Wilson Inlet Nutrient Reduction Action Plan

Wilson Inlet Nutrient Reduction Action Plan: the 52 actions in detail

The Wilson Inlet Nutrient Reduction Actio Plan (WINRAP) summary document was released in April 2003 by Member for Albany Peter Watson MLA, on behalf of the Minister for Environment.

The plan follows scientific studies that have confirmed that the condition of the Inlet is a concern.

At the launch George Ebbet, Chairman of the Wilson Inlet Management Advisory Group said "This opens a new chapter in the management of the Inlet. We have completed the necessary science, and now we have the Plan....to give us direction. It specifies what needs to be done, by whom and in what time frame."

The plan sets out specific actions to help improve water quality, shows which group or agency should take a lead role in each action and gives a timeline of events. The plan is also complemented by the WINRAP teams yearly operational plan, a simple document that guides the projects to be undertaken in each year.

Download the plan as a pdf

The strategy

The Action Plan identifies three necessary strategies to improve the condition of Wilson Inlet These are:

  1. Reducing nutrients from the catchment

    Unless nutrient levels are reduced from all sources there is a real risk excess macroalgal growth will continue and phytoplankton blooms may become worse in terms of amount and distribution. Reducing nutrient inputs should bring about a reduction in algae growth.

  2. Managing the Inlet to maximise nutrient processing and export.

    It is considered that the Inlet's ability to process and export nutrients will be assisted by maximising Inlet water levels, providing consistent bar opening locations and better management of development and land uses located on the Inlet's former floodplain.

  3. Monitoring and reporting to guide the effectiveness of management.

    Better information is needed to determine the impacts of certain land uses, and to judge the effectiveness of management methods. Monitoring is needed to determine whether the Inlet's condition is improving or worsening.

The 52 actions in details

(see chapters to left)

Key to the terms: The plan identifies who is responsible for implementing each action and the timeline for each action. These are given in brackets at the end of each action. Each action is also given a code, this is in bold.

The lead groups for the plan are:

  • DA: Department of Agriculture and Food WA
  • WRC: Department of Water
  • DPI: Department of Planning and Infrastructure
  • Fisheries: Department of Fisheries
  • LGA: Local Government Authority
  • WC: Water Corporation
  • WICC: Wilson Inlet Catchment Committee
  • WIMAG: Wilson Inlet Management Advisory Group

A. Reducing Nutrients from the Catchment

  1. Intensive Rural Land Uses (back to the actions menu)

    Intensive rural land uses includes intensive animal husbandry (such as dairies, feedlots and piggeries) and horticulture (including vineyards and potato growing). At the time of preparing this plan (2002) there were four dairies and one piggery in the catchment, several hundred hectares of vines and approximately 100 hectares of potatoes. Although limited in size and number, these operations can produce considerable amounts of nutrients, yet little information presently exists on current management practices and their impact on nutrient export rates.

    Action IR 1: New intensive rural landuse activities should only be located in areas where nutrient export can be effectively managed.
    Intensive rural land uses with the potential to export significant levels of nutrients should require approval under Town Planning Schemes. Approval should not be provided where nutrient export cannot be managed (eg flood risk areas, land with low Phosphorus Retention Index). Mapping of land with a low capability to retain nutrients to be undertaken and provided to local government authorities. The mapping of Agricultural Priority Areas in Local Planning Strategies should have regard for nutrient export. (DPI, LGAs, WRC, DA - ongoing).

    Action IR 2: Applications for intensive rural land use activities should consider nutrient export and demonstrate how this will be effectively managed.
    Applications should demonstrate compliance with available and endorsed Industry Codes of Practice. Nutrient and Irrigation Management Plans should be prepared with advice from WRC. All new applications will be expected to provide no net nutrient inputs to waterways. (LGAs, WRC - ongoing).

