FINAL REPORT: Coastal Management Program Scoping Study

December 2020

Document history

Revision: Revision no. 02 Author/s M. Rosenthal M. Sano Checked M. Sano E. Zavadil Approved E. Zavadil

Distribution: Revision no. 01a Issue date 18 May 2020 Issued to Peter Ryan (Georges Riverkeeper) Description: Draft for comment

Revision no. 02 Issue date 4 December 2020 Issued to Peter Ryan (Georges Riverkeeper) Description: Final Report

Citation: Please cite as: Alluvium (2020). Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study. Report by Alluvium for Georges Riverkeeper. December 2020.

Acknowledgement: Alluvium acknowledges the Traditional Owners and custodians of the lands on which we work.

The sites assessed are on the lands of the Dharug and Dharawal People, and we acknowledge them as Traditional Owners.

We pay our respects to their elders, and the elders of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, past, present, and into the future.

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Scoping study purpose 1 1.2 Study area 1 1.3 Report structure 6

2 Program context 7 2.1 NSW Coastal Management Framework 7 2.2 Coastal Management Programs 8

3 Strategic context 11 3.1 Physical setting 12 3.1.1 Landscape context, geology and soils 12 3.1.2 Coastal processes, sediment supply and transport 14 3.1.3 Coastal hazards 17 3.1.4 Shoreline management 20 3.2 Hydrology and hydrodynamics 24 3.2.1 Catchment hydrology 24 3.2.2 Groundwater 24 3.2.3 Hydrodynamics 25 3.2.4 Tides 26 3.2.5 Flooding 26 3.3 Climate 27 3.3.1 Current climate 27 3.3.2 Past observations 27 3.3.3 Future projections 28 3.3.4 Sea level rise 29 3.4 Ecological value 32 3.4.1 Terrestrial vegetation 33 3.4.2 Seagrass meadows 33 3.4.3 Mangroves, saltmarshes and reedlands 34 3.4.4 Upper catchment freshwater ecosystems 34 3.4.5 Fauna 35 3.4.6 Threatened Ecological Communities 35 3.4.7 Invasive species 37 3.4.8 Environmental pressures 37 3.4.9 Towra Point Nature Reserve 37 3.5 Built urban environment 39 3.5.1 Imperviousness 39 3.5.2 Planning and development 40 3.5.3 Residential density 40 3.5.4 Industrial density 40 3.5.5 Designated growth areas within the catchment 41 3.6 Society, culture, and heritage 43 3.6.1 Cultural diversity 43 3.6.2 Indigenous heritage 43 3.6.3 Early British Australian heritage 43 3.6.4 Population 44 3.7 Economy 45 3.7.1 Economic sectors 45 3.7.2 Ecosystem services 46

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 iii

3.7.3 Recreational use 46 3.7.4 Primary production 46 3.7.5 Regional socio-economic summary 47 3.7.6 Economic considerations for CMP development 47 3.8 Legal framework 48 3.8.1 Acts of Parliament 48 3.8.2 State Environmental Planning Policies 48 3.8.3 Governance 50 3.9 Urban and regional planning 52 3.9.1 State level plans 52 3.9.2 Regional plans 52 3.9.3 Local plans 53 3.9.4 Development application process 55 3.9.5 LEP and LSPS reviews 55 3.10 Natural resource management 57 3.10.1 Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan (2018) 57 3.10.2 Metropolitan water management 58 3.10.3 Groundwater management 59 3.10.4 Crown land and National Parks 60 4 Review of key coastal management arrangements 64 4.1 Water Quality Improvement Plan (2011) 64 4.2 Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013) 68 4.3 Towra Point PoM, Formal Assessment of Change in Ecological Character and Response Strategy 72

5 CMP Stakeholder and community engagement context 74 5.1 Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy 74 5.2 Engagement activities during the Scoping Study 74 5.3 Incorporating contributions from stakeholder engagement into the Scoping Study 74 5.4 Response to COVID-19 75 6 Determine the scope of the CMP 76 6.1 Purpose, vision and objectives 76 6.2 Geographical extent of Georges River CMP 76 6.3 Alignment with Coastal Management Areas 77 6.3.1 Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Area 77 6.3.2 Coastal Vulnerability Area 77 6.3.3 Coastal Environment Area 77 6.3.4 Coastal Use Area 78 6.4 Synthesis of values 82 6.4.1 Lower Georges River Estuary and Botany Bay 82 6.4.2 Upper Catchment 82 6.4.3 Values identified during the stakeholder engagement workshop 83 6.4.4 Summary list of key values underpinning the Coastal Management Program 84 6.5 Synthesis of issues 85 6.5.1 Issues identified in the CZMP 85 6.5.2 Relevant threats identified in the MEMA TARA 85 6.5.3 Issues identified in the BBWQIP 86 6.5.4 Issues identified during the stakeholder engagement workshop 86 6.5.5 Summary list of priority issues to consider in the Coastal Management Program 86 6.6 First pass risk assessment 87 6.6.1 First pass risk assessment for environmental values 89

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 iv

6.6.2 First pass risk assessment for social values 90 6.6.3 First pass risk assessment for economic values 91 6.7 Prioritised list of issues to be addressed by the Coastal Management Program 92

7 Knowledge gaps: determine where action is required 93 7.1 Overview 93 7.2 Knowledge gaps related to identified values, issues, and risks 93 7.3 Knowledge gaps addressed by the Marine Estate Management Strategy (MEMS) 100

8 Preliminary business case 101 8.1 Environmental and social considerations 101 8.2 Economic considerations 101 8.2.1 Preliminary damage / loss assessment 102 8.2.2 Tourism 102 8.2.3 Case study consideration: Brighton Le Sands Beach 103 8.2.4 Case study consideration: Urban stream amenity value 103 8.3 Risks of preparing/not preparing a CMP 104 8.3.1 Statutory obligations 104 8.3.2 Delaying/avoiding action will incur significant future cost 105 8.3.3 Risks of preparing a CMP 105 8.4 Funding and cost sharing opportunities 105 8.4.1 Coasts & Estuaries Grant and alignment with MEMS 105 8.4.2 Alignment with other grants and programs 106 8.4.3 Sharing cost with other CMPs for certain studies 106 9 Forward plan 108 9.1 Governance options for the CMP preparation and implementation 108 9.1.1 Individual CMPs for each Council LGA 108 9.1.2 Georges River catchment wide CMP 109 9.1.3 Whole of Botany Bay CMP 109 9.1.4 Recommended approach 109 9.2 Proposed components for each Stage of CMP forward plan 110 9.3 Consideration of fast tracking 113 9.4 Stakeholder review and endorsement 113

10 References 114

Appendix A –Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy 118 Appendix B – Stakeholder study tour and workshop 153 Appendix C – Overview of CZMP implementation to date 173 Appendix D – First pass risk assessment details 245 Appendix E – Overview of information gathering survey responses 250 Appendix F – RCAT analysis 270 Appendix G – Economic analysis 280 Appendix H – Additional relevant legislation 288 Appendix I –Planning documentation for Member Councils 292

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 v

Figures

Figure 1. A map of the study area including LGA boundaries across the Georges River catchment 2 Figure 2. The Georges River catchment divided into sub-catchments corresponding with Georges Riverkeeper water quality report cards 4 Figure 3. The study area contains stretches of sandy coastline which have experienced past shoreline stability issues 5 Figure 4. An overview of the changes that have occurred to legislation, policies and guiding material involved in NSW coastal management reform 7 Figure 5. Summary of several key documents/programs that influence the CMP process 8 Figure 6. Five stages to preparing a CMP (OEH 2018) 8 Figure 7. Acid sulphate soil risk within the Georges River catchment (NSW DPE 2013) 13 Figure 8. Conceptual model of coastal processes and natural assets along the Botany Bay shoreline (modified from BMT WBM 2003) 15 Figure 9. Sediment transport pathways along (modified from Advisian 2016) 16 Figure 10. Satellite imagery of the series of groynes along installed to manage a westward longshore sediment transport in southern Botany Bay 21 Figure 11. Comparison of sediment accumulation at groynes to the south (left) and north (right) of Lady Robinsons Beach. Build-up of sediment along groynes demonstrates the prevailing direction of sediment transport 22 Figure 12. Towra Point was the site of beach nourishment works in 2003 with approximately 60,000 m 3 of sand from the spit relocated to the receding shoreline (Google 2020) 22 Figure 13. Ramsgate baths beach restoration is occurring in 2019 (image below) with 28,000 m 3 of sand from the spit formed near the Georges River 16ft Sailing Club at Sandringham. , 2019 23 Figure 14. A temporary installation of geobags is installed to protect heritage items including Norfolk Island Pines in Kamay Botany Bay National Park 23 Figure 15. Highest, lowest and mean monthly rainfall from 1968 to 2019 at Airport (BOM 2019) 27 Figure 16. Modelled inundation scenarios (2100 +0.74m at highest tide) from a simple bathtub model provide an indication of the areas at risk within the Georges River catchment (Coastal Risk 2017) 29 Figure 17. Zones within the study area (circled) which face varying degrees of risk to shoreline recession (OEH 2017) 30 Figure 18. Zones along the Lady Robinsons Beach which face varying degrees of risk to shoreline recession (OEH 2017) 31 Figure 19. Distribution of impervious/pervious land surface within the catchment as determined by land use on the NSW 2013 land use map. A higher runoff coefficient (and darker red) corresponds with a more impervious surface. 39 Figure 20. Growth areas earmarked for development within the catchment. (NSW Department of Planning 2016). Additional areas of growth not included in this map include the Greater MacArthur Growth Area and the Wilton Growth Area. 42 Figure 21. This monument can be found in Kamay Botany Bay National Park along with a museum documenting early Australian British and Aboriginal heritage (Andrew Richards 2011) 43 Figure 22. Projected changes in Greater ’s urban dwelling density (DPIE 2016) 44 Figure 23. Industries in the Georges River catchment in 2018/19, including economic value-added ($ million) and percentages indicating the proportional contribution of each industry to the local economy (NIEIR 2019) 45 Figure 24. Georges River boardwalk (NPWS 2019) 46 Figure 25. Study tour stop at Simmos Beach in the upper catchment of the Georges River 75 Figure 26. Stakeholder workshop at the Georges River Sailing Club, November 2019 75 Figure 27. The Coastal Management Areas as currently mapped in the Coastal SEPP 79 Figure 28. Example of output of the first pass risk assessment carried out with stakeholders. The value is water quality, the catchment zone is Mid-Estuary. 87 Figure 29. Indicative boundaries for adjacent CMPs. Note that these boundaries are not exact or final. 106 Figure 30. Georges River values identification with a Slido poll word cloud 158 Figure 31. Comparison of the DPIE catchment model results with those of the RCAT approach for the Georges River catchment. 273 Figure 32. Estimated contribution of E. coli load per hectare per year by sub catchment across the Georges River catchment 274 Figure 33. Estimated contribution of total E. coli load per year by sub catchment across the Georges River catchment 274 Figure 34. A map of the Georges River catchment with sub catchments numbered according to the DPIE Estuary Health Risk Assessment 275 Figure 35. Flow chart to help decide whether the NSW Estuary Health Risk Dataset is suitable for assessing the health of an estuary (DPIE 2019) 277

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 vi

Figure 36. Modelled yields of TN and TP for each subcatchment within the study area (DPIE 2019) 278 Figure 37. Modelled yields of TSS for each sub-catchment within the study area (DPIE 2019) 279 Figure 38. Conceptual model of how base case information is used to determine the benefit of adaptation. (NCE 2020) 281 Figure 39. Estimated direct stage-damage curves for buildings ($/m2) (NCE 2020) 287

Tables

Table 1. An overview of the five-stage process of a Coastal Management Program (OEH 2018) 9 Table 2. Summary of the coastal hazards that currently pose a risk to the Georges River CMP scoping study area. 18 Table 3. High priority Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDE) within the Georges River catchment (NSW DPI 2011) 25 Table 4. The number of houses exposed vary under three different sea level rise scenarios (OEH 2018) 29 Table 5. A list of Threatened Ecological Communities that are known to occur within the Sydney Metro Catchment Management Authority (former) area (NSW BioNet Atlas Search, 2019) 36 Table 6. Land use classes and areas for the Georges River CMP study area (Including Kurnell Peninsula) (DPIE 2017) 40 Table 7. Socio Economic Indicators for Areas (SEIFA) scores for Member Councils (ABS 2016) 47 Table 8. Core legislation relevant to the Georges River catchment 48 Table 9. Core SEPPs applicable to the study area 49 Table 10. Catchment LGA by District boundaries (Greater Sydney Commission 2016) 52 Table 11. Summary of local plans for the eight LGAs 54 Table 12. Council LEP review status. (Urbis 2019) 56 Table 13. Scheme of operations for Kamay Botany Bay National Park (NPWS 2020) 62 Table 14. Percent reductions needed for chlorophyll-a and turbidity to ensure the water quality of the Georges River is conducive to community recreational and environmental values 65 Table 15. Percent reductions recommended for various stormwater pollutants for greenfield developments, large redevelopments, and other types of development (note these are not for the entire catchment) 65 Table 16. The top scenarios for achieving targeted pollutant reduction along with indicative costs 65 Table 17. An overview of the Best Management Options (BMOs) as determined in the Georges River Estuary CZMP (BMT 2013) 70 Table 18. Objectives for each Coastal Management Area in the Coastal Management Act 80 Table 19. Categorisation of listed values into Environmental, Social/Cultural, and Economic 84 Table 20. Description of likelihood levels (MEMA, 2015) 88 Table 21. Description of consequence level (MEMA, 2015) 88 Table 22. Risk matrix used to determine risk level (MEMA, 2015) 88 Table 23. Summary of risk level for key environmental values 89 Table 24. Summary of risk level for key social values 90 Table 25. Summary of risk level for key economic values 91 Table 26. Results of the first pass risk assessment showing identified issues ranked from highest to lowest. 92 Table 27. Summary of existing information and knowledge gaps in relation to the key management issues identified in this Scoping Study. The risk values are based on the outputs of the first pass risk assessment. The values at risk are based on the list of fifteen values in section 6.3.4. 94 Table 28. MEMS Implementation plan initiatives relevant to the future Georges River CMP 100 Table 29. Preliminary damage / loss estimates for a present day and future (present day + 1m) inundation event 102 Table 30. Key tourism metrics for Bayside (source: Tourism Research 2019) 102 Table 31. Forward program for developing the Georges River Coastal Management Program 111 Table 32. Risk assessment for environmental values 246 Table 33. Risk assessment for social values 247 Table 34. Risk assessment for economic values 249 Table 35. Functional unit designation for the 2017 Georges River draft land use spatial layer (DPIE 2020) 272 Table 36. Top contributing sub catchments in terms of total E. coli load per year 276 Table 37. A comparison of modelled results at two points 276 Table 38. A long-list of potential data sources to inform the economic assessment 282 Table 39. Discussion of key asset classes (including indicative damage/loss estimate) 285 Table 40. Additional legislation relevant to the Georges River catchment 289

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 vii

Table 41. Additional SEPPs applicable to the study area 290 Table 42. Local Councils LEPs and DCPs 295 Table 43. Evaluation framework for LEPs and DCPs against CZMP Management Aims, Objectives and Actions 298 Table 44. Liverpool City Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 299 Table 45. - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 302 Table 46. Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 306 Table 47. Bayside Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 308 Table 48. - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 311 Table 49. Canterbury-Bankstown Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 313 Table 50. Campbelltown City Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 316 Table 51.Wollondilly Shire Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments 318

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 viii

List of Acronyms

AASS – Actual Acid Sulphate Soils ACT – Australian Capital Territory ASS – Acid Sulphate Soils BC Act – NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 BoM – Bureau of Meteorology CMP – Coastal Management Plan CM Act – NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation CZMP – Coastal Zone Management Plan DCP – Development Control Plan DPE – The former Department of Planning & Environment (now under DPIE) DPI – Department of Primary Industries DPIE – Department of Planning Industry & Environment EAC – East Australian Current EP&A Act – NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 EPBC Act - Environmental Conservation and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) GCM – Global Climate Model GDE – Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems GRCCC – Georges River Combined Councils Committee Inc., trading as Georges Riverkeeper GRK – Georges Riverkeeper GSC – Greater Sydney Commission HHWSS – High High Water Solstice Springs LEP – Local Environment Plan LGA – Local Government Area LSPS – Local Strategic Planning Statement MEMA – NSW Marine Estate Management Act 2014 MEMS – Marine Estate Management Strategy NARCliM – NSW & ACT Regional Climate Model NIEIR – National Institute of Economic and Industry Research NSW – OEH – Office of Environment and Heritage PASS – Potential Acid Sulphate Soils RCM – Regional Climate Model SCCG – Sydney Coastal Councils Group SEPP – State Environmental Planning Policy TARA – Threat and risk assessment TPNR – Towra Point Nature Reserve TPNRRS – Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site TSC Act – NSW Threaten Species Conservation Act 1995

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 ix

1 Introduction

1.1 Scoping study purpose Georges Riverkeeper (trading name of the Georges River Combined Councils’ Committee Inc.) on behalf of its eight member councils is coordinating the development of a Coastal Management Program (CMP) for the Georges River estuary including the catchments and coastal zone of the Georges River. The Scoping Study is the first stage in the development of a CMP. The Scoping Study assists member councils to (OEH, 2018):

• Identify the community and stakeholders and prepare an engagement strategy

• Determine the strategic context of coastal management

• Establish the purpose, vision, and objectives

• Determine the key coastal management issues and the spatial extent of management areas

• Review current coastal management arrangements

• Establish roles, responsibilities, and governance

• Determine where action is required through a first-pass risk assessment1

• Identify knowledge gaps and information needs

• Prepare a preliminary business case for the CMP

• Determine whether a planning proposal will be prepared to amend coastal management area maps and the Local Environmental Plan

• Develop a forward program for subsequent stages of the coastal management program, including a fast- tracking pathway2.

This document is the Scoping Study for the Georges River CMP. The Scoping Study establishes the program of work to be completed for the CMP and is completed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Government Coastal Management Manual (OEH, 2018), and with regard to the Coastal Management Act 2016 and Coastal Management State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 2018.

1.2 Study area Location The study area for this Scoping Study spans the Georges River Estuary including its catchment and tidal waters, with a focus on the coastal zone as defined in the NSW Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act), comprising coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest, coastal vulnerability, coastal environment and coastal use areas.

The Georges River, also known as Tucoerah River, rises in the south west of its catchment in Wollondilly Shire, where it flows for approximately 100 km to its mouth at Botany Bay (Figure 1). The catchment area covers 960 km2, a significant portion of which is within the Sydney Metropolitan area. The estuary extends approximately 50 km inland from Botany Bay to the tidal limit at .

Additional areas beyond the catchment were also included in this Scoping Study. The coastal cliffs of the Kurnell peninsula, from Potter’s Point northward, as well as the coastal catchment of Lady Robinsons Beac h up to the southern bank of the , have been included to ensure alignment with neighbouring CMP scoping studies (i.e. Cooks River and ).

1 A first pass risk assessment identifies the impact that various stressors (climate or otherwise) can have on the community values. 2 Parts or all of Stages 2 and 3 can be fast-tracked where the management approach is considered to be performing well or thresholds for drivers of change have not been exceeded.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 1

Figure 1. A map of the study area including LGA boundaries across the Georges River catchment

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 2

Councils and sub-catchments The Georges Riverkeeper is the coordinating body for the implementation of the CMP across eight Member Councils:

• Bayside City Council

• Campbelltown City Council

• City of Canterbury-Bankstown

• Fairfield City Council

• Georges River Council

• Liverpool City Council

• Sutherland Shire Council

• Wollondilly Shire Council.

These councils have some or all of their LGA within the hydrological catchment of the Georges River or Botany Bay. These eight councils are all members of the Georges Riverkeeper.

The study area has been divided into sub-catchments in a similar fashion to those delineated in the Georges River Combined Council Committee (GRCCC) 2017-18 report card (GRCCC, 2018). An additional sub-catchment has been included – the Botany Bay area, which includes Towra Point. The distribution of sub-catchments within member council LGAs is illustrated in Figure 2.

Approximately 18 km of low to medium energy shoreline exists within the study area. This extends from the mouth of the Cooks River in the north to the coastal cliffs of Potters Point in the south.

Lady Robinsons Beach, Ramsgate Beach and Dolls Point comprise the longest contiguous stretch of Botany Bay’s sandy shorelines within the Bayside LGA, while two shorter segments of sandy shoreline in the south of the bay lie within the Sutherland Shire. These shorter segments span both Towra Point Nature Reserve and Silver Beach. A further six kilometres of exposed, high energy coastline extends along the Kurnell Peninsula from Inscription Point to Potters Point (Figure 3).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 3

Figure 2. The Georges River catchment divided into sub-catchments corresponding with Georges Riverkeeper water quality report cards Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 4

Figure 3. The study area contains stretches of sandy coastline which have experienced past shoreline stability issues

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 5

1.3 Report structure The Georges River CMP Scoping Study is structured as follows, reflecting the purpose of the CMP Scoping Study as defined previously in Section 1.1, and requirements of the NSW Coastal Management Manual (DPIE 2018).

Main report • Section 2 – Program context: an overview of the NSW Coastal Management Framework and an introduction to the Coastal Management Program development process. • Section 3 – Strategic context: a literature and data review on the relevant context and management challenges for the Georges River catchment and estuary. Includes physical context, environmental context, social and economic context, and legislative and governance context. • Section 4 – Review of key coastal management arrangements: a detailed review of key existing coastal management arrangements including the Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (2011) the 2013 CZMP, and the management framework of Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site. • Section 5 – Overview of the stakeholder and community engagement strategy: a summary of engagement activities undertaken for the development of the CMP Scoping Study and an introduction to the Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy. • Section 6 – Determine the scope of the CMP: outline of the spatial extent of the Scoping Study as well as the overlap with the Coastal Management Areas. Informed by a stakeholder workshop, key values and issues are listed and used to inform a first pass risk assessment that highlights priority issues to be considered in the CMP.

• Section 7 – Determine where action is required: knowledge gaps around identified values, issues and risks are considered and a framework for filling the gaps is discussed. • Section 8 – Preliminary business case for preparing a CMP: an exploration of the economic, social, and statutory business case for developing a CMP for the Georges River. Funding and cost sharing options are discussed. • Section 9 – Forward plan: recommended activities and indicative costing for future stages of CMP development are tabulated and a consideration for fast tracking is discussed. Appendices • Appendix A – Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy: A Community and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy was prepared as a part of this Scoping Study and it can also be a stand-alone document for ease of reference throughout the CMP process.

• Appendix B – Outputs from stakeholder workshop: a summary of outputs from the workshop held for key stakeholders. • Appendix C – Overview of CZMP implementation to date: a register maintained by Georges Riverkeeper and completed annually by member councils. • Appendix D – First pass risk assessment details: detailed inputs for likelihood and consequence scores which inform the prioritised management issues. • Appendix E – Overview of information gathering survey responses: a follow up to the workshop, this survey was given to key stakeholders.

• Appendix F – RCAT Analysis: methods and results from the Rapid Catchment Analysis Tool (RCAT) used to explore water quality issues based on land-use based runoff. • Appendix G – Economic analysis: additional economic analysis regarding specific assets classes and flood risk to buildings. • Appendix H – Legal framework: a thorough list of applicable legislation and environmental planning instruments relevant to the Georges River area. • Appendix I – Review of planning instruments: example case studies of reviewing council planning instruments.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 6

2 Program context

2.1 NSW Coastal Management Framework The recent coastal management reform has involved the release of several key pieces of legislation, policies and guidance material over the last six years. The framework comprises:

• Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act) • State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 • NSW Coastal Management Manual • Coastal Management Programs • NSW Coastal Council • Coastal and Estuary Grants Program.

The CM Act defines the coastal zone, comprising 4 coastal management areas:

• Coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area • Coastal vulnerability area • Coastal environment area • Coastal use area.

Detailed objectives for each management area can be found in the descriptions within the Act.

Figure 4 summarises the changes that have been developed under the supervision of the responsible ministers with the aim to manage the coastal environment in a manner consistent with the quadruple bottom line principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), i.e. for the environmental, social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the people of the State.

The four key component documents/programs that provide direct influence/guidance for the Coastal Management Program are summarised further in Figure 5.

Figure 4. An overview of the changes that have occurred to legislation, policies and guiding material involved in NSW coastal management reform

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 7

•This Act divides the coastal zone into four management areas which are to be used by local councils to achieve the objectives of the Act through the Coastal Management Act implementation of their respective Coastal Management Programs. the objectives of the act are for long term coordinated approach to coastal and 2016 estuary management. The guidance for this process is provided for by the Coastal Management Manual (OEH 2018a) through a five -stage approach (see Table 1 below).

•Updated in 2018, the Coastal Management State Environmental Planning State Environmental Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (CM SEPP) supports the Coastal Planning Policy (Coastal Management (CM) Act 2016 through provision of the development controls Management) 2018 specific to each of these coastal management areas. These controls are supported by the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979.

•A key objective of the Marine Estate Management (MEM) Act 2014 is improved co-ordination by public authorities in relation to their Marine Estate responsibilities to the Marine Estate. This integration, critical to the delivery Management Act 2014 of outcomes for both the Marine Estate Management Strategy (MEMS) 2018 and the Coastal Management Program, is supported by the Coastal Management Act, which ‘support(s) the objects of the MEM Act 2016’.

•Funding support for local councils has been made available by the State government for this reform process through the Coastal and Estuary Grants Coast and Estuary Grants Program, which is part of a greater $83.6 million funding package for Program coastal management in NSW from 2016-to 2021. In developing the CMP, councils are required to clearly identify and balance competing interests and priorities within the coastal zone (OEH 2018).

Figure 5. Summary of several key documents/programs that influence the CMP process

2.2 Coastal Management Programs The five recommended stages to preparing a CMP as set out in the Coastal Management Manual (OEH, 2018) are shown in Figure 6 and Table 1.

When progressing through this approach, Councils are required to report on progress, outcomes and achievements in line with reporting requirements under the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework (OEH, 2018).

Completion of the Stage 1 Scoping Study involves a review of the existing understanding of the catchment and coastal zone, examining progress and effectiveness of the management of coastal issues, developing a shared understanding amongst stakeholders of the issues at hand, identifying the key knowledge gaps and risk, and developing recommendations for future studies/investigations and a forward program of work to complete the CMP. Figure 6. Five stages to preparing a CMP (OEH 2018)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 8

Table 1. An overview of the five-stage process of a Coastal Management Program (OEH 2018)

CMP stage Key steps Key outputs

− Identify key stakeholders and − Identification of the key prepare an engagement strategy knowledge gaps and how to bridge them − Determine the strategic context of coastal and catchment − Established roles management responsibilities and governance − Establish the purpose, vision and objectives − Determination on whether a planning proposal will be − Identify key coastal management prepared to amend coastal issues and review coastal management areas and the management arrangements Local Environment Plan

− Determine where action is − Forward program for Stage 2 required through a first pass risk and Stage 3 of the coastal assessment management program

− Confirm the strategic direction − A preliminary business case for the coastline and catchment for the CMP and recommended studies

− Define the socioeconomic − Quantification of the nature characteristics such as and the extent of threats to demographics, coast dependent public and private assets economic activities, land use (both natural and built) patterns and future development scenarios − Context and data to support the identification and − Improve the understanding of evaluation of management the complexity of the issues and options in Stage 3 community perspectives − Identification of opportunities − Ensure different perspectives are to reduce risks and enhance incorporated in the analysis of the environmental, social and consequences and likelihood economic values

− Understand the range of − The detailed information potential future scenarios and necessary for a planning the local community’s attitude to proposal to amend the risk mapping of the coastal management areas − Complete a detailed risk assessment

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 9

CMP stage Key steps Key outputs

− Identify potential options for − Identify pathways and timing integrated management of all of actions coastal management areas − A business plan for − Evaluate feasibility, viability and implementation acceptability of management actions

− Engage public authorities about implications for their assets and responsibilities

− Evaluate mapped coastal areas and implications if a planning proposal is prepared

− Prepare a Coastal Management − Exhibition of the draft CMP Program (CMP) and any related planning proposal − Submit the draft CMP to the Minister for certification − Publishing of the certified CMP in the Gazette − Review and adopt the draft CMP

− Implement actions in the − Amendments, a review of and published CMP through the IP & updates to the CMP R framework and land use planning system − A report to stakeholders and the community on progress − Implement actions in partnership and outcomes through the with adjoining councils and public IP&R framework authorities where relevant

− Implement an effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting program

− Monitor indicators, trigger points and thresholds

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 10

3 Strategic context

The following section provides a review of the background information relating to the physical, environmental, social, cultural economic and governance context of the Georges River catchment and estuary. A considerable amount of information exists relating to the processes and management of the Georges River catchment and the Botany Bay area. These sources include:

• Technical studies

• Planning documents

• Spatial datasets, including maps.

The available information was reviewed to develop an understanding of the strategic context for the Georges River catchment and its coastal zone. The key documents reviewed include:

• Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) (BMT WBM, 2013)

• Catchment wide studies such as the Georges River Compilation Study (SMEC, 2010) and the Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (SMCMA, 2011)

• Regional Planning documents such as the Greater Sydney Region plan and the District Plans

• Georges Riverkeeper member council’s Local Government documents such as local environmental plans, development control plans, and community strategic plans.

Georges River

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 11

3.1 Physical setting

3.1.1 Landscape context, geology and soils The Georges River estuary is a drowned river valley which was carved into the landscape during phases of tectonic uplift approximately 15 and 29 million years ago. The original valley extended some 25 km east of the current coastline, however periods of sea level rise over the last 20,000 years have brought the coastline to its present-day extent (BMT WBM, 2018). This gradual inundation forced the deposition of fluvial and marine sediments further inshore, eventually blocking the original mouth of the Georges River, which lay to the south of the Kurnell Peninsula.

The catchment landscape is dominated by two main rock types, the Wianamatta Shale concentrated in the western portion, and the Hawkesbury sandstone in the southern, northern and eastern sub catchments. Both geologies give way to different landforms. The Wianamatta Shale is typically flat to undulating with moderately incised creek lines, while the Hawkesbury sandstone is characterised by flat ridge tops and steep, deeply incised, rocky gullies (Tippler & Wright, 2012).

The soils within the catchment correspond to the underlying geology. Soils within the northern half of the catchment, derived from the Wianamatta Shales (Kurosols) are particularly susceptible to erosion when compared to the sandier soils of the sandstone dominated areas. These shale-derived soils are prone to sheet and gully erosion and are dispersive.

The sandier soils derived from the sandstone country to the south are generally poorly developed, stony soils. These are more permeable, porous, less dispersive than the northern Kurosols, yet remain prone to erosion when vegetation is removed or disturbed (SMEC, 2010).

Acid sulphate soils (ASS) are sediments which deposit in low lying coastal areas such as mangroves, tidal marshes or other tidal areas. Such areas lend to conditions where sulphate from seawater, organic matter and sulphate reducing bacteria produce iron rich sediments. The disturbance of such soils leads to the oxidation of iron sulphides (such as pyrite) to sulfuric acid and the acid production can exceed the buffering capacity of the soil, generally causing the pH to fall below 4.

Acid sulphate soils are divided into two types: Actual Acid Sulphate soils (AASS) and Potential Acid Sulphate Soils (PASS). Both pose a risk to estuarine water quality and can contribute to the degradation of lowland environments (Naylor, et al., 1998). The probability of acid sulphate soils in the Georges River Estuary is mapped in Figure 7.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 12

Figure 7. Acid sulphate soil risk within the Georges River catchment (NSW DPE 2013)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 13

3.1.2 Coastal processes, sediment supply and transport The study area sits within Sydney Southern Beaches sediment compartment (NCCARF, 2016). It comprises a variety of landforms which have evolved over time in response to changes in climate, sea level, geology and ecology. The main geomorphic components of the coastal zone consist of the rocky headlands of the high energy coastal zone, the coastal sand barrier complex of the Kurnell peninsula, the intertidal sand shoals of Towra Point, and the beach and foredune complexes along the bay perimeter.

Sand drift across the Botany Bay entrance is relatively minor due to its alignment with average swell conditions (Carvalho & Woodroffe, 2015). Despite minor drift, the tidal dominance within the bay ensures a moderate sediment trapping efficiency, leading to a net gain of sediment over time (

Figure 8). This sediment is directed in a westerly direction as ocean swell propagates and diffracts across the bay. Wind-derived waves within the bay rarely exceed 1 m as storm conditions are rare, and therefore bare less significance in terms of sediment transport (SMEC, 2010).

Dredging, foreshore development and reclamation over the past decades have significantly altered the orientation and amplitude of swell-derived waves within the bay. These changes have altered the direction of breaking waves, which in turn have modified longshore currents. Under these conditions, Lady Robinsons Beach experiences longshore drift in opposing directions with the split occurring approximately at Emmaline Street. Shoreline recession has occurred along Lady Robinsons Beach, with accretion occurring beyond Dolls Point to the south and Brighton-le-Sands to the north (Figure 9).

Southern Botany Bay is also responding to the altered wave dynamics with erosion, shoreline recession and spit migration in Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site (TPNRR) having the potential to impact on international significant ecological values of the area.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 14

Figure 8. Conceptual model of coastal processes and natural assets along the Botany Bay shoreline (modified from BMT WBM 2003)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 15

Figure 9. Sediment transport pathways along Lady Robinsons Beach (modified from Advisian 2016)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 16

Development along the Georges River has changed the hydraulic character of the river, lending to increased erosion in the upper reaches and deposition in the lower reaches. Erosion is generally related to factors such as tidal undercutting, floods, boat wash and stormwater runoff.

A dominant flood tide transport rate has been observed within Georges River estuary, where sediment transport on the flood tide is generally an order of magnitude higher than transport rates observed on the ebb tide. The Georges River also exhibits a strong fluvial regime up to East Hills, which is illustrated by downstream fining trend of foreshore sediments (SMEC, 2010).

3.1.3 Coastal hazards The Coastal Management Act 2016 defines seven coastal hazards that are to be considered in CMPs. These coastal hazards include: a) Beach erosion b) Shoreline recession c) Coastal lake or waterbody entrance instability d) Coastal inundation e) Coastal cliff or slope instability f) Tidal inundation g) Erosion and inundation of foreshores caused by tidal waters and the action of waves, including the interaction of those waters with catchment floodwaters Table 2 outlines the general areas in the study are where each hazard occurs, as well as an overview of current knowledge for each. Further discussion on coastal hazards is provided below.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 17

Table 2. Summary of the coastal hazards that currently pose a risk to the Georges River CMP scoping study area.

Hazard Key areas at risk Existing knowledge Beach erosion / Lady Robinsons Coastal Erosion in NSW State-wide Exposure (OEH, 2017): shoreline Beach • Localities where open coast sandy beaches are in proximity to recession Silver Beach residential areas based on state-wide assessment method Towra Point Lady Robinsons Beach Coastal Investigations – Draft Report (Advisian, 2017): Nature Reserve • Site specific littoral drift model (to inform groyne design) Kamay Botany Bay National Park Lady Robinsons Beach Management Plan Review (WorleyParsons, 2014) Short Term Solutions to Beach Erosion and Recession at Lady Robinsons Beach and Sandringham Beach (WorleyParsons, 2009) BMT WBM Botany Bay Western Foreshore Coastal Hazard Risk Assessment (Draft Report July 2013): • Assumed to be preliminary work on coastal hazard risk (report not available) Silver Beach Dune Stabilisation Feasibility Study (Worley Parsons, 2012)

Towra Beach Nourishment Environmental Impact Statement (SMEC, 2003): • Notes previous studies on shoreline recession • Specifies proposed approach for beach nourishment • Nourishment designed to last 10-15 years. (We are now past the design life of these works) Manly Hydraulics Laboratory (MHL) are currently completing Stage 1 of the Lady Robinsons Beach Investigation and Design Study. This should be available for any subsequent stages of the Georges River CMP. Stage 1 includes: • A condition survey of all beachfront infrastructure (including rock groynes, concrete and timber panelled groynes, rock revetments and concrete seawalls) along Lady Robinsons Beach from Cooks River entrance to Sandringham Bay • Data compilation and literature review of previous coastal studies A comparison of current beach profiles against the as constructed design profiles in 1997 and 2006 Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management (DPIE, 2020): • Existing coastal protection works (short term geobags) (no design information available) • Notes need for assessment to identify values and locations at risk of sea level rise and coastal erosion hazards, including known Aboriginal sites, historic features, recreational areas, seawalls and other park assets Coastal lake or Yeramba Lagoon • Georges River estuary is a permanently open tidal waterbody waterbody • The weir wall at Yeramba lagoon is to be removed in mid-2020 which entrance will transition the currently freshwater lagoon to a tidal saltwater instability environment. Engineering work has been undertaken to reduce scour and erosion associated with daily water flows Coastal / tidal Low lying areas Modelling and Mapping of Coastal Inundation Under Future Sea Level Rise inundation adjacent to (Sydney Coastal Councils Group, 2012). estuary including Mapping includes storm tide inundation: tidal areas of • 1 in 1-year event tributaries. • 1 in 1-year event with 40 cm SLR • 1 in 1-year event with 90 cm SLR • 1 in 100-year event • 1 in 100-year event with 40 cm SLR • 1 in 100-year event with 90 cm SLR • Does not cover full tidal extent of Georges River estuary

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 18

Hazard Key areas at risk Existing knowledge • Limited modelling and mapping resolution (grid size) Georges River Tidal Inundation Study (BMT WBM, 2018): • Tidal inundation model developed for Georges River estuary up to Picnic Point • Hydraulic TUFLOW model with SLR scenarios • Modelled four planning horizons (2018, 2050, 2070, 2100) • 2018 – RCP 6.0, SLR 0.09 m • 2050 – RCP 8.5, SLR 0.36 m • 2070 – RCP8.5, SLR 0.59 m • 2100 – RCP 8.5, SLR 0.90 m • Model only covers limited extent of CMP study area (Georges River Council LGA only) NSW Estuary Tidal Inundation Exposure Assessment Report (OEH, 2018): • Tidal inundation in estuaries based on tidal planes excluding storm tides • Broadscale bathtub fill mapping of SLR projections (Present day, 1 m, and 1.5 m) Sutherland Shire Council draft Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment – Potential impacts of a changing climate on coastal and catchment flooding (GHD, 2011) • Maps 1% AEP storm tide level of 1.50 m AHD plus .72 m SLR by 2100 • Planning regulations for current development exist to mitigate exposure to coastal inundation • Infrastructure and developments created under old planning regulations may be impacted by coastal inundation Coastal cliff or Kurnell headland • No specific geotechnical or cliff hazard studies are available to date slope instability (coastal cliffs) • Minimal built assets in this area, land use is National Park (Kamay Botany Bay National Park) Waterway and • Slope instability in the form of bank instability in the estuarine areas estuary banks such as Georges River National Park is a threat to water quality, and potentially to certain ecosystems and property. Councils have been monitoring bank instability as part of their implementation of the CZMP Erosion and Complete tidal • Limited existing information on location specific issues within the inundation of range of estuary Georges River estuary foreshores • Limited information on the interaction of catchment and tidal caused by tidal floodwaters plus wave action waters and the • Sutherland Shire Council has mapped joint probability flooding for its action of waves, overland flow catchments draining to Georges River using an including the envelope approach, and including SLR interaction of those waters • Councils have plans for flood management including requirements with catchment for all developments in floodplain areas to satisfy flood related floodwaters development controls such as minimum floor level and compensatory flood storage volume

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 19

3.1.4 Shoreline management Around the foreshore of Botany Bay, a series of foreshore structures and shore normal groynes control erosion and swell wave induced longshore sediment transport. 14 groynes were installed in several stages since the 1960’s at Silver Beach (Figure 10). Eight groynes were constructed along the southern end of Lady Robinsons Beach and Sandringham Bay in 1997 with an additional five groynes along the northern end in 2004 (Figure 11).

There have also been a number of beach nourishment operations around Botany Bay. Recent examples include at Towra Point in 2003 where 60,000 m3 of sand dredged from Towra Spit was then placed on the nearby shoreline to stem shoreline recession (Figure 12). There have been numerous sand nourishment and sand borrowing exercises undertaken along Lady Robinsons Beach and Sandringham Bay since the 1960s, with over 1M³ of material having been placed. The most recent sand exchange exercise took place in 2019 between Dolls Point and Ramsgate bath, utilising 28,000 m3 of sand accumulated at the end of the southwards sand transport corridor (Figure 13).

Some of the most recent shoreline protection works include the temporary placement of geobags in front of the heritage listed Norfolk Island Pines and other heritage items on the northern shore of Kamay Botany National Park (Figure 14). This Case highlights the complexity of management needs for sometimes competing values (heritage values and natural ecosystem processes).

In 2009, SMEC assessed the severity of foreshore erosion and the condition of all existing foreshore structures, suggesting a series of management responses for each site which were incorporated into the Georges River CZMP (SMEC, 2010). A review of the effectiveness of beach management works on the western foreshore of Botany Bay indicates the need for the redistribution of sand and improvements to existing infrastructure, such as the lengthening of groynes (Advisian, 2017). Currently, the Manly Hydraulics Laboratory (MHL) has been engaged by Bayside City Council to undertake a condition assessment of existing shoreline stabilisation works along Lady Robinsons Beach and Sandringham Bay, to review previous investigations of the impacts of historical dredging and reclamation activities and the performance of stabilisation works on sediment transport rates and to prepare design documentation, cost-benefit and environmental assessment of further ongoing remedial works. Reports and findings of the study were not available at the time of writing.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 20

Figure 10. Satellite imagery of the series of groynes along Silver Beach installed to manage a westward longshore sediment transport in southern Botany Bay

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 21

Figure 11. Comparison of sediment accumulation at groynes to the south (left) and north (right) of Lady Robinsons Beach. Build-up of sediment along groynes demonstrates the prevailing direction of sediment transport

Figure 12. Towra Point was the site of beach nourishment works in 2003 with approximately 60,000 m 3 of sand from the spit relocated to the receding shoreline (Google 2020)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 22

Figure 13. Ramsgate baths beach restoration is occurring in 2019 (image below) with 28,000 m3 of sand from the spit formed near the Georges River 16ft Sailing Club at Sandringham. Bayside Council, 2019

Figure 14. A temporary installation of geobags is installed to protect heritage items including Norfolk Island Pines in Kamay Botany Bay National Park

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 23

3.2 Hydrology and hydrodynamics

3.2.1 Catchment hydrology The hydrology of the Georges River catchment has been fundamentally altered through urbanisation. Prior to European settlement, the catchment was largely pervious, meaning that rainwater falling on the land surface was able to infiltrate into the soil and evaporate back into the atmosphere. This also provided a filtering mechanism by which nutrients and sediment delivery to the stream was reduced during runoff events.

The Georges River catchment still contains a range of bushland (approximately 48%) and rural areas, which are largely concentrated to its south western side. Urbanised areas however, including commercial, industrial and residential uses are largely focussed within the lower sections of the catchment and are increasing toward its western fringe. Rural areas make up approximately 13% and urban areas constitute about a third of the catchment, consisting of industrial (6%) and residential (28%) (SMCMA, 2011). There are also mining and quarrying operations within the Georges River catchment, and previously in the Chipping Norton Lakes sand mining, which contribute to altered hydrology and catchment processes

Urbanised areas also contain several natural waterways that have been modified into concrete channels. Significant lengths of the lower estuary shoreline have been replaced by artificial structures and land reclamation has replaced many of the catchment’s wetlands. These increases in impervious surfaces have changed the hydraulic character of the river, producing storm hydrographs that rise and fall much more rapidly than in undeveloped catchments (Figure 19). Higher peaks and greater volumes of water lead to increased erosion in the upper reaches and deposition in the lower reaches (SMEC, 2010).

The catchment is typically subject to dry conditions which are broken by infrequent periods of high rainfall. During such periods, the high proportion of impervious surfaces within the catchment may result in rapid runoff. Mid sections of the catchment are prone to flooding, particularly along the floodplains between Liverpool and East Hills, and along Cabramatta and Prospect Creeks (SMEC, 2010).

3.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater in the Sydney catchment is a significant environmental and anthropogenic resource. Extraction of groundwater for human consumption, such as for drinking water or for agricultural and industrial use can reduce the water that is available for environmental water requirements, such as surface water base flow and maintenance of wetlands and other Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) (Alluvium, 2017).

Two main groundwater sources are located with the Georges River catchment, the Sydney Central Basin Groundwater Source and the Botany Sands Groundwater Source. Development within the catchment has significantly altered the processes by which these sources recharge and flow through the subterranean landscape.

The Botany Sands Groundwater Source consists of aeolian sand deposits which span Botany Bay, covering an area of 91.12 km2. The source has been an important supply of water for Sydney’s industry and community for over 100 years. Contaminant plumes have affected withdrawals since 2003, leading to a ban on domestic use in some areas. The aquifer is still used mainly for industrial purposes along with domestic use in residential areas outside the banned areas (DPI, 2011).

Several high priority GDEs have been identified within the Georges River catchment, each of whic h in some cases can be related to one of the two managed groundwater sources. These are detailed in Table 3 (DPI, 2011).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 24

Table 3. High priority Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDE) within the Georges River catchment (NSW DPI 2011)

Name GDE Type Source O’Hares Creek Wetlands Central Wetlands Sydney Basin Central Towra Point Estuarine Wetlands Wetlands Botany Sands Coastal Saltmarsh in the Sydney Basin Vegetation Community * Bioregion Kurnell Dune forest in the Sutherland Shire Council and Vegetation Community * (Now Bayside Council) Woodland Vegetation Community * * GDE listed with an asterisk do not have a known source. This is due to insufficient information or the location being on private land where the owners have requested that the information not be disclosed.

3.2.3 Hydrodynamics Botany Bay is a wide and shallow estuarine system subject to ocean swell propagating through the 1.1 km wide entrance. The entrance is oriented in a north east to south east direction and receives wave energy predominantly from the south east at an average height of 1.6 m. The wave climate is generally seasonal, as storm activity is typically generated by a mixture of east coast lows, inland trough lows and secondary lows (SMEC, 2010). The bay receives nutrient depleted subtropical water via the East Australian Current (EAC).

Waves and currents determine the erosion, deposition and transportation of sediment within the bay. The bay shoreline receives wave energy from swell as it propagates and diffracts across the developments of Port Botany. Within the bay, the average wave height is typically less than 0.5 m, however it may exceed 1 m about 10% of the time. Reclaimed land developments along Port Botany, as well as changes in bay bathymetry due to dredging have both altered the bay’s wave climate and consequently the longshore drift patterns, leading to significant alterations in deposition and erosion over the last 60 to 70 years (SMEC, 2010).

Currents within the bay are mainly a product of tides, winds and river flow and are typically strongest at the mouth of the Georges River and at the Botany Bay entrance. The tidal regime within the bay is micro-tidal and semidiurnal, meaning tides are generally less than two metres, and peak and trough twice per day. Tidal amplitude varies significantly across the fortnightly cycle. The range between astronomical high and low tide s is around 2.1 m. The range in mean high and low spring tides is 1.3 m, while the mean high to low neap tides is approximately 0.8 m (URS Australia, 2003).

The tidal prism is the volume of water in an estuary or inlet between mean high tide and mean low tide. The proportion of this prism in relation to the total volume will indicate how long water and suspended pollutants reside within the bay or estuary. This is known as the residence time. Calculations of the tidal prism in Botany Bay indicate that flow rate is approximately 4,000 m3/s, while the freshwater flow rate in the Georges River is typically less than 5 m3/s. This indicates that flushing in Botany Bay is tidally dominated, where only 10% of water-transmitted pollutants which leave the bay on an outgoing tide return on the incoming tide. Tidal circulation within the bay is not even, leading to greater tidal flushing of Bay on the incoming tide as opposed to the outgoing tide (SMEC, 2010). More specifically, it is worth noting that the flushing times are 40 days and 63 days in Botany Bay and Georges River estuary respectively, and that ~30% of the volume of the bay flows through the entrance during low tide and only and ~3% returns on the high tide (Roper et al. 2010; SPCC and MWSDB, 1979; Kingsford and Suthers, 1994).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 25

3.2.4 Tides The Georges River estuary tidal regime is different to that of Botany Bay. While both systems are semidiurnal, the estuary experiences a diurnal inequality, which means that the two high and two low tides which occur daily are unequal in amplitude.

The tidal range along the Georges River is relatively constant, with differences in the tidal levels of less than 0.1 m between Liverpool Weir and Botany Bay, and a tidal lag of 2.5 hours exists between the mouth of the Georges River and the weir. The lower estuary remains relatively well flushed despite the occurrence of some non-flushing areas within the upstream sections of lower embayments (SMEC, 2010).

The upper reaches of the Georges River generally experience less flushing with longer residence times. Changes in the morphology of the upper estuary, such as the construction of in 1960 have led to average reductions in tidal range by 0.2 m. This has led to a further overall reduction in the river’s capacity to flush industrial, urban and rural pollutants (SMEC, 2010).

Salinity levels fluctuate according to freshwater inflows, precipitation and evaporation. Generally, salinity is comparable with sea water in the lower estuary (34 -37 ppt) and decreases with increasing distance upstream to 0-10 ppt at Liverpool Weir. The steepest change in salinity across the estuary occurs upstream of Lugarno and downstream of Prospect Creek. Tributary inflows to the estuary during wet periods forms stratification in the water column, which can last up to two weeks (SMEC, 2010).

3.2.5 Flooding Sitting at the of fresh and sea water, flooding can occur from both excessive rainfall in the catchment and tidal anomalies such as storm surge. Urban development has modified flood risks along the Georges River and although Councils have been diligent in preventing development on the floodplain, there is continual pressure for rezoning, development just above Council’s floodplain planning level, and intensification of existing development areas. Understanding the extent and projected future of this risk and exposure of assets in hazard zones is needed for effective planning and protection.

The Georges River is considered one of the most severely flood-prone rivers in NSW, although community awareness has waned with passing time since the last major flood. Some long-term residents in the area recall large floods in the river in 1956, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1986 and 1988. Flooding in February 2020 lead to evacuation orders in parts of the Georges River floodplain. These were much smaller than floods in the late 1800s: the flood in 1873 was a 1 in 100 year event, during which water rose 10.5 metres and whole houses were washed away (Bewsher, 2004).

The main floodplain of the Georges River occurs between Glenfield and East Hills, in Liverpool, Fairfield and Canterbury-Bankstown Local Government Areas. In that area, the river flows through low-lying areas with soft shale geology, whereas in other areas the river flows through deeper sandstone valleys. Those valleys act as a bottleneck during floods, with water backed up into low lying areas. Detention basins, levee banks, housing buybacks on floodplains, house-raising schemes and planning controls have been introduced to mitigate the impacts of future flooding of the Georges River (Bewsher, 2004).

A detailed review of flood data and associated flood management plans is beyond the scope of this study and could be considered in a separate study for Stage 2 of the CMP. Recently, a Georges River flood study has been updated by BMT for Liverpool City, Canterbury Bankstown and Fairfield City Councils. The Georges Riverkeeper Floodplain Risk Management Sub-committee is looking at a more strategic and regional approach to floodplain risk management along the Georges River.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 26

3.3 Climate

3.3.1 Current climate The Georges River catchment experiences a temperate climate which is influenced by the Pacific Ocean in the lower reaches. Winters are mild, summers are hot, and there is no dry season. Mean summer and winter temperature in the lower reaches ranges from 17-27o C and 5-17o C respectively. Daily maximum temperatures exceed 30°C around 22 days per year and the minimum temperature rarely drops below 2°C. Extreme temperatures recorded are 45.2°C and - 0.1°C (SMEC, 2010).

Within the metropolitan region of Sydney, average annual rainfall tends to increase from the west towards the south east and north east of the city. The highest average rainfall in the region is 1,500 mm towards Darkes Forest, which lies just beyond the southern perimeter of the Georges River catchment. The lowest average rainfall, however, is of 900 mm and falls to the west of the catchment, within Campbelltown (DPI, 2011). Mean monthly rainfall values for are provided in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Highest, lowest and mean monthly rainfall from 1968 to 2019 at Bankstown Airport (BOM 2019)

During summer, the dominant wind directions are from the north-east and east, while during the winter they are south and west. Southerly winds are typically generated by cold fronts and westerly winds by low pressure systems further south, both of which can influence the temperature, particularly at night (SMEC, 2010).

3.3.2 Past observations Analyses of long-term weather data by BOM and CSIRO (2018) reveal several trends. These changes are generally associated with increases in the frequency or intensity of heat events, fire weather and drought. These include:

• A decline of around 11% in April–October rainfall in the southeast of Australia since the late 1990s

• A decrease in streamflow across southern Australia, whereas streamflow has increased in northern Australia where rainfall has increased

• A long‑term increase in extreme fire weather and in the length of the fire season across large parts of Australia.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 27

Localised changes in ambient air temperature are also apparent from east to west across the metropolitan area. Regulated largely by the density of urban development and proximity to the coastline, these temperatures are increasing, particularly in the western suburbs of Sydney, parts of which fall within the Georges River catchment (UNSW, 2016). This has the opportunity to increase further with the planned scale of development within the catchment.

3.3.3 Future projections Projected changes in the climate are expected to have consequences for coastal landforms, ecosystems and built assets. These include alterations to atmospheric, hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes and sea level rise (Roy, et al., 2001).

There is a fairly robust understanding of the general trends of climate change, but local scale studies are needed to fully understand the risk and exposure level to changing conditions. The NSW & ACT Regional Climate Model (NARCliM) is a regional scale climate model with projections that have been generated from four global climate models (GCMs) dynamically downscaled by three regional climate models (RCMs) (UNSW, 2019).

Increasing temperatures Climate projections suggest an increasingly warmer climate for the Georges River catchment. This includes more frequent hot days, and longer and more intense heat waves. In the metropolitan Sydney region, mean temperatures are projected to rise by 0.7oC by 2030 and 1.9oC by 2070, with smaller increases near the coast and larger increases in the west. The greatest increases will be seen during summer and spring. All models show there are no declines in mean temperatures across the Metropolitan Region (AdaptNSW, 2019). The mean number of days per year with a temperature above 30 oC is predicted to double within the Georges River catchment by 2090 (CSIRO, 2018). This has public health implications, and is likely to increase stress on infrastructure such as the energy grid, roads, buildings and healthcare systems.

Changing weather patterns Projecting future rainfall patterns is challenging due to the natural variability of weather systems that generate rain. NARCliM projections for the metropolitan Sydney region reflect this variability. While there is some level of model agreement, care should be taken when interpreting average rainfall projections for the Sydney area. There is a predicted increase in average rainfall during the autumn months for the near and far future, with much of this increase occurring outside of the Georges River catchment.

Bushfire The likelihood and intensity of bushfires is projected to increase along with average temperatures and dry drought conditions. The well forested areas in the upper catchment as well as the large vegetated areas in the national parks and nature reserves are the main areas of concern for this study. Bushfires pose a direct threat to property, human health and safety, habitats, flora and fauna. Bushfires also indirectly effect estuarine water quality due to the increased runoff capacity of recently burned areas which contribute ash and other sediments to receiving waters.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 28

3.3.4 Sea level rise Within the estuary, the main threat from sea level rise is the increased frequency and extent of tidal inundation. Sea levels in Australia have risen over the past half-century at an average rate of 2.1 mm/year. Under different emission scenarios, this rate is expected to increase to the effect of an overall sea level rise of between 0.22 m to 0.88 m by 2090 (NCCARF, 2017). Such increases are likely to impact low lying estuarine areas susceptible to flooding, such as the canal estates at Sylvania Water and Gwawley Bay. A publicly available, simple bathtub model can be used to illustrate a plausible inundation scenario by the year 2100, indicating that other low lying estuarine areas may also be at risk (Error! Reference source not found.).

Multiple studies have looked at the extent and effects of sea level rise in Botany Bay and Georges River. Sydney Coastal Councils Group’s Mapping and Responding to Coastal Inundation project developed a set of high resolution hydrodynamic model simulations in order to obtain current climate, as well as storm tide return level estimates and sea level rise considerations (see Table 2) (Sydney Coastal Councils Group, 2012).

A recent state-wide coastal inundation assessment identifies the Botany Bay Estuary system as one of the top ten (Botany Bay 7th, Georges River 1st) most exposed areas in the Metropolitan Sydney Region (OEH, 2018). The assessment provides estimates of the number of houses exposed under different sea level rise scenarios by inlet and estuary type. The number of houses exposed at least annually under High High Water Solstice Springs tide (HHWSS) are provided for both Botany Bay and the Georges River estuary (Table 4).

The NSW State Government has not identified a specific sea level rise scenario to be used by Local Government. Specific sea level rise scenarios are considered based on local characteristics as part of the studies to determine the definition of the Coastal Vulnerability Areas.

Figure 16. Modelled inundation scenarios (2100 +0.74m at highest tide) from a simple bathtub model provide an indication of the areas at risk within the Georges River catchment (Coastal Risk 2017)

Table 4. The number of houses exposed vary under three different sea level rise scenarios (OEH 2018)

Number of properties exposed to tidal inundation Estuary name Sea level rise scenario Present day 0.5 m 1.0 m 1.5 m Botany Bay 16 44 304 771 Georges River 689 1,765 3,625 5,440

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 29

Coastal ecosystems are particularly important in buffering against coastal erosion and depend on factors such as migration potential and sediment supply. Estimates of future exposure to coastal erosion have been made through a state-wide assessment of photogrammetry of the existing beach profiles, noting that where data was unavailable some assumptions have been made (Error! Reference source not found. & Figure 18). The assessment used three categories of proximity to shoreline (220 m, 100 m, and 55 m) to illustrate the areas which may be exposed to immediate or future risk due to shoreline variability and moderate shoreline recession driven by sea level rise. The assessment identified the areas at greatest risk are along Lady Robinsons Beach (near Monterey), Dolls Point and Silver beach (OEH, 2017).

Figure 17. Zones within the study area (circled) which face varying degrees of risk to shoreline recession (OEH 2017)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 30

Figure 18. Zones along the Lady Robinsons Beach which face varying degrees of risk to shoreline recession (OEH 2017)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 31

3.4 Ecological value Despite intensive urbanisation in the Georges River catchment and the development of industrial infrastructure in Botany Bay, the area retains significant ecological value.

Remnant natural areas are unique in terms of their proximity to the Sydney metropolitan area and of their status as nature refuges. For example, there are good representations of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest throughout Appin particularly along Appin Road on the eastern side that transition into Sydney. These areas support diverse flora and fauna, as well as provide valuable opportunities for communities to appreciate their natural landscapes through recreational pursuits.

Numerous ecological communities that are found in the Georges River Estuary and Botany Bay have been listed as threatened under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Fisheries Management Act 1994. (SMCMA, 2011). Worth special mention is the Towra Point Nature Reserve and Marine Park which contains the largest remaining areas of saltmarsh and mangrove habitat in the Sydney region, as well as international conservation status under the Ramsar Convention and other bilateral agreements. Georges River National Park is also an area of high ecological value in the study area.

Recent mapping undertaken for a 2010 study during the development of the CZMP concluded that thirty distinct riparian vegetation communities were found to occur within the areas surrounding the river. The condition of these communities varies greatly across the catchment (BMT WBM, 2013).

The Georges River Report Card program measures water quality, riparian vegetation condition, and macroinvertebrate health. In the 2017-2018 Report Card, for riparian vegetation condition, sites in the highly vegetated upper catchment generally received good to excellent grades while urbanised catchments in the mid to lower estuary received poor grades. Communities in poorer condition were typically found in the more upstream areas on more erodible soils, near stormwater outlets, close to urban areas and where rubbish tends to accumulate (BMT WBM, 2013).

Georges River banks - Photo credit: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 32

3.4.1 Terrestrial vegetation The Georges River supports diverse vegetation as it flows from the heavily-wooded steep-sided upper reaches near Appin to the heavily urbanised lower coastal areas of Botany Bay.

Vegetation communities in the catchment are primarily influenced by the distribution of shale (Cumberland Plain) and sandstone ( Plateau) geologies. Many of these communities, particularly those communities located on the Cumberland Plain, were listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and are now protected under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

The vegetation of the Georges River catchment can be grouped into the following categories based on their underlying soils:

• Shale communities frequently dominated by Eucalyptus moluccana, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Eucalyptus saligna, Eucalyptus pilularis and Eucalyptus crebra. A good example of a shale community can be found at Lansdowne.

• Shale/sandstone transitional communities are dominated by Eucalyptus punctata, Eucalyptus fibrosa, Eucalyptus paniculata, Angophora bakeri and Melaleuca nodosa. Some examples of shale/sandstone transition communities can be seen at Ingleburn and Minto Heights in the upper reaches of the Georges River Catchment.

• Communities on Tertiary Alluvium are dominated by Eucalyptus moluccana, Eucalyptus fibrosa, Eucalyptus longifolia, Eucalyptus eugenioides and Melaleuca nodosa. Examples can be found in the Moorebank area.

• Riparian communities are dominated by Casuarina glauca, Angophora floribunda, Eucalyptus amplifolia, Eucalyptus botryoides, and various Melaleuca spp. A good example of a riparian community can be found at Deepwater Park.

• Sandstone communities are dominated by , Eucalyptus piperita, Corymbia gummifera, Eucalyptus sclerophylla, and Banksia serrata. A good example of a sandstone community can be found in the Georges River National Park.

• Estuarine communities include mangrove and saltmarsh communities, which are dominated by Avicennia marina, and Sarcocornia quinqueflora. Excellent mangrove and saltmarsh ecosystems can be found along the lower reaches of the river to Botany Bay.

• Freshwater Communities include Melaleuca linariifolia, Melaleuca styphelioides and Casuarina glauca, and ground species such as Juncus usitatus and Persicaria spp are dominant in occasionally inundated areas, with Eleocharis sphacelata and Ludwigia peploides in permanent wetlands. Some good examples can be found around Voyager Point and Hammondville.

3.4.2 Seagrass meadows Seagrass meadows are a crucial estuarine habitat for ecologically and commercially important fish species and also provide sediment stabilisation. Furthermore, the fronds act to reduce water movement, which encourages deposition of fine particles, traps seagrass detritus and increases the organic component of sediments to provide suitable microhabitats for a suite of taxa. Within the study area, the two main species of seagrass are Posidonia australis and Zostera capricorni. There is also sparse and seasonal growth of Halophila ovalis and Halophila decipiens (Reid D. J., 2019).

