Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
45
New combined rising main
26.8
Ti Tree Bend plant nutrient removal upgrade
10.0
Total
94.6
Table 4. Summary of all proposed River Health Action Plan projects and actions
The catchment actions will need to be implemented in partnership with a number of key organisations. It is
expected that grazing and dairy action programs would be implemented by NRM North in partnership with Dairy
Tasmania and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. Past experience in on-ground investments
indicates that a planned investment of $1 million per year is appropriate.
It could be expected that finding farmers willing to undertake and co-fund investments may become progressively
harder over time as the most able and willing are generally early adopters in any program. However this may be
off-set to some extent by the momentum created by the relatively large scale of investment, with local
landholders seeing the benefit of actions on neighbouring farms and the creation of new behavioural norms
amongst local farming communities. The program will need to be flexible in terms of the approaches used to
ensure ongoing adoption over time (for example the use of market based mechanisms or higher incentive rates
for more difficult works may need to be considered).
Works to address sewage intrusion into Launceston’s stormwater system would be led by Launceston City
Council in partnership with TasWater as required. It is expected that these works would be undertaken over a 2
to 5 year period, depending on the scale of investment.
With respect to the combined system investments, the upgrade to Ti Tree Bend and the West Launceston
Diversion would be the most sensible projects to commence first. It is expected that these upgrades could be
completed in a two year time frame, but clearly require TasWater’s involvement and agreement. The South
Launceston Diversion is probably a more long term project given the upheaval it would likely require given its
proposed route. This project may need three years to be undertaken. The offline storages and the new
combined rising main from Margaret Street pump station could be completed in the period between Ti Tree Bend
upgrade /West Launceston Diversion and the South Launceston Diversion.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
46
7.
Targets and monitoring
7.1
Reductions in concentrations in context
A full analysis of the impact of daily (or even more frequent) estuary pathogen concentrations is not currently
possible given the lack of past event monitoring for pathogens in the Estuary and limitations with the existing
modelling available. It is, however, possible to model a time series of combined system overflow loads discharged
to the Estuary using the data provided from the hydraulic model developed by the Combined System Working
Group and which underpins the estimates of average annual load changes. Figure 16 shows the daily estimated
enterococci loads from combined system overflows based on rainfall data from Distillery Creek over an eight
year period. This figure shows a comparison of estimated loads based on actual rainfall versus estimated discharge
loads in those rainfall events after implementing all recommended combined system projects.
Figure 16. Modelled CSO loads based on rainfall for base case and rainfall with recommended combined system projects
This figure shows the very large expected decrease in enterococci loads overflowed for all events, ranging
between 62 per cent and 93 per cent depending on the size of the rainfall event. The greatest relative decreases
occur for low to medium rainfall events which are the most frequent events.
Given that combined system overflows are known to be a major driver of enterococci concentrations in Tamar
Estuary Zone 1, these results indicate that very large decreases in concentration could be expected on days with
small to medium rainfall. Very large events will still produce large spikes in enterococci discharged to the estuary,
but these events are significantly less frequent.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
47
7.2
Targets
In the coming months it is the Taskforce’s intention to develop a set of targets in addition to the projected
median concentration reductions for Zone 1, which convert these targets into expected reductions in the
frequency of days where pathogen concentrations are above the primary contact threshold of 140cfu/100ml of
enterococci. The Taskforce sees this as a tangible demonstration of the benefits of the concentration reduction in
pathogens which will be more meaningful for communicating expected benefits of the investments to the
community.
In order to develop these targets, more event monitoring of pollutant concentrations in the days following rainfall
as well as additional modelling is required. It is the intent of the Taskforce to produce a set of target before the
end of June 2018.
7.3
Monitoring
An evaluation framework should be developed against which activities undertaken by the body(ies) implementing
the Taskforce’s recommendations can be assessed. This evaluation framework should follow the MERI principles
(Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Improvement), which have an adaptive management focus, allowing lessons
learned through doing to be incorporated into future actions.
This framework will require:
More monitoring of water quality in the estuary and the freshwater system
o
Estuary monitoring should build on the monthly sampling that has been undertaken by the TEER
program. This monthly monitoring should be continued for all years. It should also be
supplemented by event monitoring of some events in the estuary to allow better understanding of
the estuary response to catchment and point source pollutant inputs to be developed.
o
Very limited monitoring of water quality in freshwater parts of the catchment is currently
undertaken. It is recommended that additional monitoring be undertaken at a minimum in the
North Esk and Meander river catchments where catchment actions are expected to have the
most significant benefits.
o
Stream health monitoring using a system like the Australian River Assessment System
(AUSRIVAS) methodology, or rank abundance sampling, to provide snapshots over time of the
health of the TEER catchment’s freshwater system. Again, these could be focused on the Meander
and North Esk river systems where catchment actions are being targeted.
Analysis of monitoring data and empirical modelling. Provision needs to be made for the analysis of
monitoring data. There is no point in implementing greater monitoring regimes if there is not the dedicated
resources to assess whether any of the benefits of actions can be observed and to allow the development
of better understanding to refine management actions. This may include development or refinement of
models that allow scenario testing or estimation of the benefits of management actions to date.
