Contoh Destop Lihat Di Bab 2...

SUGARLOAF PIPELINE PROJECT

AQUATIC ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FEBRUARY 2008

PAGE 2

Document History and StatusRevision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type

3 15/2/08 Sugarloaf Project Alliance

SugarloafProject Alliance

15/2/08 Final

Distribution of Copies Revision Copy no Quantity Issued to

3 1 2 (1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy)

Victorian Department of Planning and Community DevelopmentVictorian Department of Sustainability and EnvironmentVictorian Department of Infrastructure Shire of Yarra Ranges Shire of Murrindindi City of Greater Shepparton Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Printed: 15 February 2008

Last saved: 14 February 2008 06:40 PM

File name: I:\VWES\Projects\VW04160\Technical\Planning\Reports\Specialist Reports\V3 - reports for public comment\Final documents\Penultimate\no tracked changes 4

Author: Sugarloaf Project Alliance

Project manager: Alliance Leadership Team

Name of organisation: Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance

Name of project: Sugarloaf Pipeline Project

Name of document: Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment

Document version: 3

PAGE 3

Contents

Acknowledgements 6

Abbreviations 7

Limitations 8

Executive Summary 9

1. Introduction 111.1 The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project 111.2 Purpose and Scope of the Study 111.3 Study Area 13

2. Desktop Study 172.1 Instream Habitat 172.1.1 Legislative Requirements 172.1.2 Methodology 192.1.3 Existing Conditions 202.1.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts 232.1.5 Mitigation and Management Measures 242.2 Water Quality 262.2.1 Legislative Requirements 262.2.2 Methodology 272.2.3 Existing Conditions 272.2.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts 312.2.5 Mitigation and Management Measures 322.2.6 Recommended Monitoring 332.3 Fish 352.3.1 Objectives and Assessment Criteria 352.3.2 National 352.3.3 State 352.3.4 Methods 362.3.5 Existing Conditions 382.3.6 Assessment of Potential Impacts 392.3.7 Mitigation and Management Measures 402.4 Macroinvertebrates 412.4.1 Legislative Requirements 412.4.2 Methods 412.4.3 Existing Conditions 412.4.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts 422.4.5 Mitigation and Management Measures 432.5 Wetlands 442.5.1 Legislative Requirements 44

PAGE 4

2.5.2 Existing Conditions 442.5.3 Internationally Significant Wetlands (Ramsar) 442.5.4 Nationally Significant Wetlands 452.5.5 Wetlands of Bioregional Significance 452.5.6 Other Wetlands of Interest 452.5.7 Assessment of Potential Impacts 472.5.8 Mitigation and Management Measures 482.5.9 Recommended Monitoring 48

3. Current Survey 493.1 Methods 493.1.1 Fish Sampling Procedures 493.1.2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling 513.2 Results 523.3 Discussion 653.3.1 Fish 653.3.2 Macroinvertebrates 653.3.3 Potential translocation between the Goulburn and Yarra Catchment 67

4. Targeted Burrowing Crayfish Survey 694.1 Background 694.2 Methods 694.2.1 Distribution of crayfish burrows 704.2.2 Density of burrows 704.2.3 Landform and soil type. 704.2.4 Search for specimens 704.3 Results 704.3.1 Spatial Recordings of presence or absence of burrows. 704.3.2 Excavations 744.4 Discussion 744.5 Conclusion 76

5. Summary of Pipeline Corridors 775.1 Goulburn River to Yea (Section A) 775.2 Yea Wetlands (Section A) 775.3 Yea River South of Yea Wetlands – Crossing No. 1 (Section B) 775.4 Ewing Creek Crossing (Section B) 805.5 Triangle Creek Crossing and Yea River (Section B) 805.6 Tea Tree Creek and Rellimeiggam Creek (Section C) 815.7 Yea River - Crossing No. 2 (Section C) 825.8 Kalatha Creek (Section D) 835.9 Unnamed Dry Creeks (Sections D and E) 835.10 Yea River – Crossing No. 3 (Section E) 84

6. Conclusion 85

PAGE 5

7. References 90

Appendix A – Fish Survey Permit 93

PAGE 6

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the assistance that has been provided by a wide number of government departments and non-government organisations in procuring data and documents. These organisations and individuals have been referenced throughout this document where appropriate.

The assistance of the various members of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance was invaluable and their assistance in co-ordinating access to properties for field surveys and data collection is greatly appreciated. Thanks also go to the landholders for their cooperation in allowing us to conduct field investigations in and around their properties.

PAGE 7

AbbreviationsAUSRIVAS Australian River Assessment System

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

EES Environment Effects Statement

EMP Environment Management Plan

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FFG Flora and Fauna Guarantee 1988

GHD Gutheridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd

ISC Index of Stream Condition

MW Melbourne Water

RBA Rapid BioAssessment

SEPP State Environmental Protection Policy

SEPP (WoV) State Environmental Protection Policy: Waters of Victoria

SIGNAL Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level

SKM Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd

PAGE 8

LimitationsThis Report:

� has been prepared by Melbourne Water, GHD Pty Ltd, Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, and John Holland, the participants in the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance (the ‘Alliance’);

� has been based on information provided up to 8 February 2008;

� has been produced as part of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project Impact Assessment report and is for the purpose of identifying preferred pipeline corridors and associated management and mitigation measures for the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project;

This Report should not be altered, amended or abbreviated, issued in part or issued incomplete in any matter whatsoever without prior checking and approval by the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance. The Alliance expressly disclaims responsibility for any liability which may arise from the issue of this Report in part or incomplete or its modification in any way whatsoever.

PAGE 9

Executive Summary The Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment has been prepared to present baseline data on the aquatic ecology of the waterways which may be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project. Specifically, this report describes instream habitat and presents water quality, and macroinvertebrates and fish communities data obtained from the field investigations.

The report also contains data sourced from a range of stakeholders including Melbourne Water, the Goulburn-Broken CMA, Victorian Water Quality Data Warehouse website, DSE, EPA, Fisheries Victoria and information from relevant reports and other documents.

Field investigations have confirmed the presence of a number of fish species at every sampled location along the pipeline corridor. The EPBC listed species Barred Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus) and Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica) previously identified in the Yea River, Macquarie Perch were not been identified in the recent survey at Devlins Bridge (Secition C – all options). However, Barred Galaxias were not expected to be encountered in the pipeline corridor as its distribution is restricted to the upper-forested tributaries of the Yea River, i.e. outside the area of the proposed works.

Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) were observed in the Yea River at Devlins Bridge. Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus) which is FFG-listed was also observed at Devlins Bridge and in the Yea River near the Yea wetlands. The caddisfly species of Archaeophylax canarus and the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly were not found, although no targeted species searches were conducted as part of this investigation.

A number of species of burrowing crayfish (Engaeus spp.) are listed as occurring within the pipeline corridor, of which some are FFG listed. While a targeted survey failed to locate live specimens, a number of exoskeletons were collected during the field investigation and a substantial amount of evidence (e.g. burrows) suggests that one or more species of the genus are present within the pipeline corridor.

Most Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level (SIGNAL indices) calculated from macroinvertebrate samples collected during the field investigations were within the State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP) objectives, reflecting an overall good waterway health. The sites that presented the lower SIGNAL and lower macroinvertebrate diversity were situated in non flowing creeks surrounded by agricultural lands. Likewise, apart from Devlins Bridge site, all the sites in the Yea River returned SIGNAL indices between 6 and 7, indicating clean water.

For the benefit of the aquatic ecology in these waterways, the preferred method for construction is boring under all permanent waterways as it would minimise disturbance to sites and minimise the risk of detrimental ecological impacts downstream. In most cases where the waterway is permanent, trenching could compromise the ecological values of the waterway.

PAGE 10

Concerns regarding the translocation of species between the Goulburn catchment and the Yarra catchment have been considered and a fish survey was undertaken at Sugarloaf Reservoir to gain an understanding of the resident fish populations and to confirm or infirm the presence of exotic species in the reservoir. A high abundance of Golden Perch, Shortfinned Eels and Redfin was found, but no Carp, Trout, Weatherloach, Mosquitofish, Tench or Goldfish were identified in the current survey. As such, it is evident that the fish communities at the starting and finishing points of the pipeline are different and a translocation of unwanted fish from the Goulburn River into Sugarloaf Reservoir could have detrimental impacts in the receiving water.