Natural processes which contribute to fluctuations in seagrass distribution in Botany Bay include scouring from large wave action, fine sediment particle size, fluctuations in nutrient load, high sediment redox potential, high temperatures and/or herbivory. Extensive seagrass beds also once occurred in the estuarine reaches of the Georges River, but they have been largely smothered by sedimentation and only isolated patches remain.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 33

P. australis is near the northern limit of its geographical range in Botany Bay and is sensitive to variations in environmental conditions such as light availability and nutrient content, and only grows on sand (Reid D. J., 2019). The Botany Bay P. australis meadows are listed as an endangered ecological community under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act), NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), as well as the Environmental Conservation and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

Z. capricorni is more tolerant to disturbance, rapidly colonises disturbed areas, and can grow on sand and mud substrates. There was previously a large (~100 ha) continuous bed of Z. capricorni along the northern shoreline of the bay, but 70% of it was buried under dredge spoil in the late 1970s. Z. capricorni is recognised as particularly valuable as a fish nursery habitat forming species and previous surveys detected 134 macrobenthic species at Towra Point (Collett, Hutchings, Gibbs, & Collins, 1984).

3.4.3 Mangroves, saltmarshes and reedlands Botany Bay and Georges River Estuary contain a significant proportion of the mangrove and saltmarsh habitats within the Sydney metropolitan area. Coastal saltmarsh is listed as an endangered ecological community under the BC Act and as a vulnerable ecological community under the EPBC Act. Saltmarsh and mangroves are protected by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 as critical fish habitat. Estuarine mangrove forest is not listed as vulnerable; however, the trunks and roots provide structural complexity which supports a wide range of species. Estuarine reedlands occur in pockets along the entire reach of the study area, from Lake Moore wetlands to . The reedlands cover an area of approximately 23 ha (BMT WBM, 2013).

The spatial distribution of saltmarsh, reedlands and mangrove forest is distinctly related to tidal regime and elevation, with saltmarsh occurring in areas that are less frequently inundated. This indicates that with future sea level rise scenarios, there will likely be an encroachment of mangrove forest into where saltmarsh is currently located (UMWELT, 2017). With development so close to existing saltmarsh, there is a distinct possibility that the accommodation space for saltmarsh to grow into is limited or non-existent.

The biological community that is supported by saltmarsh reedlands and mangroves is diverse. Macroinvertebrate communities are dominated by crabs and gastropods. Numerous fish species rely upon the mangrove forests at various stages in their life cycle. They provide safety from predators which allows for juvenile recruitment into the viable population, which then contribute to estuarine and inshore marine food webs including commercial fisheries. Mangrove and saltmarsh as play an important role in protecting estuarine foreshores from wind and wave energy and reducing erosion. They also act as a natural buffer between terrestrial and aquatic habitats and improve water quality by collecting and recycling contaminants from runoff.

The dominant mangrove in the Botany Bay estuary is the Grey Mangrove (Avicennia marina), with Black or River Mangrove (Aegicerus corniculatum) growing along margins with freshwater input (Reid D. J., 2019). Coastal saltmarsh is an intertidal community of plants such as sedges, rushes, reeds, grasses, succulent herbs, and low shrubs that can tolerate high soil salinity and occasional inundation with saltwater.

The dominant plant species that make up the saltmarsh ecosystem include Samphire (Sarcocornia quinqueflora) at the lower more frequently flooded elevations, Saltwater Couch (Sporobolus virginicus) dominating the mid-level saltmarsh, and Sea Rush (Juncus kraussii) and Bare Twig Rush (Baumea juncea) usually dominating the drier plant communities at higher elevations (Daly, 2013).

3.4.4 Upper catchment freshwater ecosystems There is a wide range of habitat types in the upper catchment including large areas of contiguous bushland with upland swamps, instream, and groundwater dependent ecosystems. These habitats are crucial for river health and biodiversity, contributing significantly to improving water quality and ecosystem connectivity.

The importance of the large proportion of the catchment that these ecosystems inhabit cannot be overstated. The large areas of functioning integrated natural ecosystems provide a significant proportion of the ecosystem services for the area. When considered against the urbanised portion of the catchment and the negative impacts it has on water quality, it is clear that any disruption of the upper catchment freshwater ecosystems will have serious consequences for the health of the river.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 34

3.4.5 Fauna The study area is home to numerous native animals including species and populations listed as threatened under the BC Act and EPBC Act. In addition to resident species, the study area serves as a temporary habitat for migratory species, many of which are recognised and protected under international treaties. There are also transient species who may visit the study area to forage, or only in rare instances.

NSW BioNet Atlas identifies 782 species of fauna within the Sydney Metro Catchment Management Authority (former) area including 696 species that are under statutory protection in NSW, and 57 species of migratory birds that are recognised in bilateral international treaties.

The catchment is home to several iconic species such as , , flying foxes, swamp , and grey kangaroos. There are also many important recreational fishing species such as yellow fin bream, dusky flathead, mulloway, whiting, mullet, blue swimmer crabs and mud crabs. New species are still being catalogued as evidenced by the discovery of a new species of frogfish, Porphryne erythrodactylus as recently as 2014 (Arnold, Rob, & Pietsch, 2014).

3.4.6 Threatened Ecological Communities Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) are recognised under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the NSW BC Act. There are approximately 31 TECs within the study area with varying levels of vulnerability. Some of the TECs have different vulnerability classifications under the different Acts. A list of TECs and their status under the Acts is contained within Table 5. These ecological communities are located across the catchment and estuary including terrestrial, freshwater, and estuarine areas. The NSW Status refers to the classification under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, and the Commonwealth Status refers to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. CE signifies Critically Endangered, E signifies Endangered, and V signifies Vulnerable (DPIE, 2020).

Photo credit: Australian Geographic, Douglas Gimesy

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 35

Table 5. A list of Threatened Ecological Communities that are known to occur within the Sydney Metro Catchment Management Authority (former) area (NSW BioNet Atlas Search, 2019)

Threatened Ecological NSW Comm. Threatened Ecological NSW Comm. Community Type status status Community Type status status Agnes Banks Woodland in the CE E Lowland Rainforest in the E CE Sydney Basin Bioregion NSW North Coast and Sydney Bangalay Sand Forest of the E Basin Bioregions Sydney Basin and South East Moist Shale Woodland in the E CE Corner bioregions Sydney Basin Bioregion in the CE CE O’Hares Creek Shale Forest E Sydney Basin Bioregion and Wagstaffe E Blue Mountains Shale Cap E CE Spotted Gum Forest in the Forest in the Sydney Basin Sydney Basin Bioregion Bioregion River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on E Castlereagh Scribbly Gum V E Coastal Floodplains of the Woodland in the Sydney Basin New South Wales North Bioregion Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Castlereagh Swamp Woodland E Community Shale Gravel Transition Forest E CE in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Coastal Saltmarsh in the New E V South Wales North Coast, Shale Sandstone Transition CE CE Sydney Basin and South East Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Corner Bioregions Coastal Upland Swamp in the E E sheltered E Sydney Basin Bioregion forest on transitional sandstone soils in the Sydney Cooks River/Castlereagh E CE Basin Bioregion Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest E E Basin Bioregion of the New South Wales North Cumberland Plain Woodland CE CE Coast, Sydney Basin and South in the Sydney Basin Bioregion East Corner Bioregions

Duffys Forest Ecological E Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on E Community in the Sydney Coastal Floodplains of the Basin Bioregion New South Wales North Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub CE E Coast, Sydney Basin and South in the Sydney Basin Bioregion East Corner Bioregions

Freshwater Wetlands on E Sydney Freshwater Wetlands E Coastal Floodplains of the in the Sydney Basin Bioregion New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark CE CE East Corner Bioregions Forest The Shorebird Community E Hygrocybeae Community of CE occurring on the relict tidal in delta sands at Taren Point the Sydney Basin Bioregion Themeda grassland on E Kurnell Dune Forest in the E seacliffs and coastal Sutherland Shire and City of headlands in the NSW North Rockdale Coast, Sydney Basin and South Littoral Rainforest in the New E CE East Corner Bioregions South Wales North Coast, Western Sydney Dry E CE Sydney Basin and South East Rainforest in the Sydney Basin Corner Bioregions Bioregion

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 36

3.4.7 Invasive species The Georges River catchment is threatened by many invasive flora and fauna (Georges Riverkeeper, 2019). Cats and foxes are a big threat to native animals, preying on birds, small mammals, and reptiles. Deer, rabbits, and some birds also impact on the catchment to varying degrees including damaging vegetation and causing erosion.

In many of the freshwater ponds and wetlands in the Georges River Catchment, European Carp and Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki) cause significant damage by outcompeting native species. Mosquito Fish, also known as Eastern Gambusia or Plague Minnow, can live in most aquatic conditions and once in a waterbody, are extremely difficult to remove. Carp also impact the health of freshwater aquatic ecosystems by increasing water turbidity and nutrient concentrations, destroying aquatic plants, and potentially influencing the recurrence of toxic blue-green algae blooms. They also breed rapidly, eliminating native fish, tadpoles, and other small lifeforms.

Major weed infestations occurring in or along streams in the Georges River catchment include alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), duckweeds (Spirodela sp. and Lemna sp.), willow primrose (Ludwigia peruviana), blackberry (Rubus fruticosus), green cestrum (Cestrum parqui), Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana), Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia) and Egeria densa (Reid D. , 2019). Careful and diligent weed management is a key element in protecting the ecological health of the Georges River.

3.4.8 Environmental pressures The study area, historically and currently, is subject to significant alterations in the physical environment. This has led to increasing pressure on the environment. Vegetation clearing and concreting of channels has altered catchment hydrology, contributing to diffuse pollution from stormwater, industrial activities, roads, and residential areas. This pollution is putting pressure on ecosystems throughout the study area. Illegal dumping, sewage overflow, and plastic pollution are also contributing to this pressure. Changes to wave propagation and sediment movement patterns caused by dredging and land reclamation has led to erosion at key locations with high environmental value, mainly Towra Point Nature Reserve. The combination of stressors is putting the environmental system of Georges River under increasing pressure.

3.4.9 Towra Point Nature Reserve The importance of Towra Point to the continued value of the Georges River estuary is immense. Listed under the Ramsar Convention in 1984, the urban wetland provides habitat for internationally significant migratory sea birds and other species that are recognised as threatened or vulnerable by both the Commonwealth and the State. The protection of Towra Point is now recognised under six international conservation agr eements (UMWELT, 2017):

• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971) • JAMBA, Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (1974) • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1983) • CAMBA, China–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (1986) • ROKAMBA, Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (2006) • Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and the Sustainable Use of their Habitats in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (2006).

Towra Point is dominated by wetland habitats determined by the reach of tidal inundation, proximity to freshwater, and topographic variation of the last Holocene dune formation. Towra Point Nature Reserve (TPNR) contains the full succession of coastal wetland habitats including sea grass meadows, intertidal mudflats, mangrove forest, saltmarsh, freshwater lagoons, and littoral rainforest. Since 1984, the boundaries of the Ramsar site have been extended twice, in 1998 and 2012. The total area of the site was increased from approximately 281.7 hectares in 1984 to 603.7 hectares in 2012. This extension was prompted by the recognition that protection of the connectivity between wetland types was necessary to preserve the ecological function of the area (UMWELT, 2017). Bonna Point and the surrounding waterways, beaches and terrestrial landscape has important conservation significance as well. Bonna Point is contiguous with Towra Point Aquatic Reserve Sanctuary Zone and under the NSW Fisheries Management Regulation fishing and the collection of any marine vegetation is prohibited. Bonna Point is also a roosting and feeding site for several species of migratory birds including Whimbrel, Eastern Curlew and Bar-tailed Godwits that come to Botany Bay from as far away as

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 37

Siberia. Roosting birds come up onto the shore at high tide and are readily disturbed by park users including walkers, dogs and vehicles.

TPNR has been the subject of much study due to its unique ecological significance and classification as a Ramsar Wetland. Recent reports have declared that the Ramsar values of the site are at risk of being lost. This has triggered action under the Ramsar Convention and a Response Strategy was developed in 2019 with the objective of halting then reversing the trend of ecological degradation (UMWELT, 2019). A detailed summary of management arrangements proposed in the Response Strategy is provided in section 4.3.

Photo credit: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 38

3.5 Built urban environment The land surrounding the estuary has been highly modified with heavy urbanisation supporting a range of commercial, industrial, and residential purposes. Many developments extend right up to the foreshore. As such, this area has become a major source of pollution with metals, oils, grease, toxic organic compounds, and high levels of nutrients entering the estuary from stormwater runoff. This has reduced water quality to such an extent that commercial fishing within the lower reaches has been banned, and there has been a major impact on the oyster industry from disease infestation (collapse in the early 1990s and now limited operations).

3.5.1 Imperviousness Expanding urbanisation in the catchment is associated with an increase in impervious ground cover. Rain that once soaked into the ground and slowly made its way to the estuary through groundwater and/or surface water flows now flows rapidly into the receiving waters of Georges River, picking up accumulated pollutants along the way.

Figure 19 shows the distribution of pervious and impervious land in the catchment determined by land use categories from the NSW DPE 2013 map. Since then, the urban sprawl has spread and the proportion of the catchment that is impervious has increased and projected growth will continue that trend. Increased catchment imperviousness is associated with elevated minerals and nutrients, which appear to provide ideal conditions leading to more weedy vegetation at the expense of natives, in terms of both diversity and cover (Reid D. , 2019).

Figure 19. Distribution of impervious/pervious land surface within the catchment as determined by land use on the NSW 2013 land use map. A higher runoff coefficient (and darker red) corresponds with a more impervious surface.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 39

3.5.2 Planning and development Covering a large extent of the Sydney Metropolitan Area, the Georges River catchment is significantly developed, mostly to the north and west. Further development will be required to accommodate projected growth in the coming years, which is currently guided through an integrated regional planning framework. This will result in the greenfield urban development as well as intensification of existing developed areas.

Land use mapping indicates that as of 2013, a large proportion of the catchment is bushland (46%) and parkland (7%), most of which occurs to the south of the Georges River Estuary and Botany Bay (DPIE, 2017). These areas are significant in terms of their buffering effect on water quality (SMCMA, 2011). In approximate terms, rural areas make up 8% of the study area and urban areas another 35% (see Table 6).

Table 6. Land use classes and areas for the Georges River CMP study area (Including Kurnell Peninsula) (DPIE 2017)

Land Use class Area (km2) % Catchment Area Bushland 466.5 46.3 Residential 209.7 20.8 Commercial 93.3 9.3 Rural 77.6 7.7 Parkland 72.8 7.2 Roads 40.7 4.0 Water 32.3 3.2 Quarry/Mine 5.4 0.5 Industrial 4.6 0.5 Airport 3.6 0.4 Total 1006 100

3.5.3 Residential density Part of the Greater Sydney Regional Plan involves increasing the residential density in areas around the catchment in order to accommodate the projected increase in population. Unless prepared for and managed properly, this will put increasing pressure on both the built and natural environment. Civil infrastructure such as sewer and wastewater treatment plants will be pushed to capacity, and the quantity and quality of natural areas may be compromised.

Sydney Water and the NSW Environmental Protection Agency jointly implement strong regulatory processes to continually improve the performance of ’s Southern Suburbs and Cronulla sewage treatment systems which service much of the study area. These agencies work together to reduce sewer overflows and target abatement measures, and the environment protection licences for these systems include pollution reduction programs specifically aimed at reducing the impacts of sewer overflows. This includes applying Sydney Water’s wet-weather overflow abatement framework to prioritise overflow abatement works that will deliver the greatest water quality benefits. This framework is the product of an extensive system-wide assessment of impacts from sewer overflows. Sydney Water’s licences also have conditions requiring review and refinement of the prioritisation approach.

3.5.4 Industrial density Coinciding with the projected growth in population is a corresponding increase in industrial density. While there remain some areas of heavy industry within the catchment, the most widespread increase in density will come from light industry and small businesses that contribute to diffuse pollution. The Moorebank intermodal terminal is an example of expanding industrial density.

Examples of industrial activity that have an impact on the estuary include the South32 coal mine, boat construction/maintenance, Sydney desalinisation plant, petroleum product storage, and waste storage facilities. These operations are regulated by the NSW Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under environment protection licenses Sand mining activity at Chipping Norton, which no longer operates, irreversibly altered the

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 40

hydrology of the river and has contributed to bank instability. Activity at Holsworthy Barracks including the use of firefighting foam for training exercises has led to an increase in the concentration of per - and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) in the Georges River (CH2M Hill Australia Pty Ltd, November 2018). Holsworthy is an example of contaminated land that falls under EPA regulation.

3.5.5 Designated growth areas within the catchment Growth areas earmarked for development within the catchment are highlighted Figure 20, and consist of sections marked as Growth Centres, Future Residential Growth Areas and Urban Release Areas. These areas have been selected by the Greater Sydney Commission as planned housing development to accommodate the growing population of Sydney. These places will witness an increase in population density, and for the locations on the fringe of developed western Sydney, an increase in imperviousness as rural and peri-urban land transitions to urban. These growth areas will also threaten endangered ecological communities such as Cumberland Plain and Shale Sandstone Forests, and potentially contribute to urban heat island effects.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 41

Figure 20. Growth areas earmarked for development within the catchment. (NSW Department of Planning 2016). Additional areas of growth not included in this map include the Greater MacArthur Growth Area and the Wilton Growth Area.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 42

3.6 Society, culture, and heritage

3.6.1 Cultural diversity A defining characteristic of the Georges River area is the broad cultural diversity amongst its people, especially within the quickly growing western areas of Sydney. The list of countries of birth, ancestral background, languages spoken, and religions practiced is long and varied (ABS, 2016). This mix of cultures presents an interesting dynamic for coastal management as different cultures have different perspectives on values and uses of the Georges River. Effective coastal management of the Georges River will be inclusive of people from all backgrounds and will consider factors such as language and cultural identity when communicating with the community.

3.6.2 Indigenous heritage The Georges River catchment is host to the Indigenous heritage of both the Dharug Nation and the Dharawal Clan. Prior to European displacement, the Dharug consisted of many Clans across the northern shore, spanning the Cumberland Plain while the Dharawal Clan occupied the southern side, predominantly along the Georges River.

For both the Dharug and the Dharawal, the catchment and its coastal zone is a source of spiritual, social, cultural, and economic importance. Historically it has provided a rich source of food, medicine and shelter, evidence of which remains through the presence of middens, campsites and artworks along the river’s length (Goodall & Cadzow, 2014).

Councils and NPWS are currently working with Aboriginal land councils and individuals within the catchment to determine management options for threatened Indigenous heritage sites. Councils and NPWS are also supporting the transference of Traditional Ecological Knowledge through initiatives like the Georges Aboriginal Riverkeeper project (2015-2018) funded by the Australian Government.

3.6.3 Early British Australian heritage The Kameygal Clan of the Dharug Nation were the first to make contact with Captain Cook in 1770 at what is now known as Inscription Point. Eighteen years later, the British Navy returned to colonise Australia, initiating a period of dislocation and conflict for local Aboriginal people. In the 19 th Century, the Aboriginal people were obliged to live in missions along the Georges River (Goodall & Cadzow, 2014). The main missions were located at La Perouse, Sans Souci, and Peakhurst (Georges Riverkeeper, 2018). The site of Captain Cook's Landing has been memorialised with a monument erected in Kamay Botany Bay National Park (Figure 21).

Figure 21. This monument can be found in Kamay Botany Bay National Park along with a museum documenting early Australian British and Aboriginal heritage (Andrew Richards 2011)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 43

3.6.4 Population The South and West Districts, of which the Georges River catchment forms a significant part, are host to Greater Sydney’s fastest growing areas. With a population of almost 1.4 million people, the population within the Georges River catchment is projected to increase to almost 1.7 million by 2031 (Georges Riverkeeper, 2018) and continue to grow past then. The demographic characteristics for each of the planning districts have been determined from a range of sources and are found within each district plan. These characteristics are summarised below, as they should be considered as part of the CMP.

The South District had a population of 741,250 in 2016, which is expected to increase by 12% by 2036. The majority of the resident workforce work outside of the district (59%), journey to work by car (60%) and live in separate housing (58%). The population serving sector is a major employer (36% percent) within the district, followed by health and education (24%) (GSC, 2018).

The West District had a population of 1,070,000 in 2016, which is expected to increase by 27% by 2036. Over half of the resident workforce work within the district (54%) and 70% journey to work by car. The population serving sector is a major employer (36%), followed by industrial production (25%) (GSC, 2018).

Increases in urban dwelling density and population across Greater Sydney are projected to continue in several LGAs across the Georges River catchment (Figure 22), presenting challenges for the catchment which will need to be considered in the development of the CMP (DPIE, 2016).

Figure 22. Projected changes in Greater Sydney’s urban dwelling density (DPIE 2016)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 44

3.7 Economy

3.7.1 Economic sectors There are multiple industries operating within the Georges river catchment spread across eight different Local Government Areas (LGAs). This section briefly outlines an overview of the local economy, providing context to the objectives and potential actions of the CMP.

Based on available economic data at the LGA for the region, the total economic value -added in 2018-19 was approximately $55.14 billion (value-add is a measure of the value generated by business activity). A breakdown by sector is shown in Figure 23.

The four largest sectors in the region (by value-add) are: transport, postal and warehousing, manufacturing, construction, and healthcare and social assistance. Together, these contribute approximately 43.1% of the region’s total economic value-add. For comparison, the four largest contributors to economic value-add in New South Wales approximately totals 40.6%.

The concentration ratio when considering the top eight contributing industries is 69.1%, compared to 63.2% for New South Wales. This suggests that regional economic diversity is somewhat comparable to that of the State, potentially indicating that the region’s economy is similarly resilient to shocks. The concentration ratios signal that industry in the Georges River catchment economy is fairly diversified. Nonetheless, the economy may be exposed if one or more of the major industries encounter substantial problems (e.g. resulting from coastal hazards).

Transport, Postal and Warehousing 7782.9 Manufacturing 5871.5 Construction 5476.6 Health Care and Social Assistance 4659.7 Wholesale Trade 3796.3 Retail Trade 3762.7 Financial and Insurance Services 3706.1 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 3071.4 Education and Training 2930.7 Public Administration and Safety 2513.4 Administrative and Support Services 2425.9

Industry Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services 2176.2 Accommodation and Food Services 1972.6 Other Services 1390.5 Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services 1206.6 Mining 1067 Information Media and Telecommunications 679.8 Arts and Recreation Services 459.5 Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 195.1 0% 5% 10% 15%

Economic value-add

Figure 23. Industries in the Georges River catchment in 2018/19, including economic value-added ($ million) and percentages indicating the proportional contribution of each industry to the local economy (NIEIR 2019) However, the composition of industry varies at the individual LGA scale. For example, the economy within the Georges River Council is more concentrated than the regional economy. The concentration ratio for the top fou r industries is 55.5% and top eight industries is 76.1%. While health care and construction are still major industries, manufacturing, and transport, postal and warehousing are less so (both being outside the top eight). Financial and insurance services is the greatest contributor to value add (at 21.8%), and professional, scientific, and technical services rounds out the top four. This suggests that resilience is improved when the individual LGAs come together to create a regional economy.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 45

3.7.2 Ecosystem services The benefits freely received from the natural environment can be understood in terms of ecosystem services. Whilst free, these benefits are fundamental to human wellbeing and are thus extremely valuable. Examples of ecosystem services provided by a healthy Georges River include storm water absorption, air and water quality improvements, cooling of ambient temperatures, and sediment and nutrient cycling. Consideration of the economic value of ecosystem services is a key factor in cost benefit analysis for adaptation and management options.

There are several indirect economic values to residents which are influenced by ecosystem health. Recent research within the Georges River catchment has shown that real estate value correlates with riparian and channel condition (Thomy, 2017). This relationship has also shown to be the case for real estate in terms of water quality (Clapper & Caudill, 2014) and logically applies in terms of proximity to foreshore areas.

3.7.3 Recreational use Recreation in the catchment is of significant value to the communities and business of greater Sydney. Recreational boating, fishing, and kayaking are popular activities which directly engage with the Georges River and Botany Bay (SMCMA, 2011). Passive activities are considered more popular, which includes walking (Figure 24), bushwalking and picnicking (BMT WBM, 2013) and swimming in both the freshwater reaches, the estuary and the bay, in particular under future conditions where water quality targets are met. The Regional Boating Plan for Botany Bay, Georges River and Region (Transport NSW, 2014) provides information on waterway users, safety, access, boat storage and a delivery program for future works.

Local tourism is enhanced by the recreational value of the Georges River, with visitors attending local shops and restaurants alongside a day of activities. An understanding of the extent of the economic benefit to local tourism can be used to develop management options in the CMP.

Figure 24. Georges River boardwalk (NPWS 2019)

3.7.4 Primary production Primary production in the upper catchment is limited to several orchards which source water directly from the river (BMT WBM, 2013). The once multimillion-dollar Oyster farming industry within the Georges River estuary collapsed in the mid-1990’s after suffering major losses from QX disease in the mid 1990’s (Reid and Bone, 2020). Only two oyster leases remain operational in Woolooware Bay. Given the low number of operators, the economic value of oyster production is not available (DPI, 2019).

No commercial fishery currently operates within Botany Bay. However, the mangrove and saltmarsh communities at Towra point have been shown to provide important nursery and feeding grounds for juvenile commercial fish species (Mazumder, Saintilan, & Williams, 2006). The same is likely for the significant sections of estuarine vegetation along the Georges River estuary.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 46

River health monitoring data indicates that coal mining within the upper catchment (Campbelltown City Council and Wollondilly Shire Council Local Government Areas) is associated with localised impacts on the Georges River (Wright, 2011).

3.7.5 Regional socio-economic summary Measures of socio-economic equality can be used to improve understanding of the economic context for the Georges River catchment. The 2016 Census collected data on the socio-economic status of Australians. This data is presented by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) per LGA and has been used to create socio-economic indices.

The Socio-Economic Indicators for Areas (SEIFA) scores for the member councils in the Georges River catchment are reported in Table 7. These scores are an indication of people's access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society (ABS 2016). These SEIFA scores show that an average LGA in the Georges River catchment is relatively advantaged compared to an average Australian LGA (score of 999 versus 956); however, some areas such as Fairfield and Campbelltown score significantly lower than the national average, with scores of 896 and 948 respectively. Fairfield’s score of 896 places it in the 12 th percentile of the country and the 7th percentile of the State. This indicates that areas within the Georges River catchment are significantly more disadvantaged than other LGAs within the catchment. As such, if desirable, the CMP could be used to identify opportunities to improve the socio-economic standing of LGAs within the catchment. There is a range of scores for the sub-regions (SA1) within the LGAs. With both higher maximum and lower minimum scores compared to the national average, the degree of inequality within the catchme nt is comparably high.

While the maximum scores are similar across LGAs, there are some LGAs with significantly lower minimum scores such as Liverpool (480), Campbelltown (539) and Canterbury-Bankstown (593). This is relevant to the CMP process because the distribution of impact resulting from a coastal hazard is unlikely to be equally spread across the catchment, potentially exposing catchment communities with lower socio-economic standing that rely on local areas for their well-being (e.g. water quality issues preventing use of local green/blue spaces). Furthermore, some sections of the local community are particularly vulnerable as they are reliant on the coastal and riverine natural capital to make a living (e.g. hospitality workers at businesses reliant on beach visitation).

Table 7. Socio Economic Indicators for Areas (SEIFA) scores for Member Councils (ABS 2016)

Population Score National State Min score per Max score per percentile percentile SA1 SA1 Bayside 156,058 1026 85 78 628 1146 Campbelltown 157,006 948 43 42 539 1146 Canterbury- 346,302 961 52 55 593 1119 Bankstown Fairfield 198,817 896 12 7 672 1116 Georges River 146,841 1043 88 82 794 1176 Liverpool 204,326 972 60 63 480 1173 Sutherland Shire 218,464 1088 94 88 862 1208 Wollondilly 48,519 1030 85 80 859 1167 Catchment average 164,037 999 - - 701 1152 National average 42,933 956 - - 787 1072 Source: ABS 2018

3.7.6 Economic considerations for CMP development A key input into the CMP is the inclusion of a cost benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis of proposed management options. Up to date and comprehensive socio-economic data is required for this exercise to be effective. A detailed explanation of the process for determining the economic base case as well as considerations for what data is needed for the Georges River CMP and a preliminary damage / loss assessment for key asset types is contained in Appendix G.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 47

3.8 Legal framework

3.8.1 Acts of Parliament The Georges River catchment, estuary and Botany Bay are subject to a considerable body of law that includes Acts, Regulations, and Policies from various levels of government. The interaction of these pieces of legislation and policies have impacts on land use planning and environmental outcomes.

The core legislation that provides the legal context for coastal management is listed in Table 8. A comprehensive list of relevant legislation is provided in Appendix H.

Table 8. Core legislation relevant to the Georges River catchment

Commonwealth Acts Name of Act Responsible Agency Summary of effect of Act Environmental Australian Regulates the valuation and consent of activities which significantly Protection and Department of impact ‘matters of national environmental significance’. ’Significant Biodiversity Environment and matters’ includes migratory species and nationally threatened species, Conservation Act Energy both of which are located within the Georges River catchment, (EPBC) 1999 especially at Towra Point. (Commonwealth) New South Wales Acts Environmental NSW Department This act provides the governing framework for the planning system in Planning and of Planning NSW in the assessment of the environmental, social, and economic Assessment Act Industry, and impacts of proposed developments and plans. The principles of (EP&A Act) 1979 Environment ecologically sustainable development which underpin the objectives of the EP&A Act also support the strategic direction of the revised Coastal Management Act which the Georges River CMP will adhere to. Coastal NSW Department The objectives of this Act aim to manage the NSW coast in an Management Act of Planning integrated manner which is consistent with the principles of 2016 Industry, and ecologically sustainable development. It ensures the co-ordination of Environment policy and public authorities relating to the coastal zone and supports the objects of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014. According to the Act, the purpose of a Coastal Management Program is to set the long-term strategy for the co-ordinated management of land within the coastal zone with a focus on achieving the objects of this Act. Marine Estate NSW Marine Estate The Act provides for the management of the NSW Marine Estate Management Act Management consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. 2014 Authority The strategic vision of the act is to ensure evidence-based, holistic, and cohesive management of the NSW coastline, estuaries and marine parks and aquatic reserves. The Marine Estate Management Authority advises the NSW Government on the management of the NSW Marine Estate. Fisheries NSW Department The principal piece of legislation which manages the fisheries and fish Management Act of Primary habitat of NSW. The act promotes ecologically sustainable fishing and (1994) Industries protects and sustains the NSW fishery resource for economic, recreational, and environmental reasons, by reducing illegal fishing.

3.8.2 State Environmental Planning Policies The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) has provisions for the development of environmental planning instruments (EPIs) which are used to designate land use and guide development. One such category of EPI is State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP).

The updated State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (CM SEPP) supports the Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act) through the provision of development controls specific to each of the Coastal Management Areas. These controls are supported by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 48

Core SEPPs that apply to the study area are listed in Table 9 below, and other relevant SEPPs are listed in Appendix H.

Table 9. Core SEPPs applicable to the study area

Name of SEPP Summary of effect of SEPP SEPP (Coastal The Coastal Management SEPP integrates several existing SEPPs (Coastal Wetlands, Management) 2018 Littoral Rainforests and Coastal Protection) to direct objectives for the Coastal Management Act 2016 from a land use planning perspective. This policy will guide how development proposals are assessed if they are within the coastal zone. Greater Metropolitan The aims and objectives of this REP are generally involved with maintaining and Regional Environmental improving the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries Plan (REP) no.2 – Georges and establishing a consistent and coordinated approach to planning as assessment River within the catchment. The REP applies when a council is preparing a LEP, or when a consent authority is deterring a development application. The following must be taken into account: acid sulphate soils, bank disturbance, flooding, industrial discharges, land degradation, on-site sewage management, river-related uses, sewer overflows, urban/stormwater runoff, urban development areas, vegetated buffer areas, water quality and river flows, and wetlands. SEPP Kurnell (1989) Formerly referred to as the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 17—Kurnell Peninsula (1989). This SEPP establishes land use zoning and develop controls on the Kurnell Peninsula. SEPP Environment (DRAFT) The new SEPP (Environment) will repeal or replace: • SEPP (Sydney Drinking Water Catchment) 2011 • Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan (REP) No.2 – Georges River • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 Hawkesbury- • SEPP No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • SEPP No. 50 – Canal Estate Development • Willandra Lakes Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 – World Heritage Property

Upper Georges River

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 49

3.8.3 Governance As a multi-jurisdictional urban catchment and coastal zone, the governance framework for the Georges River is complex. All levels of government play a role in shaping and implementing governance structures. The interaction of Federal, State and Local governments leads to on the ground actions that are dictated by legislation and policy These statutory instruments establish various government agencies tasked with managing certain aspects of the catchment and coastal zone. The design of this framework is meant to encourage integrated management.

State Government agencies Some of the key State government agencies include:

• Department of Planning Industry and Environment – Environment, Energy and Science (DPIE- EES)

• National Parks and Wildlife Service

• DPI Fisheries

• Greater Sydney Commission

• Greater Sydney Local Land Services

• Marine Estate Management Authority

• NSW Port Authority

• Roads and Maritime Services

• Transport NSW - Marine Infrastructure Delivery Office

• Sydney Water Corporation

• WaterNSW.

Dissolution of Catchment Management Authorities The Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (CMA) regions were amalgamated in late 2012. Following this, a Catchment Action Plan (CAP) for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment was approved by the Minister in July 2013. In January 2014, CMAs were replaced by Local Land Services (LLS) formed on different boundaries, integrating additional functions including agricultural advice, plant and animal biosecurity and emergency response (Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority, 2013).

LLS have a different focus to the former CMAs. With the CMAs, Councils and catchment groups had more support and funding opportunities available for catchment and waterway works. Now with the LLS in Metro Sydney, a new funding structure has reduced resources available for related works. Greater Sydney LLS has a lesser role in regard to urban water and coastal management compared to its previous capacity.

Legislative reforms Recent legislative reforms relevant to the George River catchment include:

• Coastal Management Act 2016 and SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

• Crown Lands Management Act 2016

• EP&A Act Revisions 2018

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 50

• Marine Estate Management Act 2014

• SEPP (Environment) DRAFT.

State Government department restructure 2019 Following the State government election in 2019, the newly formed Liberal government implemented changes to the structure and naming of various agencies. From 1 July 2019, ten clusters were restructured to eight as a means to deliver the work of the government more effectively. These eight clusters include:

• Premier and Cabinet

• Treasury

• Customer Service

• Planning, Industry and Environment

• Transport

• Health

• Education

• Stronger Communities.

Most relevant to the Coastal Management Program, the formation of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) was the result of merging the former Planning & Environment and Industry clusters. Consequently, the Office of Environment and Heritage and the Office of Local Government have ceased to be independent entities and their functions have been transitioned into the broader DPIE (NSW Department of Premier & Cabinet, 2019).

Local Government Areas - Councils The Local Government Act sets the principles and functions for councils. Councils are responsible for the people and land within their local government area (LGA), and for implementing the integrated planning & reporting framework that facilitates council operations. Ten councils have some land within their Local Government Area (LGA) that lies in the Georges River catchment (Bayside, Campbelltown, Canterbury-Bankstown, Cumberland, Fairfield, Georges River, Liverpool, Sutherland, Wollondilly, Wollongong). Six of those councils (Bayside, Canterbury-Bankstown, Fairfield, Georges River, Liverpool, Sutherland) are directly adjacent to the tidal waters of the Georges River Estuary.

Council amalgamations Since the last CZMP was developed in 2013 there have been multiple amalgamations of councils within the catchment. Bayside Council was established in September 2016 and consists of the former City of Rockdale and Councils. Georges River Council was established in May 2016 and consists of the former Hurstville City and Kogarah City Councils. Canterbury-Bankstown City Council was established in May 2016 and consists of the former Canterbury City and Bankstown City Councils.

Georges River Combined Councils Committee Formed in 1979, the Georges River Combined Councils Committee, with the business name Georges Riverkeeper, is one of Australia’s longest serving catchment management groups. The eight member Councils – Bayside Council, Campbelltown City Council, City of Canterbury Bankstown, Fairfield City Council, Georges River Council, Liverpool City Council, Sutherland Shire Council and Wollondilly Shire Councils – that comprise most of the Georges River catchment make up the Georges Riverkeeper. Georges Riverkeeper is responsible for implementing 5 key programs that were identified through stakeholder engagement as focus areas for the stewardship of the Georges River. These programs include:

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 51

• Catchment Actions Program

• River Health Monitoring Program

• Stormwater Program

• Research Program

• Education & Capacity Building Program.

Sydney Coastal Councils Group Established in 1989, Sydney Coastal Councils Group is a collaborative regional organisation that advances sustainable management of Sydney’s urban coastal and estuarine environment. It currently comprises nine Member Councils (two of which are also part of Georges Riverkeeper – Bayside and Sutherland) representing nearly 1.3 million Sydneysiders. Collectively, it covers an area of approximately 800 km2 with a total coastline of almost 600 km, encompassing the waterways of , Pittwater, , Port Hacking, Botany Bay, Middle and North Harbours, and the lower reaches of the Lane Cove, Georges and Cooks Rivers.

3.9 Urban and regional planning The Georges River catchment, estuary and Botany Bay are subject to strategic planning instruments developed at all levels of government. Many of these plans are nested within each other as a way to implement a vision more locally for a larger geographical area. These plans integrate various priorities to achieve beneficial outcomes socially, economically, and environmentally.

3.9.1 State level plans The NSW 2021 A Plan to Make NSW Number One is a 10-year plan to rebuild the economy, provide quality services, renovate infrastructure, restore government accountability, and strengthen our local environment and communities. It replaces the State Plan as the NSW Government’s strategic business plan, setting priorities for action and guiding resource allocation. This plan is based around 5 strategies; rebuild the economy, return quality services, renovate infrastructure, strengthen local environment and communities, and restore accountability to government (NSW State Government, 2011).

Goal 22 of the State Plan – protect our natural environment, includes a target for protecting rivers, wetland and coastal environments by improving the environmental health of wetlands and catchments through actively managing water for the environment by 2021 (NSW State Government, 2011).

3.9.2 Regional plans NSW Department of Planning is responsible for developing regional plans across the State. A Metropolis of Three Cities - The Greater Sydney Region Plan, covers the entire Sydney Metropolitan area and sets a vision to 2056 to manage growth and change as it relates to social, economic, and environmental matters.

Five District Plans provide for the implementation of the Greater Sydney Regional plan. These 20 -year plans inform local environmental plans and support integrated development approaches which align with principles of ecologically sustainable development. The Georges River catchment LGA distribution across the district boundaries is provided below in Table 10.

Table 10. Catchment LGA by District boundaries (Greater Sydney Commission 2016)

Western City Eastern City South

Camden Bayside Georges River Campbelltown Canterbury - Bankstown Liverpool Sutherland Fairfield

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 52

The District Plans identify strategic project opportunities to enhance the liveability and the environment of the region. They also outline infrastructure plans which allow the private and public sectors to have confidence in the future direction and decision-making process for local areas. The three relevant District Plans that apply to the study area include the Eastern City District Plan, Western City District Plan, and the South District Plan.

A key element of the Regional and District Plans is the Green Grid initiative. The Green Grid proposes a network of high quality green spaces that connect town centres, public transport hubs and major residential areas, which acknowledges that green space is the key hallmark of liveability. The Green Grid proposes to create a cohesive green infrastructure network, through small projects that provide missing links and large projects that have transformational potential (BMT WBM, 2018).

Many Green Grid project opportunities are provided for each District Plan area, including some within the Georges River coastal zone. These will align with the objectives of the CM Act and individual Coastal Management Areas (CMAs) (e.g. Coastal Environment Areas, Coastal Use Area). Such proje cts should be considered as part of a CMP. Additional environmental and social opportunities developed through a CMP should consider the strategic and integrated land use planning framework outlined in the Sydney Green Grid where appropriate (BMT WBM, 2018).

The Metropolis of Three Cities – The Greater Sydney Region Plan is accompanied and supported by numerous plans such as Future Transport 2056, State Infrastructure Strategy 2018-2038, and the Maritime Safety Plan 2017-2022. Each of these focusses on a specific element of the Sydney Region Plan and provides extensive background information and management priorities that are used to support the greater vision for Sydney.

3.9.3 Local plans Each council operates using an integrated planning and reporting framework. This framework is guided by local plans such as Community Strategic Plans and Local Strategic Planning Statements. Councils manage their LGA in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and act as consent authority under the EPA Act. The primary planning instrument that Councils rely on is the Local Environment Plan (LEP). A standard format LEP was adopted in NSW in 2006. This allows for consistency across the State with regard to the structure and definitions used in each LEP.

Amendments to the EPA Act in 2018 established a requirement that each Council be obligated to produce a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) that provides a basis for strategic planning in the LGA. This local plan is informed by the District plans and Greater Sydney Region Plan, and works in conjunction with the Community Strategic Plan which forms part of Councils’ Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) Framework. Under the IP&R Framework, each council prepares a LSPS which sets out the 20-year vision for land-use in the local area, the special character and values that are to be preserved, and how change will be managed into the future. Many of the Member Councils are in the public exhibition stage of developing their LSPS.

Council also use Development Control Plans (DCPs) as guidelines for development that support the aims of applicable LEPs and LSPSs. It does so by providing more detailed provisions with respect to carrying out development and protection of the environment.

Table 11 provides a summary of the current LEPs, DCPs, LSPSs and Community Strategic Plans for Councils within the study area. It is noted that due to recent amalgamations, some Councils are still in the process of consolidating their planning instruments and using that as an opportunity to review and improve provisions.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 53

Table 11. Summary of local plans for the eight LGAs

Council Community LEP DCP Local Strategic Strategic Plan Planning Statement Bayside Bayside 2030: Rockdale Council LEP Rockdale DCP 2011 DRAFT Future Community 2011 Bayside Local Strategic Plan Strategic Planning 2018-2030 Statement: A land use vision to 2036 Botany Bay LEP 2013 Botany Bay DCP 2013 Campbelltown Campbelltown Campbelltown LEP Campbelltown (Sustainable DRAFT 2027: 2015 City) DCP 2015 Campbelltown Local Community Campbelltown (Urban Campbelltown Growth Strategic Planning Strategic Plan Area) LEP 2002 Centres DCP Statement: A 20 Edmondson Park South YEAR LAND USE DCP 2012 VISION FOR THE CITY OF CAMPBELLTOWN TO 2040 Canterbury CBCity 2028 Canterbury LEP 2012 Canterbury DCP 2012 Connective City Bankstown 2036 Bankstown LEP 2015 Bankstown DCP 2015

Fairfield FAIRFIELD CITY Fairfield LEP 2013 Fairfield City Wide DCP Our home, our city, 2040: A LAND 2013 our future: USE VISION Bonnyrigg Town Centre FAIRFIELD CITY PLAN Shaping A DCP 2010 2012-2022 Diverse City - Cabramatta Town Centre COMMUNITY Draft Local DCP STRATEGIC PLAN Strategic Canley Corridor DCP Planning Statement Fairfield City Centre DCP 2013 Fairfield Heights Town Centre DCP 2013 Prairiewood Town Centre Southern Precinct DCP 2013 Wetherill Park Market Town DCP

Georges River Georges River Hurstville LEP 2012 Hurstville DCP 1, 2 Georges River LSPS Council 2040: Draft Local Community Strategic Planning Strategic Plan Statement 2018-2028 Kogarah LEP 2012 Kogarah DCP 2013 Liverpool Our Home, Liverpool LEP 2008 Liverpool DCP2008 Connected Liverpool Liverpool 2027: Edmondson Park South 2050 Community DCP 2012 Strategic Plan Liverpool Growth Centres Precincts DCP Sutherland Sutherland Shire: Sutherland LEP 2015 Sutherland DCP 2015 DRAFT Sutherland Our Community Shire Local Strategic Plan Planning Statement (LSPS) 2019

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 54

Council Community LEP DCP Local Strategic Strategic Plan Planning Statement

Wollondilly CREATE Wollondilly LEP 2011 Wollondilly DCP 2016 DRAFT Wollondilly Wollondilly 2040 Local Strategic Community Planning Statement Strategic Plan 2033

3.9.4 Development application process The development process in each Council is dictated by a hierarchy of planning instruments as outlined in the previous sections. At an individual Council level, this includes consideration of council policies and strategies for fauna, flora, waterways, soil etc. These policies play a guiding role in shaping development in line with Councils’ vision.

Each Council has a unique suite of policies tailored to its own LGA and constituents, some directly related to catchment management and others indirectly related. The level of implementation of Council policies has an impact on the receiving waters of the Georges River and the associated values.

An understanding of the scope and nature of these policies can help to determine opportunities for shaping the development process in a more sustainable direction.

3.9.5 LEP and LSPS reviews In March 2018, amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) introduced new requirements for each Council to prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statements (LSPS) which will set out the 20-year vision for land-use in the local area, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future.

The LSPS shows how regional and district priorities are to be implemented through the IP&R framework and the statutory planning process. They align with the Regional and District Plans, and the Council’s own priorities in the Community Strategic Plans it prepares under local government legislation. The LSPS will shape how the development controls in the Local Environment Plan (LEP) evolve over time to meet the community's needs.

Greater Sydney Councils that were selected to receive funding were given two years (to June 2020) to review and update their LEPs. The remaining Greater Sydney councils have three years to review and update their LEPs (to June 2021).

The LEP Review process has been divided into six key phases:

• Phase 1 – LEP review

• Phase 2 – Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement

• Phase 3 – Final Local Strategic Planning Statement

• Phase 4 – Prepare Planning Proposal / Gateway

• Phase 5 – Draft LEP on exhibition

• Phase 6 – Plan making.

The Regional Plan and District Plans are being implemented by Councils through a process that will lead to updating of LEPs through a planning proposal which considers the LSPS. All councils in NSW are required to update their LEPs to align with the directions and priorities of the Regional and District Plans. At present, the focus is on Councils finalising their LSPSs.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 55

Preparation of the LSPS provides an opportunity for councils to review the effectiveness of local land use and development controls to minimise the negative impacts of development in the Georges River Catchment on waterway health, and in particular to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013. It is important to mention that the future CMP, once finalised and approved – possibly not earlier than 2022/23, will be replacing a decade old CZMP, and inform existing and future LEPs.

All councils within the Georges River Catchment have been given Letters of Support by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) for their draft LSPS, except Sutherland City Council, which is pending, and are progressing the drafting of new LEPs (Table 12). All councils in the George River Catchment identified the health of the catchment as a Key Priority in their draft LSPS.

A number of the council’s in the catchment, such as Canterbury-Bankstown Council have reviewed existing LEPs and supporting strategies (CZMP 2013 and Biodiversity Strategy) in responding to the District Plan priorities and actions, and have advised the GSC that there is sufficient information available to develop new responses to give effect to these priorities and actions related to protecting environmentally sensitive areas of waterways and the coastal environment area.

Table 12. Council LEP review status. (Urbis 2019)

LGA LEP Review Status Sutherland GSC Letter of Support pending.

Bayside GSC Letter of Support provided for Bayside Council (BC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Fairfield GSC Letter of Support provided for Fairfield City Council (FCC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Liverpool GSC Letter of Support provided for Liverpool City Council (LCC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Canterbury GSC Letter of Support provided for City of Canterbury Bankstown (CB) draft Local Bankstown Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Georges River GSC Letter of Support provided for Georges River Council (GRC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (February 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Campbelltown GSC Letter of Support provided for Campbelltown City Council (CCC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Wollondilly GSC Letter of Support provided for Wollondilly Shire Council (WSC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Under the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 2016, all Councils are required to give effect to the coastal management program including the management aims, objectives and actions in the CZMP 2013 in new planning proposals for new LEPs.

A number of Councils have begun the process of reviewing their planning controls under the LEP Review process, to inform their new LEPs, DCPs and associated technical requirements to improve waterways including the Georges River.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 56

3.10 Natural resource management A range of management plans have previously been developed for the Georges River Estuary and Botany Bay catchment and coastline. The visible impacts of poor water quality and shoreline change due to urban and industrial development have triggered multiple studies to determine the processes behind the change and evaluate management options against a range of criteria.

3.10.1 Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan (2018) The Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan 2018-2022 sets out the direction that the Georges Riverkeeper will take to facilitate proactive waterway management in an integrated fashion across the catchment. While this instrument only informs the strategy of Georges Riverkeeper and it should not be considered as a coastal management arrangement in itself, it is considered as an important tool to understand the issues, programs and actions carried out across the catchment by GRK. There are five key programs that aim to accomplish the Georges Riverkeeper goal of best practice environmental management for a liveable urban river. The five programs are elaborated upon below (Georges Riverkeeper, 2018).

Catchment Actions Programs The goal of Georges Riverkeeper’s Catchment Action Program is to protect and improve the liveability of the Georges River by improving amenity, aesthetics, biodiversity, and ecosystem functions of the Georges River. Specifically, the program aims to reduce the volume of litter within the Georges River system, and protect and enhance natural resources along the Georges River through bush rehabilitation practices.

Georges Riverkeeper worked closely with Elders and representatives from the Local Aboriginal Land Councils within the Georges River Catchment to develop and implement this project.

The project involved restoration work to improve biodiversity at key sites. Some of the restoration works were performed by an Aboriginal Bush Regeneration Team comprised of a supervisor and four trainees who were working towards the attainment of qualifications in Conservation Land Management.

Bush regeneration is part of the Catchment Action Program when grant funding is available. Georges Riverkeeper works with Member Councils to identify appropriate sites and develop and implement an on-ground works plan. Council is generally responsible for the maintenance of the site post-grant and the site is included in their bush maintenance programs.

Litter removal also forms a part of the Catchment Action Program. GRK coordinates and utilises Corrective Services NSW teams for litter removal, and each year, more than 100 tonnes of rubbish is removed from the river and surrounding parklands. Georges Riverkeeper has over 200 routine maintenance sites based on council and staff knowledge.

Education and Capacity Building Program Education and Capacity Building has not existed as an explicit Program of Georges Riverkeeper in the past, although there was a grant-funded Community Engagement position from 2009 – 2013. In the same period, a major objective of the River Health Monitoring Program was community engagement, through involvement of the general public and school students in monitoring.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 57

Since then, education and community engagement have continued in an ad-hoc way through social media, website, presentations (schools, community groups and retirees), attendance at festivals and occasional monitoring events, until the education activities were given formal recognition within the Education and Capacity Building Program (2018).

A Communications Officer was appointed in 2019 to communicate the implementation of the Strategic Plan and Programs therein. Present educational and community engagement activities include an updated website, factsheets, social media, newsletter, selected events, education resources for schools, and the strengthening of partnerships with universities and Environmental Education Centres.

Research Program Georges Riverkeeper’s Research Program works with academic partners on studies to aid evidence -based best practice management of urban waterways. A key focus of the program is increasing the links between policy, management, and research. There are still many gaps in our knowledge about the effects of urbanisation on complex aquatic ecosystems, such as how best to mitigate the impacts, the features that will define liveable urban rivers in the future, and how to overcome the multifaceted barriers presently acting to hinder progress towards making liveable urban rivers. Best practice management is adaptive – it requires keeping abreast of research developments and contributing research focused on the local issues relevant to the natural resource management of Councils. Another problem hindering effective waterway management is the historic limited communication between policy-makers, managers, and researchers. Georges Riverkeeper occupies a unique position at the nexus of policy, management, and research.

River Health Monitoring Program Georges Riverkeeper’s River Health Monitoring Program collects environmental data to guide waterway management and to inform the community about the condition of waterways across the catchment. The Program applies scientifically rigorous methods to the assessment of freshwater tributaries and estuarine sections of the Georges River.

Complex data is simplified into grades, such as those reported in the 2017-2018 Report Card, to facilitate a shared understanding about the condition of waterways. A preliminary review of the data by Georges Riverkeeper has shown very few signs of any improvements or declines in WQ since records began in 2009 (pers. comm. David Reid 2019).

In 2017, the River Health Monitoring Program initiated the creation of a rapid visual assessment tool to be used within the Georges River catchment. This reach-scale tool allows for many assessments to be completed, as it is a rapid process (i.e. less than 30 minutes per site) and includes more specific detail about issues of management concern to inform allocation of natural management resources by Councils for multiple outcomes along the river. In addition to indicators of ecological condition, it also includes indicators of liveability (Georges Riverkeeper, 2018).

Stormwater Program GRK’s Stormwater Program develops materials and events to improve stormwater management across the catchment, in recognition that stormwater from hardened urban landscapes is the main source of problems detrimentally affecting the Georges River, and that the ongoing use of urban creeks as drains is incompatible with achieving liveability along the Georges River. In the past, addressing stormwater as an issue was not a specific objective of Georges Riverkeeper. Disseminating information and sharing knowledge of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles between member Councils was a component of the grant-funded Upper, Mid, and Lower Georges River Sustainability Initiatives (2009-2012). More recently the Georges Riverkeeper has teamed up with the other c atchment groups in Sydney to run “Get the Site Right” campaigns. “Get the Site Right” is a joint education and enforcement program that focuses on keeping sediment on building sites and out of stormwater by ensuring the proper erosion and sediment controls are in place to protect our waterways.

3.10.2 Metropolitan water management Management of Sydney’s metropolitan water supply is a critical topic of study, especially considering the projected growth alongside the prevalence of drought and the uncertainty of climate change. While most of the

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 58

Georges River catchment lies outside of the metropolitan drinking water catchment, there are connections within the study area that are worth exploring further. Specifically, Woronora , Prospect and the Kurnell Desalinisation Plant are located within and provide drinking water to communities in the catchment.

These bulk water supplies are managed under the Sydney Metropolitan Water Management Plan 2017, which will be replaced by the Greater Sydney Water Strategy to be drafted by end of 2020, led by DPIE in collaboration with WaterNSW and Sydney Water. The Greater Sydney Local Land Service Transition Catchment Action Plan 2013-2023 deals more with the land surrounding the water supplies and is a handover document fr om the former Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority.

Metropolitan Water Management Plan 2017 The Metropolitan Water Plan outlines the NSW Government’s plan to ensure sufficient water to meet the needs of the people and environment of the Greater Sydney region now and for the future. The first Metropolitan Water Plan was developed in 2004. This plan included initiatives to reduce demand through recycling and water efficiency, increase supply from existing , and investigate desalination and groundwater for use as drought supplies. It also included a range of measures to improve river health downstream of Greater Sydney’s water supply dams. In particular, it introduced variable environmental flows from major dams on the Hawkesbury- Nepean, Shoalhaven, and Woronora rivers (with the exception of , with plans of the State to be raised in the future).

In response to deepening drought, an updated plan was released in 2006. It put in place a series of drought measures, including increased water recycling and water efficiency programs. With dam storage levels approaching 30 per cent in early 2007, the government triggered the construction of the Sydney Desalination Plant. An updated 2010 plan was developed as part of the regular review cycle, which considered new data, emerging trends, and developing technologies.

This plan provided for a secure supply of water to the people of Sydney to 2025 from a combination of sources, including dams, recycling, desalination, and water efficiency. The plan also included initiatives to help protect the health of rivers and ensure there would be adequate water supplies during drought.

The most recent update of the plan in 2017, presents the outcomes of the latest review of the plan. It is based on the findings from technical studies, modelling and economic analyses, independent reviews, and social surveys. An extensive community and stakeholder engagement program helped inform the development of the strategies in the plan. The 2017 plan is supported by a monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement strategy, which will guide implementation and ensure we can adapt to changing circumstances. The Metropolitan Water Plan will be replaced with the Greater Sydney Water Strategy which is to be drafted by the end of 2020. DPIE will lead this process in collaboration with WaterNSW and Sydney Water.

Greater Sydney Local Land Service Transition Catchment Action Plan 2013-2023 The Catchment Actions Plan (CAP) for the Greater Sydney Local Land Service (GS LLS) region is derived from the CAP developed for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment in May 2013, amended to align with the boundaries of the GS LLS region. This transition CAP forms the basis of a transition natural resources management (NRM) plan for the Greater Sydney Local Land Service region in 2014 and will inform the NRM components of development of the GS LLS Strategic Plan in future years (Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority, 2013).

While the Georges River Catchment is only a small part of the land within the boundaries of the GS LLS region, the strategic direction, goals, management targets and whole of government and community approach utilised in the Plan align closely with Georges River Coastal Management Plan vison, albeit on a much broader scale.

3.10.3 Groundwater management Groundwater in the Sydney Catchment is a significant environmental and anthropocentric resource, however not a significant resource for water supply. Extraction of groundwater for human consumption, such as for drinking water or for agricultural and industrial use can reduce the water that is available for environmental water requirements, such as surface water base flow and maintaining wetlands and other Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 59

Groundwater use within the Sydney Catchment is managed by the Department of Industry – Lands & Water under the Water Management Act 2000. The Water Sharing Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Region Groundwater Sources 2011 provides a legislative basis for sharing water between the environment and other purposes, and addresses licensing of the take and the use of groundwater. This plan covers 13 groundwater sources, two of which are within or proximal to the Georges River Catchment, the Central Sydney Basin and the Botany Sands Groundwater Source.

The Botany Sands Groundwater Source has been actively managed by the NSW Government in accordance with the Water Act 1912 and the Water Management Act 2000. Embargoes established in 2003 and 2007 limit new extraction mainly due to contamination and unsuitability of the water for domestic purposes. The aquifer is still in use for industrial purposes.

3.10.4 Crown land and National Parks Under the Crown Lands Management Act 2016, Crown Land managers, which can include Councils, develop plans of management, which are not statutory documents. These plans provide strategic planning and governance for the management and use of public land. The recent Crown Land reforms have instigated a review and renewal of many Plans of Management in the study area.

There are four national parks within the study area including Kamay Botany Bay National Park, Georges River National Park, , and Dharawal National Park. These National Parks have their own Plans of Management in accordance with the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974. These plans guide management activities and natural resource management within the parks. Dharawal and Heathcote National Parks represent freshwater headwaters of the Georges River and their protection has an important impact on downstream environmental quality.

Georges River National Park Plan of Management The Georges River National Park Plan of Management was developed by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (the Service) and published in 1994. Though well established, this document needs to be updated to reflect more recent scientific, environmental and community trends. Most importantly, the Plan does not take into consideration the effects of sea level rise or climate change. Any new management plan needs to seriously consider the effect of sea level rise on management of the Georges River National Park and its resources.

The document provides a management context, first outlining the concept of National Parks in NSW, then delving into the location, history, and regional context of the Georges River National Park itself. Important values of the Georges River National Park include landscape, recreation, natural features, cultural resources, and environmental education.

The following general objectives relate to the management of national parks in New South Wales: • the protection and preservation of scenic and natural features • the conservation of wildlife • the maintenance of natural processes as far as is possible • the preservation of Aboriginal sites and historic features • the provision of appropriate recreation opportunities • the encouragement of scientific and educational enquiry into environmental features and processes, prehistoric and historic features and park use patterns.

In addition to these, the management of the Georges River National Park is subject to the following specific objectives: • the recreational opportunities provided will complement those provided in nearby national parks and urban parks • the river flats will continue to be managed for intensive recreation • the remainder of the park will be managed to provide a natural backdrop to the river • additional opportunities will be provided for visitors to experience and understand the natural and cultural features of the area • mangroves and other wetlands will be protected • areas that have been degraded will be rehabilitated

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 60

• the environmental education value of the park will be promoted • the detrimental impacts of urban development will be minimised as much as possible.

The policies and framework for the management of Georges River National Park together with related actions are summarised under the following headings: natural heritage; cultural heritage; and use of the park.

It is important to note that the policies established in the Plan provide the framework for management consistent with anticipated resources available to the Service and anticipated community trends over 1994- 2004, and as such are significantly outdated. Moreover, as mentioned above, the policies and actions defined do not take into consideration the effects of climate change or sea level rise. Hence these must be updated to reflect current environmental and scientific trends.

In addition to the policies and framework, a list of priority actions has been established under the Plan implementation and are categorised into high, medium, and low priority. As such, a Fire Management Strategy was developed in 2018 in response to the Park Plan of Management to address priority action number 1 – prepare fire management plan.

Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management The Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management was developed by DPIE and published in January 2020. Though up to date, the Plan may not yet be well established as a guiding document for the management of Kamay Botany Bay National Park due to its recent publication.

This document should be read in conjunction with the Kamay Botany Bay Planning Considerations (2019), which is a supporting document that includes detailed information on park values (e.g. cultural heritage and threatened species) and the threats to these values. Detailed considerations of the park are categorised under the following headings: landscape setting; looking after our living culture and heritage; protecting the natural environment; providing for visitor use and enjoyment; park infrastructure and services; and non -park infrastructure and services. These headings form the basis of the six management principles outlined in the Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management.

Particularly important to the CMP are objectives 2 and 3 of the Plan, which outline the importance of culture and heritage along with protection of the natural environment in Kamay Botany Bay National Park. Actions to protect and enhance landscapes, ecosystems and biodiversity are an ongoing priority for the park’s management.

The natural values of the park are impacted by a range of potential threats including unauthorised or unmanaged access to sensitive locations, weeds and non-local native plants, rubbish dumping, domestic and non-native animals, and inappropriate fire regimes. Climate change is an emerging challenge, with areas in the park likely to be impacted by sea level rise and increased coastal erosion risks.

The Plan establishes a scheme of operations in relation to the six management objectives and identifies priority numbers with indicative timeframes for each management action. These actions are summarised below in Table 13. The performance of NPWS in meeting the objectives in the scheme of operations will be measured through the periodic assessments undertaken in the NSW State of the Parks program. Performance in delivering the actions in the scheme of operations will be measured through a cyclical plan of management audit process.

The CMP applies to all four management areas covered by the CM Act 2016, therefore it is expected that the CMP development should consider and inform the Kamay Botany Bay National Park plan.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 61

Table 13. Scheme of operations for Kamay Botany Bay National Park (NPWS 2020)

Management objective Action Action description Landscape setting 1 Work with other land managers, authorities, neighbours and local government to promote a cohesive approach to managing the natural and cultural heritage of the Botany Bay area 2 Protect the landforms and natural vegetation of the park, including the scenic headlands Looking after our culture and 3 Support Aboriginal community engagement in park management, caring for Country heritage and in building connections to Country 4 Protect known Aboriginal cultural sites, objects, and significant places in the park 5 Protect known historic heritage sites, objects, and significant places in the park 6 Interpret and promote understanding of the history of the park and its significant sites, places, and cultural values 7 Work with the community and potential partner organisations to implement the master plan for the Kurnell section of the park to protect, enhance and present the values of this place 8 Work with the community and partner organisations to conserve and improve interpretation and understanding of the values of the La Perouse section of the park Protecting the natural 9 Undertake pest species control programs, targeting priority threats and adapting to environment new information and emerging threats over time 10 Undertake bushfire management programs to protect park and neighbouring assets, infrastructure, plant, and animal habitat, and adapt to new information and emerging threats over time 11 Prepare and implement rehabilitation plans for priority sites requiring restoration of vegetation or habitat 12 Monitor and respond to climate change Providing for visitor use and 13 Provide recreational opportunities that encourage visitors to experience the values of enjoyment the park in a safe and sustainable way 14 Provide visitor facilities that support cultural and nature-based recreation and provide opportunities for the enjoyment, appreciation and understanding of the park’s values 15 Provide a network of walking and shared-use tracks within the park that provide sustainable access to key features and destinations and link to regional walks 16 Facilitate events, activities and programs that are environmentally sustainable and consistent with the promotion of park values and public access and enjoyment of the park 17 Work with research institutions and education providers to ensure park values and broader conservation goals are understood and promoted Park infrastructure and 18 Maintain park infrastructure to required standards and to support protection of park services values 19 Manage public access to protect park values 20 Review options for future use or decommissioning of park buildings and structures Non-park infrastructure and 21 Manage or remove non-park infrastructure and services to minimise impacts on park services values

Park use regulations are further summarised in the Plan of Management under the following categories: recreational activities; events, functions, and commercial activities; and non-park uses.