    Action IR3: Existing intensive rural land use activities need to be mapped, existing nutrient and waste management methods documented and where practical improved.
    Confirmation of locations and management practices for intensive animal husbandry and horticulture to be undertaken immediately. Management plans need to be developed for sites with the greatest risk of nutrient loss, and partnerships with the industry promoted to access funds, technical help and reduce risk of nutrient export. (WRC, Industry, DA - 2 years).

    Action IR4: Monitoring of intensive rural land use activities to be undertaken to determine nutrient hazard.
    Priority land use to be monitored is potato cultivation. Monitoring to be developed and implemented with industry. (Industry, WRC, DA - 2 years).

  2. Drainage Management (back to the actions menu)

    The Lake Sadie, Cuppup and Sleeman drainage networks have catchments that have the highest level of nutrient export (per hectare) in the Wilson Inlet catchment. The proximity to the Inlet, the level of inundation, type of land use and drainage design all contribute to higher levels of nutrient export. The drains are managed by Water Corporation or are in private ownership. The Water Corporation has a responsibility to ensure flooding does not adversely impact landowners.

    Action DM1: New drains connecting into the Water Corporation's drainage network should be designed to minimise the risk of nutrient and sediment export.
    Water Corporation have approval powers for all new drains connected to their drainage network. This approval will only be given for drains designed to minimise nutrient and sediment export. As a minimum this will require fencing and vegetation of the proposed drain. (WC - ongoing).

    Action DM2: Examine how environmental considerations can be incorporated into the management of water levels in the Albany Drainage District.
    Presently there is only a statutory obligation for the Water Corporation to consider the interests of landowners affected by flooding in the design, management and operations of the drainage network. This needs to be reviewed to consider incorporation of environmental considerations. As an example, the operating licence may enable changes in water level if agreements are reached with landowners. (WC, WRC -2 years).

    Action DM3: Existing Water Corporation managed drains to be slashed rather than sprayed for vegetation control, where not cost prohibitive.
    Ideally, vegetation control should be by slashing only, rather than sprays that could encourage destabilisation of banks. Consideration to be given to allowing native vegetation to grow unrestricted on one side of drainage reserve, where practical. Review of procedures to begin immediately. (WC -ongoing).

    Action DM4: Fencing and planting of native vegetation to be promoted alongside private and Water Corporation drains.
    Priorities to be guided by existing foreshore surveys. Surveys to be completed for remaining drains. It is realistic to expect stock exclusion from Water Corporation drainage reserves within 5 years. (WC, WICC, landowners, WRC -5 years).

    Action DM5: Best Management Practices to be incorporated into drainage network to reduce sediment and nutrient export.
    Constructed wetlands, re-contouring and riffle work has been recently completed at demonstration sites. These need to be maintained, and further sites identified to trial methods of minimising nutrient transportation. Priority works and sites need to be identified and endorsed. A program of 2/3 sites a year is suggested, for a 5 year program. (WC, WRC -ongoing).

    Action DM6: Monitoring to be undertaken to determine effectiveness of best management practices for drains.
    Monitoring to determine effectiveness of new management practices, with initial focus on riffle work and wetlands. Monitoring to include sediment removal, maintenance costs, photographic records. (WRC-ongoing).

  3. Rural Catchment Management (back to the actions menu)

    Broadacre farming plays an important role in nutrient discharge to the Inlet. There is a need to develop more environmentally sustainable farming systems, including grazing.

  4. Fertiliser Management (back to the actions menu)

    Department of Agriculture research has identified how large numbers of fertiliser applications are made independently of soil test results, increasing the risk of incorrect applications and possible wastage. Apparent improvement in pasture may be the result of sulphur in superphosphate. Very little is known of fertiliser use and management, except that it is influenced by the economics of specific agricultural enterprises.

    Action FM1: Undertake assessment of current fertiliser use and management.
    Use questionnaire to examine use and factors influencing use. (WICC, DA-2 years).

    Action FM2: Conduct extension program to promote best practice fertiliser management.
    Encourage soil testing prior to application, through targeted soil testing. Provision of advice on suitable type and timing of fertiliser application to promote land capability and productivity components. (DA: 2 years).

