Management Plan
A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary Prepared for the Northern Tasmanian Natural Resource Management Association Inc.
Acknowledgements
SFM Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd would like to thank Tamar NRM for their support and advice as a partner in this project and all stakeholders who participated in consultation for development of this report. This project was made possible with funding secured by NRM North from the Australian Government. SFM Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd would also like to thank the following steering committee members who provided advice and guidance for this project:
James McKee NRM North Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania Kay Bailey Tamar NRM Andrew Baldwin Tamar NRM Christine Coughanowr Environment Division- DEPHA Amanda Locatelli SFM Environmental Solutions
Authors This report has been prepared by Dayani Gunawardana and Amanda Locatelli of SFM Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd.
© SFM Environmental Solutions
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and consulted stakeholders and do not necessarily represent the opinions, policies and strategies of the Northern Tasmanian NRM Association. Although great care has been taken to ensure that the information contained in this report is accurate and up to date, no legal responsibility can be accepted by SFM Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd for the information and opinions expressed within.
Users may copy or reproduce information contained in this report for the purposes of private study, research or review, providing acknowledgement is made.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
3 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ______3
Disclaimer ______3
Table of Contents ______4
List of Figures______6
List of Tables ______6
1 Introduction ______7 1.1 Description of the Area ______7 1.2 Background ______9 1.2.1 Scope of the Management Plan ______9 1.3 Management Plan Development Process ______10 1.3.1 Structure of the Management Plan ______10
2 Geodiversity ______11 2.1 geodiversity – Description of the Asset ______11 2.1.1 geology______11 2.1.2 geomorphology______12 2.1.3 Soils______12 2.1.4 Sites of Geoconservation Significance______12 2.2 Managing Geodiversity – Threats and Priority Issues______15 2.2.1 Sedimentation and Dredging______15 2.2.2 Heavy Metal Contamination______17 2.2.3 Land Reclamation and Drainage______18 2.2.4 Foreshore Erosion______19 2.3 Summary of Geodiversity______19 2.4 Management Directions ______20
3 Estuarine Waters ______25 3.1 Estuarine Waters – Description of the Asset ______25 3.1.1 Freshwater Inputs and Uses______27 3.1.2 Protected Environmental Values (PEVs)______28 3.2 Managing Estuarine Waters – Threats and Priority Issues ______29 3.2.1 Water Quality______29 3.2.2 Changes to the Freshwater Flow Regime______33 3.3 Summary of Estuarine Waters______33 3.4 Management Directions ______34
4 Biodiversity Asset______39 4.1 Flora – Description of the Asset______39 4.1.1 Aquatic and Subtidal Flora ______39 4.1.2 Intertidal Flora – Wetlands ______39 4.1.3 Terrestrial Foreshore Flora ______40
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
4 4.2 Fauna – Description of the Asset ______43
4.2.1 Invertebrates ______43 4.2.2 Fish______44 4.2.3 Birds ______44 4.2.4 Mammals ______46 4.2.5 Reptiles ______46 4.2.6 Amphibians______46 4.3 Managing Biodiversity – Threats and Priority Issues ______47 4.3.1 Protection of High Conservation Sites, Communities and Species______47 4.3.2 Weeds and Pests ______51 4.3.3 Development of Foreshore Buildings and Structures______54 4.3.4 Inappropriate and Illegal Activities ______55 4.3.5 Climate Change ______56 4.4 Summary of Biodiversity ______57 4.5 Management Directions ______58
5 People and Management______63 5.1 Description of People and Management ______63 5.1.1 The People______63 5.1.2 Management Arrangements______63 5.2 Management Directions ______64
6 Implementation ______69 6.1 Background______69 6.2 Developing Management Priorities______69 6.3 Implementation ______69 6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation ______70 6.5 Conclusions and General Recommendations ______71
7 List of Acronyms and Glossary______73
8 References______75
9 Appendices______77 9.1 list of Threatened Flora and Fauna______77 9.2 list of Stakeholders who Participated in Consultation ______81
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
5 List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The main population centres and local government municipalities bordering the Tamar Estuary______8 Figure 2.1 location of listed geoconservation sites in the Tamar Estuary (DPIW 2006b).______13 Figure 3.1 The six catchments which drain into the Tamar Estuary. ______26 Figure 4.1 Map of the intertidal and foreshore vegetation types occurring within 3km of the Estuary______42 Figure 4.2 Map of formal and informal reserves within 3km of the Tamar Estuary______48 Figure 4.3 location of threatened species records within three kilometres of the Tamar Estuary______50
List of Tables
Table 2.1 geoconservation sites of the Tamar Estuary and foreshore______14 Table 2.2 Management Actions for Geodiversity______21 Table 3.1 Water allocated to irrigation in 2004 and 2005 for four of the six catchments which drain into the Tamar Estuary. ______27 Table 3.2 Excerpt from “Table 2: PEVs for the Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchment” ______28 Table 3.3 Management Actions for Estuarine Waters______35 Table 4.1 Tamar Estuary foreshore floristic communities ______41 Table 4.2 The number of macroinvertebrate species recorded in surveys of the intertidal and shallow waters of the Tamar Estuary______43 Table 4.3 The number of bird species observed near the Tamar Island Wetlands in the Tamar River Conservation Area. ______45 Table 4.4 Weeds of concern occurring on the Tamar Estuary’s foreshore. ______51 Table 4.5 Management Actions for Biodiversity______59 Table 5.1 Management Actions for People and Management______65 Table 9.1.1 Threatened flora species recorded in the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) as occurring within approximately 3 km of the Tamar Estuary ______77 Table 9.1.2 Threatened fauna species recorded in the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) as occurring within approximately 3 km of the Tamar Estuary ______80 Table 9.2.1 Stakeholders who participated in Round 1 consultation for the TEMP ______81 Table 9.2.2 Stakeholders who participated in Round 2 consultation for the TEMP______82
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
6 1Introduction The natural values of the Tamar Estuary are diverse and unique. They include: the water itself sourced from the sea and freshwater river flows; the Estuary’s geology, soils and the landscape they form; and the great diversity of flora and fauna which depend on the variety of aquatic, wetland and foreshore habitats the Estuary provides. These natural values have great intrinsic and ecological worth and also support a range of economic and social values.
Throughout the world estuaries are often important sites of human settlement and the Tamar Estuary is no exception (Edgar et al. 1999). The Tamar Estuary is a focal point of urban and industrial development in northern Tasmania. Its highly productive waters are an important resource for fisheries, its sheltered port has supported international sea trade and the development of a large industrial area, its catchment supports extensive agricultural and forestry activities, its surrounds are home to over 90 000 Tasmanians and it is a popular site for recreation and tourism. Intensive development in the Estuary and its catchment area has resulted in significant pressure being placed on the natural values of the Estuary. A cooperative approach to management and a long term commitment to investment is required to mitigate the current threats and issues adversely impacting on the Estuary’s natural values and to ensure an ecologically sustainable future for the region.
1.1 Description of the Area The Tamar Estuary is situated on the northern coast of Tasmania. It is one of the State’s larger estuaries occupying an area of approximately 100km2 (Figure 1.1). It extends 70km from the confluence of the South Esk and North Esk Rivers near Launceston to its mouth at Low Head where it enters Bass Strait (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). The climate of the region is described as cool temperate with mean daily maximum temperatures ranging from around 12 °C in July to 21- 24 °C in February and minimum temperatures ranging from 2-6 °C in July to 12-13 °C in January. Average annual rainfall is approximately 680mm (based on climate averages for Launceston and Low Head weather stations, BOM 2006).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
7 Figure 1.1 The main population centres and local government municipalities bordering the Tamar Estuary.
More than 90 000 people live in the three local government areas (George Town, Launceston City and West Tamar) which border the Estuary (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). Most of this population is concentrated in or near the city of Launceston at the southern end of the Estuary. Launceston is the second largest city in the State and is the centre of administrative and commercial activities in northern Tasmania. Many smaller settlements are scattered along the length of the Estuary. The largest of these is the township of George Town located near the Estuary mouth (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
8 The Tamar Estuary is highly valued by the members of the Tamar Valley community. Community and stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the Tamar Estuary 2020 project (Watchorn 2000, Watchorn and Hepper 1999) identified a range of Estuary features and resources valued by the community including economic, social, environmental, recreational, historical/cultural and landscape values. The economic values identified included the deep sea port facilities and associated industries, tourism, agriculture and real estate. Social values identified included the ability to live by the river, the importance of the waterway as the ‘soul’ of its communities and a sense of ownership of the Estuary. Recreational values revolved around being able to access the Estuary for a range of activities including boating, sailing, fishing, swimming and foreshore walking. Older jetties, boatsheds, semaphore stations and sites of early settlement were identified as areas of historic and cultural value. The landscape, the scenery and setting of the Estuary are also highly valued. A wide range of natural values were identified including the diversity of flora and fauna, the importance of fish breeding habitats, birdlife and other wildlife habitats, remnant vegetation and the unique natural geophysical setting of the Estuary. The natural values associated with the Estuary are described in more detail within the Asset Chapters of this Plan.
1.2 Background Consultants SFM Environmental Solutions in partnership with Tamar NRM were engaged by NRM North to develop the Tamar Estuary Management Plan – A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary (TEMP). This project was identified as a priority within the Northern Tasmanian NRM Strategy 2005 and has been funded through the Australian Government’s Natural Heritage Trust program.
The TEMP project has involved undertaking three separate project components: developing a Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework, a Tamar Estuary Natural Values Database and a Tamar Estuary Management Plan – A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary. The Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework describes the roles and responsibilities of key statutory and non-statutory stakeholders who use and manage the Tamar Estuary. This report also includes a series of maps for the Estuary foreshore detailing land tenure and jurisdiction. The Tamar Estuary Natural Values Database was developed as a tool to inform decision making. The database has been developed to catalogue existing publications and reports referring to the natural values and environmental management of the Estuary, and is available from NRM North. The final project component was developing the Tamar Estuary Management Plan – A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary.
A significant amount of work has been conducted on the Tamar Estuary in the past, including post graduate studies, technical reports, on-ground works, assessments and surveys. However, no overarching planning document previously existed to prioritise the key areas for management or to consolidate existing information regarding the Estuary. The Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan developed in 2000 is a key document detailing many of the development, planning and jurisdictional issues surrounding the Estuary. However it does not detail or assess the broader threats to the Tamar Estuary’s diverse natural values or what actions are required to effectively mitigate these threats.
The TEMP aims to consolidate much of the existing information regarding the Tamar Estuary and provide a future blueprint for the effective management of the Estuary’s natural values on the basis of an ‘Asset’ management approach. This approach was adopted to complement the delivery of the regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) framework in Tasmania and to provide integral links with the NRM planning occurring in northern Tasmania. The TEMP provides a basis for leveraging future investment for the Tamar Estuary and a guide to what stakeholders involved in managing and using the Estuary consider to be priority management actions for implementation.
1.2.1 Scope of the Management Plan The TEMP is a non-statutory management plan which focuses on the management of the natural values of the Estuary, specifically geodiversity, estuarine waters and biodiversity values. It does not consider the management of the atmosphere, Aboriginal heritage, European heritage, and social or economic values. Geographically the plan focuses on the natural values which occur within the estuarine waters area from the confluence of the North Esk and South Esk Rivers to the Estuary mouth between Low Head and West Head. The geographic extent of the Plan also takes into account the immediate estuarine foreshore land, specifically 100m of the foreshore area back from the high tide line.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
9 Many of the threats to the Estuary’s natural values originate outside of this geographic boundary. For example, agricultural or mining activities occurring in the upper catchment areas of the Tamar Estuary may be significant sources of contaminants in the Estuary. The development of the management actions described in this Plan has therefore taken into account activities and land uses that may originate outside of the immediate geographic scope of this Plan, but still have a direct impact on the health and condition of the Estuary and its foreshore.
1.3 Management Plan Development Process Development of the TEMP was guided by the TEMP Steering Committee. This committee – with representatives from Tamar NRM, NRM North, the Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment – was charged with the objective of providing technical and strategic advice to guide the development of the TEMP project.
The information contained within this Plan has been based upon past studies and reports on the Tamar Estuary and from stakeholder consultation undertaken during the development of the TEMP. To make the most of limited time and resources, wherever possible, the development of the Plan focused on utilising existing reports and studies, including previous consultation reports, and consulting with existing reference groups.
Two rounds of consultation were undertaken during development of the Plan. Round 1 consultation held in August and September 2006 included a key stakeholder consultation workshop followed by two public workshops held at Beauty Point and Riverside. The purpose of these workshops was to identify the key threats and issues impacting on the Estuary and to determine the current management practices, programs and initiatives in place to manage these threats and issues.
A suite of management actions were developed by consolidating recommendations and actions identified from past reports and studies and from one-on-one consultation with key technical experts. Round 2 consultations held in November 2006 included facilitating four technical workshops to review the proposed management actions. Following the technical workshops a prioritisation workshop was held in December 2006 to assess and rank the management actions using a Multiple Criteria Analysis method. The first technical review of the draft chapters of the TEMP occurred over December 2006 and January 2007. In February 2007 the draft TEMP was released for public comment followed by finalisation of the TEMP in March 2007.
Development of the TEMP has hinged upon receiving input from a wide range of key stakeholders including the community, local and state government departments, statutory bodies, NRM groups and technical reference groups. Where possible every attempt has been made to ensure all key stakeholder groups involved in using and managing the Estuary have been consulted with and all key reports have been reviewed.
1.3.1 Structure of the Management Plan An asset based approach was used to develop the management plan which focuses on four key asset groups: geodiversity, estuarine waters, biodiversity and people and management. Each asset chapter begins with a description of the asset and the asset’s values. This is followed by a description of the management issues relevant to the asset including information on key threats and recent management initiatives. Each asset chapter concludes with a section on management directions which includes a table of recommended management actions for the asset.
Many of the threats, issues and management actions detailed in each asset chapter are relevant across asset groups. Rather than repeat information, references are provided in text and in the form of ‘Links’ in the management action tables to direct the reader to relevant information in other chapters.
Following the four asset chapters the implementation chapter describes what will be required to effectively implement this plan, including the need to gain the support of the broader community, developing partnerships between stakeholders, leveraging investment, and undertaking monitoring and evaluation.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
10 2Geodiversity 2.1 Geodiversity – Description of the Asset Geodiversity is a vital component of all ecosystems. Geodiversity is “the range (or diversity) of geological (bedrock), geomorphological (landform) and soil features, assemblages, systems and processes” (Sharples 2002). These features, assemblages, systems and processes are the foundation on which all other natural values, including hydrological and biological values of the Estuary, are based.
In the Tamar Estuary, geodiversity includes features such as the Estuary’s physical form and structure, its sediments and soils, river banks, river bed, floodplains, mudflats, rocky outcrops and headlands, surrounding hills and embayments as well as the ongoing natural processes which create and maintain these features including glaciation, stream flow, tidal action and sediment transport and deposition.
2.1.1 Geology The geological diversity of the Tamar Estuary has evolved over hundreds of millions of years and is described below within the context of a geological time scale, beginning over 250 million years ago (m.y.a) with the oldest bedrock found in the Estuary and finishing with geological process that have occurred in the recent past and in some cases are continuing to occur.
Permian (~250-300 million years ago) Bedrock dating back to the Permian period is found at the upper end of West Arm (Permian mudstone and fossiliferous siltstone) and at Middle Arm (Permian mudstone and sandstone) (Blake and Cannell 2000).
Triassic (~205-250 million years ago) On the north shore of West Arm sandstone cliffs of the Triassic period are exposed (Blake and Cannell 2000).
Jurassic (~140-205 million years ago) Approximately 150 million years ago the igneous rock, dolerite, intruded into Permian and Triassic sandstone forming dykes and massive internal sills. As overlying sediments were eroded during the Tertiary period, these dolerite sills were exposed in many areas in Tasmania. This dolerite is one of the dominant rock types in the area, and forms many of the hills and ridges bordering the Estuary as well as the headlands at West Head, Low Head, Anchor Point and Shag Head (Blake and Cannell 2000).
Tertiary (~1.8-65 million years ago) The Tamar graben (a graben is a depressed block of the Earth’s crust that has been dropped between two parallel faults which then form surrounding mountain ranges) was formed during the Tertiary when large-scale block faulting and fracturing of the dolerite sills occurred. The Tamar Estuary lies within this sunken block which is bordered by the Western Tiers and Eastern Highlands and stretches from the Northern Midlands to Bass Strait (Blake and Cannell 2000, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Sedimentary rocks (sand, clays and gravels) of Tertiary age are common along the length of the Estuary. Outcrops of Tertiary basalt can be found on most foreshore promontories in the northern section of the Estuary, the result of lava flows during the Tertiary. Outcrops of basaltic dolerite (coarse grained basalt) occur in the middle section of the Estuary from Rowella to Windermere. In the past, some of these lava flows changed the course of the Tamar (Blake and Cannell 2000, Noble 1991).
Quaternary (present to ~1.8 million years ago) During the Quaternary, debris, known as talus, was carved by glaciers out of the surrounding landscape of basalt and sedimentary rocks and deposited in the Estuary. Dunes and beach ridges at the mouth of the Estuary are formed from Quaternary sands. Quaternary alluviums (clay, sand and gravel) and marsh deposits overlie Tertiary sediments on the foreshore south of Legana and in small patches along the length of the Estuary (Blake and Cannell 2000).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
11 2.1.2 Geomorphology In comparison to the geology of the Tamar region, the Estuary itself is relatively young and was formed following the last extensive global glaciation. Between 6500 and 13000 years ago, sea levels rose around 60 metres flooding what was previously a river channel and forming the Tamar Estuary (Edgar et al. 1999 and Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). Edgar et al.’s (1999) classification of Tasmanian estuaries rated the Tamar Estuary as of critical conservation significance, in part because it is the only mesotidal drowned river valley in Tasmania. Drowned river valleys are generally characterised by wide river mouths, rocky headlands and deep channels. Mesotidal refers to a moderate mean tidal range (e.g. between ~2m and 4m) (Edgar et al. 1999).
The Tamar Estuary currently extends in a northwest direction approximately 70km from the confluence of the North Esk and South Esk rivers at Launceston, to its mouth at Low Head where its waters enter Bass Strait (Figure 1.1). The Estuary follows a winding path from Launceston to the sea forming a number of C-shaped bends along its route and varying in width from less than 500m to approximately 3km. It reaches depths of approximately 45 metres in the lower reaches, but can be quite shallow in the upper reaches where sediments accumulate. In its lower reaches the Estuary branches out, forming several long embayments known as East Arm, Middle Arm and West Arm (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Tidal mudflats and wetlands border the Estuary in some areas while other sections of the foreshore are characterised by steeper slopes and rocky headlands. The landscape surrounding the Estuary consists of rolling hills, which reach heights of 150-250m and recede towards the Estuary’s mouth (Blake and Cannell 2000).
Over thousands of years the natural processes of sedimentation and erosion have continually modified the geomorphology of the Estuary. In more recent times human activities such as foreshore development, the introduction of rice grass, dredging and changes in catchment land use have resulted (directly and indirectly) in changes in the Estuary’s geomorphology. For example, in some sections of the Estuary the introduction of Spartina anglica (Rice grass) has, as intended, stabilised and raised mudflats and constrained channel movements. Whilst some of these changes may be considered beneficial they may also have undesired effects on the Estuary’s geomorphology and other natural values.
2.1.3 Soils The range of soil types found in the Estuary largely reflects the underlying geology. Soils derived from Tertiary sands, clays and gravels generally form yellow podzolic soils (also known as podosols). Generally podzolic soils are relatively infertile, generally very acidic (pH<5) and have poor soil structure and low organic levels making them prone to wind and water erosion. Podzolic soils also occur on windblown sand deposits near the coast which have poor soil structure, low moisture holding capacity, low fertility and are highly susceptible to erosion (Blake and Cannell 2000, Gill and Blake 2002, Noble 1991).
Soils forming on dolerite are generally grey-brown podzolics consisting of grey or grey brown sandy or silt loams over heavier clay subsoils. These soils vary in depth and may contain many stones and boulders throughout the profile. They are imperfectly drained, have slow permeability and are moderately acidic. On the riverbanks in the upper reaches of the Estuary, recent deposition of fine textured silt in low lying areas form saline gleyed soils (Blake and Cannell 2000, Gill and Blake 2002, Noble 1991).
The nature of the Estuary’s bed differs from the lower to upper reaches. In the lower reaches the bed appears to consist of marine sands, shingle and rock. These marine sands do not appear to extend beyond Whirlpool Reach, from which point the bed tends to consist of fine mud and is high in organic material (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
2.1.4 Sites of Geoconservation Significance With the exception of karst sites, there is very little data regarding the distribution and significance of geodiversity features and processes on private land. The geoconservation database (now incorporated into the Natural Values Atlas) that was compiled as part of the National Estate component of the Regional Forest Agreement mostly contains records from pre-existing inventories which were largely restricted to public land (Watchorn 2000).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
12 A search of the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) revealed 4 geoconservation features listed for the Tamar Estuary (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1): • Browns Bluff Eocene Plant Fossil Site • Middle Arm Fossil Site • Middle Arm Group Type Selection • West Arm Group Type Selection
Figure 2.1 Location of listed geoconservation sites in the Tamar Estuary (DPIW 2006b).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
13 Table 2.1 Geoconservation sites of the Tamar Estuary and foreshore listed in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (DPIW 2006b). A sensitivity score of 3 indicates values sensitive to damage by scientific or hobby collecting or sampling, or by deliberate vandalism or theft. A sensitivity score of 9 indicates values sensitive only to very large scale contour change.
Significance Site Description Site Significance Sensitivity Level Browns Bluff is located near Legana on the foreshore of the Estuary. The Browns site contains a number of Early Eocene Bluff (34-55 m.y.a.) macrofossils including Eocene Representative Regional 3 a variety of conifers and angiosperms. Plant Fossil The site contains the best preserved Site plant macrofossils of any site of this age known from Northern Tasmania.
Located at a quarry adjacent to the shore of Middle Arm is this feature of siltstone with dropstones overlain by very fossilerous limestone. Type locality Middle Arm of a Permian faunal stage. Fossils were Outstanding Tasmania 3 Fossil Site collected by Robert Brown, naturalist on Matthew Flinders’ vessel ‘Investigator’. They were the first Australian fossils formerly described and include the type species of the genus Trigonotreta.
Located on the northern shores of Middle Arm is this type section of the Middle Arm West Arm Group comprising sandstone, Group Type Representative Regional 9 siltstone and minor conglomerate, Selection rich in worm markings but otherwise unfossiliferous
Located on the northern shores of West Arm West Arm is this type section of Group Type fossiliferous and pebbly siltstone, Representative Regional 9 Selection calcareous siltstone and limestone of the West Arm Group.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
14 2.2 Managing Geodiversity – Threats and Priority Issues This section outlines the key issues that present a threat to the geodiversity values of the Tamar Estuary. These issues and threats have been identified from the existing literature and during consultation with key stakeholders and the general public.
Four of the key threats/issues that affect Geodiversity are discussed in detail in this section: • Sedimentation and dredging; • Heavy metal contamination; • land reclamation and drainage; and • Foreshore erosion. In addition there are a number of threats and priority issues discussed in other chapters which may impact upon geodiversity. For example, development of foreshore buildings and structures (Chapter 4) can permanently alter the Estuary’s geomorphology, interfere with sediment transport, alter wave energy flows and have impacts associated with construction such as erosion and sediment discharge.