Recreational activities may be subject to operating conditions or limits from time to time. Common non- commercial recreational activities are regulated by signage within the park or by consent, as outlined in the Plan.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 62

Non-park uses include uses of infrastructure and assets owned and operated by other organisations or individuals that are not essential for park management, such as public utility infrastructure (e.g. pipelines and transmission lines) and access to privately owned land (in-holdings). NPWS maintains a public register of leases, easements, and rights of way. The Plan of Management provides a summary of park use regulations and examples of leases, licenses, and/or third-party agreements.

Georges River

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 63

4 Review of key coastal management arrangements

The following coastal management instruments are considered key documents for the management of the Georges River and Botany Bay and require a more detailed analysis and understanding.

Many of the management actions and recommendations from the following plans should be brought forward into the Georges River CMP. These include the Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (2011), the Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013) and a range of strategic instruments to manage Towra Point and the Georges River Strategic Plan (2018).

4.1 Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (2011) The Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (BBWQIP) was developed by the former Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority with the objective of setting targets for pollutant load reductions (in terms of total nitrogen [TN], total phosphorus [TP], and suspended sediments [TSS]) required to protect the condition of Botany Bay, its estuaries and waterways.

The community was involved in determining the environmental values of the Bay and its waterways to inform the ecological condition targets and therefore the pollution reduction rates needed.

This project was initially driven by the Federal Government meet its responsibilities to protect RAMSAR listed Towra Point and it was finally delivered by the NSW Government. This study was able to quantitatively link catchment pollutant exports with receiving water quality; had a good assessment of community and stakeholder values to use to support targets; employed a decision support system to examine pre- modelled management options; and had a large investment in WSUD applications.

Pollution reduction targets

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 64

Table 14 shows the reduction in chlorophyll-A (Chl-A) and turbidity levels required to meet these targets. The BBWQIP also determined recommended stormwater pollution reduction targets for new development in the catchment (

Table 15).

These targets can be achieved by incorporating WSUD into urban development and renewal. It is noted that these targets need to be included in local and state government planning policies such as DCPs.

It is important to note that Sydney Water is conducting research to quantify the detention effectiveness of various WSUD approaches, these could be shared and prove as useful evidence for the work the programs being developed under the CMP.

Future updates of the WQMP should also consider discussion on stormwater pollutant reduction, retention and detention targets, not only nutrient reduction targets. However, there might be challenges in implementing and retrofitting WSUD to achieve high levels of detention.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 65

Table 14. Percent reductions needed for chlorophyll-a and turbidity to ensure the water quality of the Georges River is conducive to community recreational and environmental values

Area Reductions needed Chl-A Turbidity Upper Georges River Estuary 44% 91% Middle Georges River Estuary 38% 74% Lower Georges River Estuary 19% 38% Lower Cooks River Estuary 42% 52% Botany Bay Target met Target met

Table 15. Percent reductions recommended for various stormwater pollutants for greenfield developments, large redevelopments, and other types of development (note these are not for the entire catchment)

Stormwater Pollutant Greenfield Developments and Multi-unit dwellings, Large re-developments commercial developments, industrial developments, and small re-developments Gross pollutants 90% 90% Total suspended solids (TSS) 85% 80% Total phosphorus (TP) 60% 55% Total nitrogen (TN) 45% 40%

Considering various WSUD scenarios The BBWQIP then explores scenario options to improve water quality in the catchment. This method involved modelling 31 water sensitive urban design (WSUD) treatment train options that are combinations of seven basic WSUD devices: bioretention; next generation bioretention; buffers; gross pollutant traps; vegetated swales; rainwater tanks; and wetlands.

These treatment plans were designed to be considered by councils factoring in the available area to place WSUD devices, physical constraints of the site, total cost of options including on-going maintenance costs, funding considerations, and the relative area of land that needs to be treated. Table 16 has results of the top eight WSUD scenarios for the urbanised area of the Botany Bay Catchment.

Table 16. The top scenarios for achieving targeted pollutant reduction along with indicative costs

WSUD Proportion Reduction in stormwater Annuitised Upfront Annual Scenario of infill area pollutant % lifecycle cost cost in 2030 Maintenance treated by TSS TP TN in 2030 $millions cost in 2030 2030 $millions $millions

Next 89% -15.2 -12.2 -6.9 $25.4 $278.1 $52.7 generation bioretention Bioretention 91% -15.8 -12.7 -6.9 $26.0 $284.4 $53.9

GPT and 91% -16.5 -12.7 -6.9 $35.6 $580.2 $62.4 Bioretention

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 66

WSUD Proportion Reduction in stormwater Annuitised Upfront Annual Scenario of infill area pollutant % lifecycle cost cost in 2030 Maintenance treated by in 2030 $millions cost in 2030 TSS TP TN 2030 $millions $millions

Swale and 87% -15.7 -12.5 -6.9 $43.2 $431.8 $92.4 Bioretention

Swale, GPT 87% -16.0 -12.5 -6.9 $52.4 $714.8 $100.5 and Bioretention GPT and 100% -16.7 -12.5 -6.9 $54.8 $1,944.1 $33.1 Wetland

Bioretention 87% 15.5 -12.5 -7.8 $63.2 $1679.5 $72.2 and Wetland

Swale and 98% -16.6 -13.1 -6.9 $63.6 $1758.5 $68.9 Wetland

Specific recommendations for various stakeholders The BBWQIP makes recommendations for implementation actions for different levels of stakeholders. This includes the Australian Government, NSW Government, Local Government, Regional groups of councils, community natural resource groups or NGOS, and private households and businesses. These recommendations include integrating these targets into planning policy, securing funding mechanisms for implementation actions, and identifying specific areas of the catchment to focus attention towards. The status of the implementation of these recommendations is unclear and a detailed review is a recommendation of this scoping study.

The BBWQIP states that:

It is recommended that the Australian Government: • Reviews and endorses the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Sets up a specific funding program to implement actions listed in the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP, possibly via a devolved grants program • Ensures all grants or funding allocated in the Botany Bay Catchment are consistent with and/or support the implementation of this Plan • Ensures that land/infrastructure/facilities under its control (including airports and military facilities) minimise its negative impacts on water quality • Provides long-term protection to the bushland in the Holsworthy Military Area to ensure it continues to provide buffering capacity to the Georges River and Botany Bay.

It is recommended that the NSW Government: • Reviews and endorses/adopts the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Incorporates the stormwater load reduction targets proposed in the Plan into the following regional planning policies: The Metropolitan Strategy and its sub-regional plans, the Metropolitan Water Plan, the SMCMA Catchment Action Plan and any other NSW Government policies that could have an impact on waterways in the Botany Bay Catchment • Ensures any new government policies or plans developed for, or that will have an impact on, the Botany Bay Catchment meet the Plan’s water quality targets and are consistent with its objectives • Ensures that land/infrastructure/facilities under its control (including ports, roads, and rail) minimise their negative impacts on water quality • Ensures the SMCMA has sufficient funding to continue to support the implementation of this Plan and to maintain and update the Botany Bay CAPER DSS and other catchment models developed • Ensures Sydney Water continues to improve the overflow performance of its sewer systems

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 67

throughout the Catchment. Particular attention should be given to the sensitive waterways of the Upper Cooks River Catchment and the Upper Georges River Estuary • Continues to fund water quality improvement devices in the Botany Bay Catchment that are consistent with this Plan via a devolved grants scheme.

It is recommended that the local councils in the Botany Bay Catchment: • Review and endorse/adopt the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Use the Botany Bay CAPER DSS to test a range of scenarios and identify the most effective scenario(s) that will enable the LGA to meet their load reduction targets • Develop a short LGA-scale WQIP using the Botany Bay CAPER DSS • Include the stormwater/WSUD clause developed by the SMCMA (or similar) into the LGA’s Local Environment Plan (LEP) • Prepare or update the LGA’s Development Control Plan(s) to include WSUD and the stormwater pollutant load reduction and flow control targets identified in section 3.4 • Ensure all new development or redevelopment minimises its impacts on the waterways (flow, water quality, riparian condition) • Ensure new or renewed local council infrastructure (i.e. roads, drainage, car parks, buildings footpaths, bike paths, etc.) are designed from a WSUD perspective and meet the stormwater pollutant load reduction targets, to minimise impacts on waterways • Engage with and support local communities implementing actions consistent with the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP.

It is recommended that the regional groups of councils and/or Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) that operate in the Botany Bay Catchment: • Review and endorse/adopt the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Promote the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP to members of the group and local communitie s • Coordinate and/or seek funding for regional-scale projects to support the implementation of the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Ensure any regional projects, plans or programs, such as estuary management plans, are supportive of the objectives outlined in the WQIP.

It is recommended that the community groups or NGOs that operate within the Botany Bay Catchment: • Continue, or undertake new works, to improve bushland and riparian zones within their sub catchments • Seek funding to undertake local-scale projects of interest that will support the objectives of the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP • Promote the Botany Bay & Catchment WQIP to members of the group and their local communities.

It is recommended that the households and businesses in the Botany Bay Catchment: • Take actions on their own properties that support the load reduction targets for the Catchment. These might include things like installing rainwater tanks, permeable paving, rain gardens (small household- scale bioretention systems) etc. • Private certifiers, and local councils, should ensure only best practice sediment and erosion control plans are approved for developments and ensure they are complied with • Let their friends, neighbours and/or customers know what actions they are taking to reduce stormwater pollution and improve the local waterways.

A strategy for monitoring the recommendations and activities of the BBWQIP is included as part of the report. There is also a strategy for reviewing and reporting on the progress of achieving the goals of the BBWQIP. It is unclear the extent to which the monitoring and review strategies have been followed since its publication.

There have been various water quality monitoring programs including the one administered by Georges Riverkeeper that provides data twice a year for macroinvertebrates, water quality, and riparian vegetation at 42 sites along the Georges River estuary.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 68

4.2 Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013) The Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) is the current preeminent strategy for managing the Georges River. It was developed in accordance with the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans which were established under the now repealed Coastal Protection Act 1979.

In accordance with Part 4A of the Coastal Protection Act 1979, the CZMP 2013 was gazetted by the Councils following certification by the Minister for Environment. The document must be taken into account when undertaking works or development, or when making new plans that cover areas affected by this plan. It is a key document that is required to be consulted during all future reviews of Environmental Planning Instruments and place-based Plans across the catchment area.

The CZMP 2013 is complementary to planning instruments and environmental management strategies and initiatives being used and implemented by each of the Councils and other stakeholders. The purpose of CZMP 2013 is to provide strategic direction and guidance on future strategic and environmental planning within the estuary and its catchment.

The CZMP includes an indicative costing, potential funding sources, and identifies key agencies and Councils for responsibility of implementation and future monitoring. A key platform of the CZMP Guidelines was the adoption of a risk- based approach to the management of estuary health. This approach continues with the CMP process and, in the case of the Georges River, means that the previously developed management options and action plans are still relevant under the new framework.

Broad aims for management The CZMP designates nine broad Aims for management in the Georges River:

A. Water Quality: To optimise water quality within the Georges River Estuary and its tributaries B. Aquatic and Riparian Habitat: To protect, enhance and restore aquatic habitats and foreshore vegetation C. Recreation and Amenity: To protect and enhance public access to the foreshore D. Land use Planning and Development: To minimise the negative impacts of development in the catchment on waterway health E. Bank Erosion and Sedimentation: To actively manage bank erosion and sedimentation F. Foreshore Protection: To manage existing built foreshore assets while maximising environmental values G. Natural and Cultural Heritage: To identify, acknowledge and protect natural and cultural heritage H. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: To plan for and adapt to the potential impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments of the estuary I. Monitoring and Evaluation: To develop and support coordinated monitoring, reporting and evaluation programs for the Georges River Estuary.

Management objectives Twenty-seven management objectives were defined which relate to each of the nine broad aims. These were prioritised based on the importance of each aim and the degree to which each objective addresses the aims.

A wide range of potential management options were formulated, including options canvassed from community and stakeholder representatives. An evaluation process was conducted, and the options prioritised into three categories: Best Management Options (BMOs); Next Best Options (NBOs); and Other Options. The BMOs were categorised by approach, namely:

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 69

• Strategic Planning & Development Controls • Engineering Works & Asset Management • Environmental Rehabilitation & Monitoring • Environmental Planning • Communications & Education • Recreation & Heritage • Compliance.

A summary of the 25 Best Management Options as determined in the CZMP is provided in Table 17.

Performance measures and implementation review There is a monitoring framework, developed in the CZMP, that tracks primary, secondary, and tertiary performance measures. Primary performance measures determine if strategies and BMOs have been initiated by Councils. If Councils have failed to initiate strategies, then contingencies are put in place to determine reasons why, and to potentially modify and update the CZMP to reflect a more achievable timeframe for implementation. Secondary performance measures relate to measuring specific outputs from individual strategies against indicators that are identified as “performance measures’ within the implementation schedules. Tertiary performance measures look at if the overall aims of the CZMP are being achieved and is designed to be supported by a robust and comprehensive monitoring program that tracks various elements of the physical, biological, and social environment.

Each of the member Councils has tracked their implementation of the best management options since the CZMP was adopted. This tracking process is organised by Georges Riverkeeper and consists of regularly updating a register which keeps track of councils’ implementation of the 25 actions in Table 17. The register for each council with updates to 2019 is included in Appendix C.

While councils and agencies are motivated to achieve the aims of the CZMP, there are some barriers that prevent effective implementation of the recommended strategies. These include, for example:

• Lack of public pressure to address cumulative issues and those not associated with “their part of the catchment” • Lack of resourcing and funding • Lack of integration and alignment amongst different levels of government.

The CZMP identifies opportunities for integrating plans and strategies into council’s IP&R framework. These mainly involve including WSUD devices in Asset Management Plans which fall within the IP&R. There is also a recommendation to include estuary management actions in the IP&R framework. These references to the IP&R framework are included in the list of Next Best Options and therefore do not receive as much consideration as the BMOs which are the subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary performance monitoring programs. 3

3 The CMP will embed the actions into the IP&R framework to enable reporting to be easier.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 70

Table 17. An overview of the Best Management Options (BMOs) as determined in the Georges River Estuary CZMP (BMT 2013)

Theme/Aim Action/Strategy Priority Option/Approach Costs Water Quality MA2: Update or prepare new WSUD HIGH Strategic Planning & Staff time only controls within DCPs Development Controls MA3: Retrofit new WSUD devices in HIGH Engineering Works & Very significant existing urban areas Asset Management capital costs MA4: Maintenance of WSUD devices, HIGH Engineering Works & Large annual costs GPTs, SQIDs etc Asset Management MA6: Sediment/erosion control during HIGH Compliance Staff time only & after construction MA8: Riverkeeper teams for clean-up & HIGH Environmental Continue existing illegal dumping Rehabilitation & funding + add. Monitoring funding for large or special projects MA10: Develop & adopt WSUD action HIGH Environmental Planning Staff time only plans MA15: SWC liaison regarding sewer HIGH Environmental Planning Staff time only problems Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine HIGH Environmental Staff time + Landcare Riparian wetlands & riparian vegetation Rehabilitation & grants Habitat Monitoring MB7: Support and continue HIGH Environmental Staff time + Landcare bushcare/landcare groups Rehabilitation & grants Monitoring MB8: Riverkeeper teams for bush HIGH- Environmental Continue existing regeneration & weed control MEDIU Rehabilitation & funding + add. M Monitoring funding for large or special projects MB9: Private landholder education re: HIGH- Communications & Staff time + printing habitat & vegetation MEDIU Education costs M Recreation MC3: Interpretive education materials LOW Communications & Staff time + printing and Amenity on recreation Education costs MC5: Contribute to boating strategy LOW Environmental Planning Staff time only revision Land use MD3: Use Best Management Practices MEDIU Strategic Planning & Staff time only Planning and for Council works M Development Controls Development MD4: Consistency with CZMP in future MEDIU Strategic Planning & Staff time only EPI reviews M Development Controls MD5: New & revised PoMs to be MEDIU Strategic Planning & Staff time only compatible with CZMP M Development Controls Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts and HIGH Environmental Planning Staff time + Maritime and strategies input Sedimentatio ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIU Engineering Works & Relatively small costs n foreshore access M Asset Management ME4: Prioritise & remediate erosion, HIGH Engineering Works & Very significant using vegetation, where possible Asset Management capital costs Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIU Strategic Planning & Staff time only Protection ecofriendly seawall guidelines M Development Controls MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIU Communications & Staff time + printing ecofriendly seawalls M-LOW Education costs

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 71

Theme/Aim Action/Strategy Priority Option/Approach Costs Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal Groups and LOW Recreation & Heritage Staff time only Cultural others to determine options for Heritage threatened heritage sites Climate MH3: Mapping of Sea Level Rise and MEDIU Environmental Planning Relatively small cost Change and areas for vegetation retreat M Sea Level Rise Monitoring MI2: Support GRCCC River Health MEDIU Environmental Continue existing and Monitoring Program M Rehabilitation & funding + seek Evaluation Monitoring supplementary $ MI3: Support, implement & monitor LOW Environmental Staff time only CZMP effectiveness Rehabilitation & Monitoring

In general, the Georges Riverkeeper member councils have successfully implemented, or made considerable progress towards implementing the high priority management options from the CZMP. Medium and low priority options have been implemented to various degrees on a council to council basis. Development of Local Strategic Planning Statements has been a common process across all councils which has enabled the implementation of options under the Strategic Planning & Development Controls category. A detailed table of CZMP implementation by member councils is provided in Appendix C.

Saltmarsh vegetation along the banks of the Georges River

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 72

4.3 Towra Point PoM, Formal Assessment of Change in Ecological Character and Response Strategy Towra Point is a key location within the study area that deserves specific attention. Its local, regional and international values have been outlined in section 3.4.9. As a Ramsar wetland site and the subject of multiple multilateral and bilateral international agreements, there are additional reporting and monitoring obligations. This section provides an overview of recent studies and current management plans.

Towra Point Plan of Management The current management arrangement for Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site (TPNRRS) sits within the Plan of Management developed in 2001 (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2001).

This plan identifies the objectives and actions for managing the reserves terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and for maintaining the international conservation values for which it was established. A key component of this plan is to encourage joint management with all other jurisdictions, the community, and other stakeholders.

There have been ongoing implementation of actions identified in the Plan of Management including: protecting freshwater wetlands with beach nourishment activities that prevent wave overtopping into the lagoon; protecting Little Tern breeding success by managing geomorphic processes that threaten nesting and roosting habitat; managing invasive species, weeds, and predators; monitoring of migratory and resident shorebird populations; and monitoring of habitat distributions in the Reserve.

Significant investment was made in 2003 into dredging and beach nourishment programs that aimed to control shoreline recession. This nourishment project was designed to provide protection for a 15-year period and as such should be seriously considered for re-evaluation.

Formal assessment of change in Ecological Character An Ecological Condition Assessment prepared in 2010 (DECCW) identified Limits of Acceptable Change (LACs) for key ecological components, processes and services associated with the site. The Ecological Condition Assessment also highlighted threats to the condition of the site, which is situated within a major port and urban area. The site was nominated for a World Wetland Network Grey Globe Award in 2012. Subsequently the Department of Environment (DoE) prepared a preliminary assessment of evidence of potential change in ecological character and determined that a formal assessment of change in ecological character was necessary (DoE 2014).

A formal assessment has now been completed. The formal assessment was undertaken in accordance with the National guidance on notifying change in ecological character of Australia’s Ramsar Wetlands (Article 3.2). The components and processes that were investigated included: • geomorphology and sedimentary processes • the diversity and abundance of migratory shorebirds and the state listed threatened little tern • the extent of saltmarsh loss and encroachment of mangroves • the extent of seagrasses in Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar site and the Towra Point Aquatic Reserve. Despite implementing the Plan of Management, it has been acknowledged that the ecological character of the Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar site has declined beyond Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) established in the Ramsar site declaration (UMWELT, 2017). This has triggered the development of a Response Strategy in

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 73

accordance with article 3.2 of the Ramsar Convention with the primary purpose to halt the decline and improve the condition of TPNRRS to meet new ecological condition objectives (UMWELT, 2019).

Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site Article 3.2 Response Strategy When a formal notification under Article 3.2 of the Ramsar Convention has been made, the Parties must advise the Ramsar Secretariat at the earliest possible opportunity of the steps that will be taken to address the identified change in ecological character. The primary response of the Response Strategy is to halt the d ecline and improve the condition of the TPNRRS to meet new ecological condition objectives. The response strategy provides a framework for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to work collaboratively with government, university and community stakeholders to adaptively restore natural vegetation and landforms, habitats and other natural processes, functions and services and enhance the resilience of the TPNRRS to direct and indirect pressures on its ecological character.

The response strategy consists of 3 stages over 10 years, with review and reporting every 2 years. A summary of the stages is provided below: Stage 1: (2 years) • Halt decline in condition • Strengthen knowledge and partnerships • Continue best practice actions and successful existing programs Stage 2: (5 years) • Stable ecological condition, with some evidence of positive trajectory • Informed investment in major works to address high risks Stage 3: (10 years) • Objectives of response strategy achieved • Resilient positive trajectory • Adaptive management to accommodate ongoing pressures The Response Strategy identifies 72 specific responses that address 21 new objectives. The objectives relate to the following components: • Governance, knowledge, and partnerships (7 objectives) • Geomorphology (3 objectives) • Little Tern habitat quality, numbers, and breeding success (3 objectives) • Habitat quality, numbers, and diversity of migratory shorebirds (3 objectives) • Condition, resilience, and services provided by saltmarsh and mangrove communities (3 objectives) • Condition and resilience of seagrass (2 objectives). One of the governances, knowledge and partnerships objectives urges integration of the Coastal Management Program with the Response Strategy. A key point of this objective is that TPNRRS is included in the Georges River CMP in a way that promotes its significance and priority for action. It is noted that the 2013 CZMP does not reflect the scale of risks to the Ramsar values of the TPNRRS, and that future coastal management should recognise the outsized contribution that the Ramsar values of TPNRRS provide to environmental, economic and social values in the Georges River Estuary.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 74

5 CMP Stakeholder and community engagement context

5.1 Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy The Coastal Management Program will be developed with significant input from key stakeholders and members of the community. A key tool for mapping this engagement throughout the entire process is the Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy (Engagement Strategy), which has been designed as a standalone document and can be found in Appendix A. This Engagement Strategy is a living document that will evolve throughout the life of the CMP process.

The Engagement Strategy outlines principles of effective communication, contains a preliminary list of key stakeholders, provides a working plan for engagement strategies and activities throughout the CMP process, and provides a template for communication material.

Two stakeholder groups, a Project Control Group and a Steering Committee have been established to guide the CMP Scoping Study and future stages of CMP development. The Project Control Group consists of representatives from each council, Georges Riverkeeper, and Department of Planning Industry and Environment - Environment Energy and Science (DPIE-EES). The Steering Committee is a larger group with staff from different stakeholder organisations including councils, stage government agencies, Local Aboriginal Land Councils, and community interest groups. Details are provided in Attachment A.

5.2 Engagement activities during the Scoping Study Stakeholder engagement should be considered an open, flexible, and continuous process, with the final goal to integrate stakeholders’ views in the CMP. Some stakeholders have legal obligations regarding the future CMP, so effective engagement is important to ensure actions are understood and implemented. Community engagement is important to ensure there is a sense of ownership in the care for the coastal zone. The Scoping Study includes a range of actions aiming at setting the stage for future engagement. These include:

• An online engagement hub for members of the stakeholder Steering Committee and the public to follow the progress of the CMP. This website is hosted by Georges Riverkeeper and will be updated with new information as the CMP progresses. The website can accessed at https://georgesriver.engagementhub.com.au/

• A workshop and study tour which were held on 20 November 2019 with key stakeholders, including Council and state agencies staff and other key stakeholders (Figure 25, Figure 26). The study tour was an opportunity to visit key sites from the upper catchment to Botany Bay, including nature reserves, coastal protection and access initiatives. The workshop was an opportunity to explore and refine priority values, issues, and threats to the Georges River, and to estimate risks under future scenarios using stakeholders’ input. Section 6 reports details of the values, issues and risks informed by the stakeholder workshop. The detailed outputs of the workshop are provided in Appendix B. • An online survey, which was disseminated during the process to key stakeholders to prioritise key issues and to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing data and planning instruments in addressing these. An overview of responses is contained in Appendix E.

• A final presentation to the Project Control Group and the Steering Committee, outlining the findings of the Scoping Study and future steps for developing the CMP.

5.3 Incorporating contributions from stakeholder engagement into the Scoping Study The information gathered from the engagement activities carried out in Stage 1 has been fundamental for informing the content and outcomes of this Scoping Study.

More specifically, the ongoing communication with the Project Control Group and outputs from the workshop were used to define the scope, purpose and objectives of the CMP, while the workshop activities were designed to refine a list of values and issues and to carry out a high level first pass risk assessment. Section 6 reports how these inputs from stakeholders were used to summarise the catchment values and the risk arising from current and future issues. Knowledge gaps about these issues and values were then explored using a knowledge gaps

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 75

lens (Section 7), and summarised as priority studies for the forward program into the following stages of the CMP, a requirement to progress towards the preparation of a complete CMP (Section 9).

5.4 Response to COVID-19 In January 2020, a novel coronavirus spread throughout the world with the World Health Organization declaring a global pandemic. Governments around the world including Australian and New South Wales implemented broad scale shutdowns of regular daily activity to promote social distancing and slow the spread of the virus. These lockdowns altered many engagement activities and face to face interaction. Most of the engagement activities for Georges River CMP Scoping Study had already been completed however final meetings and review with the Project Control Group, and any future meetings and engagement activities over mid to late 2020 will need to consider restrictions and accommodate accordingly. Future engagement activities will need to consider any active restrictions.

Figure 25. Study tour stop at Simmos Beach in the upper catchment of the Georges River

Figure 26. Stakeholder workshop at the Georges River Sailing Club, November 2019

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 76

6 Determine the scope of the CMP

6.1 Purpose, vision and objectives Purpose The purpose of the Georges River Coastal Management Program is to set the long-term strategy for the co- ordinated management of land and water within the coastal zone with a focus on achieving the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016. This will be accomplished by building on existing coastal management initiatives as well as taking advantage of opportunities presented in the new coastal management framework.

Vision Identifying the purpose, vision and objectives for the Georges River Coastal Management Program is a key component of the scoping study stage.

A preliminary vision that is intended to guide the implementation of the Coastal Management Program (i.e. what the CMP is trying to achieve) has been adapted from elements of the visioning in the 2013 CZMP and the Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan.

This vision is considered preliminary and is subject to change and refinement during stages 2 and 3 of the CMP development and with further participatory consultation processes with stakeholders.

The preliminary vision is:

“A liveable urban river and catchment, with a protected natural environment and a healthy resilient estuary and coastline.” It is important that a robust visioning exercise is carried out in future stages of CMP development. This process should develop an authentic, meaningful, and inspiring vision statement based on existing knowledge on community values and targeted consultation. The vison statement should be specific to the Georges River and capture the diverse settings and aspirations of the study area that encompasses a multitude of distinct areas ranging from the Kurnell Peninsula to the beaches of Botany Bay, the foreshores of Chipping Norton Lake and Liverpool weir, and beyond into the upper catchment. Objectives The objectives of the Georges River CMP reflect the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016 (table 18), the vision statement, and previous coastal management strategies such as the 2013 CZMP.

In the Nov 2019 stakeholder workshop (refer Appendix B), stakeholders affirmed the need for the scope of the CMP to include a catchment focus, in order to ensure there is opportunity to address water quality issues, which was identified as the most pressing threat to the coastal zone of the Georges River estuary.

In addition to these, the stakeholders at the workshop identified the additional objective of ensuring the most beneficial distribution of funding to facilitate management actions. This will be accomplished by following the stages of the framework while being cognizant of community values, regionally/nationally important environmental and economic assets, and projected trends including urban growth within the catchment, and climate change.

6.2 Geographical extent of Georges River CMP The geographic region covered by the Georges River CMP includes parts of Botany Bay, the Georges River Estuary and its tributaries up to the influence of tidal waters. While the Coastal Management Areas addressed by the CMP and the Coastal Act only extend to the tidal influence, broader consideration should also be given to the catchment extent beyond tidal limits. The study area also includes the coastal cliffs of the Kurnell peninsula, from Potter’s Point northward, as well as the coastal catchment of Lady Robinson’s Beach up to the southern bank of the Cooks River. These extensions to the study area beyond the Georges River catchment are included to ensure alignment with neighbouring Coastal Management Programs (Cooks River, Eastern Beaches and Bate Bay).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 77

6.3 Alignment with Coastal Management Areas The Coastal Management SEPP (CM SEPP) is an Environmental Planning Instrument that facilitates the outcomes of the Coastal Management Act (CM Act) from a strategic land use planning perspective. The four coastal management areas that are defined in the CM Act and mapped in the CM SEPP (except for coastal vulnerability area, for now) each have specific management objectives and development considerations to ensure the objectives of the CM Act are achieved. The Coastal Management Areas (CMAs) in the George s River are mapped in Figure 27.

The four CMAs each have statutory objectives that align with some of the values and management issues. When an area is identified as being within multiple coastal management areas, the objectives and provisions of the area that offers the most protection are applicable. The hierarchy that must be considered in these instances is reflected in the order of CMAs in Table 18, which provides a summary of objectives for each CMA.

6.3.1 Coastal Wetlands and Littoral Rainforest Area Land under this classification can be found throughout the study area including areas beyond the tidal limit of the Georges River. The current extent of these areas in the CM SEPP map has been determined on a state -wide scale based on hydrological and floristic characteristics of wetlands, and it is likely that a catchment scale mapping exercise is needed to ensure appropriate coverage within the catchment. While it is important to consider the geographical nuances of each parcel of land identified in this category, there is a common theme in the values and management issues that apply to this area across the catchment.

The values and management issues that align with the coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest area can be predominantly classified as environmental. There is also a strong social value that reflects the community’s appreciation of the natural amenity this area provides. This aligns with the objectives for this area in the CM Act. Coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest provide biodiversity, ecosystem services such as air and water quality buffering, sediment stabilisation, flood protection, vital fisheries habitat, and refuge for threatened species. These natural areas also have high indigenous cultural value.

Management issues and threats that are relevant to this area include, the destruction and degradation of riparian habitat from various environmental pressures, the lack of accommodation space for migration of communities in response to sea level rise, encroachment of development into upstream areas and buffer zones, and the protection of natural and cultural heritage. The largest parcel of coastal wetlands and littoral rainforest area in the study area is found at Towra Point. A key consideration for this location is the challenges faced there with shoreline recession and inundation that is increasing pressure on the saltmarsh and mangrove habitats which are being suffering from coastal squeeze.

6.3.2 Coastal Vulnerability Area DPIE is currently not distributing state-wide data and maps of Coastal Vulnerability Areas (CVAs), and it relies on coastal hazard studies commissioned by local government for this purpose. An integrated Coastal Vulnerability Areas map developed for the Georges River catchment as part of Stage 2 will draw on existing coastal hazard studies, as well as updated inundation and erosion assessments. It should be noted that even if developed in stage 2, a CVA map would need to go through the process of public exhibition, and certification and gazettal before it is accepted as a SEPP map. This process would need to be done for each council if they choose to pursue this process. Refer to Section 3.1.3 for more information on coastal hazards including existing knowledge from previous studies.

6.3.3 Coastal Environment Area This classification of land is widespread throughout the study area. The values associated with this area are well aligned with the social and environmental values of the community. Natural and scenic amenity, protection of biodiversity, natural coastal processes, water quality and estuary health are all associated with the Coastal Environment Area.

The list of management issues associated with the Coastal Environment Area of the Georges River essentially encompasses all issues identified above. Protecting and improving water quality by managing stormwater and wastewater, point and diffuse source pollution, and riparian vegetation are key considerations. Additionally,

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 78

managing the impacts of recreational activities such as boating, jet skiing, and fishing support the objectives of this management area.

6.3.4 Coastal Use Area The Coastal Use Area comprise the foreshore of Botany Bay and the Georges River up to the tidal limit at Liverpool Weir. The objectives of this management area reflect the social, and economic values of the community. This area includes recreational foreshore areas in parks and private homes. This area supports access and transportation, recreation, and industry.

Management issues associated with this area include ensuring the public access infrastructure is well maintained and located, making sure recreational areas are designed to benefit the community while supporting environmental values and creating liveable spaces for people to enjoy, and that the economic best use of the land is realised by supporting local businesses.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 79

Figure 27. The Coastal Management Areas as currently mapped in the Coastal SEPP

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 80

Table 18. Objectives for each Coastal Management Area in the Coastal Management Act

Coastal Objectives Management Area

Coastal wetlands a) to protect coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests in their natural state, including their and littoral biological diversity and ecosystem integrity, rainforest area b) to promote the rehabilitation and restoration of degraded coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests, c) to improve the resilience of coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests to the impacts of climate change, including opportunities for migration, d) to support the social and cultural values of coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests, e) to promote the objectives of State policies and programs for wetlands or littoral rainforest management.

Coastal a) to ensure public safety and prevent risks to human life, vulnerability area b) to mitigate current and future risk from coastal hazards by taking into account the effects (not yet mapped) of coastal processes and climate change, c) to maintain the presence of beaches, dunes, and the natural features of foreshores, taking into account the beach system operating at the relevant place, d) to maintain public access, amenity and use of beaches and foreshores, e) to encourage land use that reduces exposure to risks from coastal hazards, including through siting, design, construction, and operational decisions, f) to adopt coastal management strategies that reduce exposure to coastal hazards: i. in the first instance and wherever possible, by restoring or enhancing natural defences including coastal dunes, vegetation, and wetlands, and ii. if that is not sufficient, by taking other action to reduce exposure to those coastal hazards, g) if taking that other action to reduce exposure to coastal hazards: i. to avoid significant degradation of biological diversity and ecosystem integrity, and ii. to avoid significant degradation of or disruption to ecological, biophysical, geological, and geomorphological coastal processes, and iii. to avoid significant degradation of or disruption to beach and foreshore amenity and social and cultural values, and iv. to avoid adverse impacts on adjoining land, resources, or assets, and v. to provide for the restoration of a beach, or land adjacent to the beach, if any increased erosion of the beach or adjacent land is caused by actions to reduce exposure to coastal hazards, h) to prioritise actions that support the continued functionality of essential infrastructure during and immediately after a coastal hazard emergency, i. to improve the resilience of coastal development and communities by improving adaptive capacity and reducing reliance on emergency responses.

Coastal a) to protect and enhance the coastal environmental values and natural processes of coastal environment area waters, estuaries, coastal lakes, and coastal lagoons, and enhance natural character, scenic value, biological diversity and ecosystem integrity, b) to reduce threats to and improve the resilience of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes, and coastal lagoons, including in response to climate change, c) to maintain and improve water quality and estuary health,

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 81

Coastal Objectives Management Area

d) to support the social and cultural values of coastal waters, estuaries, coastal lakes, and coastal lagoons, e) to maintain the presence of beaches, dunes, and the natural features of foreshores, taking into account the beach system operating at the relevant place, f) to maintain and, where practicable, improve public access, amenity and use of beaches, foreshores, headlands, and rock platforms.

Coastal use area a) to protect and enhance the scenic, social, and cultural values of the coast by ensuring that: i. the type, bulk, scale, and size of development is appropriate for the location and natural scenic quality of the coast, and ii. adverse impacts of development on cultural and built environment heritage are avoided or mitigated, and iii. urban design, including water sensitive urban design, is supported, and incorporated into development activities, and iv. adequate public open space is provided, including for recreational activities and associated infrastructure, and v. the use of the surf zone is considered, b) to accommodate both urbanised and natural stretches of coastline.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 82

6.4 Synthesis of values The Georges River catchment and estuary provide significant value to the community. Identifying these values enables a targeted strategic approach to ensure they are protected and maximised. The values can be categorised as social, environmental, or economic to ensure multiple perspectives are considered. However, this categorisation does not reflect the interdependency of many of these values. For example, much of the social and economic value derived from the Georges River is underpinned by environmental value. A healthy and thriving natural ecosystem, an environmental value, nurtures the social value of recreational fishing, and the economic value of local businesses that service recreational fishers.

The geographical and cultural diversity of the catchment engenders a wide range of community values associated with the Georges River catchment and estuary. Each group within the community interacts with the Georges River in different ways and values different aspects of the area. There are different values associated with the rural and peri-urban upper catchment, the urbanised upper and middle catchment, and the natural and developed coastal lower catchment. Understanding what is valued by the community pr ovides direction on where management energy needs to be focussed. Determining the breadth of these values is a critical element for scoping the Georges River Coastal Management Program.

6.4.1 Lower Georges River Estuary and Botany Bay The Georges River and Botany Bay areas are primarily valued for their ecosystem services and recreation potential, both of which enhance overall liveability. As such, swimming and other recreational contact with the waterways are a highly desired outcome for the community (GRCC 2018). Key values identified in the Woronora Estuary Zone Management Plan, the Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (2013) and the Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan (2018) include:

• Good water quality • Natural areas • Access and recreational use • Scenic amenity and views to water • Wildlife and biodiversity • Open space and reduced noise pollution • Ecosystem health • Cultural heritage.

These values reflect a strong environmental dependency. Management issues are therefore environmentally focused and are listed in the CZMP (2013). Issues include:

• Improvement in water quality • Conservation of ecological values • Improvement of access and recreational function • Control of future catchment development • Control of sedimentation, bank erosion and foreshore structures • Conservation of natural and cultural heritage • Climate change and future planning • Improved knowledge of the estuary (Monitoring and Evaluation).

Compared to the rest of the Georges River Estuary, the estuary faces a reduce d degree of threat to these values due to its steep topography, which limits development potential, and a large proportion of the catchment is listed as either National Park, within the Holsworthy Army Base, or protected as it is part of the drinking water catchment.

6.4.2 Upper Catchment The upper catchment can be categorised into the urbanised, peri-urban, and rural areas. Community values and management issues associated with the upper catchment are diverse given its variety of land use and geography. Some values associated with the rural areas of the upper catchment include:

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 83

• Agricultural productivity • Bushland and open spaces • Biodiversity • Community lifestyle and rural setting • Water supply

While the peri-urban fringes within the catchment afford the benefits of rural living to the local community, issues arise in terms of supporting these values in a development context. Management issues associated with the upper tributaries pertain particularly to the LGAs within the western fringe, such as Campbelltown and Wollondilly. The issues include:

• Management of growth and development pressures • Agricultural land being lost to urban development and land fragmentation • Conflict between rural and urban land uses • Protecting and enhancing bushland and biodiversity • Effects of mining in the upper catchment

A primary characteristic of the study area is diversity, both geographic and within the population. This diversity is reflected in different values across the study area. Geographically, there are differences in the values between the Upper, Middle, and Lower Catchment, and looking ahead, these will require tailored management approaches to address different issues associated with each area.

An understanding of these values on a catchment scale provides context to the purpose, vision, and objectives of coastal management in the Georges River. Georges Riverkeeper, in the development of their Strategic Plan with their member councils, developed an aspirational goal: “best practice environmental management for a liveable urban river” (Georges Riverkeeper, 2018). The CZMP defines the primary goal as “to conserve and improve the existing natural environment of the Georges River Estuary, and to improve the water quality of the estuary through targeted pollution reduction” (BMT WBM, 2013).

“Best practice environmental management for a liveable urban river.” Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan ______

“To conserve and improve the existing natural environment of the Georges River Estuary, and to improve the water quality of the estuary through targeted pollution reduction”

Georges River CZMP

6.4.3 Values identified during the stakeholder engagement workshop Values were discussed and considered during the November 2019 stakeholder engagement workshop through a participatory exercise across the upper, mid and lower catchment. Key values were classified as environmental, social and economic values. The complete list of values is grouped across tables and available in Appendix B. The workshop outcomes were combined with an appreciation for the values outlined in previous plans and strategies, to inform an appreciation of key values.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 84

6.4.4 Summary list of key values underpinning the Coastal Management Program A succinct list of the most important values for the Georges River catchment and estuary has been developed to inform risk assessments, objectives of management, and to help focus the direction of the Coastal Management Program. This list of values has been determined with consideration of existing studies, through consultation with key stakeholders, review of member council’s community engagement plans, and other available information. These have been categorised into social, economic and environmental for the first pass risk assessment (Table 19), while still recognising that in practice, many do also cross-over multiple categories. The key values are:

• Recreational activity • Access to foreshore and waterways • Ecosystem diversity and integrity • Clean swimmable waterways • Aboriginal/European cultural significance • Social connectivity and participation • Urban cooling • Natural resource terminal • Towra Point as a UNESCO World Heritage Site • Fisheries habitat • Property/land value • River based economy • Naturalness • Mental and physical health • Education and scientific.

Table 19. Categorisation of listed values into Environmental, Social/Cultural, and Economic

Environmental 3. Ecosystem diversity and integrity 9. Towra Point as a UNESCO World Heritage Site 10. Fisheries habitat 13. Naturalness Social/Cultural 1.Recreational Activity 2. Access to foreshore and waterways 4. Clean swimmable waterways 5. Aboriginal/European cultural significance 6. Social connectivity and participation 7. Urban cooling 14. Mental and physical health 15. Education and scientific Economic 8. Natural resource terminal 11. Property/land value 12. River based economy

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 85

6.5 Synthesis of issues Multiple management issues have been identified for the Georges River catchment and estuary. These issues consist of challenges, barriers and impacts that, if left unmanaged, can prevent the purpose, vision, and objectives of the Coastal Management Plan from being achieved. Different areas of the catchment are faced with different management issues. Additionally, these management issues need to be considered at multiple planning timeframes with different challenges presenting themselves in the present day, 20, 50, and 100 years from now and beyond.

Several existing studies and strategies have been developed that identify management issues in the Georges River coastal zone. The most comprehensive of these are the 2013 CZMP, the 2015 Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Threats and Risk Assessment (TARA), and the 2011 Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan (BBWQIP).

6.5.1 Issues identified in the CZMP The Georges River CZMP identifies the following as key issues for future management:

• Improvement in water quality • Conservation of ecological values • Improvements of access and recreational function • Control of future catchment development • Control of sedimentation, bank erosion and foreshore structures • Conservation of natural and cultural heritage • Climate change and future planning • Improved knowledge of the estuary through regular monitoring and evaluation.

6.5.2 Relevant threats identified in the MEMA TARA The Marine Estate Management Authority (MEMA) has undertaken the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Threats and Risk Assessment (MEMA, 2015) which identifies regional scale threats. The list of threats that are most relevant to the Georges River CMP is separated into “environmental” and “social and economic” to provide consistency with the TARA.

Environmental Social and Economic

• Climate change • Effect of regulation • Urban stormwater discharge • Access availability • Clearing, dredging & excavation activities • Climate change • Shipping • Recreational fishing • Recreation & tourism • Sediment contamination / water pollution • Recreational boating & boating • Recreation tourism infrastructure • Foreshore urban development • Foreshore development • Reductions in abundancies of top and lower order • Point discharges trophic levels (depletion of fish stocks) • Recreational fishing. • Habitat disturbance • Pests and disease • Recreational boating • Funding • Health and safety • Modified freshwater flows • Shipping.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 86

6.5.3 Issues identified in the BBWQIP The Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plan identifies management issues that apply to the study area on a local scale.

• Urbanisation of the lower Georges River Catchment • Stormwater pollution loads from urban development • Lack of development control to meet water quality targets • Ongoing maintenance cost of WSUD devices • Physical space constraints in sites where water treatment devices can be installed • Lack of funding to implement actions • Lack of long-term protection for peripheral and urban bushland • Lack of alignment of water quality targets with regional planning instruments • Overflow performance of sewer systems • Aging sewer infrastructure • Private/public interface for sewer management • Hesitancy of Councils to develop LGA scale WQIP • Increasing proportion of impervious surfaces in the catchment • Destruction/degradation of riparian vegetation.

6.5.4 Issues identified during the stakeholder engagement workshop A list of issues/threats were discussed and considered during the November 2019 stakeholder engagement workshop through a participatory exercise across the upper, mid and lower catchment. The list of priority issues identified is available in Appendix B. The workshop outcomes were combined with an appreciation for the issues identified in previous plans and strategies, as well as the reviewed literature (across the strategic context) to inform an appreciation of key values.

6.5.5 Summary list of priority issues to consider in the Coastal Management Program A succinct list of the most important issues for the Georges River catchment and estuary has been developed to inform risk assessments, objectives of management, and to help focus the direction of the Coastal Management Program. This list of issues has been determined with consideration of existing studies, through consultation with key stakeholders during the workshop (see Appendix B), review of member council’s community engagement plans, and other available information. The priority issues are:

1. Catchment Runoff / Water quality 2. Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss 3. Increased inundation due to sea level rise 4. Shoreline erosion / recession 5. Pollution (rubbish) 6. Foreshore asset management 7. Streambank stability / erosion 8. Weeds and invasive species 9. Recreational activity 10. Overfishing 11. Sewage effluent and septic runoff 12. Governance.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 87

6.6 First pass risk assessment A first pass risk assessment to determine priority issues is a requirement of a CMP Scoping Study. The first pass risk assessment for the Georges River CMP Scoping Study utilises a similar approach to the threat and risk assessment framework for the NSW Marine Estate (MEMA 2015) which is based on the AS/NZS ISO31000: Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines.

The risk assessment has been informed in two ways:

1. Initial development and assignment of risk through a participatory workshop process with over 30 key stakeholders from the Steering Committee, at the November 2019 workshop.

2. Refinement based on the literature review conducted to inform the strategic context background to the CMP.

Workshop process The workshop process was run with 6 round tables of approximately 5 people on each table. Each table was allocated part of the upper, mid or lower catchment area, and worked through a process of identifying key values, and issues. Groups were then asked to consider each key value in turn, and what the likely risk to that value was from the priority issues/threats (likelihood and consequence of impact). Multiple planning horizons were considered to identify present and emerging risks.

Figure 28 shows a risk assessment worksheet as completed by a group of stakeholders at the workshop. Appendix B provides the outputs from the workshop process.

Figure 28. Example of output of the first pass risk assessment carried out with stakeholders. The value is water quality, the catchment zone is Mid-Estuary.

The risk assessment was conducted for three planning horizons, present-day, 2050 and 2100 and indicative of short, medium, and long term risk. The trajectory for future planning horizons assumes no management action taken beyond current practices. This approach allows for a greater understanding of where urgent action is needed, and what planning time scales should be considered for each issue.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 88

The likelihood and consequence of a negative impact on key values was assessed using the criteria in

Table 20 and Table 21. The consequence and likelihood were then used to assign the level of risk according the Likelihood Level Description

The issue is extremely unlikely to be realised at a level that would impact the benefit Rare within a 20 year period The issue is not expected to be realised at a level that would impact the benefit, but it Unlikely could occur in some circumstances

Possible The issue is about as likely to occur as to not occur in a given timeframe

Likely The issue is expected to negatively impact the benefit more often than not

Almost certain The issue is expected to negatively impact the benefit consistently and regularly risk matrix in Table 22.

Refinement process The workshop data was refined based on the additional body of knowledge in the literature, and to include all twelve priority issues/threats. To assist with prioritising risks, a scoring system was used to assign a number value (1 = minimal, 2 = low, 3 = moderate or 4 = high) to each threat based on the risk level for each value. This produced a risk score for each planning horizon (present day, 2050, 2100) and each value category (environmental, social, economic) which was averaged out to produce an overall risk score. This was used to rank the final list of threats.

The risk to key environmental, social and economic values in the Georges River Estuary are provided the following sections. The consequence and likelihood scores used as inputs in the first pass risk assessment for each issue is contained in Appendix D.

Table 20. Description of likelihood levels (MEMA, 2015)

Likelihood Level Description

The issue is extremely unlikely to be realised at a level that would impact the benefit Rare within a 20 year period The issue is not expected to be realised at a level that would impact the benefit, but it Unlikely could occur in some circumstances

Possible The issue is about as likely to occur as to not occur in a given timeframe

Likely The issue is expected to negatively impact the benefit more often than not

Almost certain The issue is expected to negatively impact the benefit consistently and regularly

Table 21. Description of consequence level (MEMA, 2015) Consequence level Description Insignificant Realisation of this issue would not have a discernible impact on the benefit/value Realisation of this issue would only have a small or very temporary impact on the Minor benefit/value Realisation of this issue would negatively impact the value/benefit over the medium term Moderate (5-10 years) but could return to normal if the threat dissipates Realisation of this issue would negatively impact the value/benefit over the long term (10- Major 20 years) with a good chance the value or threat is compromised irreversibly Catastrophic Realisation of this issue would permanently terminate the delivery of the value/benefit

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 89

Table 22. Risk matrix used to determine risk level (MEMA, 2015) Likelihood Level of risk Consequence Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic level Almost certain Min Low Moderate High High Likely Min Low Moderate High High Possible Min Min Low Moderate High Unlikely Min Min Min Low Moderate Rare Min Min Min Min Low

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 90

6.6.1 First pass risk assessment for environmental values Table 23 summarises a first-pass risk assessment for key environmental values within the Georges River estuary. Catchment runoff & poor water quality, poor riparian & estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss, and weeds and invasive species are understood to be the main present and emerging risks to key environmental values. The overall risk score is derived from assigning a number value to each risk level and averaging that score across each time frame for each value.

Table 23. Summary of risk level for key environmental values

Ecosystem diversity and Towra Point as a UNESCO Issue  Values → Fisheries habitat Naturalness integrity World Heritage Site

Present 2050 2100 Present 2050 2100 Present 2050 2100 Present 2050 2100 Overall environmental risk Catchment Runoff & Water quality High High High High High High High High High Mod Mod Mod High 3.75 Riparian & estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss High High High High High High High High High High High High High 4.00 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Mod Mod Mod High High High Low Mod Mod Min Low Low Mod 2.83 Shoreline erosion & recession Mod Mod Mod High High High Low Low Low Min Min Min Mod 2.50 Pollution (rubbish) Low Low Low Low Low Low Mod Mod Mod High High High Mod 2.75 Foreshore asset management Min Min Min Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Low 2.00 Streambank stability & erosion Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min Mod 2.50 Weeds and invasive species Mod Mod High High High High High High High Mod Mod Mod High 3.58 Recreational activity Min Min Min Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Low Low Low Low 1.75 Overfishing Low Low Low Low Low Low High High High High High High Mod 3.00 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Low Low Low Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Low 2.25 Governance High High High High High High Low Low Low Low Low Low Mod 3.00

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 91

6.6.2 First pass risk assessment for social values A first-pass risk assessment for key social values within the Georges River estuary is summarised in Table 24. Riparian/estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss, catchment runoff / water quality, and sewage effluent and septic runoff are understood to be the main present and emerging risks to social values for Georges River. The overall risk score is derived from assigning a number value to each risk level and averaging that score across each time frame for each value.

Table 24. Summary of risk level for key social values

Access to foreshores Clean swimmable Aboriginal/European Social connectivity Mental and physical Education and Issues  Values → Recreational Activity Urban cooling and waterways waterways cultural significance and participation health scientific

Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Pres Overall social 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 ent ent ent ent ent ent ent ent risk Catchment Runoff & Water High High High Mod Mod Mod High High High Mod Mod Mod High Mod High Min Low Low High High High High High High Mod 3.42 quality Riparian & estuarine condition Mod High High Mod High High High High High High High High Low Mod Mod High High High High High High High High High High 3.75 and habitat/ corridor loss Increased inundation due to sea Low Mod Mod Low Mod Mod Low Mod Mod Mod High High Low Low Low Min Low Low Mod Mod Mod Low Mod Mod Mod 2.63 level rise

Shoreline erosion & recession Mod Mod Mod Low Mod Mod Min Low Low Mod High High Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Low Mod Mod Mod 2.58

Pollution (rubbish) Mod Mod Mod Low Low Low High High High High High High Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min High High High Low Low Low Mod 2.88

Foreshore asset management Min Low Low Min Min Min Low Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Low Low Mod Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Low 1.96

Streambank stability & erosion Min Min Min Mod High High Mod Mod Mod Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Low 1.96

Weeds and invasive species Min Min Min Min Low Mod Min Min Low High High High Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min High High High Low 1.92

Recreational activity Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Min Min Min Low Low Low Low 1.63

Overfishing Mod High High Min Min Min Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min Min Low Low High High High Low 2.29

Sewage effluent and septic runoff Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod High High High Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min High High High Mod Mod Mod Mod 3.00

Governance Min Min Min Min Min Min Low Low Low Mod Mod Mod Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 1.88

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 92

6.6.3 First pass risk assessment for economic values Table 25 outlines a first-pass risk assessment for key economic values for the Georges River estuary. Shoreline erosion/recession, increased inundation due to sea level rise, and catchment runoff/ water quality are understood to the be the main present and emerging risks to economic values for Georges River. The overall risk score is derived from assigning a number value to each risk level and averaging that score across each time frame for each value. A ranked list of issues is provided at the end of this section.

Table 25. Summary of risk level for key economic values

Issues  Values → Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy

Present 2050 2100 Present 2050 2100 Present 2050 2100 Overall economic risk Catchment Runoff & Water quality Low Mod Mod Mod High High High High High Mod 3.44 Riparian & estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Min Min Min Mod High High High High High Mod 2.89 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Mod High High High High High Mod Mod Mod High 3.56 Shoreline erosion & recession Mod High High High High High High High High High 3.89 Pollution (rubbish) Min Min Min High High High High High High Mod 3.00 Foreshore asset management Low Mod Mod Low Low Low Low Mod Mod Low 2.44 Streambank stability & erosion Min Min Min Mod Mod High Low Low Low Low 2.11 Weeds and invasive species Min Min Min Low Low Mod Mod High High Low 2.33 Recreational activity Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min 1.00 Overfishing Min Min Min Low Low Low Mod Mod Mod Low 2.00 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Min Min Min Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Low 2.33 Governance Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min Min 1.00

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 93

6.7 Prioritised list of issues to be addressed by the Coastal Management Program The first pass risk assessment was used to determine priority risks that need to be addressed in the Georges River CMP (Table 26). The scores for each issue across all values and timeframes were averaged out to get an overall risk score. This score was applied to a scale with a maximum value of 4 and minimum value of 1. This process is designed as a preliminary exercise to determine priority issues on a catchment and estuary-wide scale. The overall risk score takes into consideration changing risk profiles across planning horizons.

The highest scoring issues are riparian & estuarine condition and habitat loss, catchment runoff & water quality, and increased inundation due to sea level rise.

Table 26. Results of the first pass risk assessment showing identified issues ranked from highest to lowest.

Rank Issue Overall Enviro Social Economic

Riparian & estuarine condition and 1 High 3.64 habitat/corridor loss High High Mod 2 Catchment Runoff & Water quality High 3.51 High Mod Mod 3 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Mod 2.87 Mod Mod High 4 Pollution (rubbish) Mod 2.87 Mod Mod Mod 5 Shoreline erosion & recession Mod 2.82 Mod Mod High 6 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Mod 2.67 Low Mod Low 7 Weeds and invasive species Low 2.44 High Low Low 8 Overfishing Low 2.42 Mod Low Low 9 Streambank stability & erosion Low 2.13 Mod Low Low 10 Foreshore asset management Low 2.07 Low Low Low 11 Governance Low 2.00 Mod Low Min 12 Recreational activity Low 1.53 Low Low Min

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 94

7 Knowledge gaps: determine where action is required

7.1 Overview A key outcome of the CMP Scoping Study is to determine any knowledge and management gaps so that they can be addressed in future stages of the CMP process. The scoping process has provided an appreciation for:

• The technical studies and plans completed to date, and the state of current knowledge on coastal values and management challenges for Georges River

• The key management issues for the Georges River CMP, and priority issues as informed by a first-pass risk assessment

• Recommendations in existing plans (including the CZMP) to be considered for carrying forward to the CMP (for evaluation of options in Stage 3)

• Gaps/opportunities for additional improvements to the knowledge base for the CMP development.

7.2 Knowledge gaps related to identified values, issues, and risks

A summary of key existing information sources relevant to the priority issues, and recommended gaps to fill as part of the Stage 2 CMP process is provided in Table 27. The recommended studies have been informed by the strategic context to the CMP, stakeholder input, and are in accord with appropriate studies for Stage 2 as identified in the CMP manual.

Additional opportunities to boost the knowledge base are also noted for consideration of inclusion into Stage 2 of the CMP development, or at a later date, potentially as part of the CMP actions.

Recommended studies and indicative budgets are nominated for inclusion into the forward plan in Section .

It is worth noting that GRK established a research group in 2020 to work with member Councils to identify research questions and collaborate with university researchers to answer some of these questions.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 95

Table 27. Summary of existing information and knowledge gaps in relation to the key management issues identified in this Scoping Study. The risk values are based on the outputs of the first pass risk assessment. The values at risk are based on the list of fifteen values in section 6.4.3.

Key Values at Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations management risk issues

Riparian & Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Updated catchment ecosystem A comprehensive, estuary wide macrophyte strategy should estuarine High High High Moderate Inadequate, needs to be updated mapping identifying and prioritising be developed to inform councils of past, present, and likely vegetation areas for protection/restoration. future distribution and condition of key habitats, and allow condition and This issue is considered high risk due to the prevalence and increasing nature of CZMP - Aim B: Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. Consideration of accommodation for strategic planning for improving existing ecosystems and habitat/corrid threats affecting riparian and estuarine habitats. CZMP - Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Subplan space for migrating estuarine accommodating future migration. (Scope to combine with or loss Increased pressure from urbanisation of catchments is encroaching on riparian ecosystems. Cooks River CMP) zones and reducing the water quality of runoff passing through and into the Georges River National Park PoM system. Kamay Botany Bay National Park PoM Review of council LEPs and DCPs in Develop a standardised habitat assessment toolkit Habitat fragmentation in parts of the catchment is reducing the ecological regards to riparian vegetation and (potentially based on Riverkeeper Report Card), and initiate resilience of the system. Towra Point Article 3.2 Response Strategy - Proposed Response categories: Little corridors restoration and Citizen Science program with Bushcare groups to monitor The combination of sea level rise and lack of accommodation space for migrating Tern, Migratory Shorebirds, Saltmarsh and Mangroves, Seagrass. management. vegetation. (Scope to combine with Cooks River CMP) ecosystems puts increasing pressure on habitats in the future. 1, 3, 4, 9, Changing climate can create difficult conditions for native ecosystems to flourish Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan - Catchment Action Program (Bush Consider the possibility of creating Towra Point requires special attention due to international 10, 11, 12, and open niche opportunities for invasive species. regeneration); River Health Monitoring Program sub-catchment management plans obligations under the Ramsar Treaty. Actions recommended 13, 14, 15 Towra Point is a hotspot with internationally significant ecological values that are in the CMP should consider these obligations. Georges Riverkeeper River Report Cards at risk without appropriate management and investment. Expand review of information to Over time, this issue will likely worsen as multiple pressures on riparian and DPIE Fisheries - Macrophytes assessment, mapping of changes over time, upper-catchment to consider Key natural areas such as Georges River National Park and estuarine ecosystems increase. condition assessment, and disturbances. influence to lower catchment the nearby foreshore recreation/conservation areas should be looked at as a comprehensive system and managed as such moving forward.

Information needed: Updated mapping and condition assessment of riparian / estuarine habitats

Catchment Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information The Risk Based Framework on There is sufficient planning and information on how to runoff & Waterways Health Outcomes in improve water quality, however this might not be High High Moderate Moderate ad hoc, and inconsistent data water quality Strategic Land use Planning Decisions sufficiently effective to drive ongoing coordinated effort at This issue is considered high risk due to the prevalence and increasing nature of CZMP - Aim A: Water Quality, BMOs, NBOs, and OOs should be implemented along with the local scale. A barrier has been the lack of funding threats effecting water quality in the waterways and receiving waters of Georges CZMP - Water Quality Subplan MEMA initiatives. available to implement WSUD related capital works as well River. as lack of compliance in the face of increasing development Increased pressure from urbanisation of catchments and transitioning from BBWQIP - Water quality improvement targets Detailed catchment studies to identify and urbanisation. As such, a review of the implementation pervious to impervious ground cover leading to changes in hydrology of BBWQIP - Recommended actions for stakeholders vulnerable areas and predict sediment of the BBWQIP and OEH Risk Based Framework should be catchment and carrying of additional urban pollutants in runoff. and nutrient loads with changing land considered as a management action in Stage 2. (Scope to Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan - River Health Monitoring Program; combine with Cooks River CMP). The difficulty and price for implementing WSUD into existing and new use and identify priority areas of development is a barrier to improvement. Stormwater Program action.

Poor water quality impacts ecosystems, recreational accessibility, and economic Investigation of potential funding options for WSUD Georges Riverkeeper River Report Cards benefits. Consolidate and standardise water implementation as it is identified as major limitation by 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, Existing management arrangements such as DCPs are either insufficient for quality data from records and re- Sydney Water. 10, 11, 12, improving water quality or not complied with. Beachwatch & Streamwatch evaluate water quality monitoring 13, 14, 15 Difficult to manage a catchment wide issue with perceived unfairness in which program to implement best practice Ensuring WSUD practices are followed in future growth areas benefit the most from investment. Review of Riverhealth monitoring (BMT 2014) moving forward. areas where development is significant, this is already Future climate scenarios may potentially lead to more intense rainfall events identified in higher level strategy (GSC greener cities). which would put additional stress on stormwater treatment and conveyance OEH Risk Based Framework on Waterways Health Outcomes in Strategic Land use systems. Planning Decisions Over time, this issue will worsen unless effective catchment management is implemented. Marine Estate Management Strategy Implementation Plan

Information needed: Compilation and standardisation of water quality monitoring data.

Updated DPIE subcatchment risk map using latest land use information.

Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 96

Key Values at management Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations risk issues

Increased Moderate Moderate Moderate High Inadequate, either too broad or too specific studies available Flood, tidal and coastal inundation This study will be critical for mapping Coastal Vulnerability inundation This issue is considered moderate risk due to the incremental nature of sea level CZMP - Aim H: Climate Change and Sea Level Rise BMOs, NBOs, and OOs study, including damages and risk Areas. Once the extents of all seven hazards are defined due to sea assessment of sea level rise. This consistently throughout the estuary, then the future stages rise. However, the potential eventual impact is significant and must be CZMP - Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Subplan level rise considered in planning and management. should consider hazards during of CMP development can determine appropriate actions storms, planning levels for DA’s and with regard to existing information available in studies such Rising sea level puts pressure on foreshore assets and low-lying land which will OEH Sea Level Rise: Science and Synthesis for NSW OEH NSW Estuary Tidal Inundation Exposure Assessment Report (incl. habitat loss/squeeze/migration. as those from the Sydney Coastal Councils Group. Possibly be increasingly affected by nuisance tidal flooding and at more risk from storm Potentially combined with Cooks include mapping accommodation space for migrating tides. appendices) River, and/or the Georges River Flood ecosystems. Additional inundation from tsunamis needs to be considered. Sydney Coastal Councils Group - Mapping & Responding to Coastal Inundation: Study Review Habitability of low-lying land will potentially be compromised due to regular or Stages 1,2,3 permanent tidal inundation. SCCG - Coastal Vulnerability to Multiple Inundation Sources (COVERMAR) Riparian and estuarine habitats that exist due to a specific tidal regime will try to SCCG - Prioritising Coastal Adaptation Development Options for Local migrate landward as seas rise. Lack of accommodation space due to urban Government development will squeeze out important habitats and ecosystems. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, Drainage systems will lose effectiveness with high tides potentially backflowing 9, 10, 11, Georges River Council Tidal Inundation Study (2018) through stormwater drains. 12 Social amenity and recreation may be affected when sports fields and foreshores Sutherland Shire Council draft Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment – Potential impacts are inundated. of a changing climate on coastal and catchment flooding (GHD, 2011) Over time, this issue is likely to worsen as sea level rises. Sutherland Shire SLR Policy

Information needed: Whole of estuary inundation mapping.

Pollution Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Audit of Georges Riverkeeper Rubbish Continued advocacy for improvements to recycling (rubbish) Removal Program to determine programs and elimination of single use plastics is required Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Adequate data exists for the purpose of developing a CMP rubbish hotspots and target priority to maintain momentum regarding this issue. This issue is considered moderate risk due to the effectiveness of existing CZMP Aim A: Water Quality BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. areas for future actions programs and increasing attention given to the problem by the community CZMP - Water Quality Subplan CMP could consider use of source-pathway-receptor combined with the prevalence and impacts of the issue presently. conceptual model to help determine most effective Gross pollutants entering waterways have a negative impact on the visual and Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan - Catchment Action Plan, rubbish removal in intervention point for minimising impacts of rubbish. recreational amenity of the Georges River. partnership with NSW Corrective Services Plastic released into waterways does not biodegrade but photodegrades into smaller and smaller microplastics that have widespread ecological and human Council WSUD implementation - Gross Pollutant Traps health impacts. NSW EPA - 20-year Waste Strategy Large volumes of rubbish can quickly fill Gross Pollutant Traps and lead to

increased maintenance costs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Information needed: Adequate information exists to proceed with CMP Prevalent and visible accumulation of rubbish on beaches and waterways 8, 9, 11, development. discourages community from enjoying key public spaces which stimulate local 12, 13, 14 economies. Council GPT implementation plans Over time, the risk that this issue poses depends on the amount of rubbish being created in the catchment which is dependent on solid waste management, recycling, and reduction in single use plastic consumption.

Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Significant attention needs to be paid to Towra Point due to Moderate Moderate Moderate High Adequate for Lady Robinsons Beach, inadequate for Towra Point and Kurnell the threat of erosion on threatened ecological communities

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 97

Key Values at management Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations risk issues

Shoreline This issue is considered moderate risk due to the continued investment into CZMP - Aim E: Bank Erosion and Sedimentation BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. Towra Point coastal geomorphology which contribute to the Ramsar values of the site. Along erosion & shoreline management works within Botany Bay. However, left unmanaged, this CZMP - Bank Erosion and Sedimentation Subplan and erosion study including sediment with a Towra Point coastal geomorphology study, a recession issue poses a significant threat to many values, and is likely to increase over time budget analysis, high resolution LIDAR comprehensive risk assessment for hazards impacting on due to sea level rise. Another element regarding this issue is that it only applies OEH: Coastal Erosion in NSW State-wide Exposure Assessment Report Kamay Botany Bay National Park and Towra Point shorelines and various management options to councils with land exposed to wave energy within Botany Bay (and a small Silver Beach shoreline dynamics study. need to be considered to effectively protect these values. portion of the study area in Kurnell exposed to open ocean energy). Towra Point Article 3.2 Response Strategy - Proposed Response categories: (National Parks must lead these Botany Bay is a highly modified geomorphological system which is still Geomorphology studies and consider what they need Potential to combine into a whole of Botany Bay, or whole responding to shoreline and bathymetry reconfigurations associated with Towra Beach EIS Dredging 2003 to do in regard to Ramsar of sediment compartment, sediment, and shoreline dredging and reclamation works. requirements) investigation. (Scope to be combined with Cooks River, Short term erosion can threaten assets both built and natural and an appropriate Advisian - Lady Robinsons Beach Coastal Investigation Eastern Beaches and Bate Bay/CMPs). emergency response plan is needed. Manly Hydraulics Lab - Lady Robinson's Beach Investigation Stage 1 (currently underway) Continued investigations into the Lady Long term shoreline recession can threaten assets both built and natural and Robinson beach management need to

should be identified and mitigated. consider the importance of the social 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, NPWS - Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management use of the beach. Key areas to consider in this study include Lady Robinson's Beach, Towra Point, 9, 10, 12, Silver Beach, and Kamay Botany Bay National Park. 13, 14, 15 Information needed: Adequate information exists for Lady Robinson, more Over time, this issue is likely to worsen as sea level rises. information is needed for Towra Point and Kamay Botany Bay National Park shoreline management.

Sewage Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Catchment wide assessment of Sydney Water should continue their program for inspecting effluent and Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Adequate data exists for the purpose of developing a CMP infrastructure condition and targeted and repairing sewer assets. Future management of this septic runoff improvements including audit of issue can be supported by Sydney Water in collaboration This issue is considered moderate risk due to the threat is poses to recreational CZMP - Aim A: Water Quality, BMOs, NBOs, and OOs sewage pop-tops and pipes in order to with the Riverkeeper and partnering councils for the activity, ecological resilience, and the local economy. Sydney Water manages the CZMP - Water Quality Subplan determine which are functioning over ongoing CMP development. Recommendation for stage 2 - sewer infrastructure in the study area and is continually identifying and repairing capacity. Catchment wide assessment of infrastructure condition and damaged or malfunctioning assets. BBWQIP - Water quality improvement targets targeted improvements. Existing programs are in place and Aging infrastructure is prone to hard-to-detect leaks and requires regular BBWQIP - Recommended actions for stakeholders specific to overflows (both WWO's and dry weather monitoring and maintenance. incidents) are regulated by the EPA, reference can be made Increasing population density will put increased pressure on sewer network and Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan - River Health Monitoring Program to these requirements. It may also be beneficial where treatment plants. appropriate to share wastewater service investment for the Sydney Water - sewer and stormwater rehabilitation program continued provision against growth and in respect to Potential for more intense storm events due to climate change can cause sewer Sydney Water SewerFix Program overflows. BAU/alternatives with respect to ongoing protection of coastal areas. The level of risk this issue poses over time depends on the continued monitoring 1, 2, 6, 11, and maintenance of wastewater infrastructure. Beachwatch & Streamwatch 12, 14 Information needed: Adequate information exists to proceed with CMP development.

Weeds and Overall risk Enviro Social Economic 3, 4, 5, 9, Adequacy of information Identify and map weeds and invasive This is an ongoing issue that ties into the riparian and invasive 10, 11, 12, Adequate regarding ongoing management of weeds, inadequate regarding new species areas within the coastal estuarine habitat management. Therefore, future Low High Low Low species 13 invasive species related to climate change management areas for CMP action. considerations of this issue should consider highly valuable

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 98

Key Values at management Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations risk issues

This issue is considered low risk due to the impacts that weeds and invasive CZMP - Aim B: Aquatic and Riparian Habitat, BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. habitat to focus resources, including the National Parks and species have on social and economic values, however it is noted that the CZMP - Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Subplan Ecological study on the impacts of foreshore/riparian public recreation areas. environmental impact this threat poses to the study area is significant. This issue climate change on weeds and invasive is difficult to manage and some aspects such as the effects of climate change are Towra Point Article 3.2 Response Strategy - Proposed Response categories: species in Botany Bay and Georges Tackling this issue on a catchment scale is important and not well understood. Saltmarsh and Mangroves, Seagrass. River estuary. Potentially combined community education is an important tool for limiting Weeds and invasive species can clog waterways and drainage channels. with Cooks River. spread of weeds from upstream residential areas. Native species can be choked out by competition from weeds and invasive Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan - Catchment Action Program especially when environmental conditions change from inputs such as Georges Riverkeeper Aboriginal Riverkeeper Team Establishment of a monitoring program to detect the stormwater / wastewater pollution. presence of invasive species such as tropical / sub-tropical Greater Sydney LLS - Greater Sydney Weed Management Plan; Biosecurity Once established, weeds and invasive species can be difficult to control and fish that may survive longer into winter in Sydney waters Strategy and Invasive Species Plan remove. should be considered as a management action in Stage 3.

Clippings from residential gardens are often disposed and unintentionally spread NPWS - Weed management in PoMs weeds. Over time, this issue will worsen if weed growth and invasive species are not Local Councils - Weeds and invasive species management plans; properly managed. bushcare/landcare programs

NSW Weeds Action Program

Information needed: Invasive species distribution data

Overfishing Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Investigate the distribution and The work that DPI Fisheries and MEMA are doing in this impact of extractive industries and space have a state-wide or regional focus, and careful Low Moderate Low Low Adequate data exists for the purpose of developing a CMP recreational fishing and opportunities implementation at a locally specific scale is important to This issue is considered low risk due to the regulations in place for recreational DPI Fisheries - Recreational fishing regulations; Responsible fishing guidelines; for sustainable management assure desired outcomes are achieved. fishing as well as the closure of commercial fisheries in the study area. Risk FishSmart App remains due to the effect of increasing population, and pressures on ecosystems that support fish species. MEMA - Recreational Fisheries Strategy guided by an Environmental Assessment; Increasing general population leads to increasing numbers of recreational Recreational fisheries enhancements fishermen. Uncertainty surrounding fish habitat and supporting ecosystems in the face of Dietary advices issued recommends to avoid eating fish or shellfish from the pressures from urbanisation and climate change requires diligent monitoring of Cooks River and its tributaries, due to high levels of industrial pollutants, as well fish stocks. as from Botany Bay due to PFAS. The release of catches is recommended

Overfishing causes cascading effects in estuarine ecosystems with complex and 3, 5, 9, 10, Information needed: Adequate information exists to proceed with CMP difficult to predict impacts. 13, 15 development. Over time, the risk that this issue poses will depend on ongoing management

and community compliance with fisheries regulations.

Review of existing riverbank audit to Current management of this issue is limited by funding. Overall risk Enviro Social Economic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Adequacy of information determine location and severity of Once high-risk sites are identified, management options Low Moderate Low Moderate 6, 10, 11, Adequate data exists for the purpose of developing a CMP

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 99

Key Values at management Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations risk issues

Streambank This issue is considered low risk due to the level of impact it has on the values 12, 13, 14, CZMP - Aim E: Bank Erosion and Sedimentation BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. instability, and assets impacted, and should be considered with a focus on using riparian stability & identified in this study. This study also looks at this issue as it relates to the cliff 15 CZMP - Bank Erosion and Sedimentation Subplan priority areas of action. vegetation and bank grading to stabilise banks. erosion stability on the Kurnell peninsula. Stream bank erosion from increases in stream forming flows, and bank TfNSW Boating Strategy and establishment of No-Wash Zones Cliffs audit to determine location and disturbance from boat wake contributes sediment loads and increases turbidity severity of instability, in particular of estuarine water. Council bank erosion works programs. around Kurnell cliffs, and assets Ad hoc access leads to trampling of vegetation and bank destabilisation. impacted, and priority areas of action Large scale streambank collapse can threaten built and natural assets. The Georges River Foreshore Access and Improvement Plan by Haskoning for Sea level rise introduces an element of uncertainty, but uncontrolled erosion is Georges River Council likely to increase as seas rise. Information needed: Adequate information exists to proceed with CMP Coastal cliff instability is found along the high energy coastal cliff of the Kurnell development. headland within Kamay Botany Bay national park. Due to the natural character and their location within a National Park, it is likely that these cliffs will be left subject to their natural processes.

Over time, the risk that this issue poses is likely to increase as sea level rises.

Foreshore Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information Consolidate council asset data and Use asset register to determine where upgrades need to asset Low Low Low Moderate Adequate, but needs to be consolidated produce a catchment wide asset occur and ensure all new seawalls and other foreshore management register with location, type, use, assets are designed with SLR and ecologically friendly design This issue is considered low risk due to the effectiveness of existing management CZMP - Aim F: Foreshore Protection BMOs, NBO, and OOs. ownership, conditions, and value. considerations. Opportunities to enhance and/or protect and the likelihood that this will continue into the future. CZMP Foreshore Protection Subplan the cultural or heritage values of foreshore assets should be Assets such as seawalls, boat ramps, groynes, wharves, and jetties, all contribute pursued. Georges River National Park PoM Create/update a register of to protecting and enhancing the foreshore areas. Indigenous and European cultural There is an element of risk regarding private foreshore assets and the cost that Kamay Botany Bay National Park PoM heritage sites with input from Local property owners will bear. Towra Point PoM Aboriginal Land Councils to ensure High costs may prevent large scale works from proceeding. that any sites that are at risk from Poorly designed foreshore assets can negatively impact the environment. Transport NSW RMS - Maritime Property policies coastal hazards are protected with an Some foreshore assets have extraordinary cultural heritage values. Transport NSW MIDO - Boating Now Program; Coastal Infrastructure Program; appropriate management plan in the CMP. Over time, the risk that this issue poses is likely to remain constant as regular Rescuing our Waterways dredging program maintenance and management will continue to be implemented. Council foreshore assets works programs An Aboriginal Custodian 1, 3, 6, 10, representative can inform CMP 12, 13, 15 Information needed: A comprehensive study area wide mapping and register of development and be part of future foreshore assets discussions with Traditional Owners.

Governance Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information There already exists the knowledge and tools to facilitate Low Moderate Low Low Adequate data exists for the purpose of developing a CMP good governance. The challenge comes from

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 100

Key Values at management Details of risk Key references / data CMP Stage 2 recommendations Other considerations risk issues

This issue is considered low risk due to the existing governance structures in CZMP Review of council LEPs and DCPs to implementation and consistency. place to manage the study area. The existence of Georges Riverkeeper and the ensure best practice for protecting legislative and planning frameworks for coastal and estuary management in Towra Point Article 3.2 Response Strategy - Proposed response categories: waterway health is accomplished. Review of Council LEPs and DCPs, with a focus on provisions NSW allow for integrated action to occur. However, risks arise when certain Governance, Knowledge and Partnerships Detailed mapping of ownership and relating to the catchment wide improvement and barriers are encountered. management responsibility of riparian management of the coastal zone, is part of the concurrent LSPS and CMP development process. Councils are reviewing Lack of funding to implement all recommended actions leads to some issues not Georges River National Park PoM and foreshore areas. their Planning Instruments following recommendations in being addressed. Review of Council LEPs and DCPs with Kamay Botany Bay National Park PoM the CZMP as well as in response to LSPS obligations. This Differing priorities can lead to conflicts over resources. a focus on provisions relating to the type of review is a normal part of Council operations. It is 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, Lack of compliance with regulations or lack of enforcement. Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan 2018-2022 catchment wide improvement and important for Councils to implement the objectives of the Uncertainty of responsibility of management leading to inefficient actions. 10, 12, 13, management of the coastal zone. CMP/CZMP and LSPS throughout these processes. 14, 15 Over time, the risk that this issue poses depends on the continued evolution of Review of Councils River management practices – Bales Environmental Services Examine if and how current Development of new Plans of Management for Georges governance arrangements effective governance in step with changing situations and environments. (2018) River National Park and Towra Point Nature Reserve should (particularly looking at the functions be considered as management actions in Stage 3 of the GSC - Regional and District Plans; Green Grid Initiative of and relationships between the CMP. Georges Riverkeeper, member Council Planning Instruments and strategies councils, state govt, and local community) can be optimised to Information needed: Adequate information exists to proceed with CMP ensure effective delivery of CMP development. actions. Recreational Overall risk Enviro Social Economic Adequacy of information An exploration to activate shoreline areas for recreation in activity Low Low Low Low Adequate information - needs to be shared and engaged with community. Identify and estimate the value of an environmentally sustainable fashion should be an community use of recreational outcome of the CMP. This issue is considered low risk due to the type of activities that are common in CZMP - Aim C: Recreation and Amenity BMOs, NBOs, and OOs. activities across the catchment. Establishment of an estuary-wide recreational foreshore the study area as well as the effective regulation in place. Risk arises when CZMP - Recreation and Amenity Subplan area migration strategy in alignment with the habitat projected population increases are factored in. migration strategy should be considered as a management Increased users produce increased amounts of waste and rubbish. Transport NSW - MIDO Boating Now Program; Maritime Safety Plan 2017-2022 action for Stage 3 of the CMP. Some recreational activity disturbs the natural conditions of the catchment and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Council Community Strategic Plans estuary such as dirt biking, boating, and fishing. Due to the community focus of this management issue, 6, 7, 8, 9, Information needed: up to date data on economic value of recreational use Foreshore recreational assets may be at risk from sea level rise and some 10, 11, 12, significant community engagement should occur regarding facilities may need to be protected or transitioned into different land use. 13, 14, 15 recreational activity. This should occur throughout the CMP User conflicts can arise when different user groups have competing interests or Beachwatch process. preferences. Some activities can be restricted by poor water quality which is an unfortunate reality in the study area. Over time, the risk that this issue poses is likely to increase as the population of the area grows.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 101

7.3 Knowledge gaps addressed by the Marine Estate Management Strategy (MEMS) The MEMS has nine interlinked management initiatives supported by detailed actions that address the priority and cumulative threats to the marine estate over the next ten years. It outlines how these threats to community benefits will be managed. The Strategy was developed by the Marine Estate Management Authority with input from key stakeholders and the broader community.

A review of the Implementation Plan (NSW MEMA, 2019) identified many Actions listed under Initiatives 1-9 that provide evidenced-based management ideas for marine estates applicable to the Georges River Coastal Management Program, including relevant agencies for each initiative to be contacted to determine how these initiatives can be used in the development of the Georges River CMP.

Table 28. MEMS Implementation plan initiatives relevant to the future Georges River CMP

Initiative/Action Description Contact

1 - 1.2.10 Improving water quality and Acting Manager – Marine Estate Foreshore reducing litter Management

2 - 2.1.2, 2.5.1, 2.5.3 Delivering healthy coastal habitats Manager – Marine Estate Marine Vegetation with sustainable use and Strategy development

3 - 3.1.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.1 Planning for climate change Principle Research Scientist, Fisheries Research

4 – 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, Protecting the Aboriginal cultural Senior Manager – Marine Estate Aboriginal 4.5.1 values of the marine estate Culture

5 – 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, Reducing impacts on threatened Project Officer – Marine Estate Management 5.5.4 and protected species & Support

6 – 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, Ensuring sustainable fishing and Project Officer – Marine Estate Management 6.1.4, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, aquaculture & Support 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.5.1, 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.7.1, 6.7.2, 6.7.3, 6.8.1, 6.8.2

8 – 8.1.1, 8.1.4, 8.3.1, Enhancing social, cultural and Senior Manager – Aquatic Environment, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 economic benefits Coastal Systems

9 – 9.1.1, 9.2.1, 9.3.1 Delivering effective governance Senior Fisheries Manager – Coastal Systems (North)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study 102

8 Preliminary business case

This section outlines a preliminary business case for the preparation of the CMP. The preliminary business case includes environmental, social, and economic considerations supporting the investment in the CMP, in particular in addressing the knowledge gaps required to be filled in the following stages of the CMP to achieve the requirements for the CMP certification. A detailed business plan is a requirement for each CMP to support implementation of the coastal management actions.

8.1 Environmental and social considerations The preparation of a Georges River CMP provides an opportunity to mitigate threats to the River’s community and environmental values. The CMP provides a plan for managing both short-term and long-term threats to the social and ecologic systems and strategically prioritising action that will provide the most benefit for generations. Part of the catchment is one of the most densely populated areas of Sydney, and indeed Australia.

Poor water quality is a key issue of concern for the environment and the community, with consequent impacts on the overall ecosystems and on a range of community uses. In addition, some riparian zones, in particular in peri-urban areas along the estuary, are in poor to bad state and require regeneration, which, in some cases should be combined with semi-natural infrastructure for riparian use and access for the community.

In addition, substantial future growth is planned within the catchment which will bring more people and communities that rely on the benefits provided by a healthy estuary. This growth will also increase the pressures already experienced in the estuary. Key risks identified in the first pass risk assessment that are likely to increase include pollution from run-off and rubbish, increased inundation and erosion, and pressure from recreational activity. Strategically managing this growth and targeted mitigation of threats will provide immense benefits for a growing number of people.

Sea level rise associated with climate change has the potential to threaten many low-lying assets including private property. Clear and reliable information is crucial for communicating risk to residents and forward planning is needed to address this incrementally growing threat. The CMP process allows for this information to be acquired and integrated into the many facets of coastal and estuarine management.

In general, natural assets and ecosystem services (e.g. carbon storage) are predicted to provide key roles into the future, particularly in regard to mitigating climate change impacts. This represent a clear environmental, social and economic benefits of natural systems, in particular of waterways and vegetation, in offsetting the impacts of climate change. emphasized in s.8.

The CMP process provides an opportunity to build upon existing scientific understanding of the catchment and estuary. Comprehensive and contemporary data is needed to inform a useful risk assessment, cost benefit analysis, and integrated management strategies. State government funding and support should be taken advantage of to achieve this outcome.

8.2 Economic considerations The economic basis for preparing a CMP is related to the economic risks of poor or non-existent adaptation and mitigation, and conversely, the economic benefits of effective integrated coastal management.

The Georges River catchment and estuary consist of a wide range of assets, both built and natural, that are at risk from the key issues identified in this study. Additionally, functional ecosystem services provide inherent economic benefits. Doing nothing will lead to a quantifiable economic cost which can be reduced with effective adaptation and mitigation actions. It is likely the case that adaptation improves economic outcomes and that the costs savings realised outweighs the actual cost of implementation. This idea of comparing the economic base case against a case where a well-designed CMP is implemented will demonstrate the dollar value of preparing a CMP. A detailed discussion of the economic base case is provided in Appendix G.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 103

8.2.1 Preliminary damage / loss assessment A preliminary damage / loss assessment was undertaken for this stage of the CMP. It was undertaken to provide an indication of the order of magnitude of damage and loss for some asset types in the Georges River catchment from one of the key issues/threats – inundation due to sea level rise.4

The estimates were determined using mapped inundation areas (not erosion areas) from the NSW Estuary Tidal Inundation Exposure Assessment (OEH, 2018). Property values are drawn from the stage-damage curve assessments (outlined in Appendix G), road values are drawn from Gargett (2017) estimates of the current value of a paved undivided road and powerline values are drawn from indicative costs for replacing single wire earth return powerlines with various alternatives (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2009). The results are summarised in Table 29 and represent tidal inundation events as a potential cost to select built assets. A ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ range of estimates are included over two time periods, present-day (PD sea level) and Future (PD + 1m sea level, 2100 estimate).

Table 29. Preliminary damage / loss estimates for a present day and future (present day + 1m) inundation event

Asset type PD damage/loss – PD damage/loss – Future damage/loss – Future damage/loss – lower estimate higher estimate lower estimate higher estimate Properties $16,450,000 $221,800,000 $91,550,000 $1,236,000,000 Roads $250,000 $350,000 $5,350,000 $7,250,000 Powerlines $50,000 $200,000 $2,300,000 $9,750,000

This preliminary analysis shows that the bulk of the economic risk to assets is for private buildings. As sea levels rise the economic value of the risks from a major inundation event rise significantly, increasing by a factor of over five with a 1 m rise in sea level. Potential damage to road and power line infrastructure also increases significantly over time. The development of the CMP, and implementation of targeted actions, can minimise/reduce this risk.

The magnitude of potential economic impact of sea level rise (up to $16M present day and $91M by 2100) indicates that likely intervention required will be substantial (>$1M), and that there is a strong business case for the development of the CMP (with development cost potentially in the order of $300k to $1.5M – Section 9), in particular through the detailed mapping and understanding of coastal vulnerability areas in light of their management objectives in accordance with the Act.

8.2.2 Tourism Publicly available economic datasets specific to key tourism attractions are limited. Tourism Research Australia (2019) provides insights into the importance of the sector to the local and state economy. Based on a recent five-year average (2015 – 2019) approximately 1.1 million people visit Bayside (the LGA that covers a large portion of the Botany Bay perimeter) per annum (this includes international, domestic overnight and domestic day visitors) (see Table 30) with day trips being the most popular (TRA, 2018). The total tourism and hospitality value added in the Bayside area was $773.6 million in 2018/19 and the industry supported a total of 5,918 full time equivalent jobs (NIEIR, 2020).

The direct and indirect potential impacts of the key CMP issues on tourism require a complex study to explore (beyond the scoping study stage), however it is expected that the range of priority issues identified in the CMP will have a substantive impact on the values that underpin tourism.

Table 30. Key tourism metrics for Bayside (source: Tourism Research Australia 2019)

Metric International Domestic overnight Domestic day Totals Visitors (‘000) 283 247 591 1,121 Average stay (nights) 9.8 2.4 n/a n/a

4 The risk to only a select number of asset types was estimated. For example, the risk to pipelines or beache s was not undertaken at this stage of analysis. The purpose of these initial estimates is to provide an indication of the loss or damage – not complete a full analysis. A full analysis will be undertaken in Stages 2 and 3 of the CMP process.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 104

8.2.3 Case study consideration: Brighton Le Sands Beach Brighton Le Sands is an important community place for locals and non-locals due to its beach, restaurants, and shopping. This is at risk due to coastal hazards. With multiple groynes and a seawall already in place to combat the effects of erosion it is unlikely that any of the major built assets will be damaged at the present day. However, loss of the beach area would not only mean a loss of recreation and amenity value, but also a potential loss of revenue for local businesses due to reduced visitation. There are a significant number of jobs supported by tourism and hospitality in the area. This potential impact is not currently known but it could be valued at a high- level using visitation data if it were to become available and may warrant further analysis at a later stage of the CMP.

8.2.4 Case study consideration: Urban stream amenity value A significant proportion of the Georges River catchment is urban and in places there are limited open spaces that can be accessed by foot.

The green space surrounding the Georges River provides a break from the urban environment and provides recreation and amenity values. Previous studies have looked at this in detail using multiple non-market valuation techniques, and in some cases attached dollar values to the urban waterway condition.

Thomy (2017) used the hedonic pricing method with property data for the areas surrounding the Georges and Cooks Rivers and showed that both buyers and renters place a positive economic value for improvements in urban stream quality. This is reflected through both higher house and rent prices where local waterways are in better condition. These implicit marginal prices were higher in cases where there were improvements in both vegetation and channel condition as opposed to just vegetation. The implicit marginal prices ranged between 0.91% and 5.63%. Xu (2016) studied the same area but used the travel cost method to show a positive willingness to pay for improvement in the conditions of the vegetation and waterway channels. These values ranged between $0.57 and $3.46 per trip to local waterways. Furthermore, Morrison et al. (2016) use a questionnaire to estimate implicit prices for natural channels and native vegetation along Georges River. Their preferred model indicates an implicit price of $1.14 per km per household per year for five years.

These studies indicate that the Georges River catchment community attach value to high quality local green/blue open space. The priority issues identified in the CMP threaten the quality of these spaces (e.g. poor water quality), which would result in a loss of amenity values. However, the CMP actions can be used to improve these spaces. An opportunity exists to use this CMP process to deliver better outcomes for the community through smart coastal management.

Tidal flats

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 105

8.3 Risks of preparing/not preparing a CMP In addition to the social and economic basis for preparing a CMP, it is a requirement to consider the risks associated with not preparing a CMP in accordance with the CM Act and Manual.

8.3.1 Statutory obligations The Local Government Act 1993 contains provisions for the exemption of liability for public authorities if they identify and make publicly available information on coastal risk in accordance with the objectives of the CM Act and the Manual. Essentially, if a public authority has developed a CMP in accordance with the Act and Manual, then they are exempt from liability arising from any act or omission contained in section 733.

The relevant sections and paragraphs of the Local Government Act 1993 are reproduced below:

733 Exemption from liability—flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of— (a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or (b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding. (2) A council does not incur any liability in respect of— (a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land in the coastal zone being affected by a coastline hazard (as described in the coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016) or the nature or extent of any such hazard, or (b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being so affected. (3) Without limiting subsections (1), (2) and (2A), those subsections apply to— (b) the preparation and adoption of a coastal management program under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the preparation and making of a coastal zone management plan under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 that is continued in effect by operation of clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Coastal Management Act 2016), and (f) the carrying out of coastal protection works, and (f2) anything done or omitted to be done regarding beach erosion or shoreline recession on Crown land (including Crown managed land) or land owned or controlled by a council or a public authority, and (f3) the failure to upgrade flood mitigation works or coastal protection works in response to projected or actual impacts of climate change, and (f4) the failure to undertake action to enforce the removal of illegal or unauthorised structures that results in erosion of a beach or land adjacent to a beach, and (f5) the provision of information relating to climate change or sea level rise, and (g) any other thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise of a council’s functions under this or any other Act. (4) Without limiting any other circumstances in which a council may have acted in good faith, a council is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have acted in good faith for the purposes of this section if the advice was furnished, or the thing was done or omitted to be done— (b) substantially in accordance with the principles and mandatory requirements set out in the current coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016, or (c) in accordance with a direction under section 14(2) of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study 106

8.3.2 Delaying/avoiding action will incur significant future cost Failing to develop a CMP and the associated management plans and actions in the face of increasing population, environmental pressures and asset exposure will lead to the accumulation of future costs. While the cost of management may require a significant commitment, the cost of inaction is significantly higher based on initial estimates of the base case, or do-nothing approach. Unmitigated threats will continue to degrade values, potentially irreversibly. Attempts to fix or manage issues in the future will face an even larger task. Action now saves money in the future.

Another element worth considering is the anticipated increase in threats to property from coastal hazards, especially inundation due to sea level rise. Without effectively preparing new and existing development for this threat, the expected cost from damage increases. Costs of natural disasters in the Georges River Estuary have not been quantified, however estimates for annual damages across NSW from climate change related events is expected to increase from $3.2 billion (2017) to $10.6 billion by the year 2050 (Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities, 2017).

8.3.3 Risks of preparing a CMP The main risks that arise from the preparation from a CMP is the expectation it creates for councils to implement the strategy and achieve the desired outcomes. There is also a risk that competing resource commitments for council and other agencies will strain staff, however with effective CMP development, structure will be put in place to mitigate this risk.

Once a CMP is gazetted, councils have statutory obligations under Section 22 of the CM Act to give effect to its CMP. The relevant paragraphs of the CM Act are reproduced below:

22 Implementation of coastal management program by local councils (1) A local council is to give effect to its coastal management program and, in doing so, is to have regard to the objects of this Act. (2) In particular, without limiting subsection (1), a local council is to give effect to its coastal management program in: (a) the preparation, development and review of, and the contents of, the plans, strategies, programs and reports to which Part 2 of Chapter 13 of the Local Government Act 1993 applies, and (b) the preparation of planning proposals and development control plans under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Section 30)2) of the CM Act gives the Minister the power to report failure to comply with the CM to the Minister for Local Government which can incur penalties including but not limited to temporary suspension of council.

8.4 Funding and cost sharing opportunities Various funding streams and opportunities for cost sharing are discussed below. In general, it is important to note that grant funding is available on a 2:1 basis for Riverkeeper and member councils to undertake the CMP, including funding for project management. Cost sharing arrangements to be determined; in addition, funding form MEMA for specific studies may be available.

8.4.1 Coasts & Estuaries Grant and alignment with MEMS Accompanying the coastal management reforms, the NSW government announced $83.6 million funding from 2016-17 to 2020-21. The Coasts and Estuaries Grants Program supports preparation of CMPs as well as coastal and estuary projects and the implementation of works identified in certified CZMPs or CMPs.

An additional $45.7 million has been allocated to implement Stage 1 of the Marine Estate Management Strategy with future funding required for subsequent stages. The Marine Estate Management Strategy identifies urban water pollution from run off as a priority threat and therefore there is scope for MEMA funding and technical support to assist with water quality studies in Stages 2 and 3 (and presumably CMP actions in future), especially

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 107

where they are based upon the waterway health framework (the Risk-based Framework for Considering Waterway Health Outcomes in Strategic Land-use Planning Decisions).

8.4.2 Alignment with other grants and programs There are numerous grant programs and strategies occurring simultaneously to the Coasts & Estuaries Grant. The Georges River CMP will include plans for studies and works that align well with other strategies. Some of these studies might be carried out as part of the CMP development. Some examples are provided below, but the opportunities for alignment are continuously changing and part of the CMP management role should be to identify alternative funding streams and cost sharing opportunities with other programs.

• NSW Floodplain Management Program and Floodplain Grants Scheme: Data from flood studies may assist with hydrodynamic studies. Information from floodplain risk-management studies can help inform Coastal Vulnerability Area mapping.

• NSW Environmental Trust: provides funding to a range of community, government, and industry stakeholders to deliver projects that conserve, protect and rehabilitate the NSW environment, or that promote environmental education and sustainability. • Fisheries Habitat Restoration Program: funded by the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust Expenditure Committee (RFSTEC) and seeks to benefit recreational fishing opportunities by enhancing the habitats that fish need to thrive.

8.4.3 Sharing cost with other CMPs for certain studies There are two other CMP scoping studies in the Botany Bay area (Cooks River and Eastern Beaches), and the Bate Bay CMP also falls within the same coastal sediment compartment (Figure 29). There are opportunities for cost sharing, especially with the other Botany Bay CMPs, for studies that make sense to perform on a catchment/sediment compartment scale.

Figure 29. Indicative boundaries for adjacent CMPs. Note that these boundaries are not exact or final.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 108

Examples of studies and activities that are suitable for ongoing coordination between the Botany Bay CMPs include those related to water quality management reviews, ecosystem mapping, and hydrodynamic studies to map sea level rise scenarios.

Specific share-costing and cooperation opportunities have been highlighted during conversations with Cooks River Alliance, including:

• Biodiversity /Water Quality - Site Specific condition assessment for mapped Wetlands. Cooks River is aiming for a guided citizen science approach to site assessments with bushcare groups to attend Council/Consultant led training sessions and staff to supervise assessments. Opportunity to establish a Botany Bay assessment toolkit or agree upon a standardised assessment guideline for Mangroves, saltmarshes to establish a consistent assessment approach across Botany Bay. Cooks River Alliance and Georges Riverkeeper could pool resources to establish an assessment toolkit, facilitate joint training workshops, or agree upon a single existing assessment guidelines for Mangroves, saltmarshes to establish a consistent assessment approach across Botany Bay.

• Integrated catchment and receiving water quality modelling assessment, to inform management options. Cooks River is aiming to engage DPIE and Sydney Water to lead WQ modelling for the Cooks CMP. First step is a review of the BBWQIP to assess its continued use to benchmark Stormwater Quality impacts in Botany Bay. The use of the EPA’s Risk- based Framework will also be reviewed. Cooks River Alliance and Georges Riverkeeper could undertake joint review of BBWQIP and the EPA’s Risk- based Framework under Stage 2 of the CMP.

• Seagrass Threat Assessment. Very limited geographic scope for Cooks River CMP, with small remnant areas of mostly Zostera in the Penrhyn Estuary near the airport. This is not a key study identified in for the Georges CMP, however, if identified in the future there is potential to pool resources and slightly expand the scope of assessment given all areas would be in the Bayside Council and addition of Penrhyn Estuary Seagrass is a comparatively small area.

• Climate Change - Review of coastal hazard assessment parameters. General consensus that consistent messaging, approaches and terms for climate change scenarios and SLR across the compartment is needed to avoid inconsistent numbers, ranges and implementation across LGA’s in the Bay. Pool resources to engage a consultant to undertake a sediment Compartment-wide study of coastal hazard assessment parameters to ensure consistency across Botany Bay on input parameters for CMPs/future studies regarding issues such as SLR / Sediment Budgets. Alternative is continued engagement between CMPs during their development of SLR assessments and policies to ensure consistent approach.

• Climate change adaptation strategy. General consensus amongst Botany Bay LGA’s is consistent climate change messaging and terms across the compartment is needed. If applicable, Cooks River Alliance and Georges Riverkeeper could ensure ongoing engagement between CMPs during their development of adaptation strategies/assessments to ensure terminology and approach is consistent applied.

• Beach Erosion, banks and shoreline erosion assessments. These studies have very limited geographic scope for Cooks River CMP (Foreshore and Tower Beach). Given the studies are based on Sediment compartment/budget issues and proximity to Lady Robinson Beach in Bayside’s LGA opportunity to incorporate into a single study if identified as key study under Georges CMP. If similar studies are identified in Georges River, these studies could be incorporated into a single study to pool resources, reduce consultant costs and ensure consistency across the bay.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 109

9 Forward plan

9.1 Governance options for the CMP preparation and implementation A key element for successful preparation and implementation of the Georges River Estuary CMP is ensuring proper governance arrangements are established. This section considers alternative governance structure options in relation to the preparation and implementation of the CMP and considers the pros and cons of each. A proposed governance arrangement is provided along with defined roles and responsibilities for the future carriage of the Georges River Estuary CMP.

Presently, the 2013 Georges River CZMP provides an estuary wide management framework, however recommendations within the CZMP established a 5-year minimum review period which has elapsed. There is an opportunity for the Georges River Estuary CMP to build on the work of the CZMP and facilitate catchment wide integrated management including for the tidal waterways and coastal areas while incorporating new information and adhering to the new NSW coastal management framework.

Current governance arrangements have led to parallel but largely localised management actions undertaken by individual councils with Georges Riverkeeper playing a coordinating role and offering strategic guidance for its eight member Councils. These actions have been informed by the Georges River CZMP and, more recently, the Georges Riverkeeper Strategic Plan 2018-2022 which provide a roadmap for catchment wide management and priorities. Regardless of which governance option is preferred, Georges Riverkeeper is well placed to continue with the lead role of the coordinating body.

9.1.1 Individual CMPs for each Council LGA One option for the Georges River Estuary CMP is for each council to develop their own CMP for their own LGA, however this approach does not best meet the objectives of the Coastal Management Act 2016 which promotes an integrated and collaborative approach to coastal management. Therefore, consideration of this option is mainly useful as a contrast to a catchment wide integrated CMP.

There are some elements of this approach that are advantageous over an integrated approach, but these opportunities are outweighed by the limitations of an individual council approach.

Pros Cons Ability to undertake actions at an LGA scale Likely duplication of efforts and resources to address issues that are within other governing frameworks such as the common to all councils. Greater Sydney Regional Plan, without interference from outside Councils. Less complicated to manage because all work Reduced capability to address significant whole of estuary issues due will be contained within Council (i.e. meetings, to potentially inconsistent approaches workshops, reviews). Work would be seen by councils as directly The ability to fund actions to address whole of relevant to their area. estuary issues may be impeded without a single CMP that compares, costs, and selects actions at an appropriate scale. The CMPs may be repetitious where issues span the entire catchment, and particularly where the CMP for each local council must still cover each of the four coastal management areas. Does not eliminate the legislated requirement to collaborate with local governments within the same sediment compartment, in fact it complicates this requirement compared to an estuary wide approach. Missing out on benefits derived from economies of scale such as shared project management costs, and shared funding for sediment compartment wide technical studies.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study 110

9.1.2 Georges River catchment wide CMP This integrated approach reflects the current management arrangements as established in the Georges River CZMP. There are many advantages to proceeding with the CMP development with a whole of catchment, coastal zone, and tidal waters scope.

Pros Cons Reflects the interconnected nature of the catchment, Increased complexity in achieving concurrence on estuary and coastal zones and allows for integrated important matters such as funding, resourcing, and management in line with policy objectives. coordination. Clarification will be needed on who leads grant funding applications for whole of estuary issues. Existing management under the CZMP and with guidance Requirements for additional funding for Georges from Georges Riverkeeper provides an established Riverkeeper to adequately support the implementation of framework from which to build upon. the CMP; some councils will already be asked to increase funding to other parallel CMPs such as the Cooks River and Bate Bay. Allows for consistency across all councils in managing Challenges in giving attention to local issues addressed at issues that are common to all areas, but local in nature. the right temporal and spatial scale while encompassing a whole of catchment approach. Benefits from economies of scale and shared costs such as Challenge in overcoming sentiment that my money is not project management and catchment wide technical benefiting my constituents but rather someone studies. downstream. Increased collaboration between councils and agencies.

9.1.3 Whole of Botany Bay CMP There are three CMP Stage 1 Scoping Studies within the Botany Bay catchment: The Eastern Beaches CMP, the Cooks River CMP and the Georges River CMP. There may be merit in aligning these three into a final CMP for the entire Botany Bay including both major catchments of the Cooks and Georges Rivers. It is also important to note that the CM Act requires consultation with other councils within the same coastal sediment compartment, which would loop the Bate Bay CMP into the process as well.

While the positives of separate catchment focused CMPs may outweigh the positives of a broader Botany Bay CMP, there are likely benefits to be realised by combining some Stage 2 technical studies such as any hydrodynamic, ecological or water quality related across the entirety of Botany Bay and/or the coastal sediment compartment.

Pros Cons Further increases in benefits from economies of scale and Same issues as catchment wide CMP but on a greater cost sharing. scale. See above. Reduce the number of councils who are involved in more Likely need to establish a new organisation with than one CMP responsibility for the management of the entire Botany Bay.

9.1.4 Recommended approach After considering the options and communicating with Georges Riverkeeper and representatives from the Cooks River Alliance, it is proposed that a Georges River catchment wide CMP be developed. This approach is in line with policy objectives and strikes a balance between addressing local scale issues and catchment wide issues. While the final CMP should be developed for the Georges River catchment, estuary and coastal zone, some Stage 2 studies should be jointly funded along with the other CMPs within Botany Bay.

Additionally, with the Coasts & Estuary Grants Program being amended to allow Joint Organisations (established under an Act of Parliament) to be eligible to apply for funding to undertake coordination of CMP development, councils should consider an approach similar to that proposed for the Sydney Harbour CMP and utilise Geor ges Riverkeeper as a Joint Organisation to take the lead.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 111

There are a number of governance considerations to be accounted for when implementing this approach.

• A dedicated program manager should be resourced to ensure smooth operations of the CMP process. Additional funding from the State might be required to support Councils membership costs, including personnel.

• The leading organisation should emphasise oversight and ownership of the CMP so that the needs of the whole of the catchment are put ahead of those of a specific local area.

• Links with regional planning processes such as the Greater Sydney Regional and District Plans and the Marine Estate Management must be established.

9.2 Proposed components for each Stage of CMP forward plan The proposed forward plan for the CMP development (Stages 2 – 5) is set out in Table 31. This includes a range of studies that may be included for Stage 2, based on work needed to address key knowledge gaps identified in this scoping study.

Stage 2 studies have been listed as very high, high or medium priority to assist with budgeting. These studies are mainly intended to fill the information gaps about specific issues identified in the Scoping Study and to provide the information required to support the identification and prioritisation of actions to support decision-making in later stages of the planning process. This additional information will assist communities to better understand coastal management issues and to analyse and evaluate coastal risks and opportunities.

Very high priority Stage 2 studies are considered necessary to inform the updated risk assessment and management options in Stage 3 of the CMP development. High and medium priority Stage 2 studies would be beneficial to include, however in the case of budget constraints, these studies could instead become priority actions in the CMP implementation.

The costs for each item indicated in the forward program table are provided with a high and low range. This range accounts for variability in the scope, breadth, and level of detail that each study could potentially cover, and acknowledges that a more detailed cost assessment is required once specifics are determined. These cost estimates are determined based on available information, comparable studies in NSW and Australia, and expert judgement.

A range of overall cost estimates for the forward program have been provided based on inclusion / exclusion of different Stage 2 study priorities. The potential range of the CMP development cost is $580,000 to $2.6M.

The timeframe for the preparation and approval of the new CMP can be estimated at approximately 1 to 2 years, given the size of the catchment, the number of stakeholders involved and the complexity of the management framework. The final CMP should be therefore gazetted in late 2022 or 2023, given the usual timeframes for consultation and final sign offs. This is approximately 10 years following the CZMP 2013, representing the length of a typical planning cycle.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 112

Table 31. Forward program for developing the Georges River Coastal Management Program

Item Recommended studies / components Priority Cost (Low) Cost (High) Responsible

Project management for the life of the CMP development Part time project manager (2 years) High $200,000 $300,000 Georges Riverkeeper

Ongoing community and stakeholder engagement activities High $50,000 $150,000 Georges Riverkeeper Management Subtotal $250,000 $450,000 Stage 2: Risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities 1. Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Updated catchment ecosystem mapping identifying and prioritising areas for protection/restoration. 2.1.1 Very High $30,000 $100,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, DPIE - EES, LLS Consideration of accommodation space for migrating estuarine ecosystems

2.1.2 Review of council LEPs and DCPs in regard to riparian vegetation and corridors restoration and management Medium $5,000 $25,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, GSC

2. Catchment runoff / water quality Detailed catchment studies to identify diffuse sources of pollution, predict sediment and nutrient loads with changing land use and identify priority areas of action. Possible investigation of potential funding options for 2.2.1 Very High $20,000 $70,000 Georges Riverkeeper, DPIE - EES, MEMA, Councils WSUD implementation. The Risk Based Framework for Waterways Health provides a template for this exercise. Can include a review of BBWQIP (potentially combined with Cooks River Consolidate and standardise water quality data from records and re-evaluate water quality monitoring 2.2.2 High $10,000 $30,000 Georges Riverkeeper, DPIE - EES, Councils, Sydney Water program to implement best practice moving forward 3. Increased inundation due to sea level rise Flood, tidal and coastal inundation study, including damages and risk assessment of sea level rise. This should 2.3.1 consider hazards during storms, planning levels for DA’s and habitat loss/squeeze/migration. Potentially Very High $120,000 $200,000 Georges Riverkeeper, DPIE - EES combined with Cooks River, and/or the Georges River Flood Study Review 4. Pollution

Review of Georges Riverkeeper Rubbish Removal Program to determine rubbish hotspots and target priority 2.4.1 High $12,000 $30,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils areas for future actions

5. Shoreline erosion / recession Towra Point coastal geomorphology and erosion study including sediment budget analysis, high resolution 2.5.1 Very High $45,000 $75,000 NPWS, DPIE -EES LIDAR, and options assessment and design.

2.5.2 Kamay Botany Bay National Park shoreline dynamics and options assessment and design study Very High $45,000 $75,000 NPWS, DPIE -EES 2.5.3 Lady Robinson Beach Investigation and Design Study (currently underway) Very High $100,000 $150,000 Bayside Council, DPIE-EES 6. Sewage effluent and septic runoff 2.6.1 Catchment wide assessment of infrastructure condition and targeted improvements. High $50,000 $150,000 Sydney Water 7. Weeds and invasive species

2.7.1 Identify and map weeds and invasive species areas within the coastal management areas for CMP action High $50,000 $100,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, DPIE - EES, LLS

8. Overfishing Investigate the distribution and impact of extractive industries and recreational fishing and opportunities for 2.8.1 Medium $10,000 $25,000 DPI Fisheries sustainable management 9. Streambank stability/erosion High level riverbank audit to determine location and severity of instability, assets impacted, and priority areas 2.9.1 High $15,000 $45,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, Crown Lands, NPWS of action Cliffs audit to determine location and severity of instability, in particular around Kurnell cliffs, assets 2.9.2 Medium $15,000 $45,000 NPWS, DPIE -EES impacted, and priority areas of action 10. Foreshore asset management Consolidate council asset data and produce a catchment wide asset register with location, type, use, Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, DPIE - EES, Transport NSW MIDO & Roads 2.10.1 High $15,000 $45,000 ownership, conditions, and value and Maritime, NPWS, Crown Lands Create/update a register of Indigenous and European cultural heritage sites with input from Local Aboriginal 2.10.2 Land Councils to ensure that any sites that are at risk from coastal hazards are protected with an appropriate Medium $5,000 $25,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Aboriginal Land Councils, DPIE, NPWS management plan in the CMP 11. Governance

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study 113

Item Recommended studies / components Priority Cost (Low) Cost (High) Responsible

Review of council LEPs and DCPs to ensure best practice for protecting waterway health is accomplished. 2.11.1 High $30,000 $90,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, GSC Examine current governance arrangements to be optimised to ensure effective delivery of CMP actions. 2.11.2 Detailed mapping of ownership and management responsibility of riparian and foreshore areas High $25,000 $50,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, Crown Lands, NPWS Review of Council LEPs and DCPs with a focus on provisions relating to the catchment wide improvement and 2.11.3 Medium $7,500 $30,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, GSC management of the coastal zone. 12. Recreational activity 2.12.1 Identify and estimate the value of community use of recreational activities across the catchment Medium $25,000 $75,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, NPWS Stage 3: Identify and evaluate options

3.1 Full scale risk assessment $50,000 $150,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, State Agencies, community, and user groups Identify and evaluate potential management options. (Scope for fast tracking here due to continued effectiveness of CZMP management 3.2 $50,000 $250,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, State Agencies, community, and user groups actions) 3.3 Multi-criteria analysis of options $15,000 $30,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, State Agencies, community, and user groups 3.4 Cost-benefit analysis of options $25,000 $75,000 Georges Riverkeeper, Councils, State Agencies, community, and user groups

3.5 Prepare planning proposal $15,000 $45,000 Councils and Project Control Group Stage 3 Subtotal $155,000 $550,000 Stage 4: Prepare, exhibit, finalise, certify, and adopt the Coastal Management Program 4.1 Prepare CMP document $25,000 $75,000 4.2 Prepare Coastal Zone Emergency Action Subplan $15,000 $30,000 4.3 Business Plan for CMP implementation $10,000 $40,000 4.4 Community and Stakeholder engagement and input into Draft CMP $5,000 $20,000 Councils, DPIE - EES and Project Control Group 4.5 Public exhibition of CMP $2,500 $15,000 4.6 Planning Proposal exhibition and amendment $2,500 $15,000

4.7 Finalise CMP $5,000 $15,000 Stage 4 Subtotal $65,000 $210,000 CMP planning and development with very high priority Stage 2 studies only Total cost $580,000 $1,880,000

CMP planning and development with very high and high priority Stage 2 studies Total cost $1,022,000 $2,315,000

CMP planning and development with all Stage 2 studies included Total cost $1,104,500 $2,645,000

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 114

9.3 Consideration of fast tracking The Georges River catchment and Botany Bay have been the focus of many management strategies and actions for decades. The management issues identified in this Scoping Study have been considered from multiple angles and approached by numerous stakeholders to achieve ecological, economic, social, and cultural sustainability. In general, a fast track path allows Councils to move directly to Stage 4 whereas the CZMP contains all relevant information required to comply with the Act.

The Georges River CZMP provides a comprehensive synthesis of relevant information and contains a roadmap for management actions and priorities for public authorities to implement. Any opportunity for fast tracking the CMP process relies heavily on the information and action plans contained within the CZMP.

This Scoping Study has explored the multitude of studies, strategies and plans that apply to the Georges River catchment, estuary, and shoreline. The knowledge gaps section identifies opportunities to gather critical data to be used to facilitate targeted and informed evidence-based management. The new information from Stage 2 studies can be used to refine the CZMP and transition to a gazetted CMP.

There is an opportunity to use the information gathered in recommended studies to supplement the CZMP action plans and expedite the CMP development process. Many of the Best Management Options and Next Best Management Options have been implemented successfully. Many were put on hold until sufficient funding became available. Now, CZMP/CMP actions can be funded by the Coasts & Estuary Grant and other funding mechanisms discussed in section 8.4.

There are still elements unique to the CMP process and required under the CM Act such as mapping the Coastal Management Areas under the CM SEPP, and development of a Coastal Zone Emergency Action Subplan (please refer to the corresponding guideline published by DPIE, 2019). These action items are not possible to fast track, however there may be scope in fast tracking by bringing forward many of the actions recommended in the CZMP, after refining them with new information.

While an official ‘fast tracking’ pathway is not recommended at this stage, elements of fast tracking can be embedded in the CMP development process to maximise efficiencies from the CZMP and other relevant strategies.

9.4 Stakeholder review and endorsement An initial draft of this scoping study report was provided to members of the Steering Committee for review and comment. Comments and feedback were addressed and incorporated into the final Scoping Study where applicable, and feedback received will also inform relevant future stages of the CMP development. A general consensus was received regarding proceeding to Stage 2 of the CMP process, and this report will be used to guide discussions amongst member Councils about how to best proceed towards a CMP.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 115

10 References

ABS. (2016). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2016.

AdaptNSW. (2019). NSW Climate projections map for 2060-2079. Retrieved from https://climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/Climate-projections-for-NSW/Interactive-map

Advisian. (2017). Lady Robinson Beach coastal Investigations Draft Report.

Alluvium. (2017). 2016 Audit of the Sydney Drinking Water Catchment, Volume 2 - The Indicators.

Arnold, R., Rob, H., & Pietsch, T. (2014). A new Genus and Species of the Frogfish Family (Teleostei: Lophiiformes: Antennariodei) from New South Wales, Australia, with a Diagnosis and Key to the Genera of the Histiophryninae.

Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities. (2017). Building reslience in our States and Territories.

Bewsher. (2004). Georges River Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan.

BMT WBM. (2003). Botany Bay Integrated Conceptual Understanding of Environmental Patterns.

BMT WBM. (2013). Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan.

BMT WBM. (2018). Georges River Tidal Inundation Study.

BMT WBM. (2018). Greater Sydney Harbour Coastal Management Plan Scoping Study.

BOM. (2019). Climate data for Bankstown Airport. Retrieved from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

Carvalho, R. C., & Woodroffe, C. D. (2015). From catchment to inner shelf: Insiaghts into NSW coastal compartments. Wollongong: .

CH2M Hill Australia Pty Ltd. (November 2018). Holsworthy Barracks - PFAs Investigations. Department of Defence.

Clapper, J., & Caudill, S. B. (2014). Water quality and cottage prices in Ontario. Applied Economics.

Coastal Risk. (2017). Coastal Risk Australia 2100. Retrieved from http://coastalrisk.com.au/viewer

Collett, L. C., Hutchings, P. A., Gibbs, P. J., & Collins, A. J. (1984). A comparative study of the macro-benthic fauna of Posidonia australis seagrass meadows in New South Wales. Aquatic Biology.

CSIRO. (2018). State of the Climate Report. Retrieved from https://www.csiro.au/en/Showcase/state -of-the- climate

Daly, T. (2013, March). NSW Department of Primary Industries - Coastal saltmarsh primefact. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/459628/Coastal-Saltmarsh-Primefact.pdf

DPI. (2011). Water Sharing Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Region Groundwater Sources - Background Document. Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/168505/metro-groundwater- background.pdf

DPI. (2019). DPI Aquaculture Production Report 2017-2018. Port Stephens: Fisheries Institute.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 116

DPIE. (2016). 2016 NSW population and household projections. Retrieved from https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Research-and-Demography/Demography/Population-projections

DPIE. (2017). NSW Landuse 2013. Retrieved from https://datasets.seed.nsw.gov.au/dataset/nsw-landuse-2013

DPIE. (2019). Estuary Health Risk Analysis.

DPIE. (2020). Coastal and Estuary Funding Project Agency Response.

DPIE. (2020). Kamay Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management.

DPIE. (2020). NSW BioNet Atlas Search.

Georges Riverkeeper. (2018). Strategic Plan 2018-2022.

Goodall, H., & Cadzow, A. (2014). Aboriginal People on Sydney's Georges River from 1820. Retrieved from https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/aboriginal_people_on_sydneys_georges_river_from_1820

GRCCC. (2018). Georges River Report Card 2017-2018. Georges Riverkeeper.

GSC. (2016). A Metropolis of Three Cities - The Greater Sydney Region Plan.

GSC. (2018). South District Plan. Sydney, NSW. Retrieved from https://www.greater.sydney/south-district- plan/future-of-south-district/metropolitan-context-of-south-district

GSC. (2018). Western City District Plan. Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.greater.sydney/western-city- district-plan

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority. (2013). Greater Sydney Local Land Service Transition Catchment Action Plan.

Marine Estate Management Authority. (2019). Marine Estate Management Strategy Implementation Plan.

Mazumder, D., Saintilan, N., & Williams, R. (2006). Trophic relationship between itinerant fish and crab larvae in a temperate Australian saltmarsh. Marine Freshwater Research, 57,, 1–7.

MEMA. (2015). Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Threat and Risk Assessment.

Naylor, S. D., Chapman, G. A., Murphy, C. L., Talau, M. J., Flewin, T. C., Milford, H. B., & Morand, D. T. (1998). Guidelines for the use of acid sulfate soil Risk Maps. Department of Land and Water Conservation.

NCCARF. (2016). Datasets Guidance 1: Shoreline Explorer. Present-day coastal sensitivity to flooding and erosion. Gold Coast: CoastAdapt.

NCCARF. (2017). Sea level rise information all australian coastal councils. Retrieved from https://coastadapt.com.au/sea-level-rise-information-all-australian-coastal- councils#NSW_SUTHERLAND

NIEIR. (2019). Economic profiles.

NIEIR. (2020). Value of tourism and hospitality.

NSW Department of Premier & Cabinet. (2019). Machinery of Government. Retrieved from https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/tools-and-resources/machinery-of-government/

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. (2001). Towra Point Nature Reserve Plan of Management.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 117

NSW State Government. (2011). NSW 2021 - A Plan to Make NSW Number One.

OEH. (2017). Coastal Erosion in NSW Statewide Exposure Assessment.

OEH. (2018). NSW Coastal Management Manual Part A.

OEH. (2018). NSW Coastal Management Manual Part B.

OEH. (2018). NSW Estuary Tidal Inundation Exposure Assessment. Sydney: State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritge.

OEH. (2018). Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions - profile.

Reid, D. (2019). A review of intensified land use effects on the ecosystems of Botany Bay and its rivers, Georges River and Cooks River, in southern Sydney, Australia. Georges Riverkeeper.

Reid, D. J. (2019). A review of the 'natural' ecological features of waterways in the Botany Bay catchment, in southern Sydney, Australia. Georges Riverkeeper.

Roy, P. S., Williams, R. J., Jones, A. R., Yassini, I., Gibbs, P. J., Coates, B., . . . Nichol, S. L. (2001). Structure and Function of South-east Australian Estuaries. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science.

SMCMA. (2011). Botany Bay & Catchment Water Quality Improvement Plan.

SMEC. (2003). Towra Beach Nourishment Environmental Impact Assessment.

SMEC. (2010). Georges River Data Compilation and Estuary Processes Study.

Sydney Coastal Councils Group. (2012). Mapping and Responding to Coastal Inundation: Modelling and Mapping of Coastal Inundation Under Future Sea Level Rise.

Sydney Ports Corporation. (1996). Lady Robinsons Beach, Botany Bay Beach Management Options.

Thomy, B. (2017). Estimating the amenity value of urban stream improvements for local residents: A hedonic approach investigation. Bathurst: .

Tippler, C., & Wright, I. A. (2012). Is Catchment Imperviousness a Keystone Factor Degrading Urban Waterways? A Case Study from a Partly Urbanised Catchment (Georges River, South- Eastern Australia). Water Air and Soil Pollution.

Transport NSW. (2014). Regional Boating Strategy for Botany Bay, Georges River and Port Hacking Region.

UMWELT. (2017). Towra Point Nature Reserve RAMSAR site - Formal Assessment.

UMWELT. (2019). Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site Article 3.2 Response Strategy.

UNSW. (2016). An investigation into the impact of the urban heat island on the energy consumption and environmental quality of buidlings in Syndey and Shanghai. UNSW Built Environment.

UNSW. (2019). NSW & ACT Regional Climate Modelling project. Retrieved from http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/NARCliM/index.html

URS Australia. (2003). Port Botany Expansion Environmental Impact Statement. Chapters 15 and 16.

Worley Parsons. (2009). Short term solutions to beach erosion and recession at Lady Robinsons Beach and Sandringham Beach.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 118

Wright, I. (2011). Coal mine ‘dewatering’ of saline wastewater into NSW streams and rivers: a growing headache for water pollution regulators. Retrieved from https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/- /media/epa/corporate- site/resources/endeavourcoal/driwrightappendix2.pdf?la=en&hash=8289E2C2E207200111B1FC4349 EF40AABC1FD9FB

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 119

Appendix A – Stakeholder and Community Engagement Strategy

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 120

Appendix B – Stakeholder study tour and workshop

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 153

This Appendix provides and overview of the study tour and workshop conducted by Alluvium and Georges Riverkeeper on 20 November 2019. Each activity during the tour and workshop was designed to inform key elements of the Georges River CMP Stage 1 Scoping Study.

Objectives of the stakeholder workshop Georges Riverkeeper along with Alluvium Consulting facilitated a workshop with representatives from member Councils, State Government, and the community. The stated objectives of the workshop were to:

• Develop a shared understanding of the new coastal management framework, the CMP process, and the roles and responsibilities of government staff

• Create a shared understanding of the opportunities in the CMP process – doing things better

• Build trust with each other and the project team, develop strong working relationships

• Determine values, threats, and risks under future scenarios

• Determine a scope, purpose, vision, and objectives of the CMP.

Agenda Study tour

Time Site Purpose

8:00 am Meeting at Georges • Introduction – Riverkeeper, Alluvium team River Sailing Club, • Slide-O – rolling questions/comments Sandringham NSW. • Distribute agenda and Coastal Management Framework info sheet • Alluvium member (TBD) speaks about new coastal management framework 9:15 am Simmos Beach This purpose of this stop is to highlight the inclusion of the catchment into the CMP scope. Speakers can describe the extent of the catchment, Aboriginal history, previous catchment management arrangements, and how the CMP fills any of those gaps.

10:00 am Liverpool Weir The purpose of this stop is to highlight the high level of urbanisation in the catchment. The site is nestled between an industrial park, the Liverpool train station, and is a significant European heritage item that exemplifies the modification of the catchment and estuary.

11:00 am Revesby Beach, The purpose of this site is to talk about the environmental, Georges River cultural and recreational values of the estuary. It is important to National Park (stay highlight how strong ecological condition improves the social and on bus) economic value of the area.

