Archived page, Comments on the Draft Environmental Protection Policy, Draft Environmental Quality Criteria and Draft Environmental Management Plan for Cockburn Sound

Submitted to the Enviromental Protection Authority 28th March 2002

Introduction

Recfishwest commends the initiative to develop both the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Environmental Protection Policy (EPP). We believe that they will be essential tools to ensure responsible future management of Cockburn Sound and that the needs and desired uses of the sound by the wider community are accommodated.

Recfishwest broadly endorses the aims of the EPP and the intentions expressed in the EMP. These closely reflect Recfishwest's objectives for Cockburn Sound. These objectives, which we believe are shared with a wide consensus of the community, are to protect the natural ecosystems and to allow use of the Sound for a variety of purposes, including recreation and industry, in a way that maximises compatible use and minimises conflict.

However Recfishwest has some concerns about how the EPP and the EMP will achieve these objectives. Two principle concerns are:

That although the EPP has the power of law it is largely limited to achieving and maintaining appropriate marine water quality. This should assist to protect the marine ecosystem; but will not necessarily retain the broader amenity values needed for continued recreational access and use.

That although the EMP is concerned with facilitating multiple use as well as protecting environmental values it does not appear to have the appropriate and necessary level of authority to ensure its objectives are met. In this submission, Recfishwest draws attention to a number of specific points, within both the EPP (and its associated Draft Environmental Quality Criteria) and the EMP, some of which have a bearing on the above concerns.

Draft Environmental Protection Policy (EPP)

Environmental Values

Recfishwest endorses the environmental values (a) to (d) listed on page 5 of the EPP. However we consider the Environmental value '(e) Industrial water supply' to be questionable. The environmental quality objectives for industrial water supply are described in a circular way (ie. it is suitable if it is suitable) and there are no quality criteria specified.

The EPP gives no further consideration towards industrial water supply as an environmental value of Cockburn Sound and as such Recfishwest believe that it does not warrant listing as one.

Environmental quality objectives

Recfishwest considers that the environmental quality objectives for the environmental value 'Recreation and aesthetics' are inadequate.

The EPP lists recreation and aesthetics as a social value and declares the environmental quality objectives (EQO's) for this value as: -

(i) Maintenance of primary contact recreation values such that they (e.g. swimming) are safe;
(ii) Maintenance of secondary contact recreation values such that they (e.g. boating) are safe;
(iii) Maintenance of aesthetic values such that they are protected.

The EPP limits the measures of whether the primary and secondary contact recreation EQO's have been met to an assessment of water quality criteria. These criteria are listed in Tables 6 and 7 in the Draft Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document (DEQCRD).

Recfishwest believe that the value of Cockburn Sound for swimming or boating is not limited to whether they are 'safe' activities because of water quality. If people cannot get to the water to swim or are not allowed to use boats, then the values are certainly not being protected. These are not unreal considerations; however access to, or allowable use of the water is not a consideration in the EPP.

Access to the beaches and waters of the Sound is severely limited today and has the potential to get worse. Recfishwest believes that 'Access' needs to be specified as an objective for recreation values.

Environmental quality criteria for the objective 'Aesthetics' quality are listed within Table 8. in the DEQCRD. Again, this lists only water quality characteristics in the Environmental Quality Guidelines.

Recfishwest has been advised that during the development of draft 'Aesthetic Criteria' for Cockburn Sound, the documented outcomes of a workshop on the topic identified three kinds of environmental indicators for aesthetic values. These were water quality (pollutants, odours etc), water related objects (included structures, traffic etc) and adjacent environment (included natural landscapes and sensory characteristics).

Recfishwest holds the view that protection of the recreational and aesthetic values and objectives of Cockburn Sound cannot be achieved simply by monitoring water quality. Adequate recognition must be given to additional environmental quality criteria such as the indicators listed above.

Recfishwest does not accept that these considerations can be properly addressed in the EMP alone and believes that the full range of objectives must be specified in the EPP. Noting this it may be possible in some instances to formally identify objectives such as recreational access in the EPP and then refer to the EMP to describe the criteria and how the objectives will be achieved.

In the preceding paragraphs Recfishwest has taken issue with what it believes is inadequate specification of the objectives for recreation and aesthetic values. We believe that this can only be rectified by a substantial amendment of the draft to provide the necessary additional objectives and then to determine appropriate criteria.

