Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality …info.gladstonerc.qld.gov.au/meetings/20151103/attachments...2015/11/03 · Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan

WBM

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan(GRUSQMP)Phase 3 ReportSeptember 2015

G:\Admin\B20897.g.bad\R.B20897.002.02.GRUSQMP-Final.docx

Document Control Sheet

BMT WBM Pty Ltd

Level 8, 200 Creek Street

Brisbane Qld 4000

Australia

PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004

Tel: +61 7 3831 6744

ABN 54 010 830 421

www.bmtwbm.com.au

Document R.B20897.002.01.docx Client Gladstone Regional Council

Title Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report

Client Contact

Mark Cochrane

Project Manager Brad Dalrymple Client Reference

Contract No. 135/14

Authors BMT WBM: Paul Dubowski and Brad Dalrymple Synopsis The Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan (GRUSQMP) has been developed to provide a ‘roadmap’ for Council to improve current stormwater management processes and practices.

REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY

Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by

0 – Draft 17 September 2014 Brad Dalrymple

Paul Dubowski

1 – Final Draft 2 April 2015 Brad Dalrymple

Paul Dubowski

2 – Final 14 September 2015 Brad Dalrymple

Paul Dubowski

DISTRIBUTION

Destination Revision

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gladstone Regional Council

BMT WBM File

BMT WBM Library

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

PDF

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by BMT WBM Pty Ltd (BMT WBM) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by BMT WBM under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report.

Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by BMT WBM at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on this Document Control Sheet. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. BMT WBM excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report.

Suggested report citation: BMT WBM (2015) Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report, prepared for Gladstone Regional Council. Brisbane.

http://www.bmtwbm.com.au/

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report i

Executive Summary


Executive Summary

Why should we be concerned about the increasing threats that urban stormwater quality places on our social,

environmental and economic health and well-being? What are the benefits and costs of improved stormwater

quality management practices? How can Gladstone Regional Council manage the increasing threats to

receiving waterways from urban development in a cost efficient manner?

The Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality

Management Plan (GRUSQMP) has been developed to

provide a ‘roadmap’ for Council to improve current

stormwater management processes and practices. It

has been developed in recognition that the social,

environmental and economic health and well-being of

the region are dependent on healthy waterways.

The plan is based on an analysis of locally-specific

barriers to sustainable waterway management and

consideration of some of the benefits and costs of

improved stormwater quality management practices.

This analysis has been used to develop a suite of

recommendations aimed at improving current

stormwater management processes and practices.

The recommendations are presented as the

‘GRUSQMP Action Plan’ which can be used by Council

to track resources necessary for each action and to

track progress in the implementation of the plan.

Developing a locally-specific ‘business case’ for

improved waterways management will provide Council

and other stakeholders the key economic tool to support

investment into this plan.

The GRUSQMP Action Plan focuses on the improved

management of urban stormwater quality and receiving

waterway health through adaptive governance, flexible

institutional arrangements and responsive

management. This includes the reinforcement of

sustainable water management practices into Council’s:

daily operations; planning, development and regulatory

compliance; targeted urban stormwater quality

improvement projects; monitoring; and review.

The GRUSQMP Action Plan supports a renewed and

holistic approach to the planning and management of

the region’s water cycle through total water cycle

planning. Through this new approach, the GRUSQMP

will help transition Gladstone into a water sensitive

region by capitalising upon the opportunities possible by

integrating stormwater, wastewater and potable water

management.

The key recommendations of the GRUSQMP are for

Council to:

Endorse the GRUSQMP and assign responsibilities

to relevant Directorate/s.

Review resources and timeframes for the sustained

implementation of the plan and consider during the

budgeting process.

Review the GRUSQMP Action Plan with a particular

focus in the short term (first three years following

plan endorsement)/ ‘priority actions’ identified.

Undertake an annual progress review and high level

revision of the GRUSQMP with particular reference

to current legislation and report on progress.

Undertake a comprehensive review and revision of

the GRUSQMP in conjunction with adopted Council

policies.

The implementation of the GRUSQMP will significantly

improve the way Council manages its waterway assets

and the way it supports the community, industry and

environment in the use and custodianship of its

waterways.

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report ii

Contents


Contents

Acronyms 4

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The vision for stormwater management in the Gladstone region 2

1.2 Why develop the GRUSQMP? 3

2 Benefits and Costs of Becoming a Water Sensitive Region 4

2.1 Benefits associated with becoming a water sensitive region 4

2.2 Costs associated with becoming a water sensitive region 6

3 Developing the Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan 8

3.1 How has the GRUSQMP been developed? 8

3.2 Objectives of the GRUSQMP 10

4 Existing Activities and Recommended Actions 11

4.1 Organisational structure, roles and responsibilities 11

4.2 Corporate and Community Services Directorate 13

4.2.1 Corporate policy 13

4.2.2 Corporate management systems 15

4.3 Chief Financial Officer Directorate 16

4.3.1 Business case for urban stormwater quality management 16

4.3.2 Funding 17

4.4 Planning and Environment Directorate 18

4.4.1 Planning schemes, development policy and guidelines 18

4.4.2 Development assessment 21

4.4.3 Natural areas management 25

4.4.4 Training for Council officers 26

4.4.5 Training for executive officers and Councillors 29

4.4.6 Engagement with local industry 31

4.4.7 Engagement with the community 32

4.4.8 Environmental education and compliance 35

4.4.9 Monitoring 36

4.5 Engineering Services Directorate 40

4.5.1 Total water cycle management and catchment management planning 40

4.5.2 Local government infrastructure planning 42

4.5.3 Council works 43

4.5.4 Asset management 44

4.5.5 Infrastructure charges 46

4.5.6 Off-site stormwater quality solutions (offsets) 47

5 GRUSQMP Action Plan 48

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report iii

Executive Summary


6 Review of the GRUSQMP and Action Plan 49

6.1 Review of the GRUSQMP Action Plan 49

6.2 Review of the GRUSQMP 49

7 Conclusion and Recommendations 50

7.1 Recommendations 51

8 References 52

Appendix A Review of Relevant Water Quality Objectives A-1

Appendix B GRUSQMP Phase 3 Workshop Consultation Stakeholders B-1

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report iv

Contents


Acronyms

ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation

ADAC Asset Design As Constructed

BCC Brisbane City Council

BMP Best management practice

BSL Boyne Smelter Limited

CMP Catchment management plan

DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

DoE (Commonwealth) Department of Environment

EHMP Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (Healthy Waterways)

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EP Act Environmental Protection Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ERA Environmentally Relevant Activity

ESC Erosion and sediment control

EV Environmental value

GHHP Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership

GL Giga litre

GPC Gladstone Ports Corporation

GPT Gross pollutant trap

GRC Gladstone Regional Council

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GRUSQMP Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan – Phase 3 Report

ICC Ipswich City Council

IECA International Erosion Control Association

IPWEA(Q) Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia - Queensland Branch

kL Kilolitre

KPI(s) Key performance indicators

LGIP Local Government Infrastructure Plan

NRM Natural resource management

NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy

OPW Operational works

PCIMP Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program

Reef Plan Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013

RUSMIG Reef Urban Stormwater Management Improvement Group

SCRC Sunshine Coast Regional Council

SEQ South East Queensland

SPP State Planning Policy

TWCM Total water cycle management

WQG Water quality guideline

WQO Water quality objective

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report 1

Introduction


1 Introduction

The Gladstone region is recognised for its vibrant lifestyle, high value natural assets

and strong commerce and industry. As a coastal region, Gladstone’s economic, social

and environmental values are intrinsically linked with and in many ways dependent

upon healthy waterways.

These waterways provide for a broad range of Gladstone’s societal needs, including

recreation, water supply, sanitation, flood protection, food, amenity, and cultural identity.

These needs, also known as ‘ecosystem services’ are however, threatened by the

intensification of waterway uses and pressures associated with regional growth.

Pressures on the waterways are further exacerbated by a range of other threats such

as increased climate variability, which is leading to more intense, frequent and extreme

climatic events including heatwaves, droughts and floods. If not appropriately

managed, the combined pressures of these threats associated with continued urban

growth and a changing climate will impact directly on the well-being of the region and its

community.

While traditional water management approaches are inadequate to address these

challenges, Gladstone’s growth presents an opportunity to apply more contemporary

approaches to manage pressures. Specifically Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

and Total Water Cycle Management (TWCM) can help to manage impacts and provide

a broad suite of benefits which add to the liveability of the region, support its economy

and minimise impacts to its environmental values.

The benefits of having healthy waterways have been identified by Gladstone Regional

Council (GRC) in the development of its vision for the region as part of the Gladstone

Region Community Plan (GRC, 2008). Specifically, this vision seeks to achieve “the

best integration of community wellbeing, environmental protection, industry and

commerce”.

With respect to water cycle management, transitioning Gladstone towards a ‘water

sensitive region’ will be integral to the achievement of the vision set by the Gladstone

community. The Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan –

Phase 3 Report (hereafter referred to as the GRUSQMP) was therefore developed as

Council’s stormwater quality management ‘roadmap’ to enable this transitioning

process.

It seeks to achieve this aim through the application of WSUD principles into all of

Council’s urban stormwater-related planning and management decisions. Such a

significant change will undoubtedly challenge GRC’s current governance arrangements,

particularly as it moves towards more integrative and multi-disciplinary processes.

The GRUSQMP provides an action plan for adaptive governance underpinned by a

flexible institutional regime which co-exists with responsive management processes.

The GRUSQMP Action Plan provides the framework for reinforcing sustainable water

management practices, ensuring regulatory compliance and managing stormwater

quality.


Introduction


1.1 The vision for stormwater management in the Gladstone region

The initial trigger for the GRUSQMP was to ensure regulatory compliance

with the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (Department of

Environment, Heritage and Protection (DEHP), 2009) and the State

Planning Policy 4/2010 Healthy Waters (DEHP, 2010). Feedback from

stakeholders during Phase 1 of the project was however that they wanted a

plan which “looks beyond the legislation and achieves positive community

outcomes” (O2, 2011a).

In developing a vision for future stormwater management in the region

during previous phases of this project, the stakeholders consulted were not

satisfied that current regulatory standards were an adequate standard for

stormwater quality management. They were also unsatisfied with simply

“helping to protect” the environmental values of the region.

The development of the GRUSQMP was seen as, “an opportunity for

Gladstone Regional Council to be recognised nationally and internationally

for achieving community and environmental wellbeing, creating a friendly

and vibrant place to live, and offering the highest quality of life” (O2,

2011a). A vision was developed to reflect this aspiration (see adjacent)

and a series of aims and principles (available in the Phase 1 report, (O2,

2011)) were also developed.

The vision, aims and principles seek to transform the Gladstone region into

a water sensitive region which reflects the broader vision for the region set

by the Gladstone Region Corporate Plan (GRC, 2013f), hereafter referred

to as the Corporate Plan. Further discussion on the link between the vision

and the GRUSQMP is provided in the following section.

Commitment to Council’s vision for the region, particularly with regard to protecting the Great Barrier

Reef, is demonstrated through its partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

(GBRMPA) in the Reef Guardian program. As a Reef Guardian Council, GRC has committed to

improving the health of its waterways including through improved urban stormwater management

practices.

More recently, the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan (Department of Environment (DoE),

2015), commits local governments to a range of actions related to urban stormwater quality

management. Some of these actions are currently being further developed by the Local Government

Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and the Reef Urban Stormwater Management Improvement

Group (RUSMIG).

Vision for Stormwater Management in the Gladstone Region

To manage stormwater in innovative and cost-effective ways that help protect and

enhance the environmental values and natural assets of the Gladstone regional area.

In doing so, stormwater management will help current and future generations to enjoy

water-related activities in the region such as boating and fishing.


Introduction


1.2 Why develop the GRUSQMP?

As noted above, developing the GRUSQMP was initially catalysed by State legislation

but has since been furthered through Council’s own vision, through its commitment to

the Reef Guardian program and through the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan

(Department of Environment (DoE), 2015). The benefits of developing an urban

stormwater quality management plan according to DEHP, 2010 include:

Having a long-term strategic approach to stormwater quality management within

council as part of a total water cycle management (TWCM) plan.

Having strategies in place to improve or maintain the water quality of waterways in

the local government area.

Meeting legislative requirements.

Developing the plan will also help achieve the objectives of the Reef Guardian Program,

the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan and Council’s own Corporate Plan. The

Corporate Plan identifies good governance as a key theme and states that Gladstone

seeks to achieve “organisational reliability facilitated through strong leadership and

informed decision making” (GRC, 2013f). The GRUSQMP responds to this aim by

addressing the numerous strategies identified in the Corporate Plan as they relate to

stormwater quality management, including:

Strategy 1.1.1 – Increase the efficiency of development and regulatory processes

for well-prepared development proposals in identified growth areas

Strategy 1.1.2 – Provide for innovative planning approaches to growth challenges

and development opportunities

Strategy 1.1.3 – Ensure enabling infrastructure is available in identified growth

greenfield and in-fill areas

Strategy 1.3.1 – Being a Council that is well-informed and proactive on matters

surrounding economic growth in a global, regional and local context

Strategy 1.2.2 – Implement an asset renewal strategy that keeps pace with

technology and the changing way the community uses public facilities

Strategy 3.1.1 – Foster the balance between growth and conservation

Strategy 3.1.3 – Foster the preservation of the region’s green belts, wildlife corridors

and natural assets

Strategy 3.1.4 – Encourage the reduction of environmental risks within the region

Strategy 3.2.1 – Form alliances with, and provide opportunities for community

members and groups to participate in events and initiatives that have a green focus

Strategy 3.2.3 – Foster community attitudinal change, personal responsibility and

respect for the environment

Strategy 4.1.1 – Genuinely engage all stakeholders

Strategy 4.1.2 – Make representations on a wide range of issues that may impact

the region to attain better outcomes for our community

Strategy 4.1.3 – Promote opportunities for volunteering

Strategy 4.2.1 – Develop future leaders within Council’s workforce

Strategy 4.3.1 – Encourage effective coordination across departments to achieve

continuous improvement

Strategy 4.3.2 – Foster a problem solving culture within the organisation

Strategy 4.3.3 – Ensure Council’s financial sustainability through responsible

management and planning of finances and assets

Strategy 4.3.4 – Ensure Council resource allocation is responsible, efficient and

sustainable.


Benefits and Costs of Becoming a Water Sensitive Region


2 Benefits and Costs of Becoming a Water Sensitive Region

Transitioning towards a water sensitive region could deliver a broad suite of benefits to

the Gladstone region. This section provides examples of benefits and costs which

Gladstone could expect from the application of WSUD principles as set out in the

GRUSQMP.

2.1 Benefits associated with becoming a water sensitive region

Previous studies suggest that even a 1% improvement in the condition of the Great

Barrier Reef (GBR) would have a significant benefit to residents (Rolfe and Windle,

2012). Marsden Jacob Associates (2014) calculated that the mean annual value of a

1% improvement in the GBR condition to Curtis Coast residents is around $310,000. In

making this estimate, however, they also cautioned that the estimate was conservative

and that “given the uncertainties in the surveying and economic modelling, values could

be as high as $640,000 per annum.”

