HARTENBOS ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN MINUTES OF THE

HARTENBOS ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN
MINUTES OF THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING
Hartenbos Library Hall
(Witwatersrand Road, Hartenbos)
29 June 2015
13:00-16:00
1
ATTENDANCE
The signed attendance register is included as Annex 1.
NAME
ORGANISATION
EMAIL ADDRESS / FAX NUMBER
PHONE NUMBER
Ken Hutchings
Anchor Environmental
Consultants
[email protected]
021 701 3420
Vera Massie
Anchor Environmental
Consultants
[email protected]
021 701 3420
Warren Manuel
Mossel Bay Municipality [email protected]
044 606 5163
Pieter van Reenen
Resident/Hartenbos
Conservancy
[email protected]
082 475 7500
Vivien Stadler
Pinnacle Conservation
[email protected]
044 697 7044
Neels Windt
MBM - WWTW
[email protected]
044 606 5278
Londeka Pheta
DEA LGS – Eden DM
[email protected]
044 803 1515
071 615 7084
Jacobus van Zyl
Farmer
[email protected]
Caitlin Marshall
Hartenbos Conservancy [email protected]
1
082 452 4641
082 218 6290
2
WELCOME & INTRODUCTION
Dr Ken Hutchings (KH) introduced himself and his colleague, Vera Massie (VM) from Anchor
Environmental.
He explained that Anchor Environmental has just completed the draft Hartenbos Estuary Situation
Assessment Report and that this meeting has the purpose to present and discuss the findings with all
stakeholders.
KH thanked all for attending the first public participation meeting and expressed regret regarding the
poor representation of the public in this meeting.
3
AGENDA
KH went through the agenda and let the attendants know that he would first provide background to
this project after which VM would present the results of the Situation Assessment Report. He
explained that after the presentation he hopes that the attendees will voice their main concerns
regarding the Hartenbos Estuary and what aspects they would like to see addressed in the Estuarine
Management Plan (EMP). He also asked the attendees to provide input regarding the vision for the
Hartenbos EMP during this participatory process. However, he also emphasised that he would
appreciate comments and advice from the attendants at any time during the presentation. He
clarified that attendees could ask questions in Afrikaans.
No changes to the agenda were proposed.
3.1
Comments
Pieter Van Reenen (PR) raised concern about the poor attendance of stakeholders and commented
that he generally finds it difficult to motivate and interest people in environmental matters. He also
asked how this meeting and this process has generally been advertised.
VM explained that an advertisement was placed in the Mossel Bay Advertiser well in advance of this
meeting. Furthermore, during the last visit to Hartenbos on 9 June 2015, six posters were hung up in
various strategic locations in the Hartenbos town. She also explained that the ATKV and the Riviera
Hotel were personally contacted and agreed to put up posters in their facilities. She assured that
people from the bird club, the NG Church, angling shops, agricultural union and many others were
contacted telephonically and via email to ensure publicity of this process and the upcoming meeting.
Generally emails with information (invitation to the stakeholder process, meeting reminders and
agenda, draft report and meeting minutes) were sent out to all identified stakeholders and newly
registered stakeholders.
PR suggested that perhaps the advertising should be done all in Afrikaans. KH suggested that the
executive summary of the Situation Assessment Report could be translated into Afrikaans, but
expressed regret that the translation of the whole document would not be possible. Furthermore it
was discussed that the advertising of the next meetings should be done in Afrikaans. PR also
suggested that it may help to get people interested if an Article was published in the Mossel Bay
Advertiser, with pictures, to give some background on the issues and management problems in the
2
Hartenbos Estuary.
4
APOLOGIES
The following stakeholders sent apologies:
Vernon Gibbs
Mornay Beukes
Werner Kock
Riaan Grobbelaar
Sandra Falanga
Lucretia Van Der Walt
Austin Eybers
Benjamin Walton
5
5.1
EDM
Hartenbos Conservancy
Financial Manager at the ATKV Holiday Resort
Harten-Hengel Tackle Shop
Gouritz Cluster Biosphere Reserve (GCBR) Representative in MB
BOTSOC Representative in Mossel Bay
Interested birder
CapeNature
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
Legislative background for the EMP
KH started the presentation (See Annex 2) by summarising the process for developing EMPs and
associated legal requirements in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (ICMA) (Act
No. 24 of 2009, as amended). He explained that the Hartenbos Estuary is situated within the Mossel
Bay Municipality and that Anchor Environmental was appointed by the municipality to develop the
Estuary Management Plan according to the National Environmental Management Protocol
promulgated on 10 May 2013 (NEMP). The NEMP sets standards for the management of estuaries,
provides minimum requirement plans and assigns the responsibility for preparation and
implementation of EMPs.