In some instances infestations of weeds and pests (Chapter 4) can have significant impacts on geodiversity. In particular, extensive infestations of the weed rice grass in intertidal areas has altered sediment dynamics and hydrology in the Estuary by accreting large amounts of sediments and thereby changing the course and dynamics of the water flow. Changes in the freshwater flow regime will also impact upon sediment dynamics (Chapter 3).
Climate change (Chapter 4) is likely to impact the Estuary’s geodiversity in two main ways: rising sea levels will flood low lying areas thereby changing the geomorphology of the Estuary; and modified catchment rainfall patterns which may result in changes to flow regimes and have consequent effects on sediment dynamics, geomorphology and soils.
2.2.1 Sedimentation and Dredging Sedimentation is a major concern in the upper reaches of the Estuary, where dredging has been undertaken since 1890 to provide for flood protection, recreational amenity, general navigation and commercial activities. Over thousands of years the natural evolution of drowned river valleys such as the Tamar Estuary is to infill and eventually become alluvial plains and deltas. Human activities in the upper catchments of the Estuary and urban development in and around the city of Launceston have dramatically altered the pre-European landscape of the Tamar Estuary. This has consequently altered the hydrological regime and geomorphological processes governing the Estuary including the acceleration of natural processes such as sedimentation and erosion.
A recent study investigating sedimentation rates in the Tamar Estuary found that the rate of sedimentation can range from 0.33 to 3.3 cm/year depending on the exact location sampled. The highest rate was recorded in a relatively deep and saline part of the Estuary, at Home Reach, near Kings Wharf. At this rate it was estimated that the basin at Home Reach would completely infill in 300 years (Armstrong 2005).
Two main processes control the accretion of sediments in the upper Tamar Estuary. The first is the input of fresh sediments to the Estuary through freshwater flows from the South Esk and North Esk rivers. Foster (1986 cited in Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997) estimated that the sediment discharge from the South Esk to the Tamar Estuary between 1924 an 1979 was an average of 39 300 tonnes per year with higher loads being discharged in wetter years. Sediment loads from the North Esk have been estimated at 3550 to 4700 tonnes per year (Skirving 1986 cited in Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
The second process which controls sediment build-up in the Estuary is the movement of stored sediment by river flows and tides. Major floods flush sediments from the upper Tamar (through scouring) to the lower reaches of the Estuary, but during periods of low river flow, tidal action returns this sediment to the upper reaches.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
15 The Trevallyn Dam on the South Esk River acts as a sediment trap, reducing the amount of sediment entering the Estuary, however during floods the relatively small reservoir of the dam does not have the capacity to significantly affect flows or the movement of suspended sediment (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). The South Esk – Great Lake Water Management Review: Scientific Report on Tamar Siltation(Hydro Tasmania 2003b) investigated the potential to modify the operation of the Trevallyn Power Station to further reduce the amount of sediment entering the Estuary. It concluded that such modification in the operation of the power station could reduce siltation in the Home Reach area by an estimated 8000m3 per annum but would present a significant cost and may not be economically feasible.
Dredging has been conducted in the Estuary since 1890. Initially dredging was conducted to maintain sufficient depth and channel width for navigational purposes. Extensive dredging of the main channel for this purpose was discontinued in 1965, as the need for large ships to use the upper reaches of the river was reduced due to the relocation of the primary port facilities from Launceston to Bell Bay and the development of road and rail links (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). Since the 1960s dredging has been primarily undertaken in the Home Reach area to reduce the risk of flooding to Launceston and to reverse the effects sedimentation has on the aesthetic and recreational uses of the Estuary (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). Dredging in the upper reaches of the Estuary is managed by the Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority (UTRIA) under the Local Government Act 1993. Currently the Launceston City Council, through the Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority (UTRIA), fund in partnership with the State Government a dredging program to remove approximately 30,000 cubic meters of silt from the Home Reach area each year (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
A number of environmental issues are associated with dredging and dredge spoil disposal. These issues affect the Tamar Estuary to varying degrees, however a lack of data and research in this area means the effect of dredging in the Estuary is not fully understood. Issues of concern include: • the remobilisation of contaminants, including heavy metals, from previously relatively stable bottom sediments and associated potential impacts on the ecosystem, marine farming and fishing; • exposure of marine life to previously stable anoxic sediment layers through disturbance of overlying sediments; • disturbance or destruction of intertidal and seabed habitat as a direct result of dredging or indirectly due to increased turbidity; • changes in the morphology and bathymetry of the seabed and intertidal areas and possible consequential changes in wave energy and circulation; • removal of natural materials such as sand, shell or shingle resulting in changes in particle size distribution; • impacts on sediment transport processes and possible consequences for shoreline stability; • seepage of contaminated water from dredge spoil disposed of adjacent to a water body; and • possible adverse effects on flora and fauna at deposition sites including smothering of organisms, disturbance of fish spawning grounds, spread of introduced species and alteration of sediment transport processes (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997, Watchhorn 2000).
A number of studies have been and are currently being conducted to investigate sedimentation and sediment dynamics in the Estuary. These include: • research supervised by Associate Professor Brian Jones, University of Wollongong including the honours thesis “Holocene Sedimentation and Heavy Metal Contamination in the Industrialised Tamar River Estuary, Tasmania” (Armstong 2005); • a sediment modelling study funded by NRM North to investigate the causes of excessive siltation of the Tamar Estuary. This study will include investigating the processes, causes and fate of sediment in the Tamar Catchment enabling more resource efficient targeted management; and • development of a hydrodynamic model of the Estuary for the Launceston City Council.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
16 2.2.2 Heavy Metal Contamination Some sediments in the Tamar Estuary have been found to have high levels of heavy metal contamination, most notably those in close proximity to industrial areas at Middle Arm, Bell Bay (particularly Deceitful Cove) and near Launceston (Armstrong 2005, Wood 2002, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Some heavy metals, particularly cadmium, zinc, copper, lead and mercury are toxic to aquatic organisms if they exceed certain levels. Sediments in contaminated areas tend to accumulate high levels of heavy metals because heavy metals have a strong affinity with particulate material. Metals in solution tend to be quite transient, therefore the concentrations of heavy metals in sediments, plants and animals are considered better indicators of heavy metal pollution. However, generally metals in solution are more bio-available than metals bound to particulate material and therefore more likely to enter the food chain and cause harm to living organisms. An example of this is how filter feeders accumulate toxins due to the filtering of large amounts of contaminated water, oysters are of particular concern and can accumulate particularly high levels of toxins which can cause vomiting in humans if consumed (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Numerous studies have found elevated levels of metals in the sediments of the Estuary. For example Armstrong (2005) found surface levels of gold, mercury, copper, zinc and arsenic at Middle Arm far exceeded ANZECC guidelines and lead levels were highly elevated compared to background levels. Elevated levels (compared to background levels) of copper, mercury, lead and zinc were also recorded at Bell Bay, West Arm, East Arm and in the Launceston area (Armstrong 2005). The draft State of the Tamar Estuary Report (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006) compiled the results from 5 studies undertaken between 1974 and 2002. Of most concern were concentrations above the ANZECC guidelines upper threshold for arsenic and copper at Middle Arm and lead and zinc at Deceitful Cove. Values above this threshold represent a probable-effects range in which biological effects would be expected to frequently occur. Many other sites were found to have concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper and zinc which exceeded or were very close to the lower threshold which represents a probable-effects concentration above which biological effects would possible occur (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
Throughout the Estuary, from Rosevears to Low Head, concentrations of arsenic, chromium, lead, zinc and selenium in inter-tidal oysters have been recorded above standard levels for food consumption although metal concentrations in the majority of pelagic and benthic fin-fish sampled were within acceptable levels (Wood 2002). Wood hypothesised that metals are transported throughout the Estuary in a fresher surface layer of water during flooding. This is supported by the fact that oysters grown sub-tidally on floating frames remain uncontaminated while nearby inter-tidal oysters are highly contaminated. Higher levels of metals will be sequestered in years of intense flooding, particularly by inter- tidal filter feeders which are bathed in particulate-rich waters (Wood 2002).
Sampling of metals in the water column undertaken as part of the State and local government monitoring program found total aluminium, copper, iron, manganese, lead and zinc all exceeded the recommended Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZGFMWQ) default trigger values, but only dissolved aluminium and iron (bio-available) were on occasion above the default trigger values (G. Dowson pers. comm. 2006).
Sources of heavy metal contamination in the Estuary include: • Historical mining sources (e.g. tin and tungsten mining in the upper South Esk catchment; • Historical metal processing sources; • leaching from natural lodes (lodes refer to deposits in natural veins and fractures within rock formations); • Accumulation of metals in the sediments as a result of leaching from natural lodes; • Agricultural and urban run-off; and • Inputs from current activities including industry and wastewater treatment facilities (Wood 2002). Cadmium sources in the Tamar are thought to come from historic tin and tungsten mining in the upper South Esk catchment and possibly from previous industrial activity, urban runoff and sewage. Likewise zinc in the Tamar is thought to result from anthropogenic sources including mining activity, metallurgical processes, wood combustion, waste incineration, urban run-off and municipal waste water (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Management actions in respect to heavy metal contamination are included in the Estuarine Waters chapter.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
17 2.2.3 Land Reclamation and Drainage Reclamation refers to two processes which result in the extension of land areas: progressive infilling from the shoreline or the erection of structures to contain the area of the reclamation which is then drained and infilled. Drainage differs from reclamation as the drained area is not infilled. Reclamation has occurred in the Tamar Estuary to provide land for ports, roads, recreation and residential areas (Watchorn 2000). For example the Tamar Yacht Club, Royal Park and the Old Launceston Seaport were all constructed on reclaimed land and historically many low-lying areas and wetlands at the heads of bays were filled and used as tips (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
The natural values of the Estuary may be impacted by land reclamation or drainage in a number of ways: • the permanent loss of intertidal and/or aquatic habitat; • impacts during construction such as sediment (and/or contaminant) discharge; • possible restriction of flushing (e.g. by causeways) with subsequent adverse effects on water quality; • alteration of the shoreline and subsequent alteration of sediment transport processes (onshore, offshore and along shore), wave energy, tidal flows, salinity and microclimate; and • the possibility of acid drainage from reclaimed or drained intertidal areas (Watchorn 2000). There are a number of legislative controls and policy documents which govern land reclamation and drainage activities in the Tamar Estuary. Under the Crown Land Act 1976 no person is allowed to reclaim any land below the high water mark unless the land is bought, or leased from the Crown or the Crown grants a license. In addition the proponent also needs approval from the local Council as well as authorisation from Marine Resources (DPIW) to meet the requirements of the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995. Also any land reserved under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 would require permits from the Parks and Wildlife Service prior to work commencing. The State Coastal Policy 2007 and the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 also both apply to land reclamation and drainage activities in the Tamar Estuary.
Acid sulphate soils have been identified at the Tamar Island Wetlands area within the Estuary. Reconnaissance surveys undertaken by Gurung in 2001 indicate that there may also be other areas within the Estuary that could be affected by acid sulphate soils (Gurung 2001). Acid sulphate soils are considered a management issue for the Estuary as oxidation of the soils can lead to acid drainage. As acid can dissolve and mobilise toxic metals released from the clay minerals in the sediment, acid drainage could result in serious damage to the aquatic ecosystem and the death of some of the aquatic life in the wetlands. A proposal to drain a number of lagoons in the wetlands was brought to the attention of management authorities in 2006 as a means to control the pest fish Gambusia in the Estuary. Due to the risk associated with acid drainage of the area, this proposal will not be able to proceed until further testing of the site can inform appropriate management recommendations for the area.
Since this time the Tamar Island Wetlands has been recognised at a national level as a site containing acid sulphate soils. A national case study for the site has been established by the Australian Government and CSIRO in partnership with the Tasmanian Government. The case study project will collect chemical data and display soil profiles for the site which can be compared to other case studies in Australia via an online resource; the Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS). It is expected that management recommendations for the acid sulphate soils occurring at the Wetlands will be included in an overarching management plan to be developed over the next few years by the Parks and Wildlife Service for the Tamar Island Wetlands, additionally funding has recently been sought to develop management guidelines for acid sulphate soils at a statewide level (R. Moreton, pers. comm. 2007).
Management recommendations and guidelines addressing land reclamation and drainage were developed as part of the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan (Watchorn 2000) and accompanying Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore, but to date many of these recommendations have not been implemented. The current revision of the planning schemes of the West Tamar, Launceston and George Town Councils presents a good opportunity to incorporate and implement the relevant recommendations.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
18 2.2.4 Foreshore Erosion Erosion is a naturally occurring process; however human activities can increase rates of erosion to levels which can cause significant environmental problems including the collapse of riverbanks, the loss of foreshore vegetation and downstream siltation/sedimentation which can result in detrimental impacts on aquatic habitats (Gill and Blake 2002).
Much of the Tamar Estuary is lined with silty sediments that leave the riverbanks vulnerable to erosion. A preliminary estimation of riverbank erosion within the Tamar Estuary (Gill and Blake 2002) documented signs of erosion throughout the Estuary and noted significant sections of bank collapse and undercutting of riparian vegetation. Human activities that may have caused or exacerbated such erosion include land clearing, foreshore grazing, development of foreshore structures such as jetties, and the wakes of high speed watercraft. However the relative contribution of these activities and natural causes, such as wind, has not been quantified in the Tamar Estuary.
DPIW has produced a guide to low wave wake, Wake up? Slow Down, which explains how and why boats can cause erosion problems and what can be done to minimise the damage. A second document, What is Wave Wake, provides further information. Both of these documents are available on the DPIW website.
2.3 Summary of Geodiversity The geodiversity of the Tamar Estuary, its geology, geomorphology and soils, has great intrinsic value. Geodiversity is also of critical ecological value as an inextricable component of the ecosystem.
The natural evolution of drowned river valleys is to gradually infill with sediment eventually becoming alluvial plains and deltas. Human activities have accelerated this process in the Tamar Estuary resulting in the need to dredge the upper reaches of the Estuary initially to maintain navigational channels and more recently to reduce the risk of flooding to Launceston and maintain aesthetics and recreational amenity. Metal contamination of sediments in some sections of the Estuary further complicates management of this issue and presents a threat to the health of the entire ecosystem.
A general lack of knowledge regarding the hydrodynamics of the Tamar Estuary has impeded effective management of issues associated with geomorphological processes, such as sedimentation and dredging. A hydrodynamic model for the Upper Tamar Estuary is currently being developed for the Launceston City Council. It is planned that the calibrated model will be used to study the impacts of options for waste water treatment plants on water quality, changes in flow regimes on hydrodynamics, sediment movement and water quality, dredging regime optimisation, and the impacts of major floods on scour depth and water surface profiles (UTRIA 2006). This model with appropriate further investment has the potential to considerably improve our understanding of the processes governing the Estuary. Another project to undertake sediment modelling within the Tamar Catchment has been proposed by NRM North. This project will aim to fill another large information gap by improving our understanding of the sources of sediment entering the Estuary which will assist land managers to develop a targeted strategy to manage sediment input into rivers.
Much public and political interest in the Tamar Estuary in recent years has been focused around the issues of sedimentation and heavy metal contamination. Various studies and the continued debate regarding alternative options to dredging of the Estuary demonstrate that there is no ‘quick fix’ for this issue. Further studies and research into the hydrodynamics and geomorphological processes affecting the Estuary will be required before realistic alternatives to dredging of the Estuary can be proposed and implemented.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
19 2.4 Management Directions This section presents recommended management actions to maintain and enhance the geodiversity values of the Estuary. These actions primarily focus on the issues and threats discussed above. It is important to recognise that geodiversity does not exist in isolation from other natural values in the Estuary. To successfully manage geodiversity, there must also be adequate management of the ecosystem as a whole including biodiversity, estuarine waters and people and management. It is therefore important to note that management actions listed below are intended to be read and implemented together with those presented in Asset Chapters 3, 4 and 5. To assist with identification of actions which complement each other across asset categories, a ‘Link’ to other relevant actions has been provided within the action description. All actions have been prioritised and have been ranked from a Very Low (VL) priority to a Very High (VH) priority.
Priority Ranking Key:
VH = Very High priority H = High priority M = Medium priority l = low priority VL = Very Low priority
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
20 Priority Ranking H H H H VH H H M CC, TC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, G TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA CC CC Lead Organisation & Partners L NRM North, DPIW, Hydro NRM North, L G NRM North, L G DEPHA, NRM North, L WTC, G NRM North, L G L DEPHA, UTRIA, NRM North, L Timeframe 2009 2011 2011 2011 2011 2013 2009 2013 ink L aunceston City Council ink E8) L ink B37, E38)ink B37, L aunceston City Council commissioned report ink E20, E21) L , SEMF 2002) into alternative options for dredge spoil disposal. ink E1). L ink E1, B2) L Tamar River Silt Disposal Recommended Management Actions Management Recommended Investigate further applications and limitations of the L hydrodynamic model (e.g. to model the impact of pollution inputs, sediment transport,scour during flood events etc). Promote the hydrodynamic model to key stakeholders. Assess the need for further research/modelling. ( Support the implementation of Sediment Modelling undertaken by NRM North to determine point sources of sediment input in the Tamar Catchment. Use the findings of the Sediment Modelling to determine priorities for management to reduce the input of sediment into the South Esk River. Investigate the feasibility of extending the model to cover the North Esk catchment. ( Expand the Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring and Archiving project (TASMARC) to monitorshoreline position in the Tamar Estuary. ( Support the development and use of an indicator to monitor sediment movement in the Tamar Estuary. ( Update DEPHA’s guidelines for preparing Development Proposals and Environmental Management Plans (DPEMP’s) for dredging activities and investigate the feasibilityrequiring of a sediment budget survey where dredging/reclamation will occur. Evaluateeffects of dredging and flooding in regard to metal contamination and ecosystem impacts. ( Investigate best practice dredging and alternative options to dredging. Support thedevelopment of a state-wide code of practice or guidelines for dredging (this must take economic feasibility into account). In the interim promote the use of the dredging guidelines in the Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore 2000. ( Promote report to other dredging proponents. P23, E8) Implement recommendations of the L ( G 1 Code G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G 8 is a major issue of Threat/Issue Lack of understanding of estuarine geomorphology Sedimentation concern in the Estuary but the sources of sediment and sedimentation dynamics are still not fully understood. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal can result in a range of negative impacts on natural values Table 2.2 ManagementTable Actions for Geodiversity
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
21 H H Priority Ranking VH H H H H CC, CC, CC, AC S L L TC TC TC PWS, DEPHA, C PWS, DEPHA, C Lead Organisation & Partners Tamar NRM, PWS, Community groups, L WTC, G NRM North, PWS, L WTC, G DPIW NRM, DEPHA, PWS, L WTC, G PWS, DEPHA, DPIW 2011 ongoing Timeframe ongoing 2009 2009 2013 2009 uidelines for ink B10, B9) L 13). ink G L species as well as sub-aquatic plants such as reeds. Strategies 14) ink G L ink P20) L 16, B14, P23) ink G L Recommended Management Actions Management Recommended Raise community awareness regarding the illegal nature of channelling and excavation of the Estuary’s banks and the negative impact this can have on the Estuary’s naturalvalues. ( Maintain and improve native vegetation on river banks, particularly dense rooted nativessuch as Leptospermum may include promoting planting as an effective erosion control measure and encouraging landholders and community groups to plant more riparian buffer strips. ( Support resourcing of enforcement of legislation to prevent illegal channelling and excavation of the Estuary banks. Promote the use of the Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore 2000when planning development of riverbank structures to ensure potential erosion problems are avoided (e.g. ensure all current and new planning staff are made aware of the report). ( Formally investigate/research the causes and impacts of bank erosion in the Estuary. Thisinvestigation should aim to assess the relative contribution of all factors (e.g. wind,level sea rise, boat wake etc.) and propose recommendations/options to mitigate and prevent bank erosion. ( Undertake a survey to identify bank erosion sites in the Estuary and prioritise areasmanagement. for Seek funding and support for undertaking erosion mitigation and controlmeasures at priority sites. ( Undertake a desktop study to prepare a Code of Practice or Best Practice G bank erosion mitigation measures and promote to key stakeholders. 11 13 15 G 9 G 10 G Code G 12 G G 14 G Threat/Issue Illegalchannelling and excavation of the Estuary banks Erosion of the banks due to human activities and natural processes
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
22 Priority Ranking H H H H M M S L CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, NRM TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC, DEPHA, PWS CC, WTC, G Lead Organisation & Partners L PWS, DEPHA, C DEPHA NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, L G Timeframe 2009 ongoing ongoing 2013 2011 2011 ink P20) L 12, P23) ink B19, G L ( Recommended Management Actions Management Recommended Promote the use of the guidelines for reclamation and drainage in the Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore 2000. Raise awareness in the community regarding illegal reclamation and drainage practicesand the negative impact this can have on the Estuary’s natural values. ( Support the enforcement of legislation where illegal reclamation and drainage occurs. Develop and implement management prescriptions for geoconservation values of significance (including processes) and monitor to determine the effectiveness of management practices. Initiate and support a process to identify other areas of high geoconservation value occurring in the Estuary (e.g. Whirlpool Reach has been suggested as a feature that may warrant recognition). Raise awareness amongst land managers and the public about geoconservation issues including installing interpretative signs at significant features. 17 19 G 16 Code G G 18 G G 20 G 21 Threat/Issue Land reclamation and drainage permanently modifies estuary geomorphology and habitat and can also have negative impacts associated with sediment discharge and changes in hydrodynamic processes Geoconservation – there is a lack of understanding, awareness and protection of geodiversity values
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
23 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
24 3Estuarine Waters 3.1 Estuarine Waters - Description of the Asset The waters of the Tamar Estuary are formed at Launceston by the confluence of the South Esk and North Esk rivers. The Estuary and its tributaries drain the largest catchment area in Tasmania, an area of approximately 10 000 km2, roughly one fifth of Tasmania’s land mass (Figure 3.1). The majority of this area is within the South Esk Basin (~8 900km2) which extends past Deloraine to the west, well past Ross to the south and just past St Marys to the east. The South Esk Basin includes the Meander, Brumbys - Lake, Macquarie and South Esk catchments. The North Esk basin occupies a much smaller area to the east of Launceston and makes up a further 500-600km2 of the total catchment area. Water is also diverted into the South Esk Basin from the Great Lake catchment which is located to the west in the Central Plateau region. The Tamar’s total catchment area is dominated by agricultural (52%) and forestry (37%) land uses while the bulk of urban and industrial uses are concentrated near the Estuary’s foreshore (DPIWE 2005, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
The Estuary is tidal for its entire length, to the First Basin on the South Esk River and to St Leonards on the North Esk River. There are generally two tides per day of approximately equal magnitude (semi-diurnal). The Estuary is mesotidal, having a moderate mean tidal range (e.g. between ~2m and 4m). The tidal range increases from 2.34 metres at George Town to 3.25 metres at Launceston.