Evidence also indicates that that there is a direct positive net effect on house prices in

the vicinity of water sensitive assets (often a selling point for knowledgeable

developers). For example, recent assessments of financial benefits of have shown that:

After construction of one wetland system in Perth, the median house price within

200 m of the wetland increased in value by $17,000 to $26,000 above the trend

increase in house values in the area. This gain more than offsets the initial outlay of

the restoration project and early project disturbances to surrounding residents (CRC

for Water Sensitive Cities, 2015).

Streetscape raingardens in Sydney were found to increase property values by

around 6% ($54,000) for houses within 50 m of the raingardens and 4% ($36,000)

up to 100 m away from the raingardens. This demonstrates that the community

values raingardens highly, and a typical raingarden installation at a street

intersection can generate around $1.5 million increase in residential value (Polyakov

et al., 2015).

A premium of up to $18,000 was built into the sale prices of houses with rainwater

tanks. This premium was likely to be greater than the costs of installation, even

allowing for the cost of time that home owners must devote to research, purchase

and installation (Zhang et al., 2015).

The financial benefits associated with the above examples are predicated on WSUD

assets being well designed, constructed and established. This requires local

government authorities to have a high capacity for implementing WSUD.




Examples of other benefits associated with

effective stormwater quality management through

WSUD are provided in adjacent table. They are

organised according to the objectives defined by

the vision documented in the Gladstone Region

Community Plan (GRC, 2008), including:

Community wellbeing

Environmental protection

Industry and commerce.

Table 2-1 Examples of benefits associated with effective stormwater quality management through effective WSUD

Community Wellbeing Benefits Environmental Protection Benefits Industry and Commerce Benefits

Healthier economy Cleaner, healthier waterways Protection of commercial fisheries and aquaculture

Improved liveability Protection and enhancement of biodiversity and habitats

Protection of tourism values

Improved community health Reduction in sediment, nutrient, oil, metal and pesticide discharges

Improved industry ‘green credentials’ and marketing opportunities

Improved amenity Reduced sediment deposition on seagrass beds and corals

Increase in property values near WSUD features

Protection of cultural and recreational values and icons

Reduced risk of algal blooms Stimulate local industry through new asset design, construction and maintenance

High-quality, integrated open spaces and natural areas

Improved creek bank stability Reduced sediment removal costs for shipping navigation

Community and landscape resilience to climatic extremes

Ecological resilience to major droughts and floods

Reduced damage to commercial vessels

Drainage and flood mitigation Reduced sewerage overflows Regulatory compliance

Micro-climate management and resilience to urban heat island effect

Reduced litter in creeks and marine environments

Research opportunities

Improved water security Improved environmental flows in creeks and rivers

Healthier economy

Reduced water treatment/supply costs Reduced water treatment/supply costs

Avoided and/or offset major centralised water infrastructure (e.g. desalination plants)

Increase in property values near WSUD features

Reduced/avoided costs of waterway rehabilitation and clean up




2.2 Costs associated with becoming a water sensitive region

Establishing the true costs of becoming a water sensitive region would require

undertaking a locally-specific business case, ideally based on detailed total water cycle

management planning. Costs cannot therefore be readily identified at this stage as

neither of these studies have been undertaken to date, although form priority actions

under the GRUSQMP.

Some previous work, relevant to Gladstone has however been undertaken examining

the costs and benefits of applying WSUD to greenfield development. The document “A

Business Case for Urban Stormwater Management” (Water by Design, 2010), provides

an analysis of the financial costs and benefits of WSUD case studies from across

Queensland.

The study examined a very limited number of quantifiable benefits, but nevertheless

determined that the benefits of WSUD practices to achieve best-practice urban

stormwater management are likely to exceed the costs. The study found that those few

easily quantifiable financial benefits assessed typically outweigh costs by 200% (or

greater).

The study also found that best practice stormwater quality management using WSUD

for new dwellings is typically less than 1% of the total cost of establishing a new

dwelling. When undertaken properly, developers can offset those costs through

improved land values adjacent to WSUD assets. The Riverstone Estate in Gladstone

provides one local example of where increased land values could be expected adjacent

to WSUD assets.

The study also found that the impact of ongoing maintenance cost on Council budgets

is negligible, citing the example of Brisbane City Council. According to the study, the

annual growth in WSUD management costs in Brisbane would require an increase in

total revenue of approximately 0.005%.

These costs are however associated only with stormwater quality management. To

become a truly water sensitive region, Gladstone would need also to plan for and

improve upon other parts of the water cycle (water supply and wastewater) in an

integrated manner. This is why total water cycle management planning should be used

to inform a locally specific business case for urban stormwater quality management.




Doing nothing would be much more expensive

The reality of water quality management is that if pollutants are not managed at their

source, there are limited alternative options which would ensure that water quality

objectives could be met or that environmental values would be protected. This means

that all of the WSUD benefits mentioned above would become missed opportunities as

Gladstone continues to grow.

It also means that Council and local industry will to need invest significantly greater

resources to try and manage water quality impacts with significantly less efficacy.

Managing the impacts once they have occurred will come at significant expense to

industry, the community and the environment. The community would bear the majority

of the cost through unpopular solutions such as increases rates and charges.

From a financial perspective alone, it therefore makes sense to manage stormwater

quality at its source as part of a total water cycle approach. Consider for example the

economic impact poor water quality could have on tourism in the region.

Tourism in the Fitzroy natural resource management (NRM) region (which includes

Gladstone), contributed $500 million to the local economy in the 2011-12 financial year

(Deloitte Access Economics, 2013). If visitor numbers declined due to water quality

issues and the region suffered just a 10% decrease in tourism revenue as a result, the

reduction in turnover would be $1 billion over the next 20 years. This is a conservative

estimate based on the 2011-12 value of the industry.

While a reliable estimate of the value of the Gladstone region fishing industry is difficult

to determine, it has previously been valued by local fishermen at $40 million annually

(Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 2014). In other regions (e.g. Sydney

Harbour), poor water quality has resulted in a complete ‘shut down’ in commercial

fishing. This is obviously an undesirable outcome for the Gladstone harbour.

The above examples only represent two sectors that rely on healthy waterways.

Economic losses across the local economy associated with poor water quality would

likely be substantially greater. Poor water quality has the potential to impact a range of

other sectors, including (for example) the Gladstone Port and ancillary uses (e.g.

through increased dredging and vessel damage costs), recreational fishing industry,

boating/skiing industry and other industries associated with these sectors.

Investment in becoming a water sensitive region is considerably cheaper than the cost

of doing nothing. Therefore, there is clearly an economic case for investment in

strategic water cycle planning and management in Gladstone.

Across Australian households, the average willingness to pay to protect the health of

the Great Barrier Reef has been estimated at around $22 per household per annum for

five years (Rolfe and Windle, 2012). How this is translated to local households and

what other funding opportunities exist would need to be established through the locally

specific business case.


Developing the Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan


3 Developing the Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan

3.1 How has the GRUSQMP been developed?

The development of the GRUSQMP has been guided by the Urban Stormwater Quality

Planning Guidelines (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP),

2010). It involves a five phase process which is summarised in the adjacent figure.

To date, Council have completed the first two phases of the process and this report

represents the key deliverable for the third phase in the process. Reports from the first

two phases were:

Phase 1 - Workshop Summary - Gladstone Regional Stormwater Quality

Management Plan, Phase 1A Preliminary Activities (O2, 2011a)

Phase 1B - Risk Assessment - Gladstone Regional Council Urban Stormwater

Quality Management Plan (O2, 2011b)

Gladstone Regional Council Stormwater Quality Management

Plan Phase 2 Broad Scale Quality & Quantity Assessment (O2,

2012).

This (Phase 3) report builds on the finding of the first two phases and provides an

action plan for implementation of the fourth phase in the process and recommendations

for review which forms part of Phase 5. During Phase 1, the need for catchment based

plans was identified that would form part of the implementation during Phase 4.

The process used in developing, implementing and reviewing the GRUSQMP




The methodology used to prepare the GRUSQMP involved:

A comprehensive desktop review of GIS data, reports, policies and procedures (as supplied by Council and collated by the project team)

A two day stakeholder consultation workshops facilitated by the BMT WBM project team (held over 30

th and 31

st July 2014)

Inspection of existing stormwater management assets in Gladstone by the project team and Council officers

Review of additional reports provided by stakeholders following the workshop

Preparation of the draft GRUSQMP

Review of the draft GRUSQMP by Council and key stakeholders

Analysis of comments from the review process

Review of final draft GRUSQMP by Council and key stakeholders

A follow up stakeholder consultation workshop also facilitated by the BMT WBM project team (held on the 28

th May 2015).

Preparation of the final GRUSQMP.

The stakeholders engaged during the two workshops are summarised in Appendix B. The aims of the first workshops were to collaboratively:

Discuss WSUD in a local context and how it could be applied to Gladstone

Explore Council’s existing processes, practices, planning as they relates to stormwater quality management

Explore possible opportunities for better stormwater quality management

Explore possible solutions for improved better stormwater quality management.

The opportunities and solutions discussed during the workshops have been reflected in this report.

The aims of the second workshops were to:

Provide an overview of the draft GRUSQMP

Provide an opportunity for key stakeholders to discuss the draft GRUSQMP

Provide an opportunity for key stakeholders to provide feedback.

Healthy Waterways, through the Water by Design Program, has also been working with

the RUSMIG at improving GRC’s WSUD capacity. The Gladstone Regional Council

WSUD Action Plan (Water by Design, 2014) was developed through the Reef Rescue

Project “Collaboration to the Rescue”.

Although the GRUSQMP is a separate project, Water by Design was consulted in the

development of the GRUSQMP (during the Phase 3 consultation workshop).

Furthermore, while the GRUSQMP Action Plan reflects many similar actions to the

Gladstone Regional Council WSUD Action Plan, it is generally much broader in scope.

The two action plans should therefore be considered complementary plans that can be

implemented in conjunction with one another.

Stakeholder Workshop 31 July 2014




3.2 Objectives of the GRUSQMP

As noted in Section 1, the GRUSQMP was developed as a stormwater quality management roadmap to enable the transitioning

of Gladstone towards a water sensitive region. The objectives of this plan are to:

Analyse existing Council processes, roles, responsibilities, systems and practices to identify strategies for better stormwater

quality management

Identify suitably responsive actions which will help GRC transition towards a water sensitive region

Formulate the actions into a practical plan which can be readily implemented by technical officers and assist decision

makers. This requires the identification of costs, timeframes, responsibilities, priorities and the feasibility of each action.

Ensure the plan reflects the vision for the Gladstone as a water sensitive region as determined during Phase 1 of the project

Identify a suitable review period for the plan and identify key implementation issues.

An analysis of relevant water management objectives including long-term receiving water environmental values (EVs), receiving

water quality objectives (WQOs) and stormwater discharge WQOs was also required as part of Council’s brief. This has been

provided in Appendix A of the report.

The Urban Stormwater Quality Planning Guidelines (DEHP, 2010), notes that actions and strategies should be developed within

the context of a TWCM plan. As stated above, TWCM planning has not yet commenced for Gladstone and is therefore a key

recommendation of the GRUSQMP Action Plan. Once a TWCM is developed, the GRUSQMP may need to undergo a cursory

review to ensure consistency and integrate any possible new actions.


Existing Activities and Recommended Actions


4 Existing Activities and Recommended Actions

4.1 Organisational structure, roles and responsibilities

Gladstone Regional Council is responsible for a myriad of different services that

impact upon stormwater quality. Those responsibilities have been broadly grouped

according to Council’s directorates so that responsibility for actions formulated in this

plan can be readily assigned to each directorate. Council’s directorates include:

Corporate and community services

Chief financial officer

Planning and environment

Engineering services.

A summary of the organisational structure along with the indicative responsibilities

related to stormwater management is summarised in the figure on the following page.

A discussion on recommended actions for improved stormwater quality management

is provided thereafter, according to the structure shown in this figure. The

responsibilities shown in this figure are to be more accurately resolved by Council

following finalisation of the GRUSQMP.

While each responsibility is shown under the directorate expected to lead each action

identified in the GRUSQMP Plan, multiple directorates are likely to be involved in

most actions.




Gladstone Regional Council Indicative Organisational Structure Roles and Responsibilities




4.2 Corporate and Community Services Directorate

4.2.1 Corporate policy

The key corporate policies relevant to stormwater quality management include:

Gladstone Region Community Plan (GRC, 2013b)

Gladstone Regional Council Corporate Plan 2013-2017 (GRC, 2013f)

Gladstone Regional Council 2014/2015 Operational Plan (GRC, 2014a).

Both the Community Plan and Corporate Plan provide high level strategies which

guide Council towards its stated vision (given in Section 1.1). Although numerous

strategies identified in the Corporate Plan relate to and provide a basis for the

GRUSQMP, the next iteration of the plan would benefit from specific mention of

waterway protection and enhancement, WSUD, erosion and sediment control (ESC)

and TWCM.

The Operational Plan provides the next level of corporate planning and includes more

specific outcomes and measures as well as key performance indicators (KPIs). The

outcomes and measures however only include two specific ‘reference matters’ which

relate to the GRUSQMP namely:

1. Outcome: A proactive ESC compliance program is maintained.

Measure: Baseline data is collected on sites patrolled and compliance status.

2. Outcome: Effective and inclusive coordination of interdepartmental input into

development assessment.

Measure: Develop and implement a strategy to promote interdepartmental input

into development application processes.




While the proactive ESC compliance program is highly valuable, it is limited strictly to

building sites. The next iteration of the plan would therefore benefit from

outcomes/measures related to TWCM, operational phase stormwater quality

management (WSUD), waterway protection and enhancement, riparian restoration

and bank stabilisation.

Similarly, in preparing the next organisational KPIs, it is recommend that Council

consider appropriate stormwater-related targets, such as “100% of Council capital

works projects developed in accordance with WSUD principles” and “100% of Council

capital works projects developed meeting erosion sediment control objectives”.

This could help Council understand whether it is complying with its own standards and

providing a leadership role in WSUD.

The building phase provisions should remain in future versions of the Operational

Plan to ensure their continued relevance and priority. Reference to the actions of the

GRUSQMP may assist in drafting suitable provisions.

Summary of ‘corporate policy’ recommendations:

1. For the next iteration of the Corporate Plan, prepare strategies directly related to waterway protection and enhancement, riparian restoration and bank stabilisation, WSUD and TWCM.

2. For the next iteration of the Operational Plan prepare outcomes/measures and stormwater-related KPI targets for TWCM, operational and construction phase stormwater quality management, waterway protection and enhancement, riparian restoration and bank stabilisation.

3. Retain building phase and provisions in future versions of the Operational Plan to ensure their continued relevance and priority.