5.2
Development of an EMP for the Hartenbos Estuary
KH explained the process that will be followed in the development of an EMP for the Hartenbos
Estuary as outlined in the presentation (See Annex 2). The first phase entailed preparation of a
Situation Assessment Report and stakeholder consultation. He added that Anchor Environmental
had completed the draft Situation Assessment Report and that the final report will be produced after
this meeting and will include all issues and comments raised by the stakeholders. He emphasised
that this meeting was scheduled to present the findings and receive further information from
stakeholders, but also to assist in developing a vision for the Hartenbos Estuary. However, he also
commented that this may be difficult to achieve due to the poor public attendance and that the
vision should be developed incorporating concerns from all stakeholder representatives.
KH explained that the second phase includes the development of the EMP itself, a zonation plan and
management action plans. KH said that the third phase deals with the setting up of an estuary
management forum and the implementation of the EMP. KH emphasised that the EMP is a living
document and addresses issues as they arise and new issues can be brought on the agenda at any
time.
3
5.3
Conservation & socio-economic importance of the Hartenbos Estuary
VM presented the slides on the conservation and socio-economic importance of the Hartenbos
Estuary (See Annex 2) and said that although conservation importance of the system is modest, it is
important from a socio-economic perspective as it has a well established resident community and a
large tourism community which brings in large amounts of income and jobs.
She elaborated that the estuary is small but has a large flood plain and measures approximately
268 ha if defined by the 5 m bathymetric contour line.
5.4
Human impacts on the Estuary
VM went through the slides explaining current human impacts on the Hartenbos Estuary (See Annex
2). She explained that the flow regime has changed significantly since the building of the
Hartebeeskuil Dam and that the most important issue is freshwater deprivation. She also presented
the results of the study conducted by Lemley et al. (2015), which showed that nutrient levels in the
estuary have been increasing over time and are primarily attributable to the releases from the
WWTP. VM also clarified that elevated E.coli levels in the estuary are not attributable to the WWTP,
but rather to activities upstream of the WWTP and that the WWTP has been compliant with their
water use licence (General Authorisation). She also said that although they meet the legislative
requirements, the law is not sufficient to protect the ecology of an estuary that receives such high
levels of nutrients, especially since this estuary is predominantly closed to the sea.
VM then dealt with the issue of artificial breaching and that this has been identified as a key factor in
causing fish kills in the summer months. She presented the results of a report compiled by the DWS
regarding the probable causes of the fish kills in January 2015, where 1000-2000 fish perished the
morning after the estuary mouth was informally opened. This case, she emphasised, serves as a very
good example why a formal breaching protocol will be an integral part of this EMP. Artificial
breaching also occurs when the estuary is full and threatens to flood the properties on the banks of
the estuary.
VM also identified bank stabilisation as a human impact on sediment transport, water movement
and waste treatment capacity (lack of riparian vegetation for removal of excess nutrients) of the
estuary. KH emphasised that being aware of the impacts caused by stabilising banks, in particular
using concrete (i.e. canalisation), must influence the way banks are stabilised in future if stabilisation
cannot be prevented.
VM explained that stormwater is also contributing to the pollution of the estuary (heavy metals and
E. coli at the very least). She also emphasised that eutrophication results in the loss of salt marsh
and species diversity, as well as impacting on the aesthetics of the estuary. Going forward, one of
the key issues to be addressed should involve reducing the risk of eutrophication.
5.4.1
5.4.1.1
Comments:
Hydrology related issues
KH commented that it appears that the mean annual runoff improved in the last decade, which is
4
surprising considering that the area experienced severe drought between 2009 and 2011.
Neels Windt (NW) responded that Water allocations to farmers as well as PetroSA during the drought
were reduced to five million litres per day of municipal water provided by the Wolwedans. This
amount was not enough for PetroSA to continue operating and the WWTP was tasked to supply
PetroSA with production water, which was released from the Hartebeeskuil Dam and treated by the
Reverse Osmosis Plant at the WWTP. A large pump and connection pipes were installed just
upstream of the WWTP and connected to the RO Plant at the WWTP. During this severe drought,
people conserved water wherever possible which lead to insufficient water in the sewage pipes to
act as a conveyor belt for the waste. The sewage became too concentrated for effective bacterial
treatment and water from the Hartebeeskuil Dam was then also used to ensure that the WWTP
could continue operating.
