Brunswick River Catchment Social Values Study€¦ · • The most notable exception is the Brunswick River Pool near the Brunswick Junction town site. The pool is a popular recreation

Brunswick River Catchment Social Values Study

Prepared for the Department of Water By Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd April 2010

Acknowledgements The study team would like to thank all of the stakeholders who generously agreed to meet and share their knowledge of the Brunswick River catchment with us. We would like to acknowledge the Department of Water for providing assistance and funds to complete the study. In particular, we would like to thank Mike McKenna and Brendan Kelly. Sincerely,

Jo Ann Beckwith PhD

Director Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd www.beckwith-environmental-planning.com

Limitations

Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd has prepared this report for the use of the Department of Water in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession. It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. The methodology adopted and sources of information used by Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd are outlined in this report. This report is based on the conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties.

Report Authorship

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Department of Water, and is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between the Department of Water and Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd. © Copyright 2010 Beckwith Environmental Planning Pty Ltd This report has been prepared by Beckwith Environmental Planning for the Department of Water. This project is jointly funded by the Department of Water Western Australia and the Australian Government’s $12.9 billion Water for the Future initiative.

ISBN: 978-0-9806440-3-6

http://www.beckwith-environmental-planning.com/�

Brunswick River Catchment Social Values Study 2010

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background

The headwaters of the Brunswick River start on the Darling Scarp north west of Collie. From there the river flows westward passing through Brunswick Junction before moving southward as it nears Australind and finally discharges into the Collie River. The main tributary of the Brunswick River is the Wellesley River. Other tributaries are the Ernest, Augustus, Frederic and Lunenburgh Rivers and Elvira Gully. The 228 km2 catchment is situated primarily within the Shire of Harvey, with a small portion in the Shire of Collie. The Brunswick River is the only fresh tributary to the salinity affected Collie River. The Department of Water (DoW) is the lead State Government agency responsible for water resource management planning in Western Australia (WA). The DoW is undertaking a number of activities to support water management in the Brunswick River catchment including the establishment of ecological water requirements. Study objectives

The DoW’s water resource management activities are guided by Statewide Policy No 5 Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia (WRC 2000). The policy describes WA’s water allocation planning framework, which takes into account not only ecological but also social and economic values. In the water planning framework, social values are limited to non-consumptive social values. This includes Aboriginal and other Australian heritage, recreational and tourist pursuits, landscape and aesthetic aspects, and educational and scientific aspects (WRC 2000a). This report documents the non-consumptive in situ surface water-dependent social values of the Brunswick River catchment. The study objectives were to identify: (1) locations/features with social values, their characteristics and the water conditions to support these values; (2) locations where restoration works are needed; and (3) the consultation required before restoration works can commence.

Social values:

• Despite its size and proximity to Bunbury, the Brunswick River system currently has limited non-consumptive in situ social values. This is largely due to a lack of formal public access points.

• The most notable exception is the Brunswick River Pool near the Brunswick Junction town site. The pool is a popular recreation spot (e.g. swimming, fishing, marroning) that reaches capacity (e.g. up to 100 people on weekends) in summer but is used year round by local residents.

Water management considerations:

• For sites where specific SWRs (e.g. the Brunswick River Pool) were identified, stakeholders indicated that the existing water conditions are sufficient to support the existing social values. In general, water conditions that met ecological needs were deemed by stakeholders as also adequate to support associated social values.

• For sites where specific SWRs were identified (e.g. the Brunswick River Pool), stakeholders indicated that the existing water conditions are sufficient to support the existing social values.


iii

In general, water conditions that met ecological needs were deemed by stakeholders as also adequate to support associated social values.

• The Brunswick River Pool is the most important feature with social value on the river system and there is considerable value in maintaining or improving, the condition of this feature.

• The establishment of a major new dam on the Brunswick River would significantly diminish the existing social values, including its value as a mythological site of significance to the Noongar community.

• The social values of the river system could be enhanced by the establishment of several formal public access points. Any decision to establish formal public access points to enhance social values would need to be weighed against economic and environmental considerations.

River restoration:

• All stakeholders recognised that some parts of the river system have become degraded over time due to land use activities, engineering modifications and general use of the river. They strongly supported restoring degraded areas to protect the ecological values and health of the river system.

• The most commonly requested restoration activities were bank stabilisation to prevent erosion and sediment build-up and weed removal.

• In addition to general comments about the need for restoration works, about one third of the interviewees identified specific sites and/or areas in need of restoration. The most frequently identified was the Brunswick River Pool.

• The DoW recognises the importance of engaging with Noongar stakeholders before undertaking restoration activities. This was supported and encouraged by Noongar stakeholders during the study.


iv

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study objective ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Study area ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Definition of social values ................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Social water requirements ............................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Social value descriptors ................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Desktop analysis ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Engagement with Noongar stakeholders ....................................................................... 7 2.4 Engagement with other stakeholders ............................................................................. 9 2.5 Site visits ........................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3 Social Values .............................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Public access as a limiting factor ................................................................................... 10 3.2 Brunswick River Pool ..................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge ............................................................................ 13 3.4 Beela Dam ....................................................................................................................... 14 3.5 Fishing and marroning ................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Camping and hunting ..................................................................................................... 16 3.7 Education values............................................................................................................. 16 3.8 Heritage values ............................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 4 Social Water Requirements .................................................................................... 19

4.1 Stakeholder perceptions ................................................................................................ 19 4.2 Management considerations ......................................................................................... 20

Chapter 5 Restoration Activities .............................................................................................. 22

5.1 Brunswick River Action Plan ......................................................................................... 22 5.2 Restoration projects ....................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Restoration recommendations ...................................................................................... 23 5.4 Noongar consultation on restoration projects ............................................................. 24

References ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A Reviewed documents ........................................................................................... 28 Appendix B List of stakeholders .............................................................................................. 30 Appendix C Site template ......................................................................................................... 31 Appendix D Interview guide .................................................................................................... 32 Appendix E Additional Aboriginal heritage sites ................................................................... 33


v

List of Tables

Table 1 Social value descriptors ........................................................................................................ 5Table 2 Aboriginal site descriptions .................................................................................................. 6Table 3 Status of Aboriginal heritage sites ........................................................................................ 7Table 4 Brunswick River Pool – picnicking and swimming .............................................................. 12Table 5 Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge - camping ................................................................. 13Table 6 Fishing and marroning ........................................................................................................ 15Table 7 Permanent sites .................................................................................................................. 16Table 8 Non-Aboriginal heritage sites ............................................................................................. 18 Table 9 Perceived social water requirements ................................................................................. 19 List of Figures

Figure 1 Brunswick River Catchment ................................................................................................. 1Figure 2 Study area ............................................................................................................................ 3Figure 3 Location of sites with social values ................................................................................... 11 Abbreviations

4WD 4-wheel drive

AHA Aboriginal Heritage Act

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation

DoW Department of Water

EWP Environmental water provision

EWR Ecological water requirement

FPC Forest Products Commission

GL Gigalitre

LCC Leschenault Catchment Council

SWALSC South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council

SWR Social water requirement

WA Western Australia

WRC Water and Rivers Commission


1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The headwaters of the Brunswick River are located approximately 55 km inland from the coast on the Darling Scarp north west of Collie. From there the river flows westward passing through Brunswick Junction before moving southward as it nears Australind and finally discharges into the Collie River (Figure 11

). The main tributary of the Brunswick River is the Wellesley River. Other tributaries are the Ernest, Augustus, Frederic and Lunenburgh Rivers and Elvira Gully. The 228 km2 catchment is situated primarily within the Shire of Harvey, with a small portion in the Shire of Collie. The Brunswick River is the only fresh tributary to the salinity affected Collie River.

The dominant land uses in the upper part of the Brunswick River catchment are State forest and the Worsley Alumina Refinery. The lower part of the catchment is situated on the Swan Coastal Plain and supports agriculture, including horticulture and dairy farming, and an increasing number of lifestyle and residential properties closer to Australind. The Brunswick River catchment was proclaimed in 1954, under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA). Proclamation of a catchment gives the Department of Water (DoW), as the lead 1 The Wellesley River and Brunswick River Catchments are highlighted separately in the figure, but were considered as a as a single catchment for the purposes of this study.