Water sensitive practices in Gladstone




4.2.2 Corporate management systems

Council’s Policy and Corporate Standard Framework CS-1/2013 provides a clear

structure and process for the initiation, development and review of Council policies and

corporate standards. A range of standards have been developed under this framework

that apply indirectly to stormwater quality covering topics such as hazardous chemicals

and waste management. Those standards which are directly applicable include:

Environmental Policy P-2013/9 has been developed to provide direction to Council's

operations to enable sustainable, environmentally managed growth and the

preservation and enhancement of environmental values of the Gladstone Region.

Council activities have been assessed for their impact on the environment and have

been classified into nine (9) key aspects in this policy.

‘Discharges to waterways’ include one of the nine aspects. The Environmental

Policy includes provisions such as: promoting waste reduction, reuse and recycling;

setting measureable environmental objectives and targets; and incorporating

environmental, social, cultural and financial considerations when planning for future

development.

Given these high level policy statements apply to ‘discharges to waterways’ which

includes stormwater, the policy is suitably worded to address stormwater quality

management. It does not therefore require any amendment to improve stormwater

quality management.

Asset Management Policy P-3.01.01 provides guidelines for implementing

consistent asset management processes throughout Council. The policy applies to

all types of infrastructure including stormwater assets.

The policy could potentially be improved by providing some direction on valuing

‘green assets’. This will be necessary to ensure stormwater management systems

such as wetlands, swales and bioretention systems can be accounted for and

maintenance resources allocated accordingly. This is further discussed below in the

Section 4.5.4.

Standard CS-2/2104 Risk Management has been developed to provide Council

employees with an overview of Council's risk management process and

requirements. The policy provides clear direction for risk assessment commensurate

with the GRUSQMP planning process. Changes to the policy are therefore not

recommended.

It is also noted the policy requires Council to identify risks for any uncertainties that

may impact Council’s ability to achieve its objectives. A risk assessment for water

quality in receiving environments was undertaken as part of Phases 1 and 2 of the

Gladstone SQMP and priority catchments identified.

According to the policy, risks need to be managed, monitored and reported. Each of

these items is addressed separately below. Given that the identification of

treatments was not undertaken at Phase 2 of the GRUSQMP, this will now need to

be undertaken through CMPs and TWCM planning. Monitoring and reporting will

also require separate actions as discussed further below.

Summary of ‘corporate management systems’ recommendations:

4. Revise Asset Management Policy P-3.01.01 to include direction on the valuation of ‘green assets’ such as wetlands, swales and bioretention systems.




4.3 Chief Financial Officer Directorate

4.3.1 Business case for urban stormwater quality management

As urban stormwater quality treatment systems are a relatively new technology, their

financial implications are yet to be fully understood and accounted for in Council’s

financial planning. Developing a business case for urban stormwater quality

management in the Gladstone region would have many benefits including:

Enabling Council to make more informed decisions about the true cost of waterway

health protection/enhancement

Providing Council decision makers an understanding of the value Council and the

community would receive for its investment

Making investment decisions (e.g. regarding maintenance budgets, capital works

projects and priority infrastructure planning) defendable to the community and

developers

Demonstrating compliance with Council’s Asset Management Policy P-3.01.01 for

stormwater quality assets.

Developing the business case is also perhaps the most important action Council could

take toward sustaining executive and Councillor support throughout challenging future

fiscal and political climates. To ensure the business case provides Council decision

makers with a solid foundation upon which to make decisions, it would need to include

assessment of:

The financial benefits of implementing best practice urban stormwater quality

management1 to the community, environment and economy (including the

implementation of the GRUSQMP)

1 This includes stormwater quality management (both construction phase erosion and sediment

control and operational phase stormwater quality treatment based on WSUD principles), as well as other initiatives identified through TWCM planning. It may include for example wastewater treatment plant upgrades, rural best management practices etc.

The financial costs of not implementing best practice urban stormwater quality

management1 to the community, environment and economy

The cost to the local industry of designing, constructing and establishing new best

practice urban stormwater quality management1 assets

The cost to Council of designing, constructing and establishing new best practice

urban stormwater quality management1 assets

The cost of maintaining existing and new best practice urban stormwater quality

management assets to Council

The cost of rectifying poorly designed/constructed urban stormwater quality

treatment assets which Council has inherited.

Council’s existing resources and future resource needs (to inform budgeting)

Funding opportunities for best practice urban stormwater quality management

including assessment of local community ‘willingness to pay’/levies, developer

contributions and priority infrastructure charges.

During Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP, Council officers highlighted that additional resources

were required for maintenance and rectification works in particular. In assessing costs

to Council, consideration would therefore need to be given to both the immediate

project costs (e.g. cost of retrofitting existing catchments) as well as the cost of

resourcing needs (e.g. staff training for maintenance of assets).

Summary of ‘business case’ recommendations:

5. Develop a business case for urban stormwater quality management in accordance with the recommendation of the GRUSQMP.




4.3.2 Funding

During Phase 1 of the GRUSMP, Council officers estimated that approximately $20

million worth of stormwater management assets had been handed over to Council over

the previous five (5) years. Officers also identified the need for improved resources to

manage these assets – particularly for construction and maintenance, compliance

officers and in-house stormwater management specialists.

The appropriate level of funding for these additional resources would ideally be

assessed through the aforementioned business case and TWCM planning. The

business case and TWCM planning therefore should be used to inform suitably-

responsive Council budgets including for example, for:

Resourcing and capacity building of development assessment

Integration of WSUD assets into Council’s capital works projects

Management of assets (e.g. maintenance and rectification)

Funding new WSUD capital works (e.g. stormwater harvesting schemes in local

parks)

Integrating WSUD into other capital works projects (e.g. bioretention systems for all

road renewal/upgrade works)

Creek bank stabilisation and riparian restoration works

Other actions identified in the GRUSQMP Action Plan.

Council has already identified the need to enable depreciation of green assets and

allocate appropriate maintenance budgets. According to advice from Council officers

during the Phase 3 workshops, Council is already considering how to account for green

assets so this action is not included in the GRUSQMP Action Plan.

Similarly, Council has already identified the need to allocate a maintenance budget with

the approximately $20 million worth of stormwater management assets already

accepted and has redirected some of its capital budget for this purpose. Council is

aware however that this is not a long-term sustainable solution so reconsideration of

maintenance budgets is included in the recommendations of the GRUSQMP Action

Plan.

Sourcing alternative funding (e.g. through levies, charges, grants etc.) should also be

informed by the business case. Grants in particular would be useful for funding new

capital works projects and waterway restoration/enhancement projects.

Grant opportunities which have previously been used for these purposes in recent

years include for example ‘Caring for our Country’ and the ‘National Stormwater

Harvesting Fund’. The Boyne Smelter Limited (BSL) community grants could also

potentially be explored as an option. In order to ensure grant opportunities are

identified and appropriate applications submitted, the ‘stormwater quality management

coordinator’ would need to identify potential grant projects and monitor funding

opportunities.

They would also need to be either trained in writing grant applications at the national

level or allocated funding to engage external assistance. Existing internal skills in

successful grant application writing may also be drawn upon if they exist.

Summary of ‘funding’ recommendations:

6. Use the business case and TWCM planning to inform suitably-responsive Council budgets.

7. Allocate responsibility for identifying potential grant projects and monitoring grant opportunities to the stormwater quality management coordinator. Ensure they are either trained in writing grant applications or allocated funding to engage external assistance.

Water sensitive practices in Gladstone




4.4 Planning and Environment Directorate

4.4.1 Planning schemes, development policy and guidelines

As noted in the Gladstone Harbour Protection and Enhancement Strategy Stormwater

Report (City Design, 2002), the existing planning schemes of Gladstone do not suitably

address stormwater quality. They do not provide adequate guidance to developers or

Council officers and, as a result, there is strong reliance on State policy and guidelines

to achieve local stormwater quality outcomes.

This is not necessarily a reflection of inadequate planning at the time those schemes

were drafted, but rather a symptom of stormwater quality management becoming

accepted practice in urban design following the publication of the existing schemes.

Furthermore, the existing policy gaps are expected to be largely resolved through

Council's new amalgamated planning scheme.

At the time of drafting the GRUSQMP, the new amalgamated planning scheme (draft

May 2014) was undergoing state interest review. A high level review of this scheme

was also undertaken by the project team. The main issue identified as part of this

review related to ‘SC6.3 Engineering Design Planning Scheme Policy’.

The draft scheme refers to this policy in numerous instances for further guidance and

design standards (e.g. PO23 of Table 9.3.1.3). Although the policy includes the

Capricorn Municipal Development Guidelines and associated documents, the most

significant gap in the policy is that it does not include the Stormwater Management

Guideline (GRC, 2014b).

This guideline is critically important as it sets the standards for the design and

assessment of stormwater quality treatment systems. This gap could easily be

remedied simply by listing the Stormwater Management Guideline under the documents

included under the SC6.3 Engineering Design Planning Scheme Policy (section

SC6.3.5). This will be particularly urgent given timing of the current planning scheme

review process.

The Stormwater Management Guideline itself could also be updated to include a

number of new provisions to reflect current best practice including for example:

Adopting the new Water by Design suite of guidelines which have been released

since 20142

Adopting in the policy the new Water by Design/IPWEA standard drawings for

WSUD (2014)

Specifying stormwater quality requirements including alternative compliance

pathways (best practice environmental management) consistent the State Planning

Policy (SPP) (DEHP, 2014)

Specifying specific requirements for integration of stormwater with open space

considering the Framework for the Integration of Flood and Stormwater

Management into Open Space (Water by Design, 2011)

Developing locally specific deemed to comply solutions.

Further, it is noted that the Stormwater Management Guideline is difficult to find on

Council’s website and should be included in the planning scheme page along with other

planning scheme guidelines.

To ensure the guideline remains consistent with emerging science and practice, it

should be reviewed at least every two years.

2 Refer to www.waterbydesign.com.au/guidelines-factsheets-main/. It is also noted that some of

these guidelines are currently being updated for Councils in the ‘reef catchments’.

http://www.waterbydesign.com.au/guidelines-factsheets-main/




Council officers identified at the Phase 3 workshop that information provided by developers and their consultants during development assessment was generally lacking. In the

opinion of officers, this was leading to increased assessment timeframes, poorly functioning assets (poor water quality) and increased maintenance/rectification costs for Council.

The adoption of the above guidelines and reporting standards will be particularly important therefore to minimise development assessment costs and timeframes for developers and

Council alike. It will also be important to achieve Council’s targets for improved development assessment timeframes.

While the adoption of the above standards would significantly improve planning guidance for stormwater quality management, it would not necessarily ensure good urban design

outcomes. There are numerous examples of treatment systems which are poorly integrated and are liabilities for the community and Council.

To assist in better urban design in stormwater management, Council’s strategic planning team could consider how to incorporate stormwater management urban design guidance into

within the planning scheme. There are two documents which could support this initiative:

The Living Waterways Initiative (Water by Design, 2014)3

Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design (Water by Design, 2009)4.

Examples of some poorly designed/poorly functioning stormwater assets in Gladstone

3 http://waterbydesign.com.au/living-waterways/

4 http://waterbydesign.com.au/conceptguide/

http://waterbydesign.com.au/living-waterways/

http://waterbydesign.com.au/conceptguide/




Further to the review of the draft amalgamated scheme, a review of the GPC Land Use

Plan (GPC, 2012) was also undertaken. While the plan makes mention of stormwater

and ESC, more comprehensive guidance similar to that recommended would provide

port developers greater certainty and direction.

GRC could play an active role in first formulating changes for its own scheme and

working with GPC to mirror its standards to ensure consistent best practice standards.

Two other minor opportunities were also identified by Council officers:

Developing a locally appropriate planting species list for stormwater quality

treatment systems (swales, wetlands and bioretention systems). This should include

guidance on planting in different wetland zones.

Reviewing standard conditions to reflect current best practice standards particularly

the certification and handover requirements outlined in the Stormwater Management

Guideline.

Summary of ‘planning schemes, development policy & guidelines’

recommendations:

8. Review SC6.3 Engineering Design Planning Scheme Policy and the Stormwater Management Guideline in accordance with the recommendation of the GRUSQMP.

9. Include the Stormwater Management Guideline on the planning scheme page of Council’s website.

10. Review the Stormwater Management Guideline at least every two years to ensure it remains consistent with emerging science and practice.

11. Engage Council’s strategic planning team to incorporate urban design guidance for stormwater quality assets with a particular focus on integration.

12. Work with GPC to mirror GRC’s planning guidance in their Land Use Plan.

13. Develop a locally appropriate planting species list for stormwater quality treatment systems (swales, wetlands and bioretention systems).

14. Review the standard conditions to reflect current best practice standards particularly the certification and handover requirements.




4.4.2 Development assessment

Prelodgement

GRC currently hold applicant-initiated pre-lodgement meetings. To maximise the value

applicants receive from the meetings, they are requested to fill out a form which

provides assessment officers the information they need to provide sound planning

advice.

The form currently does not specifically mention stormwater but does request

supporting information for “existing natural or environmental features or constraints to

development”. The form could be updated to include some basic advice about the type

of stormwater information which would be beneficial at the planning stage.

For example, additional dot points could be added requesting:

Drainage plans showing existing/proposed drainage demonstrating preservation of

natural hydrology

The proposed location, size and type of stormwater quality/quantity systems

demonstrating integration with site constraints and other land uses.

Reference to reporting standards detailed in the the Stormwater Management

Guideline.

The pre-lodgement meeting process should ensure that officers responsible for

stormwater quality either attend the meeting or are given prelodgement materials for

review prior to the meeting. Those officers should then provide direction to the lead

development planner prior to the meeting advising of key matters to be raised during

the meeting such as:

Likely water quality and hydrologic objectives

Reporting requirements at various stages of the assessment process

Relevant standards and guidelines

Issues locally specific to Gladstone which may influence design

Feedback on prelodgement materials provided.

The lead development planner may need to consult with other officers and departments

to ensure multi-disciplinary/cross-departmental input and feedback. Based on advice

from officers during the Phase 3 workshop, this process appeared to be occurring

although has not been previously documented as a formal internal process.

Fortnightly meetings are also being held to discuss development applications and these

meetings should be used as an opportunity to discuss the matters noted in the dot

points above.




Planning stage/preliminary approval

The Operational Plan (GRC, 2014a) includes targets for improving

development assessment timeframes. This can be achieved in part by

incorporating clear guidelines, reporting standards and training (which

have been addressed above). The other strategy for improvement of

assessment timeframes is ensuring that developers/consultants play

their role.

Historically, stormwater management was dealt with at the operational

works (OPW) stage and some developers/consultants still attempt to

defer addressing the issue to OPW. This approach creates numerous

problems and often leads to later conflicts, increased assessment

timeframes/costs and poor water quality/urban design outcomes.

For example, if inadequate stormwater design has been undertaken at

the planning stage, developers will attempt to incorporate poorly

integrated treatment assets at the lowest point in the development.

This is often undertaken at the cost of developable land resulting in a

lose-lose-lose scenario (for the developer, Council and the local

community).

