Anglesea Futures Community Conversations

Community Conversation Number 5

Anglesea Memorial Hall

29th and 30th April 2016

The Anglesea Futures Community Conversations is convened by the State Government, through the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), and the Surf Coast Shire Council to listen to the community to better understand community expectations, needs and ideas on the future of Anglesea following the closure of Alcoa coal mine and power station.

The closure of the coal mine and power station provides a unique opportunity to think about and discuss what the future looks like for both the land affected and the Anglesea region.

The purpose of the Anglesea Futures Community Conversations is to:

  • Share adequate information regarding a range of issues including future land use, water, planning and the long term vision for the Anglesea Region
  • Listen and learn from the community, to understand their vision and hopes for the former Alcoa lease area and freehold land, and to hear concerns and aspirations

Report on Community Conversations – Event 5

The objectives of this forum were to provide the community with:

  • Feedback on what has happened so far and what we have heard, including background on the Anglesea River,
  • a detailed briefing and explanation on the results of the assessment of both short and long term future management options for the Anglesea River,
  • an explanation of what ideas/options have been discounted and why,
  • an outline of the criteria used to assess the different management options, and
  • an opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the different options

A total of 108 people attended the open house. 41 of these attended on Friday (including 5 from the river working group) and 67 on Saturday.

Assessment of Management Options for the Anglesea River Estuary

The Department of Environment, Land and Planning (DELWP) is reviewing potential management options for the Anglesea River. While water levels in the river are expected to remain stable over winter, DELWP is aiming to identify a preferred plan to manage water levels for the 2016-17 summer period with a view to developing a long term management plan to ensure the river’s environmental, social and economic values are maintained.

As a result of forecasted changes in river height and potential risk of activating acid sulphate soils, GHD was commissioned to identify and assess conceptually feasible short-term (less than 12 months) and long-term management options for the Anglesea River estuary.

A workshop was held in March 2016 with representatives from the DELWP, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CMA), Barwon Water and GHD to:

  • identify objectives for the project
  • consider the management options identified in the Anglesea River Estuary Flow Report Assessment and discussed at the January Anglesea Futures Community Conversation Series
  • identify any additional management options
  • develop a preliminary project outline, including criteria for assessing the different management options.

Sixteen potential management options were identified at the workshop. Of these, eleven options for the short and/or long-term management of the river were selected for a further desktop assessment. The optionswere assessed on technical, environmental, social and legal criteria. Cost, timing and feasibility were alsoconsidered.

The eleven short and long term options that have been recommended for further assessment were presented to participants for discussion at the open house. The discounted options and the criteria used to assess the options were also presented for discussion.

The four short-term management options presented at the open house

Participant feedback on short term options

Four short term options were shared with participants for discussion at the open house. The following table outlines the feedback received from participants at the open house against each of these options.

Potable Water

  • Generally participants did not support the use of potable water.
  • Participants saw potable water as a valuable resource that should be used sustainably.
  • High operating cost were noted.
  • Solar power was suggested in relation to reducing operating costs.

Sea Water

  • Participants were concerned about the impacts of the salinity on the current flora and fauna communities.
  • Participants were concerned about the cost and visual and noise impacts from the infrastructure.
  • Participants queried whether the mouth of the river needs to remain closed for this option to work.
  • Participants felt this option would conserve drinking water but questioned whether it would be more damaging than using water from the mine.

Bore Water

  • Participants were concerned about the use of bore water and the depletion of aquifers.
  • Some participants felt this option was a good use of existing infrastructure and was better than potable water and mine pit water.

Mine Pit Water

  • Participants thought this option would work in the short term if the water quality is good, not contaminated and had a suitable pH.
  • Participants thought this option seemed like a logical, economical option as it uses existing equipment and infrastructure.
  • Participants thought this option has the least impact on the river and fish.

The seven long-term management options presented at the open house

Participant feedback on long termoptions

Seven long term options were shared with participants for discussion at the open house. The following table outlines the feedback received from participants at the open house against each of these options.

