Understanding and Managing Surface Water Catchments

Practical Guide to Understanding and Managing Surface Water Catchments

A n n e t t e D a v i s o n , D a n D e e re a n d Pe t e r M o s s e

CRC for Water Quality and Treatment

First Edition, August 2008

Foreword The provision of water services to communities in developed countries has been the single most important development in improving public health at the population level. It has been much more significant than any other factor, notwithstanding the improvements in medical science over the past 100 years. It is also true that lapses in the operation and maintenance of water and wastewater treatment facilities and the associated distribution networks have resulted in illness and deaths in affluent societies. If one looks at significant water quality incidents that occur in developed countries, the problems are usually due to the lack of adequate professionalism on the part of management, regulators and/or operational staff, rather than any basic inadequacy of the infrastructure involved.

People in affluent societies do not expect to die or be made ill from using public water supply systems and this is quite a reasonable expectation. Water quality management is a vital and important role. People with primary responsibilities for water quality management, whether at the “coal face” or at a senior or executive level should appreciate the importance of this function. Complacency, inattention and distraction from the core tasks are dangerous features in water utilities. One often hears comments like “I would like to pay more attention to filter backwashing operations but I just don’t have the time”. Unless one wants to be a central player in a water incident, then we need to ensure that the right priorities are applied.

Water quality guidelines have developed significantly over the past few decades in Australia and elsewhere.

The emphasis in the past has been on compliance with tables of numbers that defined the quality of water that had to be produced for distribution - ultimately to the customer’s tap. In the early days, compliance was more or less optional for many of the water authorities, due to the powerful positions the utilities often held in the government bureaucracy. The strengthening of regulatory systems and the use of operating licenses and stronger legislation has improved matters substantially in this regard. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) now includes a Water Quality Management Framework that sets out a risk-based process of proactively managing water quality from its source through to the customer tap. It involves a thorough understanding of each system and the active management of a number of interventions that ensure that the outcome will always be optimal and safe. Compliance should be automatic. It is a logical and straightforward process, but, in some areas of the system, there can be a lot involved in sorting out the detail.

It is with this area of detail in mind that the authors of this series have decided to produce this excellent set of practical guides that will assist operators with responsibilities for key control points in water operations (eg catchment, chemical dosing, filtration, disinfection, distribution). The national water quality guidelines, (ADWG in Australia), regulatory changes, licenses and audits all tend to confront water utilities from the top down. These guides are intended to be helpful at the operational “coal face”.

Collectively, all of these relatively recent additions to the water quality management landscape should help to ensure that there are no adverse public health outcomes from the use of public water supplies in Australia.

I commend the authors of this series for their excellent initiative and I trust that the series will be helpful in ensuring that we get the very best level of performance and reliability out of our water treatment facilities.

Professor Don Bursill CEO, Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment (1995-2005) Chair of the Coordinating Committee for Review of the ADWG (1996-2004)

1

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following persons and organisations: Bob Ford and Leonie Huxedurp for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript Bruce Gardiner and Jacqui Perkowicz of Cairns Water for permission to use parts of their catchment management analysis.

Dr Will Buchanan of Barwon Water and Dr Nicholas O’Connor of Ecos Environmental Consulting for permission to reproduce GIS information pertaining to Barwon Water.

Steven Porter of Westernport Water for permission to include information on the management of manganese during the 07/08 drought and the revegetation of Tennent Creek.

Stan Stevenson of Gold Coast Water for permission to include information about the January 2008 flood events Byron Shire Council and in particular Ian Bishop, Dave Clark and Dave Bonner for allowing the use of information from the Lavertys Gap Weir Catchment Management analysis.

Water Industry Operators Association of Australia (WIOA) EO, George Wall, for proof reading and managing the publication of this guide.

The sponsors, whose logos are displayed on the front cover, for funding the publication of this guide.

Particular thanks are due to the Water Industry Operators Association of Australia (WIOA) for its commitment to improving the skills of operations staff in the water industry and for coordinating the development of this resource as part of the process.

Publication Details First Edition August 2008

Ordering More Copies An order form is available from the WIOA website (www.wioa.org.au) for people wishing to order additional copies.

2

General Introduction This series of Practical Guides to Water Treatment focuses on each of the major steps in the process from catchment to tap, namely: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Catchment Coagulation and clarification Filtration Disinfection Distribution.

Each guide provides practical advice regarding the management and operation of each of the critical control points identified by utilities as they implement the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines Framework for the Management of Drinking Water Quality (ADWG 2004), the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 in Victoria, or a HACCP program.

An underlying objective of each of the guides is that on each and every page operational staff should be able to make mental notes to themselves along the lines of: •

That’s a good idea

•

We should be doing that

•

We can start on that immediately

The guides are not about identifying costly solutions but simply identifying ways to get the best out of what is available at any particular time. The aim is to provide suggestions and hints that can be implemented easily, cheaply and immediately in the field.

Finally, the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are concerned “both with safety from a health point of view and with the aesthetic quality of drinking water”. These guides deal with both of these aspects; not just with safety aspects. They are about getting the absolute best out of the system, so as to deliver the absolute best quality drinking water to the consumer.

Chapter 1 is common to all of the guides and provides a general background to the concepts of hazards, risks and control points developed in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

Feedback Requested These guides have been written to help operators perform their jobs effectively and to help operators understand the vitally important roles they fulfil within the water industry. The authors would be pleased to receive any feedback on this guide. Suggestions for further information or areas where additional explanation would have aided understanding can all help to make any second edition stronger and more useful for operators in our industry. Any suggestions can be directed by e mail to the Water Industry Operators Association (WIOA) at info@wioa.org.au or by post to PO Box 6012, Shepparton, Victoria, 3632.

3

Contents Foreword Acknowledgements General Introduction Chapter 1

Hazards, Risks And Control Points • • • • • • •

Chapter 2

Hazards And Drinking Water...........................................................................................6 Pathogens Are The Main Hazards In Drinking Water......................................................6 Other Hazards.................................................................................................................9 Control Points.................................................................................................................9 Critical Limits And Target Criteria..................................................................................10 Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 11 Responsibilities............................................................................................................. 11

The Importance Of Good Catchment Management • Why Is Catchment Management Important?................................................................... 13

Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Still Occur . ..................................................... 15 • Who Says I Have To Manage The Catchment?.............................................................. 16 • Benefits Of Good Catchment Management.................................................................... 17 • Costs Of Incidents........................................................................................................... 17

Poor Catchment Management Costs Money..................................................... 17

Good Catchment Management Can Save Money.............................................. 18 • Where To Start................................................................................................................ 18

Chapter 3

Know Your System 1. Define The Boundaries................................................................................................... 20 2. Know The Legal Requirements....................................................................................... 22 3. Know Who Else Is Involved In Your Catchment.............................................................. 23 Who?.................................................................................................................. 23 What Do They Value?........................................................................................ 24 4. Know What Planning Controls Apply.............................................................................. 26 5. Review The Planning Scheme........................................................................................ 26 6. Document The Key Characteristics Of The Catchment.................................................. 28 7. Collect Long Term Historical Water Quality Data............................................................ 31 8. Identify Access Points..................................................................................................... 32 9. Develop A Flow Diagram Of Your System....................................................................... 34

Chapter 4

Carry Out A Site Survey 1. Assemble A Catchment User Team And Conduct A Desk Top Survey........................... 37 What Are The Sources Of Pathogens In The Catchment?................................. 38 What Are The Sources Of Chemicals In The Catchment?................................. 39 What Are The Sources Of Nutrients In The Catchment?................................... 40 2. Inspect The Catchment And Conduct A Sanitary Survey................................................ 41 3. Determine The Waterway Condition............................................................................... 52

4

Chapter 5

Assess The Risk •

Chapter 6 • • • • •

•

•

Chapter 7 •

• • • • •

Chapter 8

Establish Monitoring To Assess The Value Of Changes Implemented............................ 58

Implement Programs On The Ground Hazards Hazardous Events And Preventive Measures.................................................. 60 Find A Champion For The Cause................................................................................... 63 Formal Arrangements..................................................................................................... 64 Who Pays?...................................................................................................................... 65 Some Specific Examples In More Detail......................................................................... 66 1. Access Of Cattle To A Waterway........................................................................ 66 2. Managing Development In Sensitive Areas....................................................... 67 3. Riparian Zone Repair......................................................................................... 68 Droughts, Flooding Rain And Fire: Unpredictable Events............................................... 69 Expect The Unexpected..................................................................................... 69  Fire And Rain........................................................................................ 69  Drought................................................................................................. 72 Planning For Unpredictable Events.................................................................... 74 Emergency Response Plans........................................................................................... 74

Monitoring Audit And Review How Do I Know That The Control Measures Are Working?............................................ 75 Review The Effectiveness Of Control Measures Over Time And Compared To Baseline Data................................................................................................ 76 Do I Need To Keep Records?......................................................................................... 76 Review And Update The Management Plan................................................................... 77 Review And Update The Action Plan.............................................................................. 77 Maintain Contact............................................................................................................. 78 External Review.............................................................................................................. 78

Closing Words. ......................................................................................................... 79

References. .......................................................................................................................................... 80 Appendices Appendix 1.

Appendix 2.

Example Values Assessment . ................................................................................. 81 Example Sanitary Survey Approaches..................................................................... 82

5

Chapter 1 Hazards, Risks And Control Points The latest edition of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG 2004) includes a new section entitled “Framework for Management of Drinking Water Quality.” The Framework is based on the recognition that the best way to protect public health and ensure high quality drinking water is to use a preventative management approach that covers all steps in the production of drinking water from catchment to tap.

This new approach is quite different to the old approach that relied to a large extent on monitoring the final water using more and more tests with lower and lower limits. Often samples were only taken once per fortnight, or worse, once per month. The major problem with this approach was that if unsatisfactory water had been allowed into the distribution system, it was much too late to do anything constructive by the time the test results came back. In addition, by sampling so infrequently, one really couldn’t be sure what happened in between samples. The new Framework recommends thoroughly monitoring the individual steps in a water supply system. By ensuring that each step is operating correctly, the high quality of the final product can be assured at all times.

Water utilities now have an opportunity to establish an appropriate priority for the entire process of water treatment from catchment to tap, and, by fully adopting and implementing the 12 elements of the Framework, they can develop an excellent supporting management system: one that truly focuses on activities in the field.

Hazards And Drinking Water One of the major aims in supplying water for drinking purposes is to reduce hazards to public health.

A hazard may be thought of as any potential danger to consumers. Hazards associated with the delivery of water include: • • •

Microbiological pathogens e.g. bacteria, viruses and protozoa Chemical contaminants e.g. aluminium, heavy metals or pesticides Turbidity and Natural Organic Matter (NOM). While not a direct threat to human health, both turbidity and NOM have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of microbial contamination of water.

A hazardous event is anything that introduces hazards to, or fails to remove hazards from the water supply. A good example is a mains power failure to a chlorination site leading to a loss of chlorination, or alternatively wildfire in a catchment.

The best way to manage an identified hazard is to remove the hazard. If this cannot be done, then the next best option is to control the hazard by reducing the likelihood of the hazard or hazardous event happening, or by reducing the consequences if the hazard or event does occur.

The best way to manage a hazardous event is to anticipate what might go wrong and to develop a failsafe system. For example, at a disinfection site, an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) or standby generator could ensure power supply and maintain disinfection during a mains power failure.

Pathogens Are The Main Hazards In Drinking Water The public is generally most concerned about chemicals in water, but in fact the big outbreaks of waterborne disease have arisen due to microbial pathogens. So why have pathogens generally been more of a problem than chemicals? Table 1.1 provides some clues.

6

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points Table 1.1. Comparison of pathogens and chemicals as risk factors for waterborne disease.

Risk Factor Time to effect

Pathogens As little as a few minutes of pathogens getting into the treated water can lead to a waterborne disease outbreak and their impact is immediate, and will be evident within days of contamination.

Chemicals In most cases, chemicals in water don’t cause significant harm unless consumed for many years.

Detection

Pathogens are difficult to detect using existing monitoring techniques, and testing takes time. The results normally don’t come back until after people have drunk the water.

Chemicals are generally easier to detect, with a wider range of on-line instrumentation available, and because in most cases the effect is longer term, it’s possible to respond before harm is done.

Harmful levels

Even swallowing one pathogenic organism can make someone ill, so very low numbers in water can have an effect.

Low levels can occur without any other signs. Pathogens don’t smell, taste or have colour.

Often chemicals can be detected through taste, odour or appearance once harmful levels are reached. The generally low levels in water require long exposure to cause illness.

Source

Pathogens come from natural sources.

These sources are very difficult to control. Grazing animals and wildlife can carry pathogens to water. Septic tank run off or sewer overflows can contaminate raw water supplies.

Harmful chemicals generally arise from human activities. Their use is controlled to prevent discharge to water.

Design

Pathogens have evolved to be transmitted via food, water, air and direct contact from person to person or animal to person.

Most chemicals are not designed to cause harm in water. So most chemicals are not particularly harmful to humans at levels found in water.

They are not able to cross infect from one person to another.

There are hundreds of waterborne pathogens. Each has a slightly different combination of sources, treatment sensitivity and effect on health. However, there are simple rules that can be used to understand and manage these risks. The way to simplify this is as follows: • • •

First understand that there are three main groups of pathogens Then get to know the most problematic pathogen in each group Finally, understand how to manage the risks from the most problematic organisms.

The idea is that if the more problematic organisms are under control, risks from the hundreds of other waterborne pathogens should also be largely under control.

7

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points The three major groups of pathogens of concern are listed below, along with the most problematic reference pathogens from a water supply perspective: • • •

Enteric (intestinal) bacteria Campylobacter, pathogenic E. coli O157 and Salmonella Enteric protozoan parasites Cryptosporidium and Giardia Enteric viruses Enterovirus, Rotavirus, Adenovirus and Hepatitis A virus.

The protozoan amoebae Naegleria has also been associated with water-borne amoebic meningitis. It is generally only a problem in warmer waters that are continually >25oC or are seasonally >30oC. Some of the important features of the outbreaks caused by pathogens can be readily explained by understanding the key features of the main pathogen groups. A summary of these features is given in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2. Key features of pathogens commonly causing waterborne disease in humans.

8

Feature

Bacteria

Protozoa

Viruses

Is sewage a common source?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is stock manure a common source?

Yes

Yes

No

Are bird droppings a common source?

Yes (Particularly Campylobacter)

No

No

Are wildlife faeces a common source?

Possible source of Salmonella

Possibly

No

What are the principal source controls?

Control all sources of faeces including birds and vermin.

Control all sources of manure and sewage.

Control all sources of human sewage.

Is media filtration an effective control?

Yes

Yes

Limited

Is primary disinfection using chlorination an effective control?

Yes

No

Yes

Is maintaining a residual of chlorine in the distribution system an effective control?

Limited (Kills pathogens in droppings in water tanks but overwhelmed by large contamination events).

No

No (Usually not enough to kill pathogens from sewer ingresses).

Are alternative disinfection techniques such as UV or ozone effective controls?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is microfiltration an effective control?

Yes

Yes

Limited

Is reverse osmosis an effective control?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points The table shows that in conventional water treatment there is only one effective barrier for protozoans. That barrier is the media filters. For bacteria and viruses there are essentially two barriers, media filtration and disinfection. Therefore to control protozoan pathogens that are in water, the filters at a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) must be operated excellently at all times.