Figure 1 Brunswick River Catchment


2

State government agency responsible for water resource management, the power to manage the competing water uses within the catchment. This includes both consumptive (e.g. horticulture and dairy farming) and non-consumptive (e.g. ecosystem maintenance, heritage, and recreation) uses. In this role, the DoW is guided by Statewide Policy No 5: Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia (WRC 2000a). The policy establishes the process for identifying ecological water requirements, establishing sustainable water yields, setting limits on abstraction and the approval of licence applications to use water for consumptive purposes. As part of the water allocation planning framework, the policy takes into account not only ecological but social and economic values.

1.2 Study objective

The study objective was to document the in situ non-consumptive surface water-dependent social values of the Brunswick River Catchment by identifying:

• Locations/features with social values and their characteristics.

• The water conditions required to maintain the social values (e.g. depth, rate of flow).

• Potential impacts on the social values if there are changes in the water conditions.

• Locations where restoration works are needed2

and the consultation required before any such work can commence.

The study builds on recent regional-scale investigations (Beckwith Environmental Planning 2009) of water features with dependent social values in the South West. The DoW will utilise the information from this study when determining the social water requirements (SWRs) for the Brunswick River and its tributaries.

1.3 Study area

The study area included the Brunswick River, its tributaries and property within 300-metres of either side of these waterways (Figure 2). This allowed consideration of not only on-water uses but land uses whose social values are influenced by their proximity to a waterway.

1.4 Definition of social values

Statewide Policy No 5 identifies the following as key social values that require consideration in determining social water requirements (SWRs):

• Aboriginal and other Australian heritage,

• recreational and tourist pursuits,

• landscape and aesthetic aspects, and

• educational and scientific aspects (WRC 2000a). Consumptive social values, such as irrigation, public water supply and small scale domestic and stock use, are viewed as economic values and are not addressed as social values in this study.

2 Restoration works will only be undertaken by the DoW if it is able to acquire the necessary resources.


3

1.5 Social water requirements

“Western Australia’s waterways are an integral part of our heritage and a significant State asset with important social and cultural values. There is a mixture of social and cultural responses that people have to waterways” (WRC 2000b, p.17).

Statewide Policy No 5 defines SWRs as the “elements of the water regime that are identified to meet social (including cultural) values” (WRC 2000a, p. 12). In other words, the water conditions (e.g. quantity, quality, flow) needed to maintain the social values of a water resource. For example, swimming is a popular activity at site X. Site users may indicate that if the depth were to drop below one metre in summer, the most popular time of use, the social value of the site would be compromised. Thus the SWR for that use, at that location, is water of a depth of at least one metre in summer. There is often a strong positive relationship between SWRs and ecological water requirements (EWRs)3

. For example, marroning is a social value of many river systems in the South West of Western Australia. If the marron’s EWRs are satisfied, its SWRs are also satisfied.

However, in some situations, SWRs may exceed the EWR. The example given in Statewide Policy No 5 is where protection of recreational values is of high importance and may require the maintenance of water levels in river pools during periods of low rainfall (WRC 2000a). A river reduced to a series of pools in summer may still be a healthy ecosystem but is unlikely to provide an acceptable canoeing experience. The opposite can also be true. For instance, maintaining a scenic view may only require the presence of open water. However, maintaining a healthy ecosystem may require more water than that needed to support the SWR of a scenic view.

3 EWRs are the water conditions needed to support the ecological values of a water feature.

Figure 2 Study area


4

Where there is conflict between the EWRs and SWRs, Statewide Policy No 5 states that “water regimes identified to meet social value (i.e. social water requirements), will form part of EWPs [Environmental Water Provisions4

] where they do not unacceptably impact on significant ecological values” (WRC 2000a, p. 4).

SWRs are not limited to water quantity characteristics. Statewide Policy No 5 identifies four instances when water quality issues may arise and should be considered when developing a SWR. These are where:

1. Part of an EWR requires a water quality problem to be addressed that is caused by surface water diversions or ground abstraction (e.g. rivers pools that were previously oxygenated by continue flow).

2. The EWP water regimes need to have water quality parameters met to ensure the maintenance of ecological and social values (e.g. when water is released from a reservoir).

3. Mitigation water requirements5

4. Implementation of EWPs would not make a significant improvement to wetland or river health unless other actions are taken to improve water quality problems associated with catchment or waterway management (WRC 2000a).

are needed to provide for the flushing of algal blooms or the dilution of saline systems affected by dryland salinity or similar

In summary, under Statewide Policy No 5, water quality problems resulting from regulation/abstraction activities are considered in EWPs while water quality issues arising from land use activities are not.

4 Environmental Water Provisions (EWPs) are the water regimes defined as a result of the water allocation decision making process. 5 Mitigation water requirements are “elements of the water regime that are identified to improve diminished water quality resulting from land use practices and developments in the catchment” (WRC 2000, p. 12).


5

Chapter 2 Methods

2.1 Social value descriptors To aid in profiling social values associated with the Brunswick River system, a set of characteristics or descriptors was documented for each water feature with social values (Table 1). The inclusion of ecological characteristics in Table 1 reflects the significant relationship that often exists between ecological values and social values. For example, a river stretch with little foreshore vegetation is less likely to be desirable location for marroning than a river stretch with overhanging foreshore vegetation, because marron prefer the habitat provided by overhanging vegetation Data templates based on Table 1 were used to ensure consistency in the type of data collected across the features. Table 1 Social value descriptors

Characteristic Description/rationale

Visitor numbers The number of visitors can provide an indication of the degree of value attributed to the site.

Visitor catchment A site has higher social value if it attracts not only local users but regional users and beyond (e.g. State, Australia or overseas).

Season of use The season of use will determine when water is needed to support social values. Some values will require water year round while others will require water only during certain seasons.

Capacity The capacity of a site will provide perspective on the number of visitors and the ability of future site development.

Facilities The facilities available indicate the types of social values that are likely to occur at a site. Facilities and their condition typically reflect the value placed on a site.

Accessibility An inaccessible site is likely to have a lower social value (e.g. a site on private property, a site surrounded by fencing).

Surrounding land uses

Sites next to land uses that complement or enhance the social values are more highly valued.

Management status Sites actively managed are likely to have higher social values.

Land security Sites located within National Parks and Conservation Reserves are less likely to be exposed to incompatible land use changes. This security gives the feature a higher social value.

Condition of site Sites in ‘good’ condition tend to have higher social values.

Rare and/or endangered species

Any feature that is habitat for a declared rare species automatically warrants high management status (EPA 1993). Rare or endangered species or communities increase the education and research value of a site and its intrinsic value.

Potential for increased social value

Sites with the potential to increase their social values are more highly valued. For example, a site located close to an area of significant future population growth

Unique attribute Sites that have a one of a kind use or value or would be very hard to substitute if the site/characteristic was lost have higher social value.


6

2.2 Desktop analysis

A desktop analysis of available secondary data (e.g. management plans) was used to identify:

• Sites along the Brunswick River and its tributaries with water-dependent social values.

• Data for each site based on the characteristics outlined in Table 1.

• Key individuals, groups and organisations associated with each site. Appendix A provides a list of key documents reviewed for the study. Some features and their associated social values were well documented; however, for others there was little, if any, documentation. To help fill the data gaps, key stakeholders were consulted and site visits were conducted as described below. 2.2.1 Noongar6

The desktop analysis included a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System, which includes the WA Register of Aboriginal Sites

heritage values

7. The Register provides a list of sites with significance to Aboriginal people and the cultural heritage of Western Australia. Sites nominated for the Register are assessed8

under the terms provided in Section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (AHA) and are assigned a status. Table 2 displays the types of sites included on the Register and Table 3 describes the AHA status categories assigned to sites.

Table 2 Aboriginal site descriptions

Type of site Description

Artefact A place where human activity is identifiable by the presence of a portable object(s) (e.g. stone, glass, bone, shell) utilised or modified by Aboriginal people in relation to traditional cultural life, past or present.

Fish trap A stone, wood or other similar structure made by Aboriginal people for catching fish. These structures are typically found on the coast or in lakes and rivers.