Council should ensure that no development receives planning approval unless the applicant has

demonstrated that:

Stormwater objectives can be met

A plan is provided showing the location, size and type of stormwater treatment proposed

A drainage plan is provided demonstrating that systems will drain freely

A layout plan is provided demonstrating that systems will be well-integrated with other land uses and

that there are adequate setback to creeks/drainage corridors.

For the most part, this approach is already being undertaken by development assessment officers and is

documented in policy (refer to the Stormwater Management Guideline (GRC, 2014b).

To ensure any potential pressure from developers does not result in short-cuts, it would also be useful to

ensure these issues are addressed in training for executive officers and Councillors (discussed further in

Section 4.4.5 below).

Example of streetscape bioretention based on poor planning and integration

Example of streetscape bioretention based on good planning and integration




Operational works stage

The operational works stage includes assessment, compliance during construction

works, asset establishment (during the on-maintenance stage) and handover (at the off-

maintenance stage).

During assessment, Council officers currently assess applications against a range of

standards, particularly the the Stormwater Management Guideline (GRC, 2014b) and

Transferring Ownership of Vegetated Stormwater Assets (Water by Design, 2012). As

incorporating relevant standards into Council’s planning scheme has already been

addressed above (see Section 4.4.1), it is not discussed further here.

The need to construct assets in accordance with the two guidelines noted above

(particularly the sections on certification, compliance, contracts and the sign off forms)

remains a knowledge gap for many consultants and developers. This industry

knowledge gap can be addressed by:

Ensuring that OPW plans include reference to the relevant sections of the guidelines

(particularly the appropriate construction process and compliance forms)

Ensuring the OPW standard conditions include a condition which specifically notes

the relevant sections of the guidelines (particularly the appropriate construction

process and compliance forms).

The Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC) has a well-developed set of standard

conditions for stormwater quality management which could be used as a template for

GRC.

GRC officers are also already undertaking multidisciplinary inspections (for engineering

and landscaping components), so no recommendation can be made in that regard.

Officers will however, need to monitor construction carefully to ensure that that

contractors are:

Following the approved construction and establishment process

Inviting Council to the hold point inspections

Providing the relevant certification material at the appropriate times (photos,

certification test results, forms, as-constructed plans etc.)

Undertaking appropriate ESC in accordance with the approved ESC strategy.

Council should ensure that stormwater quality management assets are not accepted

on-maintenance unless all of these requirements have been met. Similarly, assets

should not be accepted off-maintenance unless the compliance and certification

requirements have been fully satisfied.

Further to the last dot point above, although Council ESC program has been discussed

in Section 4.2.1, some further comments are made about ESC implementation.

Specifically, following inspection of numerous construction sites across Gladstone, it

appears that Council’s ESC program may require some further strengthening.

SCRC recently had the most effective, award-wining ESC program in Queensland.

This program should be reviewed in depth by Council’s compliance team in

collaboration with SCRC officers. Council’s program should then be revised (if

necessary) to account from the lessons learnt by SCRC. The program should address

construction sites, building sites and Council capital works projects.




During Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP, stakeholders suggested that a revised

ESC program for GRC should include a targeted education campaign about

the penalty infringements under section 31 of the Environmental Protection

(Water) Policy.

Council has recently been enforcing two year maintenance periods and

accepting uncompleted works bonds for stormwater infrastructure. This

approach is supported and no improvements are recommended.

Other bonding solutions are however discussed in the Transferring Ownership

of Vegetated Stormwater Assets (Water by Design, 2012). If, upon review of

these alternatives, Council decides to adopt other bonds, appropriate

measures would need to be put in place to ensure the assets can be

constructed.

Council should consider for example whether including an administration fee

would be appropriate. The SC6.3 Engineering Design Planning Scheme

Policy may need to be expanded to address both bonding and contributions.

When assets are being accepted off-maintenance, some assets are not being

recorded on Council’s asset database or are not being recorded with all the

relevant information (e.g. maintenances information, some assets not

recognised as per their intended function e.g. bioretention basins being

recorded as detention basins).

Council currently uses the Asset Design As Constructed (ADAC) system for

asset identification. Officers need to ensure that all stormwater quality

treatment assets are being recorded on the asset database with the

appropriate information. Assets should ideally be linked to maintenance

information, original design reports, as-constructed plans and be added to a

spatial database.

Similarly, there are number of assets which were constructed prior to existing

asset management system and never identified on the asset database. These

are discussed further below in the section on ‘asset management’. Assets

previously missed also need to be audited and added to the database.

Summary of ‘development assessment’ recommendations:

15. Revise the prelodgement form to include some basic information requirements for stormwater similar to the dot points noted in the GRUSQMP.

16. Ensure that officers responsible for assessing stormwater quality management in development applications either attend prelodgement meetings or are given prelodgement materials for review prior to the meeting. Those officers should then provide direction to the development planner prior to the meeting advising of key matters to be raised during the meeting.

17. Ensure development planners consult with other officers and departments to ensure multi-disciplinary/multi-departmental input and feedback.

18. Ensure that no development receives planning approval unless the applicant has demonstrated minimum reporting requirements as outlined in the Stormwater Management Guideline.

19. Ensure that OPW plans include reference to the relevant sections of the guidelines – particularly the appropriate construction process and construction/compliance forms.

20. Ensure that the OPW standard conditions include a condition which specifically notes the relevant sections of the guidelines particularly the appropriate construction process and construction/compliance forms. Consider SCRC standard conditions as a template for GRC.

21. Ensure that on-maintenances/off-maintenance approval of stormwater quality management assets is not accepted unless all of the construction/compliance requirements have been fully satisfied and satisfactory certification information supplied.

22. Review the SCRC ESC program in collaboration with SCRC officers and strengthen GRC’s program as necessary. The program should address construction sites, building sites and Council capital works projects.

23. Review alternative bonding arrangements outlined in Transferring Ownership of Vegetated Stormwater Assets (Water by Design, 2012) and update SC6.3 Engineering Design Planning Scheme Policy to support preferred bonding arrangements.

24. Ensure that all stormwater quality treatment assets are being recorded on the asset database with the appropriate information. Ideally assets should be linked to maintenance information (e.g. Parks Asset Information), original design reports, as-constructed plans and be added to a spatial database.




4.4.3 Natural areas management

A major source of sediment loads in local waterways, the harbour and reef is riverbank erosion, which results from clearing

riverbanks and changes in catchment hydrology. While Council and private landholders already undertake some riparian

restoration works, the works would ideally be coordinated through a riparian restoration plan.

Such a plan should include an assessment and prioritisation of restoration works such as riparian planting, creek bank

stabilisation, creek bed stablisation and stormwater outlet controls. Prioritisation should be based on a risk assessment such as

the one developed in the Phase 1B - Risk Assessment - Gladstone Regional Council Urban Stormwater Quality Management

Plan (O2, 2011b).

This risk assessment could be further cross-referenced with soils data and aerial topography to identify likely priority sites within

priority catchments already identified. A fluvial geomorphologist should then ground-truth the results and prepare a final

prioritisation report with recommendations for treatment of each site.

Council’s budget and works program should be adjusted based on the priorities and recommendations of the report. Given the

extent of degraded waterways in the region, it is likely that Council, NRM groups and private landholders will need to work

collaboratively over many years to address even just the high priority sites.

Once the waterways stabilisation report is completed, Council will be in better position to understand whether to prioritise

investment into waterways under its own management or that of private landholders. A review of the existing funding

arrangements with local NRM groups, who could coordinate works on private land, should be undertaken following the report.

To address the source of sediment in the rural catchments would require other rural best management practices (BMP) which

are beyond the scope of this report. The TWCM plan would however help to understand the extent of BMPs required.

Summary of ‘natural areas management’ recommendations:

25. Prepare a waterways stabilisation report in accordance with the GRUSQMP which includes prioritisation of sites and high level recommendations for the treatment of each site.

26. Continue existing partnership with regional NRM groups and review funding arrangements based the waterways stabilisation report prioritisation.




4.4.4 Training for Council officers

During the facilitated stakeholder consultation workshops (held over 30th

and 31st July 2014 and 28

th May 2015), it

became quickly apparent to the project team that Council staff had an excellent informal network. There is a high

level of communication between officers and their informal network seemed to extent to communication between

officers at various levels of the organisation and between officers and Councillors.

Officers also seemed to have a high level of interest and knowledge about stormwater quality management,

although given the speed at which the WSUD industry is evolving, staff would benefit from a regular training

program. The need to remain abreast of best practice in WSUD was reinforced by the officers during earlier

consultation.

Many of the training programs Council requires are available through Water by Design. The ‘gap’ therefore is

identifying what training is required by each individual officer and how frequently such training should be

undertaken. Training should be undertaken not only by engineers/technical officers but also planners,

environmental officers, architects, landscape architects and asset managers.

To ensure such training occurs, the training program could be reflected in individual officers ’ professional

development plans and WSUD responsibilities reflected in position descriptions. As a means to share knowledge

internally, the officers attending the training could be required to present what they learnt back to their teams.

Staff retention was also raised by officers as a potential threat. Therefore, the stormwater quality training plan

would need to be developed to ensure that knowledge was not only held by individuals but also as ‘corporate

memory’. Multiple officers would need to be trained in similar topics to ensure that if an individual was to move on

from Council, GRCs capacity would not be limited.

As WSUD is still a relatively new practice for some parts of GRC, roles and responsibilities in stormwater quality

management are also rapidly changing and will continue to do so with the implementation of the GRUSQMP.

This change is exacerbated by the fact that WSUD is a multi-disciplinary field which does not necessarily fit neatly

into Council traditional organisational structure.

The definition of roles and responsibilities through a Council-wide available document would greatly assist officers

understand their roles and the roles of others. This would help to foster communication between departments

and help to augment a multidisciplinary approach to WSUD.




Roles and responsibilities could be identified on Council’s existing organisational chart for simplicity. The

descriptions could include for example descriptions such as, “role: development assessment / responsibility: to

assess the landscape component of urban developments from the planning stage through to off-maintenance”.

The document organisational chart should be maintained as a ‘live’ document and updated regularly (say every

six months).

Some Council officers could already be considered WSUD ‘champions’ although training would strengthen their

knowledge of skills and help to foster new champions. A ‘Stormwater Quality Management Panel’ of WSUD

champions from across Council should meet regularly to discuss issues and come up with solutions.

Individuals from this panel should be appointed as representatives, to which other officers could raise issues that

require cross-departmental collaboration to resolve. The group could also act as the central point of contact and

information for Councillors and provide leadership on major decisions with respect to water cycle management.

The panel should therefore comprise a mix of technical officers and executive officers such as departmental

managers as well as an elected representative (Councillor). A range of disciplines should also be represented on

this panel, including (for example) engineering, environmental and landscape officers.

They should also include representatives from each major group including for example planning, development

assessment, compliance, works and parks maintenance. Staff from other teams within Council could be invited to

participate on the panel as required (e.g. where funding needs are identified, officers from ‘finance’ could be

invited to provide input). The panel would ideally be chaired on a rotational basis by various Directorates. If this

is not possible, the managers of the respective departments should chair the panel and report back to the

Directorates.

The administration of the panel should be led by an officer in Council responsible for the implementation of the

GRUSQMP. Given the number of projects likely to come out of the GRUSQMP and long-term need for a single

‘stormwater quality management coordinator’, a new position is recommended although this could also be

undertaken in an existing role.

The officer responsible for implementing the GRUSMP could be made to be responsible for the coordination of all

projects under the GRUSQMP, act as a central point of contact on all stormwater quality related matters for other

officers and provide support to the Stormwater Quality Management Panel. This may include using the expertise

of the panel to deliver upon some of the actions of this plan.




The responsible officer should have a background in science or engineering although this is not essential. The

most important skill will be the ability to collaborate across Council and other stakeholders. Leadership and

communication skills would therefore be desirable. A good track record in project management would also be

beneficial.

Lastly, during Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP, officers identified a potential opportunity to create a professional forum

for officers from local and State Government agencies and other stormwater management professionals in the

region. The intent of the forum was to exchange ideas and information relating to best practice and innovation in

stormwater management.

External networks are discussed below (see Section 4.4.6). If, after considering the recommendations of that

section, officers still considered that such a forum is required, it should be initiated by the Stormwater Quality

Management Panel. The panel could further consider the need for the forum, its potential structure and format as

an agenda item on its first meeting.

Summary of ‘training for Council officers’ recommendations:

27. Develop and implement a training plan for stormwater quality management to identify what training is

required by each individual officer and how frequently such training should be undertaken. Ensure that

multiple officers are trained to ensure corporate knowledge retention.

28. Update relevant officers’ professional development plans to reflect the stormwater quality training plan and

include WSUD responsibilities in position descriptions.

29. Document the roles and responsibilities for each officer through a Council-wide available document.

30. Set up a ‘Stormwater Quality Management Panel’ to provide leadership on stormwater quality-related

matters and ensure the panel meets regularly.

31. Appoint a suitably-qualified professional to coordinate the implementation of the GRUSQMP, including all

major projects such as the CMPs and TWCM planning. This may become the responsibility of an existing

officer or newly created role.

32. Ensure that the Stormwater Quality Management Panel consider the need, potential structure and format

of a professional forum for officers from local and State Government agencies and other stormwater

management professionals in the region. Initiate the forum and maintain its administration as appropriate.




4.4.5 Training for executive officers and Councillors

At the time of writing the GRUSQMP, Gladstone was fortunate to have executive support for the enforcement of its own environmental

policies and to undertake planning to protect the region’s values. The executive officers and Councillors at the facilitated stakeholder

consultation workshop held over 30th

and 31st July 2014, showed a high level of interest in stormwater quality planning.

Although training for managers and Councillors is likely to be different from that undertaken by technical officers, the training program

mentioned previously could be extended to engage this audience. An annual stormwater quality workshop and bus tour for example,

would help executives remain abreast of best practice and emerging issues in this field.

Similarly, specific presentations could be developed to assist in understanding those technical matters essential for stormwater

management. For example, Council conditions for stormwater quality management are sometimes challenged by developers wanting

to take shortcuts. A presentation addressing legislative, social, economic and environmental drivers for stormwater quality

management could help Councillor’s support the decisions of officers. It could therefore also aid in:

Informed decision making at the executive level consistent with Council’s corporate management policies

Sustaining interest and commitment to long-term planning and works especially following Council leadership changes

Distilling complex engineering and scientific issues into simple messages

Providing Councillors with the confidence to speak publically on related matters

Build alliances and understanding with developers, industry and community groups.




As noted in Section 4.4.4 above, executive officers and Councillors could also be

engaged on the Stormwater Quality Management Panel.

The loss of support from executive officers and Councillors is feasible in the future –

particularly with any change in elected representatives and/or new executive officers.

In other local governments, highly successful, award-winning stormwater

management programs have also become ineffective when the development industry

has placed pressure on Council to relax it standards.

The education program should therefore ensure that executive officers and

Councillors are provided with the information they require to make sound judgements

and maintain support for compliance. This includes careful consideration of content

and frequency of training.

A business case to support implementation of the GRUSQMP will be a very important

part of maintaining high level support. This is further discussed in Section 4.3.1.