Other Hazards Having established that the major risks to public health are from pathogens, it is however important to note that risks can also arise from chemicals (particularly over the long term) and algal contaminants in water.

There are three major areas of chemical contamination that have caused waterborne incidents: • • •

The use of contaminated source water, particularly with arsenic or fluoride The introduction of excess or incorrect water treatment chemicals The backflow of hazardous substances into water distribution systems.

In large surface water catchments with limited industrial or agricultural development, risks to health from chemicals are likely to be rare. Where there is considerable industrial or agricultural activity, chemical contamination, while rare, is possible. Arsenic in water is not common in Australia but does occur. There are a number of small supplies where the source water is drawn from rock strata or sands with naturally occurring arsenic or is affected by old mine sites. Radioactivity can originate in some bore sands (monazite).

Contamination from incorrect chemical dosing and backflow is much more common even in large cities, with several documented cases within the last 10 years or so.

Waterborne incidents associated with algae are common in more warmer climates or in degraded rivers with irregular flows, however as the drought in Australia continues, many storages further south have had to deal with algal problems. Problems arising from algae present in source water include: • • •

Toxins may be introduced to the water by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) Taste and odour chemicals can be introduced to the water by cyanobacteria or other micro-organisms in the catchment Some algae can overload WTPs, in particular blockage of filters can occur.

These possible sources of contamination need to be considered and managed appropriately when they occur. Their occurrence needs to be anticipated and preventive strategies put in place.

Experience has shown that problems with algae can arise sporadically, often without warning, and the problem can then abate just as quickly. In practice, the management of risks from algae involves case-bycase assessment, based on proactive source water management and the reactive treatment responses.

For example, in the early stages of a bloom of a toxic species the best treatment may be to gently float the algae off using Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), however once the cells start to age and die and release toxins, Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) may be necessary to bind and remove the toxins. Different toxins may require different types of PAC.

Control Points Within a water supply system extending from catchment to tap, there are several control points. A control point can be considered to be a step in a process where, if the operators do their job well, the chances of producing safe drinking water are increased.

9

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points Alternatively, if a poor job is done at the control point then there is a greater probability that the final water quality will be poorer and possibly unsafe. Figure 1.1 represents a generalised water supply system subjected to conventional water treatment. The general diagram can be applied to almost any water supply system with the possible addition or subtraction of a few process steps.

Figure 1.1. A generalised water supply system Water Treatment and Distribution Coagulant

Catchment

Raw Water Storage

Screening

Mixing

Chlorine

Flocculation

Clarifier

Filtration

Disinfection

Supernatant Sludge lagoon Sludge to reuse or landfill Distribution Storage

The most important control points in a water supply system are: • • • • • • • • •

Catchment Raw water extraction Chemical dosing Coagulation Flocculation Clarification Filtration Disinfection Distribution.

Clearly where the step is absent it cannot be a control point for that system.

Critical Limits And Target Criteria To be a control point, there must be something that can be measured or observed to allow the operator to know if the process step is “in control”, “heading out of control” or “out of control”. By setting numerical limits, the operator can make this assessment and take whatever action is necessary to maintain control at the control point.

The ADWG 2004 put it this way: “A control point has several operational requirements including • • •

10

Operational parameters that can be measured and for which critical limits can be set to define the operational effectiveness of the activity (e.g. chlorine residuals for disinfection) Operational parameters that can be monitored frequently enough to reveal any failures in a timely manner (on line and continuous monitoring is preferable) Procedures for corrective action that can be implemented in response to deviation from critical limits.”

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points Two different target levels are often set.

1. Target criteria. The target criteria represent the day-to-day operational limits. Any deviation of performance from the target should be regarded as a trend towards loss of control of the process and should result in appropriate actions being taken to resolve the problem and restore control. How to retain the process within the target limits would normally be described in well-written operational procedures.

2. Critical limit. This is the level that must not be exceeded. Deviation from a critical limit indicates loss of control of the process and should be regarded as representing a potentially unacceptable health risk. If by exceeding the limit, public health might be impacted, then the health department should be notified. Where there is uncertainty concerning that health risk, then this should be identified and an appropriate response agreed with the health department in advance of the event occurring e.g. a short-term failure of chlorination.

Corrective Actions Target criteria are always more stringent than the critical limits. By setting target criteria that are more stringent than critical limits, corrective actions can be taken before the water quality exceeds specification or an unacceptable health risk occurs (i.e. exceeding the critical limit).

Monitoring The testing and observations that are made to determine whether the process is achieving the limits defined for that control point is process monitoring.

Process monitoring describes the tests and observations taken at a particular control point to determine the compliance or non-compliance with the limits defined for that particular point.

By verifying that all the control points in a process are within the recommended range, it ensures that the final product will be within the specific limits. Testing of the final product quality is verification monitoring and simply confirms that the total system is working. Quality control should not rely on verification monitoring alone. Process monitoring of control points allows the operator to detect problems before they can have an impact on final water quality.

Operators and management should work together to firstly set target criteria and critical limits, and then to establish appropriate monitoring frequencies for all the tests. Ideally, this will allow the identification of any trends that indicate a drift away from satisfactory operation. The frequency of monitoring needs to be set based on the rate of change for the control measure. There is no point in having a control point and testing once per month if the parameter being measured can vary significantly from day to day!

Responsibilities Water utilities have a responsibility to: • •

Produce safe drinking water at all times Produce the best quality water possible from the existing system.

11

Chapter 1 – Hazards, Risks And Control Points Operators have a responsibility to ensure that: • • • •

Their actions do not compromise the production of safe drinking water at any time They actively provide feedback to management when they become aware of shortcomings in the treatment sequence that may contribute to the production of unsafe drinking water They are alert to changes in the system that they operate They act to produce water that is aesthetically pleasing.

So, how can operators fulfil these responsibilities?

By ensuring that each step in the process from catchment to tap is monitored effectively and optimised.

12

Chapter 2 The Importance Of Good Catchment Management Water is sourced from rainwater that passes over the surface of the earth and collects in rivers and streams, dams and lakes. In some situations the water may infiltrate into the ground, add to the ground water and subsequently be harvested from a bore. Passing through the atmosphere and across the surface of the land, water “picks up” a wide range of materials. For example carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide might be added from the atmosphere, calcium ions might be added as water passes over limestone, agricultural chemicals and faecal material might be added as water passes across farmland or through towns and cities. The quality of water therefore depends on the land and air uses surrounding the waterways and water bodies. Many of the materials added to water have the potential to cause some human health problems. Catchments may be classified as low risk or high risk and any grade in between. In low risk catchments, few contaminants are added to water and the water is essentially just that …water! On the other hand, in high-risk catchments there is a much increased likelihood that besides water there will be a large number of contaminants, albeit at generally low levels, that may be harmful to humans. High-risk catchments are generally characterised by having: • • • •

A large population Extensive and intensive agriculture High density housing Degraded or absent buffer zones between the contamination source and the water supply.

Low risk catchments are generally more pristine and virtually not impacted by human development.

Clearly, where possible, it is better to draw water destined for human consumption from low risk catchments, however in our overpopulated and still growing world this is increasingly difficult.

Why Is Catchment Management Important?

The reason for catchment management should be obvious to anyone who stops to think about what they are putting in their mouth and where it comes from.

In more technical terms the catchment is an essential first barrier in the ‘catchment to tap’ water supply chain. Both the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia and the World Health Organisation (WHO) emphasise the importance of the catchment as a barrier in the multiple barrier approach to drinking water supply. The WHO Guidelines state that “An effective overall management strategy incorporates multiple barriers, including source water protection and appropriate treatment processes, as well as protection during storage and distribution in conjunction with disinfection to prevent or remove microbial contamination.” WHO (2006) Since most hazards that can affect water quality are brought in from the source water, it makes good sense to understand what hazards there are that could impact on the source water for each drinking water supply system. Sometimes the level of hazards in the source water might be so high that the normal treatment barriers might become overwhelmed resulting in potentially unsafe water being delivered to consumers. For example, after heavy rain during the spring in a dairy farming area, the number of Cryptosporidium in the raw water may be so high that even well run filters cannot remove enough of the protozoa to produce safe drinking water. If this were a regular event, consideration would need to be given to adding UV or ozone disinfection to the plant.

Importantly though, if drinking water is sourced from protected, low risk catchments, the level of treatment necessary, and the degree of risk to water quality is minimised.

13

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management

Poor quality source water

Good quality source water Fewer barriers needed Lower risk Lower treatment cost More product confidence

versus

More barriers needed Higher risk Higher treatment cost Less product confidence

Traditionally, ‘hard’ engineered treatment barriers such as coagulation and flocculation, filtration and disinfection have been relied upon to assure product quality. However, even the engineered barriers have to be designed based on what is known about the hazards present in the source water.

Source waters can vary in quality as a result of regular or irregular seasonal changes, unusual natural events and changes in the level of development in the catchment.

The strength of the multiple barrier approach is that the more barriers there are in place to prevent the passage of microbes to the consumer, the safer the overall system. Failure to manage the catchment means that the opportunity to reduce risk right at the beginning of the system is lost and the total number of barriers is reduced. The basic principle is that if you can stop the hazardous materials entering the water in the first place then the necessity of having to identify and remove them is avoided.

If the nature of the source water is not understood, barriers will not be optimised for that source of water. As a result, one or more of the barriers may not be adequate to treat the water from the source. This can result in the production of poor quality and possibly unsafe drinking water that in turn can lead to the outbreak of disease.

A recent example comes from South East Queensland where in early 2008 heavy rain resulted in the rapid filling of the Hinze Dam. This unexpected and unanticipated event resulted in a serious decline in raw water quality.

Impact of unanticipated changes in the catchment on water quality.

In January and February 2008, heavy rainfall in the Gold Coast hinterland resulted in rapid filling of the Hinze Dam. A nearby dam, the Little Nerang Dam also spilled with approximately 3m over the weir wall.

Water from the Little Nerang system mixed with the Hinze Dam water, a situation that does not usually occur. This water ended up reaching the offtake to one of the water treatment plants supplying treated water to the Gold Coast region. Raw water turbidity and colour that for years had remained steady between 2-5 NTU rose to around 30 NTU. Colour levels rose approximately 10 fold in less than 24 hours. As a result of these changes, filtered water turbidity was seen to increase and monitoring revealed Cryptosporidium and Giardia in the treated water. Gold Coast Water (GCW) in their review of what happened realised that it is important to consider impacts of weather and ask lots of “what if” questions and better anticipate what could happen.

By doing this, they hope to put in place improved monitoring in the catchment and additional steps at the water treatment plant that will allow them to be better prepared next time. If anyone needs a reminder, climate change predictions are for more severe weather events that could lead to something like this again for GCW and also for other water utilities around the country.

Equally if the nature of the source water and the associated hazards are not understood, increased capital and treatment costs may result because more barriers are used than are actually necessary.

14

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Still Occur The importance of catchment management is emphasised where even in the developed world significant illness still arises from contaminated source water. A number of well-documented instances exist of events where poor management of catchments, or lack of management of events in the catchments, have resulted in waterborne disease outbreaks. Some examples of contamination incidents associated with catchments are provided in Table 2.1. These events could have been anticipated and managed.

Table 2.1. Examples of waterborne disease outbreaks and incidents associated with catchments.

Water Hazard Product Location When Drinking Milwaukee, 1993 Cryptosporidium water USA

Cause

Deaths

Illness

Storm in catchment washing in human sewage. Poor water filtration plant performance.

Approx.

100

Approx.

403,000

Drinking water

Sydney, NSW, Australia

1998

Cryptosporidium and Giardia

Storm in catchment, possible filter breakthrough at WTP.

Hazards found in the water supply but no disease incidence noted in the community.

Drinking water

Walkerton, 2000 Ontario, Canada

Storm in catchment, poor chlorination plant performance, poor operating practices.

7 including Approx. a 2 year 2,300 old child. (half the town)

Bottled water

Port Kent, NY, USA1

2006

Bacteria – primarily E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni Diatoms and total coliform bacteria found in North Country Spring Water, Ltd bottled water.

May have been caused None by a potential surface water contamination event at the water source and/or a temporary breakdown in the company’s filtration system.

None confirmed

Drinking water

Galway, Ireland

2007

Cryptosporidium

Heavy rain in catchment. None Poor performing STP discharging into raw water source. Old, poor performing WTP without filters.

Approx 240

Most of the examples in the table involve pathogenic microorganisms, however phytoplankton (e.g. diatoms and dinoflagellates) and cyanobacteria (blue green algae) in source waters can also cause problems. In the presence of sunlight, phosphorous and nitrogen these organisms grow. In some cases they grow rapidly and produce very large populations. Although waterborne disease outbreaks associated with phytoplankton are quite rare, there are two major problems that arise from phytoplankton in reservoirs that need to be managed: • Taste and odour compounds that are sometimes produced by algae and cyanobacteria • Toxins that are sometimes produced by cyanobacteria.

15

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management

Who Says I Have To Manage The Catchment?

In most situations catchment management is voluntary, however based on the information provided in Table 2.1 the answer should be obvious. All utilities should make real efforts to manage their catchments. By keeping contaminants out, the utilities can supply higher quality and safer water. These objectives should be an integral part of the stated aims of all water utilities.

There are also examples in Australia and overseas where there is a formal requirement to include catchment management in the overall management of drinking water quality. Victoria is the first state in Australia to legally require risk management plans for water suppliers and water storage managers as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003. The Act specifies the need to have a risk management plan in place from catchment through to consumer and covers water storage managers (bulk water) as well as utilities treating water and then distributing it to consumers.

In other parts of the world, catchment management is also formally required. For example: •

The United States has in place a Safe Drinking Water Act originally enacted in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996. The original Act focussed mainly on treatment to protect public health. In 2006 the USEPA introduced a Surface Water Treatment Rule under the Act. As part of the Rule, utilities can gain a Cryptosporidium reduction credit (0.5 log) if they have a catchment management program in place. In effect, the USEPA is treating the catchment as the first treatment step for Cryptosporidium

•

In Japan, the law requires systematic measures to preserve the quality of the source water for public water supplies through the development of sewerage systems and through programs to develop river environments

•

In Canada, the Drinking Water Source Protection Act 2006 requires Source Protection Committees to prepare source protection plans for each catchment.

These formal obligations require utilities to understand the nature of their catchment and what is happening in the catchment. The logic behind this is that if you don’t know what your catchment contains in terms of potential water quality hazards, you won’t know what treatment to have in place. In addition you won’t know whether your treatment is going to be overwhelmed, for example during a big rainstorm when contaminants can be washed into the water.

While at first, legislation may be considered yet another imposition and more work, the law can actually be of assistance. By defining the powers of the catchment manager, it makes it easier to make changes in the catchment for the good of water quality. It is worth having a look at what is out there because a lot of catchment managers don’t actually know what powers they have! There are also statements in environmental protection legislation that allow for people responsible for pollution to be prosecuted. In Victoria, water utilities have powers under the Water Act to order removal of any substance that they consider could pollute the water supply.

Even if there is no formal requirement for your utility to undertake catchment management, we highly recommend following the principles outlined in this manual. In this way you will know what to expect and be better prepared to manage events should they occur. There is also potential to save money and achieve positive community relations rather than negative PR and poor community relations when a water quality event arises that could have been anticipated and managed effectively.