Jacobus Van Zyl, a farmer in the lower catchment of the Hartenbos River, contested the data
collected by the gauging stations of the DWS. He claims that the data is inaccurate and shows very
different results compared to the long-term detailed flow records collected by Billy Robertson
(Transand CC) just upstream of the estuary.
KH responded that Anchor Environmental will try and contact Billy Robertson and find out about this
data and if possible, include a paragraph on this in the final Situation Assessment Report.
NW also stated that he read in the report written by Bickerton (1982) (see reference in presentation)
that the old Railway Pylons are still in place and that those influence flow patterns.
5.4.1.2
Hartenbos Estuary pollution
PR said that a resident that he knows believes that bad farming practice and other pollution entering
rivers result in depauperate marine life close to river mouths. He asked whether Anchor
Environmental concurs.
KH responded that there are many factors that lead to the loss of diversity and abundance of marine
organisms, but that in his experience this phenomenon near river mouths is most commonly related
to ease of access (nodal access points) and associated consumptive uses.
NW commented that he has seen large septic tanks downstream of the WWTP on the property of
the 7th Day Adventist Camp, which could be a potential source of E. coli in the river.
VM responded that this is important information, which is necessary to pinpoint the sources of E. coli
in the river.
PR explained that the ATKV development is in the process of increasing the size of their commercial
areas, including a shopping mall, parking areas etc, which means increased runoff from these areas.
He recalls that the two options for stormwater discharge have been discussed, including discharge on
the Twee Kuilen Beach or into the Hartenbos. He then asked what the impacts would be if this
stormwater was discharged into the estuary.
KH responded that the impacts would depend on the volumes and chemical composition (i.e.
toxicity, bioaccumulative components) of the stormwater. He said that it is difficult to predict the
impacts without those details, but that heavy metals accumulation, polycyclic hydrocarbons (source:
car oil, petrol spills etc.) and E. coli would be the most likely variables of concern.
5
NW also contributed to the discussion and said that discharges of this stormwater would probably
not be allowed on the beach, which has Blue Flag status.
Warren Manuel (WM) clarified that the latest plan regarding the stormwater from the new
development on ATKV property has been to discharge into the municipal stormwater system which
ultimately discharges onto the beach.
PR said that the current capacity of the stormwater system doesn’t cope at times of heavy rain falls.
NW contributed that he observed the Riviera Hotel fertilising their lawn, which would be another
source of pollution in the lower estuary.
5.4.1.3
Artificial breaching
NW agreed that according to his observations, the fish kills occurred as soon as the water drained
from the estuary as a result of the informal breach the night before.
KH added that although the opening appears to be the main factor resulting in the fish kills, it must
also be kept in mind that the generally elevated eutrophication risk in the Hartenbos estuary would
have already lead to a reduction in oxygen prior to the opening of the mouth. Due to low water
levels in the estuary, the water temperature is likely to have been elevated, resulting in a lower
capacity to dissolve oxygen. Finally, he explained that submerged macrophytes respire at night
without producing oxygen as photosynthesis cannot occur without sunlight. As a result, the opening
of the estuary during low flow conditions represents the final action that lead to the fish kills. He
also explained that the general misconception is that higher wave energy after a storm opens
estuaries but that in reality, long shore drift results in the closing of the estuary mouth. Generally
speaking sufficient freshwater inflow is most commonly responsible for keeping an estuary mouth
open.
5.5
Ecology of the Hartenbos Estuary
VM presented results from the ecology section of the Situation Assessment Report, which included
water quality, vegetation, invertebrates, fish and birds. The estuary has naturally occurring
hypersalinity events, which have been exacerbated as a result of the construction of the Hartbeeskuil
dam, reduced freshwater inflows and altered mouth dynamics. Invertebrate diversity is relatively
low and the presence of the invasive tube worm Ficopomatus enigmatica has been reported in the
estuary although its distribution and abundance is currently unknown. VM explained that this tube
worm is highly invasive and settles on hardened surfaces, but the impact arises from the
disintegration of the tubes after death, which at high densities can change the benthic substrate and
with it the macrobenthic communities found in those sediments. She continued by saying that it is
surprising that a total of 19 wader species (of which nine species are migratory) have been recorded
in the estuary. Gulls and terns as well as water fowl seem to be the most abundant bird types.