As an example we would require that one of the objectives would recognise access as an objective for recreation value. The criteria may specify proportions of area for uses and numbers of access points and/or proportions of shoreline for access. This already has a parallel in the way in which the Mixing Zones are to be capped as a proportion and then specified as to site from time to time.

Environmental Quality Criteria

The amendments that Recfishwest believes are needed for the recreation and aesthetics objectives will require the inclusion of appropriate environmental quality criteria as discussed above.

Most of the environmental quality criteria contained in the EQCRD require a considerable degree of scientific and technical understanding to evaluate. Whilst Recfishwest has not been in a position to make such a complete evaluation we advise our support for the use of the "Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality" as an appropriate basis for these criteria.

Notwithstanding this we provide the following specific comments:

Recfishwest supports the water clarity guideline within Table 8 in the EQCRD as an appropriate standard for embayments on the Metropolitan coast. This states that seagrass should be generally visible to 10 metres under calm conditions in summer and is supported principally by the personal experiences of Recfishwest members.

The proposed light attenuation coefficient guideline level of 0.087 for high protection areas appears appropriate; but Recfishwest does not see the justification for the reduction to 0.124 in the moderate protection area. Recfishwest believe the light attenuation coefficients to be important for fish populations.

This belief is reflected in the Southern Metropolitan Coastal Waters Study which states that the light attenuation coefficient affects the growth of seagrass, has a direct impact on aesthetic quality, and that high light attenuation coefficients were associated with the dramatic deterioration of the ecosystem of Cockburn Sound around 1970.

We point out that the moderate protection area occupies a large proportion of the original Posidonia meadows of Cockburn Sound. The 1967 map of seagrass in the "State of Cockburn Sound, June 2001" underestimates the area of seagrass originally present according to personal recollections of our members. The distribution map on page 56 of the "Southern Metropolitan Coastal Waters Study" also shows a lot more seagrass along the eastern shore in 1954-62 prior to industrial use of the area.

Recfishwest would accept a maximum light attenuation coefficient guideline level of 0.01 for moderate protection areas. It should be noted that these are only guideline levels and therefore impose no penalty other than the need to work to find the cause and try to improve the situation.

Recfishwest accepts the chlorophyll a levels of 0.802 and 1.031 micrograms/litre as appropriate.

In some cases it is hard to comment on the criteria because the levels are insufficiently specified. For example, in Table 6 of the DEQCD the environmental quality guideline for chlorine is specified as 100 000 micrograms/litre. Presumably this is not total chlorine because surely seawater would have at least 18 000 000 micrograms/litre! Another example is Table 8 where the aesthetic quality criterion for gasoline is 0.005 mg/l and for outboard fuel as exhaust is 7.2 mg/l. Application of environmental quality criteria.

Recfishwest is concerned that the described application of the environmental quality criteria may not be always adequate to achieve the respective objectives. Following are examples of this concern: It is unclear what is meant by "reasonable and practicable measures" in para. 9. (1) on page 8. If this means "so long as the measures are not too expensive" then Recfishwest consider it to be unacceptable.

It is stated in para. 9. (3) that "relevant public authorities" shall determine which parameters... should become a focus for monitoring. Recfishwest wish to point out that it is only realistic to recognise that the environmental protection of Cockburn Sound does not have a high priority for some public authorities. Given this we question which authority has the responsibility to ensure that the total monitoring program satisfies the environmental objectives.

Recfishwest has concerns that the steps described in paras 9.(4) to (6) could take an unacceptably long time to carry out. Whereas this process may be reasonable to address the progressive lowering of chlorophyll (a) levels in the Sound it would not be appropriate to deal with turbidity that arises from a dredging operation and which could be killing benthic organisms in only a few days. Recfishwest is aware of recent incidents where unacceptable dredging turbidity has occurred despite a monitoring program being in place that did not prevent the turbidity.

Para 9. (5) (c) refers to licensed and unlicensed premises. It is unclear to Recfishwest whether groundwater discharges arising from leakage from an industrial process is leakage from a licensed premises or not. If they are not, then the paragraph implies that the Cockburn Sound Management Council should be burdened with the responsibility of implementing a cooperative management response. The intent of this paragraph is unclear and Recfishwest believe that it requires redrafting to ensure clarity. Para. (6) does not assist in this interpretation because the EPA is free to make recommendations to the Minister in any case.

