Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LOGUE BROOK DAM
DEPARTMENT OF WATER ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT February 2007
BACKGROUND Harvey Water and the Water Corporation have submitted a proposal to the Department of Water (DoW) to trade water for use within the Integrated Water Supply Scheme. The proposal, in part, involves the potential to use Logue Brook Dam (an existing ‘irrigation and recreation’ dam) as an ‘irrigation and drinking water supply’ dam. A locality map and key dates for the project are provided in Attachments 1 and 2. The community were engaged to assist in addressing water catchment management issues in the South West (Waroona and Harvey), including the viability of the proposed water trade and the future use of Logue Brook Dam. This process included a comprehensive Community Survey (1,017 responses) and a Community Dialogue Forum (attended by about 200 members of the public) in which a Deliberative Survey was completed by 144 participants. A number of reports have been prepared to address issues of concern and to keep stakeholders informed on the progress of this proposal (see Attachment 3 for a list of reports). Useful extracts from several of these reports have been included as separate attachments in this briefing. The last report prepared for the Department of Water (DoW) considered the feasibility of creating new or enhanced recreation at Harvey, Waroona and Drakes Brook Dams (all within a thirty minute drive of Logue Brook dam). The report is titled Logue Brook Dam Visitor Facilities and Services Relocation Feasibility Study. The report concluded that there was potential to relocate or enhance recreation activities from Logue Brook Dam to other dams in the region. The report did not, however, consider water quality or quantity issues which may impact on that potential. For example, algae issues in Harvey Dam may act to limit its otherwise significant recreation potential if it becomes a recurring issue or cannot be managed. Also Drakes Brook Dam is to be drained in 2007/08 for safety work on the dam wall to be undertaken.
2
CURRENT STATUS Survey views (Community survey and Dialogue Forum survey) The surveys showed two very different outcomes. There was strong support from community survey respondents for both the Logue Brook Dam proposal and the current policy of separating drinking water and recreation. Where 83% felt that drinking water should be protected by preventing possible contamination rather than relying on treating water. However, there was strong opposition from those people who participated in the Dialogue Forum, where 64% felt that we should rely on treatment technologies to make drinking water safe, allowing development and recreation in drinking water catchments Stakeholders Generally, Logue Brook Dam user groups want the dam left as it is, irrigation and recreation co-existing. Users include:
• people that use the picnic areas; • hire vans, campsites or have semi-permanent vans at Lake Brockman Tourist Park; • ski, fish (including marron), canoe, swim, 4WD, motor bike and bushwalk.
(Attachment 4 is the Executive Summary of a report prepared by a Project Team made up of Forum participants). Water Corporation and Department of Health do not support recreation in drinking water dams. The Departments’ of ‘Sport and Recreation’ and ‘Environment and Conservation’ would like to see a trial to show the effects of recreation in a drinking water dam. The Shires’ of Waroona and Harvey would also like to see recreation continue at Logue Brook Dam. Attachment 5 summarises views of stakeholder groups. Cost-Benefit Analysis The economic value of drinking water, irrigation and recreation has been assessed. The highest value of the water is for potable supply ($50 million), then irrigation ($11 million) and then recreation ($1.4 to 3.2 million) see Attachment 6. It is difficult to value the ‘social experience’ provided by Logue Brook Dam (such as the public health benefits from recreation and family bonding experience) in the same way as occurred for the economic valuation. Accordingly, the approach has been to look for equivalent recreation opportunities, considering both the quality and quantity of recreation, at other nearby dams. Recreational Use and Opportunities Activities or facilities that are impacted directly by closing Logue Brook Dam to recreation would be those that occur close to or on the dam, including:
• Lake Brockman Tourist Park; • Four, day use picnic sites; • One formal and one informal boat ramp;
3
• Power boating, jet boats and skiing ; • Canoeing, kayaking and sailing; • Vehicle access (eg. 4WD and motor bikes); • Fishing and marroning; • Swimming; • Camping; • Horse riding; and • Bushwalking.
Of these activities, vehicle access (eg 4WD and motor bikes); picnic sites; camping; horse riding; and bushwalking could be allowed for away from the water body (outside a protection zone). Camp Logue Brook, a youth and education camp and convention centre, use Logue Brook Dam for recreation. The camp is located outside the catchment, however, activities such as horse riding and canoeing are undertaken in and around the dam. Recreational activity at Logue Brook includes - Recreational activity Recreational activity at Logue Brook Dam (Lake Brockman)
Water-based activities
Power boating/water skiing
Skiing is a favourite activity on Logue Brook Dam, with a very dedicated group of enthusiasts. A survey by the Department of Water of ten days during summer 06/07 noted a total of 129 boat trailers on the dam foreshore, compared to 226 at Waroona Dam.
Sailing, canoeing The use of non-motorised boats is a common activity on Lake Brockman for Camp Logue Brook, school groups and families.
Fishing and marroning
The lake is stocked with trout and redfin. This use at times conflicts with other users such as skiers.
Marroning is popular around the dam with enthusiasts reported to stake claim to a favoured section of shoreline several days before season starts in January.
Swimming Swimming in Lake Brockman is a popular activity as a focus in its own right and as an adjunct to other activities such as power boating. This use conflicts with other users and can be significant when water levels are low or variable.
Land-based activities
Cycling The Logue Brook sector of the Munda Biddi trail uses a track along the northern shoreline and across the dam wall.
Horse riding Popular with visitors to area and a regular activity for Camp Logue Brook.
Bushwalking Bushwalking is not currently a major activity.
Vehicle access (eg. 4WD/motor bikes)
Both activities are popular in this catchment right down to the waters edge.