Salinity levels in the Estuary decrease from the Heads, where it is essentially seawater, upstream to Launceston where the water is normally brackish but may be completely fresh during high flows. Water temperature ranges from around 10°C in winter to 20°C in summer and pH ranges from approximately 6 to 7 in the upper reaches to 8 in the region below Batman Bridge (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
25 Figure 3.1 The six catchments which drain into the Tamar Estuary. Water is diverted from the Great Lake catchment into the Brumbys - Lake Catchment to power the Poatina Power Station.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
26 3.1.1 Freshwater Inputs and Uses The South Esk River is the main source of freshwater flows and sediment to the Tamar Estuary. The South Esk River is the longest river in Tasmania (214km) and delivers mean annual flows of approximately 70 cubic metres per second (cumecs, one cumec equals 1 000 litres) to the Estuary. Mean annual flows from the North Esk River are thought to be approximately 10 cumecs. Land use in the catchments of these two rivers is dominated by agriculture and forestry (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997, Bobbi et al 1996, Wilson et al 2003).
Other freshwater inputs into the Estuary are relatively minor and include groundwater inputs and a number of rivers and creeks along the Estuary including the Supply River, Stony Creek, Lady Nelson Creek, Barnards Creek and Egg Island Creek (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Flows from the South Esk River into the Tamar are greatly influenced by the operation of two power stations run by Hydro Tasmania. The Trevallyn Dam intercepts the flow of the South Esk River approximately 5km upstream from its confluence with the Estuary. Water is diverted from the dam to the Trevallyn Power Station to generate hydro-electric power. In dry conditions, the majority of flows from the South Esk enter the Estuary via the power station at Ti-Tree Bend rather than via the Cataract Gorge. (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). Following a review in 2003 Hydro Tasmania increased the environmental flow at Cataract Gorge from 0.43 to 1.5 cubic metres per second to increase habitat for aquatic biota and improve water quality, amenity and aesthetics (Hydro Tasmania 2003a).
To enable the operation of the Poatina Power Station, in the Central Plateau region, flows in the South Esk River are significantly increased by water which is diverted from the Great Lake catchment into the South Esk Basin, (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
In addition, large quantities of water is used for irrigation purposes in the Tamar Estuary’s catchments (Table 3.1). Water may be extracted directly from rivers and streams or held within storages. Storages in the Macquarie catchment at Tooms Lake, Lake Leake and Woods Lake are used to supplement summer flows for irrigation purposes (Bobbi et al 1996).
Table 3.1 Water allocated to irrigation in 2004 and 2005 for four of the six catchments which drain into the Tamar Estuary. Source: Waterways Monitoring Reports 2004/2005 (DPIW 2006d)
Allocation for Irrigation (ML) Catchment 2004 2005 South Esk 28 756 42 627
Macquarie 88 329 110 515
North Esk 2 014 2 559 Meander 13 207 45 499 Total 132 306 201 200
Under the Northern Regional Water Arrangements Act 1997, Esk Water has the responsibility for the collection, treatment and supply of bulk water to Launceston City, George Town, West Tamar and Meander Valley Councils as well as major industries in the Launceston and Tamar Valley region. There are four main treatment plants in the area which draw water from weirs and dams on tributaries of Tamar Estuary: Chimney Saddle Treatment Plant draws water from the North Esk River at Watery Plains; the Distillery Creek Treatment Plant draws water that is diverted from St Patricks River to Distillery Creek; and the Reatta Road and Mt Leslie Treatment Plants draw water from the Trevallyn Dam located on the South Esk River. In addition the Bell Bay Treatment Plant draws water from the Curries River Dam which is outside the Tamar Estuary’s catchment. Esk Water supplies approximately 15 000 ML of water to Councils and industry each year (DPIWE 2005 and Esk Water 2005).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
27 3.1.2 Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) are the current values and uses of a water body for which water quality should be protected. Under the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 PEVs must be set for all Tasmanian surface waters including estuaries and coastal waters. PEVs were set for the Tamar Estuary between 2001 and 2005 and are documented in the report Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters: Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchments (DPIWE 2005).
PEVs identified for estuarine waters within the catchment fall into three categories: • A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems, • B: Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetics and • E: Industrial Water Supply.
Table 3.2 Excerpt from “Table 2: PEVs for the Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchment” in Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters: Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchments (DPIWE 2005)
Land Tenure Protected Environmental Values
Estuarine A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems Waters excluding (ii) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems Deceitful Cove a. from which edible fish and crustacea are harvested but not shellfish except where permitted by Marine Farming Licences under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995
B: Recreational Water Quality & Aesthetics
(i) Primary contact water quality (where permitted)
(ii) Secondary contact water quality
(iii) Aesthetic water quality
E: Industrial Water Supply (Aquaculture in Marine Farming Zones and existing marine farming licences issued pursuant to the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995, Gunns Ltd and Bell Bay Power Station)
That is, as a minimum, water quality management strategies should seek to provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support modified, but healthy aquatic ecosystems from which edible fish and crustacea may be harvested but not shellfish except where permitted by Marine Farming Licences under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995; which will allow people to safely engage in recreation activities such as swimming (where permitted), paddling and fishing in aesthetically pleasing waters and which is suitable to support Aquaculture in Marine Farming Zones and existing marine farming licences issued pursuant to the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995, Gunns Ltd sawmill operations and cooling in Bell Bay Power Station.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
28 The Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control is responsible for determining water quality objectives which will maintain or enhance water quality to ensure the protection of PEVs. Management of all surface waters within the catchment should focus on the achievement of these water quality objectives. However, to date water quality objectives have not been determined for the Tamar Estuary and there is no timeframe in place for this to occur.
Estuarine water uses listed under industrial water supply include marine farming which is regulated by the Department of Primary Industries and Water under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 and the Marine Farming Planning Act 1995. Unless a license previously existed, marine farming may only occur in areas designated in marine farming development plans and all operations must be licensed and comply with environmental conditions. A marine farming development plan was developed for the Tamar Estuary in 2000 (Inspiring Place 2000) which proposed two zones for marine farm development in the Tamar Estuary. The first covers an area of approximately 13.41 hectares on the western side of Long Reach and the second is located at Inspection Head Wharf covering an area of approximately 1.56 hectares (Inspiring Place 2000). There is currently an Atlantic salmon and ocean trout farm operating in the Long Reach area. A land based marine farm operates on the Inspection Head Wharf which extracts water from the Estuary for the farming of seahorses. Another land based marine farm producing abalone exists at Garden Island (opposite George Town).
3.2 Managing Estuarine Waters – Threats and Priority Issues This section outlines the key issues that present a threat to the Tamar Estuary’s waters. These issues and threats have been identified from the existing literature and during consultation with key stakeholders and the general public.
Two threats or priority issues are discussed in detail in this section: • Water quality; and • Changes in freshwater flow regimes. A number of issues and threats discussed in other chapters can also impact on freshwater flows and water quality. Freshwater flows from the South Esk and North Esk rivers carry sediment which accumulates in the Estuary (Chapter 2). Modification of flow regimes and changes in water quality in respect to sediment loads will impact upon sedimentation dynamics in the Estuary. Water quality within the Estuary may also be affected by dredging activities which may remobilise contaminants contained within sediments, increase turbidity and potentially impact upon wave energy and circulation (Chapter 2).
Foreshore erosion (Chapter 2) can result in increased turbidity and downstream sedimentation. Heavy metal contamination of sediments (Chapter 2) represents both a sink and source of heavy metals in the water column. Estuarine waters may also be impacted on in a number of ways by land reclamation and drainage (Chapter 2) including: sediment discharges during construction; restrictions of flushing; changes in wave energy, tidal flows and salinity; and acid drainage from reclaimed intertidal areas. Development of foreshore buildings and structures (Chapter 4) can have similar impacts including sediment discharge during construction and alteration of wave energy flows.
Climate change (Chapter 4) will impact upon the Estuary’s waters in three main ways: increased water temperature; modified rainfall patterns and subsequent changes to salinity levels and freshwater flows including the transport of nutrients, sediments and contaminants; and sea level rise resulting in flooding of low lying areas.
3.2.1 Water Quality Modification of the Tamar Estuary’s catchment for mining, urban development, industrial uses, hydro-electric dams, forestry and agriculture has resulted in a number of water quality impacts within the Estuary. Water quality issues are of particular concern in the upper reaches near Launceston and near major industrial and mining areas (RPDC 2003, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Edgar et al. (1999) calculated a ‘naturalness index’ for estuaries around Tasmania which indicates the extent of anthropogenic change (land clearing and urbanisation) in the estuaries’ drainage area and catchment. Using this index 28 catchments were classified as pristine, 7 as natural, 9 as low impact, 20 as moderate impact and 17 as high impact. The Tamar Estuary’s catchment and drainage area were both classified as moderately impacted.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
29 There are a range of water contaminants found in the Tamar Estuary including pathogens (as indicated by faecal bacteria), hydrocarbons (such as fuel oil and diesel), heavy metals (such as zinc and lead), and other pollutants such as fluoride, cyanide and phenols. Inputs of sediments, organic matter and nutrients can also result in water quality issues (RPDC 2003, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Sources of contaminants Contaminants enter the Estuary from a variety of sources. The main point sources include current and historical emissions from industry, mining and waste water treatment plants. Current industrial sources along the Estuary include two woodchip mills at Long Reach (Gunns Ltd) and two metal processing plants at Bell Bay (TEMCO and Rio Tinto Aluminium, Bell Bay Limited). Historically tin smelters, foundries, railway yards, ship yards, docks, tanneries, textile industries, fellmongers and abattoirs have also been sources of pollutants but most of these industries either no longer exist or now discharge into waste water treatment plants (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006, RPDC 2003 and Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Mining activities including the dumping of tailings and ongoing acid mine drainage are another significant source of contaminants. Mining sources include the Beaconsfield gold mine (which has operated intermittently for more than a century) and mining in the South Esk catchment at the Storeys Creek and Rossarden Aberfoyle tin and wolfram mines. The latter two mines, which operated between 1892 and 1982, are generally regarded as the source of high metal levels in the South Esk River (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006, RPDC 2003 and Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997).
Ten wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) exist in the Tamar Valley which are operated by the Launceston City (4), West Tamar (5) and George Town (1) councils. Seven of these plants discharge treated effluent directly into the Tamar or into tributaries in very close proximity to the Tamar. Since 2003/2004, the other three treatment plants operated by West Tamar Council began recycling all their waste water for irrigation of agricultural land and golf courses. Some water is also recycled from the Riverside WWTP to irrigate a golf course during summer (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). Despite these efforts at recycling the combined total daily flow discharge into the Tamar has increased substantially since 1996 from approximately 40 000 KL to over 68 000 KL in 2005. Consequently the combined annual loads of total suspended sediments, ammonia, nitrogen and faecal coliforms discharged into the Tamar has increased substantially (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). Contaminants entering the Estuary from the North and South Esk Rivers from other WWTPs operated by the Meander Valley and Northern Midlands Council’s are also likely to be contributing to contaminant loads entering the Estuary however as these WWTPs do not discharge treated effluent directly into the Tamar Estuary or in close proximity they fall outside the scope of this Plan to address.
There are also many diffuse sources which contribute contaminants to the Estuary. Stormwater and urban runoff is likely to be a significant diffuse source of contaminants to the Estuary and include suspended solids, nutrients, organic matter, bacteria, litter washed off roofs, streets, parks and gardens as well as high concentrations of metals such as lead, zinc and copper associated with the use of motor vehicles. In areas with a history of heavy industry, concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and chromium may be significant sources of pollutants to the Estuary (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997). The draft State of the Tamar Estuary report (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006) notes a lack of stormwater quality data in the region. Runoff from agricultural and forestry areas in the North and South Esk catchments is a further source of sediments, nutrients and pesticides to the Estuary, particularly from areas where riparian vegetation is damaged and stock have direct access to waterways or where pesticide use occurs too close to waterways (Koehnken 2001, Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
Leaching from septic systems may also have localised effects on water quality. It is estimated that 3600 dwellings in the George Town and West Tamar municipalities are not connected to the main sewerage systems. These dwellings rely on a range of wastewater treatment options. Generally it is the older septic systems which may leach sewage into the Estuary although such inputs are difficult to quantify (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). The direct discharge of sewage and other boat wastes from recreational vessels is another source of contaminants in the Estuary.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
30 Other sources of contaminants include: • leachates, surface runoff and windblown rubbish from refuse disposal sites, contaminated sites and industrial landfills/stockpiles; • contaminants including heavy metals (see Section 2.2) within the Estuary’s sediments and in dredge spoils dumped adjacent to the Estuary; • poorly managed wastes from marine farming operations including uneaten feed, faecal waste and soluble wastes; and • atmospheric inputs from sources such as vehicle, industry and wood heater emissions. These inputs are largely unquantified but may be a significant source of contaminants including ammonia, nitrate, lead, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and fluoride (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997)
There have been no major oil or chemical spills in the Tamar since the grounding of the Iron Baron on Hebe Reef in 1995 resulted in the spilling of approximately 300 tonnes of oil. This spill impacted on the northern Tasmanian coastline from Five Mile Bluff to Port Sorell, including the northern section of the Tamar Estuary (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006, Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997 and Rowland 2001)
Water quality monitoring Monitoring of water quality in the Estuary has been conducted by the State and local governments since 1971. For the most part, data has been collected on a quarterly basis but more intensive monthly sampling was conducted during 2002-2004. These data sets are currently being reviewed for the updated State of the Tamar Estuary Report due to be completed in 2007. Monitoring has largely ceased while this review is being undertaken. Preliminary findings of the report are summarised below (courtesy of G. Dowson pers comm. 2006). Readers should refer to the completed State of the Tamar Estuary Report for the most up to date findings when it is finalised.
On occasion, the level of pathogens (as indicated by faecal coliforms and faecal streptococcus) exceeded guidelines for primary contact recreation in the middle and upper reaches of the Estuary. Levels of pathogens in the lower reaches were low. Levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) have improved in the upper Estuary in recent years. For example, areas such as Home Reach, which in the past had consistently low DO levels, had levels within the recommended range for estuarine waters between 2001 and 2005 (G. Dowson pers comm. 2006).
There are significantly elevated levels of turbidity and suspended solids (resulting in low transparency) in the upper estuary. These elevated levels are likely to have a significant influence on the Estuary’s health and also indicate that the processes of siltation and scouring are very active in the upper Estuary and sections of the middle Estuary (G. Dowson pers comm. 2006).
In some areas of the estuary total aluminium, copper, iron, manganese, lead and zinc were found to exceed recommended Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZGFMWQ) default trigger values. However only dissolved aluminium and iron (bio-available) were on occasion above the default trigger values (G. Dowson pers comm. 2006).
Nutrient levels (total and soluble nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)) generally increase with distance upstream. Levels in the middle and upper Estuary are significantly greater than the recommended ANZGFMWQ levels. However it is suggested that the ANZGFMWQ levels may require modification to take into account local conditions including the influence of nutrient elevated waters of the Southern Ocean on the Tasmanian coast and estuaries. There are generally low levels of algae in the Estuary which fall within the recommended ANZGFMWQ range for estuaries and recurrent algal blooms have not been a problem historically in the Estuary (G. Dowson pers comm. 2006).
In conclusion Dowson (pers comm. 2006) recommends that management to improve point source pollution emissions needs to continue but diffuse sources also contribute significant levels of nutrients, suspended solids, metals, bacteria and biodegradable organic matter to the Estuary. These diffuse sources, including urban and agricultural runoff, need to be more accurately identified so diffuse inputs can be optimally managed.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
31 Data has also been collected from tributaries within the Estuary’s drainage area as part of an NRM North initiative to establish a strategic, ongoing water quality monitoring network for the Northern Tasmanian region. The Launceston Environment Centre (LEC) is currently delivering this water quality monitoring project for NRM North. The Draft State of Region Report for the Asset of Water (Northern Tasmanian Water Quality Monitoring Project, 2006) documents the results from 12 months of sampling at two waterways which flow into the Tamar Estuary; Middle Arm Creek near Beaconsfield and Supply River. Both sites exceeded water quality trigger values. The study concluded that elevated turbidity, conductivity and total phosphorous levels are an indication of water quality issues in the catchment. In addition, fewer families than expected were found in samples of the macroinvertebrate community at the Middle Arm Creek site indicating that the site is significantly impaired and that there are potentially mild to moderate impacts on water and/or habitat quality.
Over the past decade a range of initiatives have been undertaken which have relevance to improving water quality in the Tamar Estuary. All ten sewerage treatment plants across the West Tamar, Launceston City and George Town municipalities have been upgraded to include secondary treatment with disinfection (RPDC 2003). Three WWTPs in the West Tamar have been converted to full water re-use systems and one to a partial re-use system. In addition work has begun, in line with the Launceston Regional Wastewater Rationalisation Strategy, to upgrade the waste water treatment system operated by Launceston City Council over the next decade. An upgrade is also planned to the WWTP at George Town to provide sewerage to approximately 80 dwellings currently using septic systems (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
Other initiatives at a local level include: • The report titled Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters: Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchments (DPIWE 2005) was developed with community input to identify ‘Protected Environmental Values’ (PEVs) as required for the implementation of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997. • Development of State of the River Reports for the South Esk Basin (Bobbi et al. 1996) and North Esk Catchment (Wilson et al. 2003). • Development of a hydrodynamic model for the Upper Tamar Estuary. This model is being developed by consultants, WBM Oceanics, on behalf of Launceston City Council. The models will simulate 1, 2 and 3 dimensional hydrodynamics, water quality and sediment transport in the Estuary. The model will be used to inform management of waste water treatment plants, flows from the Trevallyn Dam/Power Station, dredging and major floods (UTRIA 2006). • Various improvements to reduce the discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities including; ceasing direct wastewater discharges from the Gunns woodchip mills due to installation of a new irrigation system in 2005; and infrastructure improvements to reduce spillage and discharges of soluble aluminium and fluoride (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). • Remediation works at historic mining sites at Storeys Creek (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). • Various improvements to stormwater management including the commissioning of the Margaret Street detention basin by the Launceston City Council in 2003.
Water quality initiatives at the State level include: • The State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 outlines principles for management of pollution. Point source pollution should be managed by implementation of best practice environmental management, and by compliance with emission limits set by the regulatory authority. • Water Management Plans under the Water Management Act 1999 have been developed for a number of catchments in Tasmania since 2003. There are currently no Water Management Plans (WMP) for the Tamar Estuary’s catchments, however a WMP is currently being developed for the South Esk. • Under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 reporting on industry emissions through the National Pollutant Inventory is mandatory and since July 2001 reporting against 90 substances has been required.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
32 • The Tasmanian Marine Oil Pollution Plan (TasPlan) commenced on 28 February 1997. This plan is part of the National Plan which “maintains a national integrated Government and industry organisational framework capable of effective response to pollution incidents in the marine environment and manages associated funding, equipment and training programs” (AMSA 2006). A second plan, the National Marine Chemical Spill Contingency Plan (Chemplan) outlines preparedness and response systems for the spilling of other hazardous chemicals. • Development of a Draft State Stormwater Management Strategy which aims to provide a consistent approach to stormwater management throughout the State. This document is currently being reviewed and updated. There are also plans for DEPHA to appoint a dedicated Stormwater Management Officer for the north of the State who will work closely with the proposed Tamar Estuary & Esk Rivers Programme to improve stormwater management (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
Development of Draft Environmental Management Guidelines for Operational Best Practice at Slipways and other Boat Repair and Maintenance Facilities (DPIWE 2003). These draft guidelines are currently being reviewed and updated and will be released for further consultation in 2006.
3.2.2 Changes to the Freshwater Flow Regime Very little is known about the freshwater flow requirements of Tasmanian estuaries. The only Tasmanian estuaries in which freshwater flow requirements have been studied are the upper Derwent, Pitt Water andL ittle Swanport Estuary (the subject of a current study by TAFI). DPIW has recognized that there is “a significant knowledge gap regarding the freshwater flow requirements to maintain natural ecological processes in estuaries, including the relative importance of different flow components for estuaries” (DPIW 2005).
By definition freshwater is an integral component of all estuaries. Pierson et al. (2002) identifies sixteen major ecological processes by which reduced freshwater flows may cause impacts on the estuarine ecosystem and the adjacent marine environment. The impacts identified were wide ranging and included: extended durations of elevated salinity in the upper and middle Estuary resulting in adverse affects on sensitive flora and fauna; aggravation of pollution problems; changes in flow-induced currents limiting the suspension and/or transport of eggs and larvae; and reduced flushing of fine sediments and organic material.
A Framework for Determining Holistic Environmental Water Requirements in Tasmania is currently being developed by DPIW (2005) which includes a section outlining guidelines for the identification of freshwater flow requirements for Tasmanian estuaries. At a national level, as part of the National River Health Program, the technical report Environmental Water Requirements to Maintain Estuarine Processes (Pierson et al 2002) presents a method of determining appropriate levels of environmental flows for Australian Estuaries.
3.3 Summary of Estuarine Waters The Tamar Estuary drains approximately one fifth of Tasmania. The Estuary is tidal for its entire length and the main sources of freshwater inputs are from the South Esk and North Esk rivers. Flows are greatly influenced by the operation of two power stations, one of which diverts water into the Estuary’s catchment from the neighbouring Great Lake catchment. Water is also regulated and harvested for irrigation, urban and industrial uses. Freshwater flows are vital to maintain ecological processes in estuaries, however very little is known about the freshwater flow requirements of the Tamar Estuary or indeed Tasmanian estuaries in general.
The Protected Environmental Values (PEVs) identified for the Tamar Estuary relate to aquatic ecosystems, recreation, aesthetics, aquaculture and industrial water supply. To date, water quality objectives to assist in maintaining or enhancing water quality to ensure the protection of PEVs have not been set for the Estuary.
There are a range of contaminants found in the Tamar Estuary which have entered the Estuary from a variety of historical and current, point and diffuse sources. These sources include: industrial processes, mining, urban stormwater, agricultural runoff, sewage discharges, and boating activities. In the past, management has largely focused on reducing inputs from point sources such as waste water treatment plants, but increasingly there is recognition of the need to also reduce inputs from diffuse sources, such as urban and agricultural runoff which is potentially a significant source of contaminants to the Estuary.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
33 3.4 Management Directions This section presents recommended management actions to maintain or enhance the values of the Tamar Estuary’s waters. These actions primarily focus on the issues and threats discussed in this chapter. It is important to recognise that the Estuary’s waters do not exist in isolation from other natural values in the Estuary. To successfully manage the Estuary’s waters, there must also be adequate management of the ecosystem as a whole including geodiversity, biodiversity and people and management. It is therefore important to note that management actions listed below are intended to be read and implemented together with those presented in Asset Chapters 2, 4 and 5. To assist with identification of actions which complement each other across asset categories, a ‘Link’ to other relevant actions has been provided within the action description. All actions have been prioritised and have been ranked from a Very Low (VL) priority to a Very High (VH) priority.
