Scoping Study

Hawkesbury-Nepean River

Estuary Management

Final Report


Prepared by Kimmerikong Pty Ltd

Natural Resource Management

November 2005

Hawkesbury Estuary Locality Map (Copyright Deerubbin Press)

Contents

Introduction / 4
Methods / 4
Results of consultation with key stakeholders / 6
Summary of comments relating to the Discussion paper / 7
Summary of comments relating to the Background Paper / 9
Conclusions and Recommendations / 11
Appendices
  1. List of participants
/ 14
  1. Inventory of current estuary-related initiatives
/ 15
  1. Background Paper
/ 31
  1. Discussion Paper
/ 70
  1. Comments Form
/ 78

Introduction

The NSW Estuary Management Program was established in 1992 to restore and protect estuaries along the coast. Estuary Management Plans (EMPs) are developed by a Committee representing relevant stakeholders following a process outlined in the NSW Government’s Estuary Management Manual (1992). So far some 45 estuaries within NSW have had EMPs prepared and a number are currently being implemented. The more co-ordinated and co-operative management approach is resulting in improved environmental, social and economic outcomes.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean River has one of the largest and most complex estuarine systems within the State and it is of great social, economic and environmental value. A number of local government Councils and many different State Government Agencies (SGAs) have responsibilities for management of the waterways and adjacent land within the estuary. Management is therefore complex and often fragmented. Currently three sections of the Hawkesbury-Nepean estuary have EMPs being developed (Brooklyn, Pittwater) or underway with implementation (Berowra Creek). Gosford Council has an Estuary Management Committee currently developing an EMP for Brisbane Water but this area is excluded from the present scoping study.

It is considered by many stakeholders that to adequately manage this large complex estuary there needs to be a whole-of-system approach. A single EMP developed by relevant managers and interested community sectors that builds upon the EMPs already being developed would provide a much-needed strategic framework for the future management of the region.

This scoping study seeks through identification and analysis of the issues involved and consultation with stakeholders to gauge the level of support for a whole-of-estuary (whole-of-system) approach and to formulate a set of recommendations on the best way forward.

The key tasks that were to be undertaken included:

  1. Consultation with key stakeholders and review of the information already available to identify estuary-wide management issues of common concern, the part that each stakeholder plays in managing those issues, and the management actions currently in place. Data gaps were to be noted.
  2. Analysis of the need for a whole-of-estuary plan and exploration of successful system-wide models for management both within Australian and overseas. Determination of the level of support amongst those stakeholders consulted for a whole-of-estuary plan and if needed development of an agreed framework and timetable, together with estimation of likely costs and funding sources for such an approach.
  3. Development of a set of recommendations based on stakeholder consultation and the review and analysis of the information available that will progress estuary management in the Hawkesbury-Nepean.
Methods

The approach taken was designed to:

  • include input from councils, agencies and non-government groups whose activities have a direct impact on the estuary and its surroundings;
  • raise stakeholders’ awareness of the issues involved in the strategic management of the estuary;
  • elicit comment from individuals who are involved in the estuary-management policies and programs of their organizations;
  • provide respondents with an opportunity to assess information about the strategies and programs of other stakeholders;
  • encourage participants to respond to the information provided and to consider the advantages and disadvantages of a more holistic approach to estuary management in the Hawkesbury-Nepean.

Selection of participants – key stakeholders

Organisations with strategic and operational responsibilities pertaining to the estuary were selected for involvement in the Scoping Study. Participating organisations were chosen on the basis that their core business operations could have an impact on the estuary itself, estuary foreshores or the immediate surroundings. The members of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Estuary Steering Committee were included. A list of the participants is provided as Appendix 1.

Initial consultation

Participants were contacted by phone, acquainted with the objectives of the Scoping Study and asked to:

  • describe where the Hawkesbury-Nepean estuary was incorporated in the organization’s management strategy;
  • verify that they were the most appropriate person at the organisation to liaise on estuary-related issues;
  • identify further staff who should be involved in the Scoping Study.
Information collection

Information from participating organizations was collected by direct phone contact with staff, website searches and appraisal of available documents. Participants were asked to list the strategies, programs, projects and policies that would either pertain particularly to the Hawkesbury-Nepean estuary or organization-wide initiatives that would direct the organisation’s operations in the estuary area. Also included were annual reports, surveys, databases, workshop proceedings and the results of other processes conducted in the management of the estuary. Where possible, participants were asked to identify the component of their organisation’s budget allocated to Hawkesbury-Nepean estuary initiatives.

The information collected was used to create an inventory of current estuary-related initiatives which is included as Appendix 2.