The operation specification of the pump station and the pipeline suggest that it would be difficult for fish to be translocated between the Goulburn and the Yarra catchment. However, it is still theoretically possible for objects up to 30mm in size including fingerlings and fish eggs to be translocated to Sugarloaf Reservoir.

This report discusses the existing condition of the various ecological components, and identifies potential impacts the construction and operation of the pipeline may have. Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of adverse impacts on these ecological values are also identified.

It is highly recommended that an ongoing water quality monitoring program which pays particular attention to turbidity be undertaken. Further fish and macroinvertebrate monitoring are also highly recommended once the final alignment is defined to assess more precisely the potential impacts of the works on the local communities at the crossing point, and to help inform the Environmental management Plan.

Finally, it is strongly recommended to conduct follow up monitoring of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities post construction to assess the impacts of the construction process on these communities.

PAGE 11

1. Introduction

1.1 The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project aims to deliver additional water supply to Melbourne. The Project is a key component of the Victorian Government’s Our Water, Our Future The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan (DSE, 2007), which aims to secure Victoria’s water supplies in the face of drought, climate change and a growing population.

The pipeline will transfer a maximum of 75 GL/year of water from the Goulburn River into the Melbourne Water distribution network via Sugarloaf Reservoir in the Yarra Ranges. Water for the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will be sourced from savings achieved through the Food Bowl Modernisation Project, which involves modernisation of irrigation infrastructure in the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District.

The project will involve the construction and operation of a water pipeline, approximately 70km long, pump stations, a balancing storage and associated electrical infrastructure to deliver water to Sugarloaf Reservoir. The planning, design and construction phases of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will be undertaken by the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance, an alliance comprised of Melbourne Water Corporation, GHD Pty Ltd, SKM Pty Ltd, and John Holland.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Study This review addresses the aquatic ecology components of the project, specifically wetlands, instream habitat, macroinvertebrates, water quality and fish within the waterways that will potentially be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project. This review is based on data sourced from a range of stakeholders including Melbourne Water, the Goulburn-Broken CMA, Victorian Water Quality Data Warehouse web site, DSE, EPA and information from relevant reports and other documents.

The pipeline construction works will potentially disturb an area of 30m wide within the pipeline corridor. The trenching work will involve the excavation of a 3m wide and 3m deep (minimum) trench. There are a number of sections of the pipeline alignment where trenching or boring will be required within waterways. This assessment has identified 187 potential waterway crossings where this may occur along the existing alignment (Table 1-1). Further details on the waterways crossings and issues associated with them are located in the Hydrology, Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment.

PAGE 12

� Table 1-1 - Waterway crossings of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project corridor, north and south of the Great Dividing Range

Name Number Section Option

North of Divide Caraman Creek 1 C C1 & 3 Eagle Nest Creek 1 D All Ewing Creek 1 B B1 Kalatha Creek 1 D All Katy Creek 1 D All Rellimeiggam Creek 1 C All Tea tree Creek 1 C All Triangle Creek 1 B B1 Wee Creek 1 D All Yea River 3 B, C, E All Unnamed 128

South of Divide

Dixons Creek 1 F, G F – all, G – 5 & 6 Dry Creek 1 G G1, 2 & 3 Maroondah Aqueduct 2 G,H Steels Creek 1 G G1, 2 & 3 Unnamed 52 Total 187

This report includes a review of current values and potential impacts associated with each ecosystem component (i.e. fish, macroinvertebrates, instream habitat, water quality) identified above. In addition to the review, an overall summary of the pipeline corridors has been presented, providing comment on each of the major waterway crossings inspected. This report does not encompass an ecological review of the entire catchments or waterways involved, however a 1km wide zone through which the pipeline could pass has been included in the scope of this report. Data collection has been limited to the sites specified in the document; three of the major waterway crossings targeted have not been surveyed due to restricted access.

Ecological impacts of the project are expected to be limited to the construction phase for the waterway crossings between the Goulburn River and Sugarloaf Reservoir. Operational impacts of the pipeline will be limited to the Goulburn River and Sugarloaf Reservoir and have been discussed in latter sections and in more detail in an additional report titled “Goulburn River Environmental Implications”. Operational impacts of the pipeline such as scour (routine cleaning of the pipeline) will need to be addressed in the EMP and have not been considered in the scope of this report. The requirements for further assessment to assist in identifying potential impacts and subsequently mitigation of impacts have also been documented in latter sections.

PAGE 13

1.3 Study Area The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will begin at an off-take point at the Goulburn River North of Yea (approximately 100km north-east of central Melbourne) and end at the Sugarloaf Reservoir in the Shire of Yarra Ranges. The study area for the project is 2 to 4km wide.

Within this broad study area and along its length, the pipeline corridor has been divided into 8 sections (A – H). Within each section, several pipeline option corridors have been identified. These pipeline option corridors are referred to in this report as either preferred or non-preferred options corridor1. At present, some sections of the study area contain only one option while other sections contain two or more options. All options roughly follow the Melba Highway between Yea and Yarra Glen. The options are the focus of this report. Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the study area and the pipeline option corridors.

Goulburn River

The Goulburn River (Section A) basin is Victoria’s largest, covering over 1.6 million hectares or 7.1% of the state’s total area. The Goulburn River is 57km long, flowing from upstream of Woods Point to Echuca. The river has a mean annual water discharge of 3040 GL (1.8 ML/ha) representing 13.7% of the total state discharge.

The terrain varies significantly across the catchment from the high ranges and mountains of the Great Dividing Ranges in the south, to the flat country of the Murray Plain to the north. The High Country in the south-east experiences cold winter with persistent snow and an average annual rainfall greater than 1600mm. Rainfall decreases northward and in the far north of the catchment is less than 450mm per year.

Yea River and tributaries

The Yea River (Sections A – E) flows from its headwaters in the hills near Toolangi in Central Victoria to the Goulburn River near the town of Yea. The major tributary is the Murrindindi River, which flows into the Yea River upstream of Langs Road, South of Yea. The catchment is steep and forested in the headwater reaches, confined in the middle reaches and with extensively cleared areas for agriculture in the lower reaches.

In the upper reaches, the Yea River and tributaries such as Kalatha and Katy Creeks, flow through forested hills with native vegetation and includes the north eastern section of the Kinglake National Park and Toolangi State Forest. The main land use in the lower reaches is grazing, primarily sheep and cattle. Rural development of the mid to lower reaches of the catchment has resulted in degraded water quality compared to the upper forested reaches. The Yea River and its tributaries are within the

1 Although it should be noted that this term (survey corridors) also includes known options for the siting of other infrastructure associated with pipeline construction and operation.

PAGE 14

Goulburn Catchment and fall within the legislation of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (SEPP (WoV) (SEPP, 2003) as Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains.

Yarra River tributaries – Steels Creek

Steels Creek (Section G) is an intermittent stream originating from the ranges above Yarra Glen. Steels Creek is a tributary of the Yarra River and therefore falls within the legislation of the SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 - Waters of the Yarra Catchment. The headwaters drain from Kinglake National Park and water quality in the upper reaches is considered very good, however water quality degrades as it flows downstream into cleared areas (McGuckin, 1999). The middle and lower sections of the catchment are almost totally cleared for dairy farming and grape growing, which has contributed to poor water quality especially during cease-to-flow periods (McGuckin, 1999).

PAGE 15

� Figure 1-1: Locality Plan showing pipeline sections and pipeline option corridors

PAGE 16

Yarra River tributaries – Dixons Creek

Dixons Creek (Sections F and G) is an intermittent stream originating from the ranges above Yarra Glen. Dixons Creek is a tributary of Steels Creek which enters the Yarra River at Yarra Glen and therefore falls within the legislation of the SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 - Waters of the Yarra Catchment. The headwaters drain from the edge of the Kinglake National Park and water quality in the upper reaches is considered very good, however water quality degrades as it moves downstream into cleared areas (McGuckin, 1999). The middle and lower sections of the catchment are almost totally cleared for dairy farming and grape growing, which has contributed to poor water quality especially during periods of low flow.