The potential recreational opportunities elsewhere in the Waroona and Harvey Shires are outlined in the table below. Issues that are considered to limit (but not prevent) the potential of Harvey, Waroona and Drakes Brook dams are:
4
• The capacity for relocating fishing/marroning from Logue Brook as these activities already occur to capacity in the other dams;
• The relocation of power boating given Harvey Dam may be constrained due to conflicts with existing land owners (noise and rural amenity issues) and recent algae issues that caused parts of the dam to be closed to the public (in February-April 2006) as a public health precaution;
• The level of commitment and cost at Waroona Dam for active management, to address overcrowding issues and safety management on the water; and
• Drakes Brook Dam is much smaller and has not been supported for power boat use in the past, and it is planned to be drained in 2007/08 for dam wall safety maintenance.
Recreational activity
Potential recreational opportunities elsewhere in Waroona/Harvey Region
Water-based activities
Power boating /water skiing
Introducing power boating and water skiing to Harvey Dam is possible. With active management intensifying the activities on Waroona Dam is possible. Drakesbrook Dam has not been considered suitable for these activities in previous assessments.
Sailing, canoeing Harvey, Waroona, and Drakesbrook dams are suited to non-motorised watercraft. Previous studies have recommended discouraging these activities on Waroona Dam in favour of expanded use on Drakesbrook.
Fishing and marroning
Harvey, Waroona and Drakesbrook dams limited suitability for expanded use because they are already considered to be at maximum stocking capacity.
Swimming Harvey, Waroona and Drakesbrook dams highly suitable. However, there may be water quality issues in some years which may limit access.
Land-based activities
Cycling Development of an expanded network at Harvey, Waroona and Drakesbrook dams desirable and highly suitable. The existing Munda Biddi cycling track at Logue Brook Dam is not likely to be threatened.
Bushwalking Harvey, Waroona and Drakesbrook dams are highly suitable for an expanded network of walk trails.
Facilities
Caravan/Resort There are highly suitable options to develop a full service facility with a range of accommodation types at Harvey and/or Waroona.
Camping There is a highly suitable option to develop an additional camp ground at Waroona, or expand the current grounds. Harvey Dam also has camping potential.
Day use sites There are good opportunities to introduce day use facilities at both Harvey and Waroona.
Boat launch ramp Expansion of existing ramp highly suitable at Waroona, Harvey, and Drakesbrook
Vehicle access (eg. 4WD and motor bikes)
There are no designated sites for this activity and it is an issue that will need further consideration and active management.
More detail on the current recreation uses and potential of Harvey, Logue Brook, Drakes Brook and Waroona dams is provided in Attachment 7 (an extract from the recreation feasibility study).
5
Attachment 8, 9, 10 and 11 are maps of these dams showing existing and potential recreation. It is important to note that this information was prepared without broad community input and it only shows ‘what is possible’ (subject to community and stakeholder consultation), not ‘what has been approved or agreed’. Options Based on all the available information, there are four main options to be considered as shown below.
Option Implication
1. Maintain the current use of LBD
- Status quo maintained, irrigation and recreation use only.
Currently 5.3 GL and probably 11 GL forgone as drinking water supply for IWSS at a cost of $0.60 /kL, compared to SW Yarragadee of ~$1.35 / kL.
Harvey Water is likely to look at industrial water use from Logue Brook.
Acceptable to Logue Brook stakeholders
2. Expand the use of LBD
- All uses to co-exist - irrigation, recreation and drinking water.
Water Corporation and Department of Health would not accept this level of risk to the water supply – resulting in Option 1
3. Support the use of Logue Brook Dam as a drinking water source, and ensure a Recreational Offsets Program is established with funding support and community involvement.
Approval conditional on an agreed Recreational Offsets Program being established.
Provides a cost-effective and protected source of water for IWSS.
Recreational offsets would meet many stakeholder concerns.
Given current levels of activity – suitable freshwater fishing and marroning offsets may not be possible.
Power-boat community are likely to see the closure of Logue Brook as a major concern.
4. Develop recreation plan for other dams in Harvey and Waroona, then make a decision.
This requires up-front preparation of a Recreational Offsets Program with an implementation schedule for Waroona; Drakesbrook; and Harvey dams, and then consideration of the proposal.
Similar to Option 3 in that it is likely to provide a cost-effective and protected source of water for IWSS.
However, leads to more delays and greater uncertainty to stakeholders.
Recommended Option and actions The Department of Water recommends Option 3 as the most appropriate to meet the need for water supply in the IWSS, reduced risk from a protected catchment and reservoir, and the opportunities with recreational offsets.
6
Issue Comment
Ongoing community and other stakeholder involvement in a Recreational Offsets Program for the Shires of Waroona and Harvey
The next significant stage of implementing the proposal is to determine the detail of new or enhanced recreation at the other dams through a coordinated recreation program. This work should be progressed with community involvement, support from the two Shires and require commitment from the Department of Sport and Recreation and Department of Conservation and Environment.
Funding This option will require significant commitment by the Water Corporation and Harvey Water to fund the Recreational Offsets Program.
The fund should not be managed by Water Corporation given the communities concern with historic funding and commitment issues.
Rights In Water Irrigation Act 1914, licence decision
The Department of Water will need to progress the licence application for the proposed trade of water at Logue Brook Dam under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act, 1914.
Country Areas water Supply Act 1947, proclamation and development of a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan
The Department would also need to proclaim a ‘Logue Brook Dam Catchment Area’ under the Country Areas water Supply Act 1947, and prepare a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan (DWSPP) to define a suitable Reservoir Protection Zone around the reservoir.
Community notification issues
A communications strategy will need to be prepared once a decision is made.
Documents prepared for this proposal as outlined in Attachment 3 will need to be placed on the Department of Water website as per advice given to the community at the Forum.
