PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

31

Restoration Guidelines for Bindjareb Noongar Priority Sites

Produce written guidelines which can be easily understood by those planning and implementing works in wetlands and watercourses, including drains

M M M H

PHCC – TOs, SWALSC GKB WP

Point source agricultural operators

32

Intensive producers assistance program for licensed an unlicensed premises

To ensure animal holding yards and horticultural operators are aware of best practice nutrient and irrigation management, assist them to rectify key nutrient export sources and showcase improvements to the wider community

M M M M

DEC - LGs - PHCC – DAFWA - SWCC

33 Expanded licensing of intensive agricultural operators

Lobby for the expansion of DEC licensing schedules so that all animal holding yards that may cause significant impacts on water quality are required to be licensed by the DEC H M M L

PHCC -DEC - LGs

Sewerage

34

Lobby for expansion of reticulated sewer system in town sites and light industrial areas

Lobby for completion of reticulated sewerage retrofits in Shire of Murray, including West Pinjarra Light Industrial Estate

M M M M

SoM - PHCC

35 New guidelines for alternative treatment units

Assist local governments to publish guidelines and/or conduct a public review of the performance of Alternative Treatment Units M M L M

SoM/SSJ - PHCC


PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Land-use planning

36

Spatial environmental planning for water and natural area protection

To produce a spatial plan for protection of water and natural areas, including the Peel-Yalgorup Site. The mapping is to feed directly into subregional and structure planning

L M H M

DoP, DEC, LGs, PHCC SWCC

Strengthening Local Government policy and practice

37

Improved Local Government policy to protect water resources

LG policy and planning for WQ improvement project, including industrial development, revegetation, urban landscaping, wetland and riparian restoration

M M M M

SoM/ SSJ – PHCC, DEC

38 Drainage discharge point project

Establish the location of entry points into the drainage system from the Pinjarra town site and collect information on point sources including detailed info on urban and rural drainage M M M M

SoM

39 Catchment Offset Conditions Scheme

Investigate and develop a program to offset new nutrient contributions within the Nambeelup and the Dirk Brook-Punrak catchments. Offsets could apply to new urban and light industrial developments in the lower and middle Nambeelup or to the Keralup Development M M M M

PHCC - UDIA - SoM

Refining Urban BMPs

40 Refining Urban BMPs Establish an R & D project to refine and improve Urban BMPs for water quality improvement; could also include refinement of UNDO H H L M

UDIA - PHCC – SoM - DoW


PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Urban soil amendments

41 Extensive trial of urban soil amendments

Implementation of soil amendment trials in areas to be urbanised or recently urbanised

H L L M

UDIA - PHCC - soil amend’t providers

42 Urban soil amendment and filling guideline

Guidelines for application of soil amendments to urban land under development

H L L M

UDIA - Soil amend’t providers -DoW/DEC/DoP

Create WSUD showcases

43 WSUD showcase sites

Identify potential for WSUD showcase sites - workable examples - in Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak for urban, industrial developments M M M M

SoM – PHCC - DoW

44

Quality subdivision and development in Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak for better water resource management

Develop network of showcase sites, including sites in Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak. Also includes the development of guidelines for a holistic stormwater management in Nambeelup

M M M M

SoM, PHCC, DoW, DEC

Strategy D. Improved drainage, watercourse and wetland management P

RO

GR

AM

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Better rural drainage for water quality

45 Five-year rural drainage maintenance project

Develop and conduct a 5-year study in one subcatchment, possibly Mayfield, into ability of drainage maintenance to improve WQ; could include varying the frequency, depth of cleaning; removal of spoil, addition of substrates, banded clearing, etc.

H M H

M

PHCC - WC - HRRT

46

Assessing effectiveness of iron-impregnated materials

Assess effectiveness and feasibility of placing bags of iron-impregnated woodchips into paddock drains and small drains

M L M

M

PHCC - WC

47

Widespread use/trial of iron-impregnated woodchip bags in a subcatchment.