Man-made structure

The placement or arrangement by Aboriginal people of stone, wood or other material in a structure for ceremonial or utilitarian purposes.

Mythological A site connected to the great spiritual ancestors, in their various manifestations, of the ‘Dreamtime’.

Repository/ cache A site where cultural or utilitarian objects were/are taken, stored, by Aboriginal people.

Ceremonial A site used for a formal act (or series of acts) prescribed by a ritual, belief in a mythological manifestation, religious belief/observance, protocol or convention that is connected with the traditional cultural life of Aboriginal people.

Grinding patches/grooves

Smoothed areas or grooves on rock surfaces (non-portable) that have been created by grinding activity associated with food production such as seed milling, the preparation of pigments, tool manufacturing and/or maintenance, and ritual.

Midden A site with an accumulation of shell refuse that is derived from the exploitation of mollusc resources by Aboriginal people.

6 There are many ways to spell Noongar (e.g. Nyoongar, Nyoongah, and Nyungar). ‘Noongar’ is the spelling used by the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC). 7 The Register is maintained by the WA Department of Indigenous Affairs. 8 Nominated sites are assessed by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee.


7

Type of site Description

Painting Sites painted (including daubings, drawings, stencils, prints) by Aboriginal people. The paintings can be figurative or non-figurative markings or motifs on surfaces such as rocks, rock walls and trees.

Skeletal material/burial

A site where Aboriginal skeletal material is buried and/or where mortuary practices occurred.

Engraving A (figurative or non-figurative) motif on a rock surface produced by percussion or abrasion.

Historical A site with historical associations with Aboriginal people and may or may not contain physical evidence of those associations.

Modified or scarred tree

A site with one (or more) tree, living or dead, that has been modified by Aboriginal people by removing the bark or wood resulting in the formation of a scar.

Quarry A site with evidence that stone or ochre have been extracted.

Table 3 Status of Aboriginal heritage sites

Category Definition

Lodged (L) Lodged and placed on the Register but not assessed

Insufficient Information (I) Lodged and placed on the Register, assessed as having insufficient information to complete the assessment

Permanent (P) Lodged and placed on the Register, the lodged information is assessed as meeting the terms of Section 5 of the AHA

Stored Data (S) Lodged and placed on the Register, lodged information is assessed as not meeting the terms of Section 5 of the AHA

Under the AHA, it is an offence to knowingly disturb or destroy an Aboriginal site without the express consent of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. The AHA provisions provide protection for ‘permanent sites’ and ‘lodged and insufficient information sites’, until they are assessed as places to which the AHA no longer applies. The provisions do not apply to ‘stored data sites’ unless additional information is supplied requiring a reassessment of the site. It is important to note that not all sites of significance to Aboriginal people are listed on the WA Register of Aboriginal Sites. However, all sites, regardless of whether they are listed or not, are protected by the provisions of the AHA.

2.3 Engagement with Noongar stakeholders

The DoW provided the study team with a list of Noongar stakeholders (Appendix B), which included traditional owners, elders, custodians, and those with a personal and family history associated with the Brunswick River and its tributaries. Prior to any consultation being undertaken, a letter was sent in October 2009 to SWALSC9

to inform them of the study. It included the preliminary list of Noongar stakeholders prepared by the DoW.

9 The SWALSC is native title representative body. The organisation works with Noongar People to facilitate their native title claims to determination.


8

Box 1. Terminology

Indigenous heritage

Heritage is dynamic and includes tangible and intangible expressions of culture that link generations of Indigenous people over time. Indigenous people express their cultural heritage through ‘the person’, their relationships with country, people, beliefs, knowledge, law, language, symbols, ways of living, sea, land and objects all which arise from Indigenous spirituality.

Indigenous heritage places

Landscapes, sites and areas that are particularly important to Indigenous people as part of their customary law, developing traditions, history and current practices. All Indigenous heritage places have associated Indigenous heritage values.

Indigenous heritage values

Includes spirituality, law, knowledge, practices, traditional resources or other beliefs and attachments.

Traditional Owners

Those people who, through membership in a descent group or clan, have responsibility for caring for particular country. Traditional Owners are authorised to speak for country and its heritage. Authorisation to speak for country and heritage may be as a senior traditional owner, an elder, or in more recent times, as a registered Native Title claimant.

Other Indigenous people

Those people who through their personal or family history of involvement with a particular place have an interest in its heritage values. Such places could include, but are not limited to, mission stations, places of Indigenous protection, and areas of land where people worked. Sometimes these people are described as custodians, but this can mean different things in different areas of Australia. In some areas custodians are responsible for looking after places and sometimes the stories and ceremonies linked to these places. In other area custodians are Indigenous people who look after a place on behalf of others.

Source: Australian Heritage Commission 2002 The consultation process adhered to the Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title Guidelines for On-ground Works (DoW 2008). The guidelines were developed in 2008 by the DoW to assist its staff in meeting the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA). They apply to three types of on-ground works: (a) management and monitoring (e.g. establishing ecological water requirements), (b) river care (e.g. restoration works) and (c) emergency response (e.g. flood mitigation, pollution clean-up). The guidelines include a payment matrix and fee schedule, recognising that cultural knowledge and cultural supervision of on-ground works is a professional service (DoW 2008). In order to maintain Aboriginal heritage values, it is essential that the study adhere to cultural restrictions on information relating to heritage places (Australian Heritage Commission 2002). Aboriginal men and women may be responsible for different heritage places and values. The study team included both men and women to facilitate the collection of gender-sensitive information in an appropriate manner. The study team members on the site visits were Brendan Kelly (DoW) and Sabrina Genter (Beckwith Environmental Planning). The proposed stakeholders were contacted to determine their level of interest in participating in the study. An initial meeting was arranged to introduce the study, including the objectives and intended outcomes. Of those stakeholders who were contacted, all but one chose to participate in the study. The one exception lives in Perth, making it difficult to participate in site visits along the Brunswick River. The stakeholder indicated that others involved in the study could appropriately represent his/her views.


9

Subsequently, a series of site visits was undertaken. Site visits were the preferred approach to data collection as stakeholders felt more comfortable discussing a site when in close proximity to it. As described by one stakeholder: “I can better describe a site ... and recall key information ... when standing at the site”. In the end, not all study participants were able to attend all site visits due to their availability. Due to scheduling conflicts, a separate meeting was arranged with one of the stakeholders. The site visits were used to acquire data on:

• The social values associated with Brunswick River and its tributaries.

• The water characteristics required to maintain the social values.

• The potential impact(s) on the social values if water conditions changed.

• The consultation required for restoration works along the Brunswick River system. In total, three days of site visits were conducted between December 2009 and February 2010. Each involved documentation of multiple locations and typically required three to four hours in the field. A data template (Appendix C) and interview guide (Appendix D) were used to encourage consistency in data collection. Hand written notes were typed as soon as possible following the site visits. At the conclusion of the site visits, a final meeting was held with stakeholders to confirm the accuracy of the data collected and to fill any data gaps.

2.4 Engagement with other stakeholders

Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with four stakeholders between January 2010 and February 2010 (Appendix C). These stakeholders were selected based on the desktop review and the study team’s knowledge of local stakeholder networks. The interviews were used to acquire data on those features where there was not sufficient documentation or the data appeared to be out of date. The interviews focused on:

• The nature of the social values associated with a water feature.

• Water characteristics required to maintain the social values.

• Potential impact(s) if there are changes in water conditions.

• Areas that need restoration and associated issues. The interviews were semi-structured using an interview guide and data template (Appendix C).

2.5 Site visits

Site visits were conducted by study team members in those instances where there little documentation existed, the study team was unfamiliar with the water feature, and public access was available. These were separate from the site visits conducted with the Noongar stakeholders. Again, the data sheets were used to ensure consistency in data collection.