11:30 am Carrs Park The purpose of this site is to highlight a success story. The Carss Park eco-friendly seawall is an example of a successful project that achieve the objectives of the Coastal Management Act, Marine

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 154

Estate Management Act, and other strategies that aim to improve resilience, amenity, and environment.

12:15 pm Georges River Sailing The purpose of this site is to highlight the erosion challenges in Club Botany Bay, and the importance of Towra Point Ramsar Wetland. The sand relocation works occurring at Dolls Point, the series of groynes along Lady Robinson’s Beach and Silver Beach and the regular dredging of the Bay for navigation purposes should all be highlighted.

Workshop

Time Activity Notes

1:30 pm Welcome and Explain the purpose of the workshop and what success will look purpose like.

1:35 pm CMP process and 15 mins ppt + 5 mins Q&A project overview

1:55 pm Valuing the future Each table given a different catchment zone: • Upper • Mid • Lower. Provide each table with a copy of a catchment map with rough zones marked for each group.

1. 5 mins - Table-based brainstorm – for your catchment zone - what is unique to the Georges River.

2. 5 mins Review the list of values statements provided and add / amend your list of draft values

3. Prioritise and re-organise your values

a. what social values? b. What environmental values? c. What economic values?

(Max 9 values - 3 x social; 3x environmental; 3x economic) 2:25 pm High level risk Staying at the same table and catchment zone: assessment 1. Rewrite your highest value onto the A3 template.

2. For each of threats and using the risk assessment table and

a. assuming BAU (i.e. including existing commitment) b. your collective understanding of the threats c. using the three coloured sticky notes

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 155

3. Undertake a high level risk assessment for each of the threats provided for each of the three value groups

You can add in 1-2 additional threats if required for your specific zone and / or catchment zone.

Notes or comments can be added to the template (with on the sticky note or ‘comments’ column’. Each group invited to provide a quick reflection / report back of their assessment to the group. Comments from other participants if time.

3:15 pm What will success For your values area – i.e. Social - Environmental – Economic. look like? AND Thinking about the values and risk assessment results, what would success look like in 2040? i.e. if the values are being protected and if the risks have been mitigated.

Helps to confirm where we need to put our effort and investment.

Each table given a collection of related strategic outcome / objective statements from relevant documents (e.g. CMPS, WMPS, Community plans, LG strategic plans etc.) to assist.

Each table invited to come up with a series of statements that capture the outcomes

Outputs recorded on flip chart paper. Each group invited to share the outcomes with the whole group.

Statements grouped into common themes (pending time availability)

What are specific to the location and which are common to the entire catchment / coastal zone?

3:50 pm Next steps & Mapping where do we go from here and answering any questions. activities, closing remarks Feedback from stakeholders on workshop

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 156

Attendees

Full Name Organisation Michael Rosenthal Alluvium Consulting Fiona Chandler Alluvium Consulting Phebe Bicknell Alluvium Consulting Marcello Sano Alluvium Consulting Colin Mable Bayside Council Judith Betts Bayside Council Enis Ruzdic Bayside Council Mathew Misdale Campbelltown City Council Mitchell Clark Campbelltown Council Asad Suman Canterbury Bankstown Council Naomi Englebrecht Community Representative Thomas Sinclair Cooks River Alliance Debbi Millener DPIE Davena Bond DPIE Sadeq Zaman DPIE Scott Reyes Fairfield City Council Nona Ruddell Fairfield City Council Scott Reyes Fairfield Council Sharyn Cullis Georges River Environmental Alliance Beth Salt Georges Riverkeeper Robert Dixon Georges Riverkeeper David Reid Georges Riverkeeper Kirsten Spry Georges Riverkeeper Sai Natarajan Liverpool City Council Nerida Gill Local Land Services Sophia Meehan National Parks and Wildlife Services Josi Hollywood DPI Fisheries Andy Robertson NSW Transport Lun Yeung RMS Maritime Nathan Varley Sutherland Shire Council Erin Sellers Sutherland Shire Council Nathan Harrison Sydney Water

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 157

Study tour The Georges River Study tour was designed to explore the various regions of the catchment and allow for stakeholders to discuss management arrangements and challenges while getting firsthand experience on site. The study tour started at the top of the catchment at Simmos Beach, included stops at Liverpool Weir, Georges River National Park, and Carrs Park, and finished at the Georges River Sailing Club. An additional benefit to starting the day with a study tour was to inspire discussions and knowledge sharing to ensure an effective workshop process.

Workshop Part I: Valuing the future – What are the values we need to protect? This part of the workshop was designed to allow stakeholders to express what they value about the Georges River catchment estuary and coastal zone. The outcomes from this part formed an integral element of section 6.4, where the succinct list of values for the Coastal Management Program is provided.

The first exercise in this part was to have participants identify what they value about the Georges River using a Slido poll. A word cloud was produced which gives an idea of the responses provided (Figure 30).

Figure 30. Georges River values identification with a Slido poll word cloud

Following the poll, the group was divided into tables and assigned a region of the catchment: upper, middle, or lower. Each group was then prompted to list social, environmental, and economic values for their assigned region. The outputs from this exercise are provided on the following page.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 158

Values

Social Lower catchment Middle catchment Upper catchment Cooling of urban heat effect Recreation – Educated community • swimming, Recreation – Recreation • boating, • estuary fishing • walking • Georges River Rec • sailing • fishing Trail – Wollondilly to • kayaking • cycling Liverpool • jet skiing • walking • Fishing • boating • parks • Swimming • beaches • secondary & tertiary • amenity contact Cultural connection (European • foreshore Aboriginal Culture and indigenous) Access and connectivity to Sense of place, wellbeing parks and river Drinking water Open spaces Visual amenity Access to natural areas Public Access, connection Cultural Diversity Education • Swimming holes • Waterfalls Mobility access Quiet retreat Mental/physical health benefits Health and well being

Indigenous cultural values Rural lifestyle

Environment Lower catchment Middle catchment Upper catchment

Natural Values Natural settings Intact healthy catchment

• Towra Point Open spaces Good water quality • Migratory birds Lots of different habitats & Riparian/terrestrial veg Ecological Values fauna Biodiversity (iconic/vulnerable) • Estuarine habitats Connectivity of corridor – green/blue grid Koala habitat Heritage Ecosystem services Freshwater habitat/ecology National Parks Water quality Pristine air quality (lungs of Biodiversity (marine and Sydney) terrestrial) Narrow streams Beaches

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 159

Economic Lower catchment Middle catchment Upper catchment Property value along river Access to foreshore areas Mining and other industries Tourism Flood resilience Visitors to national parks Marina Local Jobs and infrastructure Tourism Recreational fishing businesses Education, health, innovation • Local precinct • Enviro Local business • recreation Economic growth Natural resource terminal rural industries Connectivity to Sydney and rural Information, education, and health infrastructure growth Proximity to Western

Workshop Part II: High level risk assessment – how significant are the risks to protecting the identified values? The second part of the workshop was designed to allow stakeholders to brainstorm about threats to the identified values and perform a high level risk assessment that considered present day, 2050 and 2100. This exercise allowed for stakeholders to use their local knowledge of the values and management issues and discuss with others to agree on how a risk assessment for each value would look. Once again, partic ipants were divided into groups and assigned a region of the study area. This allowed for all areas to be considered equally.

For the purposes of the workshop, we adopted the risk scale from MEMA and used it to guide the participants. A photo of one of the worksheets is provided in Figure 28. Digitised versions of all the worksheets are provided on the following pages.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 160

Risk assessment framework and raw results

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 161

Lower Catchment Lower Catchment Value Recreation/Tourism Value Recreation (Beach)

Threat/Issue 2020 2050 2100 Comments 2020 Threat/Issue (present 2050 2100 comments High (due to day) growing High (Increased Water Quality/ Moderate infrastructure dredging and pollution and urban climate impacts) Catchment growth) Runoff/water Moderate High High BAU Towra Point quality (diffuse) Beach Erosion landscape/ habitat High High High Loss of seagrass modification Large scale, more boating Climate Change Low Moderate High potentially infrastructure catastrophic

Beach loss Point source climate change Low Low Moderate Easily managed Low Moderate High Habitat impact contamination (SLR) coastal inundation Pros and Cons, Cost Dredging Low Low Low High benefit analysis (Increased High (Increased Dredging Moderate dredging and dredging and Impact on erosion climate climate impacts) Link to climate impacts) Loss of public Minimal Low Low change, frequency access Urban Growth Low Moderate High duration of storms Low (except Governance areas compliance / Possible to be restricted by Moderate Moderate pollution/ rubbish High High High maintain public managed private access wharfs)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 162

Lower Catchment Lower Catchment Value Liveability/Property Value Ecological

2020 2020 Threat/Issue (present 2050 2100 comments Threat/Issue (present 2050 2100 comments day) day)

Compared to Water Quality/ Climate Change Low Moderate High Catastrophic High High High unknown baseline Pollution pre-European

Flooding Increasing Low Moderate High Altered Hydrology Moderate Moderate Moderate (Catchment) stormwater flow

Pollution Based on Modelled Low Moderate Moderate Litter, Solid, BAU? Climate Change Low High High (Rubbish) change

Air Quality Minimal Low Low BAU? Urban Growth Moderate High High BAU will be terrible

Increasing Population compared to pre- Low Moderate High population, traffic Habitat Loss High High High Growth euro congestion

Commercial Affordability Moderate Moderate High Market Dependant Moderate Moderate Moderate Port & Airport Activities

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 163

Lower Catchment Middle Catchment Value National Parks – Towra Point Value Diversity of Recreational Activities

2020 2020 Threat/Issue (present 2050 2100 comments Threat/Issue (present 2050 2100 comments day) day)

Climate Change Minimal Low High Lack of Access Moderate Moderate High (SLR)

Catchment Runoff High High High Hard to change Overcrowding Low Moderate High

Lack of protection Pollution (Rubbish) Moderate Moderate Moderate Easy to change of natural/open Low Moderate High space

Fishers impacting Moderate Lack of Compliance Moderate Moderate Moderate habitat Social disharmony Low (jet skis, Moderate competing use)

Airport, etc. Large Low Moderate High Dynamics can be Environmental Developments Low Moderate Moderate managed degradation

Invasive Species Moderate Moderate Moderate e.g. foxes

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 164

Middle Catchment Middle Catchment Value Cooling & Urban heat effect Value Water Quality 2020 (present 2020 (present Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments day) day)

High (temps as per current Increased Moderate Variability in Climate Change Moderate High will rise) projection Urbanisation - (Drought High High weather for water stormwater Conditions) quality

Continuing at ASS, Industry, Urban Growth, Point Source Moderate High High current rate of Low (but with Chipping Norton, increased density Pollution (PFAS, Moderate Moderate development legacy issues) Moorebank etc) intermodal Low Moderate (Intermodal Diffuse Pollution & Deforestation Moderate High Easy to change High (behaviour Moderate site, State plastics shift) significant) Low (recycled water Loss of Public Fishers impacting Minimal Moderate High Sewer overflow Moderate increasing and Low access habitat better technology) Climate Change Low Moderate High (SLR)

Moderate (with more Flooding Moderate High (with SLR) intense rainfall) Encroachment of Vegetation Moderate High High stormwater Clearing (Stormwater) infrastructure

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 165 Middle Catchment Upper Catchment Value Connectivity of green/blue grid Value Parks Visitation Threat/Issue 2020 (present day) 2050 2100 comments 2020 (present Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments Dealing with day) Climate Change Moderate (if Minimal Low unknown (SLR) managed) impacts Loss of public Low Low Low High (especially interactions, access Moderate (state gov if a policy is ownerships talking to other state development – politician views, Governance High gov how does green legal agencies/councils grid incorporate complications if Deforestation naturally Low Low Low into CMP do not do it occurring Managed mainly by Council – Weeds/ lack of Riparian Low (especially for nothing to vegetation Low Moderate Moderate Vegetation Moderate Moderate mid-catchment increase amount management Management of vege, only to maintain status Climate Change Low Low Moderate

Deforestation Low Moderate Moderate as above Rubbish Low Low Low

Urban Growth Moderate High High Governance Moderate Moderate High DA conditions, who enforce Lack of High indiv. sites, Moderate High Compliance (intensification) cumulative impact, esp. med, large sites

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 166

Upper Catchment Upper Catchment Value Recreational Opportunities Value Unique Recreation Experiences 2020 (present 2020 (present Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments day) day)

Habitat/ Moderate (more Urban growth competition for Minimal Low (more use) Low Moderate High Landscape loss use again) increased density access and space

Minimal (dumping, Moderate Pollution Low (increase) Pollution Rubbish Moderate Moderate Low personal (increase rubbish) unregulated bike Lack of Minimal Low Moderate use, opera house Catchment runoff compliance Moderate Moderate High traps water quality bikes v Rec activities Minimal Low Moderate bushwalkers, Point source Moderate Moderate Low horses contamination Moderate (lack Minimal (away Minimal (facility Councils will of resourcing/ Urban growth from riparian management, Loss of public maintain or forward access) funding increase) Low Low Low planning) access upgrade infrastructure Minimal (low Low (managed Loss of public Conflicts private spaces access limiting Low Low Moderate High access between users only) impacts)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 167

Upper Catchment Upper Catchment Value Freshwater Biodiversity Value Water Quality/ Intact Catchment 2020 (present 2020 (present Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments Threat/Issue 2050 2100 comments day) day)

Moderate Moderate need to High (Urban) (urban) (Urban) distinguish High (Planning Altered between Catchment inadequate, Moderate High Hydrology vegetated and Runoff compliance with urbanised parts WQDs) Low (veg) Low (veg) Low (veg) of catchment

Moderate Moderate High (Lack of GW Catchment High (Urban) (urban) (Urban) Altered infiltration, end runoff, water same as above Moderate High (climate) Hydrology of pipe solution quality Low (veg) Low (veg) Low (veg) for stormwater) Moderate Point source Moderate Moderate Moderate Low (urban) (worse contamination (urban) (urban) (highest Pollution Low resourcing, Habitat/ response Moderate Moderate constraints for landscape High (urban) category) (urban) (urban) compliance) modifications High (Offsetting/ High (will Loss of bio/ retention of increase with High Climate Change Low Moderate High deforestation habitat population) connectivity High (water Moderate High (increased Industry supply to Upper (assume footprint) Georges) innovation High (land use Urban Growth High (continued) High intensification)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 168

Workshop Part III: Strategic outcomes and future success – What will success look like? The third part of the workshop was designed to allow stakeholders to reflect on what a successful implementation of a CMP will look like. This provides guidance as to what management activities and programs need to be implemented and outlines a standard of success against which implementation can be measured. We asked the stakeholders to provide examples of achievable outcomes by 2025 and their answers are provided on the following page.

The final activity for the workshop was a question and answer session using Slido which allows for participants to vote for questions they like. The questions asked by participants are listed in the following pages. A brief feedback poll was also completed with the results provided below.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 169

Achievable Outcomes for 2025

Lower Catchment Middle Catchment Upper Catchment No loss of habitat Policy and legislation to increase biodiversity, habitat & Master Planning for Georges River Recreation Spaces connectivity Improved knowledge of cultural & heritage value Protect, restore & reconstruct riparian habitat All parties working together for common goals of CMP connectivity Effective long-term strategy for lady Robinson beach & funding Management actions for the community based on Minto wetlands values, for the catchment Improve water quality Bunburry Curran catchment It works and is easy for councils to implement Ensure commercial activities are sustainable Fish passage Maintain and increase access to foreshore areas. Whilst Maintaining/improving beaches and amenities Improve water quality with naturalisation and novel protecting existing ecological values ecological solutions that integrate WQ & stormwater Master plans & creative design to improve/integrate Healthy and wide riparian zones management ecofriendly infrastructure Water Sensitive Urban Design, mapping pollution Standardisation for WQD (to minimise maintenance Better utilisation of available open spaces hotspots, most change from stormwater confusion) Restoring and protecting indigenous spaces Plastic/gross pollution control Method No decline in species richness & diversity Activating foreshore for multiple benefits Approach Water quality sufficient to support biodiversity Community Education/ Awareness of issues and Timing Sustainable development, efficient distribution of opportunities Improve GPT traps – design and maintenance cheaper population and faster Thriving and economically viable Council has a good understanding of all stormwater Proper tourism sustainability assets (identified, performance, condition) Council catchment and waterways strategy leading to improved water quality Improved public access to foreshore providing recreational facilities Improved community awareness of river system, cultural heritage, and environmental factors

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 170

Q&A

• How does the new Act drive differences that will be represented in the transition from the CZMP to the CMP? (4 likes)

• What is the level of awareness / literacy of the local community knowing that they are part of the George’s River catchment and Botany Bay? (3 likes)

• What is new in the Coastal Management Act 2016? (2 likes)

• How much will the CZMP be used to inform the CMP? (2 likes)

• Will the steering committee be involved in all 5 stages? (1 like)

• Is there more of a catchment focus within the Act? (1 like)

• What engagement with these stakeholders follows today's workshop? (1 like)

Feedback What do you think is the most valuable aspect of the study tour and workshop?

• Having all the councils/ stakeholders in the one room discussing issues, values, and risks. It was good to see that there was an active consensus on a range of problems and that a catchment wide approach would be beneficial

• Networking to establish links based on actual current works and future planning

• Sharing of knowledge, idea's and how we can positively change things for the better

• Connection to the river through the tour that led into the conversation in the afternoon

• Networking, seeing sites I have not seen before

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 171

• Exploring the values and threats

• Connection and experience sharing

• Improvement of biodiversity at beach Values can be achieved by next 5 yrs

• Greater understanding of the process and stakeholders’ values

• To explore the values that are considered significant for all stakeholders. Meet other stakeholders of Georges River

• The networking and collaboration opportunities.

• Study tour of diversity of catchment and meeting people working in the catchment and on CMP collaboration

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 172

Appendix C – Overview of CZMP implementation to date

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 173

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Bayside Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Bayside Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

How does Bayside Council use the current CZMP? Bayside Council uses this documentation to apply for funding from OEH. Council has been successful in a number of funding applications. Bayside Council refers to this document when undertaking relevant planning decisions.

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water MA2: High Water Sensitive Urban Design WSUD principles incorporated WSUD principles incorporated WSUD principles incorporated Council’s currently preparing new Quality Update or prepare new WSUD (WSUD) principles incorporated into Rockdale Council’s into Rockdale and Botany into Rockdale and Botany Local Environmental Plan and controls within DCPs Strategic Planning & into Rockdale Council’s Development Control Plan 2011 Council’s Development Control Council’s Development Control Development Control Plan which Development Controls Development Control Plan 2011 Water Management Objectives. Plan 2011 Water Management Plan 2011 Water Management will include a review of WSUD Water Management Objectives Objectives. Objectives. principles.

Water MA3: High Completed comprehensive water Expanded number of floating Undertaken an assessment of Undertake detailed design for Quality Retrofit new WSUD devices in quality study to identify key hot reed beds in Bicentennial Ponds WSUD opportunities in Bardwell WSUS within Coolibah Reserve existing urban areas Engineering Works & Asset spots for future works. Installed to help remove excess pollutants. Creek (Cooks River catchment) () Management floating reed beds into Bicentennial Ponds to help remove excess pollutants.

Water MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High WSUD devices regularly Refer 2015 comment. WSUD devices regularly WSUD devices regularly WSUD devices regularly Quality devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc monitored and maintained as monitored and maintained as monitored and maintained as monitored and maintained as Engineering Works & Asset required. required. required. required. Management

Water MA6: Sediment/erosion control High Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Quality during & after construction conditions of Development conditions of Development conditions of Development conditions of Development conditions of Development Compliance consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections of major construction sites as of major construction sites as of major construction sites as of major construction sites as of major construction sites as part of building certification part of building certification part of building certification part of building certification part of building certification system and compliance. system and compliance. system and compliance. system and compliance. system and compliance.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 174

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper program Continue to support the GRCCC Quality clean-up & illegal dumping Enviro Rehabilitation & continues on groundwork and continues on groundwork and continues on groundwork and continues on groundwork and Riverkeeper Program. Monitoring collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish spent 16,762 hours collecting spent 19,908 hours collecting rubbish across the catchment in across the catchment in 2014/15 108.5 tonnes of rubbish across 132.4 tonnes of rubbish across 2013/14. through the partnership with the catchment in 2015/16. the catchment in 2016/17. Corrective Services NSW and additional resources with three Green Army teams working across the catchment.

Water MA10: High WSUD action plan already WSUD action plan already Review of former Rockdale and Internal Water Management Completion of Bayside Water Quality Develop & adopt WSUD action adopted. adopted. Botany Council’s documentation Strategy Group developed Management Strategy plans Environmental Planning for water management actions Consultants engaged to develop a Bayside Water Management Strategy

Water MA15: High Discussions held with Sydney No further action from 2017 No further action from 2017 Participate in any Sydney Water, Quality SWC liaison regarding sewer Water about concerns with dry GRCCC, CRA and SCCG actions problems Environmental Planning weather overflows and Council that address this issue consultation when incidents occur or are suspected to have occurred

Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine High Environmental restoration works Environmental restoration works Ongoing environmental Ongoing environmental Continuation of environmental Riparian wetlands & riparian vegetation ongoing at Bicentennial and ongoing at Bicentennial and restoration works as part of a restoration works as part of a restoration works as part of Habitat Enviro Rehabilitation & Scarborough Ponds and Scarborough Ponds and OEH Coastal and Estuary OEH Coastal and Estuary Council’s Natural Areas Monitoring Hawthorne St Natural Area. Hawthorne St Natural Area. Remediation Program and Remediation Program, Crown Restoration Plan at Scarborough Dunal restoration works Dunal restoration works planned Council’s Natural Areas Land Grants and Council’s Natural Ponds, Hawthorne St Natural occurring along Lady Robinson’s for Lady Robinson’s Beach. Restoration Plan at Scarborough Areas Restoration Plan at Area/Tonbridge Creek, Bado Beach. Mangrove removal at Foredune restoration works Ponds, Hawthorne St Natural Scarborough Ponds, Hawthorne Berong Creek/Scott Park, Scott Park to protect saltmarsh protecting riparian vegetation Area/Tonbridge Creek and Bado St Natural Area/Tonbridge Creek Waradiel Creek Bicentennial completed. and involving revegetation Berong Creek/Scott Park. Works and Bado Berong Creek/Scott Ponds and King St wetlands. recently completed as part of included three Aquatic Weed Park. Works included three Proposed works will include three Riverside Drive, Sandringham and treatments (Ludwigia and Aquatic Weed treatments Aquatic Weed treatments Fraters Avenue Sans Souci Alligator weed), bush (Ludwigia and Alligator weed), (Ludwigia and Alligator weed), through funding from the GRCCC regeneration/terrestrial weed bush regeneration/terrestrial bush regeneration/terrestrial Biodiversity protection grant. control and revegetation with weed control and revegetation weed control and revegetation native species is riparian/wetland with native species is with native species is areas (approximately 5000 riparian/wetland areas riparian/wetland areas tubestock) to reduce erosion and (approximately 4000 tubestock) (approximately 5000 tubestock) increase species diversity. to reduce erosion and increase to reduce erosion and increase Additional Aquatic Weed Control species diversity. Additional species diversity. (Ludwigia and Alligator weed), Aquatic Weed Control (Ludwigia bush regeneration/terrestrial and Alligator weed), bush weed control and revegetation regeneration/terrestrial weed with native species completed control and revegetation with (approximately 1500 tubestock) native species completed at Bicentennial Ponds, Waradiel (approximately 750 tubestock) at Creek and King St wetlands. Bicentennial Ponds, Waradiel Creek and King St wetlands. MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Council managed volunteer Council managed volunteer Council managed volunteer Council managed volunteer bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer Bushcare program ongoing. Bushcare program ongoing. Bushcare program ongoing. Bushcare program ongoing. Enviro Rehabilitation & Bushcare groups using best Monitoring practice bush regeneration. Bushcare Volunteer Hours 218 Bushcare Volunteer Hours 379 Bushcare Volunteer Hours 1062 Environmental Events hours 190 Environmental Events hours 431 Environmental Events hours 1021 Council managed volunteer Bushcare program ongoing.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 175

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB8: Riverkeeper teams for bush HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants GRCCC partners and grants GRCCC partners and grants No stats available for Riverkeeper GRCCC partners and grants Riparian regeneration & weed control programs including Corrective programs including Corrective programs including Corrective bush regen activities for 2018 programs including Corrective Habitat Enviro Rehabilitation & Services Teams, Aboriginal Services Teams, Aboriginal Services Teams, Aboriginal Services Teams, Aboriginal Monitoring Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army Teams are currently undertaking Teams worked across the Teams worked across the Teams will continue to undertake significant bush regeneration and catchment and spent a total of catchment and spent a total of bush regeneration and weed weed control work across the 25,540 hours in bush 18,644 hours in bush control work across the catchment, supporting Councils. regeneration activities treating regeneration activities treating catchment. 3,442 m2 of weeds, revegetating 2,568 m2 of weeds, revegetating 15,075 m2 of bushland and 14,540 m2 of bushland and completing 4,615 m2 of completing 2,500 m2 of mulching, 140 metres of track mulching, 140 metres of track work and 235 metres of bank work and 235 metres of bank stabilisation works. stabilisation works.

Aquatic and MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM Private landholder education Private landholder education Private landholder education Private landholder education Continue community Riparian Private landholder education re: undertaken through Council’s undertaken through Council’s undertaken through Council’s undertaken through Council’s engagement/education programs Habitat habitat & vegetation Communications & Education volunteer Bushcare program and volunteer Bushcare program and volunteer Bushcare program and volunteer Bushcare program and 'Learn, Grow, Build, Share' series 'Learn, Grow, Build, Share' series Wild Things series of 'Wild Things series of of environmental workshops and of environmental workshops and environmental workshops and environmental workshops and events (in collaboration with events that is ongoing in addition events that is ongoing in addition events that is ongoing in addition Rockdale and Canterbury to other community events. to other community events. to other community events. Councils)

Recreation MC3: Interpretive education LOW Provides information on website Ongoing provision of information Ongoing provision of information Ongoing provision of information Ongoing provision of information and materials on on reducing impact on natural on website on reducing impact on website on reducing impact on website on reducing impact on website on reducing impact Amenity Recreation and conservation Communications & Education areas and through 'Learn, Grow, on natural areas and through on natural areas and through on natural areas and through on natural areas and through Build, Share' workshops and 'Learn, Grow, Build, Share' WildThings workshops and WildThings workshops and community workshops and undertake tours of natural areas workshops and undertake tours undertake tours of natural areas undertake tours of natural areas undertake tours of natural areas which educates community on of natural areas which educates which educates community on which educates community on which educates community on ways to reduce impact on natural community on ways to reduce ways to reduce impact on natural ways to reduce impact on natural ways to reduce impact on natural environment impact on natural environment. environment. environment. environment.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 176

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC/BCC & KCC provided The GRCCC is advocating on As per 2016 response As per 2016 response As per 2016 response strategy revision input into the draft Boating behalf of members and Environmental Planning Strategy and review. community representatives to ensure safety on the River. The GRCCC supported RMS summer safety campaigns by being involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant materials. Further to this, given the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages. The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this.

Land Use MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Council undertakes Council undertakes Council undertakes Council undertakes Council undertakes Planning Practices for Council works environmental assessments as environmental assessments as environmental assessments as environmental assessments as environmental assessments as and Strategic Planning & required under EP&A Act for required under EP&A Act for required under EP&A Act for required under EP&A Act for required under EP&A Act for Developme Development Controls Council works, business as usual. Council works, business as usual. Council works Council works Council works nt

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning EPI update and amendments are EPI update and amendments are EPI update and amendments are Continue development of Bayside aims and objectives in future EPI instruments such as Council LEPs consistent with the key objectives consistent with the key objectives consistent with the key objectives Local Environmental Plan and reviews Strategic Planning & and strategies should be of GRCZMP. Council’s currently of GRCZMP. of GRCZMP. Council’s currently Development Control Plan which Development Controls consistent with the CZMP, as part reviewing Environmentally Council’s currently reviewing completed review of will include addressing key of future updates. Sensitive Land Mapping within Environmentally Sensitive Land environmentally sensitive objectives of CZMP Council’s LEP to ensure it meets Mapping within Council’s LEPs to mapping within Council’s LEPs to EPI update and amendments are primary objectives of biodiversity ensure it meets primary ensure it meets primary consistent with the key objectives and water quality protection. objectives of biodiversity and objectives of biodiversity and of GRCZMP. Council’s currently water quality protection. water quality protection. reviewing Environmentally Commenced development of Sensitive Land Mapping within Bayside Local Environmental Plan Council’s LEP to ensure it meets and Development Control Plan primary objectives of biodiversity which will include addressing key and water quality protection. objectives of CZMP

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 177

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MD5: New & revised PoMs to be MEDIUM Council currently updating Council currently updating Rockdale Comprehensive POM As per changes in legislation Continue update of POMs compatible with CZMP Comprehensive Plan of Comprehensive Plan of update complete commence review of POMs Strategic Planning & Management. This update is Management. This update is which will include addressing key Development Controls consistent with the key objectives consistent with the key objectives objectives of CZMP of the GR CZMP. of the GR CZMP.

Bank ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS boating The GRCCC supports RMS boating As per 2016 response As per 2016 response As per 2016 response Erosion and strategies speed controls to prevent speed controls to prevent and Environmental Planning foreshore erosion. Also at its foreshore erosion. Also at its Sedimentati committee meeting on 26 June committee meeting on 26 June on 2014, the GRCCC agreed to 2014, the GRCCC agreed to support the partnership request support the partnership request on the Personal Watercraft (jet on the Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Safety campaign. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on The GRCCC focus is on environmental protection and environmental protection and erosion issues related to jet skis erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an environmental wake is an environmental concern and this message would concern and this message would be included in any future media be included in any future media releases. releases.

M ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper program Access pathways are being Ongoing dunal restoration works Ongoing dunal restoration works Continuation of environmental foreshore access assists Councils with the periodic formalized and appropriate along Lady Robinson’s Beach at along Lady Robinson’s Beach at restoration works as part of Engineering Works & Asset review of the foreshore from the access removed as part of Brighton Le Sands, and Brighton Le Sands, Kyeemagh and Council’s Natural Areas Management River to identify and target any ongoing dunal restoration works Riverside Drive (Sandringham) Riverside Drive (Sandringham) Restoration Plan at Lady inappropriate activities including along Lady Robinson’s Beach. including maintenance of dune including maintenance of dune Robinson’s Beach at Brighton Le access. This includes fencing restricting fencing, construction of barriers fencing, construction of barriers Sands, Kyeemagh and Riverside access as part of the foredune (piled weed vegetation) and infill (piled weed vegetation) and infill Drive (Sandringham) with focus Access pathways are formalized restoration works completed at planting with native species to planting with native species to on maintenance of formalized and inappropriate access Riverside Drive, limit illegal access. limit illegal access. access track/fencing and removed as part of ongoing dunal Sandringham (300m fencing) and additional restoration works along Lady Fraters Avenue Sans Souci (250m Cook Park Kyeemagh Dune implementation/installation of Robinson’s Beach. fencing) through funding from Restoration Project completed native dunal plant species to limit the GRCCC Biodiversity Fund September 2018: access. Grant. • four access ways installed with Enduro planks • two stormwater outlets were upgraded onto the beach

Cook Park Dunes at Kyeemagh • New fencing including new and improved pathways through the dunes to control access to the Beach from the upper Cook Park Areas.

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC Dunal restoration works along Cook Park Kyeemagh –Dune • Ramsgate Baths – Beach Lady Robinsons Beach – erosion, using vegetation, where Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams are Lady Robinson’s Beach and Restoration Project which Nourishment Project which Investigation & Design Study to possible Engineering Works & Asset re-vegetating Council priority foredune restoration works restored a 600m long section of restored a section of Lady evaluate options to address the Management sites impacted by erosion. completed at Riverside Drive, dune between Henson Street and Robinsons Beach within the ongoing beach erosion along Sandringham and Fraters Avenue, Bestic Street Kyeemagh (Grant - Ramsgate Baths (Grant - Lady Robinsons Beach with the Undertaken as part of dunal and Sans Souci through funding from $75,000 ) $245,000). Study to be completed by 4 wetland restoration works and the GRCCC Biodiversity fund September 2020 (Grant - where required revetment works grant aimed at preventing further $210,500) erosion.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 178

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

between dunal and parkland Cook Park Kyeemagh Dune areas Restoration Project completed September 2018: • 3000m2 ( 600 x 5m ) cleared of exotic plants and weeds • 450m of degraded steel wind fence removed • Embankment was regraded and covered with topsoil and jute matting • 6000 dune plants were installed at the rate of 2 per m2.

Cook Park Dunes at Kyeemagh: • Restoration of Cook Park Dunes at Kyeemagh south of the Cooks River Breakwater (100 x 25 = 2500m2). Weeding, new dune plantings. Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM As the need arises to construct or As the need arises to construct or Draft design of Cahill Park eco- Final design and construction Complete construction of Cahill Protection eco-friendly seawall replace seawalls, Councils will replace seawalls, Councils will friendly sea wall (Cooks River commenced for Cahill Park eco- Park eco-friendly seawall guidelines Strategic Planning & apply and implement the apply and implement the catchment) friendly seawall Development Controls guidelines as part of their guidelines as part of their projects. projects.

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW Brochures and guidelines have See 2016 response Masterplan for ecofriendly See previous responses See previous responses eco-friendly seawalls been developed by the seawall at Cahill Park had positive Communications & Education OEH/former HNCMA to educate response from community the community on the benefits of eco-friendly seawalls, that can be used by Councils when informing landholders.

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its See 2015 response The GRCCC through its Consultants engaged to Ongoing work to develop Cultural Groups and others to determine Biodiversity Fund Grant project Biodiversity Fund Grant project undertake Indigenous Heritage Indigenous Heritage Study Heritage options for threatened heritage Recreation and Heritage has consulted with LALCs in the (Aboriginal Riverkeeper Project) study for Bayside LGA sites Georges River catchment on how has consulted with LALCs in the Commenced engagement with Council to protect and manage to best protect and manage Georges River catchment on how LALCs to develop Local Strategic threatened heritage sites that are threatened heritage sites that are to best protect and manage Planning Statement for Bayside encountered. part of this project. LALCs have threatened heritage sites that are LGA undertaken cultural heritage part of this project. assessments and provided advice to the GRCCC on how to protect Aboriginal sites.

Climate MH3: Mapping of SLR and areas MEDIUM Rockdale Council is currently Rockdale Council is currently Bayside Council is currently Bayside Council is currently Bayside Council is currently Change for vegetation updating a number of flood updating a number of flood updating a number of flood updating a number of flood updating a number of flood and Sea Retreat Environmental Planning studies. This update will studies. This update will studies. This update will studies. This update will studies. This update will Level incorporate current and future incorporate current and future incorporate current and future incorporate current and future incorporate current and future Rise coastal hazard mapping. This coastal hazard mapping. This coastal hazard mapping. This coastal hazard mapping. This coastal hazard mapping. This information will help guide information will help guide information will help guide information will help guide information will help guide Council's response in managing Council's response in managing Council's response in managing Council's response in managing Council's response in managing its natural areas for the future. its natural areas for the future. its natural areas for the future. its natural areas for the future. its natural areas for the future.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 179

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Monitoring MI2: Support GRCCC River Health MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils See 2016 response See 2016 response See 2016 response and Monitoring continue to support and fully continue to support and fully Evaluation Program Enviro Rehabilitation & fund the River Health Monitoring fund the River Health Monitoring Monitoring program. Further, some member program. Further, some member Councils undertake their own Councils undertake their own water quality monitoring that water quality monitoring that complements the program. The complements the program. The results of ecological monitoring results of ecological monitoring are outlined in an annual River are outlined in an annual River Health Report Card and Technical Health Report Card and Technical Report. Community engagement Report. Community engagement is key to the program, with the is key to the program, with the community involved in community involved in monitoring local streams. School monitoring local streams. School students also participate via our students also participate via our partnerships with the Georges partnerships with the Georges River Environmental Education River Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has Centre. Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted been aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide the NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review comparisons. Also, the review recommendations are being recommendations are being implemented to ensure an implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring practice ecological monitoring program. program.

MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils All Councils completed their See 2016 response See 2016 response See 2016 response monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over Councils progress on the CZMP Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. In early 2014, the Action Plan with the GRCCC. The Monitoring estuary cluster group met to GRCCC also keeps Councils consider options to work abreast of reforms/policies and together to explore combined developments by state grants and implement actions. Six agencies/developers that impact member Councils applied for OEH on the estuary. estuary management grants and three member Councils were awarded funding in 2014 (Liverpool, Hurstville and Fairfield). This action plan will assist to support and implement priority actions identified in the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 180

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 181

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Canterbury Bankstown Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Canterbury Bankstown Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Council has found the CZMP to be a valuable Plan that has assisted in prioritising catchment actions and seeking external funding contributions. It has also been an important document internally in helping educate project and design teams in why particular initiatives are needed across council. The status of the CZMP as a Minister-approved Plan is an important reference tool that is emphasised in advocacy submissions and other reports.

With the transition to a CMP, it is important for Council that the CMP can consider the entire Georges River catchment (its tributaries, freshwater reaches and headwaters), and not solely the estuarine zone in terms of prioritisation of actions and co-funding opportunities for projects in freshwater sections. Many of the actions that should be prioritised that affect the coastal zone originate in the freshwater reaches of the catchment. They often need priority actions over and above actions to manage impacts and symptoms in the estuarine zone. With Council’s limited funding/levying opportunities, and the GRK’s focus on achieving a liveable Georges River catchment, the CMP can be an important pathway to access more opportunities to deliver a more sustainable approach to catchment management.

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA2: High Current 2015 review of controls Water Sensitive Urban Design New controls deferred while Council commenced process of Complete drafting of planning to look at implementation of (WSUD) controls are being council amalgamation is consolidation of planning instruments and controls as well Update or prepare new WSUD WSUD controls. developed for Riverlands embedded and District Plans are instruments and development as LSPS with consideration of controls within DCPs through a site specific DCP. finalised. controls into single LGA-wide SWUM principles and specific Strategic Planning & There are no changes in the instruments. Council also WSUD controls. Development Controls general DCP. Local area plans all commenced process of contain WSUD principles which development Local Strategic will inform LEPs and DCPs. These Planning Statement (LSPS) which local area plans are gazetted by will consider sustainable urban the Minister. water management principles.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 182

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA3: High $200K p.a. allocated to WSUD via Approx. 15 raingardens and Designs completed for Rorie Construction complete for bank Commencement of 3-year the stormwater levy as part of swales & 3 stormwater Reserve and Morgan’s Creek stabilisation, including toe maintenance regime for Retrofit new WSUD devices in the Town Centre Improvement harvesting systems in the LGA. (entire length). treatment to enable access for Morgan’s Creek Project. existing urban areas Program (TCIP) to investigate In 14/15, a new Raingarden was improved maintenance at Engineering Works & Asset and implement WSUD in town installed in the Bankstown CBD. Lake Gillawarna (north) designs Morgan’s Creek (upper). Maintenance also extended to Management centres. and construction completed include weed removal to Designs are underway for Creek 2016-17. Project moved into an Project moved into an extended Morgan’s Creek (lower). To date, raingardens have been restoration projects including extended establishment/ establishment/ maintenance installed in & Padstow Rorie Reserve, Monash Reserve maintenance regime for a period regime for a period of 3 years Raingarden water infiltration and Town Centres. Also, the Green and the entire length of of 3 years from completion of from completion of contracted 3 conductivity testing to be infrastructure design program Morgans Creek, & funding is contracted 3 months months maintenance post- undertaken for all installed allocates $150K p.a. to natural allocated for partial construction maintenance post-construction. construction. Raingardens to gauge efficacy. area restorations e.g. wetlands. works at Morgans Creek with half of the designs completed; Panania TCIP final stage of Council continuing with Rorie Reserve construction to be Projects include: – rehabilitation Lake Gillawarna still designing streetscape improvement works partnership with Sydney Water initiated pending funding/ of Lucas Creek which is now the northern lake. Construction completed, utilising s/w funding for Water Harvesting project at budget approval. being constructed; - bank dependent on the 16/17 budget for passive irrigation of new Memorial Oval (Ruse Park stabilisation at Picnic Point; - or 17/18. Investigating viability street trees. downstream). Designs 90% Recently completed construction designs for bank stabilisation at of Memorial Oval for complete, negotiations re: MoU projects within natural areas are and Deepwater stormwater harvesting, possibly Council commenced ongoing. Project subject to all subject to 3-year extended Park; - design investigations for with funding from SW/cricket investigation works with Sydney Sydney Water prioritisation and establishment/ maintenance restoration (creek bank and Australia. Ruse park irrigation Water for Water Harvest funding approval. regime by specialist providers vegetation) at Rorie Reserve, Salt scheme is possible can take feasibility at Memorial Oval prior to hand-over to Council Pan Creek, Monash Reserve and lower quality water. The Town (Ruse Park downstream) Operational staff. the entire length of Morgans Centre Improvement Program Creek (Between Thomas Street (TCIP) allocates $200K p.a. to and ), plus WSUD via the stormwater levy funding allocated for partial to investigate and implement construction of works at WSUD in town centres. Funding Morgans Creek; - Lake for 15/16 projects was outside Gillawarna where 1 lakes the GR catchment. restoration has been completed and designs are underway and funding allocated to construct the second lake. NB Kelso Creek stormwater harvesting is not feasible as the water is too saline.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 183

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High Monitoring & maintenance A $60K review of WSUD devices Audit completed and used as a Montgomery GPT construction Priority actions from the audit to devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc undertaken regularly. A review condition and effectiveness has benchmark for audit across works in 2018-19. Works be actioned so that maintenance has been conducted of the been completed identifying a list GPT’s within broader LGA. included significant capacity operations can be fully effectiveness of GPTs and of rectification works and 3 Montgomery GPT at Revesby increase, improvements to implemented. Engineering Works & Asset pollution control devices - options for each device in terms given highest priority and access, and planting with locally Management Councils asset management of maintenance and longevity. designs commenced. Funding sourced provenance tubestock. system will be updated with this This audit was incorporated into from 2 budget cycles identified information and the review will Councils’ asset management to complete works. New specifications for cleaning be used to guide maintenance system and is used to guide and maintenance operations programs and works. maintenance programs and developed, and new cleaning works. This has resulted in tender established. savings across assets already realized with new tenders. Funding is allocated in the storm water levy and s94A plan for implementation of recommendations arising from the review. Approx. 56 GPTs with $160K p.a for maintenance of GPTs and pollution control devices.

Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion control High Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard Maintain high standards as per during & after construction conditions of Development conditions of Development conditions of Development conditions of Development regulations. consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections consent, with regular inspections of major construction sites as of major construction sites as of major construction sites as of major construction sites as Compliance part of building certification part of building certification part of building certification part of building certification system and compliance and system and compliance and system and compliance and system and compliance and Council’s own works are Council’s own works are Council’s own works are Council’s own works are monitored by the site supervisor. monitored by the site supervisor. monitored by the site supervisor. monitored by the site supervisor.

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program Refer Riverkeeper stats for Refer Riverkeeper stats for Continued participation in clean-up & illegal dumping continues on ground work and continues on ground work and CBCity CBCity. Catchment Action program. collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish rubbish across the catchment in across the catchment in 2014/15 Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. through the partnership with Monitoring Corrective Services NSW and additional resources with three Green Army teams working across the catchment.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 184

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA10: High WSUD Action Plan never WSUD Action Plan never No action taken to further No action taken to further WSUD and Raingarden efficacy adopted by Council due to desire adopted by Council due to desire develop Catchment Strategic develop Catchment Strategic to be reviewed. Results will Develop & adopt WSUD action for better integration with for better integration with Action Plan. Action Plan. determine future action plan for plans broader catchment planning. broader catchment planning. additional or refurbishment of Environmental Planning WSUD actions are to be WSUD actions are to be existing Raingardens. contained within and contained within and implemented as part of overall implemented as part of overall Catchment Strategic Plan with Catchment Strategic Plan with sub catchment action plans sub catchment action plans being developed. being developed.

Water Quality MA15: High Salt Pan Creek Community A memorial oval joint project is Continued to support GRCCC and Continued to support GRCCC and Plans to improve notification Reference Group established by being explored with SW should liaise with SWC on sewer issues. liaise with SWC on sewer issues. protocols with SWC following SWC liaison regarding sewer Sydney Water to investigate funding under the GR Waterway Prospect Ck overflow incident. problems solutions in response to Improvement Plan for SW Environmental Planning concerns of Councils and become available. residents’ complaints regarding overflows and amenity problems.

Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine High Projects include: -Little Salt Pan Current rehab projects include: Picnic Point Bank Stabilisation Picnic Point Bank Stabilisation Picnic Point Bank Stabilisation – Riparian Habitat wetlands & riparian vegetation Creek, Virginius Reserve current; Little Salt Pan Creek, Virginius Project designs completed. Project construction completed. rectification works subject to –rehabilitation of Lucas Creek Reserve via the GRCCC Issues with soft-engineering budget/ funding approval. construction work commencing Aboriginal Riverkeeper Team Garrison Point, Kentucky Reserve approach to be rectified, and Enviro Rehabilitation & February 2015; - bank grant project and Morgan’s and Deepwater Park Bank sandstone bank armouring to be Garrison Point, Kentucky reserve Monitoring stabilisation at Picnic Point Creek by the Green Army with Stabilisation designs completed. extended. and Deepwater Bank installing a small area of salt funding for Morgans Creek. Stabilisation works subject to marsh; - designs for bank Lucas Creek construction Lake Gillawarna (north) designs budget/ funding. stabilisation at Garrison Point completed late 2015. Bank and construction completed (options to consider heritage stabilisation at Picnic Point is 2016-17. listed abandoned structures will awaiting approval. A meeting be considered) & Deepwater with David Coleman explored the Park in 2015 (staged designs for possibility for a raised boardwalk the remainder of Deepwater); - to protect the salt marsh and design investigations for bank stabilisation at Garrison restoration (creek bank and Point. Designs to be completed vegetation) at Rorie Reserve, Salt for Monash & Kentucky reserves Pan Creek, Monash Reserve over 2016 and also Deepwater 2015 and the entire length of Park (staged designs). Funding is Morgans Creek (Between yet to be allocated for design Thomas Street and Prince Street) investigations for restoration future design work to occur in (creek bank and vegetation) at 2015/16 and the construction of Rorie Reserve, Salt Pan Creek. the first part is to commence in 2016; designs for Kentucky Reserve bank stabilisation and revegetation planned for 15/16; Lake Gillawarna where 1 lake restoration has been completed and designs are underway and funding allocated to construct the second lake. NB Kelso Creek

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 185

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

stormwater harvesting is not feasible as the water is too saline.

MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Council managed volunteer Council continued to manage Council continued to manage Council will continue to manage bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer Bushcare program ongoing. volunteer Bushcare program. volunteer Bushcare program. volunteer Bushcare program. Bushcare groups using best practice bush regeneration. Enviro Rehabilitation & Monitoring

Council managed volunteer Bushcare program ongoing.

Aquatic and MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants Also secured a Green Army team Refer Riverkeeper stats Refer Riverkeeper stats. Also Continue investigations into Riparian Habitat bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective Stage 1 to mid 2015 to focus on commenced initial investigations weeds on private property as an control Services Teams, Aboriginal Kelso Creek. into priority weeds on private education/awareness approach. Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army property initially as an Enviro Rehabilitation & Teams are currently undertaking education/awareness approach. Initial planning to map priority Monitoring significant bush regeneration weeds to assist in prioritisation and weed control work across for action. the catchment, supporting Councils. Extending weeds investigations into non-traditional suppliers (eg markets, online, etc)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 186

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM A Communities Creating A Communities Creating Developed a weeds education Implementation of the Weeds Implementation of the Weeds Riparian Habitat Corridors project encourages Corridors project encourages program delivering on the education program. Properties education program. Properties Private landholder education re: native vegetation planting in native vegetation planting in Biodiversity Act (Priority Weeds) targeted in areas surrounding targeted in areas surrounding habitat & vegetation backyards where Council officers backyards where Council officers including a community based bushland areas and areas of bushland areas and areas of Communications & Education do an assessment & hand out do an assessment & hand out social marketing program, significant conservation value significant conservation value native plants. Also staff visit native plants. Also staff visit mapping priority weeds on and containing riparian and containing riparian private residents to ID weeds private residents to ID weeds private property and weeds vegetation. vegetation. and give management advice and give management advice education. and native plants, mulch and and native plants, mulch and A range of biodiversity education A range of biodiversity education compost as incentives to compost as incentives to Biodiversity education workshops held for local workshops to be held for local undertake weed removal. undertake weed removal. workshops held for the residents. residents. Council targets areas where Council targets areas where community. there are weed garden escapee there are weed garden escapee Information provided through e- Information to be provided and garden waste dumping and garden waste dumping A range of walks and talks in Newsletter to private through e- Newsletter to private issues and advises residents for issues and advises residents for council reserves highlighting landholders across the LGA landholders across the LGA example Lansdowne Reserve, example Lansdowne Reserve, biodiversity and catchment The River Reserve and Lucas The River Reserve and Lucas management. Commenced development of a Completion and launch of a Creek rehabilitation. Creek rehabilitation. Native Plant guide for the CBCity Native Plant guide for the CBCity to provide an interactive map to provide an interactive map indicating endemic local species. indicating endemic local species.

Recreation and MC3: Interpretive education LOW Council provides material on its Council provides material on its Delivered Crosscurrents bus tour Completed interpretive signs and Collaborate with GREEC to Amenity materials on website and is updating new website and is updating new along the Georges River for education materials for Lake deliver a catchment focussed maps on recreation areas. BCC maps on recreation areas. BCC Seniors Week. Gillawarna and Morgan’s Creek education program to 500 Recreation and conservation provides material on its website provides material on its website projects in the Georges River students in CBCity, sites include Communications & Education and has developed a range of and has developed a range of Delivered catchment focused Catchment. Mirambeena Regional Park and brochures of different activities. brochures of different activities. engagement and education with Salt Pan Creek. BCC has display boards in parks BCC has display boards in parks school students at Lake Coordinated Biodiversity month along the river with information along the river with information Gillawarna. catchment focussed activities Coordinate the May and about recreation and the local about recreation and the local with students at Mirambeena November ‘Get the Site Right’ environment. BCC is also environment. BCC is also Coordinated the November ‘Get Regional Park. education and compliance reviewing foreshore signage to reviewing foreshore signage to the Site Right’ education and project. control and regulate uses and control and regulate uses and compliance project. Delivered Salt Pan Creek seniors installs interpretative installs interpretative week and Biodiversity month Deliver Biodiversity month educational signage as part of educational signage as part of walks with GRKeeper. events and activities along the site rehabilitation projects site rehabilitation projects Georges River. Developed and delivered 2 x training sessions for internal staff for Get the Site Right campaign

Coordinated the May and November ‘Get the Site Right’ education and compliance project.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 187

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC/BCC & KCC provided The GRCCC is advocating on Council continued to support the Council continued to support the Council will continue to support strategy revision input into the draft Boating behalf of members and GRCCC in managing boat safety. GRCCC in managing boat safety. the GRK in managing boat safety. Strategy and review. community representatives to ensure safety on the River. The Environmental Planning GRCCC supported RMS summer safety campaigns by being involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant materials. Further to this, given the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages.

The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and TfNSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this.

Land Use MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Council undertakes Award winning projects for the Commencement of Lake Completion of Lake Gillawarna Council will continue to focus on Planning and Practices for Council works environmental assessments as Duck River recognising Gillawarna Water Quality and Water Quality and Natural Area ensuring that Council works Development required under EP&A Act for integrated water management Natural Area Improvement Improvement project that integrate high quality practices Council works, business as usual. approach and best practice project that aims to integrate integrated best practice water with regards to WSUD and Strategic Planning & Undertakes soil testing as part of WSUD. Also try to reuse soil best practice water quality, quality, catchment management catchment management. Development Controls the works, to management locally via initial soil testing. catchment management and and open space design to potential waste, contamination Looking at innovative open space design to develop an develop an urban park facility in & Acid Sulfate Soils. approaches with Storm water urban park facility in a natural a natural setting. NSW members on reuse of soils setting. and information to be shared with GRCCC members.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 188

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning New Biodiversity strategic plan EPIs deferred as a result of Initial work commenced for the New Local Strategic Planning aims and objectives in future EPI instruments such as Council LEPs developed aligned with CZMP. council amalgamations merging and revision of EPIs. Statements and revision of EPIs reviews and strategies should be Sustainable Urban Water are taking coastal management consistent with the CZMP, as Management has been included planning into account. Council Strategic Planning & part of future updates. as an underpinning theme. will focus an aim to become a Development Controls Water Sensitive City through its Updated biodiversity protection statutory and master planning. land mapping in the new draft LEP ensuring consistency with the CZMP objectives and aims. Further, Catchment Action Plans will have actions aligning with the CZMP.

MD5: New & revised PoMs to be MEDIUM Generic POM completed and Generic POM completed and POMs generally deferred as a Salt Pan Creek and Deepwater A new Generic Plan of compatible with CZMP area specific are being reviewed area specific are being reviewed result of council amalgamations. Reserves commenced revision or Management for community will be compatible with CZMP. will be compatible with CZMP. development and have lands will be developed. Council also has a Biodiversity Council also has a Biodiversity acknowledged the GRCZMP. Strategic Planning & Strategy and Feral Animal Strategy & Feral Animal Development Controls Management Plan. Management Plan.

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS Council continued to support the Council continued to support the Council will continue to support and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to GRCCC in managing boat wake GRCCC in managing boat wake the GRK in managing boat wake and prevent foreshore erosion. Also prevent foreshore erosion. Also erosion. erosion. erosion. at its committee meeting on 26 at its committee meeting on 26 Sedimentation Environmental Planning June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to support the partnership request support the partnership request on the Personal Watercraft (jet on the Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Safety campaign. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on The GRCCC focus is on environmental protection and environmental protection and erosion issues related to jet skis erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an environmental wake is an environmental concern and this message would concern and this message would be included in any future media be included in any future media releases. releases.

Council met with and supported the Jet Ski Boating SafetyM campaign and supports appropriate speed controls.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 189

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper program Councils bank stabilisation Councils bank stabilisation Councils bank stabilisation Action MB4 foreshore access assists Councils with the periodic program of works provides for program of works provides for program of works provides for review of the foreshore from the formalised access to control ad- formalised access to control ad- formalised access to control ad- River to identify and target any hoc access as outlined in the hoc access as outlined in the hoc access as outlined in the Engineering Works & Asset inappropriate activities including projects in Action MB4 above projects in Action MB4 above projects in Action MB4 above Management access. e.g. Kentucky Reserve, e.g. Picnic Point, Kentucky e.g. Picnic Point, Kentucky Deepwater Park and Reserve, Garrison Point, Reserve, Garrison Point, Mirambeena Regional Park Deepwater Park and Deepwater Park and (Garrison Point is part of this). Mirambeena Regional Park. Mirambeena Regional Park. Councils bank stabilisation NB Vale of Ah is partly privately program of works provides for owned along the foreshore and formalised access to control ad- fenced thus outside of Councils hoc access as outlined in the scope of works. projects in Action MB4 above e.g. Kentucky Reserve, Deepwater Park and Mirambeena Regional Park (Garrison Point is part of this). NB Vale of Ah is partly privately owned along the foreshore and fenced thus outside of Councils scope of works.

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC See MB4 above for planned Refer Action MB4 Refer Action MB4 Refer Action MB4 erosion, using vegetation, where Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams upgrades. Lucas creek rehab is possible are re-vegetating Council priority now completed. Bank sites impacted by erosion. stabilisation projects include: Engineering Works & Asset Picnic Pt with design approval Management sought from Crown Lands; designs for Garrison Pt, Council’s bank stabilization Deepwater Park & Kentucky program of works provides for Reserve. erosion control using vegetation as outlined in the projects listed under Action MB4 above.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 190

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM Council encourages a natural re- Council encourages a natural re- Council encourages a natural re- Council encourages a natural re- Refer MB4 above. Future eco-friendly seawall vegetation approach and then vegetation approach and then vegetation approach and then vegetation approach and then restoration construction projects Protection the use of ecofriendly seawalls the use of ecofriendly seawalls the use of ecofriendly seawalls the use of ecofriendly seawalls to use articulated rock guidelines as per the guidelines by OEH. No as per the guidelines by OEH. No as per the guidelines by OEH. No as per the guidelines by OEH. No armouring and revegetation Strategic Planning & major upgrades are planned. major upgrades are planned. major upgrades are planned. major upgrades are planned. combinations as per best Development Controls practice and Seawall guidelines. No coir logs or created/ placed timber vanes to be used due to unsuccessful placement at Picnic Point.

Designs for replacement of Carinyah Boat Ramp and former boat shed to be investigated 2019-20, involving removal of vertical concrete walling.

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW Council encourages a natural re- Reference to sea wall guidelines Council encourages a natural re- Council encourages a natural re- Designs for replacement of eco-friendly seawalls vegetation approach and then should be included in policies vegetation approach and then vegetation approach and then Carinyah Boat Ramp and former the use of ecofriendly seawalls such as LEPs and DCPS to the use of ecofriendly seawalls the use of ecofriendly seawalls boat shed to be investigated as per the guidelines by OEH. encourage landowners to design as per the guidelines by OEH. as per the guidelines by OEH. 2019-20, involving removal of Communications & Education in accordance with the guide. vertical concrete walling. Community consultation and education to be part of process.

Future modifications to LEPs and DCP to include reference to OEH requirements.

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its The GRCCC through its Council to protect and manage Groups and others to determine Biodiversity Fund Grant project Biodiversity Fund Grant project threatened heritage sites that Cultural options for threatened heritage has consulted with LALCs in the (Aboriginal Riverkeeper Project) are encountered. Heritage sites Georges River catchment on how has consulted with LALCs in the Recreation and Heritage to best protect and manage Georges River catchment on how threatened heritage sites that to best protect and manage are part of this project. LALCs threatened heritage sites that have undertaken cultural are part of this project. heritage assessments and provided advice to the GRCCC on how to protect Aboriginal sites.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 191

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and areas MEDIUM Council have undertaken an Council have undertaken an No further action due to council Council worked closely with Council seeking project funding for vegetation assessment of sea level rise on assessment of sea level rise on amalgamations. Resilient Sydney and AdaptNSW to develop a Resilience to and Sea Level the Georges River. The study the Georges River. The study to focus priorities on becoming a Climate Change Strategy & Plan. Retreat considered the impacts of sea considered the impacts of sea There is no current plan to map Resilient City. Rise Environmental Planning level rise on tidal inundation as level rise on tidal inundation as areas for vegetation retreat. There is no current plan to map well as impacts on flood well as impacts on flood There is no current plan to map areas for vegetation retreat. behaviour. Council are currently behaviour. Council are currently areas for vegetation retreat. considering this information in considering this information in conjunction with the new conjunction with the new Planning Circular PS 14-003 Planning Circular PS 14-003 (Coastal Hazard notations on (Coastal Hazard notations on s149 planning certificates). There s149 planning certificates). There is no current plan to map areas is no current plan to map areas for vegetation retreat. for vegetation retreat.

Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils Council continued to support the Council continued to support the Council will continue to support Health Monitoring continue to support and fully continue to support and fully River Health Monitoring program River Health Monitoring program the River Health Monitoring Evaluation fund the River Health Monitoring fund the River Health Monitoring program. Council will also Program program. Further, some member program. Further, some member investigate an LGA-wide water Enviro Rehabilitation & Councils undertake their own Councils undertake their own quality monitoring study (for Monitoring water quality monitoring that water quality monitoring that periodic monitoring) to support complements the program. The complements the program. The its CSP. results of ecological monitoring results of ecological monitoring are outlined in an annual River are outlined in an annual River Health Report Card and Health Report Card and Technical Report. Community Technical Report. Community engagement is key to the engagement is key to the program, with the community program, with the community involved in monitoring local involved in monitoring local streams. School students also streams. School students also participate via our partnerships participate via our partnerships with the Georges River with the Georges River Environmental Education Centre. Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has been Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted the aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide methods to NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review Also, the review recommendations are being recommendations are being implemented to ensure an implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring practice ecological monitoring program. program.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 192

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils All Councils completed their Council completed its progress Council completed its progress Council will be an active monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over Councils progress on the CZMP reporting on the CZMP Action reporting on the CZMP Action contributor to the CMP process 2013/14. In early 2014, the Action Plan with the GRCCC. The Plan with the GRCCC. Plan with the GRK. Council also and continue its progress estuary cluster group met to GRCCC also keeps Councils supported the GRK in its bid for reporting. Enviro Rehabilitation & consider options to work abreast of reforms/policies and funding to update and transition Monitoring together to explore combined developments by state the CZMP to a CMP. grants and implement actions. agencies/developers that impact Six member Councils applied for on the estuary. OEH estuary management grants and three member Councils were awarded funding in 2014 (Liverpool, Hurstville and Fairfield).

This action plan will assist to support and implement priority actions identified in the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5 March 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 193

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Campbelltown City Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Campbelltown City Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Could you also please provide feedback below on how Campbelltown City Council uses the CZMP and if there is anything that needs to be added in the scoping study to transition the Co astal Zone Management Plan to a Coastal Management Program in line with Coastal Management Reforms. Comments can be inserted here or provided as a separate attachment.

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA2: High DCPs in 3 volumes, WSUD Update of WSUD controls Update or prepare new WSUD controls in Vol II. Currently in within Uniform Engineering controls within DCPs Strategic Planning & the process of reviewing DCP Guide currently being prepared Development Controls Vol II for further integration of by the Western Sydney WSUD controls with targets Planning Partnership guided by SE-QLD. Water Quality MA3: High Installed a bio-retention Maintenance of existing WSUD Maintenance of existing WSUD Maintenance of existing WSUD Retrofit new WSUD devices in system in 2013 and a wetland systems within the LGA. systems within the LGA, systems within the LGA, existing urban areas Engineering Works & Asset 2015 in Spring Creek developers installing developers installing Management catchment that captures appropriate WSUD devices as appropriate WSUD devices as stormwater from the second new developments come on new developments come on largest urban areas in the board. board. Rosemeadow and Ambervale LGA’s in the Upper Georges River. Bradbury Oval stormwater harvesting scheme, Council’s Administration Building has rainwater tanks for irrigation of gardens as well as all Council Child Care Centres.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 194

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High The Annual 2014/15 SoE Ongoing maintenance of WSUD devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc Report states the amount of devices, GPTs by operational Engineering Works & Asset pollutants collected from GPTs services teams. Management is 4731(m³) with 2 WSUD devices installed in the 14/15 FY. Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion High Sediment and erosion control Sediment and erosion control control during & after installed on Council installed on Council construction Compliance construction projects, construction projects, compliance team inspecting compliance team inspecting private development sites private development sites within LGA. within LGA.