16

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management

Benefits Of Good Catchment Management There are definite benefits to managing catchments. These include: • • • • • • • •

Increased awareness of the potential hazards in the source water Ability to prevent or reduce hazards entering the source water Reduction in water treatment costs Increased ability to consistently produce safe drinking water Improved stakeholder awareness and understanding Improvements to the environment Potential greenhouse offsets and reductions Reduction in water contamination incidents.

Costs Of Incidents Poor Catchment Management Costs Money While costs shouldn’t be seen as the main driver for catchment management, it is important to realise that effective catchment management can save money. Incidents, waterborne or otherwise, have an impact on water utilities through a variety of mechanisms including direct costs from legal challenges and compensation.

Table 2.2 provides some examples of costs associated with some water borne disease outbreaks. With good management practices these costs could have been avoided or substantially reduced.

Table 2.2. Some examples of costs associated with drinking water incidents.

Event

Economic Costs

1993: Waterborne illness caused by Cryptosporidium contamination of Milwaukee’s water supply, (USA)

Estimated total cost of the outbreak-associated Deaths. illness to be US$96.2 million, (US$31.7 million in medical costs and US$64.6 million in Stress caused by distrust of the water supply. productivity losses).

1998: Cryptosporidium and Giardia contamination of Sydney’s water supply, (NSW, Australia).

Estimates in the tens of millions of Australian dollars.

2000: Bacterial contamination of Walkerton water supply, (Ontario, Canada).

Social Costs

Stress caused by distrust of the water supply.

Globally, the event damaged the reputation The minimum immediate cost to Sydney Water of Sydney at the time that the world was was estimated at $33 million. The total cost beginning to focus on the Sydney Olympics. was likely to have been several times this figure.

Several senior staff of Sydney Water lost their jobs.

Estimated at C$64.5 million, increasing to Deaths. an estimated C$155 million, with human suffering factored in. At a household level, Several people left Walkerton moving to larger the contamination event cost the residents an towns or cities so they could be closer to average of C$4,000. In addition, real estate good health care for their children who had values fell by C$1.1 million with costs also developed kidney damage as a result of the falling on local businesses with bottled water contamination. and disinfecting and replacing equipment estimated at C$651,422. Legal fees cost the Two of the operators of the Public Utilities Ontario government approximately C$3.5 Commission in Walkerton were found guilty of million with another C$1.5 million needed to negligence in their duties. One operator went supply clean water to institutions. to jail, the other was held under house arrest.

17

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management Good Catchment Management Can Save Money Good catchment management can actually save money by reducing the cost of new treatment plants that may need to be built. For example Central Highlands Water in Victoria were able to reduce the cost of a new WTP based on their extensive knowledge of their catchment Benefits of committing to a comprehensive catchment management approach.

In a recent example of the benefits of source protection, Central Highlands Water (Vic) was able to arrange for a new treatment plant to be built for around 50% of the cost of a similar plant being built for a neighbouring water supply utility. The neighbouring utility sourced water from a very similar surface water source to Central Highlands Water, but one that was not as well protected. The difference in cost between the treatment plants was around $18 million – an example of the source protection dividend to Central Highlands Water.

While we should look to the positives, it is also important to realise that the cost of poor water quality management can extend beyond the cost of recovering from an incident or the savings in capital investment.

In the Walkerton case, operators were actually found guilty of negligence in their duties and one operator actually went to jail! Could this happen here? Well, in Victoria, operators actually have a legal responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act 2003 to report known or suspected water contamination. As mentioned previously, most water contamination will arise from the source water, it is vital that you know your catchment to ensure that you manage risks and don’t put yourself, the utility and your customers in a compromised situation. You don’t want to be hearing the words from a barrister “Can I put it to you that on the night of 24th December 2004 you were aware of significant inflows to the dam but you did nothing to alert the treatment plant”!

Where to Start So, having established that catchment management makes good sense and is an integral part of the multiple barrier approach to the management of water quality and therefore the production of safe drinking water, what next?

1. You have to know your system 2. You have to find the sources of actual or potential contamination in your system 3. You have to know how to control those hazards 4. You have to check that the risks are under control.

Basic Principles There are three basic principles of water quality management that relate to catchments that are worth stating at this stage. These are: • Principle 1: Exclude faecal matter from water sources. In the simplest most basic terms

“Keep shit out of water!”

• Principle 2: Take water from areas that do not have high levels of naturally occurring

chemical contaminants.

• Principles 3: Take water from areas free from industrial and agricultural pollution.

These principles represent the ideal situation.

18

Chapter 2 – The Importance Of Good Catchment Management While this is fine in principle, most water storage and extraction points are well established and operators inherit existing systems where these principles may not apply or simply are not practical. It is however important for managers to realise that everything should be done to put these principles into practice. This may require extensive interaction with communities and councils and take considerable time and effort. It may require purchasing properties, altering off-take points or other capital investments, however to ignore these principles invites trouble at some time in the future.

Catchment Management Software Packages There are many specialist software packages to assist with projects such as catchment management. While these are convenient and useful they may not be available and in some cases require specialist knowledge to operate them. It is really important to realise that lack of any software package should not stop you collecting and assessing information on the catchment and commencing actual management of the catchment.

Standard Microsoft Office® packages such as Word, PowerPoint and Excel, as well as access to the internet, topographic maps, digital photography and simple aerial photography can all be used to source, capture and store information. If you don’t have basic Microsoft products, simple maps are available from outdoor shops.

Street directories, graph paper and old style ruled tables could also be used! Simple aerial photographs can be obtained quite cheaply and quickly by arranging a flight over the catchment with the local Aero Club. A plane can often be hired for an hour or two at a fraction of the cost of a full day’s ground inspection. Take two people with digital cameras, one on either side of the plane and record anything unusual. The local pilots often know where all sorts of things are and can get fully involved in the process. The important thing is to find out what is out there and start doing something that actually improves the quality of water in the catchment.

19

Chapter 3 Know Your System!

The important first step to managing a catchment is to know all you can about the catchment. For example: •

Where does the water come from?

•

Is it ground water, surface water or desalinated water?

•

Is there a recycled water component? (This is becoming increasingly likely as Australia manages the current long-term drought)

•

Does water from different sources get mixed before being delivered to the consumer?

How does this impact on water chemistry and treatment?

•

Who uses the catchment and for what purposes?

What are the primary land uses?

What are the recreational uses?

Where are the residential and industrial developments?

•

Are there any future plans for development in the catchment?

In this chapter we have tried to present a logical stepwise approach to knowing the system.

1. Define The Boundaries The first step in knowing your system is to define the boundaries of where the water comes from. Rain falls on the ground and flows down hill. On the top of a mountain range, water will flow down both sides of the mountain. This water may meet up at the bottom but it may also enter into two completely separate systems feeding independent river systems that find their own independent way to the sea. It is these boundaries, or watersheds, where water flow changes directions, that need to be identified so that you know the whole geographic area that contributes water to your system. (The same principles apply for ground water but because the water flows slowly underground, and we can’t see what controls the flow and the direction of flow, it can be a bit more difficult to define the boundaries for a ground water system. However with the help of hydrogeologists it can be done.)

So for a surface water supply start by getting a map of the area. Topographical maps provide details, including contours, that help to identify river systems and water sheds. Google Maps is also a great resource.

The ‘Terrain’ and ‘Satellite’ buttons on Google Maps provide information on the layout and topographical features of a site. This allows you to work out which areas drain in which direction and therefore whether they are in or out of the boundary of the catchment in question. Maps are also useful for determining key features of your system, which may impact on water quality. For example, ‘Terrain’ gives you an idea of land uses because urbanised, forested and major developments are relatively easy to see. Use the contours or aerial photographs to identify the watersheds and mark the area that feeds into the main rivers, creeks and reservoirs involved in your system. If the catchment includes towns or cities, Google Maps, and street directories can provide details of where stormwater may flow.

In many cases the work of identifying catchment boundaries has already been done. Catchment Management Authorities, local councils or survey companies may be able to provide you with a detailed map of catchments in your area. You could also try searching Google specifically for your catchment. The Department of Primary industry may also have detailed maps.

20

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Geographical Information System (GIS) layers can be helpful in assessing system boundaries. GIS is a way of using digital information to represent geographical features. For instance, with GIS software, defined packages of digital information called ‘layers’ can be used to build up a picture of a particular site. The layers might consist of information on things such as wildlife corridors, endangered species habitat, where septic systems are located, soil types and different land uses. People might be familiar with this concept as it is often used in planning legislation to create zones for development control purposes. Planning layers can also be assigned to GIS layers making it easier to see what applies within water supply catchments.

Two examples of maps showing the boundaries for two Australian catchments are provided in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

Figure 3.1. Boundaries for the Lavertys Gap Weir Catchment.

Lavertys Gap Weir Catchment

Base Data: Byron Shire Council Projection: MGA 94 Zone 56 18th September 2006

21

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Figure 3.2. An example of GIS layering clearly showing area boundaries. The blue lines indicate waterways, within this catchment. All waterways have the potential to introduce hazards to a raw water source and therefore need to be clearly identified and assessed as part of the catchment survey.

Barwon River Catchment

Base Data: Byron Water Modified by Ecos Projection: MGA 94 Zone 55 8th August 2006

2. Know The Legal Requirements As a catchment manager it is important that you know what your obligations and powers are. It is a good idea to develop (and keep updated) a register or list of Acts and how they apply to you. Much of the information will be included on websites such as the Australian Legal Information Institute at www.austlii.edu.au but it helps if you have good links with your agencies such as Health, Resources and Environment as they will be able to provide you with information and inform you of any changes that might be occurring or going to occur, giving you the chance to have some input.

An example of a register is provided in Table 3.1

22

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Table 3.1. An example legal register relating to catchment management in NSW. Note that utilities may also have to consider cross-border legislation depending on their location as well as any relevant Commonwealth legislation.

Act Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003 Coastal Protection Act 1979 Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

Jurisdiction NSW

Relevance to Utility Catchment management.

NSW

Protection of coastal regions.

NSW

Contaminated land can leach many types of hazards into catchment waters.

Crown Lands Act 1989

NSW

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

NSW

Fisheries Management Act 1994

NSW

Forestry Act 1916

NSW

Local Government Act 1993 Mining Act 1992

NSW

Care of land in crown possession is an important consideration in catchment management.

Many planning applications are made in drinking water catchments. Being part of the loop, as a consenting authority or at least a referral authority is important in terms of not letting a catchment degrade.

Fishery and aquaculture activities may impact on the catchment through infrastructure and also, the chemicals used and nutrients released.

Care of state forests including harvesting practices is an important consideration in catchment management.

Local government control of on-site sewage management systems may impact on catchments.

Mining in a catchment may introduce a range of pollutants to catchment waters.

Native Vegetation Act 2003 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

NSW

Native vegetation management.

NSW

Includes environment protection including licensing of point source discharges.

NSW

While it is important to know what your legal powers are, it is also important to understand that prosecution and conflict should only be used as a last resort. Successful catchment management is about building a partnership with other catchment users. Most water utilities do not have control of the complete catchment therefore it is essential to build good relationships with all other organisations and individuals involved in the catchment. Cooperation is the key to effective catchment management. Therefore it is essential to know who else has an involvement in the catchment, what that involvement is and what they require or value in the catchment. Only then can you start to consider changes in the catchment. HOWEVER if all else fails, you can use your legal powers and invoke the letter of the law, particularly if the imposition can have a major beneficial impact on a particular high-risk source of contamination.

3. Know Who Else Is Involved In Your Catchment Who? As part of understanding the catchment system, it is helpful to develop a catchment stakeholder list. A stakeholder is simply an individual or organisation that has an interest in the catchment. This can be for financial or other reasons.

23

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Examples of stakeholders with interests in the management and use of a catchment might include: • • • • •

Environment Protection Authority Resource Department such as Department of Water and Energy in NSW Local Government and Shires Catchment Management Authorities Department of Primary Industry.

But there are other stakeholders. These include: • • • • •

Land owners Farmers (either as individuals or as part of the Farmers Federation) Foresters Miners Recreational clubs, and many more.

What Do They Value?

Catchments provide a range of services not only to those living in the catchment but also to those living outside it and it is necessary to determine the values for all these people. For example, members of 4WD or fishing clubs may come from all over a State but focus a lot of their activities in one particular catchment.

Clearly, stakeholders in a catchment have many different interests. These interests, or values as they are sometimes called, include: • • • • • •

Business or financial Environmental Water quality Aesthetic Recreational Cultural.

The values of different stakeholders often conflict with one another and therefore managing them often requires compromises on all fronts.

The basic values referred to above can be broken down further. For example, Figure 3.3 provides a detailed example of water quality values.

Figure 3.3. NSW water quality values (from DEC, 2006)

24

Chapter 3 – Know Your System The best way to find out what is important to people is to talk to them. Some utilities set up groups such as Customer Liaison Groups’ or ‘Project Reference Groups’ to find out first hand what stakeholders value.

However, some stakeholders might find group work confronting and other forms of communication might have to be used such as a visit and a cup of tea! Information fliers are also useful forms of communication and can be included in peoples’ rate notices, or advertisements can be placed in local papers. Remember that not everyone has access to the internet so it is important that a form of communication is chosen that is relevant to the audience.

Once the stakeholders and their values have been identified they should be summarised in a stakeholders and values register. An example of a stakeholder list is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Example of a stakeholder and value list.

Stakeholder

Role in Catchment Communication Contact Between Details Utility and Stakeholder

Utility Liaison

Stakeholder Values

Department of Human Services (Department of Health)

General advice on drinking water management and powers under Acts such as the Victorian Safe Drinking Water Act 2003.

Drinking water Primary contact

General advice sought on drinking water management.

Name Phone No E mail

Manager Water and Sewer

Catchment All aspects Management of catchment Authority management.

All aspects of catchment management.

Name Phone No E mail

Catchment Drinking water Officer Aquatic ecosystems Irrigation water supply Livestock water supply Primary contact Recreation Secondary contact Recreation

EPA

Responsible for environmental management and control of inputs.

General advice Name on environmental Phone No management E mail and inputs.

Manager Aquatic ecosystems Water Treatment, Catchment Officer

Pinedale Holdings

Large manager of dairy farms.

Commercial Use Name Phone No E mail

Catchment Livestock water supply Officer

Byora Fly Fishers

Fishing club active in the catchment.

Recreational Use Name Phone No E mail

Catchment Food source Officer Scenery Drinking water

Byora 4WD club

4 WD club active in Recreational Use Name the catchment.

Phone No E mail

Catchment Scenery Officer Access to remote areas Drinking water

25

Chapter 3 – Know Your System By identifying stakeholder values early on, it will be easier to develop measures that can help manage several values and are therefore be more likely to succeed. There is no point protecting one value when the management measure is likely to affect another value or upset another stakeholder. Catchment management will not work and you will end up with disgruntled stakeholders!

While it is possible to form your own set of values, it is probably better to use frameworks that have already been developed and applied successfully. For instance national guidelines exist in Australia for the management of water quality in waterways. The guidelines, known as the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines establish a general set of environmental values and human uses for waterways and provide methods for assessing and measuring these.

A further example of a catchment values assessment is provided in Appendix A.

4. Know What Planning Controls Apply Planning controls are a critical aspect of catchment management. It is vitally important to know this so that you are not taken by surprise when some new development gets underway. You should understand the planning controls that apply in your catchment and have a copy of the planning scheme maps. In particular: • • • •

Do you know what they allow and what they prohibit?

Do they recognise the existence of the catchment?

Do they warn prospective purchasers of land that they are in a catchment and that controls will apply?