10

Chapter 3 Social Values

3.1 Public access as a limiting factor

The social values of the Brunswick River system are significantly constrained by poor public accessibility to the river. The riparian zones in the lower catchment are largely in private ownership, primarily for rural uses. As a result, tributaries including the Wellesley River currently have no surface water features with dependent social values. A notable exception of a publically accessible water feature of social value in the lower catchment is the Brunswick River pool. In the upper catchment, access to waterways is limited by plantation operations and the presence of the Worsley Alumina Refinery. There are no formal public access points. A small number of people have not been deterred by the lack of public access points. Some have developed relationships with private landholders in order to access their properties. One stakeholder, with a river-side property, indicated that he/she had happily opened their property to interested groups (e.g. researchers, primary school students) on a number of occasions. In other cases, people illegally access private property and DEC managed land to gain access to the river. It proved challenging to determine the location of water-dependent social values. Stakeholders would speak about ‘special spots’ they frequented along the river, but either could not identify these locations on a map or were hesitant to make their location public knowledge. Based on the interviews and site visits, it appears that wherever a river pool occurs, there are likely to be associated social values. As described by one stakeholder: “there is a small pool upstream from here that has water year round. We visit the spot to take in the surrounding natural scenery and to cool off when the summer heat gets to be too much”. The Greater Bunbury Region Scheme (WAPC 2007) indicates that a significant change in land use patterns in the catchment is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Thus the current situation of very limited public access to the waterways is unlikely to change unless specific initiatives are undertaken to address the issue. The remainder of this chapter provides profiles of the small number of water features with dependent social values. In some instances, the features are specific points on a waterway (e.g. the Brunswick River Pool). In other cases, they are stretches of river or even the entire river.

3.2 Brunswick River Pool

The Brunswick River Pool was the feature most frequently discussed by stakeholders. It is located near the South Western Highway at the northern edge of the Brunswick Junction town site (Figure 3). On the north side of the pool is a caravan park and to the south is a bowling club and park. The year round Pool was created by the construction of a weir10

10 The weir is composed of removal boards.

in the river. The social values of this feature have already been acknowledged in the DoW’s water allocation process. As a


11

condition of its licence to take water from the Wellington Dam, Harvey Water11

is required to release 1.5 GL per year from its irrigation channel into the pool to maintain its social values.

Figure 3 Location of sites with social values 1: Brunswick River Pool

2: Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge

3: Beela Dam

Brunswick River Pool

11 Harvey Water is a private irrigation cooperative. Many of the irrigators within the Brunswick River catchment receive their water from Harvey Water.

1 2 3


12

Many stakeholders have fond childhood memories of playing (e.g. swimming, fishing, marroning) at the pool. They recalled hearing and seeing the water “gush over the wall”. As described by one stakeholder: “The water was so clear, we could reach our hand out and catch marron and even minnows as they flowed over the wall”. Today, the Brunswick River Pool remains a popular spot for picnicking, swimming (Table 4), marroning and fishing. Tourists heading south occasionally stop at the site for a rest and to take advantage of the opportunity to swim.

Caravan Park adjacent to Brunswick Pool Park adjacent to Brunswick Pool

Table 4 Brunswick River Pool – picnicking and swimming

Characteristic Picnicking Swimming

Location Near the South Western Highway at the northern edge of the Brunswick Junction town site. (GPS: S33°15.000’ E 115°50.408’)

Condition The site currently has enough water to support the social values. However, restoration efforts (e.g. removing weeds and re-instating the ‘beach’) were recommended to enhance the values.

Visitor numbers Up to 100 people (i.e. capacity) on weekends during summer

Up to 100 people on weekends during summer, many of whom will take a swim during their visit

Season of use Year round, but most popular in the period December to March

Visitor catchment Local residents and tourists passing through

Facilities Picnic tables, barbeques, playground, toilets

Accessibility The site is visible and easily accessible from the South Western Highway.

Surrounding land use A caravan park is located on the north side of the Pool and a park with picnic facilities is located on the south side of the Pool.

Land security The area is identified as public open space in the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. This means that there are no plans to change the existing land uses.

Management The facilities on site are maintained by the Shire of Harvey. The DoW has responsibility for managing the waterway. In some instances, this includes the foreshore (e.g. restoration activities to protect the health of the river).

The Pool was highlighted as a popular meeting spot for both local residents and those visiting the adjacent caravan park. For some stakeholders, the pool is their location of choice when catching up with visiting relatives. A stakeholder commented that “We often have relatives visit us from


13

the Wheatbelt, particularly in summer. Our relatives don’t see much water in summer in the Wheatbelt. The Pool provides a nice relief and a great meeting place”. A number of stakeholders described the pool as a ‘special spot’ and its psychological value to their well-being. A stakeholder commented: “When I am having a bad day, I can walk down to the Pool and sit. I know that everything is going to be okay once I am sitting at the water’s edge”. The Brunswick River Pool is located on the northern edge of Brunswick Junction. Its proximity to the town site makes it a convenient location for local residents to recreate and enhances its value. In years gone by, the Pool served as the ‘town pool’ and the location where most children learned to swim12

3.3 Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge

. Today, the Pool continues to serve as a popular recreation spot.

There are two unofficial campsites along the upper Brunswick River - Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge (Table 6). The adjacent sites are located between Flynn Road bridge and Big Tree Road bridge in State forest, which includes Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and Forest Products Commission (FPC) managed plantations. Due to public safety concerns (e.g. risk of falling tree limbs), the informal campsites are not supported by the DEC, which manages the surrounding State forest. When visitors are found, the DEC officers typically ask them to ‘move on’. To discourage use of the area, a number of tracks within the plantation areas have been gated. This prevents the use of off-road vehicles, an activity enjoyed by some campers. Many of the pool users are local residents who have frequented the area for years. Occasionally, tourists use the camping area as no fees are required. Visitors use the river for swimming or ‘cooling off’ while camping. Table 5 Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge - camping

Characteristic Camping

Location The site is located between Flynn Road bridge and Big Tree Road bridge, in the upper catchment.

Condition The current water conditions support this value. Based on stakeholder discussions, the site is in good condition.

Visitor numbers The area is busiest on long weekends, attracting 30 to 40 people.

Season of use Year round, but most popular over long weekends.

Visitor catchment Local residents and 4-wheel drive (4WD) enthusiasts

Facilities No facilities

Accessibility The site is accessible via informal 4WD tracks. Access is not supported by the DEC.

Surrounding land uses State forest and plantations

Land security The site is located within a State forest. Based on the Greater Bunbury Region Scheme the site will be maintained as a State forest.

Management The site is owned by the DEC and managed by the FPC.

12 Today most children learn to swim at indoor pools in nearby towns.


14

The area surrounding Moonlight Pool and Treasure Bridge is also a popular spot for 4WDing. The area attracts locals and 4WDing enthusiasts from Bunbury and Perth. As described by one stakeholder: “Most long weekends the area is packed with people in 4WDs. Normally, there are up to 30 to 40 people”. Some visitors choose to stay overnight, camping along the river and using it for swimming, fishing and marroning.

3.4 Beela Dam

The Beela Dam is located 10 km upstream from Brunswick Junction on the Brunswick River. Until 2004, the Water Corporation was licensed to annually take 0.6 GL from the dam’s reservoir. The four metre high dam served as the primary public water supply source for the Brunswick Junction Regional Water Supply Scheme. The Scheme supplied water to the communities of Brunswick Junction, Burekup and Roelands. In 2004, the Water Corporation decided to decommission the Beela Dam due to water quality and security of supply issues caused by insufficient stream flows. The licence has since expired and there has been no request by the Water Corporation to renew it. Although the dam has been decommissioned and is not open to the public13

3.5 Fishing and marroning

, it still attracts visitors, primarily local residents, who use it for walking, fishing, and marroning.

Historically, long-neck turtles, eels, minnows, and freshwater mussels were caught along the length of the Brunswick River. However, not all of these species are available today. As a result, fishing is predominately limited to trout, cobbler, marron and duggies14

.

Marron from the Brunswick River Marron, cobbler and duggies [gilgies] are caught along the length of the Brunswick River and its tributaries, where access can be gained (Table 6). While the Brunswick River is not the most popular marroning river in the South West, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) is vigilant about

13 The site is covered by a water source protection plan – the Brunswick Catchment Area Water Source Protection Plan (WRC 2001). 14 Duggie is likely “... a rendition of the Nyungar word gilga (freshwater crustacean) ...” (Brindon and Chadwick 1992 as cited in Oliver et al. 2002).