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper program clean-up & illegal dumping continues on ground work and continues on ground work and continues on ground work and continues on ground work and continues on ground work and Enviro Rehabilitation & collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish collects rubbish across the collects rubbish across the collects rubbish across the Monitoring rubbish across the catchment across the catchment in catchment in through the catchment in through the catchment in through the in 2013/14. 2014/15 through the partnership with Corrective partnership with Corrective partnership with Corrective partnership with Corrective Services NSW. Council Services NSW. Council Services NSW. Council Bushcare Services NSW and additional Bushcare teams collective Bushcare teams collective teams collective waste from resources with three Green waste from across the waste from across the across the catchment at Army teams working across the catchment at Bushcare sites. catchment at Bushcare sites. Bushcare sites. catchment.

Council’s Green Army teams also contribute to rubbish removal.

Water Quality MA10: High Develop & adopt WSUD action plans Environmental Planning

Water Quality MA15: High Council has its own WQ Council has its own WQ Council has its own WQ Council has its own WQ SWC liaison regarding sewer monitoring program regularly monitoring program regularly monitoring program regularly monitoring program regularly problems Environmental Planning analyses results and Council analyses results and Council analyses results and Council analyses results and Council writes to SW on any concerns. writes to SW on any concerns. writes to SW on any concerns. writes to SW on any concerns.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 195

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB4: Rehabilitation of High Quirk Reserve, Bradbury Creek Bush regeneration works along estuarine wetlands & riparian restoration and community key creek lines including Fishers vegetation Enviro Rehabilitation & engagement, re-shape, reveg Ghost Creek, Cook Park, Smiths Monitoring of Cumberland Plain Creek and upcoming works Woodland. Eagle Vale ponds within Simmos Beach Reserve masterplan and rehabilitation and tributaries. Aquatic weed of the ponds to create a treatment across 52kms of riparian zone & manage weeds. waterway twice each growing Fishers Ghost Creek rehab of season (Oct – May). the creek line is a potential project. Ongoing Bushcare program around riparian areas to rehab creek lines, wetland installed and bio retention system on Spring Creek, Smith’s Creek. National tree day significant planting. Council also has Green Army teams. MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Bushcare program 30-40 Bushcare program 30-40 Bushcare program 30-40 Ongoing support of Bushcare bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer volunteers and 10 groups volunteers and 9 groups volunteers and 7 groups groups, employment of casual Enviro Rehabilitation & Bushcare groups using best actively supported by a FT actively supported by a FT actively supported by a FT Bushcare support officer and Monitoring practice bush regeneration. Bushcare Officer. CUAD, Bushcare Officer. CUAD, Bushcare Officer. CUAD, Full time Bushcare /Officer to National Tree Day and school National Tree Day and school National Tree Day and school assist with management of tree planting activities tree planting activities tree planting activities Bushcare groups. Support of annual events including wild koala day, NTD and CUAD.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants Additionally, Council’s Green Riverkeeper Teams and Green n/a Simmos Beach Rehabilitation bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective Army teams complement the Army Operating at sits across Grant Program 20-21 including control Enviro Rehabilitation & Services Teams, Aboriginal program. Campbelltown LGA. bush regeneration, weed Monitoring Riverkeeper Teams, Green control and revegetation. Army Teams are currently undertaking significant bush regeneration and weed control work across the catchment, supporting Councils.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 196

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM Council runs a Macarthur Council runs a Macarthur Council runs a Macarthur Private landholder education Nature photography annual Nature photography annual Nature photography annual re: habitat & vegetation Communications & Education competition with over 300 competition and Threatened competition and Threatened entries and $4,000 in prizes Species Art Competition in Species Art Competition in across Camden and partnership with Camden and partnership with Camden and Wollondilly. Wollondilly. Wollondilly. Through Bushcare groups and Through Bushcare groups, Through Bushcare groups, Council’s newsletter and Bushcare newsletter and Bushcare newsletter and events such as Riverfest, Bushcare Facebook page. Bushcare Facebook page. Ingleburn Alive stalls. Guides Guides on native gardening Guides on native gardening and on native gardening and and Council’s website with Council’s website with Council’s website with information on weed species information on weed species information on weed species and educational messages are and educational messages are and educational messages are delivered. The Waterways delivered. The Waterways delivered. The Waterways program with local schools program with local schools program with local schools involves a drain stencilling involves a drain stencilling involves a drain stencilling program. program. Started new program. Park Central has programs called wild about some raingardens, UWS wildlife and bush explorers with raingardens. Council has a tree wild Wednesdays starting in Swap program for noxious mid-2019. weeds. Catchment care days involve residents in tree planting and pamphlets are provided.

Recreation and Amenity MC3: Interpretive education LOW Drain stencilling programs, Installed signage at both park Continued installation of koala Council is currently materials on Park Central series of signage central (tile game) and installed signage at key roadkill implementing trail network Recreation and conservation Communications & Education about waterways not feeding eel signage at Eagle Vale Pond. hotspots. signage project which ducks etc, Cleopatra Reserve, Installed koala signage at encompasses educational Eel sign at Eagle Vale Reserve. Smiths Creek Reserve signage. Installation of koala In partnership with UWS Love signage at key reserves as part your lagoons & Eric the Eel of grant programs, have applied book, a game in Central all for further funding for signage about the bird life. project at the basin. Signage program for other Investigating platypus reserves e.g. Simmos Beach is a education and new signage potential project. along river.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 197

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC/BCC & KCC The GRCCC is advocating on N/A strategy revision provided input into the draft behalf of members and Environmental Planning Boating Strategy and review. community representatives to ensure safety on the River. The GRCCC supported RMS summer safety campaigns by being involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant materials. Further to this, given the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages. The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this. Land Use Planning and MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Reviewing Part 5 assessment to Reviewing part 5 assessment to Developing project Development Practices for Council works streamline it. Recycle lots of streamline it. Recycle lots of management guidelines Strategic Planning & construction materials reused construction materials reused including environmental Development Controls in road bases. in road bases. assessment requirements etc. Completing review of Part 5 assessment process as part of project management guidelines. Council’s operational services team on regular liaison with Open Space for best practice environmental outcomes with works.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 198

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning Standard Instrument LEP Standard Instrument LEP Update of relevant controls aims and objectives in future instruments such as Council adopted recently, riparian adopted recently, riparian within Uniform Engineering EPI reviews Strategic Planning & LEPs and strategies should be controls in LEP. controls in LEP. Guide currently being prepared Development Controls consistent with the CZMP, as by the Western Sydney part of future updates. Planning Partnership

MD5: New & revised PoMs to MEDIUM Updating PoMs and will Review of Noorumba Plan of Council currently updating all be compatible with CZMP address actions to reduce Management and scoping of PoM’s for key reserves – Strategic Planning & erosion, maintain riparian new PoM’s expected to be a lengthy Development Controls vegetation, education and process. signage.

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS and impacts and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to Sedimentation Environmental Planning prevent foreshore erosion. Also prevent foreshore erosion. Also at its committee meeting on 26 at its committee meeting on 26 June 2014, the GRCCC agreed June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to support the partnership to support the partnership request on the Personal request on the Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on environmental focus is on environmental protection and erosion issues protection and erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an related to jet skis wake is an environmental concern and environmental concern and this message would be this message would be included in any future media included in any future media releases. releases.

M

ME3: Targeted control of ad- MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper Formalised a lot of tracks at Developed Bushwalking Tracks Received funding for Simmos Delivery of trail network hoc foreshore access program assists Councils with Simmo’s. ng track audit to and Trails outlining key track Beach Reserve Trail Network signage project at Simmos Engineering Works & Asset the periodic review of the determine which tracks need upgrades to Reserves including Projects. Beach Reserve. Scoping of 1 x Management foreshore from the River to to be kept and embellished to those on the Georges River. more reserve (potentially The identify and target any undertake a mapping project. Developing scoping study for Basin/Keith Lohnghurst inappropriate activities Dirt bikes in reserves and Georges River Recreational Reserve). Feasibility study for including access. Mountain biking is more Trail from Wedderburn – Georges River Recreational prevalent too creating Glenfield. Trail. conflicts.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 199

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC Not a significant priority for erosion, using vegetation, Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams Council, only a localised issue where possible Engineering Works & Asset are re-vegetating Council where present. Management priority sites impacted by erosion.

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM Protection eco-friendly seawall guidelines Strategic Planning & Development Controls

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW eco-friendly seawalls Communications & Education

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its LALC partnered with Ongoing work and support of Ongoing work and support of Ongoing work and support of Cultural Heritage Groups and others to Biodiversity Fund Grant project the Catch the Carp LALC and aboriginal groups LALC and aboriginal groups LALC and aboriginal groups determine options for Recreation and Heritage has consulted with LALCs in the competition, cultural heritage including liaison with OEH Staff including liaison with OEH Staff including liaison with OEH Staff threatened heritage sites Georges River catchment on assessments on actions in PoM where appropriate where appropriate where appropriate how to best protect and that may impact on their manage threatened heritage reserve. Council maintains a The GRCCC through its Council to protect and manage sites that are part of this relationship with LALC and Biodiversity Fund Grant project threatened heritage sites that project. LALCs have undertaken gets feedback. (Aboriginal Riverkeeper are encountered. cultural heritage assessments Project) has consulted with and provided advice to the LALCs in the Georges River GRCCC on how to protect catchment on how to best Aboriginal sites. protect and manage threatened heritage sites that are part of this project.

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and MEDIUM Storm impacts such as flash and Sea Level areas for vegetation flooding is anticipated to be Rise Retreat Environmental Planning worse with climate change. Flood study recently adopted. Draft biodiversity strategy and Koala Habitat strategy to be adopted and address climate change.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 200

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils Supported and results reported Supported and results reported Supported and results reported Supported and results reported Evaluation Health Monitoring continue to support and fully in Annual SoE Report. Also in Annual SoE Report. Also in Annual SoE Report. Also in Annual SoE Report. Also Program Enviro Rehabilitation & fund the River Health supplemented by Council’s supplemented by Council’s supplemented by Council’s supplemented by Council’s own Monitoring Monitoring program. Further, own ongoing WQ monitoring own ongoing WQ monitoring own ongoing WQ monitoring ongoing WQ monitoring some member Councils program that also monitors for program that also monitors for program that also monitors for program that also monitors for undertake their own water primary contact recreation primary contact recreation primary contact recreation primary contact recreation quality monitoring that (swimming) at 2 sites in the (swimming) at 2 sites in the (swimming) at 2 sites in the (swimming) at 2 sites in the complements the program. The Georges River (O’Hares Creek Georges River (O’Hares Creek Georges River (O’Hares Creek Georges River (O’Hares Creek results of ecological monitoring and Simmo’s Beach) and and Simmo’s Beach) and and Simmo’s Beach) and and Simmo’s Beach) and are outlined in an annual River secondary contact Recreation. secondary contact Recreation. secondary contact Recreation. secondary contact Recreation. Health Report Card and Technical Report. Community engagement is key to the program, with the community involved in monitoring local streams. School students also participate via our partnerships with the Georges River Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review recommendations are being implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring program. MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils First meeting to capture CCC monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over efforts addressing many of the Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. In early 2014, the objectives and agreed Monitoring estuary cluster group met to management actions in this consider options to work Action plan which will improve together to explore combined downstream estuarine water grants and implement actions. quality of the Georges River. Six member Councils applied for OEH estuary management grants and three member Councils were awarded funding in 2014 (Liverpool, Hurstville and Fairfield). This action plan will assist to support and implement priority actions identified in the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 201

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 202

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Fairfield City Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Fairfield City Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Could you also please provide feedback below on how Fairfield City Council uses the CZMP and if there is anything that needs to be added in the scoping study to transition the Coastal Zone Management Plan to a Coastal Management Program in line with Coastal Management Reforms. Comments can be inserted here or provided as a separate attachment.

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA2: High Funding has been allocated in Stormwater & OSD policy Stormwater & OSD policy Stormwater & OSD policy TBA – Will need to check with Update or prepare new WSUD 2015/16 to review Council’s currently being updated. currently draft final. currently implemented. Catchment Planning Manager to controls within DCPs Strategic Planning & existing stormwater policy with a Catchment plans still progressing ascertain if additional WSUD Development Controls view to incorporating WSUD and due to be completed in 2017 controls are planned. controls either as part of an to inform on ground works. update to the policy or Council’s DCP. Detail on feasibility of implementing WSUD controls is being investigated as part of the and Smithfield Catchment Management Plans.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 203

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA3: High Stimsons Drain GPT to be Burdett Street Gross Pollutant Continued maintenance of New Leaf Precinct Development Possible 1 new GPT to install and Retrofit new WSUD devices in installed in Fairfield East within Trap Installation via an OEH existing raingardens. – Green Valley Creek existing urban areas Engineering Works & Asset the Burns Creek catchment at a 2015/16 Estuary Management 24 – Raingarden splinters Rehabilitation Project (Reach1 & Management cost of approximately $280,000. Program Grant. No raingardens further installed 1 Veg Swale/Raingarden 2) between Cumberland Hwy A raingarden has been designed and confluence with Orphan for a Council car park in Barbara School Creek. Rehab works Street, Fairfield. WSUD systems involved are revegetation, rock are currently being investigated work (along the bed and bank), and designed for Springfield and Water Quality Improvement Park, Old Guildford and for devices). Prospect View Park, Smithfield. Opportunities to incorporate Wilson Creek Rehabilitation WSUD in laneways in Fairfield Project – commence works. Is Heights, and in other civil design very similar in rehabilitation projects will be investigated in measures to Green Valley Creek 2015/16. Installation of four Rehabilitation. GPTs at three sites across Fairfield City has been programmed for 2015/16.

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High Council allocates $200,000 pa for $250K p.a. on Stormwater Levy $250K p.a. on Stormwater Levy $280K p.a. on Stormwater Levy $320K p.a. on Stormwater Levy devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc ongoing maintenance of WSUD Maintenance Program. Maintenance Program. Maintenance Program Maintenance Program Engineering Works & Asset systems. A further $80,000 is (raingarden maintenance). (Maintenance Levy increased to Management allocated for removal of rubbish $300K on creek cleaning $300K on creek cleaning accommodate extra from GPTs and creeks. program. This program includes program. This program includes $300K on creek cleaning raingardens). litter picking, cleaning GPTs litter picking, cleaning GPTs program. This program includes (Litter booms, and various (Litter booms, and various litter picking, cleaning GPTs $300K on creek cleaning commercial GPT units) commercial GPT units) (Litter booms, and various program. This program includes commercial GPT units) litter picking, cleaning GPTs (Litter booms, and various Raingarden Audit – Completed. commercial GPT units) Check with Farid on what actions were taken.

Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion control High Unknown Participated in the Get The Site Fairfield City Council to during & after construction Right Program 2018. participate in the Get the Site Compliance Right Program 2019 if being implemented.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 204

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program Fairfield City Council through its Fairfield City Council through its Ongoing support of the GRK clean-up & illegal dumping continues on ground work and continues on ground work and creek cleaning program removed creek cleaning program collected program. The GRK through the Enviro Rehabilitation & collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish a total of 429 tonnes of litter, over 290 tonnes of rubbish from Riverkeeper program in the Monitoring rubbish across the catchment in across the catchment in 2014/15 rubbish and sediment from Council’s Gross Pollutant Traps 2018/19 financial year has 2013/14. through the partnership with Gross Pollutant Traps and litter and litter picking within the collected 12 tonne of rubbish Corrective Services NSW and picking across the City. creeks throughout the City. from 33 sites additional resources with three Green Army teams working Removed over 50 tonnes of Increased the number of GRK across the catchment. dumped rubbish from four corrective services sites from 27 creeks, including Burns Creek, to 33 with the Fairfield LGA Green Valley Creek, Prospect Creek and bushland reserve at Sherwin Park.

Water Quality MA10: High WSUD Strategy developed in WSUD Strategy developed in Preparation of Stormwater & Implementation of Stormwater No further future actions Develop & adopt WSUD action 2008. Action planning 2008. Action planning OSD policy currently draft final. & OSD policy identified. plans Environmental Planning undertaken as part of two rapid undertaken as part of two rapid assessment workshops assessment workshops conducted in 2012. WSUD conducted in 2012. WSUD actions are now being actions are now being incorporated as part of incorporated as part of catchment planning process. catchment planning process.

Water Quality MA15: High SW advised of immediate SW advised of immediate 2 sewerage overflow Incidents 3 Sewer overflow Incidents SWC liaison regarding sewer sewerage issues. Council sewerage issues. Council identified in LGA. problems Environmental Planning discussing with Sydney Water discussing with Sydney Water 1 of the incidents required OSC Joe Broad Reserve, Cabramatta potential for source control eg potential for source control eg to be flushed of overflow Creek - Check with Trevor rainwater tanks, to minimise rainwater tanks, to minimise material. Burdett St GPT opportunity for illegal opportunity for illegal required complete clean Carrawood Park, Carramar connections and to limit connections and to limit (removal of all waste and Prospect Creek. stormwater infiltration to sewer stormwater infiltration to sewer sewerage contaminated water). Major sewer overflow. 600mm in the Smithfield catchment. in the Smithfield catchment. sewerage pipe broke and Prospect Creek – Sewer overflow contaminated Park area. identification lead by FCC for Outcome – Extensive SWC to investigate. Outcome – rehabilitation and revegetation SWC identified large Fatberg in of contaminated area and creek infrastructure to be removed. aeration of Prospect Creek.

Railway Parade (Kookaburra Park), Canley Vale, .

Check with Karl (ESD) for outcome of actions by Syd H20.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 205

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine High Council continuing to undertake Rowley Park $17K crown lands Through Councils Creekcare Through Councils Creekcare Through Councils Creekcare Riparian Habitat wetlands & riparian vegetation bush regeneration along bush regen grant; awarded 2x program, Council targets the program, Council targets the program, Council targets the Enviro Rehabilitation & estuarine sections of Prospect 20million Tree grants for Fairfield restoration of all creeks restoration of all creeks restoration of all creeks Monitoring Creek, Orphan School Creek and park 15,000 mid storey trees throughout the LGA. Over $250K throughout the LGA. Over $250K throughout the LGA. Over $250K as part of $67,500, and 1x Prout Park was spent on bush regeneration was spent on bush regeneration was spent on bush regeneration Council’s long running Creek 10,000 trees mid-storey $45,000, works along Council creek line. works along Council creek line. works along Council creek line. Care Program. Council also does 2x GS LLS grants, Cabramatta bush regeneration work on Creek, GR confluence, bush Received a grant to carry out Fairfield City Council completed Continuing with the NSW northern foreshore of Chipping regen and reveg, $16.5K & bush regeneration works, the Sartor Crescent Grant. Environmental Trust grant for Norton Lake. Weed control second grant to complement interpretive signage, and Green Valley Creek for primary being undertaken at Fairfield Orphan School Creek works bushcare. A total of $22K was Fairfield City Council completed and secondary weed Park as part of a $30,000 Crown already completed all due to received. the Biofund infill planting of management, revegetation of Lands grant. finish in June 2017. Continuing to $10K for Sherwin Park and 30,000 native plant species and undertake bush regeneration Commenced NSW Environmental Johnson Park. community education along along estuarine sections of Trust grant for Green Valley Reach 7 (between North Prospect Creek, Orphan School Creek for primary and secondary Continuing with the NSW Liverpool Road & Humphries Creek and Cabramatta Creek as weed management, revegetation Environmental Trust grant for Road, Mount Pritchard). Time part of Council’s long running of 30,000 native plant species Green Valley Creek for primary constraints and delay shave been Creek Care Program with 2x and community education along and secondary weed discussed with the sponsor to green army undertaking bush Reach 7 (between North management, revegetation of allow the project to progress as regeneration throughout Liverpool Road & Humphries 30,000 native plant species and per modified work plan. Fairfield. Road, Mount Pritchard). community education along Reach 7 (between North Fairfield City Council carried out Liverpool Road & Humphries National Tree Day in Carrawood Road, Mount Pritchard). Project Park. 10,000 trees, shrubs and implementation and progress grasses were planted under the has been limited by extreme existing canopy to reduce the weather events. mowing in the area and expand the riparian vegetation. Fairfield City Council carried out National Tree Day in Carrawood Park. 10,000 trees, shrubs and grasses were planted under the existing canopy to reduce the mowing in the area and expand the riparian vegetation. MB7: Support and continue High Council continues to support Council continues to support Council continues to support Council continues to support Council will continue to support bushcare/ landcare groups approximately 25 regular approximately 30 regular approximately 30 regular approximately 30 regular approximately 30 regular Enviro Rehabilitation & volunteers within the Fairfield volunteers within the Fairfield volunteers within the Fairfield volunteers within the Fairfield volunteers within the Fairfield Monitoring Creeks and Wetland Group, Creeks and Wetland Group, Creeks and Wetland Group, Creeks and Wetland Group, Creeks and Wetland Group, Indigenous Flora Park Group, Indigenous Flora Park Group, Indigenous Flora Park Group, Indigenous Flora Park Group, Indigenous Flora Park Group, Cabramatta Creek Flying Fox Cabramatta Creek Flying Fox Sartor Crescent Bushcare Group Sartor Crescent Bushcare Group Sartor Crescent Bushcare Group Committee and the Fairfield Committee and the Fairfield and the Fairfield Community and the Fairfield Community and the Fairfield Community Community Nursery. Activities Community Nursery. Activities Nursery. Activities include native Nursery. Activities include native Nursery. Activities include native include native plant propagation, include native plant propagation, plant propagation, litter plant propagation, litter plant propagation, litter removal, litter removal, weed control, tree litter removal, weed control, tree removal, weed control, tree removal, weed control, tree weed control, tree planting planting and environmental planting and environmental planting. planting education. education. Sartor Crescent reserve Bushcare group on Orphan School Creek naturally formed.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 206

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants 2 x Green Army teams. 2 x Green Army teams. Corrective Services Teams Corrective Services Teams Riparian Habitat bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective control Enviro Rehabilitation & Services Teams, Aboriginal Exploring Grant Monitoring Riverkeeper Teams, Green Army opportunities/options when Teams are currently undertaking available with the GRK. significant bush regeneration and weed control work across the catchment, supporting Councils.

Aquatic and MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM Council provides free native Council provides free native Council provides free native Council provides free native Council to continue to provide Riparian Habitat Private landholder education re: plants to local residents and plants to local residents and plants to local residents and plants to local residents and free native plants to local habitat & vegetation Communications & Education community groups as part of community groups as part of community groups as part of community groups as part of residents and community groups community events. Numerous community events. Numerous community events. Numerous community events. Numerous as part of community events. educational workshops run for educational workshops run for free educational workshops run free educational workshops run Numerous free educational local resident and school local resident and school for local resident and school for local resident and school workshops run for local resident children on subjects such as children on subjects such as children as per the FCC children as per the FCC and school children as per the native bees, native bird native bees, native bird Environmental Calendar. Council Environmental Calendar. Council FCC Environmental Calendar. watching, stormwater pollution watching, stormwater pollution participates in National Tree Day participates in National Tree Day Council participates in National and weeds. We undertake and weeds. We undertake and Clean Up Australia Day. and Clean Up Australia Day. Tree Day and Clean Up Australia Bushcare training and an Bushcare training and an Day. environment Spring tour once a environment Spring tour once a year. Council participates in year. Council participates in National Tree Day and Clean Up National Tree Day and Clean Up Australia Day. Australia Day.

Recreation and MC3: Interpretive education LOW Council installs interpretative Stimson drain Signage. Link to Signage at the following Signage at the following TBA Amenity materials on signs for most stormwater CZMP on website. A habitat tree locations: locations: Recreation and conservation Communications & Education projects as part of its stormwater demonstration interpretive sign Orphan School Creek at Avoca Green Valley Creek at Lalich FCC Environmental Calendar education program. Signs has been designed. Road (1 Sign) Reserve (1 sign) completed identifying specific habitat and Orphan School Creek at Sartor bush regeneration activities are FCC Environmental Calendar Crescent – (2 Signs) Sartor Crescent Bush Care also installed. completed brochure complete Environmental Volunteers Brochure and Indigenous Flora Cumberland Woodland Park Bushcare group brochure Flyer/Information Fact sheet and updated. uploaded onto FCC’s Website.

FCC Environmental Calendar FCC Environmental Calendar completed completed

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 207

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC/BCC & KCC provided The GRCCC is advocating on FCC support GRK on advocating FCC support GRK on advocating FCC support GRK on advocating strategy revision input into the draft Boating behalf of members and for water craft safety on the for water craft safety on the for water craft safety on the Environmental Planning Strategy and review. community representatives to Georges River. Georges River. Georges River. FCC has just ensure safety on the River. The completed construction of GRCCC supported RMS summer Bradbury Wharf along safety campaigns by being Silverwater Crescent. involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant Suggestion: Would it be possible materials. Further to this, given to have a bi-annual the concern about an accident at meeting/update from Maritime Revesby Beach, the RMS was Services on compliance issues, contacted in August and fines and warnings issued and November 2015, with offers of the type of water craft causing support safety messages. environmental and social The NSW Governments problems. Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this. Land Use MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Council undertakes CZMP incorporated into Councils As per 2016 As per 2016 As per 2016 Planning and Practices for Council works environmental assessments as REF template for projects and Development Strategic Planning & required under EP&A Act for S.149 (5) Certificates. Development Controls Council works, business as usual.

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning GRCCC briefing session to DA As per 2016 As per 2016 CZMP aims & objectives to be aims and objectives in future EPI instruments such as Council LEPs planners and Strategic Planners integrated into Council’s Local reviews Strategic Planning & and strategies should be on the Georges River CZMP. In Strategic Planning Statement Development Controls consistent with the CZMP, as Fairfield: s.149s updated and part of future updates. CZMP used for advice on conditions on DAs.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 208

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MD5: New & revised PoMs to be MEDIUM Council currently identifying As per 2016 As per 2016 As per 2016 compatible with CZMP important areas that would Council currently identifying Strategic Planning & benefit from a site-specific plan important areas that would Development Controls of management. Future PoMs benefit from a site-specific plan will reference the CZMP. of management. Future PoMs will reference the CZMP.

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS Implemented the Local Land Commenced maintenance of the Continued to maintain the 2.5 ha and and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to Services Coastal and Aquatic 2.5 ha of of revegetated/regenerated area Sedimentation Environmental Planning prevent foreshore erosion. Also prevent foreshore erosion. Also Grant for Cherrybrook Park to revegetated/regenerated area as as planted in the Local Land at its committee meeting on 26 at its committee meeting on 26 reduce the extent and severity of planted in the Local Land Services Coastal and Aquatic June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to bank and foreshore erosion Services Coastal and Aquatic Grant. This area is being support the partnership request support the partnership request while minimising the impacts on Grant. This area is being maintained by Council’s on the Personal Watercraft (jet on the Personal Watercraft (jet estuary health. Works maintained by Council’s Creekcare Program. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. completed were, revegetation Creekcare Program. The GRCCC focus is on The GRCCC focus is on with 8000 native plant species environmental protection and environmental protection and (aquatic, groundcovers and erosion issues related to jet skis erosion issues related to jet skis shrubs), primary and secondary wake is an environmental wake is an environmental weed removal and placement of concern and this message would concern and this message would coir logs along the toe of the be included in any future media be included in any future media bank to reduce watercraft wash releases. releases. and allow sedimentation and colonisation of macrophytes. M

ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper program FCC commenced investigation FCC has just completed foreshore access assists Councils with the periodic and design phase for construction of Bradbury Wharf Engineering Works & Asset review of the foreshore from the replacement of Bradbury Wharf along Silverwater Crescent. Management River to identify and target any along Silverwater Crescent. inappropriate activities including FCC anticipates commencing access. investigation and designing phase for replacement of Floyd Bay Wharf.

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC Completed 800m Orphan School FCC commenced investigation FCC finalised investigation and To finalise all detailed designs for erosion, using vegetation, where Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams Creek rehab with a $1.55 million and design phase for Green design phase for Green Valley Green Valley Creek (Reach 1 & 2) possible Engineering Works & Asset are re-vegetating Council priority budget. Investigating Valley Creek Rehabilitation Creek Rehabilitation project in and Wilson Creek Rehabilitation Management sites impacted by erosion. opportunities to rehabilitate project in Reach 1 and 2 (850m), Reach 1 and 2 (850m), between projects in 2019. Complete reaches of Green Valley Creek, between Cumberland Hwy and Cumberland Hwy and the Review of Environmental Currently rehabilitating an 800 m concept plans progressing and the confluence with Orphan confluence with Orphan School Factors, seek Approvals and long reach of Orphan School detailed design next year. An School Creek. Creek. However, detailed designs commence the procurement Creek with a $1.55 million additional 3 projects. Ongoing have been submitted to Sydney process to engage an budget. Investigating Investigations to rehabilitate FCC commenced investigation Water Corporation for review, experienced civil and creek opportunities to rehabilitate Barrass Drain in Yennora. and design phase for Wilson comment and approval. rehab contractor reaches of Green Valley Creek. Creek Rehabilitation project, Investigations to rehabilitate between Dowland Street and

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 209

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Barrass Drain in Yennora have Simpson Road, Bonnyrigg FCC continued the project with a FCC commenced investigation been programmed for 2015/16. Heights. new consultant to further and design phase for Green progress the investigation and Valley Creek Rehabilitation FCC commenced investigation design phase for Wilson Creek project in Reach 3 (1000m), and design phase for Cabramatta Rehabilitation project, between between Cumberland Hwy and Creek Bank Stabilisation project, Dowland Street and Simpson the confluence with Orphan between Liverpool Street and Road, Bonnyrigg Heights. School Creek. Holiday Inn. FCC continuing with and design Continuing with the NSW FCC commenced investigation phase for Cabramatta Creek Environmental Trust grant for and design phase for Orphan Bank Stabilisation project, Green Valley Creek for primary School Creek Bank Stabilisation between Liverpool Street and and secondary weed project at Mimosa Road (Wylde Holiday Inn. management, revegetation of Park). 30,000 native plant species and Commenced NSW Environmental FCC finalised the investigation community education along Trust grant for Green Valley and design phase for Orphan Reach 7 (between North Creek for primary and secondary School Creek Bank Stabilisation Liverpool Road & Humphries weed management, revegetation project at Mimosa Road (Wylde Road, Mount Pritchard). Time of 30,000 native plant species Park). constraints and delay shave been and community education along discussed with the sponsor to Reach 7 (between North Continuing with the NSW allow the project to progress as Liverpool Road & Humphries Environmental Trust grant for per modified work plan. Road, Mount Pritchard). Green Valley Creek for primary and secondary weed management, revegetation of 30,000 native plant species and community education along Reach 7 (between North Liverpool Road & Humphries Road, Mount Pritchard). Project implementation and progress has been limited by extreme weather events.

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM NA NA NA Protection eco-friendly seawall guidelines Strategic Planning & Development Controls

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW NA NA NA eco-friendly seawalls Communications & Education

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 210

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its Aboriginal heritage study LGA Completion of Fairfield City Fairfield City Council developed Final Draft of the Reconciliation Cultural Groups and others to determine Biodiversity Fund Grant project wide, a triage of sensitivity. Council Aboriginal Heritage the Reconciliation Action plan - Action plan 2019-2023 to be Heritage options for threatened heritage Recreation and Heritage has consulted with LALCs in the Reconciliation plan developed. Study by Mary Dallas consulting 2019-2023. completed in 2019 by Fairfield sites Georges River catchment on how Mary Dallas consultant engaged Archaeologists. City Council. to best protect and manage on Aboriginal advisory group. threatened heritage sites that The GRCCC through its Council to protect and manage are part of this project. LALCs Biodiversity Fund Grant project threatened heritage sites that have undertaken cultural (Aboriginal Riverkeeper Project) are encountered. heritage assessments and has consulted with LALCs in the provided advice to the GRCCC on Georges River catchment on how how to protect Aboriginal sites. to best protect and manage threatened heritage sites that are part of this project.

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and areas MEDIUM Sea level rise scenarios have Sea level rise scenarios have No further works have been No further works have been No actions have been proposed and Sea Level for vegetation previously been mapped for previously been mapped for carried out at present. carried out at present. to review or further investigate Rise Retreat Environmental Planning Prospect Creek but impact on Prospect Creek but impact on sea level rise scenarios for vegetation has yet to be vegetation has yet to be Prospect Creek or its tributaries. assessed assessed.

Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils Fairfield City Council continues Fairfield City Council continues Fairfield City Council continues Evaluation Health Monitoring continue to support and fully continue to support and fully to support and fund the River to support and fund the River to support and fund the River Program Enviro Rehabilitation & fund the River Health Monitoring fund the River Health Monitoring Health Monitoring Program. Health Monitoring Program. Health Monitoring Program. Monitoring program. Further, some member program. Further, some member Fairfield City Council also carries Fairfield City Council also carries Fairfield City Council also carries Councils undertake their own Councils undertake their own out its own Water Quality out its own Water Quality out its own Water Quality water quality monitoring that water quality monitoring that Monitoring Program across the Monitoring Program across the Monitoring Program across the complements the program. The complements the program. The tributaries in the Georges River tributaries in the Georges River tributaries in the Georges River results of ecological monitoring results of ecological monitoring Catchment within its LGA. Catchment within its LGA. Catchment within its LGA. are outlined in an annual River are outlined in an annual River Health Report Card and Health Report Card and Fairfield City Council Fairfield City Council Fairfield City Council will Technical Report. Community Technical Report. Community continuously monitors the health continuously monitors the health continue to monitor the health engagement is key to the engagement is key to the of riparian vegetation through of riparian vegetation through of riparian vegetation through program, with the community program, with the community formal and informal audits of the formal and informal audits of the formal and informal audits of the involved in monitoring local involved in monitoring local local vegetation communities local vegetation communities local vegetation communities streams. School students also streams. School students also (aquatic, riparian and terrestrial). (aquatic, riparian and terrestrial). (aquatic, riparian and terrestrial) participate via our partnerships participate via our partnerships and other creek rehabilitation with the Georges River with the Georges River projects that are implemented Environmental Education Centre. Environmental Education Centre. by Council. Estuary monitoring has been Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted the aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide methods to NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review Also, the review recommendations are being recommendations are being implemented to ensure an implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring practice ecological monitoring program. program. .

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 211

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils Planning policies and Council Continuation of council’s Continuation of council’s Fairfield City Council has monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over programs for on ground NRM funding towards programs that funding towards programs that programed to review and update Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. In early 2014, the and estuary management support on ground NRM and support on ground NRM and the existing Biodiversity Strategy Monitoring estuary cluster group met to grants, demonstrate active estuary management works, estuary management works, (2016), City Wide Development consider options to work implementation of the CZMP demonstrate active demonstrate active Control Plan (2013) and Local together to explore combined with staff attendance at the implementation of the CZMP implementation of the CZMP Environmental Plan (2015). grants and implement actions. GRCCC briefing session further with staff attendance at the with staff attendance at the Six member Councils applied for helping to ensure the CZMP is GRCCC meetings and workshops GRCCC meetings and workshops Please see previous comments OEH estuary management grants considered by planners and further helping to ensure the further helping to ensure the on MB4 – Rehabilitation of and three member Councils were NRM staff. CZMP is considered by planners, CZMP is considered by planners, estuarine wetlands and riparian awarded funding in 2014 Natural Resource Management Natural Resource Management vegetation (page 5). (Liverpool, Hurstville and and Catchment Management and Catchment Management Fairfield). staff. In addition, Council seeks staff. In addition Council seeks This action plan will assist to State and Federal Government State and Federal Government support and implement priority Funding to assist in further Funding to assist in further actions identified in the CZMP. enhancing its ecological and enhancing its ecological and An annual review is conducted waterway health across the LGA. waterway health across the LGA. with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress Please see previous comments Please see previous comments towards implementing actions on MB4 – Rehabilitation of on MB4 – Rehabilitation of and to inform OEH grant funding estuarine wetlands and riparian estuarine wetlands and riparian applications. All members vegetation (page 5). vegetation (page 5). provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 212

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Georges River Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Georges River Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Could you also please provide feedback below on how Georges River Council uses the CZMP and if there is anything that needs to be added in the scoping study to transition the Coastal Zone Management Plan to a Coastal Management Program in line with Coastal Management Reforms. Comments can be inserted here or provided as a separate attachment.

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA2: High Hurstville City Council: WSUD Hurstville City Council: Update or prepare new WSUD controls need to be developed DCP on public exhibition controls within DCPs Strategic Planning & and included within future (Council report no. CCL 055-15 Development Controls DCPs and adopted by Council. of 9.12.2015) includes objectives for stormwater Kogarah City Council: Water quality controls which is new. Management Policy contains Considered that the WQ WQ targets and WQ criteria objectives could be stronger to needs development and reflect BBWQIP targets as per requires review. Quantity Section 3.7. Table 6.2 in the control linked to a clearly CZMP. defined OSD policy. Kogarah City Council: Water Management Policy contains WQ targets and WQ criteria needs development and requires review. Quantity control linked to a clearly defined OSD policy.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 213

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA3: High Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: 2018 Gannons Park Water 2019-20 Gannons Park Water Retrofit new WSUD devices in Peakhurst Light Industrial Butler Reserve raingarden Quality Improvement and Quality Improvement and existing urban areas Engineering Works & Asset Stormwater Harvesting and construction begins June 2016 Stormwater Harvesting Stage Stormwater Harvesting Stage 2 Management Reuse Scheme (Golf Course), a in the Cooks River catchment. 1 & 3 $2.6 million project harvests Gannons Park detailed designs water from a 160 ha industrial for the stormwater harvesting and residential catchment. project to be finished by 1 The stormwater harvesting March 2016. Webbs Dam irrigation system was Stage 2 irrigation completed in 2014 & harvests infrastructure has been over 50 M/L of stormwater identified in HCC delivery plan p.a, saving 21M/L of potable and CSP, funding needs to be water p.a benefiting Lime Kiln sourced. Bay, within the Georges River. -Gannons Park (Upper Kogarah City Council: Boggywell Creek) Stage 1 Carlton Stormwater harvesting design commencing 2015 plant completed. Bio-retention through an OEH matched grant swales and upgrades for a bio-retention system, completed at Dover Park and swales and storage ponds. - Tom Ugly’s Point where a bio- Webbs Dam (Evatt Park) a bio- retention pond was completed retention system was installed as part of the upgrade of the in 2013. Future stages may carpark fishing area. Beverly include using harvested water Park Golf Course channel to irrigate sports fields. diversion and naturalisation is Kogarah City Council: due for completion in May. Carlton Stormwater harvesting Concept design completed for plant to supply the depot with Shipwrights Bay Reserve to secondary use water for look at the potential for swales council street sweeping, or WSUD device. Lower construction, landscape Poulton Park remediation via planting etc. Pipelines laid, bioswale. Kogarah Bay Creek construction the treatment channel investigations for a plant commenced as a pilot WSUD project being discussed plant. Bioretention swales at with SW as a potential funding Dover Park and upgrade; Tom partner. Green Roof on Council Uglys Point bio-retention pond building due to be completed for carpark fishing area in March 2016. upgrade. Beverly Park Golf Course channel diversion and naturalisation is upcoming. Scoping work undertaken at Shipwrights Bay Reserve to look at the potential for swales or WSUD device.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 214

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc Working with Assets Engineers 61 SQIDs in the LGA including Engineering Works & Asset to determine future funding catchment near Council maintains 30 GPT”S Council maintains 30 GPT”S Management requirements for ongoing the entry to Botany Bay. This within Georges River LGA within Georges River LGA maintenance of WSUD devices includes 2x raingardens and 5 and this includes an annual x wetlands and racks, GPTs, review of Council’s stormwater CDS in the Georges River maintenance schedule. catchment area. Council undertook a review of the Kogarah City Council: contracts for servicing the Ongoing program and budget, GPTs & others. An ongoing $60K p.a contracted for 10 maintenance register exists for major CDS (continuous larger devices e.g. Hurstville deflective screen) units, plus Golf Course stormwater works crews maintenance harvesting scheme. The Lime budget for an ongoing Kiln Bay stormwater program for smaller devices, improvement device involved litter traps and upgrade of $65K of sediment removal in and Quarry 2015 and $50K grant from GS Reserve. LLS for a new connection to improve flow. A further $120K is to address creek erosion, below the GPT in 2016.

Kogarah City Council: 10-11 CDS units, plus GPTs. Council has the maximum number of GPTs possible with roughly 85% of catchment covered by a WSUD device.

Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion High Hurstville & Kogarah Councils: Hurstville & Kogarah Councils: control during & after Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard construction Compliance conditions of Development conditions of Development consent, with regular consent, with regular inspections of major inspections of major construction sites as part of construction sites as part of building certification system building certification system and compliance. and compliance.

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program Refer to 2015 comment. clean-up & illegal dumping continues on groundwork and Enviro Rehabilitation & collected over 70 tonnes of Monitoring rubbish across the catchment in 2013/14.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 215

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Water Quality MA10: High Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: Develop & adopt WSUD action Adopted 2011 and updated Adopted 2011 and updated plans Environmental Planning 2014. 2014.

Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: Completed 2011 but not Completed 2011 but not adopted. adopted.

Water Quality MA15: High Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: SWC liaison regarding sewer Lime Kiln Bay Community Modification to the Dairy problems Environmental Planning Reference Group established Creek outlet completed and by Sydney Water to investigate SW & HCC worked closely on solutions in response to this to reduce the number of concerns of Councils and overflows. SW installed & residents’ complaints funded an automated shut regarding overflows and down device on Roberts Ave, amenity problems. Mortdale to prevent overflows entering the Golf Course Kogarah City Council: Stormwater harvesting Notification to and from SW. scheme. SW improved relationship with Council and its communications over incidents.

Kogarah City Council: Kogarah Bay creek channel. Ongoing relationship and contact regarding potential projects.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 216

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB4: Rehabilitation of High Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: estuarine wetlands & riparian Lime Kiln Bay Green Army Lime Kiln Bay improvement vegetation Enviro Rehabilitation & team are working to restore works included macrophyte Dover West Foreshore 2018 Riverwood Wetland 2018-19 Monitoring riparian areas and also priority planting as well as sediment Improvement Restoration Foreshore Naturalisation areas will be identified as part removal and revegetation. Salt Stages 2 & 3. of Council’s Biodiversity Study. Pan Creek & Myles Dunphy Carss Bush Park Foreshore 2017-18 Lime Kiln Bay Wetland and Gannons Park are all Naturalisation Stage 1. Improvement 2018-20 Foreshore Access and Kogarah City Council: Green Army team work sites, Improvement Plan Dover Park seawall completed; with two teams consecutively. Carss Park seawall upgrade Council submitted an final designs, construction to Environmental Trust grant be completed in 2015 via OEH application for $100K for the estuary management grant, upgrade of Riverwood Oatley Bay Creek wetlands and awaiting Improvement program bank feedback. Projects identified alignment, recreating riparian for future delivery within zones and weeding and Myles Dunphy Reserve PoM to replanting, Poulton Park improve riparian habitat. foreshore green army teams. The renaturalisation of Kogarah City Council: Kogarah Bay (needs SW OEH 2015/16 Estuary support as the asset owner) Management Program grants and is a medium term priority. awarded to the Dover Park West Foreshore Remediation Project. Carss Park Seawall completed, Poulton Park remediation completed and ongoing regeneration with significant revegetation proposed with GS LLS $15K for planting. The renaturalisation of Kogarah Bay (needs SW support as the asset owner) is a medium term priority to extend Carss Park seawall. Wetlands and naturalised channel is underway at Beverly Park Golf Course to be completed by May 2016. Shipwrights is being regenerated with the Aboriginal Riverkeeper Team/National Trust Team. Baldface Point erosion control and revegetation ongoing and stairs constructed to control access and erosion.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 217

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Hurstville City Council: All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer The work of Riverkeeper and continue to support volunteer continue to support volunteer continue to support volunteer Enviro Rehabilitation & Bushcare groups using best Green Army teams are Bushcare groups using best Bushcare groups using best Bushcare groups using best Monitoring practice bush regeneration. supporting the bushcare practice bush regeneration. practice bush regeneration. practice bush regeneration. groups to complement their Kogarah City Council: on ground works schedule and 3 Bushcare groups (30-40) and add value. a Streamwatch group. Kogarah City Council: 3 Bushcare groups (30-40) and a Streamwatch group.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants Hurstville City Council: bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective The work of Riverkeeper and control Enviro Rehabilitation & Services Teams, Aboriginal Green Army teams including Monitoring Riverkeeper Teams, Green HCC own Green Army team Army Teams are currently are supporting the Bushcare undertaking significant bush groups to complement their regeneration and weed control on ground works and add work across the catchment, value. supporting Councils. Kogarah City Council: Expanding sites to add Carss Park sea wall, Dover Park West, Baldface Point.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: Private landholder education Council educates the Council staff led a tour for the re: habitat & vegetation Communications & Education community at events such as Source to Sea event at Lime Lions Club Spring Fair at Kiln Bay with Oatley Flora & Gannons Park, Lugarno and Fauna and Bushcare Oatley Lions Festival, Big Day consultation on designs and Out at Oatley Park for Oatley tours. Flora and Fauna and through its Bushcare groups. Kogarah City Council: Council educates the Kogarah City Council: community at events such as Council educates the Australia Day and Oatley Lions community at events such as Festival; Kogarah Life Australia Day and Oatley Lions newsletter and through its Festival; Kogarah Life regular bushcare groups & newsletter and through its Streamwatch groups and also regular Bushcare groups and Sustainability and Waste Streamwatch group and also workshops. Also, Mayors Sustainability and Waste Green grants program helps workshops. Also, Mayors educate the community with Green grants program helps projects such as schools educate the community with swales, green wall projects. projects such as schools swales, green wall projects.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 218

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Recreation and Amenity MC3: Interpretive education LOW Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: materials on Council provides material on Website and updated maps. Recreation and conservation Communications & Education its website and is updating Fox brochures. new maps on recreation areas. Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: Interpretive signage at Carss Interpretative signage at major Park, dog signage at Moore environmental project sites Reserve sensitive areas, including Dover Park intertidal education on fox control as interpretative foreshore part of the regional grant. signage; drain stencilling school program and Moore Reserve signage. Dover Park seawall (UTS student project on) and promoting Kogarah foreshore educational mini you tube documentary.

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC/BCC & KCC The GRCCC is advocating on strategy revision provided input into the draft behalf of members and Environmental Planning Boating Strategy and review. community representatives to ensure safety on the River. The Kogarah City Council: Aligned GRCCC supported RMS its funding priorities with the summer safety campaigns by RMS -Oatley Bay boat ramp being involved in promoting and facility upgrade proposal jet-ski safety and distributing grant opportunities to co fund relevant materials. Further to programs. this, given the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages. The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 219

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

organising and coordinating this.

Land Use Planning and MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: Development Practices for Council works As standard practice Council Highly commended at 2015 Strategic Planning & undertakes a comprehensive Stormwater Industry Development Controls Part 5 Review of Associations Awards for the Environmental Factors (REF) Golf Course stormwater for Council works e.g. Leachate harvesting scheme. Leachate plant. Hurstville Golf Course plant modifications are and Webbs Dam (Evatt Park) achieving pollution levels are good examples of best significantly below SW Trade management practice Waste Agreement. incorporating WSUD and limiting the export of Kogarah City Council: pollutants including sediments Contractors prepare the and nutrients. Construction Environmental Management Plan Kogarah City Council: incorporating Environmental Council undertakes objectives. environmental assessments as required under EP&A Act for Council works, business as usual.

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning Hurstville City Council: aims and objectives in future instruments such as Council GRCCC briefing session to DA EPI reviews Strategic Planning & LEPs and strategies should be planners and Strategic Development Controls consistent with the CZMP, as Planners on the Georges River part of future updates. CZMP. In Fairfield: s.149s updated and CZMP used for advice on conditions on DAs.

Kogarah City Council: Draft LEP under preparation. Greater Sydney Commission may require regional updates to LEPs which need to be consistent with CZMP.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 220

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

MD5: New & revised PoMs to MEDIUM Kogarah City Council: Hurstville City Council: be compatible with CZMP Completed all parks POMs. Myles Dunphy March 2013 Strategic Planning & Future revisions will considerconsistent. Development Controls CZMP. Kogarah City Council: Draft Shipwrights PoM consistent.

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS and impacts and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to Sedimentation Environmental Planning prevent foreshore erosion. prevent foreshore erosion. Also at its committee meeting Also at its committee meeting on 26 June 2014, the GRCCC on 26 June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to support the agreed to support the partnership request on the partnership request on the Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on GRCCC focus is on environmental protection and environmental protection and erosion issues related to jet erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an environmental skis wake is an environmental concern and this message concern and this message would be included in any would be included in any future media releases. future media releases.

M

ME3: Targeted control of ad- MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper Hurstville City Council: hoc foreshore access program assists Councils with Staircase completed by Green Engineering Works & Asset the periodic review of the Army teams at Banksia Place Management foreshore from the River to Lugarno to link up with an identify and target any existing track. Myles Dunphy inappropriate activities PoM to formalise access if including access. funding is available. Maps of Hurstville parks and walking Kogarah City Council: trails brochure to encourage Not a significant issue public use of formal pathways. formalization through sea walls and developed shoreline. Kogarah: Baldface Point, natural bush stone staircase constructed and Carss Park seawall path provided. To replace boat ramp at Oatley Bay before June.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 221

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC Hurstville City Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: erosion, using vegetation, Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams LKB refer to action MA3, 40m where possible Engineering Works & Asset are re-vegetating Council reach of Dairy Creek below 2017 Poulton Park Depot 2017-18 Dairy Creek Bank 2019 Myles Dunphy Boardwalk Management priority sites impacted by GPT will be rehabilitated in Naturalisation Stage 1 Restoration Construction erosion. 2016. 2017 Myles Dunphy Bush 2019 Poulton Park Depot Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: Regeneration/Bank Naturalisation Stage 2 Mostly seawalls, Oatley Bay Baldface Point natural Stabilisation Creek to address this. Connells staircase completed and will Point completed in the past. help to minimise erosion. Baldface Point is being Dover Park west erosion investigated as part of the issues. Biodiversity Fund Grant.

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: Protection eco-friendly seawall Completed an Award Winning Kogarah City Council’s guidelines Strategic Planning & seawall renewal project at environmentally friendly sea 2017 Dover Park West 2018-19 Carss Bush Park Development Controls Dover Park. Also installed pots wall completed and was Foreshore Improvement Foreshore Naturalisation on San Souci park seawall and showcased to GRCCC member Stages 2 & 3 construction is due to Councils and community 2017 Carss Bush Park commence on the Carss Park representatives at a GRCCC Foreshore Naturalisation Stage Seawall. meeting. The Carss Bush Park 1 masterplan includes re- naturalization and removal of the sea wall, adopted by Council and part of the PoM and in Operational and delivery plans.

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: eco-friendly seawalls Developed brochures on eco- In October 2015, the GRCCC Communications & Education friendly seawalls approved by organized for Kogarah City OEH customized to KCC. Get Council to run a tour for DA referrals. members and the community on Carss Park seawall where construction was nearing completion to showcase the environmentally friendly sea wall. Since then KCC has given talks to the community, SIMS and affiliated universities and Singapore government delegation on this project.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 222

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its Hurstville City Council: Georges River Council: Georges River Council: Council to protect and manage Cultural Heritage Groups and others to Biodiversity Fund Grant Consults with Aboriginal threatened heritage sites that determine options for Recreation and Heritage project has consulted with Advisory Committee; a recent The GRCCC through its The GRCCC through its are encountered. threatened heritage sites LALCs in the Georges River tour in early 2016 with Biodiversity Fund Grant Biodiversity Fund Grant catchment on how to best committee with Canterbury project (Aboriginal Riverkeeper project (Aboriginal Riverkeeper protect and manage Council on raingardens. ART & Project) has consulted with Project) has consulted with threatened heritage sites that Myles Dunphy knowledge LALCs in the Georges River LALCs in the Georges River are part of this project. LALCs sharing day. During NAIDOC catchment on how to best catchment on how to best have undertaken cultural events Aboriginal Riverkeeper protect and manage protect and manage heritage assessments and Team toured with local Elders threatened heritage sites that threatened heritage sites that provided advice to the GRCCC at Lime Kiln Bay. are part of this project. are part of this project. on how to protect Aboriginal sites. Kogarah City Council: Shipwrights POM, Metro LALC Oatley Point, Reconciliation Action Plan is being prepared.

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and MEDIUM Hurstville City Council: Hurstville City Council: and Sea Level areas for vegetation Hurstville flood study is Hurstville flood study has been Rise Retreat Environmental Planning currently being undertaken publicly exhibited and will and will include SLR in the include SLR in the flood flood mapping developed. mapping developed.

Kogarah City Council: Kogarah City Council: Completed SLR mapping Completed SLR mapping studies for a variety of studies for a variety of scenarios. It doesn’t scenarios. It doesn’t specifically highlight areas for specifically highlight areas for vegetation retreat, minimal vegetation retreat, minimal natural saltmarsh. Natural natural saltmarsh. Natural adaptation or regenerated adaptation or regenerated sites will provide for sites will provide for vegetation retreat. vegetation retreat. .

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 223

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils Evaluation Health Monitoring continue to support and fully continue to support and fully Program Enviro Rehabilitation & fund the River Health fund the River Health Monitoring Monitoring program. Further, Monitoring program. Further, some member Councils some member Councils undertake their own water undertake their own water quality monitoring that quality monitoring that complements the program. complements the program. The results of ecological The results of ecological monitoring are outlined in an monitoring are outlined in an annual River Health Report annual River Health Report Card and Technical Report. Card and Technical Report. Community engagement is key Community engagement is key to the program, with the to the program, with the community involved in community involved in monitoring local streams. monitoring local streams. School students also School students also participate via our participate via our partnerships with the Georges partnerships with the Georges River Environmental Education River Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has Centre. Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted been aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide the NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review comparisons. Also, the review recommendations are being recommendations are being implemented to ensure an implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring practice ecological monitoring program. program. MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils All Councils completed their monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over Councils progress on the Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. In early 2014, the CZMP Action Plan with the Monitoring estuary cluster group met to GRCCC. The GRCCC also keeps consider options to work Councils abreast of together to explore combined reforms/policies and grants and implement actions. developments by state Six member Councils applied agencies/developers that for OEH estuary management impact on the estuary. grants and three member Councils were awarded Kogarah City Council: funding in 2014 (Liverpool, Meetings to update action Hurstville and Fairfield). plan, on ground works and This action plan will assist to grant applications are support and implement demonstrating priority actions identified in implementation. the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 224

Theme/Aim Recommended Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019 Action/Strategy

gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 225

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Liverpool City Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Liverpool City Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Could you also please provide feedback below on how Liverpool City Council uses the CZMP and if there is anything that needs to be added in the scoping study to transition the Coastal Zone Management Plan to a Coastal Management Program in line with Coastal Management Reforms. Comments can be inserted here or provided as a separate attachment.

There is nothing additional to report.

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA2: High Reviewing DCP 2008 Part 1 to Updating current controls with a WSUD Technical Guidelines WSUD being implemented in WSUD being implemented in Update or prepare new WSUD align with industry standard. The suite of four policies including a adopted. new release areas. new release areas. controls within DCPs Strategic Planning & DCP currently contains WSUD WQ strategy/policy and Development Controls controls & water quality targets DCP/technical guideline for for Stormwater Runoff Quality developers/officers. The DCP & (e.g. TN, TP). Policy are due to be reported to Council. Strategy/technical guidelines are in final draft stage to be formalised, including the same targets for WQ consistent with BBWQIP. Alluvium was engaged to prepare these documents.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 226

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA3: High New installation program for Currently 115 GPTs in the LGA. A A new GPT was installed at a One GPT was constructed and is A total of six (6) GPTs will be Retrofit new WSUD devices in new GPTs in existing urban areas masterplan identified 150 GPTs stormwater outlet within the set to be installed at a installed at various stormwater existing urban areas Engineering Works & Asset $80-100K p.a. Lurnea detention progressively required in urban Cabramatta Creek catchment. stormwater outlet within the outlets across urban catchment Management basin with WQ treatment; areas and these are prioritised Cabramatta Creek catchment. areas (Cabramatta Creek, Sydney Water enforceable based on music modelling, with Brickmakers Creek, Anzac Creek, undertaking 2 GPTs at Ashcroft 3 GPTs to be installed in the and Maxwells Creek). in Cabramatta Creek to be 16/17 FY. WSUD is required in installed in 2015. Council is existing areas for any reviewing and looking at developments on a site greater opportunities for improvements than 2000sqm, between 1,000- in this area. 2,000sqm need rainwater tanks of 3,000litres per 100sqm of roofed area. Even medium density development are required to provide a WSUD device. WSUD is required for large scale new release areas including Georges Fair, Edmondson Park, Middleton Grange, and Voyager Point. In the South west growth centre of Austral/East Leppington, new release areas will also incorporate WSUD. The big challenge for Council is to fund maintenance costs. RMS road construction also required WSUD as part of road widening. Council audited GPTs performance involving Stormwater NSW and recommendations are to be implemented. All works identified in 2015 completed. Budget substantially increased to $300K for new GPT construction. Next year 4 GPTs are to be constructed including Amalfi Park; flood detention basin and WQ feature. Council has completed the Amalfi Basins.

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High Structured maintenance 115 GPTs maintained. Maintenance of GPTs and WSUD Investigation completed for the Operation and Maintenance devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc program for GPTs timeframes Raingardens newly constructed devices undertaken and included development of Operation and Manual for WSUD devices to be Engineering Works & Asset are monthly, quarterly or half in Georges Fair and Voyager in the ongoing maintenance Maintenance (O&M) Manual for completed. Management yearly depending on the location Point. 150 new devices required program. WSUD devices. and in the city centre it is more in future to cover the rest of the frequent. catchment.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 227

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion control High As above and also soil and water As above and also soil and water Sediment and erosion control Sediment and erosion control Sediment and erosion control during & after construction management plan controls in the management plan controls in the adopted through development adopted through development adopted through development Compliance DCP become conditions and are DCP become conditions and are controls during the DA approval controls during the DA approval controls during the DA approval a compliance requirement. Large a compliance requirement. Large process. Get the Site Right process. Get the Site Right process. Get the Site Right scale subdivisions are managed scale subdivisions are managed campaign was undertaken to campaign was undertaken to campaign will be undertaken to better. Council works better. Council works raise awareness of sediment and raise awareness of sediment and raise awareness of sediment and contractors must comply. contractors must comply. erosion control in construction erosion control in construction erosion control in construction sites. Non-complying sites. Non-complying sites. Non-complying construction sites were fined. construction sites were fined. construction sites will be fined.

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program GRCCC Riverkeeper Program The Catchment Actions Program The Catchment Actions Program clean-up & illegal dumping continues on ground work and continues on groundwork and continues on groundwork and prevented 132.4 tonnes of prevented approximately 110 Enviro Rehabilitation & collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish collected over 113 tonnes of rubbish entering the river in tonnes of rubbish from entering Monitoring rubbish across the catchment in across the catchment in 2014/15 rubbish across the catchment in 2017- 2018 the river in 2018/19 2013/14. through the partnership with 2016/17 through the partnership Corrective Services NSW and with Corrective Services NSW additional resources with three and additional resources with Green Army teams working three Green Army teams across the catchment. working across the catchment.

Water Quality MA10: High No plan. No plan. WSUD are being implemented in WSUD are being implemented in WSUD are being implemented in Develop & adopt WSUD action new release areas through new release areas through new release areas through plans Environmental Planning development controls. development controls. development controls.

Water Quality MA15: High Notification to and from SW. Notification to and from SW. Notification to and from SW. Sydney Water is monitoring wet Notification to and from SW. SWC liaison regarding sewer weather overflow of sewer at problems Environmental Planning two locations within Liverpool LGA (commenced in Oct-18)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 228

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine High Bush Regeneration and planting Significant bush regeneration Under the Environment Under the Environment Under the Environment Riparian Habitat wetlands & riparian vegetation has been completed along and planting at Riverside Park, Restoration Plan program, LCC Restoration Plan program, LCC Restoration Plan program, LCC Enviro Rehabilitation & riparian sections of the Georges Chipping Norton with ongoing completed a number of projects completed a number of projects will Commence a number of Monitoring River at Haigh Park, South Park maintenance funded for this that included works to protect that included works to protect projects that included works to and Chipping Norton Lakes and work beyond the GRCCC Bio and enhance riparian vegetation. and enhance riparian vegetation. protect and enhance riparian also Riverside Park, Chipping Fund grant. The NT team is These were: These were: vegetation. These include: Norton. working at Jacqui Osmond Fassifern Park (Cartwright); Brickmakers Creek (Warwick Casula Parklands (Casula); Reserve. In August 2015 Council Lieutenant Cantello Reserve Farm); Freeman’s Oval (Warwick Farm); commenced riparian bushland (Hammondville); Clinches Pond (Moorebank); Lake Moore (Chipping Norton); restoration projects in Voyager Dwyer Oval (Warwick Farm); Lieutenant Cantello Reserve Point (Georges River) and Harris Creek (Holsworthy); (Hammondville); Hammondville Park (Harris Lake Moore (Chipping Norton); Rossmore Grange (Rossmore); Creek). Lehmanns Oval (Liverpool) Starr Park (Austral). Tepper Park (Sadleir) The River Walk (Voyager Point); Voyager Point Bushland Reserve (Voyager Point)

MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Council coordinates 10 LCC continues to coordinate 10 LCC continues to coordinate 10 LCC continues to coordinate 10 bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer Environment Groups and 1 Environment Groups and 2 Environment Groups and 2 Environment Groups and 2 Enviro Rehabilitation & Bushcare groups using best Stream Watch group, with Stream Watch groups, with Stream Watch groups, with Stream Watch groups, with Monitoring practice bush regeneration. approximately 60 regular approximately 60 active approximately 60 active approximately 60 active volunteers. volunteers. Council also delivers volunteers. Council also delivers volunteers. Council also delivers 8 monthly Community Tree 8 monthly Community Tree 8 monthly Community Tree Council coordinates 10 Planting activities and regularly Planting activities and regularly Planting activities and regularly Environment Groups and 1 engages schools and other engages schools and other engages schools and other Stream Watch group, with groups for one-off volunteering groups for one-off volunteering groups for one-off volunteering approximately 60 regular activities. activities. activities. volunteers.