Are they adequate to: Explicitly prevent high risk activities being developed Ensure you are notified as early as possible of plans for new developments Provide you with the opportunity to prevent inappropriate development (by objecting or providing you with “veto” powers) Control incremental development so that gradual changes over a period of years do not leave you wondering in ten years time “How did we allow all those houses to be built?”

You should also understand what your powers are under State Planning Legislation.

• • • •

Are you a referral or consenting authority? In which case if you object to a proposed development it must be refused Do you have power to object and do you understand the process?

Do you have the power to place conditions on development approvals or planning permits?

Do you have enforcement powers?

Once again the key to planning is to ensure excellent communication between all parties involved in controlling development in a catchment. Where different organisations are involved it is worthwhile providing water quality training to those organisations whose primary role is not water quality. By providing this, officers in those organisations will better understand the importance of careful development and want to help with protecting the catchment.

5. Review The Planning Scheme All the valuable work in building relationships with landowners and convincing them to adopt good management practices could be lost if the planning scheme shows that significant areas will be developed for small lot “hobby farms” or residential development.

26

Chapter 3 – Know Your System You may first become aware of a proposal to develop land in the catchment when an application is lodged with the local council. By that time it is usually too late to prevent it if the applicant could argue that the land was zoned for development and it was purchased for that purpose in good faith. It is critical that you understand what the planning scheme allows and if necessary, try to have it changed.

You should be actively involved in the strategic planning process. What will the catchment be like when all the land zoned for development is developed? Will that create an unacceptable water quality risk? If so you should begin negotiations with Council to relocate the area planned for development outside the catchment.

Preferably, the planning scheme should limit the growth of townships in the catchment to that necessary to serve the local community. Rural residential or small lot “hobby farms” increase the density of human habitation and the planning scheme should locate these outside the catchment. The zone controls for land in the catchment should also require appropriate setbacks from watercourses for buildings, wastewater treatment systems and effluent disposal fields.

The local planning scheme should identify the catchment on the planning maps so potential purchasers are aware that they are looking at land in a catchment. The zoning should prohibit inappropriate development and require that any development application enhance water quality and not further degrade it. The zone controls should also require any redevelopment of old buildings to install or upgrade their on-site wastewater treatment systems to current standards.

Long term planning policy should recognise the catchment as an important natural resource that provides high quality water for present and future residents. This resource should be protected for public health and regional economic reasons.

The planning authority should have a policy that the catchment will be protected from inappropriate or unnecessary development. To help develop this policy, support can usually be obtained from State public health authorities, environmental protection agencies and catchment management authorities.

The planning scheme maps should clearly identify the catchment so any person seeking to develop land is informed well before purchase that if they proceed they do so at their risk.

Planning schemes for catchments should: • • • • • •

• • •

Prohibit the development of high-risk activities such as piggeries, cattle feedlots and industry with a high effluent discharge in domestic catchments Limit growth of existing townships to small areas remote from watercourses Require any new development to include management and treatment of stormwater Set large minimum lot sizes for new subdivisions (a common value is 40ha) Require a minimum lot size for new houses (again 40ha is a common value) Require new houses to be connected to reticulated sewage if available. Where this is not possible: New houses and their effluent disposal areas should be set well back from watercourses (usually 100m minimum) Major renovations to an older dwelling must include upgrade of the on-site wastewater system.

Require referral of applications to the water utility (if a separate organisation). If the planning authority is also the water utility, good communication channels should be established to make sure catchment management staff have input into the planning decision.

Prohibit any development in close proximity to storage reservoirs Identify high-risk areas (such as steep land near reservoirs or major watercourses) for future purchase by the water utility.

27

Chapter 3 – Know Your System It is a good idea to develop close relations with the local planning officers so that they are aware of the catchment boundaries, the importance of the catchment and can alert potential developers that the water utility may not support the proposed development within the catchment.

6. Document The Key Characteristics Of The Catchment Once you have a good idea of where your system boundaries are and who your stakeholders are, it is a good idea to start to pull together other information that is relevant to your catchment. This information is sometimes called “catchment condition’.

A combination of historical and current information should be used in completing this step. This includes: •

•

Historical condition Geomorphology Bushfire information Flooding Land use (Early European and Aboriginal) Current condition Land use Geomorphology Ecological and wildlife reservations Bushfire risk areas Future trends (population, water supply and planning context).

Identification of land use is important. The extent and intensity of land use can have a significant impact on water quality. Table 3.3 provides examples of the impacts of land use practices and the types of land use that can contribute to this.

28

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Table 3.3 Some examples of land use practices and the consequences and problems associated with that land use.

Consequence of land use practice

Problem

Increased compaction of soil by vehicles • Tractors • Ploughs • Timber felling vehicles • Forest thinning vehicles • Trucks.

Reduces infiltration and increases transfer of water across the surface leading to erosion and higher velocities in waterways.

Farming Parks Residential Plantations Mining and Reserves

X

X

X

X

Disturbance of native Reduces the potential to vegetation and remove contamination in reduction of buffer run off. zones between the water and the source of contamination.

X

X

X

X

Increased flow over the land surface particularly where soil has been disturbed (e.g. ploughing or unsealed road construction).

Increases runoff and mobilisation of silt leading to silting of waterways and water bodies

X

X

X

Agricultural, horticultural and forest management chemicals.

Contamination due to runoff or accidental spillage of these chemicals into water ways.

X

Use of fertilisers

Increased nutrient input to waterways possibly leading to algal blooms.

X

Management of sewage

Potential to contribute pathogens and nutrients to the water.

X

Increased water runoff due to construction of towns and cities and associated urban drainage.

Covers the land surface and encourages run off that takes with it all sorts of contaminants.

X

X

X

X

X

The extent of land use can be estimated from aerial photographs, Google Earth and site surveys. The intensity of land use can be estimated by considering the extent of irrigation use, stocking rates for cattle and sheep and the need for fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides in a particular area.

29

Chapter 3 – Know Your System This information can be tabulated or overlaid on a map of the catchment.

The nature of soils that may have an impact on water quality can also be identified and quantified. Figure 3.4 provides an example of a current condition map of the Kempsey catchments showing the extent and risk of acid soils. Similar maps can be prepared for other catchment characteristics.

State Departments of Agriculture have a range of soil type maps that indicate the boundaries of the different types of soil and their suitability for various uses. These can be a useful additional resource to help determine what activities might be happening in the catchment.

Figure 3.4. Acid sulphate soil potential and priority management areas in Kempsey. (DEUS and Kempsey Shire Council, 2003).

Acid Sulphate Soils by DLWC Risk Code High Probability ASS Risk Low Probability ASS Risk No known occurrence Disturbed Terrain

30

Chapter 3 – Know Chapter 4 Your System

7. Collect Long Term Historical Water Quality Data Historical data can be extremely valuable by providing information on a range of water quality parameters.

Often catchments and water quality have been stable for many years and modern records reflect that, however historical records might present a different picture. In particular the impact of floods and fire on water quality may only be revealed by looking at trends over tens of years. Figure 3.5 and 3.6 show examples of medium term data for two different systems over periods of approximately 10 years.

Figure 3.5. Example of medium term turbidity data for a run-of-river, protected catchment supply (Behana Creek catchment).

Figure 3.6 Medium term turbidity data for water entering the Mullumbimby WTP. Water is sourced from upper Wilsons Creek in the Lavertys Gap Weir catchment.

31

Chapter 3 – Know Your System There are marked differences in the quality of water collected from the catchments. Figure 3.5 shows water with a consistent very low turbidity with very little variation, whereas Figure 3.6 shows water with considerably higher turbidity and regular significant increases in turbidity. The differences reflect the nature of the catchment and land uses and will have a significant affect on the ability to treat the water.

If possible, it is well worth trying to put together water quality history over 50 years or more. Historical investigation of rainfall data and old newspapers or historical society publications may provide some information. Waterwatch groups should also be consulted. Some of these voluntary organisations have been operating for a considerable number of years.

8. Identify Access Points All access points to the waterways and reservoirs in the catchment need to be identified, including both legitimate and not so legitimate access points. Often there are poorly defined tracks leading into rivers and reservoirs that are not shown on maps. It is important to find all of these access points to allow all risks to water quality to be properly assessed. For instance, there are lots of examples around the country where notices prohibiting water recreation activities have been in place, however, during site visits, it has been obvious from telltale signs such as a rope swing on a river bank (Figure 3.7) or a tyre swing erected at a weir, that the prohibitions are not enforced or not taken seriously.

Figure 3.7. A rope swing on a river.

The access points should be marked on a map, since they are possible sites for contamination and should be inspected as part of the site survey. Figure 3.8 provides an example of a map with road crossings marked and a colour coding system indicating the degree of risk associated with each crossing.

32

Chapter 3 – Know Your System Figure 3.8. Identification of road crossing locations within the Barwon River catchment.

Barwon Water Barwon Water Catchment

Base Data Source: DSE Risk Scores: Ecos Projection: MGA 94 Zone 55 18th October 2006

A useful definition of catchment characterisation based on road access through the catchment has been developed by the state of Maine in the USA. The classification is summarised in Table 3.3. Such a system could be applied to any catchment.

Table 3.3 A possible classification of catchments (modified from www.maine.gov) Classification of Catchment

Characterisation

Completely controlled

One road in the catchment and no access except for utility personnel.

Substantially controlled

Very few roads, limited access, immediate shoreline owned by utility.

Moderately controlled

Few roads, some access, shoreline owned or controlled by the utility, moderate activity.

Partially controlled

Several roads, controlled access to source, low to moderate control over catchment.

Many roads in catchment, little control over shoreline, moderate to high use.

Minimally controlled Uncontrolled

Many roads, no control over shoreline and vast use of catchment.

33

Chapter 3 – Know Your System

9. Develop A Flow Diagram Of Your System As well as compiling all the information previously described, it is also extremely helpful to develop a conceptual flow diagram of your system. The system diagram should accurately summarise the major steps in your water supply chain.

Many utilities think that they already have a system diagram prepared and it is often found on utility websites or in annual reports. These diagrams are seldom adequate and may be well out of date. Typically they will not show the direction of water flow and not include new infrastructure works or new sources of water that have been included as emergency measures to alleviate drought conditions. In many cases they are just do not have enough detail.

The system diagram should clearly show where the water has come from, and where it is going, to allow all events to be considered from a water quality risk perspective. Increasingly, inter-catchment transfers are being used as a means of increasing water availability in times of drought and in order to service growing population demands. For example in Victoria, the North South pipeline will transfer water from the Goulburn River to Melbourne. In South East Queensland, the South East Queensland Water Grid is a network of twoway pipes to transport water from areas of water surplus to areas facing shortfall. The project includes over 450 km of pipeline, two new dams, a desalination plant and three Water Treatment Plants (WTPs). In NSW, a similar two-way pipe will connect Cowra with the Central Tablelands Water Supply Network. Transfers such as these also need to be captured on the flow diagram as they can introduce their own different types of hazards including the introduction of pest species into previously pristine environments.

A separate flow diagram for the WTP would usually be developed by the treatment team to allow identification of risks at a more focused level for this component of the system.

The catchment flow diagram should also identify: •

Any users of raw water. The way in which the catchment is managed can directly impact on users of raw water because of the fact that the water is not treated. The utility may have a formal responsibility to liaise with raw water users to ensure that they know how to use the water i.e. that the water must be treated in some way before drinking.

•

The components of the system that the utility directly controls and those that it can only influence in terms of management

•

Any known inputs where hazards might be introduced. Although this needs to be carried out more thoroughly any information that can be included at this stage can save time later.

For instance, many catchments may have issues with on-site sewage management systems (e.g. septic tanks). Since human sewage is a source of human infectious pathogens, knowing where those systems are and what state they are in is an important piece of information that you can feed into the risk assessment step.

A flow diagram for a catchment will generally only require a summary diagram. Figure 3.9 provides an example of a relatively simple catchment flow diagram while Figure 3.10 is an example of a more complex flow diagram. Note that the diagram in Figure 3.10 captures proposed future developments and the fact that the new water source is from a highly impacted catchment compared to the current water sourced from pristine forest. This point illustrates the fact that before any new source is brought on line, a complete assessment of that catchment’s condition will be required. This is necessary to ensure that all catchment inputs and risks are considered along with their possible impact on water treatment and the ability to produce safe drinking water.

34

Chapter 3 – Know Your System The diagram also emphasises the fact that in this system where the operators have been used to dealing with water sourced from pristine catchments they will have to deal with water that is of a potentially lesser quality and will vary more. Therefore they will probably need training and a period of transition to ensure they are properly equipped to deal with the “new” water source.

Once flow diagrams have been produced, they need to be verified for accuracy. Verification should be conducted at least on the ground and if possible by air.

Figure 3.9. System diagram for the Lavertys Gap Weir system The flow diagram was verified with Council staff and by on site inspections.

35

Chapter 3 – Know Your System

Figure 3.10. System diagram for the major Cairns Water systems

36

Chapter 4 Carry Out A Site Survey Once the boundaries have been established and the stakeholders and their values identified, the next step is to carry out a site or catchment survey. The purpose of the survey is to identify all the hazards in the catchment relating to water quality.

The site survey should be done at two levels. The first involves a desktop survey and the second involves a site visit or sanitary survey.

1. Assemble A Catchment User Team And Conduct A Desktop Survey Many people use the catchment. Most of these groups or individuals will have been identified during the assessment of stakeholders and their values described in Chapter 3. Many of these people will know a lot about the catchment, and their knowledge, sometimes gained over many years, is very valuable.

By inviting representatives from these groups to come together to discuss the catchment from a water quality perspective, many existing and potential hazards and hazardous events can be identified.

The team should include but not be restricted to representatives from the following organisations: • • • •

• • • •

Farmers Federation Catchment Management Authority Environment Protection Authority Clubs Fly fishing club(s) Bushwalking club(s) Cross country skiing club(s) Hunters 4WD Club(s) Mountain bike riders Field naturalists Forestry management companies Shire councillors Planning and Environmental Health Officers Large land holders.

There may be other specific organisations from your area not listed here.

The aim of the meeting(s) is to bring together the widest group of people possible with knowledge of the catchment and to then focus their attention on specific water quality issues. The main hazards to be aware of in source waters are biological and chemical hazards that can have adverse effects on human health. These include short-term impacts such as diarrhoea and vomiting as well as longer-term impacts such as cancer and possible links with autoimmune diseases.

As well as collecting vital information on hazards in the catchment, these user meetings start to build relationships between user groups, regulators and water utilities. All the groups start to appreciate the importance of water quality and why it is necessary to protect it. They also allow different perspectives to be put forward and others with different values can start to appreciate the complexity of the interactions in the catchment.

37

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey It is useful to consider catchment hazards under three headings: 1. Pathogens 2. Chemicals 3. Nutrients.

What Are The Sources Of Pathogens In The Catchment?

On a global scale, the most significant sources of waterborne disease are microbial, not chemical. Of the microbial causes of waterborne disease, the enteric (gut) pathogens are the most problematic (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Examples of the most important biological hazards found in source waters.

Hazard

Source

Impacts

Enteric parasites, in particular Cryptosporidium, Giardia and Entamoeba histolytica.

Human and mammalian faeces.

Diarrhoea, vomiting, fever, occasionally death.

Enteric bacteria, in particular Vibrio cholerae, Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella and pathogenic E. coli (e.g.

O157 H7).

Human, bird, reptile, Diarrhoea, vomiting, arthritis, amphibian and typhoid, dysentery, kidney damage, mammalian faeces. occasionally death.