    Action FM3: Organise workshops to discuss uptake of best practice fertiliser management.
    Workshops to include fertiliser companies, catchment groups and agencies. Barriers to uptake of best practice to be determined and initiatives to be put forward that may tackle these barriers. (WICC, DA-2 years).

  5. Stream Rehabilitation (back to the actions menu)

    Riparian vegetation can provide a valuable nutrient filter, bank stabilization as well as habitat. Surveys have shown riparian vegetation has been lost or degraded for many of the catchments creeks. Damage by livestock is a particular concern, as livestock can destabilize banks and deposit waste in streams. Subdivision, with fence lines, firebreaks and vehicle access can lead to a loss of riparian vegetation if inappropriately located.

    Financial incentives have been used in the past to encourage fencing of stream vegetation. To date fencing and revegetation has concentrated on larger streams rather than the smaller, occasional flowing streams, yet the latter may have a greater impact on managing nutrients than the former. Research indicates nitrogen export can be reduced by a third through riparian vegetation restoration, and sediment transportation can be reduced by 90%.

    Action SR1: Continue to implement existing stream foreshore survey report as recommendations and undertake new surveys for priority sub-catchments.
    New surveys to include first and second order streams. (WICC, catchment groups, WRC -5 years)

    Action SR2: Continue to fence and rehabilitate stream foreshores. Priority areas include Sunny Glen Creek, Sleeman River and first and second order streams.
    Replanting and alternative watering points to be funded with fencing. Long term funding, using more diverse range of sources and sponsorship, to be provided as a matter of urgency. (Catchment groups, WRC, WICC, LGAs -ongoing).

    Action SR3: Fencing and rehabilitation of streams to be encouraged as a condition of Rural and Special Rural subdivision.
    New lots should be aligned to assist in the protection and rehabilitation of creeklines. A condition of subdivision should be the fencing of riparian vegetation. (DPI, WRC -ongoing).

    Action SR4: River restoration projects to be recorded, mapped and reported to the community.
    Fencing and restoration projects need to be mapped and maintained in a Geographical Information System. Photographic records of sites need to be kept, and sites revisited to audit performance. (WICC, WRC - ongoing).

  6. Water Management (back to the actions menu)

    Water drained from rural properties can pick up nutrients and sediment, and transport these directly into streams. Agroforestry, dams or vegetated swales can all reduce water flows into streams. Aquaculture in streams can directly diminish water quality through feed wastage and faeces.

    Action WM1: Support proposals that demonstrate an ability to retain water on rural properties, and which are consistent with other environmental objectives.
    Promote Farm Water Grants Scheme in catchment. Use best practice demonstration sites and field tours to disseminate knowledge. (DA, WICC, WRC - ongoing).

    Action WM2: Ensure aquaculture ponds are located off-stream, out of a stream channel and floodway.
    Through Planning Approval and Fisheries licencing, aquaculture ponds can be required to locate outside of flood prone land. In general, aquaculture proposals located in-stream should not be supported. WRC advice on applications will be used to achieve this objective. Best practice management methods to be developed for location and design of aquaculture ponds and macrophyte ponds for water treatment. (Fisheries, WRC, LGA - ongoing).

  7. Perennial Pasture (back to the actions menu)

    Perennial pasture can provide greater soil stability, and reduce erosion and nutrient loss. Perennial pasture can lead to significant decreases in nitrogen loss, yet also provide productivity gains. Annual pastures currently cover a third of the catchment, and modeling suggests it provides two thirds of the nutrients entering the Inlet.

    Action PP1: Promote perennial pasture in targeted areas. Seek funding to provide free seed to targeted landowners.
    Priority areas at a sub-catchment scale to be determined by Department of Agriculture research on nutrient hot spots and management. Perennial pasture to be promoted alongside first and second order creeks as an alternative to annuals. (WICC, DA, -ongoing).

  8. Catchment Support(back to the actions menu)

    The Wilson Inlet Catchment Committee manages many landcare initiatives in the Wilson Inlet catchment, and employs two part-time Federal Government funded Catchment Coordinators that successfully implement on ground works. Natural resource management groups, as well as individual landowners, also implement landcare initiatives using funds from a range of sources.