Aquatic and MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants GRCCC partners and grants GRCCC partners and grants GRCCC actively applying for 2018-19 Georges Riverkeeper Riparian Habitat bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective programs including Corrective programs including Corrective grants to implement bush was successful in obtaining control Enviro Rehabilitation & Services Teams, Aboriginal Services Teams, Aboriginal Services Teams, Aboriginal regeneration works across the two Environmental Trust Monitoring Riverkeeper Teams and Green Riverkeeper Teams and Green Riverkeeper Teams and Green catchment 2018 Restoration & Army Teams are currently Army Teams are currently Army Teams are currently Rehabilitation Program undertaking significant bush undertaking significant bush undertaking significant bush regeneration and weed control regeneration and weed control regeneration and weed control Grants. These grants are for a work across the catchment, work across the catchment, work across the catchment, three year period supporting Councils. supporting Councils. supporting Councils. commencing in 2018/19. Projects focus on riparian rehabilitation

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 229

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM The environment program The environment program The environment program The environment program The environment program Riparian Habitat Private landholder education re: produce an Environment Activity produce an Environment Activity produce an Environment Activity produce an Environment Activity produce an Environment Activity habitat & vegetation Communications & Education Calendar and Sustaining Calendar and Sustaining Calendar and Sustaining Calendar and Sustaining Calendar and Sustaining Liverpool Newsletter (quarterly) Liverpool Newsletter (quarterly) Liverpool Newsletter (quarterly) Liverpool Newsletter (quarterly) Liverpool Newsletter (quarterly) which is distributed to 1500 which is distributed to 1500 which is distributed to 1500 which is distributed to 1500 which is distributed to 1500 people and via the website. Also people and via the website. Also people and via the website. Also people and via the website. Also people and via the website. Also provide information at Spring provide information at Spring provide information at Spring provide information at Spring provide information at Spring Expo and Australia Day event Expo and Australia Day event Expo and Australia Day event Expo and Australia Day event Expo and Australia Day event and participate in National Tree and participate in National Tree and participate in National Tree and participate in National Tree and participate in National Tree Day and deliver monthly Day and deliver monthly Day and deliver monthly Day and deliver monthly Day and deliver monthly Community Tree Planting events. Community Tree Planting events. Community Tree Planting events. Community Tree Planting events. Community Tree Planting events. Council also runs 9 sustainability Council also runs 9 sustainability Council also runs 9 sustainability Council also runs 9 sustainability Council also runs 9 sustainability workshops and Bushcare workshops and Bushcare workshops and Bushcare workshops and Bushcare workshops and Bushcare training. The Environment training. The Environment training. The Environment training. The Environment training. The Environment Advisory Committee helps to Advisory Committee helps to Advisory Committee helps to Advisory Committee helps to Advisory Committee helps to promote environmental promote environmental promote environmental promote environmental promote environmental protection and education. protection and education. protection and education. protection and education. protection and education.

In addition, Council’s Bushland In addition, Council’s Bushland In addition, Council’s Bushland In addition, Council’s Bushland and Weeds Management Officer and Weeds Management Officer and Weeds Management Officer and Weeds Management Officer provides advice and inspections provides advice and inspections provides advice and inspections provides advice and inspections of private properties on of private properties on of private properties on of private properties on bushland management. Council bushland management. Council bushland management. Council bushland management. Council also reviews vegetation also reviews vegetation also reviews vegetation also reviews vegetation management plans eg Coopers management plans eg Coopers management plans eg Coopers management plans eg Coopers Paddock for private proposals Paddock for private proposals Paddock for private proposals Paddock for private proposals

Recreation and MC3: Interpretive education LOW Installed educational signage on Continued plan to roll out signs A number of constraints have Ongoing constraints have There are currently no plans for Amenity materials on Cumberland Woodland at for restoration projects to prevented the installation of prevented the installation of signage as part of ERP works. Recreation and conservation Communications & Education Hoxton Park Reserve and Site update to new branding. new signage. Council will new signage. Council will Council continues to deliver information signs on restoration investigate opportunities as they investigate opportunities as they educational material through its projects. arise. Council continues to arise. Council continues to Sustaining Liverpool newsletter deliver educational material deliver educational material and environmental activity through its Sustaining Liverpool through its Sustaining Liverpool calendar. newsletter and environmental newsletter and environmental activity calendar. activity calendar.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 230

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW The GRCCC is advocating on The GRCCC is advocating on The GRCCC is advocating on The GRCCC is advocating on strategy revision behalf of members and behalf of members and behalf of members and behalf of members and Environmental Planning community representatives to community representatives to community representatives to community representatives to ensure safety on the River. The ensure safety on the River. The ensure safety on the River. The ensure safety on the River. The GRCCC supported RMS summer GRCCC supported RMS summer GRCCC supported RMS summer GRCCC supported RMS summer safety campaigns by being safety campaigns by being safety campaigns by being safety campaigns by being involved in promoting jet-ski involved in promoting jet-ski involved in promoting jet-ski involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant safety and distributing relevant safety and distributing relevant safety and distributing relevant materials. Further to this, given materials materials materials the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages. The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this.

Land Use MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Council undertakes AIMHS checks for site selection LCC’s project managers LCC’s project managers LCC will continue to apply best Planning and Practices for Council works environmental assessments as as part of bush regeneration undertake the required undertake the required practice project management in Development Strategic Planning & required under EP&A Act for projects & then call Gandangara environment and heritage environment and heritage the undertaking of relevant Development Controls Council works, business as usual. LALC to help determine the assessments during the planning assessments during the planning Council works. nature of the cultural heritage stage of all projects. stage of all projects. and any mitigation measures.

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning GRCCC briefing session to DA Standard Instrument LEP Review of LEP through to 2020. aims and objectives in future EPI instruments such as Council LEPs planners and Strategic Planners adopted recently, riparian reviews Strategic Planning & and strategies should be on the Georges River CZMP. controls in LEP. Development Controls consistent with the CZMP, as part of future updates.

Future EPI updates to be consistent with CZMP

MD5: New & revised PoMs to be MEDIUM No new POMs proposed at this No new POMs proposed at this No new POMs proposed at this No new POMs proposed at this No new POMs proposed at this compatible with CZMP stage. stage. stage. stage. stage. Strategic Planning & Development Controls

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 231

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS Advocated for improvement in and and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to regulation of mooring pens in Sedimentation Environmental Planning prevent foreshore erosion. Also prevent foreshore erosion. Also submission State at its committee meeting on 26 at its committee meeting on 26 Environmental Planning June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to Policy (Environment) support the partnership request support the partnership request Explanation of Intended on the Personal Watercraft (jet on the Personal Watercraft (jet Effect Skis) Boating Safety campaign. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on The GRCCC focus is on environmental protection and environmental protection and erosion issues related to jet skis erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an environmental wake is an environmental concern and this message would concern and this message would be included in any future media be included in any future media releases. releases.

Council raised concerns with the Council raised concerns with the proposed Floyd Bay slalom proposed Floyd Bay slalom license for permanent use to the license for permanent use to the RMS and this use has not RMS and this use has not commenced. Renewal of commenced. Renewal of signage along the River has come signage along the River has come out of the Boating Safety Plan. out of the Boating Safety Plan.

ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper program Council undertakes annual audits Council undertakes annual audits Council undertakes annual audits Council undertakes annual audits foreshore access assists Councils with the periodic with the Riverkeeper to identify with the Riverkeeper to identify with the Riverkeeper to identify with the Riverkeeper to identify Engineering Works & Asset review of the foreshore from the any issues. any issues. any issues. any issues. Management River to identify and target any inappropriate activities including access.

Council undertakes audits with the Riverkeeper looking at any foreshore issues and this is generally not a significant issue in the LGA.

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC Completed outlet protection at No new erosion protection No new erosion protection Erosion protection planned for erosion, using vegetation, where Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams South Park, Jacquie Osmond works conducted. works conducted. selected sections of Georges possible Engineering Works & Asset are re-vegetating Council priority Reserve Outlet protection, River and Brickmakers Creek, Management sites impacted by erosion. Pleasure Point bank stabilisation.

Outlet protection at South Park, Jacquie Osmond Reserve Outlet protection, Pleasure Point bank stabilisation.

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM Davy Robinson boat ramp Davy Robinson seawall upgrade Davy Robinson seawall upgrade No Update No Update Protection eco-friendly seawall (completed) and seawall due to commence. OEH advice completed guidelines Strategic Planning & upgrade – information provided being sought on the design to Development Controls to consultant on ecofriendly sea improve consistency with the walls. Design stage at present. guidelines.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 232

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW Benedict development proposed Not much foreshore in private Minimal opportunities as most Minimal opportunities as most Minimal opportunities as most eco-friendly seawalls marina part of it is ownership. foreshore is privately owned foreshore is privately owned foreshore is privately owned Communications & Education reconstructing a breakwater.

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW The GRCCC through its AIMHS checks for site selection The GRCCC through its Council to protect and manage Council to protect and manage Cultural Groups and others to determine Biodiversity Fund Grant project as part of bush regeneration Biodiversity Fund Grant project threatened heritage sites that threatened heritage sites that Heritage options for threatened heritage Recreation and Heritage has consulted with LALCs in the projects and then call (Aboriginal Riverkeeper Project) are encountered. are encountered. sites Georges River catchment on how Gandangara LALC to help has consulted with LALCs in the to best protect and manage determine the nature of the Georges River catchment on how threatened heritage sites that cultural heritage and any to best protect and manage are part of this project. LALCs mitigation measures and go threatened heritage sites that have undertaken cultural through the OEH required are part of this project. heritage assessments and process. provided advice to the GRCCC on how to protect Aboriginal sites.

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and areas MEDIUM Cabramatta Creek is not BMT WBM consultants engaged Flood study underway. Flood study underway Flood study is being completed. and Sea Level for vegetation influenced by SLR. Climate to undertake the flood study, as Rise Retreat Environmental Planning change scenarios were part of the study SLR influence to considered as part of the flood be assessed. Expecting a draft study. 2015 Flood study on SLR & report soon. CC for the length of the Georges River with a more detailed joint study of the Bankstown & Liverpool areas. Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils Also a program to undertake Council engaged with a Water quality monitoring Activation of Georges River is Evaluation Health Monitoring continue to support and fully WQ monitoring in both urban consultant to conduct water continued throughout 2018. planned. Research is currently Program Enviro Rehabilitation & fund the River Health Monitoring and rural creeks given the quality monitoring at Georges being undertaken to speculate Monitoring program. Further, some member significant development of new River. The purpose of this the swimmability at Georges Councils undertake their own release areas. Council is trying monitoring is to collect baseline River. water quality monitoring that to establish a baseline. data of the current water quality complements the program. The conditions. results of ecological monitoring Ongoing program and urban are outlined in an annual River creeks yet to be identified to Health Report Card and engage a Consultant. The WQ Technical Report. Community strategy also helps to support engagement is key to the the program objectives. program, with the community involved in monitoring local streams. School students also participate via our partnerships with the Georges River Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review recommendations are being implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring program.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 233

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils All Councils completed their Meetings to update action plan, Meetings to update action plan, Meetings to update action plan, monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over Councils progress on the CZMP on ground works and grant on ground works and grant on ground works and grant Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. In early 2014, the Action Plan with the GRCCC. The applications are demonstrating applications are demonstrating applications are demonstrating Monitoring estuary cluster group met to GRCCC also keeps Councils implementation as well as implementation as well as implementation as well as consider options to work abreast of reforms/policies and briefing session with planners on briefing session with planners on briefing session with planners on together to explore combined developments by state release of the CZMP. release of the CZMP. release of the CZMP. grants and implement actions. agencies/developers that impact Six member Councils applied for on the estuary. Awaiting update of Coastal OEH estuary management grants Management Program. and three member Councils were Meetings to update action plan, awarded funding in 2014 on ground works and grant (Liverpool, Hurstville and applications are demonstrating Fairfield). implementation as well as This action plan will assist to briefing session with planners support and implement priority on release of the CZMP. actions identified in the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 234

Georges River Coastal Zone Management Plan – Sutherland Shire Council

Please update the table below with actions completed by Sutherland Shire Council in 2017 and 2018 and planned actions for 2019.

Could you also please provide feedback below on how Sutherland Shire Council uses the CZMP and if there is anything that need s to be added in the scoping study to transition the Coastal Zone Management Plan to a Coastal Management Program in line with Coastal Management Reforms. Comments can be inserted here or provided as a separate attachment.

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA2: High Currently reviewing DCP controls Council’s draft DCP 2015 on flooding & stormwater to contains WSUD controls. It is Update or prepare new WSUD update DCP 2006. Of note is that currently on public exhibition. controls within DCPs their Draft LEP includes Council issued a policy directive Strategic Planning & development objectives and to officers to assess DAs under Development Controls controls for the protection and the draft DCP. Councils LEP was restoration of the foreshore gazetted in 2015. Council needs environment of the Georges to better enforce these controls River (Clause 6.3) including on both public works and DAs, protection of ecosystems, the cost issues concerning ecological processes, biological developers make it difficult to diversity and WQ, native implement these controls. foreshore vegetation & the aquatic environment.

Water Quality MA3: High Gwawley Bay Sediment No new projects in the pipeline. transport study completed and Gwawley Bay Sediment Retrofit new WSUD devices in Gwawley Creek physical transport study completed and existing urban areas restoration works are both Gwawley Creek physical Engineering Works & Asset current and ongoing. restoration works are both Management current and ongoing.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 235

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Water Quality MA4: Maintenance of WSUD High Ongoing program $650K pa & Council’s annual budget is devices, GPTs, SQIDs etc increasing for 250 devices on approx. $675K PA to maintain average $3500 per device pa for 261 GPTs. The Kiama Street GPT maintenance. The Kiama Street and trash racks at Woolooware Engineering Works & Asset GPT and trash racks at Bay are to be renovated in the Management Woolooware Bay are to be 16/17 FY. renovated in the 16/17 FY.

Water Quality MA6: Sediment/erosion control High Addressed as part of standard Addressed as part of standard during & after construction conditions of Development conditions of Development consent, with regular consent, with regular inspections of major inspections of major Compliance construction sites as part of construction sites as part of building certification system and building certification system and compliance. compliance.

Water Quality MA8: Riverkeeper teams for High GRCCC Riverkeeper Program GRCCC Riverkeeper program clean-up & illegal dumping continues on ground work and continues on ground work and collected over 70 tonnes of collected 99 tonnes of rubbish rubbish across the catchment in across the catchment in 2014/15 Enviro Rehabilitation & 2013/14. through the partnership with Monitoring Corrective Services NSW and additional resources with three Green Army teams working across the catchment.

Water Quality MA10: High Draft WSUD Action plan. Draft WSUD Action plan.

Develop & adopt WSUD action plans Environmental Planning

Water Quality MA15: High Receives frequent resident Receives frequent resident complaints, referred to SW. complaints, referred to SW. SWC liaison regarding sewer problems Environmental Planning

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 236

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB4: Rehabilitation of estuarine High Kurnell saltmarsh rehabilitation Projects identified in 2015 are Revegetation of 5,800m2 coastal Bonna Point saltmarsh Old Ferry Road masterplan to be Riparian Habitat wetlands & riparian vegetation with GS LLS as part of Kurnell mostly completed with ongoing saltmarsh at Bonna Point regenerating naturally. implemented. $2M budget. 2020. The old oyster lease at 196 works at Kurnell. Monitoring of adjacent to the aquatic reserve. Includes foreshore improvement Woodlands Rd Taren Point the Kurnell Salt marsh Propagation material locally Woolooware Bay Shared works for small craft launching Enviro Rehabilitation & adjacent to Shorebird Reserve rehabilitation found that the sourced. Pathway complete. Construction facility; environmentally friendly Monitoring rehabilitated and revegetation was not as of sand island to provide 100m2 seawalls; revegetation; decontamination to value of successful as the natural Woolooware Bay Shared of shorebird roosting habitat at improved public access; fishing $1m, facilitating public use and regeneration on the site Pathway under construction. high tide. Habitat for shorebirds jetty. access. Council to investigate (scientific papers from Carl Heritage jetty restored to retain protected with screens. Project funding options for stake Tippler and Paul Adams). heritage values and provide has raised community removal of Oyster Leases in Removal of oyster leases are not roosting habitat for pied awareness of shorebirds. Quibray Bay. Mill Creek has bush a current priority given some are oystercatchers. Artificial sand Received 3 industry awards of regeneration contractors heritage listed and it was noted island for shorebird roosting excellence. $6.2M total project present part of mid GRSI. that the leases provide a habitat under construction and cost. Ongoing restoration works are roosting habitat for migratory environmentally sensitive occurring at Oyster Creek birds, forces boats to slow down seawalls and saltmarsh Quibray Bay Community between Box and Bates Drive and decreases potential boat established. Environmental Conservation of Eastern Curlew including bank stabilisation and wake erosion thus there is value interpretive signs installed. Project complete. revegetation. Golf in leaving them in situ. Council is Sensitive boardwalk Course bank stabilisation and investigating foreshore constructed. sediment clearing. Carina Creek contamination issues such as has a long channel with a pipe remnant bitumen, shells, drums Quibray Bay Community that requires forward planning etc used for temporary land Conservation of Eastern Curlew at to solve sediment, bank reclamations along Woolooware Project commenced. Weed stability and weed issues via a Bay. The Woolooware Bay removal, planting, foreshore new pipe and regrading. Shared Path is an ongoing rubbish removed using CVA project funded from the DoEP, volunteers. Metro Green Space program and concept designs have been developed. Council has a grant from GS LLS of $30K to restore the Woolooware Bay heritage jetty to protect its structural integrity and also to support the Botany Bay migratory bird enhancement program as it is roosting habitat for Pied Oyster catchers. Funding for Mill Creek bush regeneration has ended.

Oyster Creek (between Box and Bates Drive) restoration works was completed including bank stabilisation and revegetation and maintenance is ongoing. A management plan for Kareela golf course is to be developed. The site is impacted by dumping, fill in the floodplain and Swamp oak vegetation has been cleared. Council did a stormwater harvesting feasibility study to investigate the use of water for irrigation at the golf course. Report yet to be written to Council. Carina Creek rehab ongoing. Concept designs for

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 237

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Woolooware Bay Shore Bird Island are being prepared funded from a GS LLS grant of $20K by UNSW and Phil Straw. A 100sqm sand island is to be constructed above high water mark to support 1000 birds roosting in the Bay. Council will coordinate with the dredging of sand in Woronora River to reduce costs and the shape is to be investigated. Council needs RMS and Fisheries approval as there may be an impact on sea grass and displacing some benthic organisms.

The Green Army team at Albert Delardes reserve undertook tree planting and improved access via steps and protected Aboriginal middens with interpretive signs erected. Adjoining reserve at Old Ferry Road is Crown land under claim by Gandangara LALC and their owners consent is being sought to work this land. At Doltone House, the upgrade of the car park involves the rehabilitation of the channel creek with revegetation of salt marsh and casuarinas species over a length of 100m.

MB7: Support and continue High All GRCCC member Councils Council’s Bushcare program is bushcare/ landcare groups continue to support volunteer ongoing, with larger numbers of Bushcare groups using best volunteers than previous years. practice bush regeneration. A greater educational emphasis Enviro Rehabilitation & and role by Council staff is Monitoring seeing guided bush walks and bird watching activities with Council managed volunteer groups and Bus tours eg, Kurnell Bushcare program ongoing, Capers; Debbie Andrews a Bird attracting more than 700 and Mammal expert tours volunteers, making it one of the Kurnell migratory bird habitat; largest participation rates in Menai Madness with kids, Still Sydney. Creek catchment, Menai Conservation Park kids exploration involving schools directly and promoting ecological values. Greenweb is being promoted in schools.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 238

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Aquatic and MB8: Riverkeeper teams for HIGH - MEDIUM GRCCC partners and grants Riparian Habitat bush regeneration & weed programs including Corrective control Services Teams, Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams and Green Enviro Rehabilitation & Army Teams are currently Monitoring undertaking significant bush regeneration and weed control work across the catchment, supporting Councils.

Aquatic and MB9: HIGH - MEDIUM Council supports the Greenweb MB7 above refer to for Riparian Habitat program for rehabilitation on education programs. Private landholder education re: private lands involving education habitat & vegetation near watercourses and along Communications & Education corridors. On foreshore properties plant selection guides are available on the website.

Recreation and MC3: Interpretive education LOW Towra Point Foreshore Reserve Interpretive signage provided at Six interpretive education Amenity materials on interpretative materials Albert Delardes Reserve to signage installed at Woolooware provided. A new series of protect Aboriginal Heritage Bay. Material on mangroves, Recreation and conservation signage has been midden. saltmarsh, endangered Communications & Education developed/erected in the LGA eg communities, shorebirds, Towra impacts of bird feeding and WQ Point NR and local history. and can be rolled out at other sites in the Georges River catchment.

MC5: Contribute to boating LOW Aligned its funding priorities The GRCCC is advocating on Old Ferry Road Reserve strategy revision with the RMS eg co-funding of behalf of members and masterplan implementation. Kurnell Boat Ramps. community representatives to $2M project. Small Craft ensure safety on the River. The Launching facility (SCLF) to Environmental Planning GRCCC supported RMS summer enable kayaks, SUPs and canoes safety campaigns by being to be launched. involved in promoting jet-ski safety and distributing relevant materials. Further to this, given the concern about an accident at Revesby Beach, the RMS was contacted in August and November 2015, with offers of support safety messages.

The NSW Governments Discussion paper Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion Assessment: suggested management initiatives states that the RMS and Transport NSW propose to develop a Botany Bay and Georges River Boat Storage Strategy. The

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 239

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

GRCCC prepared a submission on this and recommended member Councils be consulted early on in its development as local knowledge of sensitive locations and further information will be provided from this consultation. The GRCCC can assist with organising and coordinating this.

Land Use Planning MD3: Use Best Management MEDIUM Council undertakes Council NRM staff convinced Draft video funded by Greater and Development Practices for Council works environmental assessments as Council to commit to a $500K Sydney LLS “Mangrove and required under EP&A Act for offsets package for the Saltmarsh Ecosystems”- case Council works, business as usual. extension and widening of studies and support material Strategic Planning & Captain Cook Drive (Councils’ addressing HSC Biology 2018 Development Controls road) because of the loss of module 4. Video featuring mangroves and salt marshes Horning St wetland (Swamp Oak Forest) and the rehabilitation. offset funds were used for the rehabilitation of salt marsh/mangrove area at the back of Horning Street, Kurnell.

MD4: Consistency with CZMP MEDIUM Environmental planning The plan is a statutory planning Standard Instrument LEP aims and objectives in future EPI instruments such as Council LEPs adopted recently, riparian reviews and strategies should be Document under the Coastal controls in LEP. consistent with the CZMP, as Protection Act 1979 and needs Strategic Planning & part of future updates. to be considered as a Section Development Controls 79C ‘heads of consideration’ matter that a development will need to be assessed against under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

MD5: New & revised PoMs to MEDIUM To integrate CZMP with Kareela Golf Course PoM to be compatible with CZMP Biodiversity Strategy; Bushland refer to CZMPs aims and Plan of Management; Feral objectives. animals control Plan of Strategic Planning & Management; Environmental Development Controls and noxious weeds Plan of Management.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 240

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Bank Erosion ME2: Boat wake erosion impacts HIGH The GRCCC supports RMS The GRCCC supports RMS and strategies boating speed controls to boating speed controls to and prevent foreshore erosion. Also prevent foreshore erosion. Also at its committee meeting on 26 at its committee meeting on 26 Sedimentation Environmental Planning June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to June 2014, the GRCCC agreed to support the partnership request support the partnership request on the Personal Watercraft (jet on the Personal Watercraft (jet Skis) Boating Safety campaign. Skis) Boating Safety campaign. The GRCCC focus is on The GRCCC focus is on environmental protection and environmental protection and erosion issues related to jet skis erosion issues related to jet skis wake is an environmental wake is an environmental concern and this message would concern and this message would be included in any future media be included in any future media releases. releases.

To work with RMS on issues as To work with RMS on issues as they present including on the they present including on the Woronora River. Woronora River.

ME3: Targeted control of ad-hoc MEDIUM The GRCCC Riverkeeper program Formalising paths and access Scylla Bay boat ramp upgrade foreshore access assists Councils with the periodic tracks are part of the included the construction of a review of the foreshore from the small craft boating strategy to SCLF. Oyster Bay Boat ramp River to identify and target any target ad hoc foreshore included the establishment of a Engineering Works & Asset inappropriate activities including access. This will provide access sandy beach for launching small Management access. to the water for craft and the establishment of smaller craft such as coastal saltmarsh. Boat ramp kayaks/canoes and canoes. upgrade at Sylvania below Tom Council’s Shire Wide better Ugly’s Bridge included works to Ongoing management issue, eg boating program is demolish and replace new wharf to erect a raised mangrove promoting improved and that has improved functionality boardwalk at Towra Point; increased access to that better supports the protection of Aboriginal heritage foreshores where there are no adjacent boat ramp. sites in Bonnet Bay and boat launching ramps education of rock climbers. and wharfs for small craft launching facilities, (SCLiFs) such as kayaks to improve recreation opportunities particular where sites are physically constrained and do not offer the space for traditional boat and trailer launching. The aim is to construct ramps, steps, pontoons or other structures that are specifically designed and built for kayaks or canoes with a light footprint to improve water access. The design of SCLIFs are currently progressing at Old Ferry Road,

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 241

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Illawong, Wally’s Wharf, and Old Taren Point Road, Taren Point (Captain Cook Bridge south). RMS Better Boating. $1.7M grant funding has been provided for the Sutherland Shire this year included in this is the inclusion of SCLiFs on the Georges River.

ME4: Prioritise & remediate HIGH Councils and the GRCCC $500K pa to implement the erosion, using vegetation, where Aboriginal Riverkeeper Teams watercourse assessment. 16/17 possible are re-vegetating Council priority no new projects but sites impacted by erosion. maintenance of existing Engineering Works & Asset projects. Management

Current priorities include Kareela Golf Course and Oyster Creek. An LGA watercourse assessment has been completed to ID hot spots.

Foreshore MF1: Councils to comply with MEDIUM Prince Edward Park seawall Gwawley Creek downstream of Woolooware Bay Shared eco-friendly seawall completed in 2013 and part of Port Hacking Road to the sea Pathway Project included the Protection Towra Point Nature Reserve sea wall, terraced and gabion construction of environmentally guidelines wall removed allowing for salt baskets. A design from 10 years friendly seawalls to replace old Strategic Planning & marsh rehabilitation. A condition ago to be revisited. $20K for reclaimed areas shored up with Development Controls assessment of all public sea redesign. Woolooware Bay failing timbers. walls in the Shire completed that shared path eco-friendly will highlight where seawalls improvements or replacements required.

MF5: Educate landholders re: MEDIUM - LOW Sylvania Waters vertical sea eco-friendly seawalls walls being replaced, given heritage listing and due to private property proximity to the Communications & Education foreshore there is limited space.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 242

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

Natural and MG4: Work with Aboriginal LOW Working with OEH & La Perouse Bonnet Bay rock climbers The GRCCC through its Council to protect and manage Groups and others to determine LALC on the protection of signage erected. Albert Delardes Biodiversity Fund Grant project threatened heritage sites that Cultural Heritage options for threatened heritage Aboriginal heritage sites in Reserve fenced off to protect (Aboriginal Riverkeeper Project) are encountered. sites Bonnet Bay actively discouraging the Middens and signage has consulted with LALCs in the Recreation and Heritage rock climbers. erected. Georges River catchment on how to best protect and manage threatened heritage sites that are part of this project.

Climate Change MH3: Mapping of SLR and areas MEDIUM SLR Risk Assessment study and Adopted and developing a SLR for vegetation associated maps completed policy that is due to be and Sea Level showing areas of presented to Council with Retreat erosion/recession and development controls Rise Environmental Planning vegetation retreat. Towra Point subsequently written. most impacted. Report put to Council recommending adoption of the study and the next stage once accepted is to develop planning controls.

Monitoring and MI2: Support GRCCC River MEDIUM All GRCCC member Councils All GRCCC member Councils Health Monitoring continue to support and fully continue to support and fully Evaluation fund the River Health fund the River Health Program Monitoring program. Further, Monitoring Enviro Rehabilitation & some member Councils program. Further, some member Monitoring undertake their own water Councils undertake their own quality monitoring that water quality monitoring that complements the program. The complements the program. The results of ecological monitoring results of ecological monitoring are outlined in an annual River are outlined in an annual River Health Report Card and Health Report Card and Technical Report. Community Technical engagement is key to the Report. Community engagement program, with the community is key to the program, with the involved in monitoring local community involved in streams. School students also monitoring local streams. School participate via our partnerships students also participate via our with the Georges River partnerships with the Georges Environmental Education River Environmental Education Centre. Estuary monitoring has Centre. Estuary monitoring has been aligned with and adopted been aligned with and adopted the NSW OEH state-wide the NSW OEH state-wide methods to enable state-wide methods to enable state-wide comparisons. Also, the review comparisons. Also, the review recommendations are being recommendations are being implemented to ensure an implemented to ensure an effective and sustainable best- effective and sustainable best- practice ecological monitoring practice ecological monitoring program. program.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 243

Theme/Aim Recommended Action/Strategy Priority/Option Approach 2015 Response 2016 Response Actions completed by 2017 Actions completed by 2018 Actions planned for 2019

MI3: Support, implement & LOW All GRCCC member Councils All Councils completed their monitor CZMP Effectiveness adopted the GR CZMP over Councils progress on the CZMP 2013/14. In early 2014, the Action Plan with the GRCCC. The estuary cluster group met to GRCCC also keeps Councils Enviro Rehabilitation & consider options to work abreast of reforms/policies and Monitoring together to explore combined developments by state grants and implement actions. agencies/developers that Six member Councils applied for impact on the estuary. OEH estuary management grants and three member Councils were awarded funding in 2014 (Liverpool, Hurstville and Fairfield).

This action plan will assist to support and implement priority actions identified in the CZMP. An annual review is conducted with member Councils in order to keep track of our progress towards implementing actions and to inform OEH grant funding applications. All members provided an update on the status of the action plan in late 2014 and early 2015. The Environment Minister, Mr Rob Stokes certified the plan on the 5th March, 2015 and it was gazetted on the 10 July 2015. The plan is a statutory planning document that needs to be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 244

Appendix D – First pass risk assessment details

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 245

Table 32. Risk assessment for environmental values

Present-day Environmental benefits to the community (likelihood) Environmental benefits to the community (consequence) Level of risk Ecosystem diversity and Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Threats  Values → Naturalness Rating integrity World Heritage Site habitat and integrity World Heritage Site habitat Naturalness and integrity World Heritage Site habitat Naturalness Catchment Runoff / Water quality Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Major Major Major Major High High High Moderate 15 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Major Major Major Catastrophic High High High High 16 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low Minimal 10 Shoreline erosion / recession Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Unlikely Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low Minimal 10 Pollution (rubbish) Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Low Low Moderate High 11 Foreshore asset management Unlikely Unlikely Likely Possible Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate 8 Streambank stability / erosion Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal 10 Weeds and invasive species Likely Likely Likely Likely Moderate Major Major Moderate Moderate High High Moderate 14 Recreational activity Possible Possible Likely Possible Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Moderate Low 7 Overfishing Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Major Major Low Low High High 12 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Low Minimal Moderate Moderate 9 Governance Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Major Major Moderate Major High High Low Low 12 2050 Ecosystem diversity and Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Threats  Values → Naturalness Naturalness Naturalness Rating integrity World Heritage Site habitat and integrity World Heritage Site habitat and integrity World Heritage Site habitat

Catchment Runoff / Water quality Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Major Major Major Major High High High Moderate 15 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Major Major Major Catastrophic High High High High 16 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Possible Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low 12 Shoreline erosion / recession Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Unlikely Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low Minimal 10 Pollution (rubbish) Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Low Low Moderate High 11 Foreshore asset management Unlikely Unlikely Likely Possible Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate 8 Streambank stability / erosion Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal 10 Weeds and invasive species Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Moderate Major Major Moderate Moderate High High Moderate 14 Recreational activity Possible Possible Likely Possible Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Moderate Low 7 Overfishing Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Major Major Low Low High High 12 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Low Minimal Moderate Moderate 9 Governance Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Major Major Moderate Major High High Low Low 12 2100

Ecosystem diversity and Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Ecosystem diversity Towra Point as a UNESCO Fisheries Threats  Values → Naturalness Naturalness Naturalness Rating integrity World Heritage Site habitat and integrity World Heritage Site habitat and integrity World Heritage Site habitat

Catchment Runoff / Water quality Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Major Major Major Major High High High Moderate 15 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Major Major Major Catastrophic High High High High 16 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Possible Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low 12 Shoreline erosion / recession Almost Certain Almost Certain Possible Unlikely Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low Minimal 10 Pollution (rubbish) Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Low Low Moderate High 11 Foreshore asset management Unlikely Unlikely Likely Possible Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate 8 Streambank stability / erosion Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal 10 Weeds and invasive species Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Likely Major Major Major Moderate High High High Moderate 15 Recreational activity Possible Possible Likely Possible Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Moderate Low 7 Overfishing Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Moderate Major Major Low Low High High 12 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Possible Possible Likely Likely Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Low Minimal Moderate Moderate 9 Governance Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Major Major Moderate Major High High Low Low 12

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 246

Table 33. Risk assessment for social values

Social benefits to the community (likelihood) Social benefits to the community (consequence) Level of risk Access Access Access to Clean Social to Clean Social Menta Educa to Clean Social Menta Educa Aboriginal/Eu Mental Aboriginal/Eu Aboriginal/Eu Present-day Recreatio foreshore swimmab connecti Education Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion ropean Urban and ropean ropean Rati nal s and le vity and and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and cultural cooling physical cultural cultural ng Threats  Values → Activity waterway waterway particip scientific Activity and waterw particip g al scienti Activity and waterw particip g al scienti significance health significance significance s s ation water ays ation health fic water ays ation health fic ways ways Almost Almost Almost Almost Moder Mode Moder Minim Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Major Major Moderate Major Major Major High High Moderate High High High 27 Catchment Runoff / Water quality Certain Certain Certain Certain ate rate ate al Riparian / estuarine condition and Modera Modera Moder Possible Possible Likely Likely Possible Likely Likely Likely Major Major Major Major Major Major Major High High Low High High High 28 habitat/corridor loss te te ate Increased inundation due to sea Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Mode Minim Mode Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Likely Possible Major Low Low Low Moderate Low Low 17 level rise te ate ate te rate rate rate al rate Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Modera Minima Modera Minim Mode Likely Possible Unlikely Possible Likely Unlikely Likely Possible Major Minor Low Moderate Low 18 Shoreline erosion / recession te ate ate te rate rate te l te al rate Modera Moder Modera Mode Modera Modera Minim Likely Possible Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Minor Major Low High High High Low 23 Pollution (rubbish) te ate te rate te te al Mode Mode Minim Minim Possible Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Minor Major Moderate Major Minor Minimal Low Moderate Low Low Low 14 Foreshore asset management rate rate al al Moder Modera Mode Mode Moder Moder Minim Possible Possible Likely Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Moderate Minor Minimal Low Minimal Low Low 15 Streambank stability / erosion ate te rate rate ate ate al Moder Modera Minim Minima Minim Minim Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Possible Possible Likely Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Major Minimal High Minimal High 14 Weeds and invasive species ate te al l al al Modera Moder Modera Mode Mode Minim Minim Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Moderate Minor Low Low Low Minimal Low Low 13 Recreational activity te ate te rate rate al al Mode Modera Minim Minima Modera Minim Minim Possible Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Unlikely Unlikely Likely Major Minor Minor Major Major Minor Major Moderate High 17 Overfishing rate te al l te al al Modera Moder Modera Minim Mode Possible Possible Likely Possible Possible Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Major Major Major Minor Major Major High Moderate High 24 Sewage effluent and septic runoff te ate te al rate Modera Moder Mode Mode Minim Mode Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Minor Major Minimal Low Moderate Minimal Low Low 15 Governance te ate rate rate al rate

Access Access Access to Clean Social to Clean Social Menta Educa to Clean Social Menta Educa Aboriginal/Eu Mental Aboriginal/Eu Aboriginal/Eu 2050 Recreatio foreshore swimmab connecti Education Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion ropean Urban and ropean ropean Rati nal s and le vity and and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and cultural cooling physical cultural cultural ng Threats  Values → Activity waterway waterway particip scientific Activity and waterw particip g al scienti Activity and waterw particip g al scienti significance health significance significance s s ation water ays ation health fic water ays ation health fic ways ways Almost Almost Almost Almost Moder Mode Moder Modera Likely Possible Possible Likely Major Major Moderate Major Major Major High High Moderate Low High High 27 Catchment Runoff / Water quality Certain Certain Certain Certain ate rate ate te Riparian / estuarine condition and Almost Almost Almost Modera Modera Likely Likely Likely Likely Likely Major Major Major Major Major Major Major High High High High High High High 31 habitat/corridor loss Certain Certain Certain te te Increased inundation due to sea Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Mode Modera Moder Moder Mode Mode Likely Likely Likely Likely Possible Possible Likely Likely Major High Low Low 23 level rise te ate ate te rate rate rate te ate ate rate rate Almost Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Modera Moder Modera Minim Mode Mode Likely Possible Likely Likely Possible Likely Likely Major Minor Low High 22 Shoreline erosion / recession Certain te ate ate te rate rate te ate te al rate rate Modera Moder Modera Mode Modera Modera Minim Likely Possible Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Minor Major Low High High High Low 23 Pollution (rubbish) te ate te rate te te al Mode Mode Minim Moder Minim Likely Possible Possible Likely Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Minor Major Moderate Major Minor Low Moderate Low Low Low 16 Foreshore asset management rate rate al ate al Moder Modera Mode Mode Moder Minim Possible Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Moderate Minor Minimal High Low Minimal Low Low 16 Streambank stability / erosion ate te rate rate ate al Moder Modera Minima Minim Minim Possible Possible Possible Likely Unlikely Possible Possible Likely Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Major Minimal Low High Minimal High 15 Weeds and invasive species ate te l al al Modera Moder Modera Mode Mode Minim Minim Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Moderate Minor Low Low Low Minimal Low Low 13 Recreational activity te ate te rate rate al al Mode Minim Minima Modera Minim Likely Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Likely Major Minor Minor Major Major Minor Major High Moderate Low High 19 Overfishing rate al l te al Modera Moder Modera Minim Mode Possible Possible Likely Possible Possible Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Major Major Major Minor Major Major High Moderate High 24 Sewage effluent and septic runoff te ate te al rate Modera Moder Mode Mode Minim Mode Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Minor Major Minimal Low Moderate Minimal Low Low 15 Governance te ate rate rate al rate

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 247

Social benefits to the community (likelihood) Social benefits to the community (consequence) Level of risk

Access Access Access to Clean Social to Clean Social Menta Educa to Clean Social Menta Educa Aboriginal/Eu Mental Aboriginal/Eu Aboriginal/Eu 2100 Recreatio foreshore swimmab connecti Education Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion Recreati foresh swimm connecti Urban l and tion ropean Urban and ropean ropean Rati nal s and le vity and and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and onal ores able vity and coolin physic and cultural cooling physical cultural cultural ng Threats  Values → Activity waterway waterway particip scientific Activity and waterw particip g al scienti Activity and waterw particip g al scienti significance health significance significance s s ation water ays ation health fic water ays ation health fic ways ways Almost Almost Almost Almost Moder Mode Moder Likely Likely Possible Likely Major Major Moderate Major Major Major High High Moderate High Low High High 28 Catchment Runoff / Water quality Certain Certain Certain Certain ate rate ate Riparian / estuarine condition and Almost Almost Almost Almost Modera Modera Likely Likely Likely Likely Major Major Major Major Major Major Major High High High High High High High 31 habitat/corridor loss Certain Certain Certain Certain te te Increased inundation due to sea Almost Almost Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Mode Modera Moder Moder Mode Mode Likely Likely Likely Possible Possible Likely Major High Low Low 23 level rise Certain Certain te ate ate te rate rate rate te ate ate rate rate Almost Almost Almost Almost Modera Moder Moder Modera Mode Mode Modera Moder Modera Minim Mode Mode Possible Likely Possible Likely Major Minor Low High 22 Shoreline erosion / recession Certain Certain Certain Certain te ate ate te rate rate te ate te al rate rate Modera Moder Modera Mode Modera Modera Minim Likely Possible Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Minor Major Low High High High Low 23 Pollution (rubbish) te ate te rate te te al Mode Mode Minim Moder Modera Minim Likely Possible Possible Likely Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Minor Major Moderate Major Minor Low Moderate Low Low 17 Foreshore asset management rate rate al ate te al Moder Modera Mode Mode Moder Minim Possible Likely Likely Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Moderate Minor Minimal High Low Minimal Low Low 16 Streambank stability / erosion ate te rate rate ate al Almost Almost Moder Modera Moder Minim Minim Possible Likely Likely Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Major Minimal Low High Minimal High 17 Weeds and invasive species Certain Certain ate te ate al al Modera Moder Modera Mode Mode Minim Minim Possible Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Unlikely Possible Minor Moderate Minor Low Low Low Minimal Low Low 13 Recreational activity te ate te rate rate al al Mode Minim Minima Modera Minim Likely Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Likely Major Minor Minor Major Major Minor Major High Moderate Low High 19 Overfishing rate al l te al Modera Moder Modera Minim Mode Possible Possible Likely Possible Possible Unlikely Likely Possible Major Major Major Major Major Minor Major Major High Moderate High 24 Sewage effluent and septic runoff te ate te al rate Modera Moder Mode Mode Minim Mode Unlikely Unlikely Possible Possible Unlikely Possible Possible Possible Minor Major Minor Major Minimal Low Moderate Minimal Low Low 15 Governance te ate rate rate al rate

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 248

Table 34. Risk assessment for economic values

Economic benefits to the community (likelihood) Economic benefits to the community (consequence) Level of risk Present-day Threats  Values → Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Rating

Catchment Runoff / Water quality Possible Possible Likely Moderate Major Major Low Moderate High 9 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Unlikely Possible Likely Minor Major Major Minimal Moderate High 8 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Possible Likely Likely Major Major Moderate Moderate High Moderate 10 Shoreline erosion / recession Possible Likely Likely Major Major Major Moderate High High 11 Pollution (rubbish) Unlikely Likely Likely Minor Major Major Minimal High High 9 Foreshore asset management Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Major Major Major Low Low Low 6 Streambank stability / erosion Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Major Moderate Minimal Moderate Low 6 Weeds and invasive species Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Moderate Major Minimal Low Moderate 6 Recreational activity Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Minor Minor Minor Minimal Minimal Minimal 3 Overfishing Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Moderate Major Minimal Low Moderate 6 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Major Major Minimal Moderate Moderate 7 Governance Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Minimal 3 2050 Threats  Values → Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Rating

Catchment Runoff / Water quality Likely Likely Likely Moderate Major Major Moderate High High 11 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Unlikely Likely Almost Certain Minor Major Major Minimal High High 9 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Likely Almost Certain Almost Certain Major Major Moderate High High Moderate 11 Shoreline erosion / recession Likely Almost Certain Almost Certain Major Major Major High High High 12 Pollution (rubbish) Unlikely Likely Likely Minor Major Major Minimal High High 9 Foreshore asset management Possible Unlikely Possible Major Major Major Moderate Low Moderate 8 Streambank stability / erosion Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Major Moderate Minimal Moderate Low 6 Weeds and invasive species Unlikely Possible Likely Minor Moderate Major Minimal Low High 7 Recreational activity Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Minor Minor Minor Minimal Minimal Minimal 3 Overfishing Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Moderate Major Minimal Low Moderate 6 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Major Major Minimal Moderate Moderate 7 Governance Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Minimal 3 2100 Threats  Values → Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Natural resource terminal Property/land value River based economy Rating

Catchment Runoff / Water quality Likely Almost Certain Almost Certain Moderate Major Major Moderate High High 11 Riparian / estuarine condition and habitat/corridor loss Unlikely Almost Certain Almost Certain Minor Major Major Minimal High High 9 Increased inundation due to sea level rise Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Major Major Moderate High High Moderate 11 Shoreline erosion / recession Almost Certain Almost Certain Almost Certain Major Major Major High High High 12 Pollution (rubbish) Unlikely Likely Likely Minor Major Major Minimal High High 9 Foreshore asset management Possible Unlikely Possible Major Major Major Moderate Low Moderate 8 Streambank stability / erosion Unlikely Likely Possible Minor Major Moderate Minimal High Low 7 Weeds and invasive species Unlikely Likely Likely Minor Moderate Major Minimal Moderate High 8 Recreational activity Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Minor Minor Minor Minimal Minimal Minimal 3 Overfishing Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Moderate Major Minimal Low Moderate 6 Sewage effluent and septic runoff Unlikely Possible Possible Minor Major Major Minimal Moderate Moderate 7 Governance Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Moderate Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal Minimal 3

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 249

Appendix E – Overview of information gathering survey responses

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 250

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 251

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 252

Comments

Sand is replenished to address immediate safety concerns. Longer term beach nourishment programs are also implemented in conjunction with dredging of adjacent waterways (e.g. Port Hacking). Council are also currently preparing an updated Coastal Management Program for Bate Bay, which will better identify threats to beach erosion and develop appropriate management responses. The river banks of the main visitor precincts of Georges River National Park along the Georges River have been largely "hardened" by construction of sandstone rock walls. These rock walls were necessary as most of the main visitor areas were constructed on fill material in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Where the rock walls are intact - beach erosion is almost non-existent. Where walls have collapsed- beach erosion has eaten back into the fill. A focus on the following areas is required: 1. Lady Robinsons Beach- refer to previous studies on Lady Robison's Beach and note the current study being undertaken by MHL. 2. Kamay Botany Bay National Park - immediately east of the old wharf and proposed location of new ferry to La Peruse, adjacent to Monument Track. Note that temp sandbags are in place protecting heritage items and a long term solution is required to be included as a CMP action. 3. Towra point RAMSAR - refer to recent report for NPWS. 4. Silver Beach There needs to be a plan manage events and long term management via a coordinated stakeholder approach for Botany Bay and the Georges River. There is very little formal information available in terms of frequency, extent, etc of beach erosion or rehabilitation. The entire main visitation area of Georges River Nat Park sits on filled land. The river banks are lined with Sandstone boulder sea walls. Beach maps are of limited value in this situation Refer to previous studies which have been supplied and note current MHL work at Silver Beach.

For the estuarine beach and sand movements primarily.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 253

Comments

Shoreline stability is currently addressed on a one off basis, mostly as part of the development assessment process. This is the case for both public and private infrastructure and assets. However there is currently no coordinated approach for dealing with this issue in a holistic manner outside of the process.

Existing seawalls are overtopped by Christmas and Easter high tide events in some areas of the national park

A key focus is required on managing beach amenity along Lady Robinsons beach and surrounds. Refer to current MHL report being undertaken. Similar to above response. Consideration should be given as to whether river bank erosion (upstream from open coast processes) needs to be considered and not confused with beach erosion and recession.

These are currently being compiled for Bate Bay as part of the CMP process. Otherwise heavy reliance is placed on aerial photos.

Refer previous studies which have been supplied and note current MHL work at Silver Beach.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 254

Comments

While this is not strictly applicable in our Council area, we have recently experienced watercourse entrance stability issues within the Cabbage Tree Basin Area of Port Hacking. Ownership and management responsibility has been one of the key issues we have identified in resolving this issue, with Council, NSW Maritime and NPWS all having some role to play.

The weir wall at Yeramba Lagoon is to be removed in mid 2020. The current fresh water lagoon will be replaced by a tidal salt water estuary Engineering work has been undertaken to reduce scour/erosion associated with daily water flows

This is not a significant issue for our Council.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 255

Comments Asset management practices for current infrastructure and effective planning of service utility for new development Similar to shoreline stability above, coastal inundation is currently addressed on a one off basis, mostly as part of the development assessment process. This is the case for both public and private infrastructure and assets. There is currently no coordinated approach for dealing with this issue in a holistic manner outside of the process. However, we are better placed to deal with coastal inundation as Council have a sea level rise policy and we have produced a series of coastal inundation maps to better inform the decision making process. Water levels already overtop sea walls in some sections at highest annual tides Planning regulations for current development are probably sufficient for current threats of coastal inundation, however this will obviously be impacted as sea levels continue to rise. Infrastructure and developments created under old planning regulations will probably be impacted by coastal inundation I am not aware of this. There is no plan at the moment. There is no centralised location for information on such events. Where available it tends to be one off and inconsistent. Council currently rely on modelling results which are mapped and referred to in planning and infrastructure decisions. Existing maps are of limited value - with some showing questionable data

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 256

Comments

Not much data is available. Liverpool LGA does have issues related to erosion of the banks of Georges River. However, management is difficult due to access.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 257

Comments

Asset management practices for current infrastructure and effective planning of service utility for new development See above for coastal inundation. Refer above Planning regulations for current development are probably sufficient for current threats of coastal inundation, however this will obviously be impacted as sea levels continue to rise. Infrastructure and developments created under old planning regulations will probably be impacted by coastal inundation Not aware of this. No plan in place. Former Botany adopted sea level rise benchmarks, however there is no active management in place for the amalgamated council or for former Rockdale. Appropriate studies and mapping need to be completed with and without flooding. See above for coastal inundation. Refer above We have used tide charts in the past to determine mean high water mark to determine property boundaries.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 258

Comments Asset management practices for current infrastructure and effective planning of service utility for new development To prevent damage from flooding, all developments in floodplain areas are required to satisfy flood related development controls such as minimum floor level and compensatory flood storage volume. - Improvements to drainage systems have been done in the CBD to prevent damages from overland flooding. - Flood studies are regularly updated to ensure accurate data is available. Council have produced a range of flood studies and coastal inundation studies. This information is included in Council's planning instruments to inform future developments in these areas. However there are currently few programs to proactively address this issues outside of the planning framework. Large sections of Georges River Nat Park are inundated by floods along the river The current planning and management arrangements for addressing flooding from tidal waters are sufficient to ensure that the majority of coastal infrastructure is protected. Not aware of this. No plan in place. Former Botany adopted sea level rise benchmarks, however there is no active management in place for the amalgamated council or for former Rockdale. Appropriate studies and mapping need to be completed with and without flooding. Flood maps regularly updated on GIS. - Flood levels are taken immediately after a flood event. Here again Council rely on modelling and studies, as historical data is often lacking or inconsistent. Data is extremely limited Internal Data

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 259

Comments I really don't know what's in place. Catchment wide approach is essential Ongoing projects for bush regeneration and weed control in bushlands. Council includes conditions requiring retention and restoration of estuarine environments for developments in these areas. They are mapped and included in Council planning instruments. In addition, Council actively restores and rehabilitates these areas as part of our Bushcare and Greenweb programs. Park management procedures are largely constrained by budget What are the current management/planning arrangements? Not being a coastal Council as such, we are not familiar with any guidelines for estuarine habitat as it only affects a small portion of the LGA. If these guidelines are effective, we wouldn't be going through the CMP process for the Georges River. Planning too weak as building too close/within estuarine habitats. Not enough enforcement/consequence to removing/degradation of biodiversity. SEPPs are very important to protect estuarine environments, coupled with councils plans of management. protects these areas from development, ensures offsets are created B.3 in the CZMP- Sets up a number of best management options for riparian environment, supports the development of Estuarine environments are not council owned land which makes it difficult to engage funding opportunities. Management concentrated on wetlands and terrestrial systems. Overlapping responsibilities of council, state government, Sydney Water, Ports a big issue in the lower catchment. In 2018/19, Council engaged a consultant to undertake riparian assessments for the entire LGA. The data will be utilised to plan for improving riparian areas. Data provided by NSW Fisheries, and NPWS along with Council data, have resulted in high quality mapping and identification of estuarine habitats within the Sutherland Shire. Most data is limited to weed incursion Very confusing, original dataset is outdated any recent changes in maps have not been reflected. Better ground truthing, vegetation surveys, more monitoring

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 260

Comments

Such a broad issue. Less reliant as previous on catchment wide approaches, but yet again is still essential. Biodiversity degradation mostly the consequence of urban development pressure (especially in relation to stormwater management) and mining activities on natural waterways. Sydney Water is also not meeting its EPA licence standards at Picton in relation to discharging treated waste water into Redback Creek because it does not have access to enough land to spray onto. The lack of adequate wastewater treatment capacity in Picton is negatively impacting of development growth, including commercial, in Picton and Tahmoor. A plan of management to manage riparian areas within the LGA is currently being prepared by Council. - Regular community tree plantings occur within the LGA. See above for estuarine habitat. Previous legislation was limited, current Biodiversity Conservation Act tries to place a dollar value on any biodiversity lost. Not sure how these funds will transfer into other locations, especially when this could be many kilometres away from the development site. Might not be compensating the same EEC. Unfortunately not appear a priority area of council due to many competing local issues. I am also not familiar with the current controls and their implementation effectiveness as per the CZMP in the Bayside LGA. The Connective City 2036 (Draft) Bankstown biodiversity strategic plan Biodiversity Strategic Plan (In progress) Bankstown Development Control 2015 Catchment and Waterways Strategic Plan (In Progress) In 2018/19, Council engaged a consultant to undertake riparian assessments for the entire LGA. The data will be utilised to plan for improving riparian areas. Beyond general ecological community mapping - there is limited data for habitat degradation Very confusing, original dataset is outdated any recent changes in maps have not been reflected. Better ground truthing, vegetation surveys, more monitoring Riparian vegetation map Waterway asset mapping and condition assessment (In progress)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 261

Comments

I don't know There are steps being taken to improve this process with collaboration areas and more stakeholder engagement throughout the planning process. However the driver for effective urban planning shouldn't be to allow development as quickly as possible to cater for growth. The planning process should inform what growth is acceptable and how it can be done to still cater for service provision and community and environmental benefit. I think this is essential and often talked about but not really done on the ground, without finger pointing, this needs addressing from all government agencies, service providers & communities. To improve stormwater management Council currently has a new Integrated Water Management Policy and Strategy out on public exhibition. Council has also nearly completed new WSUD Guidelines. The area is made up of a lot of small towns and villages so does not always have the best stormwater and waste water management systems in place. Some villages and much of the rural area have septic tanks systems in place of variable effectiveness from which waste water can escape into the ground water and natural waterways. The major urban development is at Wilton Development which is being driven by the State government not Council. Some of the developer’s solutions are not acceptable to Council. It is a Sydney Water area for water supply and waste water management. The waste water management solutions from Sydney Water are still being planned. It is not responsible for stormwater which is making Council's wish to have an integrated water management approach difficult. To improve stormwater management Council currently has a new Integrated Water Management Policy and Strategy out on public exhibition. Council has also nearly completed new WSUD Guidelines. The area is made up of a lot of small towns and villages so does not always have the best stormwater and waste water management systems in place. Some villages and much of the rural area have septic tanks systems in place of variable effectiveness from which waste water

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 262

can escape into the ground water and natural waterways. The major urban development is at Wilton Development which is being driven by the State government not Council. Some of the developer’s solutions are not acceptable to Council. It is a Sydney Water area for water supply and waste water management. The waste water management solutions from Sydney Water are still being planned. It is not responsible for stormwater which is making Council's wish to have an integrated water management approach difficult. Council identifies and maps areas of high biodiversity values, and riparian and estuarine habitats as Environmentally Sensitive Lands within our Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan. Additional controls are placed on developments within these areas, designed to retain and conserve these significant areas and features. Most visitors to Georges River National Park come from nearby suburbs. These suburbs have been "built out" and are not showing particularly large increase in population. Inconsistencies. Local Government does its best within scope of LEP/DCP. Many times decision for development is taken away from Local Govt. Left to manage bad decision, especially if it was approved by others and Council was completely against it. Through the LEP/DCP currently being prepared, and also there are several studies to support multi uses of coastal areas. Bankstown Development Control Plan 2015 Bankstown Local Environmental Plan 2015 The Connective City 2036 (Draft) GIS is regularly updated to account for developments. - Council undertakes regular monitoring of waterways across the LGA. Need more monitoring data, consistent over a long period of time. Data included in the Southern Sydney Regional Plan and the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan and Local Strategic Planning Statement, identify areas of future urban growth and intensification. There is very limited data reflecting population growth and effect on the national park No data available Green grid and blue grid have been ineffective. Much more work is required in this space. Serious implementation is required, not simply tick the box. Growth map

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 263

Comments

I don't know. Similar to above comments, this could be improved by having more catchment wide approaches and collaboration between agencies. The biggest flooding issue is with Stonequarry Creek running through Picton. The local commercial building owners/operator would probably say "Not so effective". An integrating flood study is currently on public exhibition. Council has strict guidelines for stormwater, flooding and sedimentation in the DCP. On site detention, compensatory floodplain storage volumes in flood prone land, and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls are required as part of proposed developments. Council has a range of development controls that address flooding. Council also have a range of standard conditions that relate to environmental site management and soil and water management associated with development. Additionally, Council has an annual Strategic Water Monitoring Program that samples waterways throughout the Sutherland Shire to identify priority waterways for action, which may include engineering structures such as GPTs or ecological restoration works. Infrastructure is largely kept above flood levels There are no other flood mitigation works undertaken Stormwater: Despite many years of industry learnings and best practice, LEP and DCP are independent of this. Decisions to include/not to include requirements to manage stormwater quantity and quality effectively, rest not with the technical officers, but with unsupportive decision makers who have many items to consider. Flooding: FDM effective across NSW, but only to a certain point - Flood Planning Level (FPL). The new LEP template stipulates FPL = 100yr ARI+0.5m freeboard. LGAs not using the standard template may have 0.3m freeboard. Once all LEPS have been updated

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 264

using the new template, those who keep the 0.3m freeboard in the DCP will be contravening the LEP. Risks above the FPL are no longer addressed, which is against the objective of the NSW Govt Floodplain Development Manual and best practice floodplain management. Sedimentation: Not a major issue for FCC in the estuary, but is so in highly developed areas. Existing culverts often build up with sediment which needs to be removed to ensure effective conveyance. This means we not only need to remove sediment from the culvert, but many metres of creek bed downstream, potentially destabilizing the bed, and promoting erosion at the bed and along the banks. Public has no understanding/tolerance for the creeks natural erosion/deposition process. Like to see the creeks clean and tidy. Flooding an issue in some low lying areas, but this is mainly in the Cooks River CMP areas. Not familiar with flooding in the Georges River CMP area. Mid-Georges River Flood Risk Management Study and Plan 2017 Mid Georges River Sub-catchment flood studies Catchment and Waterways Strategic Plan (In Progress) Some Council data/maps available GIS data includes pipes, pits and headwalls. It is updated regularly. -However, some of the data is missing due to lack of handover of assets and unavailable data due to systems in private property. - Council undertakes regular monitoring of waterways across the LGA. Data from flood studies, estuary management plans and strategic water monitoring are very useful. Data limited Data from Council, not state Stormwater data is pretty good for FCC. Flooding data is very good. Flood risk mapping in GIS. Sedimentation data non-existent. Water quality data is done by each individual council, not consistent across councils and is merely a snapshot in time. FCC has over 10 years of data, others much less with different parameters being collected. Drainage data Flood data TUFLOW model Flood risk management study and plan data Internal Data

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 265

Comments

Being a Sydney Water representative I would be more interested by what others say here. There are processes in place to address degradation, but like all things could be improved. Sydney Water undertake works related to upgrading sewer/waste water infrastructure Georges River National Park has a 2.4Km sewer run. Sewer is pumped sequentially from one toilet block to the next (through up to 6 stations until it eventually joins the Sydney Water main). Pump failure, electricity failure in particular cause issues with system reliability and overflow into the river (on rare occasions) These systems are checked as part of regular maintenance plans - but random events have caused overflows in the past. Sydney Water's process using Water Servicing Coordinators (WSC) is complex, convoluted, time consuming and not applying this to creek rehabilitation projects is not well understood by Sydney Water officers or WSC. Sydney Water influenced, unsure of their replacement and upgrade plans. The catchment is still impacted by sewer overflows in dry and wet weather. Asset Management Strategy 2019-2029 These are mainly Sydney Water assets. - Council has Sydney Water layers on GIS, however, it may not be updated to current conditions. Data on internal sewer issues is contained in corporate databases - but is difficult to access Sydney Water don't freely share their information and if they don't have any recent information, council has to provide it to show where their asset is! DBYG and Hydra not always accurate and leads to issues with projects. Stormwater asset data

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 266

Comments

Such a broad issue. I think there is processes in place, but as previously said needs catchment wide approaches with all stakeholders buy in. Council has been installing gross pollutant traps to prevent litter and other pollutants from entering the waterways. - Environmental health officers attend to any reported point source pollution incidents and issue warnings and fines to individuals involved in the pollution. Water quality within the Sutherland Shire is generally good, with over 80% of waterways experiencing fair to excellent water quality. Therefore existing programs and procedures must be relatively effective. There are no planning arrangements to address poor water quality. More regulations are required from NSW Govt to get a consistent approach across GR catchment because individual councils are unlikely to impose further requirements on development, especially given they are community elected representatives. Georges River Estuary CZMP 2013 Catchment and Waterways Strategic Plan (In Progress) Council undertakes regular monitoring of waterways across the LGA. - Additionally, any point source pollution that is observed is addressed by the Environmental Health team and polluters are given warnings and fines. Council has an annual Strategic Water Monitoring Program, which in conjunction with the water monitoring undertaken by the Georges Riverkeeper for the waterway health report card, provide a significant database on which to base decisions. No available data Botany Bay Improvement Plan only had one point location for all of Prospect Creek. The Prospect Creek catchment is approximately two thirds of FCC LGA, including a large industrial area, and a mix of other land uses. BBIP never endorsed and not driven. Intermittent Water quality data

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 267

Comments

Customer service direct any resource user issues to relevant sections within the Council for further action.

Georges River Nat Park is "loved to death" by its local residents. On busy Sundays in summer - the park is at capacity for both picnic visitors and over capacity for river craft users.

I don't know too much about this, just that boating/skiing impact the stability of the banks and is in conflict with land based activities (bush regen/coastal reveg) which degrades those environmental areas.

Most data stems from observations by NPWS personnel

Is there any data?

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 268

Comments

LCC is working on ways to improve access to public for recreational use of the river and surrounding parklands.

The main entrance to the main visitor area at Georges River Nat Park is a busy intersection at the base of a steep hill. Near miss motor vehicle incidents are common. Installation of traffic control lights would resolve this issue Similarly - although the lion's share of visitors arrive by private car - there is no safe access/egress for pedestrians to the park. Traffic control signals would also provide a safe point of pedestrian access

The Connective City 2036 (Draft) Georges River Community Open Space Corridor 2001 Deepwater Park and Kelso Parklands Plan of Management 2019 Catchment and Waterways Strategic Plan (In progress) Active Transport Strategy (Draft) Green Grid Corridor

Council undertakes studies related to public spaces and how to improve different types of recreational activities along the Georges River.

Active transport data River bank map

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 269

Appendix F – RCAT analysis

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 270

Rapid Catchment Assessment Tool

Introduction In order to identify the potential hot spot areas contributing to water quality issues in the Georges River catchment, a Rapid Catchment Assessment Tool (RCAT) has been used to estimate loads from sub-catchment runoff for four pollutants (TSS, TN, TP and E.coli). An overview of each pollutant is provided in the table belowError! Reference source not found.. A total of 68 sub-catchments were used based on those delineated in the 2019 Department of Industry and Environment (DPIE) Estuary Health Risk Analysis (DPIE, 2019).