Participants were asked if they would be willing to contribute further time should a workshop be held. They were advised that their input would form the basis of recommendations to DIPNR (now DNR) for future management of the estuary.

Analysis of Hawkesbury-Nepean information

The information provided by participants, together with that collated from available literature formed the basis of the Background Paper. This identified the common issues arising in different parts of the estuary, system-wide issues, the current approaches to management (frameworks, actions, roles and responsibilities) and significant gaps in knowledge and action.

Background Paper chapters covered geomorphology, water quality, estuarine ecology, estuary users and heritage. Each chapter provided an overview of the current status of the estuary, the pressures acting upon it, and actions undertaken to address and/or manage these. Knowledge gaps were listed and a section entitled ‘Looking Forward’ considered the main pressures continuing or emerging in the future that would need to be addressed. The Background Paper is attached as Appendix 3.

Exploration of successful system-wide management models

A survey of Australian and international literature covering system-wide estuary management approaches enabled those with similar natural resource management and strategic issues to the Hawkesbury-Nepean to be identified and the effectiveness of their approaches analysed.

Discussion Paper

A Discussion Paper was then developed as a basis for further consultation with stakeholders. This included an overview of estuary pressures and current management, the roles of management authorities and the constraints to effective management that exist. The benefits of an integrated approach were outlined and some management choices for the Hawkesbury-Nepean noted. Two examples of successful approaches used elsewhere were provided (the Derwent in Tasmania and the Exe in the U.K.) to allow respondents to assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative systems and some pivotal factors for success listed to give respondents a clear set of goals to consider in forming their opinions.

The Discussion Paper is attached as Appendix 4.

Sharing the findings with stakeholders

The Background Paper and Discussion Paper were emailed to stakeholders for their consideration and feedback on the issues raised and the management choices outlined. A covering letter was included and also a Comments Form to assist participants with their responses. This is attached as Appendix 5. Respondents were given contact details for Kimmerikong staff should difficulties arise or an alternative comment process be required.

Participants views on the need and value of a whole-of-system approach were sought and their opinions on the best way forward – the process to be used and whether or not a formal or informal structure should be developed to co-ordinate the work. They were also asked to consider who would take the lead role and what support would be needed. Comments on the contents of the Background Paper were also sought and identification of any additional system-wide or common issues that needed to be considered, additional information gaps that needed to be addressed and additional future or emerging pressures that should be included.

It was indicated that following receipt of participants comments a set of recommendations on the best way forward would be developed.

Participants were initially given two weeks to comment on the information package. At the end of that time those that had not responded were contacted to ascertain whether they would be providing a comment. Some advised that they had not received their package; another set of documents was then emailed to them and they were provided with extra time to comment. Other participants chose to respond by phone. Comments were received up until 20th October.

Analysis of responses

The comments received were assessed to identify the issues of importance to the respondents, and their opinions on the management of those issues. Their views on the need for a whole-of-estuary approach, and if this was agreed upon, the organisation that should take the lead role and the process they considered should be followed were also noted.

Results of consultation with key stakeholders

Response rate

Some 46 packages were distributed to: State government agencies (24), Catchment Management Authority (2), Councils (9), Aboriginal Land Councils (3), Non-government and community organisations (8). Some 8 participants responded using the Comments Form and a further three discussed their views over the telephone. Responses were received from four State government agency personnel, one from Councils, one from the Catchment Management Authority and two from the NGO-community sector. While this overall response rate appears adequate only four responses were comprehensive in their coverage.

Summary of comments relating to the Discussion Paper

  1. A ‘whole-of-estuary approach’ for the Hawkesbury Nepean Estuary?

Yes – such an approach was favoured. Advantages that were expressed included:

  • a more strategic overview would accompany a whole-of-estuary approach and allow for priorities to be clearly identified and progress to be achieved on system-wide pressures;
  • a whole-of-estuary approach would facilitate an understanding of the links between issues such as water extraction, STP inflows, site-specific impacts and the survival of marine species. It would allow the estuary to be looked on as a whole environment rather than a series of eco systems to be managed;
  • greater advocacy for action to mitigate catchment impacts on the estuary;
  • all stakeholders in the management process would have more equal and balanced input;
  • improved coordination of activities and programs through consultation between the various authorities and stakeholders;
  • financial benefits through use of economies of scale;
  • more effective use of State and Federal government funding resources through identification of agreed priorities and links with the CMA’s Catchment Action Plan;
  • opportunities for synergies in research, program development and implementation were more likely to be identified;
  • improved exchange of data and information.