    Action CP1: Provide support for catchment groups working on implementation of this Action Plan.
    Maintaining a Catchment Coordinator is a priority, as is the establishment of sub-catchment groups for the Sunny Glen, Sleeman, Cuppup and Scotsdale River catchments. Seek funding to maintain the catchment coordinator positions and the group activities. (WICC, WRC, DA -ongoing).

    Action CP2: Lobby for external funds to implement catchment works recommended in the Action Plan.
    Make joint applications for funding, to assist catchment groups in delivering recommendations of the Action Plan. (WICC, WRC, DA- ongoing).

    Action CP3: Undertake educational activities to improve community understanding of the Wilson Inlet catchment, nutrient sources and their management.
    Undertake field tours, exhibitions and promote activities that bring together upper and lower catchment communities. (WICC, WRC -ongoing).

    Action CP4: Use signage on major transport routes to identify the Wilson Inlet Catchment.
    Signs to link catchment to Inlet, and importance of landcare. (WICC, WRC-3 years).

  9. Urban Sources (back to the actions menu)

    The urban area of Denmark town site occupies only 0.1% of the Inlet's catchment, and probably contributes only a small percentage of nutrients. Little measured information exists on real nutrient loss, although per hectare this loss is likely to be greater than general rural areas. Septic tanks, urban storm water and landfill are the main urban sources of nutrients, but urban development can also lead to loss of remnant and riparian vegetation, so changing stream hydrology and increasing erosion and nutrient loss.

    Action US1: Domestic on-site effluent disposal to be compatible with Water and Rivers Commission guidelines.
    These guidelines relate to set-backs from streams and density of units. The guidelines should be noted in proposed Scheme Amendments and subdivisions and compliance confirmed. Failure to meet these guidelines will be used to recommend refusal of the proposal. (LGA, DPI, WRC-ongoing).

    Action US2: Generally, new residential development will be expected to connect to sewer, and should be located to accommodate this requirement.
    (LGA, DPI, WRC -ongoing).

    Action US3: Reticulated sewer should service urban areas presently utilising on site effluent disposal systems in close proximity to Wilson Inlet.
    Areas such as Weedon Hill, Minsterley Road and Inlet Drive to be given a high priority in the Government's Sewer Infill Program. (WC, DPI, Shire of Denmark- ongoing).

    Action US4: Educational material to be provided highlighting the importance of urban stormwater and its impact on Wilson Inlet.
    Leaflets, letters, stenciling of drain grates along Strickland Street are means of communicating the role of urban stormwater. (Shire of Denmark, WRC -1 year).

    Action US5: Urban stormwater best management practice to be promoted.
    New development will be expected to comply with the Water and Rivers Commissions urban water sensitive design manual. Major developments should prepare stormwater management plans as a condition of Scheme Amendment, subdivision or development. Retrofitting of existing urban drains, such as with the use of constructed wetlands, needs to be promoted through funding applications. Direct discharge of stormwater to the Inlet or rivers will generally not be supported for new development. (LGA, DPI, WRC -ongoing).

    Action US6: Generally, future urban areas should be located so as to minimise the clearing of native remnant and riparian vegetation.
    The existence of native vegetation should be identified and considered when future urban areas are identified in Planning Strategies, Structure Plans or Scheme Amendments. Development should be set-back from riparian vegetation, consistent with WRC guidelines. Management of foreshore areas should be undertaken in a manner sympathetic to riparian vegetation protection. (LGA, DPI, WRC -ongoing).

    Action US7: Rural Residential development should be sited and designed to reduce the potential of nutrient loss.
    Scheme provisions will be required to protect existing vegetation, fence and rehabilitate streamlines, manage stormwater and effluent management, set-back development from streams and manage nutrient sources eg horticulture. (LGA, WRC, DPI - ongoing).