15

monitoring for poaching. The marroning season is limited, with the 2010 season extending from 8 January - 5 February 2010. Table 6 Fishing and marroning

Characteristic Trout fishing Marroning

Location Upstream of the South Western Highway. Entire length of the Brunswick River and its tributaries.

Condition At present, the water conditions support the social value. The condition varies depending on the site.

The present water conditions support the social value. Restoration activities (e.g. putting logs in the rivers) were recommended to further enhance the value.

Visitor numbers Approximately 2-4 people on weekends year round

No data

Season of use September to April Officially January/February

Visitor catchment Local, regional Local, regional, State

Facilities No facilities No facilities

Accessibility Trout fishing occurs along the Brunswick River and its tributaries upstream of the South Western Highway, where access can be gained (e.g. through relationships with private landholders). There are no formal access points for members of the public.

Marroning occurs along the Brunswick River and its tributaries, where access can be gained (e.g. through relationships with private landholders, Brunswick River Pool).

Surrounding land uses Much of the surrounding land is privately owned.

Land security Security depends on the location in which the fishing and marroning occurs. Not clear

Management In some instances the land is privately owned. In other cases the land is owned by the DEC and managed by the FPC.

Trout fishing occurs along the Brunswick River from the South Western Highway upstream to its headwaters. The DoF annually stocks the Brunswick River with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The Brunswick River has been stocked since the mid-1970s and is one of only a few rivers15

in the south west to be stocked (DoF 2009). The RFAC Recreational Freshwater Fishing Sub-Committee is responsible for developing the annual trout stocking strategy. In 2009, 25,000 rainbow fry were released into the river.

Despite the river being stocked, the level of trout fishing is very low (estimated to be 2-4 people on weekends). The more popular locations on the river for angling are where vehicle access can be gained, including DEC-managed plantation access roads.

15 Other rivers stocked in the South West include the: Blackwood, Donnelly, Warren, Collie, Harvey, Murray and Serpentine.


16

3.6 Camping and hunting

The upper reaches of the catchment are popular hunting grounds. A number of Noongar stakeholders recalled fond memories of hunting during the day (e.g. for kangaroos) and then spending the evening camping by the river, telling stories as kids. This story time was particularly important, as the Noongar traditions are passed down orally via story from generation to generation. Stakeholders indicated that this tradition has been carried on with their children and grandchildren. Today, they continue to hunt about once a month and camp when the weather is good. Being able to camp by the water is an integral component of this important cultural and recreation activity for the local Noongar community.

3.7 Education values

Schools continue to organise activities for students along the Brunswick River and its tributaries. A number of these activities have been supported by the Ribbons of Blue Program. The program seeks to increase community awareness and understanding of local water management issues, with a particular focus on school-aged children. The program is supported by the DEC and the DoW. Examples of past activities include:

• Coordination of cadets from Australind Senior High School and FESA to revegetate 1 hectare of land adjacent Brunswick River near the Australind Senior High School.

• Coordination of students from Parkfield Primary School, referred to as the BRATS (Brunswick River Action Team Students), to collect water samples from the Brunswick River to analyse pH and salinity and the presence of macro-invertebrates.

3.8 Heritage values

3.8.1 Aboriginal heritage values

There are a number of registered Aboriginal sites adjacent to or in the vicinity16

of the Brunswick River and its tributaries. The sites listed as permanent are identified in Table 7. Other sites identified on the register are contained in Appendix D.

Table 7 Permanent sites

Site name Site ID

Site type17 Additional info Location

Brunswick River

17776 Mythological Natural feature, water source

Entire Brunswick River

Marriott Road 4887 Artefacts/scatter -- Adjacent to the Wellesley River

Refinery 35 5264 Artefacts/scatter -- Adjacent to the Augustus River

Refinery 05 5271 Artefacts/scatter -- Adjacent to the Augustus River

16 For heritage sites identified in the register by a box rather than a specific point, if any part of the box touched a water feature it was included on the list. 17 See Appendix C (Table 3C) for definitions of the various site types.


17

The entire Brunswick River is a registered mythological site. The heritage register describes the river as an avoidance area after dark due to the presence of Woordithes18

, particularly the portion of river near where the South Western Highway passes over the Brunswick River. After dark, the concern is that the Woordithes will ‘whistle’ children away. During site visits, stakeholders recalled being told as children never to play by the river at night. They strictly followed this command from their parents for fear of being taken. They, their children and grandchildren, continue to follow this advice today.

Another Noongar stakeholder described stories of the creation of the Brunswick River passed down to him/her from Elders. The Brunswick River is one part of a larger system – the Collie River system. It was created by the Ngarngungudditj Walgu, the hairy faced rainbow serpent during the Dreamtime (Box 2).

Box 2. The Ngarngungudditj Walgu

Some Aboriginal people associate a serpent type deity with the Brunswick River. They refer to this serpent as the Waugal (or Marchant) and believe it has both punitive and creative force. ‘Punitive’ in its powers to harm and ‘creative’ because it shaped the landscape during the dreaming (Brad Goode and Associates 2007).

Some water features have stories that describe the deity’s creative force. Joe Northover, the contemporary custodian of the Collie River mythology, speaks of the Ngarngungudditj Walgu, the hairy faced rainbow serpent. The Ngarngungudditj Walgu came from the north of Collie, passed through the Collie area and moved towards Eaton, forming the Collie River and its tributaries (including the Brunswick River). When the serpent reached Eaton, it turned its body creating the Leschenault Estuary and then travelled back up the river to rest at Minninup Pool.

For the stakeholder who relayed the story, the creation of the Brunswick River by the Ngarngungudditj Walgu means that he/she has a strong spiritual connection to the river. For example, every time the individual visits the river, he/she tosses in a small handful of dirt to let the Waugal know he/she is present, “so that nothing bad happens”. This is followed by a verbal explanation to the river as to why the person is visiting. It should be noted, that only one of the Noongar stakeholders commented on the story. 3.8.2 Non-Aboriginal heritage values

There are six European heritage features in the study area that are formally listed either on the WA State Register of Heritage Places, the National Trust or the Shire of Harvey’s Municipal Inventory (Table 8). While the Brunswick River is the reason why these features are where they are, their heritage value is not dependent on their proximity to the river. The sites in Table 8 are listed due to their heritage significance as places (e.g. buildings, structures, gardens, cemeteries, landscapes and archaeological sites) based on one or more of the following criteria: aesthetic value, historic value, scientific value, social value, rarity, representativeness. They are not listed based on their connection to a water feature and thus do not have any social water requirements.

18 Stakeholders described the Woordithes as an entity.


18

Table 8 Non-Aboriginal heritage sites

Site Location Heritage Council of WA Register

Municipal inventory*

National Trust

Alverstoke Homestead Complex

Clifton Road, Brunswick Junction

Brunswick Railway Precinct

South Western Highway, Brunswick Junction

Clifton School – site Lot 12 Clifton Road, Brunswick Junction

Old State Farmhouse Lot 15 Clifton Road, Brunswick

Bill Arthur’s Bridge Wellesley Road, Brunswick Junction

Brunswick Road Bridge over Brunswick River

South Western Highway, Brunswick

* Shire of Harvey Municipal Inventory


19

Chapter 4 Social Water Requirements

4.1 Stakeholder perceptions

Stakeholders were asked to describe the water conditions required to maintain the social values of a site. For sites with multiple social values, stakeholders were asked to indicate the water requirement for each type of value. Most stakeholders found the SWRs difficult to describe in precise or empirical terms. Instead they tended to provide a more generalised or qualitative response. Often stakeholders deferred to the ecological water needs. They noted that if the water conditions met the ecological needs of a site (e.g. to maintain a healthy ecosystem) this would be adequate to support the social values of the site. In such cases, the EWR and the SWR are the same. Table 9 describes the sites where specific SWRs were identified. In all cases, stakeholders indicated that the existing water conditions are sufficient. However, recommendations were given on how to enhance the social values of some sites through restoration (Section 5.3). Table 9 Perceived social water requirements

Site Social value Stakeholder views

Brunswick River Pool

Marroning Maintain existing water conditions to support marron. This includes appropriate rocks and logs which marron use as a refuge.

Fishing Maintain existing water conditions to support cobbler.

Swimming At a minimum maintain current water conditions during summer. This social value would be enhanced if the reeds were removed and the former ‘beach’ (i.e. along the northern bank) was redeveloped.