Enteric viruses, in particular norovirus, hepatitis E virus, hepatitis A virus and rotavirus.

Human faeces.

Diarrhoea, vomiting, hepatitis, occasionally death.

The exclusion of faecal material from water sources is the first principle of source water protection, however in practice, source water protection is slightly more complex. There is a hierarchy of risk when it comes to faecal contamination based on the likelihood and consequence of the human diseases caused by the pathogens present: • Human faecal contamination presents the highest risk because the enteric pathogens carried by humans are the most likely to infect other humans. For example, human infectious enteric viruses are almost exclusively sourced from human faeces. Many infectious bacteria (Salmonella typhi, Shigella dysenteriae) and protozoa (Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium hominis) are similarly only found in human faeces and are highly infectious to other humans.

• Faecal contamination from stock animals, such as cattle and sheep, is the next priority for exclusion because many enteric pathogens carried by stock, particularly juvenile animals, are capable of infecting humans. For example bacteria such as E.coli O157:H7, Campylobacter jejuni, and Salmonella enteritidis and the protozoan Cryptosporidium parvum may be carried by stock animals without causing any disease in these animals but can cause disease in humans.

• Horses are common in some catchments either on farms or as part of recreational activities in mountain areas such as trail riding. The numbers of protozoan pathogens in horses are lower than cattle and sheep. Most horses aren’t infected or are infected with strains that aren’t infectious to humans, however it is possible for horses to be infected with strains of Cryptosporidium that are infectious to humans.

• Bird faeces can also be a problem, particularly with bacterial pathogens such as Campylobacter jejuni and Salmonella enteritidis. Bird faeces are not a common source of infectious protozoa or viruses.

• Cold-blooded animals can carry organisms that are pathogenic to humans, however, such occurrences are not common. Bacterial (e.g. Salmonella spp) infections are those most commonly associated with transmission from reptiles and amphibians to humans.

38

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Based on this information and with the help of the catchment user team, identify: 1. Sources of human pathogens; in particular where there are: • • •

Domestic sewage treatment systems (including septic tanks) Sewage Treatment Plant outfalls Camping or picnic sites close to waterways with poor or no toilet facilities.

2. Sources of non-human faecal material, including: • • • •

Dairy, beef or sheep farms Farm run off from dairy sheds Overflow from manure storage or treatment dams Favoured watering points for stock.

These sites should be marked on the map and details recorded for later site inspection.

What Are The Sources Of Chemicals In The Catchment?

Chemical hazards are not commonly associated with waterborne disease but are usually of considerable concern to the public. Chemicals in water may be naturally occurring, originate from human activity such as agriculture, forestry and mining or may be produced by naturally occurring algae in the water.

The main chemicals concerned are summarised in Table 4.2. With the naturally occurring chemicals, it is usually ground water that has a higher risk of being contaminated.

Wherever there are roads, industrial facilities and intensive agriculture, there is always the possibility of the over application of a chemical, or spillage of the chemical into the source water. Aerial spraying often occurs over waterways allowing the spray to settle directly onto the water. Rain falling soon after spraying results in contaminated water running off into creeks and rivers.

Table 4.2. Example of the most important chemical hazards found in source waters.

Hazard

Source

Impacts

Arsenic

Naturally occurring in many ground waters.

Arsenicosis, various cancers

Fluoride

Naturally occurring in many ground waters.

Dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis

Selenium

Naturally occurring in some ground waters.

Selenosis

Uranium

Naturally occurring in some ground waters.

Kidney disease

Nitrate

Ground waters recharged by excessive nitrogen-rich fertilizers.

Industrial and Inappropriate application methods such as over agricultural chemicals spraying or inappropriate time of application just including herbicides before rain. There may also be direct spills into and pesticides. source waters.

Methaemoglobinemia in infants

Fire retardants

Applied aerially during control of forest fires.

Unclear

Water treatment chemicals

Excessive water treatment chemicals discharged Acute neurological symptoms into water source. e.g copper containing chemicals for the control of algae.

Cyanotoxins

Cyanobacteria proliferating in surface water storages.

Algae proliferating in surface water storages.

Impaired liver and brain function

Leaf litter, native forest including tea tree and eucalypt.

Disinfection by products

MIB, Geosmin NOM

Acute chemical poisoning

Taste and odour

39

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Agricultural chemicals include a very large number of man made products for the control of “weeds” and “pests”. One of the difficulties in considering the impact of agricultural chemicals on a catchment is finding out exactly what chemicals are used and when. The farming community can be reluctant to provide this information to “another” government body. There is always an inherent suspicion that someone wants to interfere with what they are doing. Even if the actual chemicals can be identified it is often difficult to find out how toxic they are and at what levels they are toxic. This is one very good reason why it is important to have representatives of “farming” groups on the catchment user team and to explain to them the reasons for the catchment survey. Once they understand, they are generally more forthcoming in providing information.

However, often all they know is a product name for the chemicals they are using. It is then important to find out what is actually in the product and to find out how toxic it is. State Agriculture Departments provide information on both pesticides and herbicides.

All agricultural chemicals are assessed prior to registration and approval for sale and use. There are two organisations that are involved in registration of chemicals in this country. They are the APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority) and NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme).

Application levels are recommended that take into account safety and good management practice however, in general little is known about the effects of human exposure to agricultural chemicals in the concentrations that might occur in water. It is reasonable to say that many of the products are toxic and some are suspected of causing cancer. In the absence of specific knowledge, it would be prudent to minimise the input of these chemicals to waterways as much as possible.

Chemical contamination can also arise from underlying biological causes. The most common example of this is the contamination of source waters by cyanotoxins produced as metabolic by-products of cyanobacteria.

Cyanobacteria are able to proliferate in water storages containing even quite low concentrations of nutrients.

Algae can also produce a range of metabolic products that give water an unpleasant taste or odour. The best known of these are Methyl Isoborneol (MIB) and Geosmin. If possible, source water should not be drawn from such environments.

Another type of “chemical” that should be considered is Natural Organic Material (NOM). NOM originates primarily from rotting plant material on the forest floor and from native forests of eucalypt and tea tree. While NOM is not toxic in itself, it contributes to the formation of disinfection by-products such as the Trihalomethanes (THMs) and Haloacetic Acids (HAAs) that have been linked to cancers. While the link is not strong, these compounds are regulated around the world. NOM also exerts a high chlorine demand and provides food for microorganisms making up the biofilms in the distribution system. These biofilms, and the higher doses of chlorine necessary to achieve disinfection, can cause the water to have unpleasant tastes and odours.

Based on this information, with the help of the catchment user team identify: 1. Sources of industrial, farming, forestry or mining chemicals 2. Areas of the catchment with high organic input.

These should be marked on the map and details recorded for later site inspection.

What Are The Sources Of Nutrients In The Catchment?

Increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in rivers and reservoirs support increased growth of algae.

Algae may deplete the water of oxygen, but more importantly from a water quality perspective, algae produce and release a range of chemicals (as described above).

40

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Based on this information, with the help of the catchment user team identify the sources of nutrients in the catchment including: • • • •

Sites where fertilisers are routinely applied Sites where “manurigators” are used to spread manures Run off from dairy sheds or manure holding dams Favoured watering points for stock.

These should be marked on the map and details recorded for later site inspection.

Appendix B also provides some guidance to the sort of information that should be collected.

2. Inspect The Catchment And Conduct A Sanitary Survey Armed with the information from the desktop survey of the catchment and the catchment flow diagram, it is essential to get out of the office and have a thorough look at the catchment. This is often called a sanitary survey. A ‘sanitary survey’ is the name given to the process of completing an on site assessment of the catchment. You can also think of the sanitary survey as a ‘hazard hunt’! Depending on the size of the system, a survey will typically take at least two days to travel completely round your catchment, visiting and recording information at key sites.

As catchments change, it is important to review catchment assessments and sanitary surveys on a regular basis. The US EPA recommends that sanitary surveys should be conducted every three years to allow updating of the catchment condition. So now you have an endorsed excuse to get out of the office and do a thorough review of the catchment at least every three years!

Sanitary surveys are best undertaken as a combination of an aerial survey and an on ground survey. Small planes can be chartered from local airports. Local pilots often know local landmarks and can help you orient to the ground from the air. The aerial inspection can then be followed by an on ground survey that visits important sites observed from the air and all those identified in the desk top survey.

Record your catchment visit with photographs and clear notes of what you saw at each site. To assist with relocating specific sites it is essential to record the latitude and longitude of each site and each photograph.

This can be easily done using hand held GPS systems that can be purchased cheaply from any outdoor store. Make sure you record a description of each photograph as you go. This can then be transferred to a photo register. You can also transfer key information to the maps you have. Record what you saw on the site visit using map references or directly on the map itself.

Figures 4.1 to 4.18 illustrate the types of practices and land uses that you need to be looking out for within catchments when conducting a sanitary survey.

41

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.1. Sheep with direct access to a tributary of a river that is used to supply drinking water (Example hazards: pathogens, nutrients and turbidity from erosion)

Figure 4.2. Cows crossing a river approximately 500m upstream of a water supply intake (Example hazards: pathogens, nutrients and turbidity from erosion). This water supply had disinfection only treatment!!!!

42

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.3. Barren grazing land with large numbers of cow “pats” adjacent to a reservoir (see inset), just waiting for the rain! (Example hazards: pathogens, nutrients and turbidity from erosion)

Figure 4.4.

Stormwater collection pond draining a large urban area and flowing into a tributary of a river used to supply drinking water (Example hazards: pathogens, nutrients and chemicals)

43

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey

44

Figure 4.5.

Bridge and associated sewer main crossing a river used to supply drinking water (Example hazards: chemicals from spills on the bridge and bridge runoff, pathogens from pipe bursts)

Figure 4.6.

A water source rich in Natural Organic Matter (NOM).(Example hazard: formation of DBPs).

Water like this may be difficult to treat.

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.7. Water with a high solids load following rain fall in a fire ravaged alpine area (Example hazards: turbidity, nutrients and possibly pathogens). (Photo from Leak et al 2003)

Figure 4.8. Erosion banks in a catchment area (Example harzard: turbidity)

45

Chapter Chapter 6 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.9. Roadside run offs attempt to limit erosion and minimise the transport of silt into nearby waterways.

Figure 4.10 (a & b). Newly graded roadside drains provide a perfect raw surface for erosion and the transport of solids to nearby waterways.

Figure 4.10 (c). A grassed roadside drain with reduced risk of erosion and subsequent water contamination.

(a)

46

(b)

(c)

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.11.

Indiscriminate clearing exposes top and sub surface soils ripe for erosion and transport to nearby waterways.

Figure 4.12. Wildfire destroys surface cover and bares soil to the effect of wind and rain.

47

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.13. Severe erosion gullies represent long term delivery of sediment and turbidity to waterways.

(Example hazard: turbidity)

Figure 4.14. A rope swing over a river bank is sure sign of recreational use of a waterway.

(Example hazard: pathogens)

48

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.15. Rubbish and a “mudslide” represent a possible site for water contamination particularly where there are no toilet facilities. (Example hazard: pathogens, turbidity)

Figure 4.16. A farm dump with rubbish floating in water that is part of the aquifer that supplies water to nearby towns. (Example hazard: chemicals) (Photo courtesy of Dean Chamberlain)

49

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.17. Stormwater drains pose problems for rubbish and other pollutants entering a river.

(Example hazard: pathogens, chemicals, nutrients)

Figure 4.18.

50

Crop dusting planes adjacent to a WTP indicate herbicides and pesticides may contaminate waterways at certain times of the year. (Example hazard: chemicals)

ChapterChapter 4 – Carry Out 7 A Site Survey Examples of hazards and their impact on water quality are provided in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Examples of source water hazards and their importance.

Hazard

Why it is Important to Manage

What Should be in Place

Grazing

The failure of any one grazier to adopt control measures might not constitute a major risk to water quality. It is the cumulative effect of grazing practices that can have a significant impact on water quality and become critical. Therefore, effective management of pollution arising from grazing land is critical.

Rotational grazing.

Many of the hazards of concern to the water source originate from agricultural land and the cumulative impacts of such agricultural practices can have a significant impact on water quality.

Controlled access to, and application of nutrient and pesticides near waterways and on riparian land.

Intensive agriculture

Fencing and maintenance of fencing.

Off-stream watering facilities.

Exclusion of juvenile stock from streams and water source areas.

For instance, the contribution from one illegal pesticide application might not by itself constitute a major risk to water quality, particularly given that concentrations of pesticides in large water bodies are unlikely to reach acute-effect thresholds for human health, however cumulative impacts of many applications may be significant.

On-site sewage systems

The contribution from any one leaking sewer, urban drain or failing septic tank might not constitute a major risk to water quality, however the cumulative effect of the poor management practices adopted throughout the source can have a highly significant influence on water quality and become critical.

Control of rural residential developments.

Liaison with water utility as a referral/consent authority for developments.

Prohibition on development where impacts on water quality might be deemed unacceptable.

Auditing of septic tanks to ensure appropriate function.

Urban stormwater

Stormwater management controls including litter controls, dog faeces controls, sediment traps, street sweeping.

Education.

‘End of pipe’ measures such as gross pollution traps may be warranted in some circumstances.

Reticulated sewage

Asset maintenance to reduce leakage.

51

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Table 4.2. (continued) Hazard

Why it is Important to Manage

What Should be in Place

Forestry

Sedimentation caused by erosion from forestry practices can lead to increased turbidity and nutrients in water as well as impacts on river form and flow.

Forestry management practices such as • Preharvest planning • Chemical use management • Fire management • Road construction • Revegetation • Streamside management zones

Licensed discharges

The contribution from one licensed discharge might not constitute a major risk to water quality. However, some may be and this requires further investigation coupled with their distance to the extraction points.

Appropriate licensing and policing of licences.

Proactive not reactive responses to discharge breaches.

Understanding also that simply meeting licence conditions may not constitute an appropriate standard of duty if it is known that more stringent guidelines should be applied.

Determine The Waterway Condition One useful way to approach the assessment of the condition of waterways is to use a Multi Criteria Analysis.

This approach was developed and used to assess the condition of the Lavertys Gap Weir catchment during a sanitary survey. At each site in a survey, the river condition is scored according to the criteria listed in Table 4.3. The scores are then tabulated as a site description log.

Table 4.3. Criteria for assessment of the condition of waterways

An example of the site description log is provided in Table 4.4. The sites are also transferred to a map of the system and the position of the sites in the catchment can be seen in Figure 4.19

52

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Table 4.4. Part of a sanitary survey description log for the Lavertys Gap Weir catchment.

Site Reference Number

Description

Associated Photographs

Date Visited

SS1

Top of catchment between ‘locked gate’ shown on map and first road crossing (RC1). Large rocks visible in river channel, river channel has good form. Rainforest species apparent but high coverage of weeds including vast carpets of lantana, along roadsides and river channel. Weeds peter out under good canopy cover.

7714 to 7724

31/10/06

Approximate distance from top of catchment (km) 0.0

SS2

Walls of lantana. Private driveway showing 7725 to 7726 evidence of channel formation indicative of erosion during downpours.

31/10/06

0.0

SS3

River channel form and lantana on banks of river.

7727 to 7729

31/10/06

0.8

SS4

Drive way showing gullies and ruts 7730 to 7742 (evidence of erosion). Driveway is upstream of a road crossing that has culvert drains that are well protected. Some sediment deposition was noted downstream of culvert. Evidence of road pavement deposition on the crossing itself.