Sugarloaf Reservoir

The Sugarloaf Reservoir (Section H) was developed during the late 1970's to help supplement Melbourne's domestic water supply. Unlike many other reservoirs, which draw their water directly from protected forested catchments, Sugarloaf Reservoir is fed by the Maroondah Aqueduct and the Yarra River. Upon leaving the Reservoir, water is treated at the Winneke Water Treatment Plant to World Health Organisation Guidelines, before reaching Melbourne's domestic water supply.

PAGE 17

2. Desktop Study

2.1 Instream Habitat

2.1.1 Legislative Requirements This review describes instream habitat within the waterways that will potentially be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project and forms a component of the environment assessment required to assist in selecting the final pipeline alignment.

The overarching legislative requirement for instream habitat in Victoria is the SEPP (WoV). The goals of the SEPP are to protect the beneficial uses of Victoria’s waterways which include protection of aquatic ecosystems. Within the SEPP Schedule F7 – Waters of the Yarra Catchment, there is provision for the protection of beneficial uses of waterways in the Yarra Catchment and Port Phillip Bay which includes maintenance of aquatic ecosystems and associated wildlife. The SEPP (WoV) is relevant to waterways along the proposed pipeline corridors that fall within the Goulburn River catchment (such as the Yea River and its tributaries) and the SEPP (WoV) - Schedule F7 is relevant to waterways along the pipeline corridors that fall within the catchment of the Yarra River (such as Dixons and Steels Creeks). A summary of the legislative requirements is provided in Table 2-1.

� Table 2-1 - Summary of relevant legislative requirements (SEPP 1999, 2003)

Legislation and Guidelines

Key Requirements Relevance to Project/ Actions Required

State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)

Activities relating to pipeline construction in the Yea River and its tributaries to be in accordance with SEPP (WoV) objectives.

Part VI Water Management. 43. Surface Water Management Works. Works on or adjacent to surface waters need to be managed to minimise environmental risks posed to the aquatic ecosystem and to protect other beneficial uses. To enable this surface water managers need to: Ensure that works within or adjacent to surface waters are managed so that unnatural erosion, sediment resuspension and other environmental risks to aquatic habitats are minimised.

56. Construction Activities. Construction works need to be managed to minimise land disturbance, soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and other pollutants to surface waters. To enable this, construction managers need to implement effective management practices that are consistent with guidance from the Environmental Protection Authority, including that provided in the Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (1996), as amended and Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (1991), as amended. Where construction activities adjoin or cross surface waters, construction managers need to monitor affected surface waters, to assess if beneficial uses are being protected.

Operational issues

PAGE 18

Legislation and Guidelines

Key Requirements Relevance to Project/ Actions Required

State Environment Protection Policy (Water of Victoria) Schedule F7 – Waters of the Yarra Catchment

Activities relating to pipeline construction in Dixons and Steels Creek to be in accordance with SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 objectives.

Part V Catchment Management 23. Earthworks Protection agencies, including local government, must ensure that land use or construction activities involving earthworks are managed to protect beneficial uses, and in particular that – 1) Earthworks and construction activities are managed in accordance with current best practise or with any relevant best practise environmental management guidelines adopted by the Authority, so as to minimise off-site transport of sediment or settleable matter in surface water runoff; and 2) Any approval issued by a protection agency for such works or activities contains requirements consistent with this Schedule.

24. Sediment from roads Protection agencies, including local government, must ensure that approval, construction and management of unsealed roads is managed to protect beneficial uses, and in particular that – 1) Planning permits for developments which propose access to unsealed roads or roads with batters or drains, include provisions for effective stabilisation measures to prevent erosion and transport to waterways of sediment and settleable material, detrimental to the protection of beneficial uses; 2) Unsealed roads and roads with batters or drains are managed and maintained in accordance with current best practice or with any relevant best practice environmental management guidelines adopted by the Authority to minimise the transport of sediment and settleable material to waterways; and 3) Where clause 24(2) is inadequate to protect beneficial uses, the road surfaces are sealed and drainage systems are provided consistent with current best practice or with any relevant best practice environmental management guidelines adopted by the Authority. 25. Runoff form non-urban land. Protection agencies and occupiers of premises adjacent to waterways must ensure that non-urban land is managed to protect beneficial uses, and in particular that- 1) Runoff from non-urban land is minimised in accordance with current best practice guidelines; and 2) Best practice guidelines under sub-clause (1) are developed by protection agencies responsible for natural resource management in collaboration with rural land managers, primary industry and community representatives, and are targeted towards achievement of the objectives of this Schedule.

Operational issues

PAGE 19

2.1.2 Methodology Waterways engineers specifically conducted a visual assessment of instream habitat condition of the Yea River and relevant tributaries within the study corridor. Moreover, aquatic ecologists also assessed conditions during the fish and macroinvertebrate surveys as part of the habitat description. Additional information has been sourced from relevant reports, such as the recent environmental flows study (Wealands et al, 2007) and Index of Stream Condition assessments (Figure 2-1

� Figure 2-1: Index of Stream Condition (ISC) Sites in the Golburn Basin (from DSE 2005)

PAGE 20

2.1.3 Existing Conditions Yea River and tributaries (Sections A - E)

Instream habitats are an important component of aquatic freshwater systems. They provide refuge, breeding areas and feeding grounds for fish, macroinvertebrates and other aquatic fauna such as frogs, turtles, platypus, water rats and birds. The Yea River and its tributaries contain diverse instream habitat consisting of woody debris, submerged and emergent vegetation, deep pools, riffle/run complexes and trailing edge vegetation. The quality and diversity of these habitats vary throughout the catchment as a result of land use, geology, changes in the flow regime and anthropogenic activity. The Yea River environmental flows assessment (Wealands et al, 2007) describes the aquatic habitat as variable ranging from shallow riffle/run sequences and shallow pools upstream of Glenburn, to rocky substrate at Devlins Bridge and sandy substrates with some gravels, extensive runs, deep pools and abundant woody debris near the confluence with Limestone Creek in the lower catchment.

The lower reaches of the Yea River (Sections A, B and C) meanders through a wide floodplain that has been cleared for agriculture. The river contains deep pools separated by shallow riffle sections and a significant wetland complex downstream of Yea (Wealands et al, 2007). Generally, the lower reaches of the Yea River have poor quality instream habitat. Reduce riparian overstorey and cattle access to the river bed has resulted in little instream woody debris, bank erosion, silt and sediment in the riverbed and poor water quality (Ecos, 2002; Wealands et al 2007) (Figure 2-3).

One Index of Stream Condition (ISC) reach is located in the lower floodplain area (Reach 54). The assessment rated this site as moderate with a Streamside Zone score of 5/10 and a Physical Form score of 4/10 (no scores for water quality or aquatic life were reported). This rating indicates clearing has modified the river at this location. This reflects that moderate amounts of native instream woody debris are present or exotic species provide the majority of instream habitat. (http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx).

Further upstream (Sections D and E); in the mid reaches of the Yea River, the river is more confined with a narrower floodplain. The river is controlled by bedrock in some locations (e.g. Devlins Bridge) creating diverse instream habitat and hydraulic diversity. The site on the Melba Highway at Devlins Bridge has good vegetation cover on the left bank looking downstream with open pasture on the right bank. Cattle access was evident on the right bank. There was good trailing edge vegetation and some undercutting of the banks, instream vegetation, pools and riffles. Given the relatively good instream habitat and previous records of native fish species present at this site, it is recommended that boring under the waterway be carried out at this location to reduce the impacts on aquatic ecosystem values. Two ISC assessment reaches in this part of the catchment (Reach 56 and 55) rated this section of the Yea River as good with scores of 9/10 and 7/10 respectively for Streamside Zone and both sites scored 5/10 for Physical Form consistent with the field observations.

The uppermost ISC reach assessed (Reach 57) is located within the forested segment of the Yea River within the Kinglake National Park. This site was also rated as good with a score of 7/10 for Physical Form (particularly excellent for instream woody debris supplied by indigenous riparian species) with

PAGE 21

good over-storey and under-storey vegetation that has probably never been cleared (http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx).

Other waterways in the study area with good instream habitat values included Rellimeiggam Creek, Kalatha Creek and Katy Creek. The later two were well forested in their upper catchments and flow out of the Toolangi State Forest. These are small streams with dense instream vegetation, good overhanging and trailing vegetation and instream woody debris and good water quality (VWQMN, 2007).