Picnicking Maintain the presence of water year round.

Caravan park Many visitors marron, fish, swim or picnic along the river. Maintain these values in order to support this social value.

Public meeting place

Maintain the presence of water year round.

Moonlight Pool – Treasure Bridge

Camping Activities that require the presence of water when camping includes swimming. Maintain these values in order to support this social value.

Swimming Current water conditions appear to be adequate. At a minimum the water depth should be approximately 0.5 - 0.6 metres in summer.

Picnicking Maintain the presence of water year round.

4WDing 4WDing is most popular on long weekends, but does occur at other times of the year. Some people chose the area for 4WDing also camp, swim and picnic. Maintain these associated values.

Length of river Marroning Maintain water conditions year round to support marron.

Fishing Maintain existing water conditions to support cobbler. Of particular concern is maintenance of the good water quality, to ensure that future fish kills do not occur.

Mythological The Brunswick River is an ephemeral system, meaning it is reduced


20

Site Social value Stakeholder views

site to a series of pools in summer. It is important that these pools be maintained.

Upstream of the South Western Highway

Fishing Maintain water conditions, including water quality and temperature, year round to support trout.

Upper catchment Camping Maintain the presence of water year round.

Stakeholders acknowledged that the river system is ephemeral, meaning it is reduced to a series of pools in summer. If these pools were lost, stakeholders noted that the social values of the system would be negatively impacted. The DoW will translate the information provided in Table 9 into social water requirements, including a description of the required flow rates, water levels and in some cases the water quality.

4.2 Management considerations

4.2.1 Stakeholder perspectives

Several water management issues were raised by stakeholders during the interviews and site visits. Those who commented wanted to know how these issues would be addressed during the water management process. For years there has been speculation about proposals to build a major public water supply dam on the Brunswick River. Recently, the Water Corporation removed the Brunswick River from further consideration as a potential source of future supply to the IWSS (Water Corporation 2009). However, a private Perth company has expressed interest in developing the Brunswick River as a drinking water source. In December 2009, the DoW indicated that the Southern Cross Water and Infrastructure's application for a licence to take 40 to 50 GL of surface water from the Brunswick was returned due to insufficient information; but they can re-apply at a later date. The company’s dam proposal is still being considered by the Environmental Protection Authority (ABC News Online 2009). Stakeholders expressed concern that if a new dam was constructed on the Brunswick River, this would negatively impact both the ecological and social values of the Brunswick River. It was noted that the river has experienced a decrease in available water over the past few decades. As described by one stakeholder: “there is not nearly as much water now as there was when I was a kid”. This decrease was attributed to reduced rainfall and climate change. Stakeholders noted that a new dam would further reduce the available water. A couple of interviewed stakeholders expressed concern about water quality problems in the lower reaches of the catchment (e.g. algal blooms, fish kills), which they attributed to abutting land uses further up in the catchment (e.g. Worsley Alumina Refinery, agriculture). These water quality problems have, in some instances, negatively impacted the existing social values (e.g. fishing, marroning). Stakeholders were unsure of the exact source of the problem. They recommended that rigorous monitoring be undertaken to pinpoint the cause and steps taken to rectify the problem.


21

Questions also arose regarding the impact of Harvey Water’s annual release into the Brunswick River Pool to support its social values (e.g. Is it supporting the social values?). Some stakeholders questioned whether it should be continued at its current level.

4.2.2 Study team perspective

The study team is of the view that the establishment of a major new dam on the Brunswick River would significantly diminish the existing social values, including its value as a mythological site of significance to the Noongar community. Although there are no plans to increase public access to the Brunswick River, the social values of the river system could be enhanced by the establishment of several formal public access points. This would likely reduce but not fully eliminate the environmental pressures currently generated by informal activities (e.g. riverside camping on unhardened sites), especially in the upper catchment. Any decision to establish formal public access points to enhance social values would need to be weighed against economic and environmental considerations. With respect to the allocation of water to the Brunswick River Pool, the study team is not in a position to weigh the trade-offs associated with allocating water to this particular feature as opposed to allocating that water to another use. However, it is clear from our investigations that the Brunswick River Pool is the most important feature with social value on the river system and there is considerable value in maintaining or improving the condition of this feature.


22

Chapter 5 Restoration Activities

5.1 Brunswick River Action Plan

The River Action Plan for the Brunswick River (RAP) provides an assessment of the health and current state of the Brunswick River and recommendations for addressing key management issues (Taylor 2006). The key management issues identified in the RAP were the loss of native fringing vegetation, weed invasion, erosion, and water quality issues. This closely aligns with stakeholder concerns (Section 5.3). Development of the plan included an assessment of the foreshore vegetation (Box 3). The vegetation in the upper reaches of the river is in good condition (Grade A and B). The middle section of the river is slightly degraded (Grade B and Grade C). The vegetation in the lower reaches is in poor condition (Grade C), with a key exception being the stretch of vegetation just before the Brunswick River empties into the Collie River (Grade B).

Box 3. Foreshore Assessment

The Brunswick River foreshore was assessed using the Dr Luke Pen and Margaret Scott Foreshore Condition Assessment method. The method grades the foreshore into four categories. Grade A areas are pristine or near pristine condition. Grade B areas are weed infested but still have tree cover. Grade C areas are eroding or are prone to erosion and Grade D areas are ditches or drains.

As funding resources become available, the DoW and the Leschenault Catchment Council (LCC) would like to undertake restoration works within the Brunswick River catchment (e.g. revegetation, spraying weeds). This will, in part, be guided by the RAP. Other factors include the ability to gain access to foreshore areas (e.g. steep banks, privately owned), the amount of money available, and support from community groups (e.g. Brunswick River Restoration Action Group volunteers available to revegetate an area).

5.2 Restoration projects

Stakeholders were asked to identify areas of the Brunswick River system they believe are in need of river restoration. In discussing specific sites or locations, stakeholders often highlighted previous restoration projects. Examples included:

• Brunswick River Restoration Project: A cooperative project conducted by the Brunswick Self Help Group, the Brunswick Tidy Towns Committee and the Department of Environment (DoE) that sought to restore natural, cultural and heritage values along a 900 metre section of the Brunswick River near Brunswick Junction (Natural Heritage Trust 2004). The project included stabilising the river bank, removing exotic vegetation and replanting native species, fencing about 850 metres of the River, and developing public access pathways.

• Blackberry Containment Zone Project: An on-going project to stop of the southward spread of blackberry, a national significant weed, by creating a containment line along the Brunswick River. The project is supported by the LCC, South West Catchments Council, the Department of Agriculture and Food WA and BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina.

• Corridors of Life: A project to revegetate ten sites along the Collie, Brunswick and Preston Rivers between 2009 and 2011. This includes, in part, the Brunswick River Rescue project supported by BHP Billiton Worsley Alumina. In 2009, 22,650 seedlings were planted at


23

seven sites. The project is supported by the DoW, the LCC and the Commonwealth Government.

Restoration on the lower Brunswick River (downstream of Paris Road) (DoW 2009)

Bank stabilization by the DoW downstream of the South West Highway in Brunswick Junction

Many of the consulted stakeholders have been involved in restoration projects, including those above. They encouraged the DoW to continue, or in some cases increase, their restoration efforts within the catchment. One stakeholder expressed concern about the processes followed in restoring the catchment. The stakeholder commended DoW’s efforts, but thought that better methods could be applied. For example, it was argued that ripping and then revegetating an area creates opportune conditions for weeds to reinvade before replanted vegetation grows. The stakeholder recognised that limited budget was available to the DoW for restoration, but thought some would be better spent following-up and maintaining existing restoration efforts to ensure their success, rather than starting new projects.

5.3 Restoration recommendations

Stakeholders recognised that over time due to land use changes, engineering modifications and general use of the river, some areas have been degraded. They strongly supported restoring degraded areas in order to protect the ecological values and health of the river system. The most commonly requested restoration activities were bank stabilization to prevent erosion and sediment build-up and weed removal. A few stakeholders mentioned reintroducing rocks and logs as refuge for marron and other aquatic fauna. About a third of the interviewees identified specific sites and/or areas in need of restoration. The most frequently identified was the Brunswick River Pool. The pool has become inundated with reeds and the river bank is home to a variety of weeds. Stakeholders recommended that the reeds and weeds be removed. A few stakeholders could remember a time when the northern bank, just downstream of the boards, was a small sandy ‘beach’ (photo below). They wanted to see this ‘beach’ area re-established.