COST IMPLICATIONS Logue Brook dam is a good quality, competitively priced new water source. The significant cost will be in the development of the Recreational Offsets Program for Harvey, Drakes Brook and Waroona Dams and this cost should be substantially met by the Water Corporation and Harvey Water. Figures previously provided to the Minister suggest between $5 and 15 million would not be unreasonable as a contribution to the Recreational Offsets Program, given there is a saving of $50 million in present value terms compared to desalination. URGENCY The State needs to secure new water sources to meet ongoing public water supply needs, and the community, financial stakeholders (eg Tourist/Caravan Park and Camp Logue Brook) and other stakeholders are keen for a final decision. The proponents of the proposed trade have also suggested they need a decision by the second quarter of 2007 in order to meet construction timelines for the Harvey Water pipeline project.
7
CONTENTIOUS ISSUES 1. Loss of recreation at Logue Brook Dam; 2. Ongoing concern by some stakeholders that new or enhanced recreation at Harvey, Drakes
Brook or Waroona Dams is not feasible, or would not be achieved despite commitments made;
3. Financial stakeholders (eg Tourist/Caravan Park and Camp Logue Brook) have not been meaningfully consulted by Water Corporation or Harvey Water about their future operations (ie direct impact from closing the dam) or had any financial or other arrangements discussed to address the situation; and
4. The closure of recreation sites/opportunities in the South West has been raised throughout this proposal. Government may need to consider a strategic recreation planning study to address this matter.
Paul Frewer A/DIRECTOR GENERAL
Date: February 2007 Attachments:
1. South West Catchments 2. Timeline for Logue Brook Dam Proposal 3. Associated Reports of Logue Brook Dam 4. Summary and Findings 5. Stakeholder Views 6. Summary of Value of Water 7. Summary of Suitability Assessment 8. Logue Brook Dam 9. Waroona Dam 10. Harvey Dam 11. Drakes Brook Dam 12. Indicative Costs of Recreation Development
J:/pp/wp/59202/0003/Logue_Brook_Survey b&w.mxd
#S
#S
#S
#S
Harvey Dam
Stirling Dam
Logue Brook Dam
Samson Brook Dam
Waroona Dam
Drakesbrook Dam
SO
UTH
WE
STE
RN
HW
Y
HARVEY
YARLOOP
WAROONA
COOKERNUP
2 0 2 4 Kilometres
South West Water Catchments(Waroona to Harvey)
Drawn by: F.Routledge Date 2/06/2006
�Water Resource Management Division
Water Source Protection Branch
INDEX TO ADJOINING1:100000
MAPS
LOCATION PLAN
WA
Geocentric Datum of Australia1994
Note: The data in this map has not been projected. This may result in geometric distortion or measurementinaccuracies.
Information derived from this mapshould be confirmed with the datacustodian acknowledged by theagency acronym in the legend.
LEGEND
2032 2132
2031 2131
Activities currently permitted at South West dams
Waroona Dam = Irrigation and recreation (incl. s, wt, c, f, m, w, ca, cs)Drakesbrook Weir = Irrigation and recreation (incl. s, wt, c, f, m)Samson Brook Dam = Irrigation and drinking water (no access upstream of dam wall)Logue Brook Dam = Irrigation and recreation (incl. s, wt, c, f, m, w, ca, cs)Harvey Dam = Irrigation and recreation (incl. wt, m, f, c)Stirling Dam = Irrigation and drinking water (no access upstream of dam wall)
Key:s = swimming, wt = walk trails, c = canoeing, f = fishing, m = marroning,w = waterskiing, ca = camping, cs = caravan sites
Proposed Logue Brook Catchment Area
Bancell Brook Catchment Area
Harvey Dam Catchment Area
Samson Brook Catchment Area
Stirling Dam Catchment Area
Catchment Area
Bancell Brook
South West Water Catchment Management (Waroona to Harvey) Timeline for Logue Brook Dam Proposal
February 2007
Date Issue Comment 11 May 2006 Steering Committee
formed This Committee includes community representatives, State and local Government agencies, Water Corporation and Harvey Water. The Committee’s main role is to oversee the community engagement process to ensure it is fair, transparent and accountable; and maximises opportunities for inclusion, deliberation and influence. It is not a Committee responsibility to make recommendations to Government.
17 May 2006 Formal announcement by Minister for Water Resources
This media release explained the ‘catchment/community dialogue forum’ process.
8 June 2006 Random survey Survey questions were prepared on water catchment management issues in the South West, including specific reference to the Logue Brook dam proposal. This survey was distributed to 7,000 people from Perth to Harvey, including 1,000 people in the City of Bunbury.
8 June 2006 Workshop Steering Committee and invited experts met to discuss project progress and issues.
12 June 2006 to 20 July 2006
Advertise Dialogue Forum Over 200 people registered to attend the Forum to provide their views. One-third of participants were from the random survey, one-third from stakeholder invitations and one-third from community advertising.
21 June 2006 Random survey closing date
The random community survey was responded to by just over 1,000 of the 7,000 people it was sent to.
July 2006 Information prepared for participants
Information package distributed to Forum participants.
22 July 2006 Community Dialogue Forum in Harvey
The Forum allowed the views of invited experts, stakeholders and the broader community to be represented in a fair and open manner. Each presentation is available for viewing on the Department’s website. A deliberative survey was undertaken by all Forum participants at the beginning and end of the day to see if people changed their views throughout the day. A preliminary report, inclusive of the main points from each presentation and questions raised from the floor, was distributed to all Forum participants at the end of the day.
September to October 2006
Project team report
The project team was made up of representatives from the Dialogue Forum. The team prepared a report entitled ‘Findings from the Forum’.
November to December 2006
Recreation assessment Report prepared by consultant on the physical feasibility of new or enhanced recreation at Waroona, Drakesbrook and Harvey dams.