As noted in Section 4.4.2, training for executives should also address the minimum

reporting requirements defined by the the Stormwater Management Guideline. Local

case studies of poor outcomes from inadequate information at the planning stage

could be used to illustrate key points.

Summary of ‘training for executive officers and Councillors’

recommendations:

33. Provide knowledge building support to executive officers and Councillors in

response to their specific needs including those documented in the

GRUSQMP and acknowledging their time constraints. This should include

for example raising awareness including thorough updates on the

GRUSQMP and bus tours to showing various good and bad WSUD sites.




4.4.6 Engagement with local industry

Council has strong partnerships and alliances with a range of local industry

stakeholders and programs which play an important role in the health of local waters

through stormwater quality management. These include for example:

Local community groups

Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program (PCIMP)

Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership (GHHP)

Reef Guardian Program

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia - Queensland Branch (IPWEAQ)

Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC)

RUSMIG.

As with any partnership, Council would benefit the most by regularly engaging with

these groups. A representative from Council, potentially the stormwater management

coordinator recommended above, should be active on relevant committees.

This would ensure that regional knowledge is captured and can be used to improve

local catchment/water cycle management practices. Council’s commitment to these

partnerships should be continued over the course of the timeframe of the GRUSQMP.

Other alliances which, if developed, could help to further improve stormwater quality

management in Gladstone include partnerships with:

Stormwater Queensland

Reef Catchments

Fitzroy Basin Association.

These partnerships would provide Council with additional access to the latest science,

engineering knowledge and standards especially relevant for Gladstone’s climate.

Council could also potentially benefit by finding synergies with its own catchment

management programs, sharing its own knowledge and experiences and through

opportunities to influence catchment management in the region.

As with the above partnership, Council would benefit the most through continued

commitment, regular engagement from an appointed Council representative and

renewing the partnerships as necessary.

Council officers have identified a number of other ways in which local industry

stormwater quality management could be improved. Please refer to Section 4.4.8 for

further discussion and recommendations.

Summary of ‘local industry engagement’ recommendations:

34. Appoint a representative for each existing stormwater-related partnership (if

one does not already exist). Maintain active involvement with these groups

and ensure knowledge is captured and used to improve local practices.

Renew partnerships as necessary.

35. Form new alliances with Stormwater Queensland, Reef Catchments and the

Fitzroy Basin Association (if they do not already exist). Appoint a

representative for each group and ensure active involvement to ensure

knowledge is captured and shared. Renew partnerships as necessary.




4.4.7 Engagement with the community

Council’s stormwater network provides a system for the transportation of gross

pollutants (litter) from urban environments to local waterways, the harbour and

ultimately the reef. The litter impacts wildlife through entanglement and ingestion, but

also indirectly via the chemicals it introduces into ecosystems (Hardesty et al., 2014).

Litter can impact upon on a broad range of species which rely on aquatic/marine

environments from the plankton that form the basis of food chains through to iconic

species which attract residents and visitors to the region, e.g. turtles, dugong,

dolphins and whales. It also impacts upon the many bird species which depend upon

the waterways, estuaries and reef with plastic ingestion expected in 95% of all seabird

species by 2050 (Hardesty et al., 2014).

Marine debris is a key threatening process with 80% attributed to land‐based sources.

Gladstone does not however, currently have gross pollutant traps (GPT) installed on

its stormwater outlets (Wilson, 2012). The Gladstone Stormwater Litter Survey

Report (Wilson, 2012), found that:

Despite specific butt bins and waste receptacles in and around major

commercial venues such as Goondoon Street, cigarette butts and sheet plastics

(wrappers and bags) were the main types of anthropogenic littler found at all

sites assessed in the study.

Controlling litter at its source through effective engagement with Gladstone’s

community presents an important opportunity to minimise litter in stormwater and

minimise impacts upon birds and aquatic/marine species. The recommendations of

the Gladstone Stormwater Litter Survey Report (Wilson, 2012), included a range of

engagement strategies including:

An education and awareness campaign for litter

Re-establishment of Gladstone as a ‘tidy town’

A littering sub-levy targeting local businesses and shops to cover the costs of

clearing racks and nets and conducting ongoing litter surveys.




The report also recommended retrofitting of GPTs in existing commercial and

industrial centres and monitoring of gross pollutant loads. These recommendations

are discussed further in Sections 4.4.9, 4.5.1 and 4.5.3.

Apart from litter, the community could also play an important role in managing

sediment, especially from their own building sites. The education and awareness

campaign noted above should inform residents of why it’s important to ensure their

building contractors manage sediment (social, environmental and economic benefits),

their legal obligations and risks of non-compliance (for the owner and contractor).

Managing nutrient loads from existing urban areas is particularly difficult for Council

and would likely be extremely expensive. Alternatives which have worked in other

regions include financial incentives and direct assistance programs for residents.

Council could (for example) develop a pilot project for allotment-scale raingardens.

The raingardens pilot project could be based on other similar successful projects (e.g.

Melbourne's "10,000 Raingardens" project and/or the "Little Stringybark Creek

Project"). If the pilot is successful, Council should consider developing a more

comprehensive program.

A local Councillor could champion this project and promote it on local radio and public

events. Council officers could provide technical support and advice, inspect

completed raingardens and keep a register/photo log.

A ‘building a raingarden’ demonstration could be held during the Ecofest and

Gladstone Harbour Festival with a competition to encourage residents to build their

own raingardens (e.g. $1,000 towards raingarden materials). As part of this

campaign, Council would first need to develop education and information resources

and appoint a project coordinator e.g. the ‘stormwater quality coordinator’ noted

above.

Clr Col Chapman.

Source: www.gladstoneobserver.com.au




During Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP, Council officers also identified the opportunity for

the community (through community groups or individual residents) to help maintain

stormwater quality systems such wetlands and raingardens. Activities such as

weeding, replanting and litter removal could all feasibly be undertaken by the

community through an ‘Adopt a Wetland/Raingarden Program’.

The aim would be not to minimise maintenance costs for Council (although this may

be an additional benefit), but rather to reconnect the community with the urban water

cycle and educate residents. The program should be supported with resources

typical of catchment care groups such as training, demonstration workshops and

plants.

Given that the number of suitable wetlands and/ or raingardens for such a program

are minimal in Gladstone at present, the program could start small and build as

Council inherits more assets.

Another option is to encourage individual residents to maintain raingardens located in

verges in their streets (where safe to do so). Research on the Bellvista Estate,

Caloundra showed that 46% of the community were engaged in some level of

maintenance of streetscape bioretention systems (Hoban and Kennedy, 2012). This

high level of maintenance was observed despite the fact that there was not any active

information program (i.e. residents were undertaking maintenance of their own

volition). The study also found that the intuitive nature of raingardens was a

contributing factor to the high level of maintenance i.e. maintenance of raingardens

are similar to normal gardening.

An Adopt a Raingarden Program could potentially result in higher level of

maintenance and ensure the maintenance efforts delivers the best outcomes. Once a

number of residents are ‘signed up’, Council could consider including a raingarden

award at Ecofest and/or as part of the Observer Civic Beautification Garden Awards.

Summary of ‘community’ recommendations:

36. Develop and implement a community stormwater management

education and awareness campaign including:

○ Implementing existing and recommended actions outlined in

Gladstone Regional Council’s “Illegal dumping and litter prevention

strategy”

○ A litter management education and awareness campaign with the

reestablishment of Gladstone’s townships as “tidy towns”.

○ Development and distribution of education and awareness resource

materials for building site sediment management

○ Development and implementation of a financial incentives and

direct assistance program for domestic raingardens

○ Providing to the community a series of ‘building a raingarden’

demonstrations and associated competitions at Ecofest and

Gladstone Harbour Festival

○ Development and implementation an ‘Adopt a Wetland/Raingarden

Program’ targeted at community groups and individual residents.

37. Assess the validity of establishing a littering sub-levy targeting local

businesses and shops to cover the costs of clearing racks and nets and

conducting ongoing litter surveys. If the levy is considered appropriate

by Council, implement the levy.




4.4.8 Environmental education and compliance

Developers, builders and contractors

The requirement for operational phase stormwater quality management is

relatively new (compared to construction phase stormwater quality

management) and the development industry is lagging in its knowledge and

uptake of current best practice management. This is contributing to Council

receiving poorly designed and constructed assets which will likely result in

costly rectification works for Council.

Construction phase stormwater quality management requirements and best

practice have however been required for a long period. As noted previously,

compliance for construction and building works has also been severely

lacking.

Improving the building and development industry’s performance requires a

comprehensive education and enforcement program. Suggestions for how to

improve Council’s ESC program has been noted in the previous section.

Industries

Other parts of the industry which may require improvements in practice are

existing industries with point source discharges into waterways. This includes

both major and minor land users that operate under and Environmental

Relevant Activity (ERA).

During Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP, stakeholders suggested the following

ideas to improve the industry’s performance:

Continue to develop alliances with major industries

Develop an awards scheme which recognises good practice

Provide suitable training and supporting documentation.

The issue has also previously been explored by a range of stakeholders (including the former

local Councils) in the development of the Gladstone Harbour Protection and Enhancement

Strategy (GPC, 2003). Actions identified in the strategy related to urban stormwater quality

include:

Develop a suite of education and awareness products to stormwater messages for distribution

at key events in the region

Investigate opportunities to utilise high-profile events to showcase examples of good

waterway management. For example, an award or recognition program could be developed

with a specific category recognising best practice or innovation in stormwater management

Investigate opportunities to develop new social/recreational activities or competitions in

association with those already existing

High-profile events that focus on healthy waterways messages

Regularly monitor environmentally relevant activities to ensure appropriate management of

stormwater.

Although the strategy was developed a decade ago, these actions remain relevant and may

require some renewed attention and action. The actions above are mostly what are considered

to be ‘facilitative reforms’ which need to be supported by ‘directive reforms’ such as legislation.

While legislation for point source discharges already exists, the auditing and enforcement of ERA

discharge limits may require closer scrutiny. Specifically, GRC should work with DEHP, the GPC,

the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership (GHHP) and other industry stakeholders to support

auditing and enforce actions including for example through monitor water quality (see Section

4.4.9 below).

Summary of ‘environmental education and compliance’ recommendations:

38. Develop and implement an industry awards scheme which recognises good practice or promote an existing one.

39. Renew education and compliance actions identified in the Gladstone Harbour Protection and Enhancement Strategy.




4.4.9 Monitoring

Integrated monitoring program

The monitoring of estuarine systems in Gladstone (including Gladstone Harbour) is

being undertaken though the Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program (PCIMP).

Similarly, monitoring of the reef is being undertaken through the Reef Water Quality

Protection Plan 2013 (Reef Plan), (State of Queensland, 2013a), report card program.

With estuarine and marine environments comprehensively monitored, the most

significant knowledge gap in regards to what is happening in waterways is the

freshwater creeks and rivers which discharge to the harbour and reef.

The health of these freshwater systems and their influence on harbour and reef water

quality is a knowledge gap which provides a strong driver for a freshwater water quality

monitoring program. Ideally such a program would be undertaken in an integrated

manner with existing monitoring programs. The most well-recognised and awarded

integrated receiving water quality monitoring program in Australia is the Healthy

Waterways Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) for South East Queensland

(SEQ) led by Healthy Waterways Ltd.

The EHMP program has been operating for over a decade and provides the most

scientifically robust example upon which to base an integrated monitoring program in

the Gladstone region. After more than a decade of operation, EHMP stakeholders have

identified that the program should evolve to provide more data which can be ‘applied’ to

management decisions.

In review of the program in 2010, BMT WBM found that:

In particular, stakeholders want to know how to interpret changes (or lack of

change) in annual assessments, how population pressures and catchment use are

driving the changes, how agreed management strategies and actions to reduce

pressures are being implemented, and how effective the actions are at a range of

scales (BMT WBM, 2010).

It is likely that stakeholders in the Gladstone region would also be interested in such

information and design of an integrated program locally should be considered based

upon answering similar questions.

A report by the Central Queensland University for the GHHP, provides guidance for the

selection of measures (beyond just water quality), which could be used to assess the

health of the Gladstone Harbour (refer to Greer and Kabir, 2013). These include social,

cultural and economic measures. An integrated monitoring program in Gladstone

should also consider the appropriateness of similar indicators.

At a minimum, it was agreed by stakeholders during development of the GRUSQMP

that GRC should:

Maintain its existing commitments to the vision of an integrated monitoring program

in Gladstone Harbour through a collaborative effort by industry, government and

community

Lead the development of a long-term freshwater monitoring program including

ambient and event-based monitoring

Explore options for collaborative funding towards implementation

Work with stakeholders to establish freshwater monitoring reference sites to

determine natural pollutant export characteristics

Investigate options for co-ordinating industry/government/community monitoring

efforts of the coastal zone

Potentially use PCIMP as a peer review group.




Freshwater receiving water quality monitoring

Further to the above discussion, the ambient/event-based freshwater monitoring

program should ideally be based on the model EHMP program5 including due

consideration of matters raised by the current EHMP review. Water quality monitoring

can also be combined with some simple measures of stream condition to provide an

overall indication of the health of the system.

A stream health rating would enable development of an annual report card. This could

be developed in conjunction with the PCIMP report card for Port Curtis or a stand-alone

annual freshwater report card.

Stakeholders also identified the freshwater receiving water quality monitoring to engage

the community. Specifically they identified the opportunity to:

Train catchment/community groups to attain ‘citizen science’ (also potentially

minimising monitoring costs)

Provide on-line, readily-accessible and easy to understand monitoring data similar

to the online site for the EHMP program (http://www.health-e-waterways.org/).

The public launch of the report card and annual online data could be undertaken during

Ecofest. The report cards should be strongly promoted through local media outlets.

5

http://healthywaterways.org/EcosystemHealthMonitoringProgram/ProgramComponents/FreshwaterMonitoring/MethodsandIndicators.aspx

Urban stormwater quality monitoring

In consultation during Phase 1, stakeholders identified a lack of reliable local

data/science on stormwater quality as a potential threat. To date, there has been

limited monitoring of urban stormwater quality in the Gladstone Region with the

exception of two snapshot litter surveys (Wilson 2012 and Wilson and Hansler, 2013).

The most significant impacts this knowledge gap may have is that there is insufficient

data on where to place gross pollutant traps and that stormwater quality treatment

systems may not be sized to account for local pollutant characteristics. Stormwater

quality modelling in the region used to size treatment measures is currently based upon

(or at least should be based upon), the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (Water by Design,

2010).

The parameters adopted from these guidelines are based on modelling undertaken

mostly in Brisbane. The concentration of pollutants in local stormwater may however be

different which means that local treatment systems may either be:

Undersized – if this was the case, systems designed in accordance with the

guidelines would not meet the WQOs

Oversized – if this was the case, developers would potentially be losing developable

land unnecessarily and Council maintenance costs could be higher than necessary.