The full meaning of para. (8) is not clear and Recfishwest believes that this section should be clarified. Recfishwest believes that the application of the environmental quality criteria to be one of the most critical issues in the EPP. Whilst we are not best positioned to suggest remedies for the various shortcomings in the timely application of the environmental quality criteria we recommend adoption of the following provisions:

That there should be a provision in the EPP that requires that where a monitored activity is in breach of the guidelines then an immediate meeting has to take place between the body responsible for the activity and the EPA and or its nominee(s).

If the problem cannot be resolved or standards are breached then the activity must cease until the problem is resolved. Recfishwest strongly believes that such a provision is essential to prevent continued damage from short term activities such as dredging operations.

Draft Environmental Management Plan

Introduction

Recfishwest wishes to congratulate the Cockburn Sound Management Council on its draft environmental management plan. The plan shows an excellent awareness of the issues that doubtless results from the broad representative base of the Council membership.

Nonetheless Recfishwest is concerned that the Plan is not yet sufficiently specific in some areas and is not satisfied that there is an adequate mechanism to ensure the application of its provisions.

1. Protecting the Environmental values of Cockburn Sound

The overarching approach of the EPP and EMP in specifying environmental quality objectives and criteria is supported and comments on these have been made in response to the EPP.

Biological Monitoring

Recfishwest believes that it will be desirable to increase the level of biological monitoring in association with the water quality criteria.

This is already envisaged for seagrass. However, because fish are often at higher levels in the food chains, they may represent early warning indicators of environmental degradation and in this regard, can be informative of disturbances before the entire collapse of the ecosystem. As such Recfishwest believes that the health of higher organisms such as fish should be part of the monitoring plan.

With today's chemical, biochemical and biological tools to protect environmental integrity, it would be expected that the Environmental Management Plan for Cockburn Sound would extend beyond phytoplankton and seagrass monitoring. For example, biochemical markers of fish health are proven early warning indicators of ecological degradation. Another example is the use of environmental forensics (microcontaminants embedded in fish's bones or other biological structures) which could significantly contribute to the long-term health of the Sound by informing on the history of bioavailable contaminants.

Bottom invertebrate communities are reknowned for being good indicators of environmental quality. Chronic contamination by persistent chemicals have a much more devastating potential impact than nutrients, but this is hardly recognised in the monitoring plan: phytoplankton or seagrass will not indicate impacts of carcinogenic or endocrine disruptive chemicals.

Clearly, some other indicators of environmental health should to be included in the monitoring.

Report Card

Recfishwest supports the "Report Card" system of summarising monitoring information on ecosystem health. The difficulty in dealing with limited locality problems is recognised, however overall the system is sound and informative.

Maintaining a Healthy Marine Ecosystem (Section 1.3)

Recfishwest generally supports the recommendations of this section of the EMP (detailed on pages 15-16). However as stated previously Recfishwest has concern in respect to the authority of the CSMC and this concern is highlighted in Recommendation 3.

This states that the CSMC will "implement management action" which involves coordinating investigations, precautionary actions and management responses. This is certainly within the functions specified for the Council by its Constitution; however how is it expected to carry out these actions is uncertain. For example, Recfishwest has been advised that during the Jervoise Bay Southern Harbour and Infrastructure construction dredging, turbidity levels exceeded specification.

Whether the Council should have called a meeting with the proponent and contractor and coordinated a course of action to ensure that potentially damaging water conditions did not continue is irrelevant. It appears that the Council did not know anything about it until it was all over. Whilst it could be argued that this incident occurred prior to the implementation of the EPP and the EMP the question that remains is whether the CSMC is appropriately structured and resourced to carry out such a function.

Recfishwest believes it essential that the resourcing and structure of the Cockburn Sound Management Council must be reviewed and upgraded to ensure that it can discharge its responsibilities.

To assist in this process Recfishwest suggests that it may be possible to arrange memoranda of understanding between the CSMC and a number of government decision making authorities to ensure that, whenever any action is taking place which may have an impact on Cockburn Sound, the CSMC is advised. This advice could include the opportunity to suggest necessary conditions and receive special monitoring reports in real time. If such provisions were made it would enable CSMC to properly discharge its responsibilities in relation to Recommendations 17,18 and 19

2. Facilitating multiple use of Cockburn Sound and its Foreshores

This is going to be the real test of the CSMC and the EMP.

Demands on recreational facilities, of which fishing is a major component, are growing faster than the population of the Metropolitan area and industrial and commercial demands on Cockburn Sound are very high and continue to increase. Cockburn Sound is a finite resource and clearly both sets of demands cannot be fully satisfied.