First quarter 2007 Advice to Government Department of Water prepares advice to Government based on all available information.
Government will review all available information before considering a decision on the future of Logue Brook Dam
Attachment 2
T:\WR Management\Water Source Protection\Source protection\Logue Brook Dam Forum\Web site\Reports for DoW web post 5Nov07 decision\DoW advice to Government February 2007\Attach 3 Assoc Reports.doc
Attachment 3 Reports associated with the Logue Brook Dam proposal Title Author
1. Waroona Waterways Recreation and Tourism Master Plan (December 2003)**
Regeneration Technology Pty Ltd for Water Corporation
2. Harvey Water Pipe Project – Logue Brook Dam Stakeholder Consultation (February 2006)
Strategen for Harvey Water
3. The value of recreation at Logue Brook Dam (June 2006)
ACIL Tasman for Department of Water
4. Logue Brook Dam – Water value for agriculture (July 2006) Economics Consulting Services for Harvey Water
5. Economics of Logue Brook Dam for drinking water (July 2006)
Water Corporation
6. Valuation of Water from the Logue Brook Dam - A summary of the value of water for potable, recreational and agricultural use (July 2006)**
Department of Water
7. Preliminary Report: Logue Brook Dam South West Water Catchment Management Dialogue Forum (July 2006)
Department of Water
8. Harvey Dialogue Forum Deliberative Survey Results (October 2006)**
David Bruce for Department of Water
9. Community Survey Results (October 2006)**
David Bruce for Department of Water
10. Project Team Report to the Department of Water: Community Dialogue Forum, Harvey 22 July 2006 – Findings from the Forum (October 2006)**
Forum participants
11. Logue Brook Dam Visitor Facilities and Services Relocation Feasibility Study – Assessment of Relocation options for Waroona Dam, Harvey Dam and Drakesbrook Dam (February 2006)**
Richard Hammond Consultancy for Department of Water
** = Not on Department of Water website yet
Page 1 of 3
Attachment 4 Extract from Project Team report to the Department of Water - Community Dialogue Forum, Harvey, 22 July 2006 “Findings from the Forum” (Project Team of Forum Participants, 2006)
1. Summary and Findings A Dialogue Forum was held in Harvey on 22 July 2006, to engage the community in South West (Waroona and Harvey) Water Catchment Management issues. The Forum also provided information on a specific proposal submitted by Water Corporation and Harvey Water to trade water. The proposed trade, in part, involves Logue Brook Dam (Figure 1), known to locals as ‘Logues’, an existing ‘irrigation and recreation’ dam enjoyed by tens of thousands of people each year for activities such as camping, skiing, swimming, fishing, boating, bush walking and off road vehicle uses (two and four wheel). If approved, this proposal could see Logues closed to many of these existing recreational uses and managed for ‘irrigation and drinking water supply’ purposes. The Forum was asked to consider two key issues:
• Current government policy, which would restrict recreation at Logue Brook Dam if it was used as a public drinking water supply dam; and
• What opportunities existed to replace/relocate recreation from Logue Brook Dam elsewhere in Harvey or Waroona if the proposal was approved?
On the first issue, the Forum considered the basis for existing policy and legislation (ie Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 respectively) that prevents recreation in drinking water supply dams. The key questions arising from the experts’ presentations and from reading the information provided, was “is this policy sustainable in a drying climate”; “is the policy defendable given the improvements in treatment technology?”; and “why is it other places can recreate in their drinking water sources but we cannot?”. The findings of the Forum on this matter were clear:
• The existing policy preventing recreation in public water supply dams should either be reviewed or Logues should be used as a trial/case study (allowing recreation to co-exist with irrigation and drinking water) towards such a review.
The deliberative survey conducted at the Forum supported this view, 72% of participants in the beginning and 75% at the end of the Forum recommended the policy should be reviewed. Also of note, over the course of the Forum, the proportion of participants who would very strongly support a review increased from 47% to 58%.
Page 2 of 3
The Forum survey also showed that 60% in the beginning and 64% at the end of the Forum thought we could rely on treatment technologies to make our drinking water safe. The analysis of electronic data collected from each table showed that Forum participants wanted to discuss issues that related to recreation rather than the recreation policy itself. The other more strongly supported issues were: economic and environmental considerations; water quality; treatment and monitoring; further investigations; dual use; dam flows/levels and alternative sources. This implies that participants wanted to know more, and they were not willing to simply accept or just comment on the recreation policy without more information. On the second issue, the Forum found no comfort in the idea that any recreation potentially lost from Logues would be available (from the alternatives currently offered) elsewhere in the region. Logues is considered to be a unique location, away from any housing and the conflicts that often arise where people live near recreation sites. Few other dams allow easy access down to the waters edge and the ability to drive all the way around the dam. The people that have enjoyed the dam and its surrounds for decades would like for it to be enjoyed by future generations – away from computers, and the urban lifestyle often associated with public health problems. Furthermore, the evidence available at the Forum from presentations and the knowledge of those present, suggested that there were only limited opportunities for any recreation replacement, relocation or enhancement to occur. Insufficient information on alternative opportunities was provided by the proponents of the proposal. The Forum was also skeptical of an approach that only offered to provide funding to address this matter after a decision to approve the trade was made. The lack of detail on this matter has plagued the assessment of this proposal since it was first raised with the community. The findings of the Forum on this matter (in order of preference) were:
• Logues should stay as an “irrigation and recreation” dam. This would require alternative sources of water to be used to supply the required 5.3 gigalitres;
• Logues should be used for irrigation, recreation and drinking water supply, in that order, with all the existing recreation activities continuing. This may be achieved by using Logues as a dual use trial catchment, by undertaking a review to the existing policy or by an exemption for Logues; or
• The detail (determined with community and other appropriate stakeholder involvement) of alternative recreation opportunities in the Region (Waroona and Harvey) needs to be fully explored prior to any decision being made concerning the future of Logues (especially given the water at Logues is not required before June 2008) in order to obtain the facts.