B. Managing the Inlet to Maximise Nutrient Processing and Export

  1. Protecting and Re-establishing the Inlet Floodplain (back to the actions menu)

    An estuary's floodplain is important in assimilating nutrients. Naturally the Wilson Inlet floodplain would have been extensive, covering land to approximately 2m AHD. Artificial breaching of the sandbar has lowered Inlet levels and reduced the size of the floodplain. The present floodplain has development and land uses that are not compatible with nutrient assimilation. Potato cultivation in particular has the potential to export significant concentrations of nutrients to the Inlet. Little knowledge exists of the impacts of land uses in the present floodplain, or even the extent of the floodplain. The Shire of Denmark has a Town Planning Scheme Provision controlling development below 2.5m AHD, but no similar provision exists for the City of Albany which contains the majority of the Inlets floodplain.

    Action IF1: The Wilson Inlet floodplain to be mapped. The floodplain should include land subject to inundation at present bar opening levels (approximately 1m AHD), and extended to take into account possible higher bar opening levels.
    Floodplain mapping at 1.5m AHD is recommended to guide future management and land use decisions. (WIMAG, WRC, WC -1 year).

    Action IF2: Land use planning strategies and approvals to recognise the importance of the Wilson Inlet floodplain, and ensure future development is compatible with conservation of the Inlet.
    New development should only be permitted within the floodplain if it can demonstrate no increase in nutrients will occur, and the development is compatible with nutrient assimilation. Clearing of native vegetation within the floodplain should generally not be permitted. The floodplain should be shown as a Special Control Area within the Regional and Local Planning Strategies, and Town Planning Schemes provisions used to ensure new development meets these objectives. The Shire of Denmarks general restriction on development of land up to 2.5m AHD should be adopted in the City of Albany. (LGAs, DPI, WRC -ongoing).

    Action IF3: Undertake monitoring to determine nutrient export from land uses in the Wilson Inlet floodplain.
    Land uses need to be mapped and risk of nutrient release documented. Monitoring to establish significance of individual land uses, with a priority being potato farming. Monitoring to be undertaken with the industry. (Industry, WIMAG, WRC -3 years).

    Action IF4: In partnership with landowners undertake works to minimise nutrient export from existing land uses in the Wilson Inlet floodplain.
    Management plans and corrective work to be undertaken in partnership with industry and landowners. Potato cultivation is considered a high priority for consideration of changes in management practices. Options to be explored include raising of levee banks, soil testing and amended fertiliser application, environmental conditions on cropping lease on Crown land or non-renewal of lease, and possibility of land acquisition through Regional Planning Scheme. (Industry, WRC, WIMAG, WICC -2 years).

    Action IF5: Encourage protection and enhancement of the Inlets fringing native vegetation.
    Protection to be enabled through clearing controls and development approval process. Rehabilitation to be encouraged by education and grant assistance to landowners. (WRC, LGA-ongoing).

  2. Maximising Water Levels in the Inlet (backto the actions menu)

    The Water Corporation artificially breaches the sand bar when the Inlet reaches approximately 1m AHD. Under the Rural Land Drainage Act the Water Corporation has a responsibility to ensure landowners are not unreasonably affected by flooding. Higher water levels may impact on landowners and existing development, but the impacts are not quantified. Naturally, Inlet levels would have reached above 2m AHD before breaching of sandbar. Higher water levels may encourage better scouring of channels and removal of sediment from the Inlet.

    Action WL1: Identify impediments to maintaining and increasing water levels in Wilson Inlet, and provide costs and benefits of removing these impediments.
    It is suggested that this exercise be undertaken for water levels up to 1.5m AHD, to determine the practicality of increasing Inlet levels. This information to be presented to WIMG and LGAs. (WC, WRC, WIMAG, LGAâs -2 years).

    Action WL2: Increase height of levee banks to ensure timing of potato sowing does not require early opening of sandbar.
    Potato sowing was initially a major justification for a planned early opening of the sandbar in 2001. Such circumstances may occur again and can be avoided through raising levee bank heights. The main levee bank is also a local road. (Industry, City of Albany -2 years).