Overall though the low number of migratory bird species in the estuary means that the conservation
importance will still remain relatively low.
5.5.1.1
Comments
JZ informed Anchor Environmental that the fish eagle is still breeding upstream on his farm. VM
6
expressed relief and explained that records from the last few years collected by the Coordinated
Waterbird Counts (CWAC) did not include fish eagle sightings.
5.6
Ecosystem services
VM presented the ecosystem services that the Hartenbos is currently providing. No raw material is
extracted and the waste treatment capacity of the estuary is fully utilised (probably over-utilised).
The nursery value of the estuary is moderate and the tourism and recreational value is considered
the most important. This includes fishing, bird watching and relaxation in general. VM said that
more information is needed regarding popular activities in the estuary (types and preferred
locations).
5.6.1
Comments
PR asked what nursery value means. VM explained that the estuary functions as a refuge for juvenile
fish, where they can feed on macroalgae growing in the estuary and are better protected from the
harsher marine environment as well as predators. KH added that the nursery value is calculated
based on how much commercial, subsistence and recreational fisheries depend on these areas to
produce adult fish for exploitation and maintenance of future fish stocks.
VM expressed disappointment that recreational anglers were not represented in the public
participation meeting, but that angling shops had been contacted and used to hang up
advertisement posters. A conversation with the Mr. Riaan Grobbelaar the owner of the Harten-Engel
Tackle Shop after the meeting revealed that generally, his customers seemed very interested in the
process and recognised its importance. Furthermore, he emphasised that most expressed regret
that they could not attend the meeting due to the timing (1 pm – 4 pm).
VM explained that the angling data presented during this meeting is not data that was collected in
the estuary but rather on the beach at the estuary mouth and further south on the beach in front of
the ATKV Holiday resort. She emphasised that more information would be required as to if and
where angling occurs inside the estuary.
WM confirmed that very few boats with engines are found on the estuary, which is mainly due to the
lack of a municipal launching site on the river.
At this point, JZ had to leave the meeting and said that this process is very important to the farmers
as their livelihood depends on releases from the Hartebeeskuil Dam. It appears that farmers are
currently experiencing problems regarding releases from the Dam and are concerned about how
dam releases will be managed in future.
PR stated that the Hartebeeskuil Dam is used for recreational purposes, especially recreational
angling.
5.7
Present state summary
VM presented the slides on the summary of the present state of the Hartenbos Estuary. She
explained that the preliminary ecological reserve determination study is underway and that the Draft
7
Gouritz Estuary RDM Report of 2015 has not yet been released to the public but that relevant
information from this report is used in the Hartenbos Estuarine Situation Assessment Report. She
explained that the Present Ecological State of the Hartenbos Estuary is a D, which means that the
system is largely modified. She further explained that ecological importance was rated as average
and that it was recommended that the estuary is managed as a Category C estuary (i.e. moderately
modified). It was also recommended that the base flow must be restored, that water quality must
be improved, that mouth management is sound and that riparian vegetation and wetlands are
rehabilitated.
5.7.1
Comments
PR asked what baseflow means. VM explained that base flow is the long-term average flow. This
definition needs to be corrected. Baseflow is more correctly referred to as the portion of streamflow
that originates from the sum of deep subsurface flow and delayed shallow subsurface flow.
WM asked what the DWS now plans to do with the RDM study and whether there will be public
participation.
VM responded that the report has not yet been released to the public and that Anchor
Environmental will contact the relevant people to answer this question.
5.8
Management interventions
VM presented the slides on the various management interventions that are known. The WWTP was
upgraded from a capacity of 7.8 – 18 ML/day and continued discharge into the estuary was
motivated by the additional freshwater input from the plant that would at least partially offset the
volumes impounded by the Hartebeeskuil Dam. She also emphasised that these objectives were not
achieved due to poor effluent quality (although the WWTP was compliant with legislation).
Furthermore, she elaborated that artificial breaching occurs in the estuary and that a semi-formal
protocol is in place. The estuary is generally breached if properties on the banks of the estuary are
about to be flooded or if the water quality of the estuary is very poor. She also emphasised that this
informal breaching protocol and the lack of understanding of the consequences has exacerbated the
problem of fish kills in the estuary in January 2015.