These findings were supported in the deliberative survey which was conducted at the Forum.
Page 3 of 3
The level of opposition to the basic proposal (ie changing the use of Logues and preventing recreation) increased over the Forum day from 77% to 87%. The deliberative survey identified that 90% saw the loss of recreation at Logues as very bad (73%), or slightly bad (17%). The forum was split with regards to whether an exemption to Government policy should apply at Logue Brook Dam. The Post forum results indicated that 45% thought Government should make an exception at Logue Brook Dam without changing the general policy whilst 43% thought the policy must be applied at Logue Brook Dam and if it is used for drinking water, then recreation can only be allowed if the policy is changed. Before the Forum, half the participants felt that even if Logues became a drinking water source that there should still be unrestricted recreation allowed at the dam, with water treated and purified for consumption afterwards. In the pre-forum survey, 67% of participants thought that the potential for increased demand on other water bodies in the area (if Logues was closed to recreation) was a bad outcome, including 42% who felt it was a very bad outcome. In the post-forum survey these two figures increased to 83% and 63% respectively. In relation to alternative opportunities the survey found that all the opportunities considered (eg stocking of fish, walk trails, campsites, caravan park) were very important to participants, and none clearly more so than any other. The survey showed a decrease in opposition to the proposal after considering alternative opportunities. However, even with this reduced opposition, the majority of participants remained strongly opposed to the proposal. It is also notable that the impact of alternative opportunities to reduce opposition to the proposal declined over the course of the day. In the pre-forum survey the alternative opportunities reduced opposition to a greater extent than they did in the post-forum survey. The analysis of electronic data collected from each table also showed that the Forum again wanted to know more about the economic and environmental issues; they identified that the alternative opportunities issue was unacceptable and did not place much trust in the Water Corporation or Government. They wanted Logues to stay as it is. Other matters that were considered by the project team have been described in this report and included under section 5 “Future Investigation”.
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 5 Background Information and table of stakeholder views Harvey Water proposes to pipe an existing open channel irrigation network (resulting in water conservation savings by reduced seepage and evaporation in the order of 17.1 gigalitres). Harvey Water then propose to trade the ‘saved water’ to Water Corporation in return for WC providing funding assistance for the piping. Water Corporation would use the traded water in the Integrated Water Supply System (IWSS). The IWSS supplies the Perth metropolitan area, towns in the south west and farmlands in the central wheatbelt, servicing up to 1.8 million people. No objections have been lodged about the water conservation initiative of piping the open irrigation channel, but a significant consequence of the current proposed trade is a likely change in the use of Logue Brook Dam (LBD), where 5.3 gigalitres of the saved water is proposed to be sourced from. If the trade is approved by Government under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914, the current use of LBD is likely to change from ‘irrigation and recreation’ to ‘irrigation and drinking water’. This is the key issue of concern about the proposed trade. Recreation would need to be relocated from LBD because existing Department of Health, Water Corporation and/or Department of Water policy and legislation precludes such activities in public drinking water source dams. However, unlike other dams in the South West where the use of the dam has been changed to make drinking water supply a priority value/use (eg Stirling and Samson dams), LBD is not proclaimed under the Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 for the provision of public water supply. Instead, LBD is currently managed in accordance with the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. The existing Management Plan for LBD (1990 to 2000) identifies irrigation as the primary objective, timber production second. Recreation is supported provided it does not interfere with the primary objective. Changes to that Plan are expected to be consulted with the Community. In order to obtain further advice on this project, the Department of Water conducted a community engagement process (Dialogue Forum) on 22 July 2006 in Harvey. This process was planned to build on the limited work undertaken by the project proponents. The original work also lacked detail on available alternative recreation opportunities in Harvey or Waroona that might be able to replace any recreation lost from LBD (ie offsets). The Dialogue Forum was successful in allowing the voices of the community to be heard, but the ‘offsets’ issue is still unresolved because details of the appropriate development of viable local ‘offsets’ is not available. However, Water Corporation did make strategic commitments not to view Waroona, Harvey and Drakesbrook dams as future drinking water sources. They also offered one million dollars to investigate ‘offsets’ subject to LBD being classified and developed as a Priorioty 1 source with no recreation in or near the dam. Many views are held by the community, other stakeholders and across Government Departments on this project. The following table is a DoW prepared summary of those views. Many views are held by the community, other stakeholders and across Government Departments on the future use of Logue Brook Dam. The following table is a DoW prepared summary of those views.
Page 2 of 4
Stakeholder View DoW Comment Community Group A
Review existing policy preventing recreation in drinking water dams Some recreation may be viable Greater reliance on treatment to ensure the availability of safe drinking water
These stakeholder are likely to be LBD users and a group (representing 27%) within the broader community with strong support for recreation and a willingness to be more risk tolerant on drinking water protection matters
Community Group B
Do not review the existing policy preventing recreation in drinking water dams Recreation should not be supported in or near drinking water dams Catchment protection and treatment is the best way to ensure the availability of safe drinking water
This group (73%) is the conservative group within the broader community
Sport and Recreation Establish a trial at LBD to see if recreation and drinking water uses can co-exist Too many fresh water bodies have already been lost from our recreation assets. A ‘master plan for recreation in the SW’ is required. Opportunity for ‘offsets’ is limited
Trials proposed in other States have not progressed based on a combination of substantially increased financial costs (in the order of ten times more) and a recognition that science is unable to quantitatively measure the risks from different land uses and recreation activities. Monitoring is never 100% effective. An assessment of the primary value/beneficial use of fresh water bodies in a drying climate is necessary The opportunity for offsets issue is uncertain
Department of Environment and Conservation
Establish a trial at LBD to see if recreation and drinking water uses can co-exist Opportunity for ‘offsets’ is limited A uniform policy prescription is not appropriate for catchments with such diversity and complexity
With the merger of DoE and CALM, the DoW is not sure if the different views on drinking water protection have been internally reconciled or if the CALM view has simply been offered at this time. The opportunity for offsets issue is uncertain It is just the diversity and complexity of matters that limits a science based approach, together with the fact this is a public health issue and not an ecosystem threat issue.