31/10/06

1.0

SS5

Some side inputs to river are very muddy and could form a source of sediment/ turbidity to the river. The river channel is in good condition. The road could deliver loads of sediments to the river via the crossing (RC2) in wet weather. Active revegetation appeared to be in progress.

7743 to 7749

31/10/06

1.0

SS6

Driveway (in sector 4) preceded by road crossing at RC3. Potholes in road are evident as are stands of weeds. River channel is in good condition but sediment was visible in the riverbed. Revegetation in progress (palms and Lomandra).

7750 to 7761

31/10/06

1.2

53

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Figure 4.19.

Sanitary survey locations for the Lavertys Gap weir catchment sanitary survey.

SS35 is the weir from where the raw water is sourced.

The results of the multi criteria analysis are shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.20.

54

Chapter 4 – Carry Out A Site Survey Table 4.5. Multi Criteria Analysis results.

Figure 4.20. Graphical representation of Multi Criteria Analysis for the Lavertys Gap Weir system.

The points to note from the results of this analysis were that: •

The river condition scored highly in the upper catchment but is impacted when close to dwellings and/or sources of sediments such as driveways and roads

•

The river condition scored less well in the mid catchment compared to the upper catchment but still achieved a reasonably high score

•

The lowest score for the river condition is at sites where the catchment has been heavily utilised such as farming (SS27, SS28)

•

The abstraction point scored highly (SS35).

55

Chapter 5 Assess The Risk Generally, catchment site surveys identify a large number of existing and potential hazards. It is important to maintain perspective at this stage, not feel overwhelmed and not to think that the situation is hopeless.

Interventions in the catchment will take time and patience and will require cooperation between many different stakeholders. It can’t all be done at once, nor are all the identified hazards associated with a high risk. Therefore to help sort out what needs to be done first a risk assessment should be carried out.

For each hazard you need to identify the likelihood of it occurring and what the consequences are if it does occur. The risk is then calculated based on the likelihood value and the consequence value multiplied together.

The ADWG (2004) provides advice on how to carry out a risk assessment and provides tables containing definitions of likelihood and consequence. These are reproduced in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5.1. Example risk matrix (Source: ADWG, 2004).

56

Chapter 5 – Assess The Risk In practice, risks are managed and reduced by control measures. The control measures in place at each step must be identified and if the current controls are not thought to be adequate to reduce the risks to acceptable levels, then additional controls are needed. Based on the analysis, appropriate actions can be identified. An example of a risk assessment for a single hazardous event is provided in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Example hazard analysis.

Hazardous Event

Hazard

Cattle defecation followed by heavy rainfall carries pathogens to waterways in unacceptable numbers.

Chlorine sensitive pathogens such as E. coli O157.

Chlorine insensitive pathogens such as Cryptosporidium.

Likeli- Consehood quence B

5

Risk Basis

Existing Control Measures Farmers Federation education program

Additional Controls Required Very Waterborne Review the High disease requirement for outbreaks have water filtration arisen from given the fact pathogens from that there are cattle including Catchment no barriers for Cryptosporidium Management Cryptosporidium and E. coli O157 Board removal in this during similar briefings system. scenarios.

Work with the Treatment Catchment (disinfection landholder in the proximity liaison programs only) of the offtake are in place to determine but cattle and Boil water practical control calves are advisory. measures such still allowed to as off-stream graze close to watering points, streams. isolation of calves from the river.

Riparian zone repair.

The example in the table shows there are inadequate control measures in place. Additional measures are required and these have been identified in the last column of the table.

The risk assessment process needs to be repeated for each identified hazard and the risk values ranked from highest to lowest. Those at the top therefore represent what needs to be done first. This information can then be converted into an action plan. An example of an action plan is provided in Table 5.2.

57

Chapter 5 – Assess The Risk Table 5.2. Example of part of a catchment management action plan.

Action

Who

When

Review the requirement for water filtration.

Manager, Planning and Strategy in conjunction with Manager, Water Supply

6 months

Work with the landholder in the proximity of the offtake to determine practical control measures such as offstream watering points and isolation of calves from the river.

CEO, Water Quality Officer, Catchment Officer.

6 months

Undertake repeat sanitary survey to ensure that emerging risks in the catchment are captured.

Water Quality Officer, Catchment Officer.

Within 3 years of last sanitary survey

Ensure that signage is erected in the catchment stating Manager, Planning “You are entering a drinking water catchment – report all and Strategy spills to 000”.

Within 6 months

Ensure that all on-site sewage systems are registered and routinely inspected as per obligations in the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) and in particular clause 29 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW).

Environment Manager

Ongoing

Ensure that all new approvals comply with the catchment values identified within the Catchment Risk Management Plan and with the Catchment Policy.

Manager, Planning and Strategy in conjunction with Manager, Water Supply

Ongoing

Establish Monitoring To Assess The Value Of Changes Implemented Once the hazards have been identified and the risks evaluated, and before implementing any changes in the catchment, it is essential to ensure that a suitable monitoring program is in place to assess the impact of the existing hazard and to assess the impact of any new control measures on the risk. In simple terms, did the change you made have any effect on water quality? It is also essential to make sure sampling occurs after rainfall events. In some ways you could save money on testing by only sampling after rainfall events however this is a bit more difficult to plan. A catchment sampling program requires someone within the water quality group to watch weather patterns and know what land management practices are in place at a particular time and to set up sampling even if this is required on weekends or out of hours. For example, if you measure turbidity and E coli directly downstream of a cattle soak area before and after establishment of off-river watering points and riparian zone rehabilitation, you should be able to clearly demonstrate the benefits. Turbidity and E coli counts are likely to decrease significantly especially after rainfall events and probably also during normal river flows.

58

Chapter 5 – Assess The Risk How often should you monitor? Routine weekly or monthly monitoring of sites in a catchment is only of limited value. Often this monitoring will simply return the same information, for example river turbidity at a particular site may be consistently between 10 NTU and 12 NTU. However after a rain event the turbidity may increase to 200 NTU. Only by monitoring such events can you hope to detect the impact of repairing degraded riverbanks. The frequency of monitoring needs to be set so that it will detect changes. So depending on how quickly something changes, the sampling frequency should be set at that. Monitoring in the catchment requires some regular monitoring at say fortnightly or monthly intervals, supported by extensive event monitoring for such things as turbidity, herbicides and pesticides and pathogens.

The event may be heavy rainfall or after pesticide spraying on adjacent farmland. This contrasts with monitoring in a Water Treatment Plant where individual filter output should be monitored continuously with on-line turbidity meters.

The main objective is to make sure that the identified hazards are managed and the associated risks reduced.

Setting appropriate limits for the parameters being measured and monitoring at appropriate times will help you to achieve this.

59

Chapter 6 Implement Programs On The Ground Hazards, Hazardous Events And Preventive Measures In most instances where the risk associated with a particular hazard has been identified as very high, something needs to be done. While it is not possible to anticipate all situations and all possible control measures, it is possible to give general guidance for many common high-risk hazards. Don’t forget to concentrate on the key hazards rather than getting bogged down trying to address everything.

Implementing control measures in a catchment can be frustrating and slow. Whereas a change in a treatment step at a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) can be made and evaluated in a matter of hours or if minor equipment is needed in a matter of weeks or months, most changes in catchments take years to implement and evaluate.

However it is well worth persevering.

A summary of common high-risk hazards, the consequences of the hazards and possible preventive or control measures that could be implemented is provided in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Summary of common catchment hazards, hazardous events and example control measures.

Hazard or Hazardous Event Domestic wastewater treatment systems (including package plants and septic tanks).

Pathogen Chemical Risk Risk

Nutrient Risk

X

Turbidity Control Measure Risk Enforce setback limits for onsite sewage systems: 100m from permanent and 40m from ephemeral (semi permanent) waterways. (Reference: Environment and Health Protection Guidelines: On-site Sewage Management for Single Households (1998) (‘Silver Book’) and a range of Australian Standards including On-site Domestic Wastewater Management AS/NZS 1547:2000) Ensure the septic tank code is enforced.

Encourage individual owners living in sensitive areas to implement disinfection of septic tank overflow.

Organise periodic removal of septic tank contents.

STP discharge to waterway.

X

X

Ensure adequate disinfection after daily peak load and after flooding.

Ensure nutrient removal to low levels.

60

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Table 6.1. (continued) Hazard or Hazardous Event Camping sites or picnic areas with poor or absent toilet facilities.

Pathogen Chemical Risk Risk

Nutrient Risk

Turbidity Control Measure Risk

X

Install modern toilets with adequate capacity and minimum 100m set back.

Erect signs stating, “You are in a drinking water catchment”.

Restrict access if necessary.

Bushwalking or trekking trails.

X

Install clear sign posting.

Promote “How to shit in the woods” book (Meyer 1994) to bushwalkers.

Housing in protected catchment areas.

X

A density of 1 dwelling per 40 hectares of land is considered to be a reasonable benchmark for dwelling density in special water supply catchments having regard to the current state of scientific knowledge.

Flooding Rain.

X

Drought

Bushfire

X including heavy metals and NOM

X

X including algal metabolites and toxins and Mn and Fe

X including algal metabolites and toxins and Mn and Fe

X

Revegetate riparian zones.

Construct silt traps.

Construct or regrade gravel roads well prior to wet months.

Clear roadside gutters during dry months.

Construct diversion drains and energy reduction structures.

Rehabilitate erosion gullies.

No control measures BUT plan for all contingencies • Standby Powdered Activated Carbon • Standby Potassium Permanganate • Standby Copper for reservoir dosing Train operations staff in jar testing and dosing control.

All hazards are possible if rain falls after a fire. Also Control burns and fuel reduction fire retardant chemicals. burns.

Construct fire breaks in critical catchment run off areas.

Construct silt traps.

61

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Table 6.1. (continued) Hazard or Hazardous Event Cattle Soaks

Pathogen Chemical Risk Risk X

Nutrient Risk X

Turbidity Control Measure Risk X

Establish off stream watering points.

Rehabilitate riparian zones.

Install fencing to prevent access to the riparian zone.

Protect riparian zone from calf access for at least 500m upstream of offtake point. The actual distance will depend on vegetation and buffer strips and will therefore be system specific. (The best way to establish a suitable distance is to monitor E coli at various distances downstream and during different river flows and rainfall conditions).

Education

Cattle crossings

X

X

X

Remove crossings.

Construct cattle bridges or overpasses.

Dairy shed run off

X

X

Construct “run off” holding dams.

Irrigate manure in a sustainable manner.

Compost with wood, paper, green waste or other carbon source.

Aerial spraying

X

Education Interact with VFF and individual farmers to encourage use of least toxic chemicals and to not spray over water or when rain is due.

Organise farmer to liaise with water utility to notify utility of intention to spray.

Education

Private landfill sites with discarded chemical drums

X

Clean up and encourage collection of unused chemical and discarded drums and containers.

Work with chemical supply companies Education

62

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Table 6.1. (continued) Hazard or Pathogen Hazardous Event Risk Road crossings on curves or poorly banked Weeds growing adjacent to waterways

Chemical Risk X

Nutrient Risk

Turbidity Control Measure Risk Install speed restrictions.

Erect catchment awareness signs.

X

Interact with CMA and FF to ensure safe herbicides and safe management practices.

Organise groups to alert utility when spraying is planned.

Bank degradation

X

Rehabilitate riparian zones.

Prevent access to riparian zones.

Gravel roads and gutters.

X

Avoid grading prior to rainy seasons.

Avoid repeated cleaning out of gutters that exposes bare soil.

Manage plant growth in gutters to provide natural wetland treatment and trap silt.

Review drainage practices.

Construct diversion drains Construct settlement ponds.

Drains

X

X

Investigate source and possible contaminants Find alternative discharge point for beneficial reuse Consider storage, treatment and reuse

Erosion gullies

X

X

Rehabilitate Install silt traps or settling ponds

Find A Champion For The Cause When it comes to implementing changes in human commercial or recreational activities, it is vitally important to consult and provide accurate up-to-date information to all stakeholders. It is also important to try to identify a “champion for the cause”. Changes in farming practice are likely to be better accepted if a well-respected local farmer adopts and promotes the required practice. Changes in recreational activities are also likely to be better accepted and implemented if high profile participants adopt and encourage the new practice.

Consider how common “tag and release” fishing is now compared with 10 years ago.

Sociological studies show people can be classified according to their willingness to adopt new ideas and practices. There are innovators, early adopters, the early majority and late majority and laggards.

63

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Innovators and early adopters are people keen to try new things often just for the sake of it, early adopters tend to be respectable people and opinion leaders who are willing to try out new ideas but in a careful way.

The late majority and laggards are generally sceptics who will use new ideas only when the majority do so or they are forced to. They tend to think old ways are always the best. In terms of achieving change in the catchment it is important to try to identify the early adopters and get their support. Once they adopt and promote the practice the others will follow.

Formal Arrangements Formal partnerships can also be considered. Many catchment stakeholders have developed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) or catchment partnership management agreements to help more clearly set out responsibilities and actions for achieving catchment outcomes. The Regional NRM Partnership Agreement between the Hawkesbury Nepean Local Government Advisory Group and Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority May 2005 is an example of an MoU. Remember that ‘coalface’ catchment stakeholders will not want to see a lengthy document or be bombarded with paperwork. They are more inclined to respect direct face-to-face discussion and simple practical implementation strategies. More of a “just do it” attitude once the decision has been made.

Policies may also provide useful instruments for demonstrating commitment, especially where catchment management policies have been developed on a partnership basis. In Victoria, Central Highlands Water, Western Water, Barwon Water and Southern Rural Water have all joined forces in developing consistent policy for the protection of the Moorabool Shire Water Catchment (“Protecting Water Quality in the Moorabool Shire Water Catchment Protection Policy 8 July 2003”). The policy outlines how the relevant water utility will use the policy to assess planning permit applications directed to it by Council. The policy provides guidelines for consistency in how applications are dealt with in relation to special water supply catchments listed in Schedule 5 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act (1994) (Vic) in the Moorabool Shire. The basis for the policy is provided below.

64

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Policy basis of the Moorabool Shire Water Catchment Protection Policy 8.

300,000 people rely on drinking water supplies that are harvested from catchments in the Moorabool Shire.

Every local resident and business in the Moorabool Shire relies on water that is harvested from catchments in the municipality. Inappropriate land use and development will undermine the safety and reliability of water supplies in the Shire. It is vital that water authorities, Council and the local community act to preserve water quality throughout the municipality in order to safeguard public health, protect water supply assets, reduce water tariffs, and ensure a secure and reliable long-term supply of drinking water.

Existing settlements such as Blackwood, Mount Egerton and Gordon have been developed for many years.

The water authorities acknowledge that they have some development potential while also acknowledging their impacts on local streams.

In terms of rural and rural living areas the water authorities consider that: • There is link between increased dwelling density and a reduction in water quality • Human activity can pose a risk to water quality • Well-managed agricultural activities with appropriate buffer zones will help to maintain water quality • Septic tanks and on-site wastewater treatment plants often pose a risk to water quality because of poor maintenance, design, installation and/or operator error or plant malfunction.

• Some of the Shire’s rural areas are characterised by poor quality soils. Development in these areas can lead to erosion, effluent and stormwater run-off and a reduction in water quality • Water supplies are vital to all communities. A decline in water quality or outbreak of an algal bloom may result in increased treatment costs or withholding of supply. This would increase the cost of water to consumers, adversely impact on irrigators and agricultural water users and may jeopardize public health.