If Council was to determine this issue significant enough to warrant further confirmation,

event-based stormwater monitoring would be required.

http://www.health-e-waterways.org/






Asset performance monitoring

The other type of monitoring which stakeholders have identified to address, is the perceived lack of

local data/science is asset performance monitoring. Specifically, the stakeholders were concerned

that as typical stormwater quality systems are based on science from other parts of Australia

(mostly Victoria and South East Queensland), the performance of local system may be different.

Key matters raised include:

Stormwater quality treatment may be different due to different stormwater pollutant

loads/concentration associated with different local climate and soils

Plant species and their establishment requirements may be different due to local climate

Coarse sediment management requirements may be different due to different local climate and

soils.

In terms of stormwater quality treatment performance, it may be prohibitively expensive to

undertake monitoring of all the different types of stormwater treatment systems in Gladstone.

Furthermore, there is unlikely to be a significant difference in the fundamental physical or chemical

transformation processes in these systems between climate zones (although some increased

biological activity may be observed in the tropics and performance does vary with climate).

The in-flowing stormwater pollutant concentrations and loads are therefore the most likely variable

which could result in differences in stormwater quality pollutant treatment between climate zones.

To understand this variability, the urban stormwater monitoring discussed above could be

undertaken as a first step, the results of which could be used to further consider the need to monitor

local treatment systems.

Plant species/establishment requirements and coarse sediment management requirements would

be worthwhile monitoring and could be undertaken through simple visual observation techniques at

relatively low cost. Other similar questions could also be monitored by low-cost visual observation

techniques.

Currently, there is likely to be an insufficient number of well-designed and

constructed stormwater quality treatment assets in Gladstone to develop

reliable observational data. Monitoring by maintenance staff could however

be useful in starting to formulate some theories for later testing. Key issues

for observation should be decided by the WSUD panel.

In terms of monitoring litter, the Gladstone Stormwater Litter Survey Report

(Wilson, 2012), recommended the installation and monitoring of gross

pollutant traps (GPTs) (e.g. at Kin Kora shopping centre). Monitoring of

pollutant loads in GPTs would help to understand what types of pollutants

are entering the stormwater network and inform a targeted public

awareness and education campaign.

Lastly, community attitudes to local stormwater systems could be

monitored. There are however a number of publications which demonstrate

that communities are highly supportive of WSUD systems when they are

designed, constructed and installed correctly.6 Monitoring of community

attitudes would only be recommended therefore, if there was some specific

need (e.g. opposition to WSUD based on misconceptions about community

attitudes).

6 See for example: Leonard et al. (2014) and Hoban and Kennedy (2012)




Summary of ‘monitoring’ recommendations:

40. Maintain existing commitments towards an integrated receiving water monitoring program for the region.

41. Work with local stakeholders and the EHMP program to consider developing and implementing the integrated water quality monitoring program further including development of a long-term freshwater monitoring program led by Council.

42. Ensure that the program includes ambient and event-based monitoring, some simple measures of stream condition and indicators which inform management decisions.

43. Assess options to monitor social, cultural and economic indicators.

44. Explore options for collaborative funding towards implementation of the freshwater monitoring program.

45. Work with stakeholders to establish freshwater monitoring reference sites to determine natural pollutant export characteristics.

46. Approach PCIMP to determine whether they would be open to acting as a peer review group for the freshwater monitoring program.

47. Develop a freshwater monitoring program report card and online data portal for the public.

48. Promote the report card and online data portal annually at Ecofest and local media outlets.

49. Explore options for engaging the community in participating in monitoring.

50. Consider further the need to monitor urban stormwater quality and if appropriate, undertake such monitoring and use results to refine local modelling parameters.

51. Ensure that the Stormwater Quality Management Panel identifies and tracks key issues for observational monitoring and use maintenance staff to populate a database of information. Use the outcomes to adapt local practice.

52. Undertake an annual litter monitoring program for gross pollutants traps and use data to develop an informing a targeted public awareness and education campaign.




Source: Concept Design Guidelines (Water by Design, 2010)

4.5 Engineering Services Directorate

4.5.1 Total water cycle management and catchment

management planning

Urban land-based runoff and coastal development are two of the key threats to the

health of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem identified by the GBRMPA Outlook Report

(GBRMPA, 2014). Nevertheless, the more significant threat comes from loads of

sediments, nutrients and toxic chemicals entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon from

agricultural practices (GBRMPA, 2012).

Planning for the management of stormwater from rural catchments, while outside the

scope of this plan, is in fact more important to reef water quality than urban

stormwater quality management. However GRC is also interested in the health of

local creeks, rivers and the harbour and understand that a holistic approach to

approach to waterways management is required.

TWCM offers a complete understanding not only of how best to manage the water

cycle to minimise impacts on receiving waterways but also informs planning of potable

water supply and wastewater management. Examining the three ‘streams’ of water

together affords multiple benefits.

For example, a stormwater harvesting scheme for the Gladstone region could:

Minimise potable water demand

Offset (or potentially avoid) the need/cost for major centralised infrastructure such

as desalination plants

Greatly reduce discharge of stormwater pollutants to receiving waterways

Educate and engage the community through decentralised nodes.

TWCM planning could therefore be seen as a triple bottom line planning tool which

optimises infrastructure investment. The case study below provides an example of

how TWCM planning could have saved one city significant costs in water supply

infrastructure.

Multiple benefits achieved through Total Water Cycle Management




To date, the three streams of Gladstone’s water cycle have been planned for

separately. Through the GRUSQMP, however, GRC have identified the potential

benefits of TWCM planning for the region. Local TWCM planning should help to

identify the strategic infrastructure required for the region’s stormwater network

building on the quality and quantity assessment undertaken at Phase 2 of this project.

This should include identification of WSUD/stormwater harvesting opportunities in

both greenfield and brownfield areas.

Given the number of other recommendations which depend on TWCM planning and

significant implications it may have for planning of other water/wastewater

infrastructure, the TWCM planning should be considered a high priority. Ideally, the

TWCM planning would be developed in unison with the business case discussed

above so that the two documents are consistent and inform one another.

The level of detail would then need to be refined at a catchment scale through CMPs.

To date, a CMP has only been developed for Auckland Creek (GHD, 2006), which is

not based on TWCM planning. It does not therefore consider for example, the most

cost-effective means for Council to manage receiving water quality impacts which

may include options in the wastewater or potable water streams. The Auckland Creek

CMP may therefore need to be revised following the TWCM.

New plans would also need to be developed for the other catchments. Prioritisation of

those plans would most likely based on Phase 2 prioritisation or as otherwise

determined through the TWCM plan. Each CMP should take a TWCM planning

approach and not be limited strictly to stormwater management.

Case Study: Adelaide’s Stormwater Could Be Harvested at Half

Cost of Desalination Plant

Adelaide’s stormwater could have been harvested at just over half the

cost of building and running Port Stanvac’s desalination plant.

The three-year study by South Australia’s Goyder Institute, which is a

joint project between the CSIRO and State Government, demonstrates

that recycling stormwater could have been a cheaper alternative to

desalinated water. It showed stormwater cost $1.47 per kL compared

with the minimum $2.41 per kL cost from the desalination plant.

The study showed 60 GL of stormwater could be harvested in Adelaide

each year.

SA was originally told it needed 50 GL to have a desalination plant to

supply Adelaide’s future water needs before the capacity of the $1.8

billion plant was doubled to 100 GL.

The $1.83 billion plant then was mothballed permanently after it doubled

Adelaide’s domestic water bills. SA Water customers will still have to pay

for the construction cost.

The report also disproved claims by the State Government at the time

that Adelaide’s stormwater could not be made safe to drink after being

pumped into underground aquifers and treated.

Article adapted from: Adelaide Now (2014) Full technical report available: Dandy et al. (2014)

Summary of ‘TWCM and CMP planning’ recommendations:

53. Prepare a TWCM strategy, TWCM plan and TWCM implementation plan for the Gladstone Region in conjunction with the business case.

54. Prepare CMPs for each catchment in the Gladstone Region according to recommendation of the TWCM and priorities set during Phase 2 of the GRUSQMP or as otherwise determined through the TWCM plan.

55. Revise the Auckland Creek CMP if the TWCM identifies additional/ alternative measures that need to be assessed at a finer scale.




4.5.2 Local government infrastructure planning

As noted above in Section 4.5.5, a range of infrastructure planning documents have

been prepared by GRC and are currently in development. This includes the

preparation of Local Government Infrastructure Plans (LGIPs) for the four main urban

centres in Gladstone.

The existing water supply planning for Gladstone does not however consider

stormwater as a potential source of supply. Once the TWCM plan has been

developed, the LGIPs would therefore also need to be revised to account for a more

holistic approach to water planning in the region.

The option exists to expand the current LGIPs being drafted to either:

a. Use the models developed during Phase 2 of the GRUSQMP to identify likely

stormwater treatment infrastructure (a knowledge gap bridging assessment), base

the LGIPs upon this assessment and then revise the LGIPs once the TWCM is

finalised

b. Await completion of the TWCM (and possibly the applicable CMPs) and then

revise the LGIPs.

The decision about which option is likely to be the most suitable would most likely be

subject to the funding available for preparing and revising the LGIPs. Regardless of

which option is preferred by Council, the LGIPs will need to account for regional

stormwater quality/quantity infrastructure.

They will also need to account for possible changes to the potable and wastewater

networks subject to outcomes of the TWCM and Council’s preferred future scenario

for local water cycle management.

Summary of ‘priority infrastructure planning’ recommendations:

56. Expand the LGIPs to include likely future stormwater, wastewater and potable water infrastructure required to achieve total water cycle management outcomes.




4.5.3 Council works

As noted previously, the three streams of the water cycle have historically been planned

for separately in Gladstone. Council officers have however identified through

consultation that in order to meet future challenges, a new approach based on TWCM

principles is required.

Similarly, non-water infrastructure (e.g. roads, libraries, depots, parks, waste

management facilities, animal control facilities, cultural centres etc.) have historically

been designed/constructed/renewed without stormwater quality treatment measures.

For many existing assets, there would be inadequate area to retrofit treatment systems

but an assessment of potential opportunities could help to identify possible retrofit

projects. It should be noted that under the current State Planning Policy (DEHP, 2014),

stormwater management applies to community infrastructure including ‘designated’

community infrastructure under the Sustainable Planning Act (2009).

Stakeholders at the Phase 1 consultation workshop identified that there is a legacy of

developments without any WSUD and that without knowing priorities, they are operating

reactively. The terminology used by officers was that they felt as if they were ‘putting

out bushfires’. Such an assessment should therefore include analysis of the urban

footprint (including all roads), identify and prioritise potential retrofit opportunities. The

GRUSQMP Stage 1B and Stage 2 reports which prioritise catchments could inform the

prioritisation of retrofit sites.

While it would be prohibitively expensive to retrofit every asset with WSUD systems in

the short term, such treatment systems could be integrated into many sites in

conjunction with other planned works. For example, adding streetscape bioretention

systems to road renewal/upgrade projects would be significantly cheaper than

upgrading the road and installing treatment systems separately.

This would however require a review of Engineering Services policy. It would also

require adoption of a range of new WSUD guidelines and standard for Council works

projects such as:

The Water by Design suite of guidelines for modelling, design, construction,

establishment and asset handover

Water by Design/IPWEA standard drawings for WSUD.

Brisbane’s City Council’s (BCC) Streetscape Design Package (BCC, 2013) may also be

a useful reference document.

The WSUD retrofit opportunities assessment could also be used to inform the TWCM

by adding an element of practicality to that high level assessment. Similarly, it could be

used to inform planning as part of the CMPs.

Council also has the opportunity to provide industry leadership by demonstrating to

developers how to design and construct good WSUD systems. For all new capital

projects, construction phase and operational stormwater quality management should

become a mandatory requirement. The equivalent performance standards enforced for

private developments should be applied to Council works.

Summary of ‘Council Works’ recommendations:

57. Undertake a WSUD retrofit opportunities assessment to identify and prioritise potential retrofit opportunities.

58. Revise Engineering Services policy and standards to ensure that all new capital works projects and renewal projects (where possible) incorporate WSUD.

59. Ensure that all new capital works projects and renewal projects (where possible) incorporate WSUD.




4.5.4 Asset management

Council’s Asset Management Policy P-3.01.01 (GRC, 2009) identifies a range of

principles which have helped to inform actions for the improvement of WSUD asset

management. These principles include:

Manage the infrastructure and assets in a systematic and sustainable manner

Ensure asset information is accurate and up to date, allowing for appropriate asset

planning, both in the short and long term, and for informed decision making to

occur

Manage its assets utilising a team approach using a multi discipline cross-

functional asset management working group with representatives from each of the

asset categories.

In response to these principles, Council is already undertaking planning to better

manage WSUD assets including diverting capital works funding to WSUD asset

management and financially accounting for ‘green assets’. Further recommended

policy and capacity strategies to improve WSUD asset management include:

Updating “Asset Management Implementation and Improvement Plans” to

recognise WSUD assets

Formally adopting the Water by Design maintenance and rectification guidelines in

Council’s planning scheme and utilising these documents

Ensuring all relevant staff undertake the Water by Design asset management and

rectification training

Engaging a dedicated team responsible for WSUD asset management

Providing input into development assessment standards to ensure asset

knowledge is being used to improve design.

Existing assets also need to be further accounted for by undertaking an audit and

condition assessment of all WSUD assets to identify and prioritise

maintenance/rectification requirements for each asset. In preparing funding requests for

the maintenance and rectification works, officers will also need to ensure that the funding

request has a correct and allocated corporate asset ID number associated with it.

Private WSUD assets (those not managed by Council), also require maintenance

although Council does not currently have control over these assets. During GRUSQMP

consultation workshops, officers identified the opportunity to start licensing private WSUD

assets (similar to trade waste/grease traps), and to ensure maintenance requirements

form part of the licence conditions.

Such a licencing scheme should be supported by auditing, education and enforcement

with compliance officer positions partially funded through infringements. Many existing

private WSUD assets first need to be recognised on an asset database. A WSUD

licencing scheme could potentially be developed to be either partially or fully self-funding.




Summary of ‘asset management’ recommendations:

60. Update the stormwater “Asset Management Implementation and Improvement Plan” to recognise WSUD assets.

61. Adopt the Water by Design maintenance and rectification guidelines.

62. Ensuring that all relevant staff undertake the Water by Design asset management and rectification training.

63. Engage a dedicated team responsible for WSUD asset management.

64. Provide input into development assessment standards to ensure asset knowledge is being used to improve design.

65. Undertake an audit and rapid condition assessment of public WSUD assets to identify and prioritise maintenance/rectification requirements for each asset.

66. In preparing funding requests for maintenance and rectification works, ensure that the funding request has a correct and allocated corporate asset ID number associated with it.

67. Identify all private assets on WSUD assets database.

68. Assess the feasibility of starting a licensing scheme for private WSUD assets (similar to trade waste/grease traps). If the WSUD licencing scheme goes ahead, ensure maintenance requirements form part of the licence conditions.

69. If the WSUD licencing scheme goes ahead, conduct a complementary auditing, education and enforcement program with compliance officer positions funded or partially funded through infringements.