Steels and Dixons Creeks (Sections F and G)

The Steels and Dixons Creeks catchment is located within the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project study corridor. Steels Creek rises in the Kinglake National Park along with many of its tributaries. The upper reaches, which are located in the National Park, are in a near natural condition with little development (i.e. farm dams) in the upper reaches. Dixons Creek is a tributary of Steels Creek. The upper reaches of Dixons Creek are also in near natural condition while the mid and lower reaches of the Creek have been extensively cleared for agriculture. The lower reaches of both creeks have been realigned to improve drainage to support increased agricultural production (Melbourne Water 2005a).

The main threats to instream habitat are catchment wide and include abundant willows and stock access to streams. Willows are present in a number of locations along Steels and Dixons Creeks. Willows provide poor quality instream habitat and break down quicker than native vegetation, therefore the instream woody debris they provide does not last as long as the hardier native species. The leaf litter they provide are also an unsuitable food source for instream fauna. Stock access to banks and streams results in poor water quality, trampling of instream and bank vegetation and erosion of banks.

One ISC reach is located on Dixons Creek (Reach 20). The assessment rated this site as poor with a Streamside Zone score of 2/10 and a Physical Form score of 6/10. This rating indicates clearing has modified the river at this location. This reflects that moderate amounts of native instream woody debris are present or exotic species provide the majority of instream habitat. (http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx).

PAGE 22

� Figure 2-2 - Lower reaches of the Yea River near Yea

� Figure 2-3 - The Yea River at the Melba Highway at Devlins Bridge, looking upstream

PAGE 23

� Figure 2-4 - Kalatha River at Melba Highway, looking upstream

2.1.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts The main threat to instream habitat is during construction activities such as trenching the streambed, and access to the banks by heavy machinery. Impacts may include destruction of instream habitat, erosion of banks leading to increased sedimentation and degradation of water quality. Runoff from unsealed roads adjacent to waterways can also lead to increased sedimentation.

Sediments are easily transported into streams during rain and can smother habitat, reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, increase turbidity and contribute to fish kills. Storm events can result in more sediment from stockpiles, road runoff or eroding banks to be flushed into streams in a short period of time. The risk to instream habitat can be reduced through utilising Best Management Practices (BMP’s) during the project as detailed in the Environment Management Plan (EMP). The direct and indirect disturbances from the construction of the pipeline are summarised in Table 2-2.

� Table 2-2 – Potential direct and indirect effects on instream habitat from the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project

ACTION Consequence

DIRECT - Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction

Drying and disturbance of the streambed causing: - exposure of previously submerged habitat such as woody debris. Results in reduced available habitat. - exposure and possible loss of instream macrophytes resulting in loss of available habitat. - release of metals and nutrients from sediments on rewetting resulting in increases in turbidity and total suspended solids on rewetting causing smothering of habitat and degraded water quality and increased risk from algal blooms.

PAGE 24

ACTION Consequence

DIRECT - Construction vehicles crossing waterways or working in waterways (trenching)

Disturbance of the streambed causing: - release of metals from sediment on rewetting (see above) - erosion of banks resulting in loss of bank vegetation and sediment runoff to stream - direct destruction of habitat such as need to remove woody debris and excavate reed beds

INDIRECT - Runoff from construction site Sediments and other construction materials may enter the waterway, causing increases in turbidity and suspended solids. Possible leaks from machinery (fuels and oils)

INDIRECT - Removal of riparian vegetation Riparian zones offer a natural filter for nutrients, sediments and other potential contaminants, preventing them from reaching the stream. The removal of riparian vegetation may slightly increase the concentrations of these components in the stream, degrading water quality and leading to reduced available habitat. Loss of potential long term woody debris recruitment to stream for instream habitat. Erosion of banks leading to sediment runoff into stream

2.1.5 Mitigation and Management Measures The impacts of the construction and operation of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project on instream habitat can be minimised and mitigated by appropriate management measures. The construction phase poses the greatest threat to instream habitat if excavation of trenches to lay the pipeline is carried out. It may result in destruction of bank and instream habitat and bank erosion causing sedimentation of the stream. Alternative methods such as boring under waterways may reduce risks to waterway values at some sites and should be considered. Where possible, areas that have previously been disturbed such as easements adjacent to roads where powerlines have been installed or where river culverts have already been installed are preferable to disturbing new areas.

Runoff from roads (particularly unsealed roads), stock piles and chemical spills may also impact on instream habitat by causing sedimentation that can smother habitat and by degrading water quality and reducing available habitat for fish, macroinvertebrates and other aquatic fauna. Management and mitigation of any threats are necessary to minimise any adverse impacts, maintain the current condition and/or enhance instream habitat values and the follow-on effects to aquatic life in waterways and are outlined in the Hydrology, Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment. Objectives, performance criteria and procedural requirements for management and mitigation measures during the construction phase are summarised in Table 2-3.

PAGE 25

� Table 2-3 - Management and Mitigation Measures. Note the suggested mitigation measures and BMP’s are outlined in the Hydrology, Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment.

Relevant Project Phase

Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures

Pre-

cons

truc

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n

Ope

ratio

n

Runoff to waterways – increase in turbidity

Sediment controls are implemented to prevent off-site transport of sediment or settable matter in surface-water runoff from the construction site (SEPP, 1999). Includes implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines.

* * *

Chemical Spills – pollution of waterways

Construction chemicals and by-products are stored appropriately and are not allowed to drain into the creek. Includes implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines

* * *

Loss of riparian and instream vegetation and habitat

Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the banks and beds of waterways. Includes implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines. Temporary diversions of the waterways to be managed. Any new channels will be lined to prevent erosion and scouring of the new stream channel. Rewetting of the previous channel may cause nutrient and heavy metals to be released from the sediment which may result in degraded water quality and loss of available habitat to fish and macroinvertebrates. Determine appropriate construction method for pipeline in order to reduce risk to site values. May include boring under stream rather than trenching.

*

PAGE 26

2.2 Water Quality

2.2.1 Legislative Requirements This review describes water quality within the waterways that will potentially be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project and forms a component of the environment assessment required to assist in selecting the final pipeline alignment. The review is based on water quality data provided by Melbourne Water, the Goulburn-Broken CMA and the Victorian Water Quality Data Warehouse website and information from relevant reports and other documents. The EPA has also collected water quality data in the Yea River however, that data was unavailable at the time of this assessment. In situ water quality data (pH, turbidity, electrical conductivity, temperature and dissolved oxygen) were also collected as part of the macroinvertebrate surveys and are presented in a latter section.

The SEPP (WoV) and the SEPP (WoV) Schedule 7 provide the indicators and water quality objectives relevant for waterways covered by surface water segments within the SEPP. Water quality within these waterways is required to meet the objectives for the relevant segment(s) (Table 2-4 and Table 2-5).

� Table 2-4 - SEPP WoV segments for Yea River and tributaries crossing the pipeline corridors (SEPP WoV, 2003).

Segments Description Waterways in segment

Wetlands and Lakes

Consists of surface waters in reservoirs, alpine bogs, large open lakes, inland hyper-saline lakes, floodplains and billabongs, swamps, mudflats and other water bodies, with the characteristic of being wet on a regular or semi-regular basis but not included in other segments.

Yea River – wetlands and floodplain

Rivers and streams Forests B: Consists of the upland river and stream reaches in the Ovens, Broken, Goulburn, Macalister, Mitchell, Tambo and Snowy catchments, and the river and stream reaches in the Otway ranges. This segment has minor disturbance, is mostly forested and is generally above 400m in altitude.

Yea River Kalatha Creek Katy Creek Wee Creek Dry Creek

Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains

Consists of the upper river and stream reaches of the Campaspe, Loddon, Avoca, Wimmera and Hopkins catchments, mid river and stream reaches in the Ovens, Broken and Goulburn Catchments, lowland river and stream reaches in the Barwon, Yarra, LaTrobe, Thomson, Macalister, Mitchell, Tambo, Gellibrand and Snowy catchments, river and stream reaches in the Curdies, Moorabool, Werribee, Maribyrnong and Western Port catchments, and river and stream reaches in South Gippsland. This segment has a high level of disturbance, is generally extensively cleared, with some isolated remnant native forest and substantial urban centres. The cleared hills are generally above 200m in altitude and the coastal plains are below 200m in altitude.

