2 Renmark to border LAP area assessment - EPA - Sa.gov.au

More documents

Recommendations

Info

River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality: Results and management options Slipways Risk level: low–moderate Possible options: capital works, compliance Suggested lead stakeholders: local councils, EPA, BIASA, boating industry Slipways were rated a moderate risk from wash-off of sediment, heavy metals and pesticides (found in some antifouling paints). Slipways are currently not inspected nor audited on a regular basis. It is likely that the majority of slipways along the river are required to be licensed by the EPA but this has not been undertaken to date. Management option 29 The EPA to audit slipways (and license those captured by the Environment Protection Act 1993 Schedule 1 definition) to ensure compliance with the new Code of Practice for Vessel and Facility Management: Marine and Inland Waters. 242 Status of implementation: In planning Uncertainties in the risk assessment: No monitoring data on slipway runoff or its effects was obtained leaving some uncertainty as to the risk level. Wetlands/lagoons Typical risk level: low–moderate Possible options: monitoring, research and development Suggested lead stakeholders: SAMDB NRMB, EPA, DWLBC, DEH, SA Water Wetlands were identified as a low to moderate risk to water quality. Given that wetlands are a natural and intrinsically important part of the river ecosystem, they are not a ‘risk’ in the conventional sense. Many different types of wetlands exist along the river (see the River Murray wetland baseline survey and Thompson 1986 for more detail on individual wetland characteristics). In general the wetlands present today are typically not the type or form of wetlands along the River Murray channel before the ‘locking of the river’ and other activities like irrigation drainage discharges. A number of ephemeral floodplain/ wetland areas (eg Chowilla) have been affected by salt and other pollutants which build up over time without natural flushing. These types of wetlands may release salt and contaminants during artificial flushing practices or following large localised rainfall events. However, when the river floods, nutrient and other contaminant concentrations in wetlands are generally diluted (AWQC 1993). Wetland management should be focused on reducing inputs of contaminants from wetland catchments and ensuring artificial flushing strategies are properly managed to minimise any effects on river water quality or raw water off-takes. Grazing is also an issue around some wetlands. Uncertainties in the risk assessment: No data was obtained for water quality exiting wetlands as a result of localised storm events or artificial flushing. Some ambient water quality data has recently been collected during the River Murray baseline wetland survey.
River Murray and Lower Lakes catchment risk assessment for water quality: Results and management options Management option 30 Stakeholders to review baseline wetland study water quality data and undertake literature research on wetland dynamics. Consider whether a detailed outflow and water quality monitoring program may be beneficial in some priority locations (eg Swan Reach complex, South Portee wetlands near water off-takes) Wastewater/drainage disposal areas Risk level: low–moderate Possible options: capital works, capacity building Suggested lead stakeholders: EPA, facility owners/operators Status of implementation: Baseline study data being collated Disposal of drainage (predominantly in the Riverland, eg Lyrup, Chaffey irrigation areas) and wastewater was identified as a low-moderate risk to water quality. Some sources of wastewater (eg wastewater treatment plants) were EPA licensed and existing management controls are in place. The other nonlicensed sites are a high priority for further examination. Management option 31 EPA to audit drainage/wastewater disposal sites to ensure the disposal is not contaminating ground or surface water Status of implementation: Not started Uncertainties in the risk assessment: Individual sites were often not inspected leaving some uncertainty as to the risk level. Industry (eg wineries, abattoirs, fruit processors) Risk level: low–moderate Possible options: capital works, capacity building Suggested lead stakeholders: EPA, industry owners/operators Several industries (eg wineries, abattoirs, fruit processors) were identified that were a potential risk to water quality. However, most were EPA licensed and existing management controls were in place. Uncertainties in the risk assessment: Individual sites were often not inspected leaving some uncertainty as to the risk level. Licence coordinators provided information in some cases. 243
Page 1:
E N V I R O N M E N T P R O T E C T
Page 4 and 5:
The River Murray and Lower Lakes ca
Page 6 and 7:
6 Mannum to Wellington LAP area ass
Page 8 and 9:
Table 6.5 Frequency of risk to recr
Page 10 and 11:
Figure 7.2 Example of hazard to wat
Page 12 and 13:
Roz Becker, Riverland Tourism Assoc
Page 14 and 15:
Abbreviations 10 ADWG Australian Dr
Page 17:
Executive Summary The River Murray
Page 20 and 21:
River Murray and Lower Lakes catchm
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Current and potential future option
Page 196 and 197: River Murray and Lower Lakes catchm
show all

2 Renmark to border LAP area assessment - EPA - Sa.gov.au

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?