Potable Water

  • Generally participants did not support the use of potable water.
  • Participants saw potable water as a valuable resource that should be used sustainably.
  • Participants were concerned about the high cost to operate this option

Bore Water

  • Participants were concerned about the use of bore water and the depletion of the aquifers.
  • Some participants felt this option could only be used in the short term.
  • Some participants suggested an alternative power supply e.g. solar.

Mine Pit Water

  • Participants queried how this option would fit in the mine pit rehabilitation, would it impact on the mine rehabilitation?
  • Some participants question how the sludge would be reused.
  • Some participants supported this action as it is known to work and is not drawing from lower aquifer.

Mine Pit Water and Bore Water

  • Participants queried how this option would fit in the mine pit rehabilitation, would it impact on the mine rehabilitation?
  • Participants were concerned about the use of bore water and the depletion of the aquifers.
  • Participants were concerned about the cost for construction.
  • Participants thought there needed to be clarity around communications/info that mine pit groundwater recharge is separate from bore field i.e. not just one general groundwater source. Can one be accessed without impacting the other?

Recycled Water

  • Participants supported the use of recycled water although there was concern regarding the high cost.
  • Participants noted thatnatural filtration through sand and reed beds could be used.
  • Participants suggested that this option could be combined with the disconnecting option.
  • Participants noted the need to continue to supply golf course and reserve with recycled water.
  • Some participants suggested an alternative power supply e.g. solar.

In Fill Coogoorah Park Artificial Channels

  • Participants suggested that this option could be altered to retain some channels and wetlands and/or combined with options to supplement flow.
  • Participants noted that this option keeps the peat area wet and allows the river to reform to natural state.
  • Many participants value Coogoorah Park and were concerned about the infilling of the channels and about the impact on environmental values and recreational, educational and camp activities especially over summer.
  • Participants questioned whether the fire risk would increase.

Disconnect Coogoorah Park Artificial Channels

  • Generally participants supported the disconnection of the channels.
  • Participants were concerned about water quality issues, water levels and the potential for mosquito breeding.
  • Some participants thought this option would retain some recreational values while others felt there would be a change in recreational opportunities. Would it disadvantage kayakers/river users?
  • Participants value Coogoorah Park and it amenity.

Discounted or not feasible options

Information was shared about three long term options that were deemed not feasible and six options were discounted from assessment as part of this particular investigation. Some of these options may be considered as part of a longer term management strategy for the Anglesea River catchment.

Feedback on assessment criteria

Participants provided some comments on the assessment criteria. Some of these comments may have referred to general feedback but have been included here as they appeared on the feedback sheets.

  • Assess on the impact local community e.g. tourism
  • Could link to ACE (Anglesea Community Energy) renewable energy objectives
  • Assess against the guiding principles: Transparency, inclusiveness, responsive, alignment, accountability.

Other general comments

Participants provided some general comments throughout the Open House event. These comments are summarised below:

  • Participants liked the open house concept – “so much better than the sit down and being lectured to”.
  • Any long term solution has to complement with the future of the mine.
  • Then river should be allowed to return to ‘natural’ situation.
  • Consideration of natural systems (land based / reed beds) is needed for various water sources?
  • If the future is dry/low rainfall the system/river may be empty for much of the year.
  • Camps and tourism is a main economic driver for this town – nature based tourism is the attraction – keep things natural
  • Great case study / education material for schools.

How useful was the open house event to participants?

Participants at the events were asked to place a token into a jar that best represented how useful they felt the event was. The following table indicates the number of responses for each option.

N.B. Not all participants provided feedback about the event.

Next steps

Feedback received from the open house and the online survey will be presented at the next Anglesea Futures Community Conversation.

Community members will also have further opportunities to engage in the future management approach for the Anglesea River.Your feedback will be used to help inform the decision-making process to select a future management strategy.

Page 1 of 10