4.5.5 Infrastructure charges

Existing planning documents which could inform infrastructure charging for the

stormwater quality network include the:

Gladstone Regional Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges resolution (No. 1,)

2011, Former Calliope Shire Local Government area, as amended: 16 July 2013

Gladstone Regional Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 2 ) –

2011 Former Gladstone City Local Government area, as amended: 16 July 2013

Gladstone Regional Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No. 3) –

2011 Former Miriam Vale Shire Local Government area, as amended: 16 July 2013.

Associated Adopted Infrastructure Charges Stormwater Network maps.

Other plans currently underway which will be beneficial include the:

Priority Infrastructure Plan - Miriam Vale

Priority Infrastructure Plan - Gladstone

Priority Infrastructure Plan - Calliope

Priority Infrastructure Plan - Gladstone Regional.

None of the documents noted above however, provide a detailed analysis of future

stormwater quality infrastructure required, upon which charges could be based. This

work would ideally have been undertaken as part of Phase 2 of the GRUSQMP (by

consultancy firm O2), but the knowledge gap will now need to be filled by the TWCM

and CMPs.

The Catchment Management Plan for Auckland Creek (GHD, 2006) is the exception to

this position. The Auckland Creek CMP could currently inform the infrastructure

charges for that catchment and be updated as necessary following development of the

TWCM.

While stormwater harvesting presents a significant opportunity for water supply in

Gladstone, it also presents an equally significant opportunity to minimise stormwater

quality impacts by removing pollutants loads from receiving waterways. It is noted

however, that existing water supply planning for Gladstone does not consider

stormwater as a potential source of supply.

The TWCM plan will address the potential missed opportunities, assess the merits of

alternative water supply options and identify how to get the right balance of water

supply options7. This in turn will inform the CMPs and both sets of documents should

then be used to inform stormwater quality infrastructure charges.

In planning a new infrastructure charges framework, due regard should also be given to

precedence set in related court judgements. For example, in FKP Residential

Developments Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council [2009], the judge ruled in favour of

Council determining that the developer should pay infrastructure charges in addition to

onsite stormwater quality management.

Further discussion on TWCM, CMPs and stormwater asset management plans is

provided in Section 4.5.1.

7 Further information on the costs and benefits of stormwater harvesting as a water supply option

are available from the Urban Water Security Research Alliance: www.urbanwateralliance.org.au/research.html.

Summary of ‘infrastructure charges’ recommendations:

70. Use the Auckland Creek CMP to inform infrastructure charges for that catchment and refine the charges as necessary following publication of the TWCM plan.

71. Use the TWCM plan, other CMP’s and recent judgements to inform infrastructure charges for all other catchments in the Gladstone region.

http://www.urbanwateralliance.org.au/research.html




4.5.6 Off-site stormwater quality solutions (offsets)

Off-site stormwater quality solutions (commonly referred to as ‘offsets’) were previously

accepted by GRC as an alternative to enforcing compliance with stormwater quality

management objectives by developers. While (in theory) offsets provide a useful

mechanism to channel funding from small scale distributed systems into large regional

devices, the use of offsets requires careful planning prior to committing to the offsets

pathway.

A detailed analysis of stormwater quality offsets is provided in the Off-site Stormwater

Quality Solutions Discussion Paper (Version 1) (Water by Design, 2014). Without

repeating the numerous issues identified in the discussion paper (many of which have

been experienced by GRC), Council has decided to abandon its previous approach to

offsets. It does not currently accept stormwater quality offsets.

Although a number of local governments in Queensland have offset schemes, their

approaches to offsets are varied. To date, it is unclear whether any of these schemes

have actually been successful in achieving equivalent or better outcomes. There is

evidence however that a number of offset schemes have not worked.

That is not to say that offsets schemes cannot work. An offsets scheme should not be

entered into without a thorough understanding of potential issues and a comprehensive

long term strategy for implementation. When this issue was explored as part of the

Phase 3 workshops, there did not seem to be any support for an offsets scheme. This

is not surprising given GRC’s previous experience with stormwater quality offsets.

The reality is however, that a limited number of small scale developments, particularly

in brownfield/infill scenarios, may not be able to fully comply with stormwater quality

objectives. For these applications, offsets provide a viable solution (or partial solution)

if supported by appropriate planning.

Depending on the number of small scale developments which cannot practically

achieve stormwater quality objectives without compromising other WSUD objectives,

this is likely to be a low priority for Council. It should nevertheless be undertaken to

ensure that all developments can comply with the stormwater quality management

objectives in some way.

A policy and implementation plan should also be developed to guide the offsets

program and should be reviewed annually to ensure it is achieving its desired

outcomes. The other key issue regarding offsets which was explored during the Phase

3 workshops was the investment of offsets money already collected by Council. A clear

strategy for spending the offset money was identified by stakeholders as an immediate

need to ensure a maximum return in waterway health for the investment.

There are two recent innovations which could greatly assist in planning for stormwater

quality offsets in Gladstone. These include the new stormwater quality off-site solution

work being undertaken by Water by Design for consideration by the State Government

and a comprehensive offsets implementation plan currently being prepared by Ipswich

City Council.

Summary of ‘off-site stormwater quality solutions (offsets)’

recommendations:

72. Prepare an off-site stormwater quality solution (offsets) policy and implementation plan for GRC.

73. Prepare a strategy for investing previously collected offsets funds. The strategy should identify treatment sites and suitable treatment responses.


GRUSQMP Action Plan


5 GRUSQMP Action Plan

The review of Council’s existing structure, activities and strategies (including policies,

capacity and projects) has enabled the identification of a suite of opportunities for

improved stormwater quality management. These are opportunities which Council can

practically undertake in partnership with other stakeholders in the region.

These recommendations have then been translated into the GRUSQMP Action Plan

which is matrix to be kept ‘live’ and continually revised by Council over time. The action

plan includes:

Identification of each action

Timeframes, including short term (2015-2017), medium term (2018-2023) and long

term (2023-2028) timeframes.

Prioritisation of actions with high priority actions being those that:

○ were identified by stakeholders as being urgent

○ are ‘low hanging fruit’ (i.e. those actions that are low cost, simple, or would

require limited resources)

○ are priorities due to other actions (e.g. updating of the planning scheme).

Identification of related actions which must precede the recommended action

Identification of internal and external stakeholders which should be involved as

either an important stakeholder for consultation or to assist with implementation

Identification of resources required to deliver each action including:

○ GRC staff hours (full time equivalent days)

○ whether external consultancy support is required and specific tasks which could

be outsourced

○ an estimate of the investment required in external consultancy services

○ an estimate of the total investment required

○ an estimate of the total investment required for only the short term/high priority.

Further consideration of the Action Plan beyond the scope of this project is to be

undertaken by Council following completion of the final GRUSQMP.


Review of the GRUSQMP and Action Plan


6 Review of the GRUSQMP and Action Plan

6.1 Review of the GRUSQMP Action Plan

The intent of the annual review of the GRUSQMP Action Plan is to conduct a high level

review which ensures that:

Actions are being kept to schedule

The plan remains responsive to Council’s needs/capacity

The plan remains responsive to new/evolving threats and pressures

The plan remains responsive to the emerging science and contemporary industry

best practice.

Each annual review should be accompanied by a simple annual progress report

delivered to senior executives and Councillors. The annual review should highlight:

successful actions over the previous year; planned events for the subsequent year; and

perceived potential threats and mitigation measures.

All of the short term/high priority actions identified in the original GRUSQMP Action Plan

should be completed in the first three years of the plan. Their priority should not be

diminished in any way except where major catastrophic incidences justify some level of

reprioritisation.

Once all of the original short term/high priority actions have been completed, there is

greater flexibility for reprioritisation of actions.

6.2 Review of the GRUSQMP

A complete review of the GRUSQMP is nominally scheduled for 2028/2029. This timing

reflects the revision of the Community Plan which may result in a change in the vision

and priorities for the region.

Ideally, implementation of the current GRUSQMP would have resulted in a substantial

improvement in community knowledge and awareness of water quality issues. If the

plan has been successfully implemented, this improvement should be reflected in the

Community Plan. There may need to be some increased community education and

awareness activities leading up the future Community Plan community consultation to

ensure key water cycle management messages are suitably accounted for in the

Community Plan.

Similarly, implementation of the current GRUSQMP is expected to result in a significant

improvement in Council’s corporate knowledge about how to manage water quality

issues. The needs/capacity, threats and pressures and science/industry best practice

being monitored annually are also likely to have changed significantly and need to be

accounted for in a completely revised plan.

It is feasible also that Council could complete all but the ongoing actions listed in the

GRUSQMP Action Plan ahead of the 2028/2029 timeframe. If this occurs, the

GRUSQMP should be revised in its entirety.


Conclusion and Recommendations


7 Conclusion and Recommendations

Through consultation with GRC and local stakeholders who have a particular interest in

protecting and enhancing the region’s waterways, the GRUSQMP Action Plan has been

developed. This plan provides a ‘roadmap’ for Council to proactively improve the way it

protects and enhances the region’s waterways in response to the vision set by Council

and local stakeholders. While the focus on the plan is on stormwater quality, it

incorporates the total water cycle philosophy.

The plan includes actions focused on improved management of stormwater quality and

receiving waterway health through adaptive governance, flexible institutional

arrangements and responsive management. This includes a suite of capacity building

actions for Council itself, the reinforcement of sustainable water management practices

into daily operations, regulatory compliance, targeted water quality improvement

projects, monitoring and review.

The plan also includes a series of actions which will help transition Gladstone into a

water sensitive region through the integration of stormwater, wastewater and potable

water management. Those actions will require commitment to total water cycle

planning and a renewed, holistic approach to the planning and management of each

catchment in the region.

The implementation of the GRUSQMP will be the responsibility of each of Council’s

directorates and include staff from every level within Council. Councillors will also play

a key role in not only better understanding waterways management issues but in

championing the plan and actions.

Regular and sustained engagement, education and support of executive officers and

Councillors will be the critical factor in securing and sustaining support for the

implementation of this plan.

The value of such continued engagement will become most evident:

During challenging fiscal environments

When the plan challenges traditional water management practices and institutional

arrangements

When new executive officers and/or Councillors do not appreciate the value and

benefits of improved stormwater quality management.

In order to ‘future-proof’ the plan, implementation will therefore also require a financial

commitment which can be readily understood and valued in the context of benefits to

the Council, the community, the environment and the economy. Developing a

comprehensive local business case for stormwater quality management (including the

implementation of the GRUSQMP), will therefore be essential in continued support for

the plan. This will be achieved not only by demonstrating the cost/benefit of the

GRUSQMP but by demonstrating that there is a clear and logical link between the plan,

the Community Plan and Corporate Plan vision and strategies.

Coordination of the plan at an operational level will require additional resources. A new

coordinator position will be critical to ensure that this plan and the many actions listed

can be completed prior to its review which is scheduled following review of the

Community Plan. The individual appointed to this role will need to coordinate with high

level internal/external stakeholders and therefore the position should be quite senior.

Regular monitoring of the plan will ensure that Council remains at the forefront of best

practice and will help measure the progress it is making towards its vision for the

region.


Conclusion and Recommendations


7.1 Recommendations

Drawing upon the conclusions discussed above, the key recommendations of the

GRUSQMP are for Council to:

Endorse the GRUSQMP and assign responsibilities in the Action plan to relevant

Directorates

Review resources and timeframes for the sustained implementation of the plan

and consider during the budgeting process

Review the GRUSQMP Action Plan with a particular focus in the short term (first

three years following plan endorsement)/‘priority actions’ identified.

Undertake an annual progress review and high level revision of the GRUSQMP

with particular reference to current legislation and report on progress

Undertake a comprehensive review and revision of the GRUSQMP in conjunction

with adopted Council policies.

The planning and implementation of the GRUSQMP will significantly improve the way

Council manages its waterway assets and the way it supports the community, industry

and environment in the use and custodianship of its waterways. Further planning and

implementation is likely to be challenging but rewarding and Council is likely to

undertake many innovate new projects.

These projects and the staff/Councillors involved should be publically recognised for

their work and commitment. The final recommendation of the GRUSQMP is therefore

to celebrate.


References


8 References

ABC (2014), www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3527116.htm Accessed August 2014.

Adelaide Now (2014), http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaides-

stormwater-could-be-harvested-at-half-cost-of-deslalination-plant-report-shows/story-

fni6uo1m-1227027356937 Accessed: September 2014.

ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000), Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and

marine water quality.

BMT WBM (2010), EHMP review report. Prepared for South East Queensland Healthy

Waterways Partnership, Brisbane.

City Design (2002), Gladstone harbour protection and enhancement strategy, Brisbane

City Council, Brisbane.

CRC for Water Sensitive Cities (2015), The value of restoring urban drains to living

streams. Melbourne.

Dandy G, Ganji A, Kandulu J, Hatton MacDonald D, Marchi A, Maier H, Mankad A,

Schmidt CE (2014), Managed aquifer recharge and stormwater use options: Net

benefits report. Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 14/1,

Adelaide, South Australia. ISSN: 1839-2725

Deloitte Access Economics (2013), Economic contribution of the Great Barrier Reef, p.

15. Brisbane.

Department of Environment (2015) Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan.

Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Department of Environment, Heritage and Protection (2009) Environmental protection

(water) policy (2009). Brisbane.

Department of Environment, Heritage and Protection (2009) State planning policy

4/2010 healthy waters. Brisbane.

Environmental Protection Agency (2009), Urban stormwater—Queensland best practice

environmental management guidelines 2009. Technical note: derivation of design

objectives, Brisbane.

GHD (2006), Catchment management plan for Auckland Creek. Brisbane Gladstone

Regional Council (2000), Gladstone stormwater management strategy – drainage

management document. Gladstone.

Gladstone Regional Council (2013a), Adopted infrastructure charges stormwater

network maps. Gladstone.

Gladstone Regional Council (2013b), Gladstone region community plan. Gladstone.

Gladstone Regional Council (2013c), Gladstone regional council adopted infrastructure

charges resolution (No. 1) – 2011, Former Calliope Shire Local Government area, as

amended: 16 July 2013

Gladstone Regional Council (2013d), Gladstone regional council adopted infrastructure

charges resolution (No. 2) – 2011 Former Gladstone City Local Government area, as

amended: 16 July 2013

Gladstone Regional Council (2013e), Gladstone regional council adopted infrastructure

charges resolution (No. 3) – 2011 Former Miriam Vale Shire Local Government area, as

amended: 16 July 2013.

Gladstone Regional Council (2013f), Gladstone regional council corporate plan 2013-

2017. Gladstone.

Gladstone Regional Council (2014a), Gladstone Regional Council 2014/2015

operational plan. Gladstone.

Gladstone Regional Council (2014b) Stormwater management guideline, February

2014, Rev 02. Gladstone.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3527116.htm

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaides-stormwater-could-be-harvested-at-half-cost-of-deslalination-plant-report-shows/story-fni6uo1m-1227027356937




References


Gladstone Regional Council (2014c), http://www.gladstone.qld.gov.au/. Accessed

August-September 2014

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2012), Inquiry into Queensland agriculture

and resource industries, Submission 28, p. 3, http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/.