Who Pays?

Agreement on actions to be taken can often be reached but a common stumbling point is “who pays?” Most actions will require money, sometimes considerable amounts.

Some farmers will take it upon themselves to implement the changes on their own properties. They see a benefit in the improved value of their properties and less degradation of the land they hold stewardship over. This is reflected in the statement by Fred Huneke, Chair of the Water Agricultural Council, New York Catchments.

“The most frequently asked question we hear from our public audiences is “How did you get the farmers to sign up?” I believe that the answer, in simple relative terms, is that though the threat of regulation loomed, farmers in the watershed saw an opportunity to improve the environmental impact of their farms as it related to the overall environment and receive financial assistance to accomplish it. Today, we stand at 90% participation of what we define as large farms participating in the program.”

Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) will also fund many initiatives. An example is the large-scale program eradicating willows along waterways in country Victoria. The EPA may also provide funding for clean up programs. Public programs such as Clean Up Australia could be engaged to help work in a specific area.

65

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Ultimately it is the responsibility of the water utility to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water to consumers.

Water utilities should therefore set aside an appropriate amount of money for catchment management. The amount should be based on the risk in the catchment and the extent of measures needed to protect consumers from the highest risks. It is not good enough to stall the process because no one “has the money”

Some Specific Examples In More Detail 1. Access Of Cattle To A Waterway Probably one of the best-known cases of the application of catchment and risk management principles to a water supply is that of the Alameda Creek Watershed. The Alameda Creek is part of the water supply system for San Francisco. The catchment has large tracts of grazing land and the risk from Cryptosporidium from calves was considered to be very high.

Figure 6.1. Cattle in a catchment….represent a high risk!

Calves can excrete high numbers of Cryptosporidium (up to 100,000 per gram of faeces) that are able to infect human beings. Infected calves can produce between 5 and 10 kg of manure per day. If you do the sums you will see the total number is huge and emphasises the need to keep calf manure out of water.

Therefore best practice in source water catchments is to ensure that calves in particular are excluded access, particularly close to off take points.

Although the task in the Alameda Creek Catchment was quite daunting, the teams were able to come up with control measures that reduced the risk significantly. The project was largely successful because of the partnerships and the good will that was formed during the exercise as well as having a good multi-disciplinary team in place to carry out the assessment and planning.

66

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground

Alameda Creek watershed case study.

ANR IMPACT - Water Quality Protection for San Francisco's Watershed

8/07/08 10:08 AM

Water Quality Protection for San Francisco's Watershed The Issue In 1997 the San Francisco Public Utility Commission challenged the presence of grazing livestock in the Alameda Creek watershed, which provides drinking water to 2.5 million people in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Commission assumed that cattle posed an unacceptable risk to water quality and human health by shedding Cryptosporidium parvum in their feces.

Since annual grasses dominate this watershed, elimination of grazing would significantly add to the risk of wildfire. Increased erosion following a wildfire is one of the greatest potential sources of surface water contamination in California's annual grasslands. The absence of livestock grazing also could change the current ecological balance in the watershed, which includes a variety of wildlife including feral pigs, bald eagles, mountain lions, tule elk, blacktailed deer and a variety of small mammals. Watershed lands owned and managed by the City and County of San Francisco support 17 livestock operations covering 38,000 acres.

What has ANR done?

Grazing San Francisco's Watershed Lands UC specialists working in the dairy industry (Deanna Meyer and Jim Cullor) provided information on a risk management strategy used to ensure food safety known as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points). Farm Advisor Sheila Barry, working with the Alameda County Resource Conservation District(RCD), adapted the HACCP strategy to water quality protection. Science-based information was provided by Rob Atwill of UC Vet-Med Extension, who had recently worked with livestock/range advisors throughout the state studying the prevalence and risk factors for shedding of C. parvum in rangeland cow-calf herds. This research found that the risk is primarily limited to calves under four months of age.

The Payoff Drinking water for 2.5 million protected with historic grazing accord On March 4, 1997, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission directed the Alameda County RCD and the livestock industry to develop a best management practices plan designed specifically to guard against C.parvum and other waterborne pathogens. On August 22, 1997, after UC ANR provided information to develop a HACCP -based water quality protection plan, a grazing accord was signed by California Cattlemen's Association, UC Vet Med, UC Rangeland Hydrology Specialist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alameda County RCD, Alice B. Toklas Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club, and the SF Public Utilities Commission. The grazing resource plan to assure safe drinking water for 2.5 million residents of the San Francisco Bay Area recognized that properly managed livestock grazing is compatible with watershed protection and provided for continued grazing on 38,000 acres of San Francisco owned-land in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties.

Contact Supporting Unit: Santa Clara County Sheila Barry, UCCE Santa Clara County, 700 Empey Way, San Jose CA 95128 (408)299-2635 x 1005 sbarry@ucdavis.edu

Source: ucanr.org/delivers/impactview.cfm?impactnum=389, see also Barry et al (1998).

2. Managing Development In Sensitive Areas Planning programs are also important to prevent cumulative adverse impact in catchments. Water utilities need to develop good relationships with the planning approvals departments (which may or may not be in the same entity) to ensure that impacts on water sources are considered in the planning approval process. In some instances, water utilities have been successful in preventing developments or indeed, in ensuring that inappropriate developments were actually demolished.

http://ucanr.org/delivers/impactview.cfm?impactnum=389

Page 1 of 1

67

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground

Mackenzie vs Moorabool Shire Council 2004 – Case study.

Central Highlands Water’s Ballarat catchments are located between 70 km and 90 km west of Melbourne.

The land has traditionally been subject to grazing, timber harvesting and cropping, but over the last 30 years is changing to rural residential development. This change led Central Highland Water Authority to recognise the need to protect the catchments from incremental development and more intense land use.

The Authority, in partnership with Council, has been able to define catchments where special planning processes require consideration of water quality for any development application.

In 2003 the authority faced the situation of a dwelling being constructed on the banks of a water supply stream about 600m upstream of a town off-take. The local planning authority inadvertently failed to identify the catchment overlay and incorrectly advised the owner that as the site was in a township zone no planning consent was required. The Water Authority issued a notice under Section 169 of the Water Act (1989) requiring the construction to cease immediately. The owner then belatedly applied to Council for planning consent to which the Authority, acting under its referral powers, objected, triggering an automatic refusal.

The owner then applied for a review by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which determined that the dwelling would be contrary to the Authority’s policy, the Septic Tanks code of practice and the State Environmental Protection Policy and ordered that no permit be issued. The Authority then successfully sought an order for the removal of the partly completed dwelling.

Key to the success of this review for the catchment was the strong consistent policy statements contained in the planning scheme, the septic tanks code, the state environment policies for surface and ground water and the Authority’s own published policies.

This sort of action is important because it sends a message that water quality is important and that there are people out there who are prepared to oversee what goes on in the catchment from a drinking water supply perspective.

3. Riparian Zone Repair Tennent Creek supplies water to Candowie Reservoir that is the source of raw water for Westernport Water in Southern Victoria. Figure 6.2 (a, b, c & d) show a time series of photographs taken adjacent to Tennent Creek.

In January 2001, a works crew from the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority removed willows from 4 kilometres of Tennent Creek as part of a willow eradication program. The Catchment Management Group (CMG) and the landholders David and Frank Garry organised to fence and plant out the length of the stream. This was completed by March 2002 with some 15,000 trees being planted. Figures 6.2 to 6.5 clearly show the huge improvement of the riparian zone with Australian native vegetation flourishing.

This successful project shows the results of an effective partnership between farmers, two water utilities and the CMG. The CMG has two aims: 1. Increase farm productivity and sustainability, and 2. Improve the water quality in Candowie and Lance Creek

68

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Figure 6.2. (a,b,c,d) Time lapse photos of Tennent Creek revegetation 2001 - 2008

(a Feb 2001)

(b Apr 2002)

(c Sep 2005)

(d May 2008)

Droughts, Flooding Rains And Fire: Unpredictable Events Expect The Unexpected Droughts, fire and flood are certain in this country. When they will occur is less certain. However while they are unpredictable, they can be anticipated. They will happen at some time. The best advice is to expect the unexpected and be prepared. Catchment risk assessments should anticipate these events and identify possible preventive measures to reduce the impact of them; however it will not be possible to stop them happening. Installing silt traps on roadside drains and gutters, or developing road management practices that don’t continually expose new soft ground can reduce the effect of heavy rain. The extent and ferocity of bushfire can be reduced by careful use of controlled fuel reduction burns and construction of firebreaks. Very little can be done to reduce the impact of drought except to introduce water restrictions in a timely manner, locate and prepare to use alternative water sources and further develop use of recycled water, storm water and rain water tanks. There are however other aspects of the impact of drought on water that may not be anticipated. The case study on bushfires on page 70 provides some examples.

The important thing about unpredictable events of this type is to anticipate them and plan for them and practice the plan.

Fire And Rain Bushfires in a catchment can have a huge effect on water quality and must always be anticipated and planned for in a catchment with a significant percentage of “bush”. A good example is provided by the bushfires and subsequent floods experienced in the Victorian alpine area in summer 2002/2003 and again in 2007.

69

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground

Bushfire and Flood in North East Victoria 2003 (Leak et al 2003).

In January 2003, bushfire raged through the Alpine National Park in North Eastern Victoria. The first and most immediate problem was to maintain water supply to the communities supplied by North East Water. Demand outstripped the capacity of the treatment plants resulting in the need to supplement supply with raw water and issue boil water notices. The second and ongoing problem was the impact of millions of hectares of burnt catchment on raw water quality. The alpine forests prior to the fires delivered very high quality clear water. Treatment requirements were minimal and in most cases was simple chlorination only. On the 26th February 2003 a thunderstorm warning was issued for the area. What resulted was approximately 100mm in under an hour. Surveys after the event showed that 200 ha had been affected by the rain. By 9pm one of the diversion weirs on one of the rivers had been destroyed and the normally peaceful river was a raging torrent, barely constrained by its banks. The water was “as thick as a short black and pretty similar in colour”. A sample tested for turbidity returned 129,000 NTU and by next morning had “decreased” to 44,000 NTU! Suspended solids were 59,000 mg/L and 36,000 mg/L….”pretty much sludge”. Figure 6.3 shows the turbidity changes experienced during this period for 3 rivers. Figure 6.4 shows the junction of two of the rivers as the slug of dirty water arrived just upstream of Wangaratta.

The operators were faced with almost insurmountable problems but managed to reduce the impact and potential consequences of the event. North East Water was able to track the slug of dirty water along the river systems and prepare as best they could to manage the event. Alum dosing even up to 350 mg/L was unable to produce a floc that would settle. Aluminium chlorohydrate (ACH) seemed to work but was very susceptible to over or under dosing.

Residents in Wangaratta were advised of likely dirty water and the town was put on stage 4 restrictions (the highest level in Victoria). Reservoir stores were eked out for as long as possible. By Monday 3rd March the turbidity had peaked in the Ovens river at approximately 1100 NTU. The prediction was that it would take 3-6 days for the peak to pass Wangaratta. By Friday 7th March the turbidity had reached 450 NTU in the morning and was 900 NTU at noon. The plant was unable to keep up with the sludge blanket in the clarifiers overflowing the launders by 12 pm.

Jar testing revealed the water should be treatable. Water in the plant was dumped and the plant started at a lower flow rate. By 5am the next morning the clarified water turbidity was 10 NTU and water leaving the filters was 0.5 NTU. During the period of treatment problems, the storages dropped from 80% to 30% in 17 hours (and this was on level 4 restrictions!!!). Steps were put in place to invoke the State Disaster Plan as it looked like Wangaratta would run out of water. 0.38 ML of water was carted from a nearby town to supplement supplies. Treatment specialists were brought in from a neighbouring water utility.

By Saturday 8th March the ACH dose was 45 mg/L with 0.35 mg/L poly. Clarified water turbidity was 6.5 NTU and filtered water 0.4 NTU. Jar testing was being undertaken at half hourly intervals around the clock. A total of 350 jar tests were carried out over a period of 2 weeks around the clock. The ACH dose peaked at 55mg/L. Sludge management was then becoming a problem! Cones in the clarifier were dumping every 45 minutes. The plant was running at 30% normal capacity while the chlorine dose was at 90% of normal indicating a huge increase in chlorine demand. On Friday 14th March, a mobile WTP arrived to treat water for one of the “disinfection only” towns. Level 4 restrictions were lifted in Porepunkah and Wangaratta WTP production lifted to 50% of normal. In Wangaratta, Stage 4 restrictions were replaced with Stage 3 restrictions. By Sunday 23rd March (roughly 20 days later), restrictions had dropped to Level 2 and the chlorine demand was back to normal. The river turbidity was <100 NTU. In the words of the operators “time for some sleep, families and social lives!!!!!”

During the flood period there were huge increases in Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Coliforms, Streptococci, TOC, Nitrogen and Phosphorus.

HOW WOULD YOU HAVE COPED? WOULD YOU HAVE ANTICIPATED ALL THE CONSEQUENCES? HOW WILL YOU COPE WHEN IT HAPPENS???

70

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground

Meanwhile in Canberra!

At roughly the same time, Canberra experienced similar problems. The Cotter River catchment was responsible for delivering approximately 80% of the ACT’s annual water supply however, in January 2003, bushfires in the Canberra area burnt out most of this catchment. As well as the loss of vegetation and the consequent loss of the initial treatment step provided by the ecosystem, the burning also created conditions for erosion to occur. In the intense rains of February 2003, large amounts of sediment were carried from the catchment into the Cotter River and the reservoirs in that system. At the time of the fire, Canberra did not have a water filtration plant for water sourced from the Cotter catchment and consequently, an alternate water supply, from Googong Dam, had to be used (ACTEW Corporation, 2005). Since then ActewAGL have reassessed the risks and in record time built a modern WTP to cope with the resultant changes in raw water quality.

Figure 6.3.

Turbidity data for two of the rivers during the aftermath of the bushfires and subsequent heavy rain. (From Leak et al 2003) 1000000

Turbidity (NTU)

100000

10000

1000

100

10

1 24/02/03

3/03/03 Ovens(Bright)

Figure 6.4.

10/03/03 Buckland(Porepunkah)

17/03/03

24/03/03

Ovens(Wangaratta)

The junction of the King and Ovens Rivers at the Wangaratta WTP in the aftermath of the fires and floods (From Leak et al 2003).

71

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Drought Drought brings with it the obvious problems of security of supply. Everyone is capable of anticipating this and planning for it. Perhaps less obvious are problems associated with quality. Over the drought period of 2006/2008 many Victorian water utilities were faced with algal blooms (including blue green algae) that they previously had not experienced and had not anticipated.

Problems were solved on the run. In another twist, another water quality problem raised its head for another water utility.

Westernport Water manganese management in the drought of 2006/2007 – Case study.

Westernport Water supplies water to Phillip Island and an associated area of the mainland in southern central Victoria. The drought brought with it reservoir levels lower than they had ever been before (Figure 6.5). While the utility had some experience with managing problems with manganese in the past and lots of experience with managing algal blooms, levels of manganese started rising in the treated water leading to dirty water complaints. The operators had difficulty managing the changing levels.

Figure 6.6 shows the levels of soluble manganese in the reservoir over the period. By careful monitoring of the levels of soluble manganese in the raw and treated water lots of jar testing and plant trials, the manganese levels were brought under control and down to very low levels, well and truly suitable for distribution. Figure 6.7 shows the steady reduction in manganese in the treated water during the crisis period.

