Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary System Management Strategy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EPA Report on the Peel-Harvey Progress and Compliance Report, 2003 been a number of changes at both State and National levels which will provide an impetus for the development of catchment management plans, not only for the Peel- Harvey System, but also for other catchments. These changes include accreditation criteria being established for natural resource management plans as a requirement associated with the provision of funds under the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality as well as a general acceptance of the proposition that all tiers of government, industry and the community need to work collectively to design and monitor action plans to implement the standards, processes and techniques for improved natural resource management of land and water ecosystems. The purpose of the catchment management plan is to reduce the flow of nutrients into the estuaries. To date there is a cause for optimism, but the system is still in a fragile condition as evidenced by persistent blue-green algal blooms in the Serpentine River and potentially toxic dinoflagellates in the lower Murray. Reductions in nutrient loads from the catchment, as required by the Environmental Conditions set in 1989, are still needed. Management of the Peel-Harvey System is the subject of a Ministerial Statement but it is also to be managed in accord with an Environmental Protection Policy approved by Parliament. This leads to the EPA having a particular responsibility in relation to environmental performance and compliance. A review of the Peel-Harvey Environmental Protection Policy should now result in the EPA having responsibility for ensuring that a catchment management plan to protect water quality is developed, as has been the case with the more recent Environmental Protection Policies for the Swan and Canning Rivers and for Cockburn Sound. The plan would be in the form of a Water Quality Improvement Plan and be implemented by relevant agencies. A Peel-Harvey Catchment Council has been established to bring together government agencies and stakeholders in the area. This is supported by the EPA, and the EPA needs to develop an understanding with the Council in relation to the initiatives to be undertaken by the EPA, including the review of the Peel-Harvey Environmental Protection Policy and the development of a catchment management plan to protect water quality. The EPA commends this report and the associated report of the Expert Review Committee to government, the public and those involved in catchment management as a description of the history of management of the Peel-Harvey System, the need for further reductions in nutrient load from this catchment, advice on improved governance of WA’s natural resources, and a sound basis for action during the next decades. iv
EPA Report on the Peel-Harvey Progress and Compliance Report, 2003 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Report provides the advice of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage on the Progress and Compliance Report in relation to the Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary System Management Strategy Stage 2 (the Strategy). The Strategy was approved for implementation by the Minister for the Environment on 4 January 1989. The Minister nominated three Ministers as co-proponents so as to ensure a whole-of-government approach to the implementation of the Strategy. The nominated proponents are the Ministers for Transport (now Planning and Infrastructure), Agriculture (now Primary Industries) and Waterways (now Environment and Heritage). The Strategy was developed to manage the massive algal growth in the Peel-Harvey Estuarine System caused by an increase in nutrients, especially phosphorus, from the estuaries’ coastal catchment. The Strategy had two major thrusts to address the environmental problems: the construction of the Dawesville Channel and the development and implementation of a Catchment Management Plan to limit (or “cap”) the amount of phosphorus entering the estuaries from the river and drainage system. The objective of the Strategy was to have the Peel-Harvey System become “visibly clean and healthy and ecologically healthy and resilient” (EPA, 1985). This objective was based on the recognition that the Peel-Harvey System had important environmental, economic and social values involving a broad range of stakeholders, not necessarily only those people living within the coastal catchment area. The combined approach involved the community as a whole paying for the Dawesville Channel in return for the catchment community changing its management practices to meet the phosphorus “cap”, thus demonstrating its duty of care for the environment and social responsibility. The full management strategy consisted of: • constructing the Dawesville Channel as soon as possible; • implementing catchment management measures, to include: - fertiliser management - changes in land-use - control of point sources - continuation of the moratorium on clearing and drainage - preparation and implementation of an integrated catchment management plan to meet the target for phosphorus load reduction specified in the EPA assessment report; • continue weed harvesting; and • implement appropriate monitoring to measure the success of the strategy (EPA, 1988, p. 16). An Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) was gazetted on 11 December 1992 for the purpose of setting environmental quality objectives for the Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary (with a view to preventing excessive growth of algae) and outlining the means by which the objectives were to be achieved and maintained. The means of achieving the objectives are listed in section 8 of the EPP as being: 1
Page 1 and 2: Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary Syste
Page 3 and 4: EPA Report on the Peel-Harvey Progr
Page 5: EPA Report on the Peel-Harvey Progr
Page 57 and 58:
EPA Report on the Peel-Harvey Progr
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary Syste
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Peel-Harvey System Management Strat
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Figure 4 - Examples of Nutrient-exp
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
• condition and extent of remnant
Page 257 and 258:
g) The moratorium on clearing has h
Page 259 and 260:
) The overall environmental quality
Page 261 and 262:
• Flooding and increased water ve
Page 263 and 264:
g) The foreshores around the estuar
Page 265 and 266:
Peel-Harvey Estuary System Manageme
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Fertiliser advice to farmers Peel I
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
2.2.1 Integrated catchment manageme
Page 333 and 334:
2.2.5 Fertiliser advice to farmers
Page 335 and 336:
2.3.2.1 Monitor point sources (P1.0
Page 337 and 338:
2.3.2.7 Catchment management succes
Page 339 and 340:
2.5.1 Estuary monitoring and manage
Page 341 and 342:
2.6.3 Stratification (P1.08:2.23) 2
Page 343 and 344:
2.9.1 Weed monitoring, harvesting a
Page 345 and 346:
2.10.2 Dawesville Channel - Aborigi
Page 347 and 348:
2.11.8 Dawesville Channel - impleme
Page 349 and 350:
2.13.2 Liquid waste disposal for ne
Page 351 and 352:
2.15.2 Compliance auditing (M17) 2.
Page 353:
show all

Peel Inlet and Harvey Estuary System Management Strategy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?