Priority Ranking Key:
VH = Very High priority H = High priority M = Medium priority l = low priority VL = Very Low priority
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
34 Priority Ranking VH VH H H M M M M H L V L EC DPIW CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, DEPHA, Industry TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA Lead Organisation & Partners NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, L NRM North, L G NRM North, L G DEPHA NRM North, L G NRM North, L G Tamar NRM, NRM North NRM North, L G NRM North, L G Timeframe 2011 2011 2011 2013 2011 2013 2011 2009 2009 2011 2009 ink E14, E15, E16). L 4) ink B2, G L 7) 1, E12, G ink E1) L ink E1, G L ink E1) L ). This). monitoring program should build upon and integrate with the and Draft Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Indicators for the National aunceston City Council and DEPHA. ( aunceston City Council hydrodynamic model (currently being developed) to ink P9, B6) L ink E1) L ink E1) L Establish and implement a Tamar Estuary Water Quality Monitoring Program. Monitoring shouldwater quality focus on key indicators such as those developed by TAFI and DPIW (e.g. Draft Indicatorsof for Estuaries the Condition and Coastal Waters 2006 Monitoring and Evaluation Framework monitoring currently conducted by L Recommended Management Actions Produce an annual ‘report card’ summarising the latest information on condition, trendsthe and management estuarine of waters asset. ( Undertake water quality monitoring in the Estuary’s tributaries as a priorityCimitiere at Supply River, Creek Stony Brook, and Fourteen Mile Creek. Investigate the feasibility of adding theseWater sites Quality to the NRM Monitoring North sites Team – monitoring currently occurs at Middle Arm Creek and Supply River.( Identify the diffuse sources that significantly contribute to suspended solids,and biodegradablenutrients, metals, organic materialbacteria in the Estuary to enable prioritisation for management.sources of concern Possible include diffuse urban and agricultural runoff and refuse disposal sites ( Periodically review and collate emission monitoring data including a review of monitoring requirementspoint sources for of pollution (e.g. waste water treatment plants and level 1 activities) withincontext. a ‘whole of estuary’ ( Encourage and support the development of Water Quality Objectives for the Tamar Estuaryor which enhance will water maintain quality to ensure the protection of PEVs. ( Review the bacterial monitoring program undertaken at bathing and other areas used for primaryrecreation contact to determine if current levels of monitoring are adequate. Where elevated levels aredetermine found, source and if possible remediate. ( help determine priorities and inform management. ( Use information gained from the L Investigate/ facilitate options for effluent recycling and reuse including funding opportunitiesindustries reduce to pollution.assist Promote best practice industry effluent recyclingTEMCO wetlands.projects such as the Identify level 1 activities on the Estuary which are not implementing best practiceand work environmental cooperatively guidelines with management authorities to encourage implementation. Investigate and address sediment contamination at Deceitful Cove. E1 Code E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 Lack of long term monitoring, baseline data and understanding of estuarine waters Threat/Issue Industrial pollution – water quality is degraded by current and historical emissions from industry and mining activities Table 3.3 Management 3.3 ActionsTable for Estuarine Waters
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
35 Priority Ranking H M VH H H H H M H H H L A G CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC CC, WTC, EC CC, G TC, WTC TC, WTC TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC TC, DEPHA, Tamar TC, DEPHA CC, G CC, G Lead Organisation & Partners L L NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, L G DEPHA, L G NRM North, Tamar NRM NRM North, L G NRM, L Tamar NRM, NRM North, DPIW, TF WTC, L NRM North, L G Tamar NRM, NRM North Timeframe 2019 2009 2011 2011 2011 2013 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 ink E4) L ink E2, E4) L 2) ink E4) L ink E20, G 2, E21) L ink G L ink E8) L ink E27) L Continue to improve and upgrade sewage and wastewater treatment and re-use systems andgovernment assist local to apply for funding for improving waste water management and upgrades to Waste WaterTreatment Plants. ( Recommended Management Actions Investigate and promote opportunities for re-use of sewage discharge including funding ( opportunities. Improve management of storm water by identifying priority catchments/areas for developmentManagement of Storm Plans. Water Develop these plans for high priority catchments/areas. ( Develop and trial a stormwater monitoring program to provide better estimates of stormwaterecosystem pollutant impacts loads, and effectiveness of management practices. ( Identify land use practices and locations that contribute towards significant stormwaterloads into the flows Estuary, and pollutant prioritise areas for management and develop/ implement control strategiesbest practice including guidelines (e.g. soil and water management guidelines for constructionmanagement sites, stormwater guidelines for major roads, stormwater assessments/audits of major industrialsites, and fertiliser commercial guidelines for golf courses and other recreational areas, stream bankmanagement). stabilisation Bell Bay has and been riparian identified as a priority site. ( Promote and encourage the adoption of water sensitive urban design management practicesdevelopment in all new and redevelopment to reduce the input of contaminants from diffuse sourcesto into reduce the alteration Estuary of flow and regimes. Assist local government to apply for funding for improving storm water management (e.g. targetedof sediment installation traps in storm water drains and implementation of water sensitive urban design). Develop and implement a community education and awareness program regarding the effectcontaminants of “washing down the drain” and the contribution towards pollution of the Estuary (eg.detergents, urban and industrial chemicals, sediment etc). Develop new and support existing cooperative programs with landholders in upstreamencourage catchments and promote to the adoption of land use practices that reduce sediment and nutrient inputswaterways into (e.g. encourage landholders to fence off streams and plant riparian bufferbudgeting, zones, nutrient funding application assistance etc). ( Support the development and implementation of initiatives aimed at raising awareness within upstream landholders catchments regarding the effect of agricultural runoff as a source of diffusesediment and contaminants nutrients) entering (eg. the Tamar Estuary. ( Identify areas with the potential to give rise to acid drainage from disturbance or land developmentmeasures to prevent and take disturbance of these sites. Identify sites where acid drainage has impacted on water quality and implement remediation strategies. E12 Code E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 (currently in State Stormwater Pollution from sewage Threat/Issue Pollution from storm water run off - actions to manage stormwater should be consistent with the Strategy draft 2006) Pollution and sedimentation due to agricultural runoff Disturbance of acid sulphate soils
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
36 Priority Ranking H H M H H H M H CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC EC TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC,WTC, G TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC, DEPHA Lead Organisation & Partners NRM North, L G NRM North, L G MAST, DEPHA, G NRM North, Tamar NRM, L NRM North NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, L G Timeframe 2009 2009 2011 2009 2013 2011 2013 2013 ink E13) L ink B30) L iving Environment Program). ( ink E25) L ink B37, B38)ink B37, L Educate and raise awareness in the boating community about the pollution caused from boatslipways. waste and Promote the Draft Environmental Management Guidelines for Operationaland other Boat Best Repair Practice and Maintenance at Slipways Facilities to the community. ( Recommended Management Actions Undertake a review of waste reception facilities along the Tamar Estuary. This may be done by undertakingsurveys of shipbuilders, boat owners, boatyards, marinas, slipways etc. to documentservices existing and current facilities practices and of users. Identify priority actions for management. Undertake a feasibility study and if feasible install sewage pump out and waste receptionkey locations facilities in the for Estuary. boats at ( Promote and provide incentives for increased water use efficiency, re-use and recyclingagriculture in households, and industry. Integrate with existing programs (e.g. L Encourage and support research into the effects of climate change and changing land use practicesforestry) (e.g. on water flows. ( Support the development of a process for assessing the environmental flow requirements Developof estuaries. Environmental Water Requirements (EWRs) which aim to maintain the fresh-water dependantecological values of the Tamar Estuary and incorporate these into Water Management Plans to produceEnvironmental Water Provisions (EWPs). As a first step, objectively identify the ecologicalfreshwater dependant values of the Tamar Estuary. Support the development of Water Management Plans for the South Esk and North Esk Catchmentsinto consideration which take the environmental flow requirements needed to achieve the PEVs set for Tamarthe Estuary. Encourage and support research (particularly modelling) into the environmentalTasmanian flow estuariesrequirements including of the Tamar Estuary. E24 Code E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 entering the Estuary Pollution from boat waste & slipways Threat/Issue Changes in the timing and quantities of freshwater flows may be affecting the natural processes and the condition of the Estuary, however the ability to effectively manage this issue is restricted by a limited understanding of the environmental flow requirements for the Estuary
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
37 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
38 4Biodiversity Asset 4.1 Flora – Description of the Asset The Tamar Estuary is host to a diversity of aquatic, intertidal and terrestrial foreshore flora. The Estuary foreshore supports remnant stands of native vegetation, including the threatened community ‘Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest’, for which the Tamar Estuary has been identified as a stronghold. Wetland communities are a feature of the intertidal areas of the Estuary and the northern beds of the Estuary host extensive sea grass meadows. The aquatic, wetland and foreshore vegetation communities provide habitat for a broad range of plants and animals including a number of threatened species. Appropriate management of these floristic communities is essential to maintain the ecological integrity of the Tamar Estuary.
4.1.1 Aquatic and Subtidal Flora There is limited knowledge and understanding of the type and extent of aquatic and subtidal flora occurring throughout the Tamar Estuary. To date no single comprehensive survey of the aquatic and subtidal flora of the Tamar Estuary has been undertaken, although a number of individual studies have investigated the aquatic flora in the northern section of the Estuary, providing some information on the type and extent of sea grass habitat.
Five species of seagrass have been identified in the northern section of the Estuary between Low Head and George Town: Amphibolis antartica, Halophila australis, Zostera tasmanica, Posidonia australis and Z. muelleri (Rees 1994, Edgar et al. 1999). In the 1990s it was estimated that the seagrass meadows in this region covered approximately 550 hectares (Rees 1994). The river bed further south has been less extensively surveyed but two species, Z. tasmanica and Z. muelleri have been recorded in the vicinity of Long Reach (Aquenal 2005).
Rees (1994) documented a decline in seagrass beds in Tasmania, including significant losses in the Tamar. He estimated a 19% decline in seagrass coverage in the region between Low Head and George Town. Studies on seagrass decline around Australia suggest that there are two main causes of decline: firstly, nutrient enrichment which causes increased algal growth; and secondly smothering by sediment. Increased algal growth and suspended or settled sediment causes shading and reduces light penetration and thus reduces the ability of sea grass to photosynthesise and grow (Edgar et al. 1999).
In addition to seagrass meadows, rocky reef/algal habitats represent another important habitat for flora and fauna; however these have been poorly studied in the Estuary (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006). Surveys in the Low Head area found a number of features worthy of conservation including good examples of string kelp (Macrocystis angustifolia) forests, a habitat type rare on the north coast (Barrett and Wilcox 2001). Various other localised studies have documented a range of algal species between Long Reach and Low Head, some of which may be introduced (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
A diversity of phytoplankton has also been documented in the Estuary. Phytoplankton are the small, usually microscopic, algae and other organisms found in the water column. They are an important source of production in aquatic food chains providing food for other organisms. Various studies have provided information on phytoplankton in the Estuary and have documented at least 60 species (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
4.1.2 Intertidal Flora - Wetlands Wetland communities are a feature of the intertidal areas along the Tamar Estuary. Wetlands can be defined as vegetated areas that are subject to tidal inundation or are submerged by water for at least one month of the year on average (Harris and Kitchener 2005). Currently none of the wetlands within the Tamar Estuary are listed as RAMSAR wetlands or listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Nonetheless, wetlands provide important habitat for a range of wildlife and may also provide environmental services including flood protection, erosion control and pollution abatement.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
39 The wetlands occurring within the Estuary provide important habitat for wildlife, including threatened flora species and a range of aquatic and semi aquatic fauna such as waterfowl, residential and migratory waders, amphibians, fish, invertebrates and mammals (Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage 1991). The most extensive wetlands occurring in the Tamar Estuary are the Tamar Island Wetlands which are included in the Tamar Conservation Area that extends from Launceston to the Batman Bridge. These wetlands are protected under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002.
Wetland communities found in the Tamar include: • Succulent saline herblands in northern sections of the Estuary, particularly around George Town, Low Head and parts of West Arm. These communities are generally dominated by succulent species such as Sarcocornia quinqueflora (beaded glasswort) (Blake and Cannell 2000). • Areas dominated by grasses, sedges and rushes (known as graminoids) such as the common reed Phragmites australis and rushes such as Juncus kraussii and Elocharis acuta (spike rush). These communities occur in strips along the upper intertidal zone which range from less than 1 metre in width where the slope is steep to approximately 2 kilometres in width around Tamar Island (Harris and Kitchener 2005, Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage 1991, Blake and Cannell 2000). • The introduced species Spartina anglica (rice grass) also inhabits large areas of the intertidal zone of the Estuary, particularly on alluvial mudflats between the Batman Bridge and Freshwater Point, just south of Dilston (Blake and Cannell 2000). In 1997 Spartina anglica was estimated to cover 415 hectares within the Estuary, the largest infestation of rice grass in Australia (DPIWE 2002).
The Estuary’s wetlands are host to a number of threatened species (a full list of threatened flora species known to occur in the vicinity of the Estuary is provided in Appendix 9.1). For example, these species include: • Calystegia sepium (great bindweed) which can be found twining itself around the common reed Phragmites australis or the stems of Melaleuca ericifolia. Previously listed as endangered this species is now listed as rare under the Tasmanian TSP Act 1995. It is widespread throughout temperate Australia but in Tasmania its distribution is limited to riparian areas around the Tamar; • Lycopus australis (native gypsywort) which also grows amongst Phragmites australis reed beds or Melaleuca ericifolia forest. This perennial herb is listed an endangered under the TSP Act 1995; • Rumex bidens (mud dock), an aquatic perennial herb which floats on the surface of the water and is found in wetlands and drainage channels and is listed as rare under the TSP Act 1995; • Bolboschoenus caldwellii (sea club rush), a perennial sedge that inhabits shallow water and is listed as rare under the TSP Act 1995; and • Sporobolus virbinicus (salt couch) a perennial grass of saltmarshes and sand hills that is listed as rare under the TSP Act 1995.
4.1.3 Terrestrial Foreshore Flora Although nearly continuous littoral, riparian and coastal reserves have been established along some sections of the Tamar Estuary (due to past reserve requirements for development) very little of the remnant vegetation on the foreshore remains in pristine condition and most has suffered from some form of degradation or fragmentation (Blake and Cannell 2000). Furthermore, much of the native vegetation surrounding the Estuary has been cleared for agricultural and other land uses (Figure 4.1).
Blake and Cannell (2000) mapped the terrestrial vegetation communities that occur 100m inland from the low tide line of the Estuary. They identified 9 floristic communities as shown in Table 4.1. The vegetation analysis conducted by Blake and Cannell (2000) scored the condition of foreshore vegetation ranging from Category 1 (least disturbed and highest conservation value) to Category 4 (few native species and lowest conservation value). The authors found that there were very limited areas of native vegetation along the Estuary that remained in pristine condition and recommended that “to retain any possibility of maintaining ecosystem function and continuity of habitat for native organisms all areas of vegetation on the foreshore, even those in marginal condition should be protected from degradation” (Blake and Cannell 2000, p. 16).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
40 Table 4.1 Tamar Estuary foreshore floristic communities mapped by Blake and Cannell (2000) amended with TASVEG information.
RFA Blake and Cannell (2000) TASVeg Community Title TASVEG Code Status Code Inland Eucalyptus Eucalyptus amygdalina amygdalina black AI inland forest and woodland DAI - peppermint forest (undifferentiated)
E. amygdalina forest on Eucalyptus amygdalina forest and DAD dolerite AD woodland on dolerite -
E. ovata (black gum) – Eucalyptus viminalis grassy forest E. viminalis (white gum) DVG V and woodland - woodland
Melaleuca ericifolia Melaleuca ericifolia swamp forest NME Rare, endangered (swamp paperbark) forest ME
Tall/ wind pruned Sc Coastal scrub SSC - coastal scrub
Wetlands (generic) We Wetlands (undifferentiated) AWU Vulnerable
Succulent saltmarsh Ms Succulent saline herbland ASS -
Spartina anglica Mr Spartina marshland FSM Exotic (introduced rice grass)
Improved pasture Fi Agricultural land FAG Exotic
Of the six terrestrial communities mapped by Blake and Can nell (2000), one, Melaleuca ericifolia (swamp paperbark) forest is considered as a threatened vegetation community in Tasmania and is listed as rare and endangered. This forest type occurs in poorly drained or intermittently-waterlogged areas, often in narrow strips fringing saltmarshes, lagoons and rivers (Harris and Kitchener 2005). The Tamar is considered a stronghold for this community and remnant stands are found along the length of the Estuary. The largest remnant is located west of Tamar Island. Many of the other remnants are highly fragmented and degraded by stock, weed invasion and clearing (Blake and Cannell 2000, Bowkett 1999).
Foreshore vegetation communities also provide habitat for a range of threatened flora species such as Brunonia australis (blue pincushion), a herbaceous annual of dry open woodland listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act 1995.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
41
Figure 4.1 Map of the intertidal and foreshore vegetation types occurring within 3km of the Estuary Source: TasVeg 1.1
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
42 4.2 Fauna – Description of the Asset The great diversity of habitats found within the Tamar Estuary support a wide variety of fauna species. A great diversity of marine invertebrates are found near the mouth of the Estuary while invertebrate species more typical of estuarine environments are found upstream where salt levels are lower. More than one hundred species of fish have been recorded in the Estuary and more than 30 families of fish are known to spawn in the Estuary. The Estuary is considered as a “hotspot” for coastal birds and a priority site for beach nesting and migratory shorebirds. More than 60 bird species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Tamar Island Wetlands alone. A range of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals, reptiles and amphibians also use or rely on the Estuary for breeding and/or foraging habitat.
This section describes the fauna found in the Estuary concentrating on animals that rely on the estuarine environment for foraging and/or breeding habitat. Terrestrial or land based animals are only considered if they are dependant on the existence of the Estuary for survival, such as the white-bellied sea eagle which hunts for fish in the Estuary’s waters.
4.2.1 Invertebrates The rocky shores, sandy beaches, mud flats, river bed, wetlands, saltmarshes and waters of the Tamar Estuary support a rich invertebrate fauna. Generally marine species are found near the mouth of the Estuary where salt levels are highest while further south, as salt levels decrease, species more typical of estuarine environments are found (Smith 1995). Other factors that may affect distribution and abundance include tidal emersion, plant biomass and shore gradient (Edgar et al 1999). Studies to date have focused on documenting the benthic (bottom dwelling) macroinvertebrates that are found in intertidal and shallow water habitats, but a lack of any long-term data means that trends in the invertebrate fauna of the Estuary have not been determined. In south-eastern Tasmania, Edgar and Samson (2004) documented catastrophic declines in mollusc diversity and warned that similar losses may have occurred elsewhere but gone unnoticed.
The macroinvertebrates of the intertidal and shallow waters of the Estuary are dominated by four main groups as shown in Table 4.2. A survey conducted at Low Head in the northern section of the Estuary and two surveys conducted at Paper Beach in the middle section of the Estuary recorded 116, 32 and 25 species respectively (Edgar et al. 1999). The five most common taxa found atL ow Head were: Exoediceroides latrans (Crustacea, Amphipod), Mysella donaciformis (Bivalvia), Euzonus sp. (Polychaeta), Spirorbid sp. (Polychaeta) and Parawaldeckia dilkera (Crustacea, Amphipod). In comparison the five most common taxa found at Paper Beach were:Magelona sp (Polychaeta), Notospisula trigonella (Bivalvia), Mysella donaciformis (Bivalvia), Tellina deltoidalis (Bivalvia) and Nephtys australiensis (Polychaeta).
Table 4.2 The number of macroinvertebrate species recorded in surveys of the intertidal and shallow waters of the Tamar Estuary (to a depth of 0.7m below the low water mark) (Edgar et al. 1999).
Crustacea Gastropods Bivalvia (includes Polychaeta Total (molluscs (molluscs such Site Date crabs, (segmented Other Species including as mussels, lobsters, marine worms) snails) clams, oysters) shrimp) Low 16 Dec 1996 116 49 11 12 40 4 Head Paper 17 Dec 1996 32 10 5 6 9 2 Beach Paper 17 June 1997 25 4 5 5 7 4 Beach
A broader scale sampling program conducted by Aquenal recorded a total of 408 native benthic invertebrate species between Long Reach and the Estuary’s mouth. Species of molluscs, crustaceans and polychaetes again dominated the samples. Unlike the studies described above this study surveyed not only species occurring within the sediments but also species occurring on the surface of the sediments and firm substrata.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
43 Other types of invertebrates found within the Estuary include sea anemones (Actinaria), flatworms (Polycladida), earthworms (Oligochaeta), chitons (Polyplacophora), sea stars (Asteroidea), brittle stars (Ophiuroidea), sea squirts (Ascidiacea) and sponges (Porifera) (Smith, 1995). Studies in the Low Head area noted unique deep river channel reef sponge gardens which the authors considered an aquatic feature worthy of conservation (Barrett and Wilcox 2001).
4.2.2 Fish More than 100 species of fish have been recorded in the Tamar Estuary, demonstrating the rich diversity it supports. Edgar et al. (1999) lists 41 fish species occurring in the Estuary and a report produced by Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage (1991) lists 101 species. Both recreational and commercial fishing occurs in the Estuary.
Fish species that have been identified in these reports include a diverse range of sharks, rays and fin fish including: • Heterodontus portusjackson (Port Jackson Shark) and Urolophus viridis (greenback stingaree); and • Cartilaginous fish such asEngraulis australis (anchovy), Rhombosolea tapirina (greenback flounder),Ammotretis rostratus (long-snouted flounder), Mugil cephalus (sea mullet), Myxus elongates (sand mullet), Platycephalus bassensis (sand flathead), Gymnapistes marmoratus (cobbler), Enoplosus armatus (old wife), Arripis trutta (eastern Australian salmon), Cristeceps australis (crested weedfish),Haletta semifasciata (blue-rock whiting) and Neoodax balteatus (little weed whiting) (Edgar et al 1999, Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage 1991).
Some fish species spend their entire life cycle within the Tamar Estuary while others enter the Estuary as juveniles or adults. The Estuary provides important breeding and nursery habitat for many commercially fished species and sharks (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006, DPIW 2006c). Surveys undertaken in 2001-2002 revealed that the Estuary provides spawning habitat for over 30 fish families (Lara and Neira 2003). The sea grass beds in the lower reaches of the Estuary are considered particularly important sources of food and shelter for juvenile fish (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
A search of the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) reveals one listed species of fish occurring within 3 km of the Estuary, the Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena), which is listed as vulnerable under both the TSP Act 1995 and the EPBC Act 1999. This species, also known as the cucumber mullet or cucumber herring, is found in small to large streams and rivers close to the coast and spends part of its life at sea. Larval fish are swept by the river current downstream to the sea and juveniles return to freshwater at four to six months of age. In Tasmania this species is widespread but uncommon. Threats to this species include structures such as dams, weirs and culverts which prevent dispersal and migration, changes in river flows, loss of riparian vegetation, extensive stream siltation, damage to stream channels caused by sand and gravel extraction, changes in food resources (i.e. macroinvertebrate communities) particularly due to siltation, and possible predation by brown trout (Salmo trutta) (Inland Fisheries Service 2006, Department of Environment and Heritage 2006).
