Have Estuary Management Plans contributed to the ecologically sustainable management of our estuaries?
Around 100 Estuary Management Plans (or their equivalent) have been prepared in NSW, mostly by consultants on behalf of Local Governments and Estuary Management Committees, with assistance and funding from the NSW Government’s Coastal and Estuary Management Program. While it has always been a requirement of the NSW Government to undertake a review of the implementation progress of individual plans several years after they are implemented, a large scale audit of plan implementation and overall success across the State has never been conducted and is long overdue.
As such, Michelle Fletcher and Damion Cavanagh of BMT WBM decided to undertake the first step towards such a retrospective review of NSW Estuary Management Plans. The initial focus was assessing the outcomes of the many (20+) Estuary Management plans that BMT WBM has prepared over more than 10 years as a self-designed professional development exercise. This activity was later expanded to include plans prepared by other consultants. The review also built upon an earlier audit of ten Estuary Management Plans commissioned by the State Government in 2003 (MHL, 2003).
The results of our latest work were presented in November, 2014 at the NSW Coastal Conference in Ulladulla.
The review identified several key trends in plan implementation. External drivers were consistently found to be an important consideration. For example, actions involving physical works were found to be more frequently implemented than those requiring planning and development controls, primarily because they were more likely to satisfy relevant criteria for funding. Unfortunately, many of the physical works implemented up to 10 years ago, such as stormwater treatment devices (predominantly funded through the NSW Stormwater Trust) have not been adequately maintained since installation and in many cases the anticipated environmental benefits of these devices have not resulted. Disposal of water and sediment accumulated within these structures was also shown to be a consistent challenge, requiring careful environmental management and often being prohibitively expensive. There were other examples of the influences of external drivers over the period of implementation, such as conversion to the standard instrument LEP and the influence of Catchment Management Authorities.
The importance of internal communication also was found to be critical in the success or otherwise of Estuary Management Plans. Additionally, some actions have been proposed within the plans that were reviewed that are considered simply un-implementable due to unrealistic costs or a complete lack of community support and political will.
The outcomes of the review highlighted a range of low cost actions, with few trade-offs and significant benefits, that should be undertaken by Councils and other authorities - regardless of successful grant funding through the State’s Estuary Management Program. Importantly, the review gave us valuable feedback about writing practical plans that are ultimately implemented, to the real benefit of our valuable estuaries.
Michelle Fletcher
<< Back to BMT WBM Water & Environment May 2015 News