To use/trial the iron-impregnated woodchip bags across many small drains within a subcatchment, and assess their cumulative impact on phosphorus loads, total suspended solids, drain bank erosion

M L M

L

WC - SWCC

48

Trials of lining drains with high nutrient sorbing materials (e.g. iron-impregnated woodchips)

Implementation of trials similar to the one undertaken at Pitter's Farm in 2010 by PHCC

M L M

M

PHCC – WC – SWCC

D. Improved drainage, watercourse and wetland management (continued).

PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

In-stream drainage structures

49

Guidelines for the planning and design of in-stream structures

Develop guidelines for the design and approval of in-stream drainage structures, including adjustable weirs and riffles. A two-year project, in partnership with the Water Corporation

M M M

M

WC - PHCC

50 Subcatchment trial of adjustable weirs

Implement subcatchment-scale trial of adjustable weirs in one of the subcatchments to measure water quality and productivity benefits

M M H

M

PHCC - DAFWA - WC – CLCs - SWCC

51

Widespread construction of in-drain weirs, adjustable locks, etc. across subcatchments

Subject to Project 50, design and implement adjustable weirs in drainage system for water quality and productivity benefits

H M H

L

PHCC - DAFWA - WC – CLCs – SWCC

Riparian management

52

Measuring the benefits of different riparian management systems in agricultural settings

Support R & D into the nutrient reduction capacity of different riparian management systems (e.g. revegetation, perennial native grasses, fencing)

L M M

M

PHCC - research organisations - SWCC

53

Riparian management works based on Foreshore Assessments

Implement specific riparian works to repair drains as identified in existing Foreshore Assessments (streamlining, revegetation, repair, stock exclusion)

L H H

M

PHCC - Landcare Centres – HRRT - SWCC


PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Riparian management (continued)

54

Protecting priority watercourses in the Mayfield, Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak catchments

Develop new restoration projects targeting Priority One watercourses in each subcatchment

L H H

M

PHCC - CLCs, LGs – HRRT, DEC - SWCC

55 Publish Mayfield Drainage Foreshore Assessment Study

Publish and promote the results of the Mayfield Drainage Foreshore Assessment Study

L M M

H

PHCC - Waroona CLC

56

Complete foreshore assessments in the Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak catchments

Complete foreshore assessments in the Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak catchments. Publish results

L M M

H

PHCC - SJ CLC - SWCC

57

Re-survey drain foreshores in all three catchments every five years

Drainage foreshore five-yearly reassessment program L M M

H

PHCC -Landcare Centres - WC - SWCC

Wetlands, biofilters and MAR

58

Catchment -wide Wetlands and Watercourse Restoration Policy

New Wetland and Watercourse Restoration Policy - to be integrated across PHCC and Local Governments; linked to incentives.

M H H

M

PHCC – LGs - SWCC


PR

OG

RA

M

Pro

ject

No.

Pro

ject

Pro

ject

sum

mar

y

P r

educ

tion

N r

educ

tion

TS

S r

educ

tion

Reg

. Cap

abili

ty

Lead

and

key

part

ners

Imm

edia

te

Med

ium

Long

term

All

Pee

l reg

ion

All

thre

e S

IPS

May

field

Nam

beel

up

Dirk

Bro

ok

Wetlands, biofilters and MAR

59 Wetlands on farms project

Wetlands on farms program - linking restoration projects on Priority One Wetlands to new Local Government wetland policy. Targeting wetlands in the Nambeelup and Dirk Brook -Punrak catchments

M H H

8

PHCC - Landcare Centres - Local Governments - SWCC

60

Biofilters for Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak catchments

Design and implement biofilters in strategic locations in the Nambeelup and Dirk Brook-Punrak subcatchments

H M M

6

DoW – PHCC – DEC - SWCC

61 Mayfield drainage off-takes technical and feasibility study

To determine the potential to harvest water from drains in the Mayfield Catchment for re-flooding floodplains, creation of new farm water sources or Managed Aquifer Recharge

M M M

5

Waroona CLC - PHCC - WC - DAFWA – DoW, DEC

62 Nambeelup Managed Aquifer Recharge Trial

To determine the feasibility (technical and cost-effectiveness) of recharging groundwater aquifers in the Nambeelup Catchment using stormwater and drainage flows

M M M

3

DoW - Shire of Murray – PDC, DEC

peel-harvey catchment water quality improvement plan … · 2014-09-09 · peel harvey catchment...

Documents