It is recommended that Tamar estuary report cards produced by the TEER continue to be released on a
biennial or annual basis and incorporate the findings of the increased monitoring and analysis. Potentially
occasional freshwater system report cards could also be produced using monitoring data discussed above.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
48
A State of the TEER report or similar should also be considered to provide a snapshot of progress in
improving health of the estuary and freshwater systems.
Annual ongoing funding to support this regime will be necessary. While TEER members already provide significant
support to existing activities an ongoing budget is required to ensure consistent monitoring data is able to be
collected and reporting and communications undertaken. It has been estimated that a budget of $250,000 per
year would be required to facilitate the increased total program, with a proportion of this (around $100,000)
currently met by in-kind contributions from TEER members and the State Government.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
49
8.
Funding and Financing of priorities
8.1
TasWater LSIP
While the priority projects outlined for improving impacts of the combined system include projects potentially
part of TasWater’s LSIP, it should be noted that the timing and funding of these projects are at the discretion of
TasWater and its regulators.
Under the current regulatory framework for the water and sewerage industry, TasWater is required to prepare a
Price and Service Plan for three year “regulatory” periods, which need to gain the approval of the sectors
technical regulators before funding is approved by the Economic Regulator.
As LSIP is still at more a strategic level, it is not clear where the sewerage catchment diversion projects sit in the
timing of LSIP works (noting they are only a minor part of LSIP), let alone the wider TasWater program.
Indications from TasWater are that funding for the first stage of LSIP (specific projects still to be determined) will
be sought in the 2021-24 regulatory period. The second stage of LSIP, which would nominally include the nutrient
treatment upgrade at Ti Tree Bend, currently has a ten year time horizon. Should the projects need to be
brought forward, agreement would likely need to be reached with TasWater (and potentially its regulators and
customers) to make this happen and would also likely need some negotiation with TasWater for costs they would
not otherwise incur.
While TasWater are supportive of the projects identified, TasWater also note a number of factors that would
influence its ability to deliver the proposed projects. These include the level of risk associated with the cost
estimates for the LSIP components and any gap between funding allocated and delivery cost, the capacity of the
market to deliver the projects in addition to TasWater’s program over the third price and service plan period and
TasWater’s own internal resourcing and the level of involvement needed of it in delivering the projects.
While the Taskforce has not sought to recommend measures to improve the ecological health of the Estuary
outside of the upgrade of the Ti Tree Bend, it should be noted that TasWater’s LSIP Stage 1 has the potential to
significantly reduce the effects of the seven wastewater treatment plants that discharge higher than desirable
nutrient levels. In this respect, LSIP also represents a very important component to improving the ecological
health of the Estuary.
8.2
Launceston City Council
Launceston City Council has indicated a willingness to provide funding towards the projects proposed for the
combined system. At this stage, a dedicated amount has not yet been approved by Council, but any funds
provided would be unconditional.
8.3
Department of Environment and Energy
As part of the initial announcement of the City Deal, the Federal Government through the Department of
Environment and Energy committed $500,000 per annum for three years towards the work of the Taskforce. The
Taskforce’s discussions with the Department’s officers suggests that its funding would most sensibly be allocated
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
50
to the proposed catchment actions. This funding would cover the proposed dairy related catchment initiatives
and some of the grazing related program and it would therefore seem sensible to earmark them to these
purposes. NRM North have had considerable success in implementing catchment based programs and would
seem the likely organisation to deliver the funding if allocated to this purpose.
8.4
Clean Energy Finance Corporation
The Launceston City Deal required the Taskforce to explore the possible financing of desired projects with the
Clean Energy Finance Corporation. On this basis, the Taskforce has held ongoing discussions with the CEFC as it
has progressed its work.
The CEFC’s scope is to provide financing for projects that increase the use of renewable energy, projects that
deliver increased energy efficiency or which utilise low emission technologies and does so at lending rates less
than that available from private sector banks.
The Combined System Working Group was consulted regarding whether the investment projects proposed
would meet any of the CEFC’s criteria for financing. Notwithstanding both TasWater and Launceston City
Council have limitations on borrowings such that they can only borrow through the Tasmanian Government’s
financing arm, TasCorp (which would need alteration), it does not appear that any of the projects would yield
material energy efficiency savings and indeed most projects require additional energy usage. The possible
exception is the upgrade of Ti Tree Bend treatment plant which would need further examination.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
51
9.
Communication and education
It is important that the Taskforce, or any ongoing governance body formed to implement its recommendations,
place a significant focus on communicating the recommendations in this Plan and educating the community as to
what underlies the findings.
The reasons for this are varied, but primarily there appears to be both a misunderstanding of the natural
processes which influence the Estuary and the previous interventions made to it and, possibly related to this,
considerable divide between members of the community on what is required to improve Estuary health.