Yea River Ewing Creek Tea Tree Creek Triangle Creek Wee Creek Rellimeiggam Creek Caraman Creek Eagles Nest Creek

PAGE 27

� Table 2-5 - SEPP WoV Schedule F7 - Yarra River Catchment segments for Steels and Dixons Creek crossing the pipeline corridor (SEPP, 1999).

Segments Description Waterways in segment Parks and forested segments

Consisting of surface waters of (xiv) the catchment within and upstream of Kinglake National Park

Steels Creek (headwaters only)

Rural Eastern Waterways segment

Consisting of waterways of (ii) the Northern catchments of the Yarra River from the Sugarloaf Reservoir diversion at Yering Gorge to and including Watsons Creek.

Steels Creek, Dixons Creek

2.2.2 Methodology Water quality data was downloaded from the Victorian Water Quality Data Network website. Data was only available for one site on the Yea River at Devlins Bridge on the Melba Highway (Table 2-6). No ISC assessments of the Yea River contained water quality data. Water quality data was collected in Dixons Creek and Steels Creek by McGuckin (1999) as part of Melbourne Water Stream Health Assessment Review and has been the primary source of data for this report along with ISC assessments for Dixons Creek.

In addition, in situ data were collected using a calibrated TPS 90 FLT water quality meter during fish and macroinvertebrate surveys for the current assessment.

2.2.3 Existing Conditions

Yea River and tributaries Wealands et al. (2007) reported that in previous assessments for environmental flows in the Yea River, the Yea River recorded dissolved oxygen concentrations that were generally high with occasional low values and turbidity levels were also generally high and outside the recommended SEPP (WoV) objectives (Table 2-6). Values for pH were recorded within the range specified by the SEPP guidelines. Water quality in the Yea River and its tributaries reflects land use practices in the catchment such as clearing of riparian vegetation and cattle access to waterways. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations are probably a reflection of low flows during summer (Ecos, 2002; Wealands, et al., 2007).

� Table 2-6 - Water quality data (75th percentiles) for Yea River at Devlins Bridge (#405217)

Parameter Yea River @ Devlins Bridge (#405217)

SEPP (WoV) objectives (Forests B)

Dissolved oxygen % saturation (25th

%tile and max.) 25th percentile 78.7 Max 150.2 Range 29.3-150.2

25th percentile �90Max. 110

Turbidity NTU 11 Range 0.8-105

�5

Electrical conductivity μS/cm 94 Range 52-790

�100

PAGE 28

pH units 25th percentile 6.4 75th percentile 7.25

25th percentile �6.475th percentile �7.7

Water temperature 0C (in situ) 16.5 <2 variation

Yarra River Tributaries

Steels Creek (Section G) Water quality data was collected in Steels Creek by McGuckin (1999) as part of Melbourne Water Stream Health Assessment Review. The sites sampled on Steels Creek were located at the picnic ground at the edge of the Kinglake National Park (headwaters site), Pinnacle Road, Steels Creek, Gulf Road in Yarra Glen, and the Healesville-Yarra Glen Road, Yarra Glen.

Data provided by McGuckin (1999) showed that water quality generally met SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 - Yarra River Catchment criteria. Exceptions were dissolved oxygen, which was generally below the recommended guideline value at most sites (except headwaters), and turbidity, which was above the recommend SEPP annual 50th percentile objective at all sites except the headwaters site (Table 2-8). The headwater site in the Kinglake National Park consistently had turbidity within the SEPP objectives.

PAGE

29

�Ta

ble

2-7

- Sum

mar

y of

his

toric

al w

ater

qua

lity

data

pro

vide

d by

Wat

erw

atch

(199

7-20

07).

SEPP

(WoV

) ob

ject

ives

(F

ores

ts B

)

Kal

atha

Cre

ek

upst

ream

of

conf

luen

ce

with

Yea

R

iver

(K

AL0

10)

Kat

y C

reek

up

stre

am o

f co

nflu

ence

w

ith Y

ea

Riv

er

(KA

T010

)

Yea

Riv

er a

t To

olan

gi

(YEA

002)

Yea

Riv

er a

t To

olan

gi

(YEA

003

Yea

Riv

er a

t C

aste

lla

(YEA

004)

Yea

Riv

er a

t G

ordo

n B

ridge

(Y

EA00

5)

Yea

Riv

er a

t W

estb

ridge

Rd

(YEA

006)

Yea

Riv

er

behi

nd H

otel

at

Gle

nbur

n (Y

EA00

8)

Yea

Riv

er a

t D

evlin

s B

ridge

(Y

EA01

0)

Yea

Riv

er

at E

ast

Ana

bran

ch

at C

hevi

ot

Hill

s(Y

EA01

5)

Yea

Riv

er

Wes

t Cou

rse

at B

eers

(Y

EA01

6)

Yea

Riv

er a

t Ju

nctio

n of

C

arey

Ck

at

Cas

tella

(Y

EA02

0)

Yea

Riv

er a

t Pr

ovid

ence

B

ridge

(Y

EA02

5)

Ele

ctric

alco

nduc

tivity

(μ

S/c

m)

�100

R

ange

0-6

0 R

ange

60-

150

Med

ian

20

Ran

ge 2

0-58

M

edia

n 50

R

ange

40-

60

Med

ian

50

Ran

ge 2

0-70

M

edia

n 30

R

ange

20-

54

Med

ian

40

Ran

ge 2

0-60

M

edia

n 60

R

ange

30-

91

Med

ian

80

Ran

ge 4

0-21

0

Ran

ge 4

0-10

0-

Med

ian

90

Ran

ge 6

0-17

0 M

edia

n 80

R

ange

30-

203

Turb

idity

(NTU

) �5

R

ange

4-1

6 R

ange

9-1

2 M

edia

n 7

Ran

ge 2

-216

M

edia

n 4.

5 R

ange

2-1

6 M

edia

n 19

R

ange

3-1

10

Med

ian

10

Ran

ge 4

-200

M

edia

n 8

Ran

ge 2

-110

M

edia

n 9

Ran

ge 0

-200

M

edia

n 16

R

ange

7-8

0 M

edia

n 10

R

ange

0-

300

Med

ian

19

Ran

ge 0

-200

M

edia

n 9

Ran

ge 0

-254

M

edia

n 20

R

ange

7-4

12

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)0.

025

- -

Ran

ge 0

.01-

0.18

- M

edia

n 0.

04

Ran

ge 0

.01

-10

.4

Ran

ge 0

.01-

0.06

R

ange

0.0

1-0.

09

Med

ian

0.04

R

ange

<0.

02-

0.16

Ran

ge

<0.0

2-0.

12

Ran

ge

0.06

-0.1

1 R

ange

0.0

8-0.

14R

ange

0.0

2-0.

23M

edia

n 0.

06

Ran

ge <

0.02

-0.

22D

isso

lved

oxy

gen

(mg/

L)*

>6

- -

Ran

ge 7

-9

- M

edia

n 8

Ran

ge 8

-9

Ran

ge 5

-8

Ran

ge 7

-9

Med

ian

7 R

ange

6-8

R

ange

7.7

-10

Ran

ge 7

-8

- -

Med

ian

6 R

ange

3-9

.2

Tem

pera

ture

(0 C)

<2 v

aria

tion

Ran

ge 9

.5-

14.2

Ran

ge 1

2.7-

14.1

Med

ian

9.95

R

ange

8.3

-16.

1 -

Med

ian

10.4

R

ange

7.9

-19.

4 M

edia

n 11

.4

Ran

ge 8

.1-1

5.2

Med

ian

10.7

5 R

ange

8.3

-16.

1 M

edia

n 11

R

ange

8.8

-24.

6 M

edia

n 11

.8

Ran

ge 6

.7-

20.8

- -

Ran

ge 1

0.1-

16.9

Med

ian

12.8

R

ange

7-2

5

*Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n is

pro

vide

d as

mg/

L in

Wat

erW

atch

dat

a. D

O h

as n

ot b

een

conv

erte

d to

% sa

tura

tion

(as p

er S

EPP

WoV

obj

ectiv

es).