This is an example of a consequence of drought that probably would not have been anticipated.

Figure 6.5.

72

Westernport Water’s Candowie Reservoir at 9%. The WTP can be seen in the distance to the left of the reservoir wall.

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Figure 6.6. Manganese levels in Candowie Reservoir for the period 2005 to 2008. The drought brought with it higher levels of manganese than had ever previously been experienced.

2.5

Mn(sol) mg/L

2

1.5

1

0.5

07 20 1/ /1

14

6/

08

/2

00

7

07

28

/0

4/

20

07

18

/0

1/

20

06 20 0/ /1

10

2/

07

/2

00

6

06

24

/0

3/

20 2/ /1

20

05

5 00 09

/2

14

28

5/

/0

5/

20

05

0

Figure 6.7. Raw and treated water manganese during the early part of the drought event. Treated water manganese levels were maintained generally well below 0.1 mg/L for the remainder of the event.

Re s e r voir M n and T r e ate d Wate r M n

2.5

0 .8

0 .7

2

Raw Mn (mg/L)

0 .6

0 .5

1.5

0 .4

1

0 .3

0 .2

0.5 0 .1

0 19/11/2006

0

8/01/2007

27/02/2007

18/04/2007

7/06/2007

27/07/2007

R aw water M n T reated water M n Linear (R aw water M n) Linear (T reated water M n

73

Chapter 6 – Implement Programs On The Ground Planning For Unpredictable Events Think outside the box! Think of worst-case scenarios and real out there stuff. It just might save you from the problems that might arise. The author involved in the Westernport Water event, prior to experience with the event, would not have anticipated the problem, but by looking at some monitoring data and putting in place a more comprehensive monitoring program, it all started to make sense and fall into place. Learn from the experience of others. It can and will happen in your area. Algae are surviving over winter in water storages and persisting for much longer than they have previously. Heavy rains and floods will happen!

BE PREPARED. Expect the worst. Expect the unexpected.

Emergency Response Plans In the case of unpredictable events such as fire and flood it is important to have established Emergency Response Plans. These need to be made at a local utility level and linked to State and National Disaster Plans. It is not within the scope of this practical guide to cover how to set up such plans except to point out that utilities with a responsibility to supply safe drinking water need to be able to do this at all times.

Emergency Response Plans need to ask what is the worst-case scenario? How will we deal with it, and most importantly recognise the need to train and practice to cope with the emergency event. Scenario training should be undertaken with all relevant personnel and stakeholders. There is little point practicing within one utility in isolation from other organisations that might be involved. High-level enquiries after serious events frequently point to poor communication and cooperation between organisations during the event.

Only practice will overcome this.

So, for example, a utility used to treating water from a stable reservoir needs to ensure that the WTP operators are able to cope with rapidly rising turbidity perhaps up to 80 NTU or 100 NTU. One way this could be planned for is to arrange operator exchanges with utilities that regularly experience such variation. Allowing the operators to attend the site of a nearby “run of river” plant while it experiences such changes would be invaluable if and when the situation arises. Since this event is unlikely to happen very often for the utility with the stable reservoir, the exchange may need to be repeated every few years. The recent Gold Coast Water experience after heavy rainfall in South East Queensland is testament to this (see page 14).

A post event debrief or root cause analysis will also need to be undertaken to ensure that the event is scrutinised and measures put in place to ensure that the incident does not occur again (if possible) or that any identified gaps in protocol are addressed.

74

Chapter 7 Monitoring, Audit And Review How Do I Know That The Control Measures Are Working?

For many control points it is relatively easy to set targets and critical limits for that control point. For example, for media filtration, the target for water from each individual filter might be set at 0.1 NTU with a critical limit of 0.3 NTU. For a chlorine disinfection site, the target might be 0.7 mg/L free chlorine to achieve a Ct of 20 mg.min/L with critical limits of 0.5 mg/L and 1.8 mg/L. For the catchment control point it is not so easy. While river turbidity and E coli levels can be used to assess the effectiveness of some control measures, others such as those requiring changes in behaviour are a bit more difficult to assess. For these, verification will involve ensuring that the planned control measures are actually being “stuck to” in practice and may not actually involve looking at water quality at all. Table 7.1 provides some examples of checking to verify that changes are continuing to be applied.

Table 7.1 Examples of verification monitoring.

Control Measure Roads Maintenance Program

Responsible Officer Catchment Officer

When Periodically Annually

Records Diary record of checks having been made.

Environmental Services Manager

As reports come in from owners.

Diary record of checks having being made.

Initially on construction then seasonally coinciding with the calving season.

Diary record of checks having been made.

Catchment Officer reviews activities of the road maintenance company and periodically drives selected roads in the catchment.

On-site Sewage Management Program Environmental Services checks receipt of copies of maintenance reports from householder appointed plumbers.

Protection of the riparian zone from calf Catchment Officer, access Farm Liaison Officer Catchment Officer checks integrity of fencing in riparian areas adjacent to and at least within 500 m upstream of offtake area. (The actual distance needs to be established by taking samples for E coli over a period of time and during different conditions of river flow and rainfall).

As well as site visits, physical checks and interviews or “cups of tea”, it is important to judge the overall effectiveness of a catchment management program by careful monitoring. This is generally done over an extended period of time. Ideally, it should be possible to show reductions in turbidity or pathogens over time as water quality improves. For example the trend shown in Figure 3.6 on page 32 may progressively show a reduction in peak turbidity and perhaps a reduction in the frequency of the events.

75

Chapter 7 – Monitoring, Audit And Review Review The Effectiveness Of Control Measures Over Time And Compared To Baseline Data In our experience, this step is often not carried out. Equally, data often seems to be collected but is not adequately analysed.

Long-term trends can provide a lot of useful information. The turbidity and pathogen data needs to be considered in conjunction with rainfall data and any activity within the catchment such as new roads, tree felling and residential development to name a few. Without assessment of such long-term trends, the effectiveness of a program cannot be judged. It is also vitally important that the data includes results obtained prior to the implementation of new control measures. Therefore it is important to set up or review existing monitoring programs as soon as the sanitary survey is completed. Only by establishing a meaningful monitoring program early on can you collect baseline information for later comparison with data obtained after changes have been implemented. Monitoring data obtained from strategic points within a catchment can provide information on which parts or which sub-catchments might be generating most of a particular hazard such as turbidity or pathogens. Based on this information, a sound business case can be developed for implementing further catchment works and/or selling the message of catchment protection benefits.

Protection of New York’s catchments – Case study.

In 1995, New York City, the U.S. EPA and members of the environmental community joined in an historic partnership to protect drinking water for New York City. The landmark New York City Watershed Agreement was signed in January 1997.

Drinking water for New York City comes from reservoirs in a nearly 2,000 acre watershed located in Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Ulster, Sullivan, Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess counties. Together, these reservoirs provide about 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water per day via the Delaware system, the Croton system and the Catskill system.

A Whole Farm Planning process was initiated by the Watershed Agricultural Council (WAC, 2006) to facilitate management of agricultural impacts. The Deerfield Farm was one of the original ten pilot farms that helped design the Whole Farm Planning process. In a subsequent New York Department of Environmental Conservation study, it was found that best management practices implemented at the Deerfield Farm had led to a decrease of total dissolved phosphorus by 43% and particulate phosphorus by 29%, substantially decreasing harmful impacts on water quality without compromising the viability of the dairy operation.

Source: www.dec.ny.gov/lands/25599.html and www.osiny.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PressRelease_07_02_2007 Comparing time series data with baseline conditions can also help to show whether control measures are actually working as you intended them to and whether they should be introduced in other parts of the catchment or terminated as being inefficient.

Once a review of the data has been completed, any changes or gaps that have been identified in the management measures should be recorded in an updated Action Plan to allow further actions to be taken and progress measured.

Do I Need To Keep Records?

An important component of verification is to ensure that records are kept. These can be electronic or hard copy and should be stored in such a way that they can be accessed easily by anyone auditing the system, when someone leaves or is promoted.

76

Chapter 7 – Monitoring, Audit And Review All too often when an officer leaves a utility, their records are indecipherable by others and valuable data is effectively lost. Plan your records so that if you had to start the job “cold” they would be easy to understand.

Get someone else to check to see if they agree with you. Unfortunately many corporate record systems are not user friendly and search engines are almost useless. For this reason, the basic file structure must be extremely good. Ideally, your records should be easy to find, easy to look at and understand and able to be used in trend analysis and reporting.

Where catchment management is part of a legal requirement (see Chapter 2) the keeping of records is essential. The records help to build up an evidence trail to support any legal defences and to show that you have done what you were supposed to!

Don’t burden yourself with unnecessary record keeping but at the same time make sure that you have done enough to provide you with a good evidence base.

Review And Update The Management Plan Catchments change. Information rapidly outdates. People move and phone numbers and e-mail addresses change. It is vitally important to conduct regular reviews of the entire catchment management program to make sure it is up to date.

The US EPA (2006) recommends that a sanitary survey should be completed within 3 years of the last undertaking. As well as updating the state of the catchment, the information collected during the survey provides a basis on which to assess the effectiveness of implemented control measures from an observational perspective. Comparisons of aerial photographs are also useful to determine changes compared to baseline conditions.

Stakeholder lists may need to be reviewed and updated more frequently as will Emergency Response Plans.

Hazard analyses and risk assessments also require review and update. An annual review is usually suitable for these.

Review And Update The Action Plan

Stewardship Awards

As items in the action plan are implemented, there is obviously a need to update the Action Plan itself so that it accurately reflects what has been done and what still needs to be done.

To maintain momentum and ensure that on the ground implementation is still occurring, you may have to be innovative in how you address improvements. For instance, it may be necessary to commence an award system for catchment stewardship whereby members in a land management program may be assessed annually and the winner receive a “Catchment Steward of the Year” award.

Such an approach has worked well in other catchments and it may be wise to include innovative programs within the Action Plan, at least for consideration.

Ensuring that other catchment benefits are communicated to landholders, such as reduction in erosion, may also facilitate retention in land management programs.

Source: WAC (2006)

77

Chapter 7 – Monitoring, Audit And Review You should also consider innovative ways to access funding for catchment improvements. A research program to look at examples of catchment funding could be included as an update in the Action Plan. Alternatively you may need to include an item to determine how best to utilise utility resources in implementing catchment management programs.

Maintain Contact The identification of stakeholders and their values was an important early step in the catchment management program. Feedback should be provided and contact maintained with all those identified and in particular all those involved in the catchment user team and those involved in making changes in their activities. Continued participation is vitally dependent on these on going relationships, without them the best programs will fail.

You might also like to publish success stories in the local media. Even if the measures have not been as successful as you might have hoped, it is important to let the public and catchment users see what you are doing. Land rehabilitation programs that can be seen from the road should be advertised clearly so that those driving past can see what is happening and “monitor it” as they pass by on a regular basis. Together we make a difference, alone we struggle.

External Review The ADWG (2004) recommend external audit and review. This is likely to be included as part of a legal requirement for catchment management, however even if your program is a voluntary one you will benefit from a review by an independent external specialist. The aim of the external review is not to find fault, but to identify what is being done well and what is being done not so well and to provide suggestions for improvement. Remember a fresh pair of eyes can see things you have overlooked. The external reviewer can become an ally and a colleague to assist in further management. After all, we are all interested in helping to get safe drinking water to the consumer 100% of the time and also to protect and where necessary rehabilitate our precious environment.

78

Chapter 8 Chapter 8 Closing Words Provision of safe drinking water requires diligence, attention to detail, monitoring, correction and review.

Catchments are the first barrier in the water supply chain and are a key element in the process of delivering safe water to the consumer.

This practical guide has provided a sound background to the management of catchments. Catchments because of their nature may appear at first to be difficult to manage, especially if you have to share the catchment with other people! However, if you take the time to understand your catchment and build relationships with your stakeholders, the chances of producing safe drinking water will be greatly increased.

The advice provided here might seem to some like more work, but it is the foundation of supplying safe, quality drinking water. You spend the time making sure that your treatment chemicals come from reputable suppliers – why not pay the same attention to your raw material?

A well understood and managed catchment delivers many benefits – one of which means peace of mind that the water delivered to consumers starts with a cleaner, healthier raw material, reduces the challenges on the treatment plant and increases the chances of consistently producing water that is safe to drink and will not result in an outbreak of waterborne disease of the types that have been described all around the developed world.

The thing is, managing catchments is difficult because it means dealing with people and biological systems, it’s not easy like engineering!!

And remember:

Poor quality source water

Good quality source water Fewer barriers needed Lower risk Lower treatment cost More product confidence

versus

More barriers needed Higher risk Higher treatment cost Less product confidence

79

References References ActewCorp 2005 (p70) – www.actew.com.au ADWG (2004). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. NHMRC, Australia.

ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand) National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No. 4 ISBN 09578245 0 5 (set).

DEC 2006 (p24) DEC (NSW Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006) Local planning for healthy waterways using NSW Water Quality Objectives. Published by Department of Environment and Conservation NSW. ISBN 1 74137 8931. www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/usingnswwqos06167.pdf DEUS (Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability) and Kempsey Shire Council (2003). Kempsey Integrated Water Cycle Management Strategy Part 1: Concept Study. March 2003. www.deus.nsw.gov. au/publications/Kempsey%20IWCM%20Concept%20Study%20March%202003.pdf Leak,M, Passuello,R and Tyler,B. 2003. “I’ve seen fire. Ive seen rain. Ive seen muddy waters that I thought would never clear again.” WaterWorks June 2003 pp38-42.

Meyer,K. (1994). How to Shit in the Woods. An environmentally sound approach to a lost art.

USEPA 2006 (p77) USEPA (2006) Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 5th January 2006.

WAC (Watershed Agricultural Council) 2006 (p66 and 77) Watershed Farm & Forest. 2006 Annual Report Edition. www.nycwatershed.org/pdfs/WFF%20AnnRept%202006%20Final%20.pdf Water Futures, Ecos Environmental Consulting and Environmental Data Analysis (2006) Catchment Management Plan for the Lavertys Gap Weir Catchment. October 2006.

WHO (World Health Organization) (2006) Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality FIRST ADDENDUM TO THIRD EDITION Volume 1 Recommendations. ISBN 92 4 154696 4

80

Appendices Appendix 1. Example Values Assessment Source: Water Futures, Ecos Environmental Consulting and Environmental Data Analysis (2006) Values Assessment Paper within the ‘Catchment Management Plan for the Lavertys Gap Weir Catchment’. October 2006.

81

Appendices

Appendix 2. Example Sanitary Survey Approaches Source 2: www.deus.nsw.gov.au/Publications/IWCM%20Guidelines%20-%20October%202004.pdf

82

Appendices

83

Appendices

84

Appendices

85

Appendices

86

87

88

Disclaimer This document does not purport to be a comprehensive statement on catchment management but rather aims to create awareness of what is possible, what might be done and indeed what has been done. However the authors, reviewers and the organisations supporting the production of this manual (WIOA, AWA, WSAA and ICE WaRM) are not responsible for the outcomes of any actions taken on the basis of information in this document, nor for any errors or omissions. The authors and the aforementioned organisations disclaim all and any liability to any person in respect of anything and the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by a person in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. If further expert advice is required the services of a competent professional should be sought.

WILLPRINT SHEPPARTON 03 5831 6565