24

1970 Brunswick Junction (National Archives of Australia)

Others found it difficult to identify specific areas. Instead they thought it important to restore all degraded areas along the river. This included reintroducing logs and rocks at river pools within the catchment and removing weeds, in particular the blackberry, from the river bank.

5.4 Noongar consultation on restoration projects

5.4.1 Requirements and guidelines

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1971 (WA) and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) include requirements to consult with Aboriginal stakeholders. These requirements may apply to DoW restoration works depending on where the works are proposed and the level of disturbance that could be caused. Restoration activities can range from those resulting in very little if any disturbance at a location (e.g. spraying for weeds) to activities that require significant disturbance (e.g. dredging). In 2008, the DoW developed guidelines to assist staff in meeting the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)19 and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)20

19 The study area falls within the boundaries of the Gnaala Karla Booja native title claim. The registered claim covers approximately 30,424 km2 and is currently in mediation.

. The guidelines are supported ‘in principle’ by the DIA and the Office of Native Title (Seewraj pers comm. 2009). The Aboriginal

20 It is an offence under Section 17 of the AHA to “… excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site … or assume possession, custody or control of any object on or under an Aboriginal site”. To undertake any of these activities an approval is likely required under either Section 18 of the AHA or Regulation 10 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 (WA).


25

Heritage and Native Title Guidelines for On-ground Works (DoW 2008) are intended to provide a transparent, consistent and systematic means for DoW staff to determine the appropriate level of Aboriginal stakeholder engagement for different types of restoration works. The DoW guidelines discriminate between those cases where a proposed restoration work is situated near a site listed on the WA Register of Aboriginal Sites and those affecting locations not on the Register. The guidelines also provide advice regarding locations where: (a) a native title claim has not been lodged or determined and (b) a native title has been lodged or determined. The recommended level of Aboriginal stakeholder engagement is determined by an assessment of:

1. For locations listed on the WA Register of Aboriginal Sites: a. The degree of land disturbance the restoration work would require. In general,

restoration works with the potential to create more disturbance require greater engagement than those works that would generate less disturbance.

b. The status of the site on the Register. Restoration works that would disturb a site listed as a permanent site require greater Aboriginal stakeholder engagement than those listed as lodged data. No action is recommended in cases where the site is listed as ‘stored data’.

2. For locations not

a. The type of water feature that would be affected by the restoration work. Features that fall into the ‘high risk’ category (e.g. natural waterways) require a higher level of engagement than those that fall into the ‘low risk’ category (e.g. artificial drains).

listed on the WA Register of Aboriginal Sites:

b. The degree of land disturbance the restoration work would require at the location. In general, restoration works with the potential to create more disturbance require greater engagement than those works that would generate less disturbance.

5.4.2 Traffic light system

In addition to the guidelines, the DoW has developed a draft three-tiered, or ‘traffic light’, system to identify the level of Aboriginal stakeholder engagement required for restoration works along a given river. The intent of the system is to determine, when a project is being designed, the appropriate level of engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders for a proposed restoration work. The DoW’s system applies a colour-coded system to rate the ‘sensitivity’ of the proposed location for the restoration work. The three zones are:

• Red zone: The site is highly sensitive. Restoration works may not be approved. Aboriginal stakeholders must be consulted to determine if the works can proceed.

• Yellow zone: The site is of medium sensitivity. Some restoration works will require engagement with Aboriginal stakeholders before proceeding; while others can proceed without further engagement.

• Green zone: The site is of low sensitivity. Proceed with restoration works, no engagement is required.

The assignment of a colour to a particular location is determined through DoW consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders. During site visits, participants were asked to apply the colour codes to locations along the Collie River where restoration works might occur at some point in the future.


26

In the field, study participants found it difficult to apply a particular colour to a particular site. Instead, they assigned all of the locations visited to a yellow zone. They recommended that the Department contact the appropriate representatives for the study area (Section 5.4.2) to discuss what “further engagement” would be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The process outcomes were similar to the results of the initial trial of the traffic light system on the Collie River (Beckwith Environmental Planning 2009). The ‘traffic light’ system is best used as a tool to obtain an initial assessment of the sensitivity of a particular location vis-à-vis proposed restoration works. Refinements in the following areas would improve its effectiveness:

• Providing definitions of terms such as ‘highly sensitive’, ‘medium sensitivity’, and ‘low sensitivity’.

• The explanation of a ‘yellow zone’ should clarify in what circumstances engagement may or may not be required.

• Closer alignment of the traffic light system with the DoW guidelines would reduce the potential for confusion.

5.4.3 Participant discussions

During the sites visits, Noongar stakeholders were asked to comment on the need for restoration and the appropriate level of Aboriginal engagement for restoration efforts within the catchment. Several stakeholders noted that in previous consultations with the DoW regarding restoration plans, the agency had initially contacted them by phone and arranged a site visit with the appropriate people to discuss the DoW’s plans. Stakeholders noted that overall their involvement in such activities had been positive. The stakeholders recommended that for future DoW restoration efforts on the Brunswick River system, the key Noongar stakeholders living in the Brunswick Junction area should be contacted in advance (e.g. Victoria Hill, Ron Gidgup and Cliff Wallam). These individuals would then inform others in the community, as needed. They anticipated that, in most instances, a phone call and site visit to review the existing degradation and proposed restoration activities would prove to be sufficient. A Noongar monitor may be required on-site to observe the implementation of the restoration efforts in cases where restoration would involve more invasive activities (e.g. dredging). In such instance, the monitor would ensure that the restoration activities are completed in a culturally appropriate manner. 5.4.4 Management considerations

A number of stakeholders recommended that, where possible, Noongar people be employed to help with the restoration works. This was seen as both an opportunity to contribute Aboriginal knowledge to the restoration process and to teach Noongar youth how to care for country. A couple of stakeholders recommended that Department staff take an induction program before undertaking restoration works. Such a program would focus on fostering an understanding and appreciation of cultural protocols (e.g. respecting the cultural connection to a feature) to be followed when undertaking restoration works. This type of program may act as a refresher for the Indigenous cultural awareness training already undertaken by DoW staff, as part of its staff development and training program21

21 DoW staff receive training on the Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title Guidelines for On-ground Works (DoW 2008).

.


27

References ABC News Online. 2009. Dam proponent invited to reapply for licence. http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759696.htm?site=greatsouthern. Accessed on 30 March 2010. Australian Heritage Commission. 2002. Ask First – A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and value. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. Beckwith Environmental Planning. 2009. Nyungar Values of the Collie River. Prepared for the Department of Water. Perth, Western Australia. Bindon, P. and R. Chadwick (eds). 1992. A Nyoongar Word-list from the South-West of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum: Perth, Western Australia. Department of Fisheries. 2009. A Five-Year Management Strategy for the Recreational Trout Fishery. Perth, Western Australia. Department of Fisheries. n.d. Freshwater Angling in South-West Western Australia: 2009 Trout Stocking Strategy. www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/FreshWaterAngling/TroutStockingStrategy.php?0106 Accessed on 30 March 2010. Department of Water. 2009. The South-West Region’s Water Activities E-Bulletin December 2009. Bunbury, Western Australia. Department of Water. 2008. Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title Guidelines for On-ground Works. Prepared by Krish Seewraj. Bunbury, Western Australia. Department of Water. 2007. The Leschenault Estuarine System, South-Western Australia: Condition Statement and Recommendations for Management. Perth, Western Australia. Oliver, R., Graham, M. and J. Rochecouste. 2002. Lexical Variation among Western Australian Primary School Children. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2). Taylor, L. 2006. River Action Plan for the Brunswick River. Prepared for the Leschenault Catchment Council. Bunbury, Western Australia. Water Corporation. 2009. Water Forever: Towards Climate Resilience. Perth, Western Australia. Water and Rivers Commission. 2000a. Statewide Policy 5 - Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia – Perth, Western Australia. Water and Rivers Commission. 2000b. Draft Statewide Policy 4 – Waterways WA. Perth, Western Australia. Western Australian Planning Commission. 2007. Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. Perth, Western Australia.

http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759696.htm?site=greatsouthern�

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/FreshWaterAngling/TroutStockingStrategy.php?0106�


28

Appendix A Reviewed documents

Australian Heritage Commission. 2002. Ask First – A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and value. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

Beckwith Environmental Planning. 2009. Nyungar Values of the Collie River. Prepared for the Department of Water. Perth, Western Australia.