Water Corporation Do not review the existing policy The consumer’s trust in the quality
Page 3 of 4
Stakeholder View DoW Comment preventing recreation in drinking water dams Recreation should not be supported in or near drinking water dams Catchment protection and treatment is the best way to ensure the availability of safe drinking water for consumers now and in the future
of water they receive is the Water Corporation’s greatest asset Implementation of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines ‘multiple barrier ‘catchment to consumer’ risk based management approach’ is promoted by the Government in the 2003 State Water Strategy and State Sustainability Strategy Risk avoidance, then risk minimisation and finally risk management/mitigation is an appropriate hierarchy of risk based responses for drinking water catchments
Department of Health Do not review the existing policy preventing recreation in drinking water dams Recreation should not be supported in or near drinking water dams Catchment protection and treatment is the best way to ensure the availability of safe drinking water
The protection of drinking water catchments first and foremost a public health issue The consequences of getting it wrong can include deaths (examples from developed countries like Australia, even in recent years, have resulted in consumer fatalities) The 2004 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines include a set pf principles that have guided WA’s approach to date
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality
Recreation in drinking water dams is not supported The most effective barrier is protection of source waters to the maximum degree practical
May 2006 report on recreation in drinking water storages does not recommend recreation The risk from drinking water dams to consumers is involuntary and requires special consideration compared to many other risk management approaches Prevention of contamination provides greater surety than removal of contaminants by treatment
Department of Fisheries
Establish a trial at LBD to see if recreation and drinking water uses can co-exist Historical good management of LBD should help guide Government decision Recreation occurs in some or most drinking water sources in Eastern Australia.
The priority value/beneficial use of the water in LBD must be determined first The bottom line for a drinking water source is far different to that of an irrigation and recreation water body. The measures of success applied to irrigation or recreation are of limited meaning for public drinking water supply sources
Page 4 of 4
Stakeholder View DoW Comment
The CRC for Water Quality advice is that recreation is not common on metropolitan public drinking water supplies
Camp Logue Brook (Seventh-day Adventist Church youth camp purchased in 1986 for Church and wider community use)
Leave LDB as it is. Take more drinking water from other sources Establish a trial at LBD to see if recreation and drinking water uses can co-exist Purchase camp and relocate camp to another suitable site
Camp relies on the use of the dam and surrounding area for some of its Outdoor Education Program
Logue Brook Dam users – camping, fishing, 4WD. motoX, bushwalkers, swimmers, skiing, fishing, marooning etc
Leave LBD as it is. Or - Establish a trial at LBD to see if recreation and drinking water uses can co-exist Or - If the above two options are not supported, then before any decision is made the ‘offsets’ issue must be fully explored and determined with the community
This view was determined by a project team made up of representatives at the 22 July 2006 Dialogue Forum held in Harvey
Shire of Waroona The closure of recreation waterways/dams is not supported Opportunity for ‘offsets’ is limited Caravan Parks are needed inland to replace those lost from the coast Tourism must be fully considered
Tourism important for local community. Nearby facilities already overcrowded
Shire of Harvey Closure of LBD would be inconsistent with the Draft Pinjarra-Brunswick Sustainability Strategy The economic benefit of LBD is important It is a concern that no firm commitment has been made on key issues (eg offsets) All issues of concern must be dealt with up front not after an approval by Government for this project.
The Strategy looks to support, manage and promote water-based tourism etc. The question is whether LBD is critical to achieving that objective or if other dams could do it There is a significant lack of trust in Water Corporation. Having the details of offsets or other issues determined as conditions of any approval is a common message. Giving approval subject to such matters being sorted is not supported.
South West Water Catchment Management (Waroona to Harvey)
The value of water in Logue Brook Dam
At present, the Logue Brook Dam supplies water for irrigated agriculture (through Harvey Water) and provides an area for recreational activities on the water body and in the surrounding catchment. However, Harvey Water has proposed to permanently trade 5.3GL of water from Logue Brook Dam to the Water Corporation for potable use in the Integrated Water Supply System.
The Water Corporation has advised that in order for Logue Brook Dam to be suitable for potable water use, all recreation in and near the water body must be relocated. This advice reflects the Government’s current policy and practice for the protection of public drinking water sources to protect public health.
In order to help make a decision on the proposed trade, information on the value of potable use, recreation use and irrigation use was sought. The following is a brief overview of the methods and valuation of each of the potential uses for the Logue Brook Dam.
Potable use
The valuation of the 5.3GL of potable/drinking water from Logue Brook Dam is equal to the cost of sourcing that amount of water from another source. The Economic Regulation Authority recently estimated that the cost of alternative potable sources in Western Australia lies between $0.82/kL and $1.20/kL.
Using this estimate, the net present value of the Logue Brook Dam water has been estimated at approximately $50 million.
It is important to note that the cost of Logue Brook water as a stand alone cost, is just $0.60/kL, which is significantly cheaper than most alternatives in the State.
Recreational use
It is generally more difficult to value recreation as it is an intangible activity with the associated social considerations.
One of the most widely accepted methods is known as the Travel Cost Method (TCM), which uses the cost of travel incurred by individuals visiting a recreation site as a measure of how much they are willing to pay to visit the site.