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n ob

ject

ives

in S

EPP

(WoV

) Sch

edul

e F7

Wat

ers o

f the

Yar

ra C

atch

men

t) pr

ovid

e ob

ject

ives

in b

oth

mg/

L an

d %

satu

ratio

n. T

he >

6 m

g/L

obje

ctiv

e fr

om S

EPP

(WoV

) F7

is u

sed

here

as a

gui

de.

PAGE 30

� Table 2-8 - Historical water quality from Steels Creek2 (source McGuckin, 1999).

Parameter McGuckin May to August 1999

Historical (in McGuckin) March 1973 to October 1978 (MMBW) September 1995 to March 1999 (Melbourne Water)

SEPP WoV Schedule F7 Rural Eastern Waterways segment

Water temp 0C Median 8-9 Range 6 -10

Median 12, 13.8 Range 6.5-22.6

< 2 variation

pH units Median 7-7.5 Median 7, 7.2 6-8.5 (maximum variation of 0.5)

Conductivity μS/cm Median 100-550 Median 500 800 (maximum variation 10%)

Dissolved oxygen % Median 70-90 Median 93 <80% or 6 mg/L Suspended solids mg/L Median 3-8 Median 17, 30 Annual 50th tile 20

Annual 90th tile 40 Turbidity NTU Median 0-45 Median 31, 40 Annual 50th tile 15

Annual 90th tile 30 Phosphorus mg/L Median 0.00-0.04 Median 0.046, 0.050 0.05 Nitrogen mg/L Median (TKN) recorded

as less than SEPP objective but no data given.

Median 0.7 0.60

Dixons Creek (Sections F and G) Water quality data was collected in Dixons Creek by McGuckin (1999) as part of Melbourne Water Stream Health Assessment Review. Water quality data was collected in Dixons Creek from sites at Brock Spur Track at the edge of the Kinglake National Park (headwaters site), Old Toolangi Road at Dixons Creek and the Melba Highway at the Melbourne Water aqueduct.

One site was assessed as part of the ISC assessments on Dixons Creek (http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx). Water quality at this site was given a rating of 2/10 (poor). Aquatic life scored an excellent rating at this site (10/10) indicating that although water quality was poor the creek is able to sustain a diverse population of macroinvertebrates.

Data provided by McGuckin (1999) showed that water quality was generally within the objectives provided in SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 - Yarra River Catchment. Water quality in Dixons Creek

2 Note: no actual data was provided therefore information in tables is based on discussion in text

PAGE 31

was similar to Steels Creek. The headwaters site had good water quality however runoff from tracks and the Melba Highway may be causing degraded water quality. The rural sections of Dixons Creek had fair water quality (McGuckin, 1999).

� Table 2-9 - Historical water quality for Dixons Creek (McGuckin, 1999)

Parameter McGuckin May to August 1999

SEPP WoV Schedule F7 Rural Eastern Waterways segment

Water temp 0C Median 8 - 9 Range 6 - 10

< 20C

pH units Median 7 - 7.5 6-9 Conductivity μS/cm Median 100 - 500 800 Dissolved oxygen % Median 50 - 85 <80% Suspended solids mg/L Median 5 - 18 Annual 50th tile 20

Annual 90th tile 40 Turbidity NTU Median 0 - 30 Annual 50th tile 15

Annual 90th tile 30 Phosphorus mg/L Median 0.00 - 0.04 0.05 Nitrogen mg/L Median (TKN) recorded as less than

SEPP objective but no data given. 0.6

Water quality data collected during this investigation are presented in the next section of the document.

2.2.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts The main threat to water quality during construction is from sediment runoff entering the waterways. Construction activities such as trenching of the pipeline in the streambed, and access to the banks by heavy machinery can lead to the destruction of instream and bank vegetation causing erosion and increased sedimentation. Runoff from unsealed roads adjacent to the waterway can also lead to increased sedimentation and pollution.

Sediments are easily transported into streams during rainfall events and can smother habitat, reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, increase turbidity and contribute to fish kills. Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) attached to the soil are also washed into the streams resulting in increased nutrient loads and increased potential for algal blooms. Storm events can result in more sediment being flushed into streams in a short period of time. The risk to water quality can be reduced through best practice management during the project as detailed in the EMP. The direct and indirect disturbances from the construction of the pipeline are summarised in Table 2-10.

PAGE 32

� Table 2-10 - Potential direct and indirect effects on water quality from the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project

Action Consequence

DIRECT - Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction

� Drying and disturbance of the streambed causing:

- Release of metals from sediment - Increases in turbidity and total suspended solids - Release of nutrients

DIRECT - Construction vehicles crossing waterways or working in waterways (trenching)

� Disturbance of the streambed causing:

- Release of metals from sediment - Increases in turbidity and total suspended solids

- Release of nutrients INDIRECT - Runoff from construction site � Sediments and other construction materials may enter

the waterway, causing increases in turbidity and suspended solids.

� Potential for runoff of fuel and oil from machinery

INDIRECT - Removal of riparian vegetation

� Riparian zones offer a natural filter for nutrients, sediments and other potential contaminants, preventing them from reaching the stream. The removal of riparian vegetation may slightly increase the concentrations of these components in the stream.

� Removal of the riparian zones may also increase the irradiation of light to the stream and combined with high nutrients may cause excessive growth of plants and algal issues in low flow periods.

2.2.5 Mitigation and Management Measures The impacts of the construction and operation of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project on water quality can be minimised or the risk of threats reduced by appropriate management measures. The construction phase poses a threat to water quality, as there is the potential for sediment, construction materials and chemicals to enter waterways. Management and mitigation of any threats are necessary to prevent adverse impacts, maintain the current condition and/or enhance water quality and the follow-on effects to aquatic life. Objectives, performance criteria and procedural requirements for management and mitigation measures during the construction phase are summarised in Table 2-11.

PAGE 33

� Table 2-11 - Management and Mitigation Measures . Note the suggested mitigation measures and BMP’s are outlined in the Hydrology, Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment.

Relevant Project Phase

Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures

Pre-

cons

truc

tion

Con

stru

ctio

n

Ope

ratio

n

Runoff into waterways – increased turbidity

Sediment controls are implemented to prevent off-site transport of sediment or settable matter in surface-water runoff from the construction site (SEPP, 1999). Implementation of project EMP.

* * *

Chemical Spills – pollution of waterways

Construction chemicals and by-products are stored appropriately and are not allowed to drain into the creek. Implementation of project EMP.

* * *

Disturbance of Stream bed – increased turbidity

Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the streambed. Temporary diversions of the creek managed. Any new channels will be lined to prevent erosion and scouring of the new stream channel. Rewetting of the previous channel may cause nutrient and heavy metals to be released from the sediment which may result in degraded water quality and increased risk of algal blooms. Decision on boring or trenching of waterway needs to be based on the site values (fish, macroinvertebrates, water quality, riparian and instream vegetation).

* *

2.2.6 Recommended Monitoring Preserving water quality is necessary in order to maintain or enhance the beneficial uses of the waterways within the study area. Water quality is generally rated good in the Yea River and its tributaries and any declines may impact adversely on the fish, macroinvertebrate and aquatic vegetation communities inhabiting those waterways.

Construction poses the greatest threat to water quality through activities such as the transport of materials, runoff from construction sites, removal of riparian vegetation, establishing site-access for and operation of heavy machinery and/or the potential diversion of the waterways for trenching in the pipeline. Although management and mitigation measures will be employed, there is a risk that water quality will be affected.

Water quality is easily measured and is very responsive and representative of changes in the stream condition. Continuous turbidity monitoring is highly recommended during the construction phase.Turbidity is a water quality indicator that is highly responsive to any impacts of construction and continuous monitoring will detect if and/or when runoff from construction sites enters the

PAGE 34

waterways. Runoff from construction sites is likely to be event-based - occurring sporadically due to rainfall and/or specific construction activities. Monthly sampling will not be adequate to detect such events, and therefore continuous monitoring using data loggers is recommended at a range of sites associated with major crossing points.

PAGE 35

2.3 Fish

2.3.1 Objectives and Assessment Criteria This review describes fish species distribution within the waterways that will potentially be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project and forms a component of the environmental assessment required to assist in selecting the final pipeline alignment.