She further explained that there have been controlled releases from the Hartebeeskuil Dam since
1982 (referred to release record provided by the DWS), which were mostly released for irrigation
(agriculture) and river ecology, but rarely for the estuary itself.
She concluded by saying that more information is needed regarding the Hartenbos Conservancy, i.e.
the objectives, initiatives, strategies etc. She emphasised that their input and collaboration would be
crucial in the development and implementation of the Hartenbos EMP.
8
5.8.1
Comments
5.8.1.1
WWTP issues
VM asked NW when the upgraded WWTP became operational.
NW responded that he thinks that it was in 2006. He also said that the WWTP is not operating to full
capacity at the moment but usually processes 8 ML/day, although it was projected that the WWTP
would reach capacity in 2015. He thinks that the reason for this is the severe drought between 2009
and 2011 which taught people to save water. He continued to explain that their main problem was
load shedding, where aerators are switched off1. NW elaborated that the main concern regarding
consequences of load shedding was regarding the amount of ammonia and nitrite that enters the
estuary, as these substances are toxic to fish.
VM asked whether they can use generator to keep the plant going. NW replied that the WWTP only
has two generators which were not sufficient to run the plant and that the installation and running
costs of generators required to keep the entire plant going would run into millions.
VM further asked whether it was possible to modify the plant such that biological material can be
used to generate electricity. NW responded that the conversion of the plant would be very costly.
Also, anaerobic digestors (which are required for the above proposed solution) require methane gas
for fuel (as this is the gas that is produced from the biological digestion) which is dangerous in
respect of storage and usage.
KH asked what the effluent quality is like during load shedding and if raw sewage flows into the
estuary? NW responded that during load shedding treatment efficiency is severely reduced, where
the only safeguard is dilution through previously treated sewage in the maturation ponds and a
residence time of 12 days where the effluent can mature before being released into the river (each
of the ponds has a capacity of 8 ML/day). He added that his main concern is regarding the high
levels of ammonia and nitrate which can enter the river, which are toxic to fish.
VM asked whether there is space to plant an artificial wetland below the outfall to help improve
effluent quality. NW said that there is space. He also said that there is a plan for a sludge dewatering system to deal with the power outages.
An interview was conducted with Mr. Neels Windt after the public meeting where he explained that
recently, the WWTP was connected to the electricity grid of PetroSA and that the WWTP will no
longer be subject to load shedding.
5.8.1.2
Hartenbos Conservancy/Pinnacle Conservation
Caitlin Marshall (CM), a student ranger for the Hartenbos Conservancy/Pinnacle Conservation
explained the collects monthly water samples at three sites in the estuary and produces monthly
1
Subsequent comment by Anchor Environmental: Aeration introduces air into untreated liquid and provides an
aerobic environment for microbial degradation of organic waste. The microbial community required for the
safe degradation of sewage need oxygen for their metabolic processes. Aeration also allows mixing of the
liquid to be treated to allow optimal breakdown of organic matter. As long as oxygen is available, nitrification
will convert ammonia in the sewage into nitrite and then into nitrate (non-toxic to fish). Subsequent anoxic
treatment of sludge converts nitrate into nitrogen gas, thereby removing nitrogen from the wastewater.
9
reports. She also includes general ecological observations in the estuary and produces a monthly
newsletter. She said that the water quality results are always bad and agree with the E.coli results
collected by the WWTP (as in presentation). She also organises outreach programmes, which include
environmental education and beach clean ups among other activities. She explained that the
conservancy is funded by the ATKV and she collaborates with other NGOs and conservancies.
WM suggested that the Hartenbos EMP should perhaps include what it would cost to keep a student
on this river to the work.
6
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
KH opened the floor for suggestions, comments and recommendations by the attendees. He
thanked all attendees for their contributions provided thus far and asked to share their main
concerns relating to the current status of the estuary and regarding the future management. He
asked whether there are any specific issues that the attendees would like the management plan to
focus on. He also added that he had planned to engage all stakeholders in a participatory exercise
identify these issues and to help develop a vision for the Hartenbos EMP, but that a discussion with
such few attendees would make more sense. He presented some examples of vision statements for
other EMPs and Integrated Development Plans (IDPs).