    See our page explaining the protocol behind the Wilson Inlet bar openings. There is also a link to the Dept. of Water's inlet level monitoring page so you can see the inlets level for the past 6 days.

  3. Location of Sandbar Openings (back to the actions menu)

    Artificial breaching of the sandbar has occurred in various locations, with most recent openings located within 100m of the western cliffs. Research indicates bar opening location has no overall impact on Inlet condition, but there is evidence to suggest consistent bar openings assist in establishing and scouring defined channels in the Inlet. There is most community support for a western opening.

    Action SO1: Continue to artificially breach the sandbar within 100m of the western cliffs.
    Exact location to be determined through site inspection, in agreement with Water Corporation and Wilson Inlet Management Group. (WC, WIMAG, WRC - ongoing).

  4. Dredging of Channels through Inlet delta (back to the actions menu)

    Various proposals for dredged channels have been put forward to flush Wilson Inlet, to reduce nutrient and sediment build-up, or restore historical channels in the Inlet. Most significant is the proposal put forward by the Wilson Inlet Restoration Group in 1994 for a channel from Poddyshot to the sandbar.

    Research managed by the Water and Rivers Commission indicates few nutrients are flushed through the sandbar, with most nutrients being assimilated in sea grass or sediment, or lost through a variety of processes to the atmosphere. Seawater intrusion varies greatly from year to year, based on natural processes including sea level, magnitude of astronomical and barometric tides and amount of river flow. These natural processes provide greater variation in water exchange than can be achieved through any dredged channel.

    Hydraulic modeling has indicated minor dredging of the Inlets existing delta, at key pinch points, would provide the greatest increase in water exchange for the lowest cost and allow the risks to be managed. The Wilson Inlet Management Authority, Shire of Denmark and Water and Rivers Commission, have already supported such works in principle. Such work could be used to evaluate the benefits of future dredging.

    Any dredging has financial costs associated with it and has a risk of environmental damage. There is a presumption against dredging of estuaries without benefits being demonstrated.

    In light of the research findings, the Water and Rivers Commission is not supportive of major channels as a means of reducing nutrients in Wilson Inlet

    Action DC1: Dredging in Wilson Inlet to enhance water flow and water quality to be limited to works to the existing channel.
    Such works to be guided by the hydraulic modeling undertaken. A survey of the channel needs to be undertaken prior to any dredging, to establish whether deepening is already occurring as a consequence of recent regular western openings. Any dredging is dependent on community support (as reflected by the Shire of Denmark), support from the Wilson Inlet Management Group and approval from WRC. (Shire of Denmark, WRC -ongoing).

  5. Permanent Opening (back to the actions menu)

    A permanent opening has been recently proposed for a number of economic, social and environmental reasons. A permanent opening will transform the Inlet from a semi-closed estuary to a marine dominated embayment. The proposal would be subject to an environment assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority, and approval by the Minister for the Environment.

    The Water and Rivers Commission has advised a permanent opening is not justified based solely on water quality reasons. The Inlet is not in a condition whereby such costly and irreversible measures are justified. Funding of studies into the feasibility of permanent openings are not considered a priority when compared with the reduction of nutrients entering the Inlet.

    A permanent opening would bring about changes to the Inlet that are very different to the vision expressed by the community during preparation of the Action Plan.

  6. Removal of Ruppia (back to the actions menu)

    The dredging and removal of organic material in Wilson Inlet is not considered a realistic option. Experience elsewhere has shown it to be costly and ineffective, as has the mechanical removal of algae. Such works tackle the symptom rather than the cause of the problem. The removal of Ruppia or algae washed up on beaches is more realistic, although is unlikely to remove significant levels of nutrients and will only provide short-term benefits in terms of visual amenity, smell and boating access. The algae washed up at Poddyshot is a particular concern for local residents, impeding boating access and reducing the amenity value of the foreshore.