Aquatic fauna in Victoria is protected by national and state legislation. This legislation should be considered when assessing the impacts of design and construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project.

2.3.2 National The Federal Government's principal piece of environment legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) which protects Australia's native species and ecological communities. Once a species is listed under the EPBC Act, its recovery is promoted using conservation advice, recovery plans, and the EPBC Act’s assessment and approval provisions. If an action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a listed threatened species or ecological community, approval must be sought from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA 2007).

2.3.3 State One of the Victorian Government’s principal pieces of environmental legislation is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). The FFG Act aims to protect Victoria's communities of flora and fauna and to manage potentially threatening processes. Authorisation must be sought from the Parliamentary Secretary for Environment through a licence or permit to take, trade in or keep fish which are members of a listed taxon or community of fauna.

An advisory list of vertebrate taxa that are considered threatened, poorly known, near threatened or extinct in Victoria is maintained by the DSE. This list may be of use in a range of planning processes and serves to increase community awareness of threatened species with the aim to reduce the risk of their conservation worsening. This list is distinct from the lists of taxa established under the FFG Act and EPBC Act as there are no legal consequences that result from inclusion of a species in this advisory list. However, some species listed on the advisory list may also be listed under either or both of the Acts.

The Fisheries Act 1995 provides a legislative framework for the regulation, management and conservation of Victorian fisheries including aquatic habitats. A permit must be requested from the Secretary for the DPI to take fish for research, education, fish management, aquaculture, compliance or scientific purposes.

PAGE 36

2.3.4 Methods Fish distribution data has been collected from the Aquatic Fauna Database (DSE 2007), DPI Freshwater Fisheries Database, Snobs Creek (DPI, 2007), ad hoc sampling undertaken as part of the Steels, Pauls and Dixons Creeks Environmental Flow Determination (SPDEFTP 2003) as well as surveys undertaken by DSE in Steels, Pauls and Dixons Creeks (Raadik 2005). Data on fish species distribution was also sourced from Melbourne Water; however, this information was already present in the Aquatic Fauna Database and hence did not constitute additional data.

Data has been divided into records from north and south of the Great Dividing Range. The north and south datasets have also been further divided into records from within the pipeline corridor and those records from within the broader catchment but outside the pipeline corridor.

In addition to data from previous surveys, targeted survey works are being conducted for the current project at the sites listed in Table 2-12 and identified in Figure 2-5.

� Table 2-12 - Details of sampling locations for fish and macroinvertebrates surveys

Location SiteNo.

PipelineSection

Option Macroinvertebrates Fish

Yea Wetlands 1 A Yes Yes

Ross Creek 2 B NA Yes Yes

Limestone Creek 3 B NA Yes Yes

Ewing Creek 4 B B1 Yes Yes

Triangle Creek 5 B B1 Yes Yes

Yea River 6 B All Yes Yes

Tea Tree Creek 7 C All Yes Yes

Rellimeiggam Creek

8 C All Yes Yes

Devlins Bridge 9 C All Yes Yes

Kalatha Creek 10 D All Yes Yes

Katy Creek 11 D All Yes Yes

Yea River 12 E All Yes Yes

Dixons Creek 13 F All Yes No

Steels Creek 14 G G1, 2 & 3 Yes No

Steels Creek 15 G G1, 2 & 3 Yes No

Dixons Creek 16 G G5 & 6 Yes No

Dixons Creek 16 G G5 & 6 Yes No

Sugarloaf Reservoir

18 H all No Yes

PAGE 37

� Figure 2-5 - Location of Fish and Macroinvertebrate Survey Sites within the study area

PAGE 38

2.3.5 Existing Conditions Nineteen fish species have been historically recorded either inside the study area of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project or external to the pipeline corridor but within the catchment of the study area (Table 2-13). This included eight native species and six exotic species recorded north of the Great Dividing Range. The native species were Australian Smelt (Retropinna semoni), Barred Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus), Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica), Mountain Galaxias (Galaxiasolidus), River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus), Southern Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca australis),Two-spined Blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) and Western Carp Gudgeon (Hypseleotris klunzingeri). The exotic species were Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), Carp (Cyprinus carpio),Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), Goldfish (Carassius auratus), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).

Seven native species and six exotic species have been recorded south of the Great Dividing Range. The native species were Common Jollytail (Galaxias maculatus), Flathead Gudgeon (Philypnodon grandiceps) Macquarie Perch, Mountain Galaxias, Shortfinned Eel (Anguilla australis), Southern Pygmy Perch and Western Carp Gudgeon. The exotic species were Carp, Mosquitofish, Goldfish, Oriental Weatherloach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus), Roach (Rutilus rutilus) and Redfin.

Two of the 19 species recorded have a conservation status. Macquarie Perch and Barred Galaxias are both listed under the EPBC Act as endangered and are also listed under the FFG Act. Macquarie Perch is considered to be endangered while Barred Galaxias is considered critically endangered in Victoria (DSE, 2003).

Macquarie Perch inhabit riverine and lake habitats and spawn in shallow upland streams in October/November (Harris and Rowland, 1996). This species is native to the Goulburn River basin and has been stocked in the Yea River catchment between 1983 and 1993 (ECOS 2002). The majority of records of this species are from the Yea River and downstream of Devlins Bridge. The most recent record north of the Great Dividing Range is from 1995.

South of the Great Dividing Range, Macquarie Perch were translocated to the Yarra River catchment in the early 1900s (Cadwallader 1981). There was a single record of Macquarie Perch from Steels Creek in 1917, which is likely to be a translocation record. While Macquarie Perch were still present in the Yarra River downstream of Yarra Glen, they have not been recorded in tributaries such as Steels or Dixons Creeks since the original translocation.

Barred Galaxias has a very restricted distribution and is associated with dense vegetation cover in cool, clear water of flowing streams with rocky or sandy bottoms (Allen et al. 2002). The distribution of this species is restricted to the upper-forested tributaries of the Yea River (DSE, 2007; PIRVic, 2007) upstream of barriers which prevent the invasion of trout.

PAGE 39

� Table 2-13 - Fish species recorded from the north and south side of the Great Dividing Range indicating date of most recent record. Data comprises those species recorded inside the study area of the pipeline corridor and those recorded outside the study area but within the broader catchment.

North SouthCommon name Species name

Inside Outside Inside Outside

Native

Australian Smelt Retropinna semoni 19/01/1997 Barred Galaxias Galaxias fuscus 17/10/2000 Common Jollytail Galaxias maculatus Undated 2005 28/5/2000

Flathead Gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps Undated 2003

Macquarie Perch Macquariaaustralasica 26/12/1995 30/04/1992 1/12/1917

Mountain Galaxias Galaxias olidus 24/10/2007 13/10/1999 Undated 2005 River Blackfish Gadopsis marmoratus 9/04/1997 30/04/1992 Shortfinned Eel Anguilla australis Undated 2005 Undated 2005Southern Pygmy Perch Nannoperca australis 16/11/1991 Undated 2005 Undated 2005Two-spined Blackfish Gadopsis bispinosus 24/10/2007 9/09/1998 Western Carp Gudgeon

Hypseleotris klunzingeri

24/10/2007 19/01/1997 Undated 2005

Exotic

Brown Trout Salmo trutta 24/10/2007 15/10/1999 24/09/1998

Carp Cyprinus carpio 7/05/1990 Undated 2005 Undated 2005Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 19/01/1997 Undated 2005 Undated 2005Goldfish Carassius auratus 16/11/1991 4/05/1990 Undated 2005 Undated 2005OrientalWeatherloach

Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Undated 2005 Undated 2005

Roach Rutilus rutilus Undated 2005 Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 15/10/1999 Redfin Perca fluviatilis 19/01/1997 30/04/1992 Undated 2005 Undated 2005

2.3.6 Assessment of Potential Impacts The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project poses threats to fish species through the construction of waterway crossings as well as the potential increase in turbidity resulting from runoff from cleared land. The construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project within the pipeline corridor is likely to require approximately 128 waterway crossings north and 52 crossings south of the Great Dividing Range, although it must be noted that a large number of these waterways are ephemeral and only convey water during periods of high rainfall. As such only a small number of these defined waterways are

PAGE 40

capable of supporting fish. The exact number of waterways is likely to change as the final pipeline alignment is selected.