Other species of conservation concern which occur in the Estuary include Galeorhinus galeus (school shark), Mustelus antarcticus (gummy shark), and members of the family Syngathidae such as Stigmatopora argus (spotted pipefish), S. nigra (wide-bodied pipefish), Pugnaso curtirostris (pug-nosed pipefish) and Vanacampus phillipi (Port Phillip pipefish) (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
4.2.3 Birds The Estuary’s sandy beaches, wetlands, mudflats and waters provide habitat for a diversity of bird species. Many birds, both resident and migratory, use the Estuary for breeding and/or foraging habitat including waders, waterfowl, raptors and coastal birds. Over sixty species have been recorded in the vicinity of the Tamar Island Wetlands alone (Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage 1991). This represents significant diversity when one considers that there are approximately 220 native bird species in Tasmania.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
44 Table 4.3 The number of bird species observed near the Tamar Island Wetlands in the Tamar River Conservation Area.
Bird Categories No. of Species Shore, Estuary & Lagoon Birds 26 Sea Birds 7 Birds of Prey 4 Vagrants and Occasional Visitors 11 Land Birds 9 Introduced Species 6 Source: Parks and Wildlife Service 2003
The Estuary is considered a ‘hotspot’ for coastal bird species (Bryant and Jackson 1999). The Conservation Assessment of Beach Nesting and Migratory Shorebirds (Bryant 2002) found the George Town/Tamar Estuary region to be a priority site for beach nesting and migratory shorebirds in Tasmania because it has very high species diversity, provides good habitat for the Eastern Curlew and is a priority site for resident species.
A search of the online Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) revealed records of eight threatened bird species within 3km of the Estuary. Of these eight species four are likely to use the Estuary for foraging, roosting and/or breeding habitat: the white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), the great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), the eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and the fairy tern (Sterna nereis nereis).
The white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) is listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act. Its distribution stretches from India through to Australia. It is known to breed and forage in the Tamar Estuary and the Estuary’s immediate surroundings. The Tamar Estuary is considered as one of the four “hotspots” for this species in Tasmania. Nests are usually constructed in large Eucalyptus trees, preferably within a patch of native vegetation well away from disturbance. Key threats to the species include loss of suitable breeding habitat, loss or desertion of young due to disturbance in the breeding season, persecution by shooting, felling of nest trees and accidents such as electrocution on power lines (Turner and Thurstan 2000 and Bryant and Jackson 1999).
The great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) is listed as rare under the Tasmanian TSP Act 1995. This nomadic species is not known to breed in the Tamar Estuary but uses the Estuary as non-breeding habitat. Draining, chemical pollution and weed invasion of non-breeding wetland habitats are considered some of the key threats to this species (Bryant and Jackson 1999).
The eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) is listed as endangered under the Tasmanian TSP Act. This species breeds in northeast Russia and Manchuria. The majority of the population migrates to Australia during the southern summer and is found in coastal estuaries, mudflats and islands. Records indicate a population decline of over 65% in Tasmania since the 1950s. Regular surveys at George Town also revealed a declining trend with 98 individuals recorded in 1981 compared to 35 in 2000. Threats within Tasmania include habitat destruction and disturbance. Threats on migration routes and breeding grounds include habitat destruction, disturbance and hunting (Watts 1999 and Reid and Park 2003).
The fairy tern (Sterna nereis nereis) is listed as rare under the Tasmanian TSP Act. It is found along the coasts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania in coastal lagoons, estuaries, inlets and sand spits. Nesting sites include sandy beaches of estuaries. Threats to the species include disturbance caused by humans during breeding and predation by dogs, black rats (Rattus rattus), silver gulls (Larus novaehollandaiae) and ravens (Corvus tasmanicus) (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
In addition to the species described above, at least five species recorded in the Estuary are listed under international agreements for the protection of migratory birds. The cattle egret (Ardeola ibis) and curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) are both listed under the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and the crested tern (Sterna bergii) is listed under the Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA). The greenshank (Tringa nebularia) and red-necked stint (Calidris ruficollis) are listed under both these agreements (Parks and Wildlife Service 2006).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
45 4.2.4 Mammals There are only a limited number of mammals which are dependant upon the Estuary for breeding or foraging habitat, which are discussed here. However, many other mammals inhabit the terrestrial areas surrounding the Estuary which are not directly dependant on the Estuary for their survival. Common mammals in the area include the swamp rat (Rattus lutrolus) and the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). The platypus although common to the Estuary is now under threat from a fungal disease (Mucor amphibiorum) which can cause death in populations from infection as a result of severe skin lesions. This disease has been detected in the Supply River catchment within the Tamar Region.
A range of large aquatic mammals use the Estuary – some on a regular basis while others are thought to be occasional visitors. Species recorded in the Estuary include: • the common and bottlenose dolphin (Delphinus delphis and Tursiops truncates); • eight species of whale: the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), pygmy right whale (Caperea marginate), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala mararrhynchus), the southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodom planifrons), the strap-toothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon layardii) and killer whale (Orcinus orca); and • three species of seal: the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus), New Zealand fur seal (A. forsteri) and Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
Four of these species are listed under either Tasmanian or Commonwealth threatened species legislation: the New Zealand fur seal (rare under TSP Act 1995), blue whale (endangered under the TSP and EPBC), the southern right whale (endangered under the TSP and EPBC) and the humpback whale (endangered under TSP and vulnerable under the EPBC).
4.2.5 Reptiles Few species of reptile are dependant on the Estuary for breeding or foraging habitat. The glossy grass skink is one of a number of skinks recorded in the Tamar Island Wetlands (Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service 2006). This species is listed as rare under TSP Act 1995. It occurs in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania at sites associated with wetlands and swampy habitats. Habitat destruction is considered the main threat to this species (Forest Practices Authority 2001). Marine turtles are also occasional visitors to the Estuary and are protected under the TSP Act 1995 and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
4.2.6 Amphibians The Estuary provides habitat for a number of frog species including two threatened species.
The green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis) is listed as vulnerable under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. One of the key sites for this species in Tasmania is within the Tamar Estuary in the wetlands of the Tamar Island Wetlands Reserve where there is a large breeding population.
The main threat to the green and gold frog is habitat loss and degradation which may be caused by land reclamation, weed invasion, pollution by pesticides, fertilisers or effluent, and/or overgrazing and trampling by stock. Other threats include: predation of tadpoles and juveniles by the introduced fish Gambusia hoolbrooki; predation by cats and dogs; collection by humans for use as fish bait; and increased ultra-violet radiation due to ozone layer depletion (Bryant and Jackson 1999).
The striped marsh frog (Limnodynastes peroni) is listed as rare under the TSP Act 1995. This species is dependant on permanent freshwater for breeding including natural and artificial wetlands, dams and swampy areas. Outside the breeding season frogs may be found in dense vegetation away from water. Main threats include: habitat loss and degradation caused by drainage of wetlands, altered flow regimes, grazing, drought or reduced water quality and also the chytrid fungus which is known to be present in the Trevallyn Reserve and could pose a major threat to frogs in the Estuary (Forest Practices Authority 2001).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
46 4.3 Managing Biodiversity – Threats and Priority Issues This section outlines the key issues that present a threat to the biodiversity values of the Tamar Estuary. These issues and threats have been identified from the existing literature and during consultation with key stakeholders and the general public.
Most threats to flora and fauna can be understood in terms of habitat loss or degradation. Habitat refers to the place where a plant or animal lives. Plants and animals can only survive, grow and reproduce under a certain range of environmental conditions. Any significant change in these conditions may result in habitat loss or degradation.
Five of the key threats or priority issues that impact upon biodiversity are discussed in detail in this section: • the protection of high conservation sites, communities and species; • weeds and pests; • development of foreshore buildings and structures; • inappropriate and illegal human activities; and • climate change. In addition to these there are a number of threats and issues discussed in other chapters which may also have a significant impact on the biodiversity values of the Estuary. Changes in water quality and freshwater flows (Chapter 3) can degrade flora and fauna habitat and result in changes in the distribution and abundance of aquatic and wetland flora. For example, nutrient enrichment which causes increased algal growth reduces light penetration therefore reducing the ability of seagrass to photosynthesise and grow (Edgar et al. 1998 and Walker and McComb 1992 cited in Edgar et al. 1998).
Some impacts on geodiversity (Chapter 2) can have significant impacts on biodiversity values. Erosion of the foreshore can result in the loss of remnant foreshore habitat as well as consequent downstream sedimentation impacts. Land reclamation and drainage results in the permanent loss or modification of habitat for intertidal and/or aquatic flora and fauna. Dredging may result in the destruction, degradation or disturbance of wetland and aquatic habitat, the smothering of aquatic and wetland species at deposition sites and the reduction of light penetration due to increased suspended sediment.
4.3.1 Protection of high conservation sites, communities and species High conservation sites, communities and species are protected and managed by a range of legislation, regulation, initiatives and programs at the local, state and federal level (Figure 4.2).
One of the fundamental methods used to protect biodiversity is to conserve key habitat by establishing formal reserves. Various types of reserves exist in the Tamar Estuary including: public purpose reserves, reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service, and private land reserves.
Large sections of the Estuary foreshore are classified as Public Purpose Reserves under theCrown Lands Act 1976. These reserves include littoral or riparian reserves, coastal reserves and recreation reserves which are owned by the Crown. In many cases local councils have leased back some of these reserves to manage them primarily for public recreation (e.g. Gravelly Beach foreshore, the picnic ground at Lagoon Bay and a number of pontoons and boat ramps).
The future tenure for all unallocated Crown land and public reserves in Tasmania has recently been assessed and classified by the Crown Land Assessment and Classification Project which ran between mid 2004 to mid 2006. Land that is deemed to have significant natural values will be recommended for reservation under theNature Conservation Act 2002.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
47 Figure 4.2 Map of formal and informal reserves within 3km of the Tamar Estuary. Formal CAR reserves include Nature Reserves, Nature Recreation Areas, National Parks, Historic Sites, Forest Reserves, State Reserves and Conservation Areas. Informal CAR reserves include Private Sanctuaries, Public Reserves (under the Crown Lands Act 1976), PAPL (Protected Areas on Private Land) and Conservation Zones etc.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
48 Public Reserves declared under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 are owned and managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 (These Acts replace the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970). The objectives of reserve management depend on the class of reserve and differ in the relative emphasis placed on human use and conservation. The largest of these reserves is the Tamar River Conservation Area which encompasses 4633 hectares, from St Leonards to the Batman Bridge including the Tamar Islands Wetlands Reserve (Figure 4.2).
Natural values on private land may be protected by voluntary agreements between landholders and the Tasmanian government. Natural values on private land may be protected as Private Nature Reserves, Private Sanctuaries or as areas covenanted for conservation in perpetuity.
Under the Living and Marine Resources Management Act 1995 and associated regulations the Tamar Estuary is one of the areas set aside as an important refuge for sharks. No sharks are allowed to be taken in these areas and various restrictions apply as to the type of fishing equipment that is allowed to be used.
The recently developed Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strateg y aims to “establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) system of marine protected areas, to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Tasmania’s biological diversity.”
Prior to the establishment of this strategy a number of marine areas in Tasmania had been investigated or proposed for protection. The TFIC and TASFA proposed the establishment of a no-take Marine Protected Area at the mouth of the Tamar Estuary near Low Head. This proposal was investigated by Barrett and Wilcox (2001) who suggested that the proposed area should be expanded to achieve greater conservation benefits including the protection of string kelp (Macrocystis angustifolia) forests (a habitat type rare on the north coast), unique deep river sponge gardens and seagrass meadows. Edgar et al (1999) also recommends that this area should be protected.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
49
Figure 4.3 Location of threatened species records within three kilometres of the Tamar Estuary. Source: Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
50 In addition to formal reserves State and federal legislation also affords further protection to species listed as threatened. A search of the online Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) revealed records of 90 threatened flora species and 17 threatened fauna species within 3km of the Estuary (Figure 4.3, see appendix 9.1 for full list of threatened species).
Threatened species are protected under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and/or the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Permission is required to take (damage, kill, catch or collect) any species listed under the TSP Act 1995, whether it is on private or public land. For species listed under the EPBC Act 1999 assessment and approval is required for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on these species. Information and advice on the management of threatened species is provided by the Threatened Species Unit (DPIW) including the online Threatened Flora CD (Lazarus et al. 2003) and the Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook (Bryant and Jackson 1999) which provide detailed descriptions of threatened flora and fauna.
At a State level listing statements and recovery plans are available for many threatened species and these provide information on required management actions. The Conservation Strategy for the White-Bellied Sea Eagle in the Tamar Valley Region, Tasmania (Turner and Thurstan 2000), is an example of a plan developed at a more local level.
4.3.2 Weeds and Pests The spread of weeds and pests is widely recognised as a serious threat to the biodiversity of the Estuary. Weeds and pests modify habitat and can compete with, predate upon or displace native species. Weed and pest species found in the Estuary include: • Numerous terrestrial foreshore weeds; • The intertidal species rice grass (Spartina anglica); • Several marine pests including the Pacific oyster Crassostrea( gigas); • The small fish Gambusia holbrooki; and • Terrestrial feral and domestic animals including dogs, cats and goats.
Foreshore weeds Weed infestations on the foreshore degrade remnant vegetation, displacing and modifying habitat for indigenous flora and fauna. There are major weed infestations along the southern, central and northern sections of the Estuary including infestations of willow (Salix fragilis), boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp), pampas grass (Cortaderia species), sea spurge (Euphorbia paralias) and marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) (Blake and Cannel 2000). Other weeds of concern identified in the area include bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), gorse (Ulex europaeus), and blackberries (Rubus fruticosus) (Tamar Landcare Celebration Working Group 2003, Rowland 2001).
Table 4.4 Weeds of concern occurring on the Tamar Estuary’s foreshore.
Declared Weed under Weed of National Common Name Scientific Name the Tasmanian Weed Significance Management Act 1999 Willow Salix species Yes Yes Chrysanthemoides Boneseed Yes Yes monilifera ssp Pampas grass Cortaderia species No Yes Sea spurge Euphorbia paralias No No Marram grass Ammophila arenaria No No Bridal creeper Asparagus asparagoides Yes Yes Rubus fruticosus Blackberry Yes Yes aggregate Gorse Ulex europaeus Yes Yes
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
51 A variety of initiatives have been undertaken at the local, State and National level which focus on terrestrial weed management. Key initiatives include:
At a local level: • Vegetation mapping conducted by Blake and Cannell (2000) identified major areas of weed infestations within 100m of the foreshore (Watchorn 2000); • The Tamar Valley Weed Strategy (TVWS 1997) (http://www.weeds.asn.au); and • On ground works undertaken or coordinated by groups including local councils, organisations such as Tamar NRM, local Landcare groups and Conservation Volunteers Australia. For example a “Boneseed Blitz” held in October 2006, was coordinated by Tamar NRM and involved educational seminars, on ground removal activities conducted by volunteers and council staff as well as social events.
At a regional level: • The Weed Management Strategy: Northern Natural Resource Management Region (Cronin 2004); and • The Weed Action Plan: Northern NRM Region, Tasmania (Cronin 2006). This plan complements the above listed Weed Management Strategy and outlines current programs and future actions required to manage the existing and potential weed issues in the region.
At a State and National level: • Weed management plans are required to be developed for weeds declared under the Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999; and • The second edition of Tasmania’s weed management strategy Weed Plan was released in 2005 and the National Weeds Strategy was launched in 1997.
There is a considerable amount of information and resources, freely available, regarding particular species of weeds and their management. The web site for Weeds of National Significance provides information and resources on weeds including posters, information flyers, strategies, action frameworks, management guides, banners and identification guides (http://www.weeds.org.au/natsig.htm). At a State level, information and resources are available on the Weeds page of the DPIW website including information on the list of declared weeds, local weed management officers, management guidelines and weed identification (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/ThemeNodes/SSKA-52J2K4?open).
Rice grass Rice grass is a vigorous saltmarsh plant that is found in the intertidal zone of temperate estuaries. It was introduced to many temperate areas around the world because of its ability to spread rapidly, accrete sediments and mitigate coastal erosion. It was first introduced in Tasmania in the 1920’s and to the Tamar in 1947 with the aim of stabilising mudflats, reclaiming intertidal areas and improving navigation (Pirzl and Coughanowr 1997, DPIWE 2002). Since then it has spread rapidly. In 1997 it was estimated to cover 415 hectares within the Tamar Estuary, the largest infestation of rice grass in Australia (DPIWE 2002). In 2006 it is estimated to cover more than 450 hectares (Aquenal and DEPHA 2006).
A number of environmental impacts are associated with infestations of rice grass in Tasmania, including: • The dense growth form and rhizome/root network of rice grass acts as a sediment trap altering natural rates of sedimentation and erosion. This causes the elevation of shorelines and river banks to create terraces and marsh islands. Such alteration of the natural sediment dynamics and geomorphology also has effects on the hydrology of the Estuary; • The ability of rice grass to compete with and exclude endemic species including seagrass (such as Zostera spp.) and lower salt marsh plants (such as Salincornia quineflora); • Colonisation of mudflats and consequent reduction in habitat of resident and migratory wader and shore birds; • Possible impacts on the invertebrate community (e.g. changes in the community structure of macroinvertebrates); • Impacts on wild fish, such as displacement of seagrass beds (which are known to be important habitat for juvenile fish) and changes in fish community structure (e.g. some species, including commercially important species such as flounder and flathead, are unable to adapt to conditions in infested areas; and • Impacts on tourism and recreational values including encroachment on sandy beaches (e.g. Gravelly Beach) and the reduction of public access to the shoreline, private boat ramps and jetties (DPIWE 2002).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
52 The Rice Grass Advisory Group (RGAG) was established in 1996, funded by Coastcare and Fishcare, to address the issue of rice grass management and develop a strategy for the management of rice grass in Tasmania. Soon after DPIW received funding to implement the strategy and ran a successful State-wide rice grass management program between 1998 and 2002 (DPIWE 2002).
Current management of rice grass in the Estuary is based on recommendations of the strategy and involves a program of containment and monitoring, rather than eradication, for three reasons. Firstly, due to the very large size of the infestation successful eradication would require a long term (decades) funding commitment. Secondly, there is uncertainty regarding the effects of rice grass eradication on sediment dynamics (including the potential to mobilise heavy metals) and the ecological effects of prolonged and regular use of herbicides in the Estuary. And thirdly, there are a number of positive values associated with rice grass including improved navigability, fodder for stock and arguable aesthetic values (DPIWE 2002). In addition the Australian Maritime College (AMC) is currently conducting research into the ecological value of rice grass as habitat for aquatic species.
Since 2002 the strategy of containment and monitoring has had limited success and significant infestations of rice grass have established in the ‘rice grass free’ zones. In 2005 DPIW secured additional funds for continued rice grass containment and eradication work until 2008. As such DPIW in partnership with community groups, Tamar NRM and NRM North have been treating the rice grass free zone since early 2006 and the area of rice grass has been greatly reduced as a result of this work. In respect to eradication, research is continuing at institutions including UTAS and AMC into the consequences of large-scale rice grass removal in the Estuary.
Marine Pests The Tasmanian State of the Environment Report recognises introduced marine pests as one of the most significant natural resource management issues facing Australia (RPDC 2003). Marine pests may be introduced into the Tamar Estuary via hull fouling, ballast water discharges, fishing and aquaculture activities and natural processes which can transport pests from infection points outside the Estuary. Vessels from Victorian ports and temperate regions of Asia and New Zealand are considered to pose the greatest risk (Aquenal 2001).
A survey of exotic marine pests in the lower reaches of the Tamar Estuary recorded 29 introduced and cryptogenic (uncertain if species is introduced or native) species of flora and fauna. These included three species which are classified by the Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMC) as target pests, Carcinus maenus (European shore crab), Muscilista senhousia (Asian bag mussel) and Crassostrea gigas (Pacific oyster). The dinoflagellate, Alexandrium tamarense was also recorded but the authors note that the strain found was not toxic and may in fact be native and therefore recommend that it should not be classified as a target pest (Aquenal 2001).
The Pacific oyster Crassostrea( gigas), is the only species which was found to be highly abundant in the Tamar Estuary and likely to be having a significant impact on the Estuary’s ecology (Aquenal 2001). However the possible spread of marine pests currently found in low densities in the Estuary also presents a potential threat to the Estuary’s natural values. The species of particular concern, as they have been recorded at very high densities in other temperate Australian ports, include Musculista senhousia, Theora lubrica, Carcinus maenas, Petrolisthes elongates and Codium fragile spp. tomentosoides (Aquenal 2001).
Recent initiatives implemented to identify and manage marine pest incursions include: • A baseline survey of marine pests conducted in the Port of Launceston in 2001. The report Exotic Marine Pests Survey, Port of Launceston, Tasmania (Aquenal 2001) was developed for the Port of Launceston Pty Ltd to meet the requirements of the AQIS Decision Support System for Ballast Water Management; • The introduction in 2001 of mandatory international ballast water management regulations to reduce the risk of introductions from international vessels through ballast water by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS); • The development of National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG) management plans for a number of species including some found in the Tamar; • The development through NIMPCG of various voluntary codes of practices (best practice guidelines) for high risk vectors to minimise the risk of translocating introduced marine pests that will be implemented over the next 1-3 years; and • The development of Draft Environmental Management Guidelines for Operational Best Practice at Slipways and other Boat Repair and Maintenance Facilities (DPIWE 2003). These guidelines are currently being updated and will be released for further consultation in 2007 before being finalised.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
53 A considerable amount of information on marine pests can be easily accessed online on the Marine Pests webpage of the DPIW website (http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au), the Australian Governments Introduced Marine Pests webpage (http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/imps/), and CSIRO’s Introduced Marine Pests webpage which includes marine pest information sheets (http://www.marine.csiro.au/crimp/).
Gambusia holbrooki Gambusia hoolbrooki, native to the gulf of Mexico, is a small highly aggressive fish that has been introduced to many areas around the world with the aim of controlling mosquitoes. It was introduced to Australia in the 1920s. Unfortunately Gambusia have not proved to be an effective biological control agent for mosquitoes and have become a serious threat to many of the ecosystems in which they have been introduced (Milner 2006).
The first record ofGambusia in Tasmania was in a dam in the Legana area of the Tamar Valley in 1992. Initial eradication attempts were thought to have been successful until discovery of a Gambusia population in the Tamar Islands Wetlands Reserve in 2001. Further surveys revealed more sites of infestations within the Tamar Estuary and also in the south of the State (Milner 2006).
Gambusia holbrooki is listed as a ‘controlled fish’ in Tasmania by the Inland Fisheries Service (IFS) and presents a threat to many native species of frogs, fish and invertebrates through predation on eggs and immature stages of development as well as competition for food and habitat. They will also nip the fins of larger tadpoles and fish increasing the vulnerability of these organisms to disease.
Gambusia have a negative impact on many species in the Tamar Estuary. These include four frog species including the brown tree frog (Litoria ewingii), the common froglet (Crinia signifera), the eastern banjo frog or pobblebonk (Limnodynastes dumerilii) and the spotted marsh frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis); fish species including the sandy or freshwater flathead (Pseudaphritis urvillii), Tamar River goby (Favonigobius tamarensis), small mouthed hardyhead (Atherinosoma microstoma), jollytail (Galaxias maculatus), and spotted galaxias (Galaxias truttaceus); and possibly some species of macro-invertebrates (Milner 2006). The green and gold frog (Litoria raniformis) which breeds in the Estuary and is listed as vulnerable under both Tasmanian and national legislation is considered the most at risk species in the Estuary from Gambusia (Milner 2006).
To date management of Gambusia has involved a number of organisations including Tamar NRM, the Inland Fisheries Service (IFS), Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Primary Industries and Water, The Tamar Island Wetlands CARes Group, WILDCARE, Fishcare, AMC, the Threatened Species Network, the Launceston Environment Centre and NRM North. The Gambusia Management Committee was formed with representatives from most of these organisations to oversee Gambusia management. Activities undertaken include distribution surveys, investigation of various control methods, awareness raising and education initiatives.