Pollutant What is it a measure of? Catchment source? Impact on estuary? Total Suspended Solids (TSS) TSS measures the amount of The generation of Higher TSS values particulate matter suspended particulate matter can (>10mg/L) can reduce in the water column and happen anywhere in a light penetration into usually associated with fine catchment, but often the water column and sediments. These can be both higher levels are therefore limit the inorganic (sands, silts, and correlated with solar radiation received clays) and organic (leaf litter, disturbance, such as land by bottom dwelling macroalgae, decaying clearing and erosion of organisms, especially vegetation). exposed soils, animal seagrasses. In access in streams and addition, other also in-stream (bed and pollutants, such as banks) erosion. heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons can be adsorbed onto particulates and then become available once they enter estuaries. Total Nitrogen (TN) TN is a measure of the amount Typically, nitrogen can Nitrogen is an essential of nitrogen (a key nutrient for be associated with both nutrient in ecosystems, vegetation and other organism diffuse sources such as but as for any nutrient, growth) available in both fertilisers, animal an oversupply can lead dissolved and particulate forms droppings, vegetation, to excessive growth of within the water column. but also point sources vegetation and/or such as sewage algae. This can then treatment and overflows lead to “boom/bust” and industrial waste cycles where the streams. excessive growth can die off, decay and re- release nitrogen back into the water column. This can then lead to depletion of oxygen in the water column causing fish death, bad odours and increased nutrient release from bottom sediments, further exacerbating the problem. Total Phosphorus (TP) As for TN, TP is a measure of Phosphorus sources can Very much like both the dissolved and also be very similar to nitrogen, excess particulate forms of nitrogen, but in addition, phosphorus can lead to phosphorus in the water it is present in many soils excessive growth of column. and dissolved vegetation and algae, phosphorus readily binds but in estuarine to particulate matter if systems is usually not present. the limiting nutrient for

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 271

Pollutant What is it a measure of? Catchment source? Impact on estuary? growth (usually there is an excess, so growth will be more related to the amount of nitrogen present). E. coli Escherichia coli is an indicator E. coli are a useful Within estuaries, E. coli organism of faecal organism to indicate the is always likely to be contamination, but is non- presence of faecal present, but in well specific so can indicate human contamination so flushed systems, levels or animal waste (it is found in sources can be related to are typically the gut of warm blooded sewage, septic tanks, low. Higher levels mammals). E. coli refers to a onsite treatment plants, usually mean that wide range of bacteria species, animals, birds, and areas are not suitable some of which can be harmful decaying matter. for recreational if ingested. purposes due to the risk of illness from ingestion of waters.

Method The RCAT tool uses the current proportions of different land use within each Georges River sub -catchment and applies per hectare loads for each land use based on previous studies, annual rainfall, and the estimated proportion of rainfall that leads to runoff from each land use category. The application of the per hectare loads from previous studies involves categorising land use types in the Georges River catchment into 19 functional units. These 19 units correspond to broad land use types which have been studied extensively and provide the data by which relative runoff loads can be estimated for Georges River. For example, the Horticulture category consists of land use types such as ‘tree nuts’, ‘perennial horticulture’, ‘abandoned land’, ‘tree fruits’ and ‘beverage and spice crops’, and the Livestock category consists of ‘native/exotic pasture mosaic’, ‘degraded land’ and ‘grazing native vegetation’. Given that this RCAT model utilises values from previous studies, it is only capable of assigning values to broadly similar land use types (i.e. Horticulture, Livestock Conservation etc) and cannot be used to estimate the contribution from component land- use categories. Different land uses result in varying pollutant generation processes. A table of the functional unit breakdown used in the RCAT modelling is provided in Table 35. The initial results below are shown in total pollutant load per sub-catchment and per hectare load for each parameter (E. coli, TP, TN & TSS).

Table 35. Functional unit designation for the 2017 Georges River draft land use spatial layer (DPIE 2020)

Functional Georges River Land Uses Category (Australian Land use and management classification Unit 2016)

Commercial 5.5.0 Services

Conservation 1.1.0 Nature Conservation, 1.2.0 Managed resource protection, 1.3.0 Other Minimal Use 3.3.0 Cropping, 3.4.0 Perennial Horticulture, 3.5.0 Seasonal horticulture, 3.6.0 Land in Horticulture Transition, 4.3.0 Irrigated Cropping, 4.4.0 Irrigates perennial horticulture, 4.5.0 Irrigated seasonal horticulture, 4.6.0 Irrigated Land in Transition, 5.1.0 Intensive horticulture Industrial 5.3.0 Manufacturing and Industrial, 5.6.0 Utilities, 5.9.0 Waste treatment and disposal 2.1.0 Grazing Native Vegetation, 3.2.0 Grazing modified pastures, 4.1.0 Irrigated plantation Livestock forests, 4.2.0 Grazing irrigated modified pastures, 5.2.0 Intensive animal production Peri urban 5.4.3 Rural residential without agriculture, 5.4.4 Remote communities, Quarry 5.8.0 Mining Roads 5.7.0 Transport and Communication

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 272

Functional Georges River Land Uses Category (Australian Land use and management classification Unit 2016) Rural 5.4.2 Rural residential with agriculture, 5.4.5 Farm building/infrastructure Residential Urban 5.4.1 Urban residential Vegetation 2.2.0 Production native forests, 6.5.0 Marsh/wetland 6.1.0 Lake, 6.2.0 Reservoir/dam, 6.3.0 River, 6.4.0 Channel/aqueduct, 6.6.0 Estuary/coastal Water waters

Results The results from the RCAT analysis were compared with those from the DPIE model. The comparison revealed that the RCAT produces consistently higher TP, TN and TP estimates than those produced by the DPIE model (Figure 31). Nevertheless, the RCAT provides estimates of e. Coli loads by sub catchment (something not provided in the DPIE dataset) and are shown below in Figure 32 and Figure 33. A corresponding map in Figure 34 shows the numbering system for each sub catchment.

Figure 31. Comparison of the DPIE catchment model results with those of the RCAT approach for the Georges River catchment.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 273

Figure 32. Estimated contribution of E. coli load per hectare per year by sub catchment across the Georges River catchment

Figure 33. Estimated contribution of total E. coli load per year by sub catchment across the Georges River catchment

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 274

As shown above, E. coli contribution is more significantly pronounced in the developed sub catchments to the north and west and is due to the relative concentration of intensive land uses. The top contributing catchments in terms of total load per year are shown in Table 36 below. The location of each sub catchment can be determined by referring to the map in Figure 34.

Figure 34. A map of the Georges River catchment with sub catchments numbered according to the DPIE Estuary Health Risk Assessment

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 275

Table 36. Top contributing sub catchments in terms of total E. coli load per year

Sub-catchment E. coli (mpn/y)

G76 20740066294 G49 19033902843 G87 13164451980 G75 11475762110 G47 10066405638 G60 9576159208 G55 8990764594 G92 7654143161 G70 7647729428 G54 7085960433 G53 6877168703 G68 6713022231 G72 6636561402 G59 6630321859 G90 6073084784 G58 6063629143 G202 4336997789 G88 3972665258 G48 3824272899 G84 3803260760

Validation of both the RCAT and the DPIE models utilising real world stream gauge (BOM) and water quality datasets (Georges Riverkeeper) for Lower Cabramatta Creek and Minto Heights revealed that the DPIE modelling approach was the more accurate of the two (Table 37).

Table 37. A comparison of modelled results at two points

Monitoring/Gauge point Lower Cabramatta Creek Minto heights/Ingleburn weir

Average annual stream flow (ML/y) 14273 57637

2014/2015 Average TN mg/L 0.47 0.29

Actual average yield TN kg/y 6708 16714

DPIE estimate TN kg/y 8855 41544

RCAT estimate TN kg/y 76174 71086

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 276

Discussion Such differences in results are to be to be expected, given that the RCAT numerical model considers far fewer parameters than the DPIE runoff model, which incorporates attributes such climate zone, land use, soil type, drainage network. While the calibration of the DPIE model using real world stream flow and water quality datasets enables for a better representation of how nutrients are attenuated across the system, the brief validation in Table 36 reveals that the model in its current form may not reflect the local settings as accurately as it could.

Given this validation and the recommended decision-making process highlighted in the NSW estuary Health Risk Dataset (Figure 35), a more accurate risk scoring for the catchment could be achieved through the a rerun of the DPIE model utilising the 2017 land use layer for the Greater Sydney Region and calibrated using the most recent Georges Riverkeeper Water quality datasets.

Figure 35. Flow chart to help decide whether the NSW Estuary Health Risk Dataset is suitable for assessing the health of an estuary (DPIE 2019)

Despite its limitations, the DPIE model currently provides the best available means of determining risk to Georges River estuary health at the sub catchment scale. The following maps provide an overview of the DPIE calculated loads (TN, TP, TSS) for the sub-catchments within the Georges River Catchment (Figure 36 & Figure 37).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 277

Figure 36. Modelled yields of TN and TP for each subcatchment within the study area (DPIE 2019)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 278

Figure 37. Modelled yields of TSS for each sub-catchment within the study area (DPIE 2019)

Recommendations A re-run of the DPIE catchment model utilising the updated 2017 land use layer and Georges Riverkeeper WQ datasets to determine a more accurate risk map for the Georges River catchment is recommended as part of Stage 2. Given the large degree of land use change within the last decade and the availability of water quality data, this approach will provide an accurate means of ranking sub catchments in terms of risk to estuary water quality, thus assisting in direction of management actions in the latter stages of the CMP.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 279

Appendix G – Economic analysis

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 280

Defining the economic ‘base case’ Defining the economic base case is a fundamental step in developing the full business case. For this analysis it enables an assessment of risk, estimates potential economic damage and loss from coastal inundation and erosion in the absence of intervention. It will provide foundational data that will be used to undertake the cost- benefit analysis of the possible management and adaptation options. The base case can be thought of as a register of all relevant land uses and other components that might be affected under different flood conditions and over multiple planning horizons. It is the ‘business as usual scenario’.

Figure 38 depicts how information derived from the base case analysis is used to determine the benefit of adaptation. Simply, the figure highlights that the economic value of an asset (the stream of benefits derived) may decline over time due to coastal hazard impacts where there is no adaptation. The key insight from this diagram is that adaptation can be used to reduce economic costs that would likely occur without intervention. In the full business case, those benefits are then compared to the costs of adaptation. This approach to analysis is leading practice and will provide an informed basis for the development of the CMP.

Figure 38. Conceptual model of how base case information is used to determine the benefit of adaptation. (NCE 2020)

The base case is presented in terms of ‘damages’ (e.g. asset damage to buildings or infrastructure) and ‘losses’ (e.g. losses of economic value to key industries, such tourism because of loss of visitation). The damage or loss is assessed as the total sum of exposed assets (for a certain likelihood of AEP in a given year).

Because the timing of a coastal hazard event is typically not known with certainty, the coastal hazard probability is estimated using physical risk modelling. It is then possible to estimate the average annual damage (AAD) for a given year. The AAD is the probability-weighted estimate of damages and losses that may occur. It can be understood using the standard risk equation:

푛 푅𝑖푠푘 = 퐸푥푝푒푐푡푒푑 푎푣푒푟푎𝑔푒 푎푛푛푢푎푙 푑푎푚푎𝑔푒 = ∑ (퐶표푛푠푒푞푢푒푛푐푒푖 × 퐿𝑖푘푒푙𝑖ℎ표표푑푖 ) 푖 =1

Where: i is the hazard event, n is the number of hazard events, consequence is the damage or loss from a hazard event, and likelihood is the probability of a hazard event occurring.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 281

Because we do not know if an event is going to occur in a given year, the AAD is used to estimate the average damage that might be sustained at each planning horizon. In some years there will be major damage, others none or minimal. This is effectively the same procedure used by the insurance industry to work out the economic value of risk. The AAD is the best practice approach for understanding potential economic impacts of coastal hazards and for economic analysis of climate adaptation options.

To understand how the economy might be affected by a changing climate the full economic business case should include an economic assessment of each priority issue. The precision of the analysis relies on the availability and quality of suitable data, and how it is used. Detailed inundation and erosion data that is necessary for the economic analysis (e.g. built assets subjected to inundation over different time horizons) is a recommended priority for a Stage 2 study.

Data to inform the economic assessment A summary of the main data types that may be required for the full economic business case are listed in Table 38. The economic assessment will use data from several sources, including primary studies, grey literature, and previous assignments. Expert judgement will be relied upon where information gaps are encountered. Given the quality of the input data, the economic analysis should include significant sensitivity analysis to underpin informed decision-making. It should be noted that some physical issues may result in similar types of impacts (e.g. multiple issues could reduce water pollution). Therefore, in the full business case, it will be important to avoid double counting of economic impacts.

The focus of the detailed economic assessment will be determined by the biophysical risk assessments (assets and ecosystem services at risk), the economic base case (the economic risk of doing nothing differently) and the available adaptation options.

Table 38. A long-list of potential data sources to inform the economic assessment

Priority issues Potential impacts Biophysical data Economic data (typically) (typically) required required Catchment runoff / Poor downstream water Change in water quality Pollution abatement costs water quality quality parameters (e.g. TSS, TN, TP) Loss of productivity (e.g. Gross margins for impacted yield reduction for aquaculture outputs aquaculture5) Riparian / estuarine Poor downstream water Change in water quality Pollution abatement costs condition and quality parameters (e.g. TSS, TN, habitat/corridor loss TP) Loss of productivity (e.g. Gross margins for impacted yield reduction for aquaculture outputs aquaculture) Poor biodiversity outcomes Change in extent and Values from relevant primary condition of key studies biodiversity assets Recreation and amenity Change in cultural Travel cost method / values from ecosystem services primary studies Increased inundation Flood inundation of various Flood risks assessment Stage-damage curves from due to sea level rise land uses and infrastructure (built-assets) previous flood assessments (incl. land loss) Area of natural asset by Value of ecosystem services (using type a benefits-transfer approach) Loss of biodiversity (i.e. Values from primary studies change in extent and

5 Oyster farming has historically occurred in the catchment and its future would be affected by changes in nitrogen levels or pathogens.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 282

Priority issues Potential impacts Biophysical data Economic data (typically) (typically) required required condition of key biodiversity assets) Damage to tourism Reduction in revenues to tourism assets operators Shoreline erosion / Loss of land and Erosion assessment (land Replacement / remediation cost recession infrastructure use areas and identified of assets assets) Pollution (rubbish) Reduced visual amenity Magnitude and extent of Benefit-transfer (e.g. willingness pollution to pay to avoid polluted waterways) Poor water quality Change in water quality Pollution abatement costs parameters (e.g. TSS, TN, TP) Loss of productivity (e.g. Gross margins for impacted yield reduction for aquaculture outputs aquaculture) Risks to fauna Any available risk Benefit-transfer (e.g. avoided assessments management cost) Foreshore asset Obstruction of access to Key assets impacted, Travel cost method to estimate management recreation/amenity areas extent and condition of value of current recreation beachfront area potential, or increase in maintenance and renewal costs to maintain beach Streambank stability / Poor downstream water Change in water quality Pollution abatement costs erosion quality parameters (e.g. TSS, TN, TP) Loss of productivity (e.g. Gross margins for impacted yield reduction for aquaculture outputs aquaculture) Loss of land and Erosion assessment (land Value of production / infrastructure use areas) infrastructure / ecosystem services Weeds and invasive Risk to flora and fauna Condition and extent of Value of ecosystem services species (crowding out) habitat loss Recreational activity Obstruction of access to Key assets impacted Travel cost method recreation / amenity areas Sewage effluent and Risks to ecosystem function Change in water quality Value of ecosystem services septic runoff parameters (e.g. (including recreation pathogens) opportunities due to risks for recreators) Risks to public health Change in water quality Benefit transfer or increased parameters (e.g. levels of treatment costs (health and pathogens) water) Governance Risk to achieving outcomes Efficient and effective Value of efficiency gains / losses (positive / negative) governance arrangements

The full economic business case will estimate the existing and future risks throughout the Georges River catchment, indicate the net benefits of each adaptation option (or package of options) and will ultimately influence final plan development (in Stage 4). The economic business case builds on the biophysical investigation (to be undertaken for this CMP and as part of previous regional studies), supplying decision-makers with

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 283

additional information to inform the best way forward. The process presented is c onsistent with State investment frameworks.

Determining the preferred adaptation option A full cost benefit analysis (CBA) is the most appropriate economic process to meet the requirements of the CMP process and provide clear investment options to benefit the region. This is completed in Stages 2 and 3 of the CMP processes. A CBA is an economic method to indicate the viability of investment options, ranking them based on their economic efficiency.

CBA is a comprehensive approach that identifies and values as many relevant benefit streams (e.g. flood protection, recreation) and costs (e.g. construction costs, land foregone) as possible. Both market and non - market values (e.g. public amenity) are considered. Importantly, per NSW government (2017), CBA is required to be undertaken for any new or altered capital, recurrent or regulatory action for any policy, program, project, proposal, or initiative. Therefore, the CBA output is a vital input if Council seeks State co-investment in any of the coastal management measures.

For this CBA, the benefits will be the estimated reductions in base case damage and loss that can be attributed to the performance of the management options (refer to Figure 38). The costs are the estimates of the lifecycle costs of each option. There are two key decision rules in CBA that guide whether an option is economically viable. The first is the benefit cost ratio (BCR), which is expressed as the benefits (in dollars) divided by the costs. This suggests that an option is appropriate if the BCR is greater than one – the higher the ratio the better the option. The other rule is a net present value (NPV) assessment, which is calculated by subtracting the benefits from the costs (in present day dollars). If the NPV is greater than zero, then the option is viable.

Benefits are closely linked to the values and characteristics of the community, land use, assets in the exposure zones, catchments and receiving environment. Several different types of economic valuation methodologies will be used to undertake the CBA. This will likely include a mix of market valuation (e.g. cost of repairing damaged assets), non-market valuation approaches (e.g. revealed preference – travel cost method methods for recreation and amenity value) and benefit-transfer (inferring values for this area based on studies undertaken elsewhere). The approach to developing a CBA must be participatory to ensure that key bene fits and costs are scoped for inclusion in the analysis. Council and community are best placed to uncover intangible benefits and costs that are unique to Georges River.

The quality of data for coastal analysis can vary. Therefore, sensitivity analysis must be undertaken to provide confidence in modelled outcomes. Sensitivity analysis highlights how results are likely to change under alternative assumptions/inputs or within certain tolerances. Best-practice approach to sensitivity analysis requires the use of Monte-Carlo simulations, which calculates a range of possible results for any specified variable. This process enables the analyst to locate which input is driving the outcome of the model and then determining if further work is required to improve confidence in that input/s.

The results from the CBA can be used to rank each adaptation option based on its economic efficiency. This information can then be provided to decision-makers as a key input to prioritise the best outcome for Georges River.

Overview of key asset classes At this early stage of the CMP process data is not available to approximate the damage and loss of present and future events. However, Table 39 has been included to provide an overview of key asset classes at risk, including an initial estimation of unit replacement costs in the event that a coastal hazard damages the asset. These costings will be used as a starting point for future analysis. At a later stage of the CMP they will be revised with stakeholders to ensure they are appropriate for the Georges River catchment.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 284

Table 39. Discussion of key asset classes (including indicative damage/loss estimate)

Low High Type Component Units Reference/Comment estimate estimate

Pipe Coastal hazards (e.g. inundation and erosion) $/linear m 164 201 (sewerage) threaten the stability and performance of the pipe network. Data measuring the metres of pipe affected by coastal hazards in the Georges River catchment will be determined Pipes Pipe during Stage 2 of the analysis. The damage $/linear m 213 260 (stormwater) can then be approximated in dollars using the replacement costs taken from Rawlinsons (2018).6 If the Council has site specific data this will be preferred to Rawlinsons.

Roads $/lane km 150,000 Similar to the pipe network, roads are threatened by coastal hazards. The costs of Traffic the road per kilometre will vary depending on $ per set 110,000 137,000 signals the type of road – i.e. whether a road is a major road or minor road. Gargett (2017) estimates the current value of a paved Road undivided road at $150,000 per km.7 The cost infrastructure of traffic signals and culverts has been taken Culvert $/linear m 1,565 1,915 from Rawlinsons (2018). A preliminary estimation of damage/loss for road assets has been included below under the heading Preliminary damage/loss assessment for key asset types. Flood damage (slab on ground) See discussion under Economic costs of flood Flood risk (below) on the stage-damage relationship damage of different asset types. (raised)

Flood $/m2 Variable A preliminary estimation of damage/loss for damage property assets has been included below (industrial) under the heading Preliminary damage/loss Flood assessment for key asset types. damage Residential / (other Commercial commercial) buildings Erosion threatens the integrity of a structure. It differs from flooding because erosion will likely compromise the stability of the foundations and therefore put the entire structure at risk. At this stage of the process it is likely that an asset will be assumed Erosion $/m2 1,324 2,866 damage irreparably damaged if it is within the erosion zone (in a given time period) – determined Stage 2. Construction costs can be estimated using the online tool provided by BMT Quantity Surveyors (https://www.bmtqs.com.au/construction- cost-table).

6 Rawlinsons (2018) Australian Construction Handbook is viewed as a leading authority on the various aspects of Australian construction costs. 7 Gargett (2017). Growth in the Australian Road System. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Information Sheet. Australia Government. Accessed at on 14/04/2020.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 285

Low High Type Component Units Reference/Comment estimate estimate

Coastal hazards may cause the inundation of areas containing powerlines which may require the relocation of certain infrastructure. The replacement cost will vary depending on the line type and pole material and this is reflected in the high and low estimates. Estimates were taken from Electricity Powerlines $/km 29,892 126,759 Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009).8 If the Council has site specific data this will be preferred to Rawlinsons. A preliminary estimation of damage/loss for powerline assets has been included below under the heading Preliminary damage/loss assessment for key asset types. Further research required (to be completed Carpark $/structure n/a n/a at a later stage, if necessary) Other Further research required (to be completed Jetty $/structure n/a n/a infrastructure at a later stage, if necessary) Further research required (to be completed Bridge $/structure n/a n/a at a later stage, if necessary) Natural assets provide a range of ‘services’ that contribute to human wellbeing through both their extent and condition. Some of the Coastal key services include tourism (recreation and forests and $/ha/yr 543 3,692 visual aesthetic), attenuation of wave energy wetlands and erosion protection, carbon storage and sequestration, and maintaining nursery. The initial unit estimations have been determined using a benefit transfer process, which is where the benefits identified in a primary study in a given location are then adjusted for a different location. The values provided here represent the benefit from the Whitsundays Natural / (with no adjustment), which will be adjusted environmental (where necessary) for the Georges River assets catchment at a later stage of the CMP process.

Beach $/ha/yr 3,000,000 5,400,000 It should be noted that beach assets generate three values. Firstly, use values associated with visitation. Secondly existence values (they are valued by the community purely because they exist). Thirdly, as they provide a degree of coastal protection to assets inland of the beach (beach absorbs energy from storm events). These values are highly variable depending on the specific beach asset.

8 Parsons Brinckerhoff (2009). Indicative costs for replacing SWER lines. Report for Victoria Department of Primary Industries.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 286

Economic costs of flood risk to building assets The economic cost of flood risk to building assets (the consequence component of a risk assessment) varies with the depth of flooding and building type. Depending on the flood event, the costs may include:

• Direct internal damage (e.g. wall linings, floorings, wiring, curtains etc.)

• Direct external damage (e.g. window frames, external wall materials)

• Direct structural damage (e.g. footings for elevated houses)

• Indirect damage (e.g. chattels)

Using vulnerability curves developed by Geosciences Australia and insurance damage cost data from the 2011 floods in South East Queensland (updated to 2019 values), it is possible to estimate stage -damage curves for different flood heights for different build asset types.9 The stage-damage relationship for residential and commercial buildings is shown in Figure 39.10 The relationships indicate that slab-on-ground and raised construction builds (both including residential assets) are significantly affected at 100mm height and then trends at a flatter incline after that. A key driver of this is the susceptibility of internal wiring, flooring, internal walls, fixtures, and fittings etc. within the house that will most likely be destroyed during a flood. Alternatively, the stage-damage profile for industrial (e.g. a warehouse) and other commercial buildings exhibit a steadily increasing relationship reflecting the different purpose, needs and construction of the asset.

Figure 39. Estimated direct stage-damage curves for buildings ($/m2) (NCE 2020)

9 At this stage of the CMP process the data presented captures the stage-damage relationship in South East Queensland. In the following stages of the CMP process it may be appropriate to adjust the relationship reflecting conditions in Georges River. 10 The stage-damage curves are based on the modelled estimates used for the Brisbane River Strategic Floodplain Management Plan (BMT- WBM (2017) Brisbane River Strategic Floodplain Management Plan. Technical Evidence Report).

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 287

Appendix H – Additional relevant legislation

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 288

Acts of Parliament Table 40 lists further relevant legislation that provides the legal context for coastal management.

Table 40. Additional legislation relevant to the Georges River catchment

Responsible Name of Act Summary of effect of Act Agency Commonwealth Acts The Act establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. The Australian legal system recognises native title where the rights and National interests are possessed under traditional laws and customs that continue to Indigenous Native Title Act 1993 be acknowledged and observed by the relevant , by Australians virtue of those laws and customs, the relevant Indigenous Australians have a Agency connection with the land or waters, and the native title rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia. New South Wales Acts NSW Environmental Department This regulation sits under the EP&A Act and supports the day to day Planning and of Planning requirements of the planning system. The progress of current and future Assessment development within the Georges River catchment depends on this regulation. Regulation 2000 Industry, and Environment The Act manages Crown reserves and facilitates better decision making about the future use of Crown land. It mandates that a range of environmental, social, cultural heritage and economic factors are considered before decisions Crown Land NSW Office of are made. It requires that important decisions under the Act comply with a Management Act Local community engagement strategy that provides for meaningful community 2016 Government engagement in appropriate circumstances. Under the Act, Crown land will now be managed as if it were public land under the Local Government Act 1993. NSW The Act provides land rights for Aboriginal persons, representative Aboriginal Aboriginal Land Department Land Councils, vests land in those Councils, provides for acquisition and Rights Act 1983 of Aboriginal management of land, and for the provision of community benefit schemes by Affairs or on behalf of those Councils. The Act provides guidance on how councils are to carry out their NSW Office of responsibilities in accountable, sustainable, flexible, and effective manner. Local Government Local The guiding principles promote an integrated, economically sound, and Act (LG Act 1993) Government ecologically sustainable approach. Regional state of the environment reporting is a requirement for local government under this act. The Act provides for the integrated and sustainable management of all the Water Management State’s waters including groundwater, riverine, estuarine, and coastal waters NSW Office of Act 2000 to the three nautical mile limit. It requires the assessment of the impact of Water any proposed controlled activity to ensure no more than Min harm will be done to waterfront land. This Act serves to preserve a healthy, productive, and resilient environment NSW now and into the future. It aims to protect threatened or protected animal Biodiversity Department and plant species, threatened ecological communities and areas of Conservation Act of Planning outstanding biodiversity value. A test of significance must be applied to 2016 Industry, and Environment determine if a proposed activity will affect a threatened species or ecological community. NSW National The Act requires that a plan of management be prepared for each nature National Parks and Parks and reserve and Aboriginal cultural heritage places. It also describes certain works Wildlife Act 1974 Wildlife and development that can occur in National Parks. Service Protection of the Environment NSW The object of the Act is to achieve the protection, restoration, and Operations Act 1997 Environmental enhancement of the quality of the NSW environment. It achieves this

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 289

Responsible Name of Act Summary of effect of Act Agency Protection outcome by issuing licenses, notices, and determining offences for scheduled Authority activities that are potentially damaging to the environment. The Act established the modern Sydney Water Corporation and grants an NSW Operating License to provide, construct, operate, manage, or maintain systems or services for: Department Sydney Water Act (a) storing or supplying water, or 1994 of Planning Industry, and (b) providing sewerage services, or Environment (c) providing stormwater drainage systems, or (d) disposing of wastewater. The Act defines the functions and objectives of WaterNSW. The principal objectives of WaterNSW under the Act are:

(a) to capture, store and release water in an efficient, effective, safe and financially responsible manner, and (b) to supply water in compliance with appropriate standards of quality, and WaterNSW Act 2014 WaterNSW (c) to ensure that declared catchment areas and water management works in such areas are managed and protected so as to promote water quality, the protection of public health and public safety, and the protection of the environment, and (d) to provide for the planning, design, modelling and construction of water storages and other water management works, and (e) to maintain and operate the works of WaterNSW efficiently and economically and in accordance with sound commercial principles. NSW Department The primary objective of the Act is to provide a framework for the prevention, Biosecurity Act 2015 of Primary elimination and minimisation of biosecurity risks. Industry

State Environmental Planning Policies Further State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that are relevant to the study area are listed in Table 41 below.

Table 41. Additional SEPPs applicable to the study area

SEPP No 19 - The general aim of this SEPP is to protect and preserve bushland within the urban areas of the (Bushland in Greater Sydney Metropolitan area. This EPI is being considered for consolidation into the Draft Urban Areas) Environment SEPP within the urban bushland provisions. SEPP (Koala This SEPP aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural Habitat vegetation that provide habitat for . This SEPP applies to land in the Liverpool City Council Protection) 2019 and Wollondilly Shire Council LGAs. SEPP 50 – Canal This SEPP prohibits the development of canal estates in NSW and applies to all LGAs in the Georges Estate River CMP study area. This SEPP is proposed to be consolidated into the new SEPP (Environment). Development SEPP (Primary The provisions relating to sustainable aquaculture apply to the Georges River CMP study area. The Production and provisions of the now repealed SEPP 62 – Sustainable Aquaculture have been consolidated into Rural this SEPP. Development) 2019 SEPP (State Formerly known as SEPP (Major Projects) 2005, this SEPP aims to facilitate the orderly use and Significant development of important urban, coastal, and regional sites of environmental or social significance Precincts) 2005 to the State. This includes facilitating service delivery outcomes for a range of public purposes. Precincts listed in the SEPP that are included in the study area include, Edmondson Park South, and Port Botany.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 290

SEPP (Sydney This SEPP co-ordinates the release of land for residential, employment and other urban Region Growth development in the North West Growth Centre, the South West Growth Centre, and the Wilton Centres) 2006 Growth Area. It also provides precinct plans for designated growth areas against which development is assessed. SEPP This SEPP aims to facilitate effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. There are divisions (Infrastructure) within the SEPP that relate to flood mitigation work; port, wharf, or boating facilities; sewerage 2007 systems; soil conservation works; stormwater management systems; water supply systems; and waterway or foreshore management activities. SEPP (Vegetation This SEPP is one of a suites of Land Management and Biodiversity Conservation (LMBC) reforms in Non-Rural that commenced in New South Wales on 25 August 2017. The Vegetation SEPP (the SEPP) works Areas) 2017 together with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and the Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016 to create a framework for the regulation of clearing of native vegetation in NSW. SEPP (Exempt and SEPP (Exempt and Complying) provides extensive provisions and controls relating to certain Complying development that is allowed without approval (exempt) and through a simplified approval Development) pathway (complying). 2008 SEPP (BASIX) 2004 This SEPP implements the Building Sustainability Index program which aims to encourage sustainable residential development as it relates to water usage and greenhouse gas emissions. SEPP (Mining, The purpose of this SEPP is to provide for the proper management and development of mineral, petroleum petroleum and extractive material resources for the purpose of promoting the social and economic production and welfare of the State, and to establish appropriate planning controls to encourage ecologically extractive sustainable development through the environmental assessment, and sustainable management, of industries) 2007 development of mineral, petroleum and extractive material resources. There are also provisions that establish a gateway determination procedure and factors to consider when determining a development application. SEPP (Western The aim of this Policy is to put in place planning controls that will enable the Western Sydney Sydney parklands) Parklands Trust to develop the Western Parklands into a multi-use urban parkland for the region of 2009 western Sydney.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 291

Appendix I – Planning documentation for Member Councils

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 292

Review of planning documents

Introduction This document provides a framework for the evaluation of Environmental Planning Instruments and Policies of the member Council’s against the relevant Best Management Options and Next Best Management Options in the Georges River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan 2013 (CZMP 2013) and the updated Scoping Investigations undertaken in 2019/20 as part of the NSW Coastal Management Framework and CMP process.

The framework is to be used to assess at a high level the progress of local Council EPIs and DCPs in aligning to the aims and actions that identified to implement the best management of the Georges River Catchment.

In accordance with Part 4A of the Coastal Protection Act 1979, the CZMP 2013 was gazetted by the Councils following certification by the Minister for Environment. The document must be taken into account when undertaking works or development, or when making new plans that cover areas affected by this plan.

The CZMP 2013 is complementary to planning instruments and environmental management strategies and initiatives being used and implemented by each of the Councils and other stakeholders. The purpose of CZMP 2013 is to provide strategic direction and guidance on future strategic and environmental planning within the estuary and its catchment. It also provides an Action Plan for undertaking targeted works and other initiatives aimed at achieving the overall Goal of improving estuary condition. It is a key document that is required to be consulted during all future reviews of Environmental Planning Instruments and place -based Plans across the catchment area.

The updated Scoping Investigations 2020 have identified further opportunities to introduce better manage ment to address the issue raised during the Stage 1 Scoping Study for the Coastal Management Program.

All councils in NSW are required to update their Local Environmental Plans to align with the directions and priorities of the Regional and District Plans and enhance strategic planning for local areas.

In March 2018, amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) introduced new requirements for councils to prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). The LSPSs will shape how the development controls in local environmental plan evolve over time to meet the community's needs, with the LEP the main tool to deliver the council and community’s plan.

All Councils in the Georges River Catchment identified the health of the catchment as a Key Priority in their Draft LSPSs. All councils except for Sutherland, have received a Letter of Support for their LSPS from the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC), and are progressing the preparation of new LEPs.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 293

Local Environmental Plans and Development Control Plans Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) are environmental planning instruments (EPIs) prepared by local councils. An LEP is a statutory document that provides controls and guidelines for development in an area. It determines what can be built, where it can be built, and what activities can occur on land in local government areas. LEPs aim to conserve the natural environment, whilst creating attractive living areas and ensuring development complies with ecologically sustainable principles.

Development Control Plans (DCPs) contain specific controls to guide certain types of development and achieve particular development outcomes within certain areas. A DCP is a supplementary development guideline that supports Council's LEP. DCPs are non-statutory instruments that support the LEPs, by providing specific, more comprehensive guidelines for types of development, or specific areas within a local government area. DCPs contain a specific range of objectives and controls (including visual amenity, drainage, access, pollution control, vegetation etc.) aimed at optimising land use and development in an environmentally sustainable manner.

On 31 March 2006, the Standard Instrument (LEPs) Order 2006 was gazetted. Its purpose was to reduce the number of planning documents and improve the consistency in documents across local councils by introducing a standard template LEP. The Standard Instrument provides for 34 standard zones for LEPs, for use by Councils when preparing their new LEPs according to the Standard Instrument.

Within the Georges River Estuary catchment all councils have LEPs that comply with the Standard Instrument. A list of the LEPs and DCPs relevant to the Georges River Estuary are presented in Table 42.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 294

Table 42. Local Councils LEPs and DCPs

Local Government Area Local Environmental Plans Development Control Plans

Sutherland Sutherland LEP 2015 Sutherland DCP 2015

Bayside Rockdale LEP 2011 Rockdale DCP 2011

Botany Bay LEP 2013 Botany Bay DCP 2013

Fairfield Fairfield LEP 2013 Fairfield DCP 2013

Liverpool Liverpool LEP 2008 Liverpool DCP 2008

Canterbury-Bankstown Canterbury LEP 2012 Canterbury DCP 2012

Bankstown LEP 2015 Bankstown DCP 2015

(Draft Consolidated LEP 2020, in consultation)

Georges River Hurstville LEP 2012 Hurstville DCP 1 / DCP 2

Kogarah LEP 2012 Kogarah DCP 2013

Campbelltown Campbelltown LEP 2015 Campbelltown DCP 2015

Wollondilly Wollondilly LEP 2011 Wollondilly DCP 2016

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 295

LEP Reviews The Regional Plan and District Plans are being implemented by Councils through a process that will lead to updating of LEPs. All councils in NSW are required to update their LEPs to align with the directions and priorities of the Regional and District Plans. At present the focus is on councils finalising their Local Strategic Planning Statements (LSPSs).

New LEPs provide an opportunity for councils to review the effectiveness of local land use and development controls to minimise the negative impacts of development in the Georges River Catchment on waterway health, and in particular to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013.

In March 2018, amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) introduced new requirements for councils to prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS). Each council are required to prepare an LSPS, which will set out the 20-year vision for land-use in the local area, the special character and values that are to be preserved and how change will be managed into the future. The LSPS will implement actions in the Regional and District Plans, and the council’s own priorities in the community strategic plans it prepares under local government legislation. The LSPS will shape how the development controls in the LEP evolve over time to meet the community's needs.

Greater Sydney councils that were selected to receive funding, were given two years (to June 2020) to review and update their LEPs. The remaining Greater Sydney councils have three years to review and update their LEPs (to June 2021).

The LEP Review process has been divided into six key phases:

• Phase 1 – LEP review • Phase 2 – Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement • Phase 3 – Final Local Strategic Planning Statement • Phase 4 – Prepare Planning Proposal / Gateway • Phase 5 – Draft LEP on exhibition • Phase 6 – Plan making

Status of LEP Reviews All councils within the Georges River Catchment have been given Letters of Support by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) for their draft LSPS, except Sutherland City Council, which is pending, and are progressing the drafting of new LEPs. Refer to Table 4.

All councils in the George River Catchment identified the health of the catchment as a Key Priority in their draft LSPS.

A number of the Council’s in the catchment, such as Canterbury-Bankstown Council have reviewed existing LEPs and supporting strategies (CZMP 2013 and Biodiversity Strategy) in responding to the District Plan priorities and actions, and have advised the GSC that there is sufficient information available to develop new responses to give effect to these priorities and actions related to protecting environmentally sensitive areas of waterways and the coastal environment area.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 296

Table 4 – Council LEP Review Status

LGA LEP Review Status

Sutherland GSC Letter of Support pending.

Bayside GSC Letter of Support provided for Bayside Council (BC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Fairfield GSC Letter of Support provided for Fairfield City Council (FCC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Liverpool GSC Letter of Support for Liverpool City Council (LCC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Canterbury Bankstown City of Canterbury Bankstown (CB) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Georges River GSC Letter of Support for Georges River Council (GRC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (February 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act.

Campbelltown GSC Letter of Support provided for Campbelltown City Council (BC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act

Wollondilly GSC Letter of Support provided for Campbelltown City Council (BC) draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (March 2020) under Section 3.9(3A) of the EP&A Act

Under the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 2016, all councils are required to give effect to the coastal management program including the management aims, objectives and actions in the CZMP 2013 in new planning proposals for new LEPs and DCPs.

A number of Councils have begun the process of reviewing their planning controls under the LEP Review process, to inform their new LEPs, DCPs and associated technical requirements to improve waterways including the Georges River.

The following section of this report provides a framework for the evaluation of current EPIs and DCPs and makes recommendations for new EPIs and DCPs.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 297

Framework for the evaluation of EPIs and DCPs A framework for the evaluation of the Georges River Council LEPs and DCPs was developed to understand how existing instruments reflect the CZMP and the new NSW coastal framework principles and requirements. This framework was considered as the best approach to inform the Georges River Catchment Councils planning instruments (Table 43). All eight Councils LEPs and DCPs, including Sutherland, Bayside, Fairfield, Liverpool, Canterbury Bankstown, Georges River, Campbelltown and Wollondilly were considered using the framework, as included in the tables below.

Table 43. Evaluation framework for LEPs and DCPs against CZMP Management Aims, Objectives and Actions

Comments and CZMP Management Performance Criteria Recommendations Aims and Actions 1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the protection Y/N and list Aim D / MD1 and better management of the Georges River provisions. Aim D / MD2 Catchment?

• Aims; • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing environmental and watercourse protection (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, Flood Planning, Acid Sulphate Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, Limited Development on foreshore area).

2. Are changes required to land use zoning and List recommended permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013 changes to land use aims and objectives? zoning.

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions related Y/N and list DCP Aim A / MA2 to WSUD? provisions and other Council plans • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions within and policies. adopted Council DCPs. • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other Council plans and policies.

4. If yes, do the provisions represent current best practice industry standards? 5. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Y/N and list Aim F / MF-5 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? requirements.

6. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for identified Y/N and list Aim G / MG 6 sites? provisions. • Land use zoning • Other protection provisions

7. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to protect Y/N and list Aim G / MG 7 and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the provisions. George River catchment? • Aims; • Place-based and local character controls; and • Visual impact controls

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 298

Liverpool City Council

Table 44. Liverpool City Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Liverpool LEP 2008 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; (g) to conserve, protect and enhance the • Land use zoning (i.e. zoning and environmental and cultural heritage of Liverpool, permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing (h) to protect and enhance the natural environment environmental and watercourse in Liverpool, incorporating ecologically sustainable protection (i.e. Riparian Lands and development, Watercourses, Flood Planning, Acid Sulfate Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Zoning and permissibility Earthworks, Limited development on • foreshore area). National parks and Nature Reserves • Environmental Conservation • Environmental Management • 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and Natural Waterways permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013 aims and objectives? Additional Local Provisions:

• Environmental significant land (Cl. 7.6) • Acid sulfate soils (Cl. 7.7) • Flood planning (Cl. 7.8) • Foreshore building line (Cl. 7.9) • Earthworks (Cl. 7.31)

Recommendations:

• LCC to consider including a specific Aim in the LEP to conserve, protect and enhance waterways and waterfront land.

• Environmentally Significant Land mapping: Review vegetation buffers along Upper and Lower Cabramatta Creek and Hinchinbrook Creek, which have links to existing riparian corridors and remnant vegetation patches and consider amendments to Environmental Significant Mapping. • LCC to review landscaping requirements for private land fronting watercourses in its DCP, to provide for suitable vegetation buffers. • LCC should include a standard clause for stormwater in LEP, consistent with Sutherland LEP 2015.

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Liverpool DCP 2008 related to WSUD? • Water Cycle Management (6) • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions • Development near watercourses (8) within adopted Council DCPs. • Erosion and Sediment Control (11) • Acid Sulfate Soils Risk (12)

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 299

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

• Inclusion of WSUD principles within • Pertinent chapters with site-specific provisions. other Council plans and policies

4. If yes, do the provisions represent current best Recommendations practice industry standards? • LCC to review all relevant DCP provisions that guide the best management of impacts of development on watercourses including the Georges River Catchment. Consider consolidating provisions into a specific WSUD chapter. • LCC to review and potentially amplify WSUD principles in other Council plans and policies and public domain works programs (streets, parks, plazas and other public spaces) to demonstrate leadership.

5. Are environmentally friendly seawall • LCC to review where there is a need for DCP requirements incorporated into DCPs or other controls or other documents setting out the documents? requirements for environmentally friendly seawalls.

Note: specific requirements may not be required in Liverpool LGA, where a natural condition of waterfront land proliferates.

6. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Liverpool LEP 2008 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? • Land use zoning • Environmental Heritage Schedule (Schedule 5)

Recommendations

• LCC to review land use zoning provisions to ensure that environmental sensitive land is appropriately protected.

• LCC to review Heritage Schedule under Schedule 5 of the LEP, to identify if there are potential additional sites to be added.

7. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim Recommendations to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? • Aims; • Place-based and local character controls; • LCC to include a specific aim of the DCP to and protect of the social, aesthetic (and • Visual impact controls environmental) values of the George River Catchment.

• LCC to include objectives and controls that are place-based, and where localities interface with the Georges River and its tributaries, include specific controls that seek to protect and enhance

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 300

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

the social, aesthetic (and environmental) values of the George River Catchment.

• LCC to consider including requirements for visual impact assessments to accompany development applications within the visual catchments of Georges River and its tributaries, particularly where there is moderate to high visibility of waterfront properties.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 301

Georges River Council

Table 45. Georges River Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Hurstville LEP 2012 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; (d) to conserve, protect and enhance the • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and environmental heritage, cultural heritage and permissibility); and aesthetic character of Hurstville, • Additional Local Provisions addressing environmental and watercourse protection (h) to protect and enhance areas of remnant (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, bushland, natural watercourses, wetlands and Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic riparian habitats, Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, (i) to retain, and where possible extend, public Limited development on foreshore area) access to foreshore areas and link existing open space areas for environmental benefit and public enjoyment, 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP Additional Local Provisions 2013 aims and objectives?

• Acid Sulfate Soils (Cl. 6.1) • Riparian Lands and Watercourses (Cl. 6.2) • Limited development on foreshore area (6.3) • Foreshore scenic protection area (6.4)

Kogarah LEP 2012

Aims

(d) to protect and enhance Kogarah’s natural environment, foreshores and waterways,

(f) to conserve Kogarah’s environmental heritage.

Additional Local Provisions

• Acid Sulfate Soils (Cl. 6.1) • Earthworks (Cl. 6.2) • Flood Planning (Cl. 6.3) • Limited Development on foreshore area (6.4)

Recommendations

• GRC should include a standard clause for stormwater in LEP, consistent with Sutherland LEP 2015. • GRC should consider introducing a clause for coastal hazards and risks.

• GRC should consider adopting a foreshore scenic protection area provision from the

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 302

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

Hurstville LEP or similar and apply this to the former Kogarah Council area.

8. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions • Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013, C3 - related to WSUD? Foreshore & Waterfront Controls, C4- Foreshore Locality Controls and B6 water • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions management within adopted Council DCPs. • Kogarah Water Management Policy 2006 • Hurstville DCP No. 1 – Part 3.7: Stormwater; • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other Appendix 2 – Codes and Policies. Council plans and policies • Hurstville DCP No. 2 – Section 6: Site Planning Considerations; Appendix 2 – Codes and 9. If yes, do the provisions represent current best Policies. practice industry standards?

Recommendations

• GRC to review all relevant DCP provisions that guide the best management of impacts of development on watercourses including the Georges River Catchment.

• GRC to incorporate WSUD principles in other Council plans and policies and public domain works programs (streets, parks, plazas and other public spaces) to demonstrate leadership.

3. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Kogarah DCP 2013 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? • Seawalls (Part 6.7)

Recommendations

• GRC to review DCP controls and consider best practice environmental design for new and reconstructed seawalls.

Hurstville DPC No. 1 - Additional controls for development in the foreshore (Part 6.5)

4. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Hurstville LEP 2012 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? - Aims of Plan includes:

"(d) to conserve, protect and enhance the environmental heritage, cultural heritage and aesthetic character of Hurstville"

- Clause 6.3 (Limited development on foreshore area) requires consideration of:

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 303

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

"(f) any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained"

- Environmental Heritage (Schedule 5)

Kogarah LEP 2012

• Land use zoning • Environmental Heritage Schedule (Schedule 5)

- Clause 6.2 (Earthworks): "(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land."

- Clause 6.4 (Limited development on foreshore area) requires consideration of:

"(f) any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained"

Recommendations

• GRC to consider extending the application of the Earthworks local provision to the former Hurstville LGA to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on the environment, neighbouring uses and amenity, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

• GRC to consider extending the application of the Riparian Land and Watercourses local provision to the former Kogarah LGA to protect and maintain the water quality and ecology of the LGA’s significant waterways.

5. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Hurstville DCP 1 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? • Additional Controls for Development in the • Aims; Foreshore (Part 6.5) • Place-based and local character controls; and • Visual impact controls Hurstville DCP 2

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 304

Performance Criteria Comments and Recommendations

N/A

Kogarah DCP 2013

• General Controls (Part B) • Foreshore & Waterfront Controls (Part. C3) • Foreshore Locality Controls (Part. C4)

Recommendations

• GRC to include objectives and controls in the DCP to protect the environmental and scenic values of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 305

Sutherland Shire Council

Table 46. Sutherland Shire Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; • to deliver the community’s vision by • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and achieving an appropriate balance between permissibility); and development and management of the • Additional Local Provisions addressing environment that will be ecologically environmental and watercourse protection sustainable, socially equitable and (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, economically viable Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic • to protect and enhance the natural Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, environment and scenic quality through Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, the retention and rehabilitation of wildlife Limited development on foreshore area) habitats, wildlife corridors, bushland, foreshores and waterways, • to conserve, protect and enhance the 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and environmental and cultural heritage permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013 aims and objectives? Zoning and permissibility

• Identification of waterways zones, recreation zones Additional local provisions:

• Flood planning • Stormwater management • Environmental sensitive land – riparian land and watercourses • Limited development of foreshore areas • Development of the foreshores of Georges River […]

Recommendations:

• SSC to review the effectiveness of LEP in managing water quality • SCC to review the effectiveness of the LEP provisions in addressing sea level rise • SCC to review the effectiveness of the LEP in managing riparian vegetation and riverbank erosion

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Sutherland Shire DCP 2015 related to WSUD? • Foreshore and Waterway Development • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions • Chapter 10 Foreshores and W1 Natural within adopted Council DCPs. Waterways • Chapter 11 Foreshores and W2 Recreational Waterways

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 306

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

• Inclusion of WSUD principles within other • Chapter 38 Stormwater and Groundwater Council plans and policies Management • Chapter 39 Natural Resource 4. If yes, do the provisions represent current best Management practice industry standards? • Chapter 40 Environmental Risk

Recommendations

• SSC to review all relevant DCP provisions that guide the best management of impacts of development on watercourses including the Georges River Catchment. Consider consolidating provisions into a specific WSUD chapter

5. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements • Chapter 11 Foreshores and W2 Recreational incorporated into DCPs or other documents? Waterways considers environmentally friendly seawalls. • SSC to review if the requirements match latest technology/approaches.

6. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Sutherland Shire LEP 2015 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? • Local provision 6.10 incorporates provisions for the protection of foreshores of Port Hacking, Georges River, Woronora River and Port Botany. Recommendations

• SCC to review specific land use provisions to ensure that environmental sensitive land is protected.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 307

Bayside Council

Table 47. Bayside Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Rockdale LEP 2011 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; Relevant aims include: • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and permissibility); and • to promote and enhance Rockdale’s • Additional Local Provisions addressing foreshores, environmental and watercourse protection • to minimise impacts on land subject to (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, environmental hazards, particularly flooding. Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, Zoning and permissibility Limited development on foreshore area)

Land use zones should be reviewed to explicitly 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and include rivers and waterways, in agreeance with the permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP NSW coastal framework 2013 aims and objectives? Additional local provisions

• 6.9 Riparian land, watercourses and artificial waterbodies

Recommendations

BC to review the LEP and consider including specific aims to protect and enhance public use of the Georges River (Botany Bay)

Botany Bay LEP 2013

Aims

The LEP generically refers to environmental and cultural values but it doesn’t include explicit aims to improve water quality, and/or foreshore amenity

Zoning and permissibility

Land use includes W3 Working Waterways; it does not include specific environmental zoning.

Additional local provisions

• 6.3 Stormwater management • 6.6 Wetlands • 6.7 Limited development on foreshore area

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 308

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

Recommendations

BC to review the LEP and consider including specific aims to protect and enhance public use of the Georges River (Botany Bay) and additional local provisions related to waterways management

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Rockdale DCP 2011 related to WSUD? List of relevant provisions: • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions within adopted Council DCPs. • Stormwater Management • Flood Risk Management • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other • Water Conservation Council plans and policies • Water Quality • 4. If yes, do the provisions represent current best Groundwater Protection practice industry standards?

The provisions should be reviewed and integrated with updated provisions and standards reflecting current best practice, including climate change adaptation

Botany Bay DCP 2013

List of relevant provisions:

• Stormwater management • Waste minimisation and management

The provisions are quite limited and should be reviewed and integrated with updated provisions and standards reflecting current best practice in waterways management, riparian vegetation management, including climate change adaptation considerations.

5. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Rockdale DCP 2011 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Botany Bay DCP 2013

Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Recommendations

BC to consider environmentally friendly seawall requirements in future DCP reviews

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 309

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

6. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Rockdale LEP 2011 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? Does not include specific provisions for sites of natural significance in the Georges River catchment

Botany Bay LEP 2013

Does not include specific provisions for sites of natural significance in the Georges River catchment

Recommendations:

BC to consider including more specific provisions for sites of natural significance across the Georges River catchment

7. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Rockdale DCP 2011 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? specific controls that aim to protect and enhance • Aims; the social and aesthetic values of the George River • Place-based and local character controls; catchment and • Visual impact controls Botany Bay DCP 2013

specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment

Recommendations

BC to consider specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment in future DCP reviews

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 310

Fairfield City Council

Table 48. Fairfield City Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Fairfield LEP 2013 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; The LEP refers to the following aims relevant to the • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and Georges River conservation and enhancement: permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing • to conserve the environmental heritage of environmental and watercourse protection Fairfield, (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, • to protect and manage areas of remnant Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic bushland, natural watercourses and Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, threatened species. Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks,

Limited development on foreshore area)

Zoning and permissibility 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP CMP Relevant land use categories include: 2013 aims and objectives? • E2 Environmental Conservation • E3 Environmental Management • W2 Recreational Waterways

Additional local provisions

• 6.3 Flood planning • 6.4 Floodplain risk management • 6.6 Riparian land and watercourses

Recommendations

BC to review the LEP and consider including specific aims to enhance public use of the Georges River foreshore

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Fairfield City Wide DCP 2013 related to WSUD? List of relevant provisions: • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions within adopted Council DCPs. • Riparian land and waterways • Flood risk assessment • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other • Land affected by tidal waters Council plans and policies • Erosion and sediment control

4. If yes, do the provisions represent current best practice industry standards? FCC should consider reviewing the provisions and

integrate with standards reflecting current best practice in waterways management, riparian vegetation management, including climate change adaptation considerations.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 311

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

5. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Fairfield City Wide DCP 2013 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Recommendations

FCC to consider environmentally friendly seawall requirements in future DCP reviews

6. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Fairfield City LEP 2013 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? Specific provisions are identified for riparian areas mapped in the Riparian Lands and Watercourses Map.

Recommendations:

FCC to consider including more specific sites of natural significance across the Georges River catchment in the LEP local provisions

7. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Fairfield City Wide DCP 2013 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? The DCP mentions social and aesthetic values • Aims; referring to the LEP however FCC should consider • Place-based and local character controls; including more specific controls that aim to protect and and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the • Visual impact controls George River catchment

Recommendations

FCC to consider specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment in future DCP reviews

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 312

Canterbury Bankstown Council

Table 49. Canterbury-Bankstown Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

1. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Bankstown LEP 2015 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; The LEP refers to the following aims relevant to the • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and Georges River conservation and enhancement: permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing • to protect and enhance the landform and environmental and watercourse protection vegetation, especially foreshores and (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, bushland, in a way that maintains the Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic biodiversity values and landscape amenity Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, of Bankstown Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, • to minimise risk to the community in areas Limited development on foreshore area) subject to environmental hazards by restricting development in sensitive areas • to consider the cumulative impact of 2. Are changes required to land use zoning and development on the natural environment permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP and waterways and on the capacity of 2013 aims and objectives? infrastructure and the road network

Zoning and permissibility

CMP Relevant land use categories include:

• E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves • W1 Natural Waterways

Additional local provisions

• 6.3 Flood planning • 6.4A Riparian land and watercourses • 6.5 Limited development on foreshore areas

Recommendations

LEP is currently in review, a consolidated LEP is currently in consultation phase. CBC to consider integrating NSW coastal reforms principles and Georges River CMP scoping study findings in the new instrument.

Canterbury LEP 2012

Aims

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 313

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

The LEP does not refer explicitly to healthy waterways or waterfront outcomes. It does consider environmental and cultural heritage, broadly.

Zoning and permissibility

CMP Relevant land use categories include:

• E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves • W1 Natural Waterways

Additional local provisions

• 6.3 Flood planning • 6.4 Stormwater management

Recommendations

LEP is currently in review, a consolidated LEP is currently in consultation phase. CBC to consider integrating NSW coastal reforms principles and Georges River CMP scoping study findings in the new instrument

3. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Canterbury DCP 2012 related to WSUD? 4. List of relevant provisions:

• Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions • Stormwater and flood management within adopted Council DCPs. • Waste

• Inclusion of WSUD principles within other Council plans and policies Bankstown DCP 2015

5. If yes, do the provisions represent current best practice industry standards? List of relevant provisions:

• Flood risk management • Waste management and minimisation

Recommendations:

The provisions should be reviewed and integrated with updated provisions and standards reflecting current best practice in waterways and riparian zone management, including climate change adaptation considerations.

6. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Canterbury DCP 2012 incorporated into DCPs or other documents?

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 314

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Bankstown DCP 2015

Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Recommendations

CBC to consider environmentally friendly seawall requirements in future DCP reviews

7. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Canterbury DCP 2012 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? The DCP does not include specific provisions for sites of natural significance in the Georges River catchment

Bankstown DCP 2015

The DCP does not include specific provisions for sites of natural significance in the Georges River catchment

Recommendations:

CBC to consider including more specific provisions for sites of natural significance across the Georges River catchment

8. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Canterbury DCP 2012 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? The DCP does not include specific controls that aim • Aims; to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic • Place-based and local character controls; values of the George River catchment and • Visual impact controls Bankstown DCP 2015

The DCP does not include specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment

Recommendations

CBC to consider the inclusion of specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment in future DCP reviews

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 315

Campbelltown City Council

Table 50. Campbelltown City Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

9. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Campbelltown LEP 2015 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; The LEP refers to the following aims relevant to the • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and Georges River conservation and enhancement: permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing • to conserve and enhance the environmental and watercourse protection environmental, scenic and landscape (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, values of land in Campbelltown, Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic • to maintain, protect and improve the Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, natural environment including biodiversity Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, and water resources Limited development on foreshore area)

Zoning and permissibility 10. Are changes required to land use zoning and permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013 aims and objectives? CMP Relevant land use categories include:

• National Parks and Nature Reserves • Environmental Conservation • Environmental Management • Environmental Living • Natural Waterways

it is noted that CMP actions/goals are not required in Campbelltown City Council’s DCP/LEP as we are not considered a “Coastal Council” under the legislation

Additional local provisions

• 7.2 Flood planning • 7.3 Riparian land and watercourses • 7.5 Preservation of the natural environment

Recommendations

CCC to review the LEP and consider including specific aims related with the improvement of water quality, waterways and the public use of the public use of the Georges River foreshore and waterways

11. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Campbelltown DCP 2015 related to WSUD? List of relevant provisions:

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 316

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

• Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions • Vegetation and wildlife management within adopted Council DCPs. CCC should consider reviewing the provisions and • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other integrate with standards reflecting current best Council plans and policies practice in waterways management, riparian vegetation management, including climate change 12. If yes, do the provisions represent current best adaptation considerations. practice industry standards? Engineering Design Manual that incorporates WSUD is currently being developed which will be included where appropriate in Council’s DCP in the future.

13. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Campbelltown DCP 2015 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? The DCP does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements. Note: seawalls are not required in Campbelltown, not being a coastal council

Recommendations

NA

14. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Campbelltown LEP 2015 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? Specific provisions are identified for riparian areas mapped in the areas identified as ‘riparian protection’ on the environmental constraints map.

Recommendations:

CCC to consider including more specific sites of natural significance across the Georges River catchment in the LEP local provisions.

Note: Council has just adopted a new biodiversity layer in the LEP which should be gazetted in the coming months

15. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Campbelltown DCP 2015 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? The DCP mentions social and aesthetic values • Aims; referring to the LEP however CCC should consider • Place-based and local character controls; including more specific controls that aim to protect and and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the • Visual impact controls George River catchment

Recommendations

CCC to consider specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment in future DCP reviews

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 317

Wollondilly Shire Council

Table 51.Wollondilly Shire Council - Consideration of coastal management criteria in LEPs and DCPs for and recommendation to update planning instruments

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

16. Does the Council LEP include provisions for the Wollondilly LEP 2011 protection and better management of the Georges River Catchment? Aims

• Aims; The LEP refers to the following aims relevant to the • Land use provisions (i.e. zoning and Georges River conservation and enhancement: permissibility); and • Additional Local Provisions addressing • to provide for the management of natural environmental and watercourse protection resources and the protection of the natural (i.e. Riparian Lands and Watercourses, landscape character, Flood Planning, Foreshore Scenic • to protect, conserve and enhance the built, Protection Area, Acid Sulfate Soils, landscape and Aboriginal cultural heritage, Wetlands, Stormwater, Earthworks, • to protect water quality in land that is Limited development on foreshore area) situated within water supply catchments

17. Are changes required to land use zoning and Zoning and permissibility permissibility to ensure consistency with the CZMP 2013 aims and objectives? CMP Relevant land use categories include: • National Parks and Nature Reserves • Environmental Conservation • Environmental Management • Environmental Living

Additional local provisions

• 7.2 Biodiversity protection • 7.3 Water protection • 7.4 Flood planning

Recommendations

WSC to review the LEP and consider including specific aims related with the improvement of water quality, waterways and the public use the Georges River foreshore and waterways.

18. Does the Council DCP include specific provisions Wollondilly DCP 2016 related to WSUD? List of relevant provisions: • Inclusion of specific WSUD provisions within adopted Council DCPs. • Flooding • Heritage and aboriginal heritage • Inclusion of WSUD principles within other • Other generic provisions with inclusion of Council plans and policies environmental criteria

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 318

Evaluation Comments and Recommendations

19. If yes, do the provisions represent current best practice industry standards? WSC should consider reviewing the provisions and integrate with standards reflecting current best practice in waterways management, riparian vegetation management, including climate change adaptation considerations.

20. Are environmentally friendly seawall requirements Wollondilly DCP 2016 incorporated into DCPs or other documents? Does not include environmentally friendly seawall requirements

Recommendations

WSC to consider environmentally friendly seawall requirements in future DCP reviews

21. Does the LEP provide suitable protection for Wollondilly LEP 2011 identified sites of natural and cultural significance in the Georges River Catchment? Specific provisions are identified for biodiversity and water management on land identified as “sensitive land” on the Natural Resources—Water Map and on the Natural Resources—Biodiversity Map.

Recommendations:

WSC to consider including more specific sites of natural significance across the Georges River catchment in the LEP local provisions

22. Does the DCP include specific controls that aim to Wollondilly DCP 2016 protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment? No specific control referring to the enhancement of • Aims; social and aesthetic values have been included in • Place-based and local character controls; the WSC DCP 2016. and • Visual impact controls Recommendations

WSC to consider specific controls that aim to protect and enhance the social and aesthetic values of the George River catchment in future DCP reviews.

Georges River Coastal Management Program Scoping Study - 2020 319