    Action RP1: Removal of washed up Ruppia and algae to be judged on a case by case basis, dependant on local government involvement and support, based on local amenity issues.
    Locations could include boat ramps and Morley Beach. The value of the algae and seagrass as a garden mulch and fertiliser to be identified, along with any health risks. This information to be disseminated to local community. (WRC, LGAs -ongoing).

    Action RP2: Water quality to be examined in the vicinity of Poddyshot.
    Surface and groundwater to be monitored to investigate potential localised causes of algal growth. (WRC, LGA -2 years).

C. Monitoring and Reporting to Guide the Effectiveness of Management

(back to the actions menu)

Research into Wilson Inlet has been extensive but limited monitored information exists on nutrient sources in the catchments at other than a broad scale. The impacts of certain land uses need to be confirmed, as should the benefits of certain best practices. Monitoring is required to determine changes in the condition of Wilson Inlet. However, monitoring is less justified for land uses or best practices that have already been studied. A priority is ensuring information on nutrient sources and changing waterway condition is reported to the community in a form that best suites their needs.

Action M1: Monitoring of Wilson Inlet to be continued to objectively measure changes in its condition.
Monitoring to directly relate to indicators of eutrophic conditions and to detect any deterioration in its condition. Factors to be monitored include increase in duration and extent of anoxic events, inlet nutrient levels in spring and summer, algal bloom frequency and duration, extent of Ruppia, increased occurrence of harmful phytoplankton species, increase in macroalgae abundance. Annual reports to be trialed along with development of web site. (WRC -ongoing).

Action M2: Monitoring and research to be utilised to determine the impact of land uses with the highest risk of nutrient export.
Potato farming, vines and dairies are landuses considered the highest priority for monitoring, if sufficient information is not already available. Any monitoring to be undertaken in partnership with industry. Self-monitoring to be promoted as condition of licence for licensed premises. (WRC, Industry -ongoing).

Action M3: Best Practice management methods to be monitored to assess their effectiveness, if not already known.
Promote research through university projects. Priority best practices to be monitored include the use of constructed wetlands, riffle work and streamlining of drains. Monitoring to assess effectiveness in nutrient and sediment assimilation as well as maintenance costs. (WRC -ongoing).

Action M4: River nutrient loadings into Wilson Inlet to be monitored as well as other indicators of river health.
Present monitoring of nutrient concentrations and loads to be continued to establish trends over time and flow. Other monitoring, for example of macro invertebrates, to be used to monitor river health compared with nutrient levels. (WRC- ongoing).

Action M5: Implement monitoring programs to identify localised sources of nutrients at the sub-catchment scale within priority catchments.
Priority catchments are Sunny Glen, Cuppup, Sleeman and Lake Sadie. Methods to be used to cater for community involvement. Monitoring results to be mapped and used to guide management actions. (WRC -2 years).

Action M6: Extent of sediment in river pools and its ability to be mobilised in peak run-off events to be estimated.
Survey to determine depth and ideally source of sediment in river pools. Changes after peak run-off events to be calculated. (WRC -3 years).

Action M7: Utilise decision support modeling techniques in the absence of monitored information to guide advice on land use change and management.
Existing decision support systems to be utilised and updated with field data from land uses in catchment. (WRC, LGA, DA- ongoing).

Action M8: Monitoring information to be presented to WICC, WIMAG and the local community on a regular basis.
Information to be provided in form desired by above groups. Range of styles suggested, including annual reports, maps, newspaper articles, web page, and media statements. (WRC, WICC, DA - ongoing).

(back to the actions menu)

Measuring success

Targets are being developed for the Action Plan, that relate to the overall objective of improving water quality and reducing the risk of algal blooms. Targets are also being developed for annual programs of work, so that success can be measured.
Action Plan Chapters

The Wilson Inlet Nutrient Reduction Action Plan (WINRAP) is coordinated by the by the Wilson Inlet Catchment Committee and Department of Water. The project is funded by South Coast Natural Resource Management Group Inc through the Australian and State Government support of the Natural Heritage Trust and National Action Plan.

SCNRM logo