Beckwith Environmental Planning. 2009. South West Social Water Requirements Study. Prepared for the Department of Water. Perth, Western Australia.

Beckwith Environmental Planning. 2006. Brunswick River Surface Water Management: Issue Scoping Report. Prepared for the Department of Water. Perth, Western Australia.

Bindon, P. and R. Chadwick (eds). 1992. A Nyoongar Word-list from the South-West of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum: Perth, Western Australia.

Birds Australia WA. 2005. Birdwatching around Bunbury. Number 21ab in a series of Bird Guides of Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.

Brad Goode and Associates. 2007. A Report on Workshop[s held with the Nyungar Community by the South West Catchments Council for the Waterways Health Sub-Strategy, Western Australia. Prepared for the South West Catchments Council. Bunbury, Western Australia.

Coastwest. n.d. Coastwest Grants: Guidelines for Indigenous Consultation. Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Fisheries. 2009. A Five-Year Management Strategy for the Recreational Trout Fishery. Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Fisheries. n.d. Freshwater Angling in South-West Western Australia: 2009 Trout Stocking Strategy. http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/FreshWaterAngling/TroutStockingStrategy.php?0106 Accessed on 30 March 2010.

Department of Water. 2008. Aboriginal Heritage and Native Title Guidelines for On-ground Works. Prepared by Krish Seewraj. Bunbury, Western Australia.

Department of Water. 2007. The Leschenault Estuarine System, South-Western Australia: Condition Statement and Recommendations for Management. Perth, Western Australia.

Goode, B. and C. Irvine. 2006. A Survey of Aboriginal Social Water Requirements for the Southern Blackwood Plateau and the Scott Coastal Plain Southwest, Western Australia. Prepared for the Department of Environment. Busselton, Western Australia.

Harvey Visitors Centre. n.d. Brunswick Junction. http://harveytourism.com/Brunswick Accessed 11 January 2010.

Heritage Council WA. 2001. Register of Heritage Places – Permanent Entry Alverstoke. Perth, Western Australia.

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/FreshWaterAngling/TroutStockingStrategy.php?0106�

http://harveytourism.com/Brunswick�


29

Oliver, R., Graham, M. and J. Rochecouste. 2002. Lexical Variation among Western Australian Primary School Children. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2).

Taylor, L. 2006. River Action Plan for the Brunswick River. Prepared for the Leschenault Catchment Council. Bunbury, Western Australia.

Tourism Western Australia. n.d. Australia’s South West. http://www.westernaustralia.com/en/Destinations/Australias_South_West/Pages/Australias_South_West.aspx Accessed 11 January 2010.

Western Australian Planning Commission. 2007. Greater Bunbury Region Scheme. Perth, Western Australia.

http://www.westernaustralia.com/en/Destinations/Australias_South_West/Pages/Australias_South_West.aspx�

http://www.westernaustralia.com/en/Destinations/Australias_South_West/Pages/Australias_South_West.aspx�


30

Appendix B List of stakeholders

Stakeholders Affiliation

Ron Gidgup Indigenous stakeholder

Kelvin Quartermaine Indigenous stakeholder

Jen Quartermaine Indigenous stakeholder

Mervyn Jones Indigenous stakeholder

Cliff Wallam Indigenous stakeholder

Graham Wallam Indigenous stakeholder

Les Wallam Indigenous stakeholder

Victoria Hill Indigenous stakeholder

Len Khan Indigenous stakeholder

Joe Northover Indigenous stakeholder

Mike Whitehead Leschenault Catchment Council; Leschenault Progress Association

Judy Talbot Brunswick Self-Help Group

Brian Easton Brunswick River Restoration Action Group

Tricia Easton Brunswick River Restoration Action Group

Quenton Gay South West 4WD Association

In addition, a number of stakeholders were interviewed during the South West Social Values Study (Beckwith Environmental Planning 2009). Data from the 2009 study informed the Brunswick River Catchment Social Values Study. Stakeholders are identified below.

Stakeholders Affiliation

Beverly Gardiner Department of Environment and Conservation

Gilbert Stokman Department of Fisheries

Peter Kay Shire of Harvey

Joanna Hughes Leschenault Catchment Council

Robyn Harris South West Canoe Club

Andrew Hobbs Birds Australia

Brian Easton Brunswick River Restoration Action Group

Anne-Marie Gardner Harvey Visitor Centre

John Leyendekkers Dekked Out Adventures

Debbie Blake Leschenault Ribbons of Blue


31

Appendix C Site template

Social Values Site Template Location

Location name: __________________________________________________________

Geographic location (e.g. GPS): ______________________________________________

Social values

Type of social value/use: ___________________________________________________

Specific activities: _________________________________________________________

Level of use

Visitor numbers: __________________________________________________________

Visitor catchment: ________________________________________________________

Capacity: ________________________________________________________________

Season of use: ____________________________________________________________

Proposed/planned changes: _________________________________________________

Site characteristics

Size: ___________________________________________________________________

Accessibility: _____________________________________________________________

Facilities: ________________________________________________________________

Surrounding land uses: _____________________________________________________

Management status: ______________________________________________________

Land security: ____________________________________________________________

Rare species: _____________________________________________________________

Unique attributes: ________________________________________________________

Water conditions

Current site condition: _____________________________________________________

Substitutability of use/value: ________________________________________________

Depth (minimum, ideal): ___________________________________________________

Water quality (minimum, ideal): _____________________________________________

Flow rates (minimum, ideal): ________________________________________________

Key environmental values: __________________________________________________

Additional comments: _________________________________________________ Data source (e.g. informants): _______________________________________________


32

Appendix D Interview guide

Interview Guide

Brunswick River Social Values Study

Introduction

Explanation of the project; purpose of interviews, confidentiality and reporting Theme 1: Social values

What areas/sites along the Brunswick River (and its tributaries) support social values? Describe these sites. Refer to site template. What attracts you to this particular site (e.g. facilities, water levels)? Describe the features/characteristics that attract you to the site. Theme 2: Required water conditions

Describe the current water condition of the site (e.g. water level, water quality, flow). If the water regime is altered, how will this impact your value/use of the site? Describe the impact (negative and positive) a drop/increase in water level would have on the in situ social values of the site. (E.g. If the water levels drop will the activity still be able to occur.) Describe the impact (negative and positive) a change in water quality would have on the social values of the site. Theme 3: Site restoration

Describe the current condition of the site (e.g. riparian vegetation, stability of the bank). Restoration of a site (e.g. spraying for weeds, stabilizing the bank, planting vegetation) is dependent on the availability of funds. What type of restoration activities do you think need to be undertaken at this site? What level of consultation do you think needs to accompany each restoration activity?


33

Appendix E Additional Aboriginal heritage sites

Site name Site ID Status Site type Additional info

Smelter Site 1 4752 S Artefacts/scatter --

Smelter Site 2 4753 S Artefacts/scatter --

Natgas 261 5167 -- Artefacts/scatter --

Refinery 38 5193 S Artefacts/scatter --

Refinery 39 5194 I Artefacts/scatter --




























34

Site name Site ID Status Site type Additional info



















Westrail survey 16 5318 S Artefacts/scatter --

Westrail survey 17 5319 I Artefacts/scatter --

Brunswick Junction 56 5808 S Artefacts/scatter Camp

Benger Swamp Potato Shed

17784 S Man-made structure, historical

--

Howson Drive Lagoon 20057 I Mythological --

Brunswick Burial Site 20822 I Skeletal material/burial --

Documents

Brunswick River Catchment Social Values Study€¦ · • The most notable exception is the Brunswick River Pool near the Brunswick Junction town site. The pool is a popular recreation