Greer, L., and Kabir, Z. (2013), Guidance for the selection of social, cultural and

economic indicators for the development of the GHHP report card, Report to the

Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, School of Human Health and Social Science,

CQ University Australia, Rockhampton (pp.57).

Hardesty, BD, C Wilcox, TJ Lawson, M Lansdell and T van der Velde (2014).

Understanding the effects of marine debris on wildlife. Report to Earthwatch Australia

by CSIRO, Australia.

Hoban, A.T, and Kennedy, K. (2012), Community perceptions of raingardens in

residential streets at Bellvista Estate. In conference proceedings: WSUD 2012; 7th

International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design, 21 - 23 February 2012,

Melbourne.

International Erosion Control Association (2008), Best Practice Erosion and Sediment

Control.

Ipswich City Council (2011), Implementation guideline no. 24 – Stormwater

management. Ipswich.

Leonard R, Walton A, Koth B, Green M, Spinks A, Myers B, Malkin S, Mankad A,

Chacko P, Sharma A, Pezzaniti D (2014), Community acceptance of Water Sensitive

Urban Design: Six case studies. Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report

Series No. 14/3, Adelaide, South Australia. ISSN: 1839-2725

Marsden Jacob Associates (2014), The economic and social impacts of protecting the

environmental values of the waters of the Capricorn and Curtis Coasts and Curtis coast.

Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane.

O2 (2011a), Phase 1 - Workshop summary - Gladstone Regional stormwater quality

management plan, phase 1A preliminary activities. Brisbane.

O2 (2011b), Phase 1B - Risk Assessment - Gladstone Regional Council urban

stormwater quality management plan. Brisbane.

O2 (2012), Gladstone Regional Council stormwater quality management plan phase 2

broad scale quality & quantity assessment. Brisbane.

Polyakov, M., Iftekhar, S.,Zhang, F., Fogarty, J., (2015), The amenity value of water

sensitive urban infrastructure: A case study on rain gardens, proceedings of the 59th

Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society,

Rotorua, New Zealand.

QPEC (2009), FKP Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council. QPEC

35, Brisbane.

Rolfe, J. And Windle, J. (2012), Distance decay functions for iconic assets: Assessing

national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia,

Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 347-365.

SGS Economics and Planning (2010). Prosperity 2030: Gladstone Region Economic

Development Strategy. Brisbane.

State of Queensland (2013a), Reef water quality protection plan. Brisbane.

State of Queensland (2013b), Report on draft aquatic ecosystem water quality

guidelines for the Capricorn Curtis Coast. Brisbane.

Water by Design (2010), A business case for urban stormwater management. Healthy

Waterways Ltd., Brisbane.

Water by Design (2011), Framework for the integration of flood and stormwater

management into open space. Healthy Waterways Ltd, Brisbane.

Water by Design (2014), Gladstone Regional Council WSUD action plan. Healthy

Waterways Ltd, Brisbane.

Water by Design (2014), Off-site stormwater quality solutions discussion paper (Version

1). Healthy Waterways Ltd. Brisbane.

http://www.gladstone.qld.gov.au/

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/


References


Water by Design (2014), www.waterbydesign.com.au/guidelines-factsheets-main/.

Healthy Waterways Ltd. Brisbane.

Water by Design and Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (2014), Standard

drawings for WSUD. Healthy Waterways Ltd. and IPWEA, Brisbane.

Wilson,S. (2012), Gladstone stormwater litter survey report. Centre for Environmental

Management, Central Queensland University Australia, Gladstone.

Wilson,S and Hansler, M. (2013), Gladstone region 2013 stormwater litter survey

assessment. Centre for Environmental Management, Central Queensland University

Australia, Gladstone.

Zhang, F., Polyakov,M., Fogarty, J., and Pannell, D.J. (2015) The capitalized value of

rainwater tanks in the property market of Perth, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, Volume

522, p317-325.

http://www.waterbydesign.com.au/guidelines-factsheets-main/

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report A-1

Review of Relevant Water Quality Objectives


Appendix A Review of Relevant Water Quality Objectives

This appendix provides discussion on the environmental values (EVs), water quality

objectives (WQOs) and hydrologic management objectives for the Gladstone region.

The actual values are not presented in this report given that:

EVs and WQOs for the “Curtis Coast region” which includes the Gladstone local

government area, are currently in the advanced stage of being scheduled but

remain draft at the time of publication

The draft EVs and WQOs are summarised in a few dozen tables – the repetition of

which would add little value to this report. During Phase 1 of the GRUSQMP,

stakeholders also identified that the Phase 3 report should remain succinct

Stormwater quality management objectives and hydrologic management objectives

are listed in state regulatory instruments and subject to change

Excluding the values and objectives means that this report remains current for

longer and minimises the need for Council to revise the report.

The EVs and WQOs are nevertheless readily available in the reference standards noted

in the description of each objective below. The benefit that the report does provide is

that it explains the different objectives and how they should be applied in Gladstone.

Apart from the objectives discussed in this report, it is noted that separate draft WQOs

for groundwater quality and macroinvertebrate water quality were also available through

the EHP website at the time of publication. These would be relevant in establishing a

freshwater quality monitoring plan for the region.

A.1 Relevant water management objectives

There are four types of water management objectives relevant to stormwater

management in Gladstone. They include:

Environmental values

Concentration-based receiving WQOs

Operational phase stormwater management objectives

Construction phase stormwater management objectives.

Each of these is described further below.

A.1.1 Environmental values

The most current EVs at the time of publication were available in the report Establishing

Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives for Capricorn and Curtis Coast

Basins and Coastal Waters: Draft Community Consultation Report (Fitzroy Basin

Association, 2014).

EVs for water are the qualities of water that make it suitable for supporting economic

and community uses (e.g. irrigation, recreation, stock watering, industry, human

consumption), aquatic ecosystems, and cultural/spiritual values (DEHP, 2014).

EV should be used as high level guiding principles rather than as strict compliance

targets. They can be used to help guide the determination of concentration based

WQOs.




A.1.2 Concentration-based receiving WQOs

The most current, albeit draft concentration based WQOs at the time of publication

were available in the Report on Draft Aquatic Ecosystem Water Quality Guidelines for

the Capricorn Curtis Coast (State of Queensland, 2013b).

Water quality guidelines (WQGs) are technically derived guidelines to protect particular

EVs (e.g. aquatic ecosystem). They may include chemical, physical and biological

measures of water quality and aquatic ecosystem health that need to be maintained or

achieved in order to protect the identified EVs. They may also be may be revised to

address socio-economic considerations (DEHP, 2014).

They are based on ambient “dry-weather” concentrations in receiving waterways and

represent long-term aspirational targets within waterways. They can be used for

analysing long term trends in receiving waterways during ambient conditions and for

measuring impacts from spills and point source discharges to receiving waterways.

They are useful therefore in assessing compliance with the environmental protection

provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (EP Act).

These targets cannot account for the substantial changes in pollutants during storm

events. They should not therefore, be used as discharge criteria for stormwater

discharges from urban developments. Assessing the performance of stormwater

treatment measures such as wetlands, swales and bioretention systems against these

objectives would be inappropriate for most developments.

The exception to this is point source discharges and major projects which are assessed

through environmental impact assessment (EIA) process where receiving water quality

modelling is required. This includes for example, developments which require

assessment pursuant to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (EPBC Act), as actions that have, or are likely to have, a ‘significant impact’ on a

‘matter of national environmental significance’ (MNES).

Those MNES particularly relevant to stormwater management include:

World heritage properties

National heritage places

Wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention) listed

threatened species and ecological communities

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

While projects such as ports, dredging and refineries typically come to mind, in the past,

major urban developments such as master planned communities have also triggered

assessment under the EPBC Act. For these types of development, the assessing

authority (state and/or federal governments) typically set specific stormwater objectives

which are more stringent than typical load-based discharge criteria.

Council’s development assessment staff should therefore be conscious of this

additional assessment process when assessing major projects. This is particularly the

case as compliance with objectives at higher levels may determine whether a change in

use for example is feasible. This should be resolved therefore even before a

preliminary approval is issued at the local level.




A.1.3 Operational phase stormwater management objectives

Stormwater objectives for the operational phase of development include load-based

stormwater quality objectives and an objective for waterway stability. The most current

operational phase objectives at the time of publication were available in the SPP

(DEHP, 2014). Ideally, they would also be reflected in a Council planning scheme

policy.

Load-based stormwater quality objectives

The load-based WQOs are current best practice targets based on what can be

practically achieved during the operational phase of development using contemporary

design standards. They are founded on the assumption that stormwater quality

treatment systems are “sized to operate at the technology’s reasonable limit of

economic performance as defined by the point of diminishing return” (Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), 2010).

While these targets ensure pollutant loads are reduced, they do not ensure that the

downstream EV’s or WQO’s will be protected and therefore do not ensure that the

waterways will be protected. The load-based objectives cannot therefore be used for

the purposes of catchment management planning or total water cycle planning to

assess whether waterways will be protected.

This is an important distinction to understand given that the vision for Gladstone (as set

out in Section 1 of this report) is not only to protect waterways but to enhance them.

Understanding whether waterways can be protected and enhanced will require

assessment of both loads and concentrations as part of the TWCM plan and catchment

management plans (CMPs).

Compliance with load-based objectives does, however, ensure that developers have

met their regulatory obligations under the current SPP. They are currently the most

appropriate stormwater quality management compliance targets for new developments

and Council capital works/renewal/retrofit projects.

Waterway stability objective

The waterway stability objective was included in the SPP to minimise geomorphic

impacts in downstream hydrology associated with urban development. Specifically, the

objective aims to manage “bed and bank erosion and damage to key benthic habitat

(i.e. scouring of sand/gravel beds) and displacement of larger structural habitats such

as pool riffle sequences” (EPA, 2010).

Managing downstream sediment transport is therefore critical in this regard. Given that

flows of intermediate magnitude (i.e. up to 1 yr ARI) carry the large proportion of

sediment in streams, the intent is to limit changes in these flows.

This objective should be applied to all development applications to which Council would

apply the load-based stormwater quality objectives. The exceptions to this include:

Where developments discharge into a tidal waterway and the tide is primary

hydrologic force.

Where the development discharges into a lined waterway (e.g. a concrete channel)

and there is no possibility that the waterway would be rehabilitated in the life of the

development.

With regard to the second point, many local government authorities argue that any lined

waterway has the potential for rehabilitation and apply the objective to all development.

A.1.4 Construction phase stormwater management objectives

The most current construction phase stormwater quality objectives at the time of

publication were available in the SPP (DEHP, 2014). Ideally, they would also be

reflected in a Council planning scheme policy.

These WQOs cover a broad range of issues including drainage control, erosion control,

sediment control, water quality and hydrologic management. They should be enforced

on both development sites and building sites including private developments and

Council led projects.

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan - Phase 3 Report B-1

GRUSQMP Phase 3 Workshop Consultation Stakeholders


Appendix B GRUSQMP Phase 3 Workshop Consultation Stakeholders

Organisation Name Title

Gladstone Regional

Council

Col Chapman Councillor

Matt Burnett Councillor

Rick Hansen Councillor

Mark Cochrane Engineering Officer –

Planning (Project Manager)

Mark Holmes Chief Financial Officer

Paul Keech Director Engineering

Services

Russell Schuler Director Strategic Planning

Leisa Dowling Director Planning and Environment

Helen Robertson Manager Development Services

Helen Paulsen Manager Parks & Environment

Tony Klein Manager Parks and

Environment

Ian Munro Manager Technical Services

Rob Huth Road Services Manager

Brooke Saunders Manager Regulatory Services

Brad Lutton Disaster and Emergency Management Co-ordinator

Elizabeth Bradley Environmental Advisor

Philip Tian Operational Works Coordinator


Ted Davis GIS & Mapping Co-Ordinator

Renqi Shen Development Engineer

Celisa Faulkner Development Engineer

Renqi Shen Development Engineer

Scott McDonald Engineer (Design)

Ben Smith Engineering Officer

Ben Smith Engineering Officer

Matt Kelly Planning Officer

Chris Kelso Senior Engineering Officer - Assets

Boyd Newton Senior Tech Officer

Ross Best Senior Tech Officer

Carla Featherstone Engineering Technician

Don Dickson Engineering Technician

Continued on next page.


GRUSQMP Phase 3 Workshop Consultation Stakeholders



Gladstone Ports

Corporation Ltd

Dr. Megan Ellis Marine Scientist

Dr. Daniel Spooner Environmental Leader - LNG

Dredging

Department of

Environment, Heritage

and Protection

Brad Dines Policy Officer

Healthy Waterways Ltd David Logan Senior Science Officer

Kristy Gooding

Central Queensland

University Dr.. Scott Wilson

Deputy Program Leader. Water

Quality & Diagnostics

Fitzroy Basin

Association Dr. Mark.Schultz

BMT WBM Brad Dalrymple Senior Environmental Engineer

Paul Dubowski Senior Environmental Scientist

BMT WBM Brisbane Level 8200 Creek StreetBrisbane Queensland 4000PO Box 203 Spring Hill QLD 4004Tel +61 7 3831 6744Fax +61 7 3832 3627Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Denver Suite 1208200 S. Akron StreetCentennialDenver Colorado CO 80112United StatesTel (+1) 303 792 9814Fax (+1) 303 792 9742Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Port MoresbyTel +61 7 3831 6744Email [email protected]

BMT WBM MackayPO Box 4447 Mackay QLD 4740Tel +61 7 4953 5144Fax +61 7 4953 5132Email [email protected]

BMT WBM MelbourneLevel 599 King StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000PO Box 604 Collins Street West VIC 8007Tel +61 3 8620 6100Fax +61 3 8620 6105Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Newcastle 126 Belford StreetBroadmeadow New South Wales 2292PO Box 266 BroadmeadowNew South Wales 2292Tel +61 2 4940 8882Fax +61 2 4940 8887Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Northern RiversSuite 6 20 Byron Street Bangalow New South Wales 2479Tel +61 2 6687 0466Fax +61 2 6687 0422Email [email protected]

1

1

21

1

1

1

1

3

1

bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Perth Suite 629 Hood StreetSubiaco Western Australia 6008Tel +61 8 9328 2029Fax +61 8 9486 7588 Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Sydney Level 1 256-258 Norton StreetLeichhardt 2040PO Box 194 Leichhardt New South Wales 2040Tel +61 2 8987 2900Fax +61 2 8987 2999Email [email protected]

BMT WBM United Kingdom1st FloorInternational HouseSt Katharine’s WayLondonE1W 1AYTel +44 (0) 20 8090 1566Email [email protected]

BMT WBM Vancouver 401 - 611 Alexander StreetVancouverBritish Columbia V6A 1E1CanadaTel (+1) 604 683 5777Fax (+1) 604 608 3232Email [email protected]

Documents

Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality …info.gladstonerc.qld.gov.au/meetings/20151103/attachments...2015/11/03 · Gladstone Regional Urban Stormwater Quality Management Plan