Most recently the report Gambusia holbrooki: A Management Guide and Workbook (Milner 2006) was developed with funding from the Natural Heritage Trust through the Priority Actions Program. This workbook reviewed the background to the Gambusia problem, Gambusia biology and lifecycle and methods of control. A drying regime has been suggested as a potential method to control the Gambusia in the Tamar Island Wetlands Reserve however the effects of such a programme on the submerged soils of the wetlands are uncertain. There is concern that drying may lead to disturbance of acid sulphate soils and the production of sulphuric acid which can burn and kill plants and fish as well as cause the release of toxic elements including iron, aluminium and other heavy metals. There is also concern regarding the impacts of a drying regime on native species.
4.3.3 Development of Foreshore Buildings and Structures This section discusses the development of buildings or other structures on the foreshore, such as pipelines, stormwater outlets, jetties, cables, private driveways, marinas, slipways, river training works, wharves, breakwaters, tourism and recreation facilities, boat ramps, groynes, boat sheds, summer houses (shacks), and buildings associated with marine industries. Many of these structures do not only occupy the foreshore but extend into intertidal and river bed areas and some structures have been developed illegally. In the past there has not been a consistent set of standards for foreshore development with each council having different requirements. In addition, developers are often uncertain about the types of approvals needed and who to seek approvals from (Watchorn 2000).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
54 There are a number of issues associated with foreshore development that may present a threat to the Estuary’s natural values. These include: • interference with sediment transport (onshore, offshore and along shore) and alteration of wave energy flows; • impacts associated with construction such as sediment discharge; • potential permanent changes in Estuary geomorphology and permanent loss of terrestrial, intertidal and/or aquatic habitat; and • changes in the nature of aquatic communities due to shading, anchors from boats or boat propellers or the provision of artificial habitat by the structure (Watchorn 2000).
The Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan (Watchorn 2000) specifically addresses issues associated with the development of foreshore structures and buildings but to date many of the report’s recommendations have not been implemented. The accompanying document Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore were prepared to promote best practice use and development of foreshore structures and to be used as a tool by decision makers, including planners, when considering development proposals. As the planning schemes of the West Tamar, Launceston and George Town Councils are currently being revised there exists a good opportunity to incorporate the relevant recommendations.
The State Coastal Policy 2007, unlike its predecessor the State Coastal Policy 1996, is designed to be implemented through local government planning schemes and other instruments that manage or control use and development in coastal areas. Planning authorities will be required to review and amend their planning schemes to ensure they comply with the Policy. The purpose of the Policy is to facilitate the conservation of intrinsic assets, values and processes of the coastal area, and the sustainable use or development of the coastal area.
The Marine Structures Assessment Project (initiated by Department of Primary Industries and Water in close liaison with the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and local government) will assess the condition of marine structures such as jetties, slipways and boat ramps around the State. The project aims to have a workable system in place to ensure that all marine structures on Crown Land and Reserved land are in a sound and safe condition and are properly maintained for the safety and enjoyment of users, and secondly to ensure that all marine structures on Crown and Reserved land are managed within a framework of legal lease/licence agreements. On-ground inspections were scheduled to take place in the Tamar region from August to October 2006.
4.3.4 Inappropriate and Illegal Activities Some human activities deliberately or inadvertently can result in significant impacts on flora and fauna. Disturbance caused by human activities can seriously impact on a range of fauna species, particularly nesting shorebirds and eagles. Activities of concern include walking dogs on beaches and walking, trail biking or four wheel driving in sensitive bird breeding habitat. Disturbance caused by human activities can prevent birds from foraging or keep adult birds from attending their nests, resulting in nest failures. Disruption of migrating birds can delay or prevent successful migration (Thorp 2005, Bryant 2002). Eagles are particularly sensitive to disturbance and the mere presence of people within 350m of a nest may result in the nest being deserted (Turner and Thurstans 2000). In addition some fauna species may be the target of deliberate persecution by humans. In the recent past there is evidence of eagles being shot in the Tamar region (Turner and Thurstans 2000).
Remnant foreshore vegetation may be degraded due to encroachment and unauthorised use of reserves. This includes issues associated with weed invasion from properties neighbouring reserves and impacts associated with uncontrolled domestic animals including cats, dogs and livestock that may enter reserves. Grazing in remnant vegetation may cause vegetation and soil damage, which may lead to weed invasion or spread as well as changes in native species composition. In addition, grazing of riparian areas can be particularly harmful and lead to increased rates of riverbank erosion and associated inputs of sediments as well as nutrients and bacteria into waterways (Lovett and Price 1999).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
55 Other human activities of concern include: • illegal fishing and illegal collection of flora or fauna; • littering of foreshores and waters including the illegal disposal of building wastes and other materials (Watchhorn 2000); and • clearing or pruning of remnant foreshore vegetation for the creation or preservation of scenic outlook (Blake and Cannell 2000).
4.3.5 Climate Change Recent climate change has been exacerbated by human activities which have increased emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Since 1900, the average surface temperature of the world has risen by 0.6 ± 0.2 °C. In addition, oceans are warming, glaciers and sea ice are retreating, there have been fewer frosts, sea level has risen 10-20cm, the number of heat waves has increased and heavy rainfall has increased in many regions. Further climate change is projected as emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere continue to increase (NRMCC 2004).
Climate change will impact on all facets of the natural values of the Estuary and has the potential to significantly impact on the basic physical and ecological processes which maintain the current character of the Estuary’s environment. There are three key physical impacts of climate change on estuarine environments: • Increased water temperature – which is likely to change the habitat suitability for a range of species currently residing in the estuary; • Modified rainfall patterns – which may result in changes to salinity levels within the Estuary and changes in flow regimes and associated transport of nutrients, sediments and contaminants; • Sea level rise – and consequent flooding and/or erosion of low lying areas (Edgar et al. 1999, Sharples 2006). There are a range of impacts climate change may have on biodiversity values. Climate change may result in reductions in the range of some species (particularly those whose distribution is extremely limited by climate) or changes in the location of species habitat. Changes in the timing of species lifecycles (e.g. earlier breeding as a result of warmer temperatures) has been documented in many parts of the world. Changes in physical conditions such as air and water temperature, terrestrial moisture availability and salinity levels directly affect the physiology of species and can result in changes in population dynamics and survival. For species that are already vulnerable (e.g. species with limited climatic ranges, limited dispersal ability, specialised habitat requirements, small populations and/or low genetic diversity) climate change may increase the risk of extinction. At a community scale climate change may facilitate the expansion of weeds and pests and result in changes in the structure and composition of ecological communities and ecosystems (NRMCC, 2004). Specific to the Tamar Estuary, the severe storm and weather events predicted as a result of climate change may cause heavy metals in sediments to become mobilised which in turn could affect the health of the estuary (see section 2.2.2).
Several initiatives have recently been undertaken to address issues associated with climate change. The National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan 2004-2007 (NRMCC 2004) was developed to help focus and coordinate efforts at a State and National level to minimise the impacts of climate change on species, communities and ecosystems including estuaries. A Draft Climate Change Strategy for Tasmania was released by the Tasmanian government in October 2006
The document Indicative Mapping of Tasmanian Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise: Explanatory Report (2nd edition, Sharples 2006) and accompanying maps were commissioned by the Department of Primary Industries and Water to indicate Tasmanian coastal areas that are potentially vulnerable to increased storm surge flooding and other hazards related to climate change and sea-level rise. The report identifies a number of low lying areas in the Tamar that will have increased vulnerability to storm surge flooding in the event of increased sea- levels. Mapping of shoreline type for much of the Tamar also provides an indication of other vulnerabilities such as the potential for erosion and/or slumping of sandy and soft muddy shores, and the potential for rock falls, slumping and retreat of hard rock sea-cliffs.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
56 The report by Sharples (2006) is an indicative or ‘first pass’ assessment, more detailed studies such as regional (or ‘second pass’) indicative assessments and site specific assessment, monitoring and modelling will be required to provide reliable information on the degree and rate at which a particular site is likely to be impacted.
The Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring and Archiving Project (TASMARC) aims to provide continuous monitoring of shoreline position at a selected group of Tasmanian beaches. This monitoring will provide information on short-term (monthly, seasonal) and long-term (years, decades) patterns in shoreline movement and in particular the effects of sea level rise, and would be a beneficial project to implement in the Tamar Estuary. The monitoring techniques used are relatively simple and could be readily completed by volunteer groups such as Coastcare (Hunter et al. 2004).
Atmospheric pollution is the cause of accelerated climate change; however management of atmospheric pollution is outside the scope of this plan. Thus the recommended management actions in respect to climate change focus on minimising the negative impacts climate change may have on the Estuary’s natural values. Nonetheless, it must be recognised that continued greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change presents one of the most serious long term threats to the Estuary’s natural values, and thus it is important that measures to reduce emissions are urgently implemented within the Tamar region as well as at a State, National and Global level.
4.4 Summary of Biodiversity The aquatic, wetland (inter-tidal) and foreshore habitats of the Estuary support a rich diversity of flora and fauna including many threatened species.
A study conducted by Edgar et al. (1999) determined the Tamar Estuary to be of critical conservation significance in part because it has high plant, invertebrate and fish diversity and because it possesses a large component of species not recorded in other Tasmanian estuaries. However, the authors note that classification of the Tamar Estuary was problematic because human activities have resulted in substantial degradation of the Estuary’s natural values.
There are many threats to the biodiversity values of the Tamar Estuary, most of which can be categorised as habitat loss or degradation. Water quality and freshwater flows are critical to maintain the range of habitats found in the Estuary. Development activities such as land reclamation and the development of foreshore structures continue to destroy or seriously degrade the habitat of flora and fauna. Weed invasion has degraded much of the Estuary’s remnant foreshore vegetation and the Estuary’s intertidal areas host the largest infestation of rice grass in Australia. The introduced fish Gambusia hoolbrooki and marine pests also present a major threat to the aquatic fauna and flora of the Estuary.
A range of human activities can also directly impact on biodiversity values in the Estuary. These include deliberate persecution and destruction of species such as the shooting of eagles and pruning of remnant foreshore vegetation as well as largely inadvertent impacts such as disturbance of sensitive habitat by inappropriate recreational activities. Many of these activities are illegal but a lack of understanding regarding the impacts and illegal nature of such activities and a lack of enforcement means they continue to present a threat to the biodiversity values of the Estuary.
Climate change presents one of the most serious long-term threats to the Estuary’s biodiversity. It has the potential to significantly alter fundamental characteristics of the entire estuarine environment including species composition and distribution.
A lack of baseline data and long-term monitoring programs, particularly in respect to aquatic flora and fauna, make it difficult to determine trends in the condition of the biodiversity asset. In addition there is currently no mechanism by which all relevant knowledge and data on biodiversity in the Estuary is collated and reported upon. This makes it difficult to develop, prioritise and implement effective management actions aimed at protecting biodiversity values and also contributes to a general lack of understanding and awareness of these values.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
57 4.5 Management Directions This section presents recommended management actions to maintain and enhance the biodiversity values of the Tamar Estuary. These actions primarily focus on the issues and threats discussed in this chapter. It is important to recognise that biodiversity does not exist in isolation from other natural values in the Estuary. To successfully manage biodiversity, there must also be adequate management of the ecosystem as a whole including geodiversity, estuarine waters and people and management. It is therefore important to note that management actions listed below are intended to be read and implemented together with those presented in Asset Chapters 2, 3 and 5. To assist with identification of actions which complement each other across asset categories, a ‘Link’ to other relevant actions has been provided within the action description. All actions have been prioritised and have been ranked from a Very Low (VL) priority to a Very High (VH) priority.
Priority Ranking Key:
VH = Very High priority H = High priority M = Medium priority l = low priority VL = Very Low priority
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
58 Priority Ranking H H H M H H H H VH H M H CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, PWS TC, DEPHA, TAFI TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA CC, WTC, G Lead Organisation & Partners NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, DEPHA NRM North, DEPHA NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North, DEPHA, DPIW Tamar NRM, PWS Tamar NRM, PWS L Fishcare, TFIC Timeframe 2011 2011 2011 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 Ongoing 2011 2009 2013 , L roup ink B6). L ink E1, B2) L ink B2, B23) L 11) overnment funding initiatives ink B9, G L ink B2, B32) L ink E1, B1) L 11) ink B10, G L ink E2, B5, P9) L Undertake subtidal/aquatic habitat mapping (e.g. SEAMAP) to form a baseline of type andaquatic distribution habitat types of including sea grass meadows, sponge gardens, macroalgae,well rocky as baseline reefs, silt physical and sand data as such as temperature, salinity, sediment type, bathymetry etc. ( Recommended Management Actions Develop and implement a program for ongoing monitoring of estuarine health and habitat using indicatorsas those developed such by TAFI, DPIW and the Tasmanian Coastal, Estuarine and Marine Indicators Working G (integrate with existing monitoring as appropriate). ( Regularly collate all scientific survey information collected in the Estuary(e.g. informationindustry collected for regulatory by purposes, research & development institutions etc). Thissupplement information and complement should be used the Estuary to wide monitoring program. ( Undertake natural values & use pressure mapping of the foreshore & intertidal zone. ( Produce a ‘State of the Tamar Estuary Biodiversity Report’ to complement the State of the Tamar EstuaryReport 2006. This should provide a comprehensive review of the current knowledge, conditionsin the biodiversity and trends of the Estuary and form a baseline to which regular ‘report cards’ can refer back to. ( Produce a regular ‘report card’ summarising the latest information on biodiversitymanagement. condition, trends ( and Actively foster partnerships with research and development institutions to encouragethe Estuary and support which studies target in knowledge gaps (e.g. site specific studies that will inform conservation planning). Engage in and support the process for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas, whereEstuary appropriate, (e.g. engage in the in consultation and provide data/information as necessary). Encourage landowners and community groups to access funding and support to plant native speciesprotect remnant and vegetation on private and public land. Promote the current incentive programs such as PAP NFVP and the Tamar NRM Managing Remnant Bush program and Australian G such as Envirofund. ( Encourage and facilitate the use of local provenance native species by landowners and communitywhen undertaking groups revegetation activities along the Estuary foreshore. ( Assist local government to implement Dog Management Plans including coordination with otherauthorities management and raising awareness within the community (e.g. council community newsletters). Assess the impacts of commercial and recreational fishers on species and habitats in Tamarthe make recommendationsEstuary and for management. B1 Code B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 of high Lack of information - There are significant gaps in knowledge regarding biodiversity values in the Estuary, including a lack of baseline data on habitat types, distribution, condition and trends, particularly for aquatic communities Threat/Issue Protection conservation value habitats and sites Ongoing habitat loss and modification caused by inappropriate or illegal human activities including disturbance of shorebird nesting habitat, encroachmenton remnant foreshore vegetation and illegal or unsustainable fishing practices Table 4.5 ManagementTable Actions for Biodiversity
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
59 Priority Ranking H H H H VH H VH M VH VH H H H H H TC, TC, CC, CC, WTC, WTC, CC, CC, WTC, WTC, CC, TC, Esk TC TC, DPIW CC, WTC, L L CC, WTC, S, PWS, NRM S, L CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G L TC, NRM North L TC TC, Tamar NRM TC, DEPHA , DPIW TC, DEPHA, Tamar Tamar DEPHA, TC, CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G DEPHA, L G Lead Organisation & Partners DPIW, PWS, NRM North, L DEPHA, MAST L PWS, C G North, L DEPHA Water Tamar NRM, NRM North Tamar NRM, PWS, L DPIW, C L NRM North and Tamar NRM North, NRM G NRM North, NRM Tamar NRM, AMC, UTAS DPIW, Tamar NRM, NRM North Tamar NRM, L WTC, G DPIW, NRM North, Tamar NRM G NRM 2009 Timeframe 2013 ongoing 2009 2009-ongoing 2009-ongoing 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 ongoing ongoing 2009 2011 itter 12, P23) G 16, ink G L itter Act and impose fines). ink P13) L ink B25, B4) L ink P1) L overnment. IS layer) which identifies key areas (nodes) where marine/foreshore ink P22) L rass Management Strategy for Tasmania (including the area based ink B4) L Support the implementation of recommendations made by the Environment Division following the review of the L Act and current enforcement practices (e.g. authorising more officers to enforce the L Establish a planning framework (e.g. G structures are able to be developed with minimal impact on both terrestrial and aquatic species/habitatswell as ‘no go’ areas where as structures should not be developed. ( Recommended Management Actions Promote the use of the Planning Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore to all relevantauthorities management to ensure best practice use and development of foreshores structures. ( Install litter traps/gross pollutant traps in priority stormwater drains (e.g. industry drains) and rivulets. Undertake a review of existing guidelines and develop a uniform Code of Practice for developmentrehabilitation site which can be applied across Councils and State G Support initiatives to educate and raise awareness within the general community (includingland managers, landowners, community groups etc) about weeds, their impacts, identification, andbest opportunities practice management for involvement in on-ground programs (e.g. programs such as ‘Boneseed‘Ragwort Blitz’ Raid’). and Support community groups working in Tamar Estuary foreshore reserves to manage weedstechnical (e.g. provision advice, of in kind support and assistance in applying for funding). ( Support implementation of recommendations made by the DPIW Marine Structures Assessmentin assessing Project unsafe in 2006 and illegal marine structures such as jetties, boat ramps and sheds. Promote and facilitate the use of codes of best practice and training to guide on ground worksCouncil staff workers, (including industry, contractors etc.) in respect to weed management includingintroduction preventing the and spread of weeds. ( Support initiatives to identify and manage new weed incursions before they become establishedEstuary in the Area. Tamar Collate mapping data on the extent of foreshore weeds and prioritise areas and weed species for( management. Support research into and raise awareness within the community regarding the ‘positive’impacts and ‘negative’ of rice grass in the Tamar Estuary and the priorities for management (e.g. control ofexpansion rice grass in the rice grass free zones and the ‘positive’ effect of rice grass for erosion control and habitat). Continue to implement the Rice G Support continued mapping of rice grass occurring in the ‘rice grass free zone’ to informevaluate management the success and of current containment and monitoring program. ( managementplan) in respect to the Tamar Estuary. Review and update the strategy/plan including the potential for eradication in light of recent research and the feasibility of maintaining the ‘rice grass free zone’. Continue to regularly review, update and implement the Tamar Valley Weed Management Action Plan. Reviewand update to reflect NRM North regional priorities and resource sharing opportunities. B13 Code B14 B18 B16 B19 B20 B15 B21 B17 B22 B23 B27 B25 B26 B24 of foreshore of foreshore and infestation in the oss or modification L of habitat due to development structures, marine structures etc Threat/Issue Habitat loss and modification caused by existing foreshore weeds and potentially by the introduction and spread of new weeds Habitat loss and modification caused by littering waters Impacts of current rice grass Estuary and spread of rice grass
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
60 Priority Ranking VH VH VH VH VH H H H VH H M TC, TC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, TC, TC, CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G TC, DEPHA, DPIW TC, DEPHA, DPIW CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G CC, WTC, G Lead Organisation & Partners AQIS, TasPorts TasPorts, NRM North, L DEPHA, DPIW DPIW, NRM North, L DEPHA NRM North, L G NRM North, L G DPIW, PWS, NRM North, L DPIW, PWS, NRM North, L DPIW, NRM North, L Tamar NRM, PWS DEPHA, TSN DEPHA, TSN Tamar NRM, NRM North, PWS DEPHA, NRM North, Tamar NRM Timeframe 2009 2009 2011 ongoing 2011 2009 2009 2011 ongoing ongoing 2011 ink B3) L 3) ink B2) L ). ( ). ink E28, G G L ambusia from open water systems (including the ink E24) 3) L G for non-trading commercial vessels). ambusia initiatives to raise community awareness, assist in the identification of unrecorded ). Support the development and implementation of legislation to prevent the spread of marine pestsballast via the water of domestic trading vessels. Promote the adoption of the best practice guidelines to all vessel operators to prevent hull foulingdeveloped (guidelines by the NIMP C Recommended Management Actions Conduct a program to raise awareness in the general boating and fishing community (includingand Port commercial staff and recreational vessel owners and operators) regarding general marine pestidentification issues and the of target pests, particularly those that are considered an introductionThe program or translocation should include establishingthreat. signage at marinas and slipping facilities and theidentification distribution cards of pest developed by DPIW. ( In addition to Port surveys, conduct on-going monitoring of marine pests in the Estuarynational consistent port monitoring with the guidelines (in final stages of development by NIMP C Collate information on marine pests collected through survey programs and monitoringthis networks information and every review 2 to 3 years. Where possible encourage individuals and organisationssurveys that to undertake report results in a standardised format that can be readily collated and analysed. ( Raise awareness and educate the community (including council planners, on ground managers,public, the general and foreshore residents) about threatened species and communities occurring withinforeshore the Estuary and waters. Prioritise, develop and implement local recovery plans and management strategiesand for communities threatened species in the Estuary (e.g. Conservation Strategy for the White-Bellied SeaValley Eagle Region in the Tamar Promote the State Climate Change Strategy to local government and key stakeholders and assistgovernment local to develop and implement local strategies to minimise the impact of climate changebiodiversity on values in the Estuary. (E28, G populations and prevent further spread. Continue to investigate methods for the eradication of G Tamar Island Wetlands where proposed drying methods need careful consideration becausepotential they may to have disturb the acid sulphate soils and impact on native species). Continue current G Raise awareness and educate the community about climate change and its likely impacts on biodiversityin the Estuary values (eg. flooding of low lying areas, changes in salinity levels etc). ( B28 B29 Code B30 B31 B32 B35 B36 B37 B33 B34 B38 Introduction of new marine pest species or translocation of existing marine pests to currently non-infected sites outside the Estuary Threat/Issue Maintenance of up to date knowledge on the introduction and spread of marine pests in the Estuary In addition to general measures to reduce habitat loss and modification in some cases specific actions are required to ensure the protection of threatened species and communities Climate change Expansion and/or continued existence of Gambusia
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
61 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
62 5People and Management 5.1 Description of People and Management The Tamar Estuary is collectively managed and used by a wide range of stakeholders including the wider community, business and industry groups, statutory groups such as NRM North and MAST, non-statutory groups such as reference groups and peak bodies and both local and state government agencies. These groups play an important role in providing guidance and information on technical issues impacting on the Estuary and for coordinating activities that improve the social, economic and environmental values of the Estuary. It is recommended that the Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework 2006 is read in conjunction with this section on People and Management as it explores in greater detail the roles and responsibility of the key stakeholders who use and manage the Tamar Estuary.
5.1.1 The People Many community groups and volunteers regularly undertake activities along the Estuary foreshore and in the Tamar Island Wetlands area to improve the amenity and natural values of the Estuary. Regular users of the Estuary include recreational users such as rowing clubs, yacht clubs and fishing clubs as well as tourism operators and visitors to the region.
The Estuary also supports a wide range of heavy industry groups primarily located at Bell Bay and Long Reach adjacent to the Estuary foreshore, and mining industries such as the Beaconsfield Gold Mine. Other industry and business enterprises impacting on the Estuary include extensive agricultural enterprises for cropping, grazing of sheep and cattle, marine farming, forestry and viticulture.