Assuming the recommendations within this Plan are funded and acted upon, there is a need to clearly articulate
the work to be undertaken to improve water quality and the health of the estuary and river systems. It is
recommended that the Taskforce and any body formed to implement its recommendations, should:
Develop a detailed Communications Strategy. It should include a list of stories and key messages to be
communicated, audiences and methods of engagement with these audiences. At a minimum the key stories
to be communicated to the community should include:
o
The history and source of pathogens in the Estuary and how previous management has improved
these;
o
The advantages and disadvantages of combined sewerage and stormwater systems
o
Sedimentation processes and the history of sediment management through dredging and other
means. Ecological values of mudflats should also be included;
o
Flows down Gorge, their history, role and issues around managing flows for multiple benefits;
o
An overview of some of the works done to date and their impact including programs run by
NRM North, Dairy Tasmania and City of Launceston;
o
The TEMT, its role and recommendations and where to from here; and
Consider further the approach to communicating recreational water quality in the estuary. This might
include development of an alert system through social media or a website, for example the release of
advice or alerts when there’s been a combined system overflow. Alternatively a system based on
monitoring or predicted rainfall could also be used. The messages around safe recreation in the estuary
should be reviewed in light of improved monitoring data (e.g. periods of exclusion after rainfall, practices to
minimise risk). This may be linked to the additional work the Taskforce has flagged in setting targets related
to primary contact.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
52
10.
Sedimentation
Following the strong feedback received through consultation, the Taskforce has resolved to engage a suitably
qualified hydrologist/geomorphologist to assess the merits of the various proposals regarding the mitigation of
sedimentation build up.
There have been a number of studies, going back many years, commissioned by parties including the Launceston
City Council, the Launceston Flood Authority and Hydro Tasmania, in addition to a number of academic research
papers, many of which have explored and, in some cases, debunked theories put forward around how to manage
sedimentation. These studies will be reviewed by the consultant engaged by the Taskforce when assessing the
merits of the proposals received.
While the Taskforce is committed to examining the proposals, based on the information gathered through its
work, its current view is there are natural mechanisms of weathering, erosion and deposition that result in the
ongoing modification of the Estuary and there is a limit to what can be achieved in reducing the impacts of
sedimentation.
The Combined System Overflow Working Group’s Investment Plan goes into some detail around these
processes, but, in lay terms, the Estuary is what is known as a drowned river valley that formed between 6,500
and 13,000 years ago when sea level rose around 60m to near its current level. The natural process for drowned
river valleys is to infill and eventually become alluvial (muddy) plains and deltas.
The Tamar Estuary is characterised by a three to four metre tidal range and large freshwater inputs from the
North Esk and South Esk rivers. The combination of a large sediment load from the catchment and strong tidal
currents results in rapid sedimentation in the upper reaches of the estuary.
While the main channel is quite deep in the lower estuary, reaching 45 metres in depth near Bryants Bay,
upstream of Swan Point at Paper Beach the Estuary is subject to rapid infilling through sedimentation and
becomes very shallow near Launceston. Tidal mudflats border the main channel of the estuary throughout its
length.
Though there are potential issues with silt raking which mean consideration needs to be given to the balance
between environmental outcomes and flood protection, it is proven in its ability to displace the sediment build up
and maintain a level of visual and recreational amenity in the upper reaches. The Taskforce aims to report on this
issue, including any viable alternatives, in the first quarter of 2018.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
53
11.
Ongoing governance
The Launceston City Deal flagged that the Taskforce would give consideration to the future governance of the
Estuary and the Taskforce has resolved to engage further advice on this issue. While there are a number of
models that are used elsewhere in the country, particularly models that install catchment management authorities
to ensure water health, the roles of TasWater and Launceston City Council in delivering on this aim are not a
usual part of that model.
While the existing structures of the TEER have been extremely successful in bringing all relevant stakeholders
together and much has been advanced by TEER in understanding the Estuary, monitoring its health and setting
targets for it, perhaps one deficiency has been its inability to attract large scale funding to address some of the
issues outlined in this Plan.
A continuum of option will be explored from collaborative models like TEER and the similar Derwent Estuary
Program in the South of the State, through to legislatively backed governance models. However, the key
questions that will be asked through this work will be what the objectives and functions of the body should be
and how best these would be performed, with the structural form following from that.
As with the work underway on sedimentation, it is intended that the Taskforce will deliver a report with
recommendations in the first quarter of 2018.
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
54
Appendices
1.
Tamar Facts
2.
Catchment Action Working Group Technical Report and Investment Plan
3.
Combined System Overflow Working Group Investment Plan
4.
An Investment Plan for improving water quality in the Tamar Estuary: Combined System Overflows
Technical Report
Tamar Estuary
River Health Action Plan
55
Tamar Estuary Management Taskforce
C/- Infrastructure Tasmania
4 Salamanca Place
Hobart TAS 7000 Australia
Phone:
03 6166 3463
Email:
temt@stategrowth.tas.gov.au
Web:
https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/infrastructure_
tasmania/tamar_estuary_management_taskforce/
Dostları ilə paylaş: |