Using the TCM, it has been estimated that the net present valuation of recreation on Logue Brook Dam and the surrounding catchments lies between $1.4 million and $3.2 million, or alternatively, between $0.0091/kL and $0.0203/kL.
Irrigation for agricultural use
For agricultural uses, the value of the water is not the economic output that results from the irrigation of farmland but the difference in economic output when water is available and when it is not. In the absence of irrigation water, farmers will still use the land but for other purposes or even for the same purpose but in a different seasonal way or difference in land use intensity.
Depending on the uses of the land, the value of water has been estimated at between $0.50/kL for dairy pastures, $5.00/kL for fruit crops and $7.60/kL for vegetables.
Attachment 6
Based on an assumption that 75% of water from Logue Brook Dam will be used for dairy pastures, the value of the water is estimated at approximately $11.1 million.
Summary
The following table summarises the three valuation estimates of the uses for Logue Brook Dam water and surrounding catchments.
Use Approximate net present valuation
Potable use $50 million
Recreation $1.4 - $3.2 million
Irrigation $11 million
REFERENCES
1. Information provided by the Water Corporation in the pre-forum information packs. 2. Information provided by ACIL Tasman, contracted to the Department of Water. 3. Information provided by Economics Consulting Services, contracted to Harvey Water.
A copy of the reports containing the figures used in this document can be viewed on the Department of water’s website at www.water.wa.gov.au. Open the Drinking water section, then under Special projects open Logue Brook Dam.
Summary of Suitability Assessment Established and potential recreation facilities and activities - Logue Brook Dam, Harvey Dam, Waroona Dam and Drakesbrook Dam
NOTE: THIS ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSIDER WATER QUALITY OR AVAILABILITY.
Logue Brook Dam Harvey Dam Waroona Dam Drakesbrook Dam Est Pot Conclusions Est Pot Conclusions Est Pot Conclusions Est Pot Conclusions
Land-based facilities
Caravan park/resort X Brockman Holiday Park to be relocated
X Highly Suitable for full service facility
Highly suitable for new or expanded full service facility
X X Not Suitable
Camping X Brockman Holiday park to be relocated
X Two sites Suitable or Highly Suitable for camping facilities
Two sites Suitable or Highly Suitable - new or expanded.
X X Not Suitable
Day use sites X Four sites to be relocated
Four sites Highly Suitable for day use development
Six sites Highly Suitable for day use development
One existing site Highly Suitable for expansion
Land-based activities
Cycling Limited catchment access to cyclists
X Development of cycle trails Highly Suitable Development of cycle
trails Highly Suitable X Development of cycle trails Highly Suitable
Bushwalking Limited catchment access to hikers
X Development of walking tracks Highly Suitable
Development of walking tracks Highly Suitable
X Development of walking tracks Highly Suitable
Water-based facilities
Boat launch ramp X One formal, one informal ramp to be relocated
Expansion of existing formal ramp Highly Suitable
Three informal ramps, expansion Suitable
Natural informal ramp Suitable
Water-based activities
Power boating and water skiing X
Power boating and skiing to be relocated
X Western sector of surface water Suitable
Zoned use areas Limited Suitability for expanded use
X X Not Suitable
Sailing, canoeing and kayaking X
All surface activity to be relocated
Central and eastern sectors Highly Suitable
Zoned use areas Highly Suitable
Highly Suitable
Fishing and marroning X Fishing and marroning to be relocated
Limited Suitability for expanded use Limited Suitability
for expanded use Limited Suitability for expanded use
Swimming X Swimming to be relocated Highly Suitable for
water play/swimming Highly Suitable Highly Suitable
Attachm
ent 7
L7 Boat ramp
ExistingL1 Lake Brockman Holiday Park
L2 The Rock day use site
Existing
L6 Lookout
Existing
L4 Saddleback day use site
Existing
L3 Brockman day use site
Existing
L5 Clarke day use site
Existing
Existing
Water - West
Existing
Water - East
Existing
Water - North
Existing
L1L6
L4
L3
L2
L7
L5
SCARP RD
LOGUE BROOK DAM RD
BLACKBURN RD
ACTION REQUIRED
Logue Brook Dam
LegendMunda Biddi Cycle TrailFreeholdCrown ReserveState ForestInformation
Restaurant
CabinCamping AreaAccommodationCaravanPublic ToiletPicnic TableBBQBoat RampCycle TrailSwimmingBird WatchingFishingMarronCanoeingSail BoatWater SkiingExisting areaWater-WestWater-North, Water-EastContoursRiverRoad
0 100 200 300 400
Meters
Lake Brockman
Datum and Project InformationVertical Datum: AHDHorizontal Datum: GDA 94Projection: MGA 94 Zone 50
While all reasonable efforts have beenmade to ensure the accuracy of thisdata, no responsibility is accepted forany inaccuracies and persons replyingon this data do so at their own risk.
W7 Day use siteExisting
Potential
W6 Day use site
Water - North
Water - East
Water - Central
Existing
W9 Day use site
Existing
W8 Day use site
W10 Day use siteExisting
Existing
W5 Day use sitePotential
Existing
W4 Day use sitePotential
W1A Caravan Park/Resort
Potential
W2 Campground
W3 Lake Navarino Resort
Potential
Existing
W1B Campground
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Potential
SCARP RD 'SCENIC DRIVE'
INVARELL RD
CHASEDE RD
SCARP RD
W3
W5
W4W2
W9
W8
W6
W7
W1B
W1A
W10
Waroona DamLegend
Water CorporationDepartment of WaterFreeholdCrown ReserveState ForestCycle Trail
Information
Information Area with Shelter
Restaurant
Cabin
Camping Area
Accommodation
Caravan
Fuel
Public Toilet
Picnic Table
Boat Ramp
Nature Trail
Bushwalker
Cycle Trail
Swimming
Bird Watching
Fishing
Marron
Canoeing
Sail Boat
Water SkiingProposed areaExisting areaWater-Central
Water-North, Water-East
Contours
River
Road
0 90 180 270 360
Meters
Lake Navarino
While all reasonable efforts have beenmade to ensure the accuracy of this data,no responsibility is accepted for any inaccuracies and persons replying on thisdata do so at their own risk.