The community and industry users of the Estuary have an important role to play in managing and ensuring the appropriate use of the Estuary. Community education and awareness of the value of the Estuary’s assets and how to conserve and manage these values is critical to ensure effective management occurs. This means that both industry and the wider community need to have an understanding of the impact that their activities can have on the Estuary, as well as ready access to science-based information regarding the current resource condition and trends of the Estuary and best practice management guidelines.
5.1.2 Management Arrangements The management arrangements surrounding the Estuary are complex. Several key policy documents exist that are used to guide the management of the Tamar Estuary including the Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 2007, Tasmanian State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 and the Tasmanian Reserves Code of Practice 2003. Added to this are a number of key documents such as Council planning schemes and local area action plans that describe guidelines for use and development on the Estuary foreshore and various pieces of legislation that regulate activities. Although the Estuary has a number of key policy documents and legislation that surround it, there exists no single set of objectives or policy to guide decision making.
The policy and legislation surrounding the Estuary is based upon the jurisdictional responsibility of the statutory bodies that manage the Estuary. The primary management authorities include local government, the Parks and Wildlife Service, Crown Land Services and Marine and Safety Tasmania. As the land tenure and jurisdiction of the Estuary waters and foreshore are not clear, ambiguity exists as to the extent of planning control and who exercises this control. This is an issue for both public and private land and for controlling activities in the estuarine environment. The Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan (Watchorn 2000) describes in detail the planning issues related to the Estuary and the complexity of the jurisdictional issues which include: • Uncertainty over whom does what; • No single set of objectives or policy direction to govern decision making by various agencies; • A lack of guidelines for a range of uses and developments;
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
63 • Related to this a lack of consistent decision making; • Complex processes when seeking approvals for uses and developments that traverse the foreshore or when seeking improvements to foreshore structures or access ways; and • Conflicts between different uses on the foreshore. It is important to recognise that the current legislation, jurisdiction and management arrangements that apply to the Tamar Estuary also apply at a wider scale to regional and state-wide areas. In the same way that public agencies that have responsibilities in the Tamar exist to perform other functions outside of the Tamar Region, so too does the existing policy and legislation (Locatelli 2006).
5.2 Management Directions This section presents recommended management actions to support and encourage the community to improve environmental management of the Tamar Estuary. These actions primarily focus on general issues associated with people and management. To achieve on-ground environmental improvement these people and management actions must be accompanied by natural asset actions which together manage the ecosystem as a whole, including specific actions for geodiversity, estuarine waters and biodiversity. It is therefore important to note that management actions listed below are intended to be read and implemented together with those presented in Asset Chapters 2, 3 and 4. To assist with identification of actions which complement each other across asset categories, a ‘Link’ to other relevant actions has been provided within the action description. All actions have been prioritised and have been ranked from a Very Low (VL) priority to a Very High (VH) priority.
Priority Ranking Key:
VH = Very High priority H = High priority M = Medium priority l = low priority VL = Very Low priority
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
64 Priority Ranking VH H H H H H M L S L S, L CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, CC, C TC, L S, MAST S, MAST TC, DEPHA, PWS TC, DEPHA, PWS, TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA, C TC, DEPHA, PWS, L L CC, WTC, G Lead Organisation & Partners NRM North, L G MAST, NRM North, L NRM North, L G C DEPHA NRM North, L G NRM North, L G PWS NRM North, Tamar NRM NRM North, L G C WTC, G Timeframe 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 2009 2009 S, L and S, PWS) L overnment Act). This ocal G eorge Town Council Planning ink P5) L and lease agreements with Councils eorge Town and West Tamar) to enable aunceston City Councils to review their and Services and Council (eg. responsibility for aunceston City and G eorge Town and L and leases within the Tamar Estuary Foreshore area and to aunceston City Councils to extend their municipal boundaries into ink P8) L and Assessment Classification project). ( S and PWS to undertake a review of Crown L L ink P1) L S to identify expired Crown L L ink P1) eorge Town, West Tamar and L L ink P2, P4, B13) L Undertake consultation with the West G Tamar, planning schemes, in order to identify where relevant amendments and updating of the schemesadopt can the occur Planning to Guidelines for the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore 2000 and other environmentalsuch as developing provisions ‘environmental management zones’ and performance criteria for use andmay development impact on high that conservation values (e.g. geoheritage and high priority flora and ( fauna communities). Recommended Management Actions Develop guidelines for inclusion into the West L Tamar, Schemes aimed at ensuring that any new development applications received for the Tamar Estuaryforeshore and area require the proponent to provide information that is sufficient in detail to satisfy Council, C and PWS criteria for development approval. The guidelines should be developed in consultationrelevant with planning all and management authorities to ensure they are endorsed by the relevant authoritiesaccepted approach. as the ( regarding all applications for moorings. Support the G the Estuary waters (ideally to the middle of the Estuary Waters for G legal enforcement of the existing statutory powers (eg. Public Health Act and L will not duplicate existing legislated responsibilities such as for oil spills, vessel operatingfarming etc. rules ( and marine Facilitate a process for MAST to consult with the relevant jurisdictional authority (e.g. Council, C vegetation management and erosion control). Update schedules based on the outcome of the review.review This should inform the new lease agreements to be developed following the completion of theAssessment Crown L and Classification project. ( to clarify and further define the responsibility of Crown L Facilitate and support C Distribute the Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework and accompanying mapsstakeholders to key Tamar Estuary to assist clarifying the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involvedthe Estuary. in managing and using Investigate the feasibility of establishing a ‘Home Reach Authority’ or a ‘Tamar Estuarylegislative Authority’ power to develop with and approve processes governing development activitiesinvestigation in the area. This should include holding a well publicised seminar & workshop with involvementstakeholders from all key who use and manage the Estuary to discuss the feasibility and potentialsuch roles an Authority. and function of Councils and C develop interim lease agreements for these priority areas (prior to the developmentupon of new completion lease agreements of the Crown L P1 Code P2 P4 P3 P5 P6 P7 P8 responsible There are many organisations for aspects of natural resource management in the Tamar Estuary. This fact presents a number of issues that can impede effective management including: unclear roles and responsibilities for management authorities; complex jurisdictional and land tenure arrangements; lack of coordination between stakeholders; and lack of enforcement of regulatory processes Threat/Issue Table 5.1 ManagementTable Actions for People and Management
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
65 Priority Ranking VH VH VH VH VH VH VH H H VH roups CC, WTC, CC, WTC, TC, DEPHA TC, DEPHA Lead Organisation & Partners NRM North, L G NRM North, L G NRM North Tamar NRM, PWS, Community G Tamar NRM, NRM North, PWS Tamar NRM, PWS NRM North Tamar NRM, PWS NRM North, Tamar NRM, PWS Tamar NRM, NRM North, PWS Timeframe ongoing 2009 2009 ongoing ongoing ongoing 2009 2009 ongoing ongoing ink B20) L ink B6, E2) L Produce a regular (e.g. annual, biennial) ‘report card’ summarising the latest informationand management on condition, of the trends Tamar Estuary’s natural assets. ( Recommended Management Actions Establish a Tamar Estuary website which will enable the community and all stakeholders (generalindustry, public, government agencies etc.) to access up to date information about the Estuary. Theinclude website general should information regarding the Estuary, past reports and studies, “Tamardescriptions Estuary report of current cards”, and proposed initiatives, and information regarding planningapprovals and development processes. Establish procedures to maintain and access the Tamar Estuary Natural Values Database Improve community participation in both natural resource management & education activitiesparticularly for NRM, through supporting community groups and landholders to access fundingon-ground and undertake NRM activities. Continue to support and recognise community groups undertaking volunteer work in the Estuary(e.g. administrative support, technical advice, financial support, recognition of achievements etc). ( Facilitate the development of partnerships between management authorities and communityindividuals groups/ to develop management plans for areas of high conservation value (e.g. supportapplications, funding provide technical advice and support implementation of plans). Hold a volunteer forum for facilitators and coordinators in the Northern NRM Region to identifylevels current of support provided to community groups, to identify gaps and to develop streamlinedfor communication processes and partnerships between volunteer support groups and betweenvolunteers support (eg. groups NRM North, and Tamar NRM, Councils, Volunteering Tasmania, PWS etc). Undertake a review of all active community groups who regularly undertake work on the Estuaryto determine if foreshore they have insurance cover, and are currently registered with the Parks and WildlifeCouncil Service, or other appropriate organisation. Facilitate the registration of volunteers withand ensure an appropriate appropriate agency insurance cover is provided. Promote and raise awareness of NRM issues in schools. Support the development of toolkitsaid and schools programs and teachers to to educate students on NRM issues. Promote the use of the Tamar Island WetlandsCentre as an educational facility. Continue to build the capacity of the community to undertake on-ground works by providingvolunteers training (eg. to training may include weed identification field days, training in habitat and groupspecies leadership surveying, skills etc). P9 Code P10 P11 P12 P13 P15 P16 P17 P18 P14 Access to information and knowledge transfer Threat/Issue Community capacity building and education
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
66 Priority Ranking H H M VH VH S L TC CC, WTC, CC, WTC, G TC, DEPHA, PWS, Lead Organisation & Partners Tamar NRM, PWS,C NRM North, L G NRM North, Tamar NRM NRM North, Tamar NRM, L NRM North, Tamar NRM Timeframe ongoing ongoing 2009 2011 ongoing and, and users’ awareness of land uses and 16, B14) 12, G 7, G 7, ink G L ink B21) L ink P20) L 17) 9, G ink P14, G L Develop an education program to increase landowners’ and Crown L activities that negatively impact on the Tamar Estuary foreshore and ways in which theyforeshore can enhance values. the ( Recommended Management Actions Develop and distribute an information package for residents living along the Tamar Estuaryraise foreshore awareness to of illegal practices (eg. unauthorised removal of vegetation for scenicunauthorised views on Crown L establishment of foreshore structures, removal of rice grass or channellingactivities of the mud flats) residents and can undertake to improve and conserve the natural foreshore values.initially This be distributed package should to all residents and continue to be distributed to new residents on an ongoing( basis. Investigate the feasibility of holding an annual festival to celebrate the Tamar Estuary (modelledTamar River Festival). on previous The aims of the Festival could include celebrating environmental achievementslaunching the annual and Tamar Estuary Report Cards, raising awareness of Tamar Estuary issues incommunity, the wider and an opportunity to bring community groups together. Develop and implement a training program and guidelines for council workers and contractorsground involved vegetation in on- management (e.g. training courses, induction procedures, policycontracts documents, provisions etc.). Investigate in other opportunities for training and building the capacityNRM related of Councils activities. to undertake ( Support and facilitate access to and use of information, databases and training to increaselevels knowledge of estuarine and skill managers/ supervisors in NRM (e.g. use of codes of practice, guidelines,Atlas, the Natural the latest Values research etc). ( P19 Code P20 P21 P22 P23 Community capacity building and education cont. Threat/Issue NRM training for land managers, particularly council staff
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
67 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
68 6Implementation 6.1 Background The Tamar Estuary Management Plan- A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary (TEMP) provides the future blueprint for managing the natural values of the Tamar Estuary. This Plan aims to consolidate existing information regarding the Estuary and develop management priorities to protect and enhance the Estuary’s natural values. It will also provide a means to leverage funding and investment from key stakeholders. The successful implementation of the plan will hinge upon a coordinated effort involving partnerships between management authorities, industry and the community.
There is a long history of community groups and individuals working to protect and conserve the Estuary’s natural values. More than 40 community groups exist within the Tamar region and many of these undertake environmental work on the Estuary’s foreshore (Locatelli 2006). However the capacity of the community has been limited by access to timely and accurate information regarding the condition of the Estuary’s natural assets and a consequent lack of true direction for management aims and objectives. The lack of baseline data and information has also hindered the efforts of management authorities to achieve cooperative and effective management of the Estuary’s unique values.
The complex jurisdictional arrangements and land tenure surrounding the Estuary combined with complex and piecemeal legislation has made it difficult to establish effective processes and management priorities. The establishment of the Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Programme will be the cornerstone of a partnership between NRM North, DEPHA and local government. Such a program will assist the broader community and key stakeholders, as an effective guide for decision making and setting management directions to ensure the long term sustainable management of the Estuary for the benefit of all stakeholders.
6.2 Developing Management Priorities The management actions presented in the TEMP were developed though a process of consultation with the community and key industry and management authorities including local and state government. Many of the actions were originally sourced from existing documents related to the Estuary and were further reviewed, refined and expanded upon during a series of technical workshops and additional one-to-one consultation with key experts and stakeholders.
Prioritisation of the management actions was undertaken to provide greater management direction in respect to what the community and key stakeholders considered to be of the highest priority to implement. A prioritisation workshop was held in December 2006 prior to the completion of the draft plan. A multiple criteria assessment (MCA) method was used to assign each action a priority ranking ranging from very low to very high. Actions were ranked based on six criteria which were developed in consultation with the TEMP steering committee. Criteria used to assess the actions included: technical feasibility; contribution to improvement in the condition of the asset; value for money; the level of community and stakeholder support; time criticalness; and contribution to improving social/economic amenity.
6.3 Implementation The Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework outlines the range of statutory and non-statutory organisations with responsibility for some aspect of management for the Tamar Estuary’s natural values. Successful implementation of the TEMP will require the engagement and commitment of many, if not all of these stakeholders including all levels of government, non-government organisations, NRM organisations, research and development institutions, industry, landowners and land managers, community groups and the broader community. Many of the recommended management actions, particularly in the chapter on ‘People and Management’ specifically address the need to engage stakeholders and the general community. More generally it will be essential to develop an overarching cooperative approach to management of the Estuary founded on partnerships between key stakeholders and the community.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
69 The development of this management plan aims to set and prioritise management directions for the Estuary as a means to leverage investment from both the public and private sectors. It is anticipated that investment in the plan will take many forms including: financial, technical and administrative support, resource (including data) sharing, volunteer time and other forms of in-kind support. The type of investments made will largely reflect the resources available to different stakeholders and the implementation requirements of particular actions.
The asset based structure applied to the TEMP required that management actions were developed to address issues which were identified as a threat to individual asset categories. It is important to note however, that the management actions developed have integral links and synergies with complementary actions within multiple asset categories. This is reflected by the fact that many issues such as weeds, sedimentation and erosion affect the health and condition of multiple assets such as Biodiversity and Estuarine Waters. Implementation of the actions described in the TEMP should therefore take into account the ‘links’ described in the actions tables to ensure that integrated programs and activities are developed that aim to improve the condition of the Tamar Estuary as an ecosystem.
Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Programme The Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers (TEER) Programme established in 2008 represents a regional partnership between State and Local Government and NRM North. The overarching aim of the Programme is to provide a coordinated management approach that guides investment in key activities that will protect, maintain and enhance the waterways.
The Programme will focus on improving our scientific understanding of the issues impacting upon the health of our waterways. This will enable identification of priority areas for targeted on-ground works and strategic investment. Activities undertaken will range from ecosystem monitoring, reporting and research to on-ground rehabilitation programs, education and awareness and building the capacity of the community to address local problems.
The TEER Programme will aim to foster collaborative partnerships between all stakeholders including both State and Local Government and industry groups to ensure that the Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers are well managed into the future to support a healthy and diverse ecosystem.
The development of the TEMP is one component of the broader Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Programme. The TEMP project, including the Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework will provide a platform for development of the TEER. The prioritised management actions will effectively provide a draft work plan for the TEER to consider when fulfilling its role and function. The Responsibility Framework will provide a basis for identification and engagement of key stakeholders for involvement in the TEER and more broadly for implementation of the actions described in the TEMP.
6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation The complexity of natural systems and the inherent uncertainty associated with their management means that monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of all natural resource management.
Throughout the life of the TEMP it is critical that ongoing monitoring and evaluation takes place to enable the assessment of: 1) the progress of the plan (i.e. the implementation of actions); 2) the effectiveness of the actions in improving the condition of the Estuary or managing issues/threats; and 3) the need to modify management. To undertake such an assessment it will be necessary to develop objectives and corresponding measurable indicators. Various types of indicators may be used, such as program indicators (e.g. staff employed or funds spent), behaviour indicators (e.g. level of pollution emissions or area of weeds removed) and environmental indicators (e.g. water quality or animal species abundance). A number of management actions address the need for the development of particular indicators or objectives and these should be integrated into an overarching monitoring and evaluation framework for the entire Tamar Estuary.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
70 Progress towards the development of consistent and on-going monitoring will be aided by the development of appropriate indicators. As part of the National Natural Resource Management (NRM) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, draft indicators have been developed for Tasmanian estuarine, coastal and marine habitat integrity (DPIW 2006a). A suite of indicators for the condition of estuaries and coastal waters is also being developed at TAFI and is currently in draft form (Crawford 2006).
The TEMP should not be viewed as a static document and the results of ongoing monitoring and evaluation should be used to further develop and improve the plan. The plan has been designed for a lifespan of approximately ten years and it is recommended that it undergoes a formal and comprehensive review at a minimum of every 5 years.
6.5 Conclusions and General Recommendations A significant amount of work has been conducted on the Tamar Estuary in the past, however no overarching planning document previously existed to prioritise the key areas for management or to consolidate much of the existing information regarding the Estuary. This plan aims to set management directions and priorities building upon previous work including the Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan (Watchorn 2000) which focused primarily on the on the planning and jurisdictional issues surrounding the Estuary.
The proposed establishment of a Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Programme will fill the role of a key coordinating body that will bring together key stakeholders and be able to coordinate management and leverage investment from partners.
A myriad of issues and threats currently impact upon the natural values of the Tamar Estuary. Many of these include pressures associated with current and historical urbanisation, industrialisation, and land use practices within the Estuary’s drainage area and catchment. Larger scale processes including global climate change and the spread of weeds and pests also present a serious threat to the Estuary’s natural values. Other issues such as those associated with a lack of understanding and knowledge or complex institutional, legislative and policy frameworks hinder the ability of the community and stakeholders to successfully manage the issues and threats impacting upon the Estuary.
Described below are a number of general recommendations proposed to improve the community’s current understanding and knowledge of the Estuary as well as the current management arrangements surrounding the Estuary: • Developing and implementing a Tamar Estuary monitoring and evaluation framework. This should include the establishment of whole of estuary monitoring programs, particularly for water quality and biodiversity, in order to collect baseline data and ongoing long term data which can be used to report on the condition of, and trends in the health of the Estuary. As part of this process a 5 yearly review of the TEMP should be undertaken. • Fostering the development of partnerships and a cooperative approach to management of the Estuary between key stakeholders including local and state government, businesses, industry and the community. This should include promoting and facilitating ongoing data collation, data sharing and resource sharing opportunities between all stakeholders. • Developing an education and awareness raising program to effectively engage and communicate with key stakeholders and the wider community. This program should aim to coordinate implementation of management actions such as those regarding the development of a Tamar Estuary website, improving access to information, promoting achievements and good news stories, and regular reporting on the condition and trends of the Estuary’s natural values (eg. report cards).
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
71 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
72 7List of Acronyms and Glossary
ABWMC ...... Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council
AMC ...... Australian Maritime College
ANZECC ...... Australian New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
ANZGFMWQ ...... Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
AQIS ...... Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
CAR ...... Refers to the concept of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system.
CLAC ...... Crown Land Assessment and Classification Project (Crown Land Services Branch, DPIW)
CLS ...... Crown Land Services, DPIW, Tasmanian State Government
DEPHA ...... Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, Tasmanian State Government (Previously DTAE)
DPIW ...... Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmanian State Government (Previously DPIWE).
DPIWE ...... Department of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment, Tasmanian State Government
DTAE ...... Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment, Tasmanian State Government
Groyne ...... A groyne is a method of coastal defence against erosion. Groynes are structures running perpendicular to the shoreline.
GTC ...... George Town Council
IFS ...... Inland Fisheries Service
LCC ...... Launceston City Council
LEC ...... Launceston Environment Centre
MAST ...... Marine and Safety Tasmania, Tasmanian State Government
Mesotidal ...... Mesotidal refers to a moderate mean tidal range (eg. between ~2m and 4m)
NIMP CG ...... National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group
NorCaM ...... Northern Coastal and Marine Reference Group
PWS ...... Parks and Wildlife Service
RAMSAR ...... This term refers to the Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, which is an intergovernmental treaty for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.
RGAG ...... Rice grass advisory group established in Tasmania in 1996
RPDC ...... Resource Planning and Development Commission
TAFI ...... Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute
TASFA ...... Tasmanian Amateur Sea Fisherman’s Association
TASMARC ...... Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring and Archiving Project
TasPorts ...... Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd
TEER ...... Tamar Estuary and Esk Rivers Programme
TEMP ...... Tamar Estuary Management Plan- A Management Plan for the Natural Values of the Tamar Estuary
TFIC ...... Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council
TSN ...... Threatened Species Network (TSN) - a partnership between WWF-Australia and the Australian Government
TVWS ...... Tamar Valley Weed Strategy
UTAS ...... University of Tasmania
UTRIA ...... Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority
Wildcare Inc. .... Wildcare Incorporated is a Tasmanian Environmental Volunteer Group.