Recfishwest believes it necessary to make resource use allocations including the design and implementation of spatial boundaries where uses are incompatible.

Recfishwest is of the view that if the vision of long term multiple use of the Sound is to be realised then the difficult allocation decisions will have to be made. With good management, allocations can be shared or multiple use in many cases. However in a number of circumstances spatial allocations must be made. For example fishers can operate compatibly in most areas; but probably not alongside an unloading oil tanker and water skiers cannot operate safely with swimmers.

Figures 2 to 6 in the EMP provide a useful starting point for consideration of multiple use but are not detailed or comprehensive enough to provide a basis to guide future allocation decisions. We cite the following in support of this assertion:

In Figure 4 the "industrial exclusion zone" includes two public boat-launching ramps at Challenger Beach and Kwinana Beach. Furthermore, half of the Challenger zone, shown on Figure 6 as having recreation as a priority use, is covered by the industrial exclusion zone;

Figure 3, which shows recreational uses, does not adequately show areas used for recreational fishing. The whole western margin of the eastern flats of the Sound is marked by a discontinuous line of reef, some of which consists of coral. This line of reefs has provided excellent fishing in the past. Similarly, the inshore flat reef along the cliffs south of the original "Naval Base Groyne," now partly reclaimed for the Jervoise Bay Southern Harbour, provided good fishing for squid and snapper. There are many other areas which used to provide good fishing but which are no longer accessible due to industrial use. Shorelines are especially valuable for recreational fishers because many people, including the young and the very old, do not have access to boats.

Recfishwest considers that Table 9 offers little guidance in addressing the multiple use issue. Similarly, we consider that the recommendation is quite inadequate. This is the classical response of a body asked to do a hard job, "let's think about it a bit more". While nothing is done the seemingly inexorable march of industrial expansion will continue to reduce the options for multiple use planning.

Recfishwest recommends that the Cockburn Sound Management Plan must show the allocation of areas for various uses and where these uses are not compatible it must show boundaries

Recfishwest is of the view that the EMP recommendations for other uses are secondary to establishing appropriate multiple use. However Recfishwest supports the recommendations for industry. Recommendations 3 to 7 are important to achieve ecosystem protection for the water and recommendations 8 to 10 may assist in reducing conflicts that might otherwise arise in relation to allocation of areas to incompatible uses.

3. Integrating management of the land and marine environments

Recfishwest supports the recommendations for this activity. However, the current nitrogen input from non-industrial groundwater discharges is quite low at about 45 tonnes per year (Figure 2.19 in The State of Cockburn Sound). This means that work on catchment management can be carried out ahead of any potential problem - this is a desirable way to work.

4. Coordinating Research and Investigations

Recfishwest suggests that CALM should be included in the partnership for the five year research and investigation program given their responsibility for nearby marine management areas and the expertise and resources they possess.

5. Monitoring and Reporting on Performance

The recommendations are supported.



KEY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this submission Recfishwest has detailed numerous specific comments and suggestions. There are however a number of key issues and recommendations of importance to Recfishwest. These are:

Recfishwest considers that the environmental quality objectives for the Environmental Value 'Recreation and aesthetics' are inadequate and recommend that 'Access' be specified as an objective for recreation values.

Recfishwest recommends that environmental quality criteria in addition to water quality characteristics be developed and incorporated to monitor and measure the achievement of the objectives of the Environmental Value 'Recreation and Aesthetics'.

Recfishwest recommends that a maximum light attenuation coefficient guideline level of 0.01 be adopted for moderate protection areas.

That to ensure the proper application of the environmental quality criteria the following provisions are adopted:
* that there should be a provision in the EPP that requires that where a monitored activity is in breach of the guidelines then an immediate meeting has to take place between the body responsible for the activity and the EPA and or its nominee(s); and
* that if the problem cannot be resolved or standards are breached then the activity must cease until the problem is resolved. Recfishwest strongly believe that such a provision is essential to prevent continued damage from short term activities such as dredging operations.

Recfishwest believe it essential that the resourcing and structure of the Cockburn Sound Management Council must be reviewed and upgraded to ensure that it can discharge its responsibilities.

To effectively facilitate multiple use of Cockburn Sound Recfishwest recommends that the Cockburn Sound Management Plan must show the allocation of areas for various uses and, where these uses are not compatible, it must show boundaries.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.