6.1.1
6.1.1.1
Comments:
Pollution
CM said that during her monthly patrols and outreach programmes she had noted that there is no
system in place to remove manure from the pig farms on the eastern bank of the upper estuary and
lower reaches of the river. She also added that intensive dairy farming upstream together with the
input from the pig farms appear to be a trigger for cynobacterial growth. WM also said that all
properties on the eastern bank are not connected to the municipal sewage system and many still
have septic tanks and soak-aways. DWS attempted to motivate owners to convert to conservancy
tanks but this initiative has not yet been successful.
PR raised concern regarding solid waste pollution. Solid waste washes down the river and is
generally deposited on the north-eastern bank and if the estuary is open some of this also washes
out to sea.
KH responded that generally people think that plastic pollution originates mostly from ships,
however, the majority originates from land-based sources. He emphasised that the only way to
combat this problem is by means of education, which is already being addressed by the Hartenbos
Conservancy.
WM requested that the Hartenbos Situation Assessment Report includes an account of what
happens to the sewage treatment process during load shedding.
6.1.1.2
Bait collection
CM also said that she regularly sees people prawn pumping in the estuary near the mouth. KH asked
10
her whether she knows if this is simply for recreational purposes or whether people make a living by
selling the prawns. CM responded that it appears to be solely for recreational purposes.
6.1.1.3
Recreational activities
KH addressed all attendees to find out if people like to swim in the estuary. Attendees denied this.
WM said that paddling does occur in the estuary and that many people own boats but that power
boats are generally not used in the river. This is mainly because of the lack of a municipal launching
site.
VM asked WM whether he thinks that people would like to have a launching site. He responded that
he has never received a request in this regard. He also added that residents in the Klein Brak asked
for a launching site.
NW is of the opinion that the Klein Brak is much nicer as there are no E.coli and it is generally less
disturbed. KH suggested that perhaps the proximity of the Klein Brak and the Groot Brak, which
appear to be aesthetically more pleasing, plays a role in the underutilisation of the Hartenbos
Estuary.
PR raised concerns regarding dog walking on the beach and the banks of the estuary. He said that
currently dogs are allowed on the beach provided they are on a leash and the owner removes dog
faeces. He said that no one adheres to these rules because of the lack of enforcement. He was most
worried about dogs chasing shore birds, which may have lead to the disappearing of the
Oystercatcher pair on the beach.
KH agreed that dogs without a leash are a big problem for shore birds but also expressed regret that
the EMP will not have the capacity to extend beyond the estuary boundaries (i.e adjacent beaches).
PR said that he would help VM to get into contact with Gorra Heyman who provided Anchor
Environmental with a bird list for the estuary. He could also be of assistance when talking about
zonation plans regarding prohibiting certain activities in areas that may be particularly good for
birding or to assist in choosing potential spots for bird hides (or advise if there are any at all).
6.1.1.4
Aesthetics
PR also emphasised that people like to come to the estuary to enjoy the view and the sense of place.
He said that his favourite view is from the southern bank across the estuary.
6.1.1.5
Environmental law enforcement
KH asked all attendees if there are any other law enforcement issues that relate to the environment
of the Hartenbos Estuary, except for the issue regarding the dog walking rules.
WM responded that he has never received a phone call regarding illegal activities involving
harvesting of resources.
6.1.1.6
Public participation
KH raised concern that the development of a vision for the EMP requires input from local
stakeholders, which are not well represented at this meeting. This statement of desired future state
11
must talk to the challenges and demands in the estuary and this cannot be determined without
adequate representation of interested and affected parties.
PR suggested that perhaps a newspaper article must be written that addresses the bad attendance
and provides a summary of what we are trying to achieve. After a small discussion on this, it was
decided that this article/letter should be written by the citizen and not the consultants.
WM concurred that more input is required from a wider range of stakeholders. He emphasised that
this process is still in the beginning stages and very open and that stakeholder engagement must be a
priority before this process is too far down the road.
6.1.1.7
Comments and contributions from people that were unable to attend the meeting
PR said that he had a message from a stakeholder who, at this stage, would like to stay anonymous.
This stakeholder would like to see, as part of the overall management goals:



Improve water quality for contact recreational activities (i.e. swimming, angling and boating)
Improve water quality by considering unconventional wastewater treatment methods at the
WWTP, including wetlands
To predict the influence of global warming, sea level rise and high intensity floods
12
Annex 1. Signed attendance register
13
Annex 2 – Presentation delivered by Dr Ken Hutchings and Vera Massie
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26