WTC ...... West Tamar Council
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
73 Tamar Estuary Management Plan
74 References
8Aquenal Pty Ltd (2001). Prepared for Port of Launceston Pty Ltd to meet the requirements of the AQIS Decision Support System (DSS) for Ballast Water Management Aquenal Pty Ltd (2005). Gunns Ltd Pulp Mill: Marine Biological and Sediment Survey at the Proposed Wharf Site, Long Reach, Tamar Estuary. Gunns Ltd Aquenal Pty Ltd and Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (2008). State of the Tamar Estuary. Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, Hobart. Armstrong, N. S. (2005). Holocene Sedimentation and Heavy-metal Contamination in the Industrialised Tamar River Estuary. University of Wollongong: Honours thesis Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Regional Population Growth: Australia 2004-05, Canberra. Barrett, N. and S. Wilcox (2001). Biological surveys and habitat mapping of proposed marine protected areas on the Tasmanian north and north-eastern coasts. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Hobart. Blake, G. and R. Cannell (2000). “Tamar Estuary 2020: Foreshore Vegetation Mapping and Analysis” in Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan. Tamar Estuary 2020 Steering Committee. Bobbi, C., D. Fuller and D. Oldmeadow (1996). South Esk Basin State of Rivers Report. Technical Report No WRA 96/02. Resource Assessment Branch, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Hobart. BOM (2006). Climate Averages, Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.bom.gov.au Bowkett, L. A. (1999). A vegetation survey of Melaleuca ericifolia dominated communities surrounding the Tamar Estuary. University of Tasmania: Honours Bryant, S. (2002). Conservation Assessment of beach nesting and migratory shorebirds in Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, Natural Heritage Trust, Hobart. Bryant, S. and J. Jackson (1999). Tasmania’s Threatened Fauna Handbook: What, Where and How to Protect. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Coughanowr, C., G. Green and G. Alomes (2001). Derwent Estuary Program Environmental Management Plan, Hobart. Crawford, C. (2006). Draft Indicators for the Condition of Estuaries and Coastal Waters. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Cronin, S. J. (2004). Weed Management Strategy - Northern Natural Resource Management Region Cronin, S. J. (2006). Weed Action Plan: Northern NRM Region, Tasmania. Northern Regional Weed Strategy Working Group Department of Primary Industries and Water (2006a). Draft Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Indicators for the National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Hobart, Department of Primary Industries and Environment. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-6N59JM?open Department of Primary Industries and Water (2006b). Natural Values Atlas (formerly GTSpot). Hobart. Accessed: August - December 2006 Address: https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au/pls/htmldb/ Department of Primary Industries and Water (2006c). Shark Refuges. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/ALIR-4YA7GL?open Department of Primary Industries and Water (2006d). Waterways Monitoring Reports for 2004/2005. Accessed: 2006 Address: http:// www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/JMUY-V8GJ?open# 2005Reports Department of Primary Industries and Water and Environment (2005). Environmental Management Goals for Tasmanian Surface Waters: Tamar Estuary and North Esk Catchments. Report prepared in association with Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Latrobe, West Tamar, George Town, Launceston City, Northern Midlands, Break O’Day, Meander and Dorset Councils Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment (2002). Strategy for the Management of Rice Grass (Spartina anglica) in Tasmania, Australia, 2nd edition, Hobart. Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment (2003). Draft Environmental Management Guidelines for Operational Best Practice at Slipways and other Boat Repair and Maintenance Facilities. Environment Division Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment (2005). Framework for Determining Holistic Environmental Water Requirements in Tasmania (Draft). Technical Report. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tasmania. Department of the Environment and Heritage, C. (2006). Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling in Species Profile and Threats Database. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/ publicspecies. pl?taxon_id=26179 Dowson, G. (2006). Environment Division, Department of Tourism, Arts and Environment, Tasmania. Personal communication. Edgar, G. J., N. S. Barrett and D. J. Graddon (1999). A classification of Tasmanian estuaries and assessment of their conservation significance using ecological and physical attributes, population and land use., Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Tasmania. Edgar, G. J. and C. R. Samson (2004). “Catastrophic Decline in Mollusc Diversity in Eastern Tasmania and Its Concurrence with Shellfish Fisheries.” Conservation Biology 18(6): 1579-1588. Esk Water (2005). Annual Report. Esk Water Authority, Launceston, Tasmania. Forest Practices Authority (2001). Threatened Fauna Manual for Production Forests in Tasmania (revised version). Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=82 Foster, D. N., R. Nittim and J. Walker (1986). Tamar River Siltation Study. University of New South Wales Water Research Laboratory Technical Report No. 85/07 Garnett, S. T. and G. M. Crowley (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. Gill, N. and G. Blake (2002). A Preliminary Investigation of Riverbank Erosion within the Tamar Estuary. Tamar Region Natural Resource Management Strategy Reference Group Inc.
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
75 Gurung, S. (2001). Tasmanian Acid Drainage Reconnaissance: Distribution of Acid Sulphate Soils in Tasmania. Mineral Resources Tasmania, Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Hobart. Harris, S. and A. Kitchener (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark: Descriptions of Tasmania’s Vegetation. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Hunter, J., W. Hennecke, R. Coleman and C. Sharples (2004). Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring and Archiving Project (TASMARC), CRC for Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems and University of Tasmania. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.acecrc.org.au/uploaded/117/797286 52tasmarc. pdf Hydro Tasmania (2003a). South Esk - Great Lake water management review. Scientific Report on Cataract Gorge. Hydro Electric Commission, Hobart. Hydro Tasmania (2003b). South Esk - Great Lake Water Management Review: Scientific Report on Tamar Siltation Inland Fisheries Service (2006). Fact Sheet for grayling, Inland Fisheries Service. Accessed: 2006 Address: http://www.ifs.tas.gov.au/ifs/ IFSDatabaseManager/SpeciesDatabase/grayling Inspiring Place Pty Ltd (2000). Marine Farming Development Plan. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Division, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment Koehnken, L. (2001). North-east rivers environmental review: A review of Tasmanian environmental quality data to 2001. Supervising Scientist Report 168, Supervising Scientist, Darwin. Lara, A. L., Neira, F. J. (2003). Studies on the early life history of fishes in the Tamar Estuary, Tasmania. Natural Heritage Trust, Australian Maritime College Lazarus, E. L., N. and Potts, W. (2003). Threatened Flora CD. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Locatelli, A. (2006). Draft Tamar Estuary Responsibility Framework. Prepared by SFM Environmental Solutions for the Northern Tasmanian NRM Association. Lovett, S. and P. Price, Eds. (1999). Riparian Land Management Technical Guidelines. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. Milner, R. (2006). Gambusia holbrooki: A Management Guide and Workbook. Natural Heritage Trust, NRM North, Launceston. Moreton, R. (2007). Land Conservation Branch, Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania. Personal communication. Noble, K. E. (1992). Land Capability Survey of Tasmania - Tamar Report. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tasmania. Northern Tasmanian Water Quality Monitoring Project (2006). Draft State of Region Report for the Asset of Water. Launceston Environment Centre NRMMC (2004). National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government, Canberra. Parks and Wildlife Service (2003). Tamar Island Wetlands: Bird Checklist. Tasmania, Department of Tourism, Arts and Environment. Accessed: March 2007 Address: http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/factsheets/ wildlife/TamarBirdlist.pdf Parks and Wildlife Service (2006). Tamar River Conservation Area. Accessed: Address: http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/reserves/tamar/index.html Pierson, W. L., K. Bishop, D. Van Senden, P. R. Horton and C. A. Adamantidis (2002). Environmental Water Requirements to Maintain Estuarine Processes. Environmental Flows Initiative Technical Report Number 3, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Pirzl, H. and C. Coughanowr (1997). State of the Tamar Estuary: A review of environmental quality data to 1997. Environment Australia, Commonwealth of Australia Rees, C. G. (1994). Tasmanian Seagrass Communities. University of Tasmania: Masters thesis Reid, T. and P. Park (2003). “Continuing decline of Eastern Curlew, Numenius madagascariensis, in Tasmania.” Emu 103: 279-283. Resource Planning and Development Commission (2003). State of the Environment Tasmania 2003. Hobart. Accessed: 2006 Address: http//www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer Rowland, C. J. (2001). Tamar Region Natural Resource Management Strategy, 2nd edition. Tamar Region Natural Resource Management Sharples, C. (2002). Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Sharples, C. (2006). Indicative Mapping of Tasmanian Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change and Sea-level Rise: Explanatory Report, 2nd Edition. Consultant report to Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart. Skirving (1986). Suspended sediment sources of the Tamar River. Unpublished report, Geography Department, University of Tasmania Smith, B. J. (1995). Tamar Intertidal Invertebrates: An Atlas of the Common Species. Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston. Tamar Landcare Celebration Working Group (2003). Our Tamar Valley: A Celebration of Landcare Achievements, Tamar Region. Tamar Valley Weed Strategy Working Group (1997). Tamar Valley Weed Strategy Working Group: Strategic Plan Tasmanian Parks Wildlife and Heritage (1991). Development Proposal for a Tamar Island Wetlands Reserve: Discussion Paper. Tasmanian Parks, Wildlife and Heritage Thorp, V. (2003). Community Coastcare Handbook: Caring for the Coast in Tasmania. Tasmanian Environment Centre Inc and Coastcare Turner, S. and S. Thurstans (2000). Conservation Strategy for the White-Bellied Sea Eagles in the Tamar Valley Region, Tasmania. Australian Raptor Association, Coastcare, National Heritage Trust Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority (2006). Annual Report. Launceston City Council Watchorn, L. (2000). Tamar Estuary and Foreshore Management Plan. Tamar Estuary 2020 Steering Committee, West Tamar Council, Beaconsfield. Watchorn, L. and J. Hepper (1999). Tamar Estuary 2020: Community Consultation Report. Tamar Estuary 2020 Steering Committee Watts, D. (1999). Field Guide to Tasmanian Birds. New Holland Publishers, Sydney. Wilson, K., A. Foley, C. Bobbi, B. Graham, T. I., T. Krasnicki and D. Horner (2003). State of the Rivers Report for the North Esk Catchment. Technical Report No. WAP 03/06. Water Assessment and Planning Branch, Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Wood & Associates (2002). Tamar Estuary Fish and Sediments Study. The Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
76 9Appendices 9.1 List of Threatened Flora and Fauna
Table 9.1.1 Threatened flora species recorded in the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) as occurring within approximately 3 km of the Tamar Estuary.
Listed under Listed under Endemic to Tasmanian the National Class Old Name Common Name New Name Tasmania TSP Act EPBC Act
Dicotyledonae Acacia ulicifolia juniper wattle Acacia ulicifolia rare
Alternanthera Alternanthera Dicotyledonae lesser joyweed endangered denticulata denticulata
Dicotyledonae Asperula minima grassy woodruff Asperula minima rare
Dicotyledonae Asperula subsimplex water woodruff Asperula subsimplex rare
white alpine Dicotyledonae Bracteantha bicolor Xerochrysum bicolor rare everlasting
Dicotyledonae Brunonia australis blue pincushion Brunonia australis vulnerable
Dicotyledonae Calocephalus lacteus milky beauty heads Calocephalus lacteus rare
Dicotyledonae Calystegia sepium great bindweed Calystegia sepium rare
possibly Dicotyledonae Centaurium spicatum Australian centaury Centaurium spicatum rare introduced?
Australian hound’s Dicotyledonae Cynoglossum australe Cynoglossum australe rare tongue
Dicotyledonae Discaria pubescens hairy anchor plant Discaria pubescens endangered
Dicotyledonae Epacris exserta South Esk heath Epacris exserta vulnerable endangered endemic
Dicotyledonae Euphrasia scabra yellow eyebright Euphrasia scabra endangered
Dicotyledonae Glycine latrobeana clover glycine Glycine latrobeana vulnerable vulnerable
Dicotyledonae Glycine microphylla small-leaf glycine Glycine microphylla vulnerable
Grevillea australis narrow-leaf southern Grevillea australis Dicotyledonae rare endemic linearifolia grevillea linearifolia
Gyrostemon Gyrostemon Dicotyledonae broom wheel fruit rare thesioides thesioides
Dicotyledonae Hibbertia virgata twiggy guinea flower Hibbertia virgata rare
Hyalosperma Hyalosperma Dicotyledonae moss sunray endangered demissum demissum
Lepidium Lepidium Dicotyledonae shade peppercress rare pseudotasmanicum pseudotasmanicum
Dicotyledonae Limonium australe sea lavender Limonium australe rare
Dicotyledonae Lotus australis austral trefoil Lotus australis rare
Dicotyledonae Lycopus australis native gipsywort Lycopus australis endangered
Dicotyledonae Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria vulnerable
Dicotyledonae Parietaria debilis pellitory Parietaria debilis rare
Dicotyledonae Persicaria decipiens slender knotweed Persicaria decipiens vulnerable
Dicotyledonae Persicaria subsessilis bristly knotweed Persicaria subsessilis endangered
Dicotyledonae Phyllangium distylis tiny mitrewort Phyllangium distylis rare
Dicotyledonae Pimelea flava flava yellow rice flower Pimelea flava flava rare
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
77 Listed under Listed under Endemic to Tasmanian the National Class Old Name Common Name New Name Tasmania TSP Act EPBC Act
Dicotyledonae Prostanthera cuneata alpine mint bush Prostanthera cuneata x
Prostanthera Prostanthera Dicotyledonae roundleaf mint bush vulnerable rotundifolia rotundifolia
Pultenaea guinea flower bush Dicotyledonae Pultenaea mollis vulnerable hibbertioides pea
Dicotyledonae Pultenaea prostrata prostrate bush pea Pultenaea prostrata vulnerable
Ranunculus Ranunculus Dicotyledonae sessiliflorus annual buttercup sessiliflorus rare sessiliflorus sessiliflorus
Dicotyledonae Rumex bidens mud dock Rumex bidens rare
Dicotyledonae Rutidosis multiflora small wrinklewort Siloxerus multiflorus rare
Dicotyledonae Scutellaria humilis dwarf scullcap Scutellaria humilis rare
Dicotyledonae Senecio squarrosus leafy groundsel Senecio squarrosus rare
green berry Dicotyledonae Solanum opacum Solanum opacum endangered nightshade
Spyridium parvifolium Spyridium parvifolium Dicotyledonae Australian dusty miller rare parvifolium parvifolium
Dicotyledonae Spyridium vexilliferum winged spyridium Spyridium vexilliferum rare
Dicotyledonae Stylidium despectum small trigger plant Stylidium despectum rare
Dicotyledonae Tetratheca ciliata pink bells Tetratheca ciliata rare
Dicotyledonae Velleia paradoxa spur velleia Velleia paradoxa vulnerable
Dicotyledonae Veronica plebeia trailing speedwell Veronica plebeia rare
Dicotyledonae Viola caleyana swamp violet Viola caleyana rare
woolly New Holland Dicotyledonae Vittadinia gracilis Vittadinia gracilis rare daisy
Dicotyledonae Wilsonia rotundifolia roundleaf wilsonia Wilsonia rotundifolia rare
Anogramma Anogramma Filicopsida annual fern rare leptophylla leptophylla
Filicopsida Hypolepis muelleri harsh ground fern Hypolepis muelleri rare
Isoetes drummondii Isoetes drummondii Isoetopsida plain quillwort rare drummondii drummondii
Isoetes drummondii Isoetopsida Isoetes drummondii plain quillwort rare drummondii
Phylloglossum Phylloglossum Lycopodiopsida pygmy clubmoss rare drummondii drummondii
Monocotyledonae Aphelia gracilis slender aphelia Aphelia gracilis rare
Arachnorchis Paterson’s spider Monocotyledonae Caladenia patersonii vulnerable patersonii orchid
Austrostipa double-jointed spear Austrostipa Monocotyledonae rare bigeniculata grass bigeniculata
Bolboschoenus Bolboschoenus Monocotyledonae sea club-rush rare caldwellii caldwellii
Bolboschoenus Bolboschoenus Monocotyledonae marsh club-rush rare medianus medianus
Monocotyledonae Caesia calliantha blue grass lily Caesia calliantha rare
Monocotyledonae Caladenia caudata tailed spider orchid Caladenia caudata rare vulnerable endemic
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
78 Listed under Listed under Endemic to Tasmanian the National Class Old Name Common Name New Name Tasmania TSP Act EPBC Act
black-tongue Monocotyledonae Caladenia congesta Caladenia congesta endagered caladenia
Caladenia filamentosa Monocotyledonae daddy long-legs Caladenia filamentosa rare filamentosa
critically Monocotyledonae Caladenia lindleyana lindley’s spider orchid Caladenia lindleyana endangered endangered
Monocotyledonae Carex gunniana mountain sedge Carex gunniana rare
Centrolepis strigosa Monocotyledonae Centrolepis pulvinata scarce centrolepis rare endemic pulvinata
Chiloglottis Chiloglottis Monocotyledonae broad-lip bird orchid endangered trapeziformis trapeziformis
Monocotyledonae Chorizandra enodis black bristle-rush Chorizandra enodis vulnerable
Monocotyledonae Cyrtostylis robusta large gnat orchid Cyrtostylis robusta rare
Arthropodium Monocotyledonae Dichopogon strictus chocolate lily rare strictum
Monocotyledonae Diuris palustris swamp diuris Diuris palustris endangered
Hypoxis vaginata Hypoxis vaginata Monocotyledonae sheathing yellow-star rare brevistigmata brevistigmata
Hypoxis vaginata Hypoxis vaginata Monocotyledonae sheathing yellow-star rare vaginata vaginata
Monocotyledonae Juncus amabilis gentle rush Juncus amabilis rare
Monocotyledonae Lachnagrostis aequata even blown-grass Lachnagrostis aequata rare
Lepidosperma Lepidosperma Monocotyledonae sticky sword sedge rare viscidum viscidum
Monocotyledonae Microtis atrata yellow onion orchid Microtidium atratum rare
Monocotyledonae Microtis orbicularis swamp onion orchid Hydrorchis orbicularis rare
Monocotyledonae Orthoceras strictum horned orchid Orthoceras strictum rare
Monocotyledonae Poa mollis soft poa grass Poa mollis rare endemic
Monocotyledonae Pterostylis cucullata leafy greenhood Pterostylis cucullata endangered vulnerable
Monocotyledonae Pterostylis falcata sickle greenhood Pterostylis falcata rare
Schoenoplectus Schoenoplectus Monocotyledonae river club sedge rare validus validus
Monocotyledonae Sporobolus virginicus salt couch Sporobolus virginicus rare
Austrostipa Monocotyledonae Stipa bigeniculata rare spear-grass rare bigeniculata
Monocotyledonae Stipa blackii crested spear-grass Austrostipa blackii rare
Monocotyledonae Thelymitra antennifera rabbit-ears Thelymitra antennifera endangered
Monocotyledonae Thelymitra holmesii Holmes’ sun orchid Thelymitra holmesii rare
Triglochin Triglochin Monocotyledonae tiny arrow grass rare minutissimum minutissimum
Xanthorrhoea Xanthorrhoea Monocotyledonae shiny grass tree vulnerable endangered endemic bracteata bracteata
Callitris oblonga Callitris oblonga Pinatae South Esk pine vulnerable endangered endemic oblonga oblonga
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
79 Table 9.1.2 Threatened fauna species recorded in the Natural Values Atlas (DPIW 2006b) as occurring within approximately 3 km of the Tamar Estuary.
Listed under Listed under Kingdom Class Old Name Common Name New Name Tasmanian the National TSP Act EPBC Act
spider (Cataract Invertebrates Arachnida Migas plomleyi Migas plomleyi rare Gorge)
Beddomeia hydrobiid snail Beddomeia Invertebrates Gastropoda rare launcestonensis (Cataract Gorge) launcestonensis
Pasmaditta Pasmaditta Invertebrates Gastropoda snail (Cataract Gorge) rare jungermanniae jungermanniae
Vertebrates Amphibia Litoria raniformis green and golden frog Litoria raniformis vulnerable vulnerable
Accipiter Accipiter Vertebrates Birds grey goshawk endangered novaehollandiae novaehollandiae
Vertebrates Birds Aquila audax fleayi wedge-tailed eagle Aquila audax fleayi endangered endemic
Haliaeetus white-bellied sea Haliaeetus Vertebrates Birds v leucogaster eagle leucogaster
Vertebrates Birds Lathamus discolor swift parrot Lathamus discolor endangered endemic
Numenius Numenius Vertebrates Birds eastern curlew endangered madagascariensis madagascariensis
Vertebrates Birds Podiceps cristatus great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus rare
Vertebrates Birds Sterna nereis nereis fairy tern Sterna nereis nereis rare
Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae Vertebrates Birds endangered castanops (Tasmanian) castanops
Freshwater Vertebrates Prototroctes maraena Australian grayling Prototroctes maraena vulnerable vulnerable fish
Dasyurus maculatus Dasyurus maculatus Vertebrates Mammalia spotted-tailed quoll rare vulnerable maculatus maculatus
eastern barred Vertebrates Mammalia Perameles gunnii Perameles gunnii vulnerable bandicoot
Vertebrates Mammalia Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii pp
Thylacinus Thylacinus Vertebrates Mammalia thylacine x ex cynocephalus cynocephalus
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
80 9.2 List of Stakeholders who Participated in Consultation
Table 9.2.1 Stakeholders who participated in Round 1 consultation for the TEMP. Round 1 consisted of one key stakeholder meeting and two public consultation meetings held in August and September of 2006.
Participants at Key Stakeholder Consultation - 31 August 2006
Name Organisation
Ursula Taylor Deputy Director, Derwent Estuary Program
Nicole Middleton Australian Government NRM Facilitator - Coasts & Marine/Coastcare
Kay Bailey Tamar NRM
David Keast Launceston Environment Centre
Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Anthony Ross Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Maria Chledowska Launceston City Council
Darlene Mansell NRM North
Scott Schilg NRM North
Dominic Hammersley West Tamar Council
Owen Ingles Consultant
Kathy Noble Coastal & Marine Branch, Dept. Environment, Parks Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA)
Quenton Higgs Fishcare, Dept. Primary Industries and Water
Bev Allen Launceston City Council
Steve Ratcliffe Launceston City Council
Christian Bell Marine & Coastal Community Network
Doug Brown Launceston Environment Centre
Chris Rees Coastal & Marine Branch, Dept. Environment, Parks Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA)
Callum Cecil Australian Maritime College
Participants at Beauty Point Public Consultation - 13 September 2006
Name Organisation
Margaret Loughborough Individual
George Loughborough Individual
Gene Pedder Riviera Hotel
Dave Groves Tamar NRM
Julia A. Groves West Tamar Councillor
John Day Rowella Landcare
Ken Demott Individual
Laurie Crerar Friends of the Tamar
Owen Ingles Individual
Janet Ley Australian Maritime College
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
81 Participants at Riverside Public Consultation - 14 September 2006
Name Organisation
Adrian Jones PDYC
Alf Waters Hillwood Area Committee
Ron Riley Hillwood Area Committee
Ralph Cooper Birds Australia
Bill Wood Individual
Jim Guy Tamar Rowing Club, Launceston Regatta
Julie Nermut Tamar Islands Wetlands CARes Group
Jody Bush Individual
Rob Cassidy Tamar River Cruises
Ian Smith Individual
Rebecca Green George Town Council
Fiona Roark University Student & Volunteer
Alan Lester Individual
Geoff Pedley Individual
Margaret Taylor Individual
Alan Taylor Chair- Former Launceston Waterwatch & Greens Policy Convenor
Charles Black Tas Ports Corporation
Mac Kidd Tas Ports Corporation
Peter Newman Tamar Yacht Club, Grammar Rowing Club
David Girling Boating Industry Association
Rosemary & Alf Verbeeten Friends of Little Swan Point
Paul Stevenson Conservation Volunteers Australia
Table 9.2.2 Stakeholders who participated in Round 2 consultation for the TEMP. Round 2 consisted of four technical workshops held in November 2006 and one prioritisation workshop held in December 2006.
Participants at the Estuarine Water technical workshop - 14 November 2006
Owen Ingles Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority
Callum Cecil Australian Maritime College
Scott Schilg NRM North
Shane Fava Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council
Catherine Murdoch NRM North
Steve Ratcliffe Launceston City Council
David Keast Launceston Environment Centre
Shannon Fox Launceston City Council
Colin Shepherd Marine Resources, Dept. Primary Industries and Water
Dominic Hammersley West Tamar Council
Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Christine Crawford Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute
Greg Dowson Environment Division, Dept. Environment, Parks Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA)
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
82 Participants at the Geodiversity technical workshop - 15 November 2006
Douglas Ewington Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
Owen Ingles Upper Tamar River Improvement Authority
Callum Cecil Australian Maritime College
Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Steve Ratcliffe Launceston City Council
Participants at the Biodiversity technical workshop - 16 November 2006
Neville Barrett Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute
Sonia Lloyd Marine Resources, Dept. of Primary Industries and Water
Ralph Cooper Birds Tasmania
Chris Moore Launceston City Council
Andrew Baldwin Tamar NRM
Rebecca Green George Town Council
Quenton Higgs Fishcare, Dept. of Primary Industries and Water
Janice Miller Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Doug Brown Launceston Environment Centre
Callum Cecil Australian Maritime College
Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Participants at the People and Management technical workshop - 17 November 2006
Phil Thompson Crown Land Services
Rebecca Green George Town Council
Callum Cecil Australian Maritime College
Chris Emms Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Scott Schilg NRM North
Stan Matuszek Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania
Kay Bailey Tamar NRM
Dominic Hammersley West Tamar Council
Tamar Estuary Management Plan
83