Disadvantages that were expressed included:

  • the potential for local issues to be neglected;
  • representation of separate areas on any committee structure could be inadequate;
  • funding applied to the whole estuary could be insufficient to achieve useful outcomes.
  1. The process for preparing and implementing the Estuary Management Plan

Respondents indicated their support and interest in the preparation of an EMP for the whole Hawkesbury-Nepean estuary but stated that their organisations and they, themselves, did not have the time or resources at present to be involved. They considered that there was a need for State government funding to support the establishment of a committee and secretariat position. Other comments indicated that:

  • existing plans and programs should be used as a basis for a future process and existing adopted EMPs should be the basis for a whole of estuary EMP;
  • the Catchment Management Authority’s Catchment Action Plan should be used in drafting the EMP to provide access to funding from both the CMA and DNR;
  • there was merit in finding processes already in place that encourage the integration of natural resource management strategies;
  • the commitment of resources by Local and State governments was vital;
  • the process should involve partnerships between Local government, the CMA, State government agencies and the community. It should also allow stakeholders and agencies to interact at a basic level, and include representation from Local, State and Federal Government agencies, non-government agencies and industry, residential and business communities also need to play a major role; and
  • a consultative approach was favoured with all stakeholders involved, not only those concerned with water management issues. Representatives commenting about Aboriginal heritage issues stated the need for identifying the existing heritage and cultural management issues in the process of preparing a whole-of-system process. Aboriginal stakeholders felt that consultation and assertive representation of the views of Aboriginal Land Councils and other Aboriginal groups should be a component of a whole of estuary process.

3. The lead organization

Opinion was divided in relation to who should take the lead role in the development of an estuary-wide EMP:

  • The CMA or an organization that was outside the group of Agencies and Councils that directly manage the estuary;
  • A State government agency (eg DNR); or
  • Joint leadership by State and Local government.

The CMA view was that it was not appropriate in view of the limited nature of its charter and resources. While the CMA supported the concept of whole-of-system management and recognised the value of having strong links between an EMP and the River Health Strategy, it saw its role as assisting other stakeholders in defining a future course of action rather than leading.

4. Should coordination of the Estuary Management process be formal or informal?

There was general agreement that the process should be formal. Comments were:

  • The costs of preparing and implementing EMPs (including construction of remedial works, monitoring and community awareness activities) are shared equally by Local and State Government, and a formal agreement is needed to cover all aspects of the process.
  • A formal agreement would provide the opportunity to clearly state the roles of each stakeholder in the estuary management process and allow endorsement by the Federal government. This would be valuable in that it would demonstrate whole-of-govemment participation and support of community interests.
  • The Estuary Management Manual stipulates that estuary management objectives are incorporated in council Management Plans and planning instruments. Should the whole-of-estuary approach initiate the convening of formal Council committees, these may have statutory powers under the Local Government Act 1993 to make funding decisions. In view of these strategic and administrative requirements, the overall process within which these committees sit needs to be subject to a formal agreement.
  • The terms of any formal agreement should be reflected in the internal strategic and operational documents of the participants (e.g. service level agreements and other contracts). This would particularly include agreements or contracts for water use, which should be drafted with consideration of the ability to provide water and the impact on water quality.
  • A formal agreement should ensure that the significance of water to Aboriginal people is recognized and that Aboriginal values and perspectives are not diminished by mainstream considerations in the natural resource arena.

The CMA response referred to the Riverkeeper initiative, which at present is based on an informal Local-State government network that seeks to share resources and outcomes. The initiative will be managed by a multiple stakeholder steering committee. While a useful approach it was considered that informal arrangements could constrain participation by other stakeholders, and the much-needed strategic consideration of issues.

5. Are additional structures or programs required to ensure effective estuary management?

Comments ranged over a number of aspects:

  • Further consultation should be conducted to establish additional structures and programs for effective estuary management. Consultation with Aboriginal groups identifying needs, concerns and potential points of conflict should help inform the development of structures and/or programs to enable whole of system management.
  • Community involvement strategies need to be built into the estuary management process to ensure that the EMP belongs to everyone. Ownership of the process was identified as vital if the community is to become a willing participant in estuary management.
  • Approval for privatisation of infrastructure for stormwater, effluent and groundwater management should incorporate objectives for the improvement of environmental management for the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. State and Local government should include commitments to reduce the discharge of pollutants and nutrients to the river and document these initiatives in Memoranda of Understanding.
  • A Riverkeeper position was suggested as a means of overseeing the Estuary Management Plan and coordinating estuary activities. A Department of Natural Resources position to facilitate the implementation of the Estuary Management Plan and coordination of resources and effort was also seen as an important adjunct to a whole-of-estuary approach.

Summary of comments relating to the Background Paper