Datum and Project InformationVertical Datum: AHDHorizontal Datum: GDA 94Projection: MGA 94 Zone 50
H2 Day use sitePotential
Water - EastWater - Central
H3 Day use site
Potential
H4 Day use site
Potential
Water - West
Dosing plantand protection zone
H1 Caravan Park/Resort
H5 Gibbs Pool Amphitheatre
Existing
Potential
Existing
Potential
Existing ExistingExisting
HARVEY-QUINDANNING RD
SU
NN
YVA
LE R
D
WA
LKE
R R
D
WEIR RD
HA
NS
ON
RD
H5
H1
H4
H2
H3
Harvey DamLegend
FreeholdState ForestState of WA
Crown ReserveWater CorporationDosing Plant
Information
Restaurant
Cabin
Camping Area
Caravan
Public Toilet
Picnic Table
Picnic Shelter
Amphitheatre
Boat Ramp
Cycle Trail
Swimming
Bird Watching
Fishing
Marron
Canoeing
Sail Boat
Water Skiing
Boat (Electric)
Proposed area
Water-West
Water-Central
Water-East
Contours
River
Road
0 190 380 570 760
Meters
Datum and Project InformationVertical Datum: AHDHorizontal Datum: GDA 94Projection: MGA 94 Zone 50
While all reasonable efforts have beenmade to ensure the accuracy of thisdata, no responsibility is accepted forany inaccuracies and persons replyingon this data do so at their own risk.
D1 Day use site
Existing
Drakesbrook DamExisting
WEIR RD
D1
Drakesbrook Dam
Legend
Water Corporation
Freehold
Public Toilet
Picnic Shelter
BBQ
Swimming
Fishing
Marron
Canoeing
Sail boat
Contours
River
Road
0 80 160 240 320
Meters
Datum and Project InformationVertical Datum: AHDHorizontal Datum: GDA 94Projection: MGA 94 Zone 50
While all reasonable efforts havebeen made to ensure the accuracyof this data, no responsibility isaccepted for any inaccuracies andpersons replying on this data do soat their own risk.
Lake Moyanup
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 12 Indicative costs of recreation development Please note that the information in this attachment is indicative only and subject to change. The Water Corporation advised (in its position statement to the Harvey Forum) that the cost of water from the proposed Harvey Water trade (Stage 3 - Logue Brook Dam) was estimated at approximately $0.60 per kilolitre as a future water source. This compares to the average value of alternative immediate sources that have been priced by the Economic regulation Authority in the range $0.82 to $1.20 per kilolitre. These figures suggest the present value of Logue Brook dam to be approximately 50 million dollars. Alternatively using a simple ‘net present valuation’ of the same figures shows that the benefit of the Harvey Water trade at Logue Brook Dam (LBD) is between $13 million (based on a $0.22 per kilolitre benefit) and $36 million (based on $.60 per kilolitre benefit) [assuming the availability of 5.3 GL over 30 years, at 8% interest rate]. If Government determined that LBD was a public water supply source (thus requiring recreation in and near the dam to be relocated to other dams) and if 30% of this benefit was made available to relocate, enhance or create a quality recreational experience at the other dams (ie. Waroona, Drakesbrook and Harvey Dams), between $4 and $12 million dollars could be made available. The three key recreation based cost factors to consider are:
1. the real opportunity for recreation to be relocated, enhanced or created at the other three dams (including the cost of investigation, approval and implementation);
2. the Caravan Park near the dam is on a long term lease (2018) from DEC and
this lease would need to be paid out; and
3. Camp Logue Brook (located near but outside the LBD catchment) would need to stop offering water based activities in LBD as part of its recreation program.
In relation to point 1, a 'recreation plan' is not currently available for Waroona, Drakesbrook or Harvey dams. As such, the local community and LBD users are sceptical of the real opportunities available at these dams. For example, their own experience suggests that Waroona Dam is already overcrowded. They are also highly sceptical about Water Corporation's ability to deliver on its commitments based on some historic experiences. Funding for a recreation master plan in the south west has been recommended to ensure a coordinated approach is taken for future recreation planning. DSR have costed this work at $670,000. As a guide, some individual costs incurred in the past for the development of recreational facilities by Water Corporation include:
• $127,000 paid by Water Corporation for a road, car park and boat ramp at Harvey dam - built in 2000
• Rock pile for fish habitat estimated at $100,000 by DEC
Page 2 of 2
• Recreation landscape works paid by Water Corporation at the base of Harvey Dam wall were $1,500,000 in 2000 (including 4 electric BBQs at $21,000, Children’s playground at $22,000; Three timber gazebos at $27,000)
• Education program estimated by water Corporation at $40,000
In relation to point 2, the Caravan Park lease expires in 2018. The indicative cost of buying the lease out I up to $500,000 (this would not include the cost of decommissioning or relocating the caravan park). In relation to point 3, the water based opportunities lost from Camp Logue Brook’s activity program could be offset by funds to help establish/create replacement activities. In 2005, the Camp estimated it would cost up to 6 million dollars to buy them out, or 860,000 to replace activities lost. It should be noted the Camp is not inside LBD catchment. Please note that financial consideration for the loss of access to LBD would not be subject to the same requirements for compensation as the caravan lease. However, the expectation of compensation is nonetheless real. The information in the following Memo was compiled by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Sport and Recreation.