All construction activities associated with any waterway impact on water quality at the site and downstream and may indirectly affect fish species through the exposure to less than favourable habitat conditions. Further, depending on the construction method utilised the construction of each waterway crossing has varying potential to impact directly upon fish habitat at the respective site. The impact on the fish community in associated waterways will vary depending on the method of construction employed. Generally impacts are likely to be greatest if waterways are trenched to allow the pipeline to be laid, while less impact on the waterway is likely to occur if the pipeline is bored under the riverbed. The most appropriate method of construction for each waterway crossing will be discussed following more accurate definition of the pipeline corridors and detailed study of the individual water crossings.

2.3.7 Mitigation and Management Measures Refer to mitigation and management measures for instream habitat and water quality (Sections 2.1.5 and 2.2.5).

PAGE 41

2.4 Macroinvertebrates

2.4.1 Legislative Requirements If the pipeline is to cross any creek in any state or national park then the Parks Victoria Act 1998 or the National Parks Act 1975 will need to be considered and associated permits may be required.

If either the Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus), the caddisfly species of Archaeophylaxcanarus or the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly, which are known to occur within some reaches of the study area, are likely to be affected by any of the associated works with the construction of the pipeline then the FFG Act 1998 will need to be considered.

2.4.2 Methods Data has been collected from a wide variety of sources as above mentioned. Additional macroinvertebrate survey works were conducted at a number of locations within the pipeline corridor as outlined in Figure 2-5.

2.4.3 Existing Conditions In 1997, 1998 and 1999 the EPA conducted macroinvertebrate surveys using the RBA methodology to assess the current status of the macroinvertebrate communities in the Yea and Goulburn catchments. The results from the current study area are summarised in Table 2-14.

� Table 2-14 - Summary of Rapid BioAssessment studies conducted by the Victorian EPA within the study area

Riffle Edge

Site Section SIGNAL AUSRIVAS Score/Band

SIGNAL AUSRIVAS Score/Band

Yea River @ Castella E 6.33 -/A 6.22 -/A

Yea River @ Glenburn

D 6.48 1.04/A 6.06 1.11/A

Yea River @ Yea A 6.24 0.83/B 5.63 0.96/A

Murrindindi River @ Murrindindi

B 6.00 1.03/A 5.96 1.17/X

Murrindindi River @ Creeds Road

C 6.29 0.88/A 5.88 1.16/X

In 1997, the Yea River at Castella was found to be of good quality in both riffle and edge as indicated by the SIGNAL and AUSRIVAS indices. In addition, in 1998 the Yea River at Glenburn found that both habitats were of good quality.

In 1998, the Yea River at Yea was sampled. The SIGNAL index indicated that the riffle habitat was of good quality, while the edge habitat was in a fair condition. The AUSRIVAS analysis found

PAGE 42

the riffle habitat to be below reference condition, indicating mild impacts, while the edge habitat was in a good condition.

In 1999, the riffle habitat in the Murrindindi River at Murrindindi was found to be in good condition, as indicated by both the SIGNAL and AUSRIVAS indices. However, the SIGNAL score determined the edge habitat to be of fair quality, while the AUSRIVAS score indicated to be richer than reference.

In addition, in 1999, the riffle habitat at Murrindindi River was found to be of good condition, determined by both indices. Conversely, the SIGNAL score for the edge habitat indicated it to be of fair condition, while the AUSRIVAS score implied the habitat was richer that reference.

Overall, the Yea and Murrindindi Rivers, at the time of these surveys, were in good condition, with good habitat and water quality conditions for the associated macroinvertebrate communities.

2.4.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts The Yea and Murrindindi Rivers are considered to be in good condition based on the EPA assessments. Care must be taken that any river or creek crossing does not have an adverse effect upon water quality, instream habitat, diversity, or macroinvertebrate species.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment search of the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife found that within the study area, several aquatic invertebrates were of concern. These were the Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus), the caddisfly species of Archaeophylax canarus and the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly.

Murray Spiny Cray had previously been found from the junction of the Yea and Murrindindi Rivers along Murrindindi River at a location near the high voltage power lines. The Murray Spiny Cray is listed under the FFG Act 1998. Historically, the Murray Spiny Cray was widespread throughout the entire Southern Murray-Darling Basin, but is now less common and less widespread, mainly due to overfishing and habitat degradation. Their range can extend from large lowland rivers to small headwater streams up to an elevation slightly above 700m ASL.

Archaeophylax canarus has also previously been found from the junction of the Yea and Murrindindi Rivers along the Murrindindi River to the power lines. This species is listed as rare under the FFG Act 1998. Archaeophylax canarus is known to occur in foothills and in lowland streams, including temporary streams and farm dams (Dean et al. 2004) and therefore may occur in many locations throughout the study area.

The Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) is listed as vulnerable under the FFG Act 1988.This species of damselfly is known to have previously occurred in floodplain lagoons in the Goulburn Valley at Alexandra and in the upper Yarra catchment around the start of the 1900’s

PAGE 43

(Wells et al. 1983). This damselfly was rediscovered in 1992 in a billabong beside the Yea River at Yea, located on private property (Trueman et al. 1992). To date the precise location of this billabong has not been identified and surveys have not been completed in the area. Subsequent searches have found that currently the Ancient Greenling is also known to occur on the Goulburn River floodplain near Alexandra (Trueman et al. 1992). As a consequence, it is envisaged that this species may be present within the study area and targeted surveys are highly recommended once the preferred option has been finalised. The areas of particular interest for this species will be on the Yea River floodplain in wetland and billabong habitats primarily located between Murrindindi – Yea River junction and the Golburn River.

2.4.5 Mitigation and Management Measures If the pipeline is to cross the Yea River near the township of Yea, it will be preferable for the pipeline to be bored to minimise disturbance to the floodplain and its habitat.

PAGE 44

2.5 Wetlands

2.5.1 Legislative Requirements Works on waterways permits issued by the relevant CMA will be required for any works in and around wetlands which are classified as designated waterways. Monitoring requirements and offset requirements will be specified at the time of permit issue.

2.5.2 Existing Conditions Wetlands are a common feature in the landscape and encompass a wide range of ephemeral to permanently inundated environments and include:

“swamps, marshes, billabongs, lakes, salt marshes, mudflats, mangroves, coral reefs, fens, peat lands, or bodies of water - whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary” (Environment Australia).

There are a wide range of environmental and cultural values associated with wetland environments that include:

� Highly Productivity environments

� Habitat refuge particularly during drought

� Sites of intrinsic value that provide opportunities for recreation

� Provide flood mitigation by retarding flows through the catchment

� Improve water quality by providing treatment

� Support a diversity of flora and fauna

� Are nursery areas for fish and birds

� Provide temporary habitat for migratory birds

� May be of cultural significance

� Provide opportunities for education community engagement and scientific research.

Wetlands can be categorised based on their conservation significance and are listed based on international significance (Ramsar listed wetlands), national significance (wetlands listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands), and wetlands of bioregional significance (identified in the National Land and Water Resources Audit). Information for the wetlands identified under these classifications is provided below.

2.5.3 Internationally Significant Wetlands (Ramsar) Internationally significant wetlands are Ramsar listed wetlands. There are no Ramsar or wetlands within the study area.

PAGE 45

2.5.4 Nationally Significant Wetlands Nationally significant wetlands are listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia.

The Southern section of the study site falls within the catchment of the Yarra River, the channel, riparian zone and floodplain of which is listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (Wetland No: VIC156). The Yarra River and its riparian zone form a valuable habitat corridor in the region. There are 38 threatened flora species found within the river and its corridor of which 11 are nationally listed. There are 36 threatened fauna species found within the river and its corridor of which 5 are listed as nationally vulnerable. The river has significant social values as many recreational activities take place in and around the river. While located within the catchment, none of the pipeline options impinge on the Yarra River floodplain.

2.5.5 Wetlands of Bioregional Significance Wetlands of bioregional significance are identified in the National Land and Water Resources Audit. There are no known wetlands of bioregional significance in the study area.

2.5.6 Other Wetlands of Interest While there is only one wetland of conservation significance located within the study area (the Yarra River), there are a significant number of floodplain wetlands both mapped and unmapped associated with the Yea River (e.g. the Yea wetlands east of the Yea Township). While these wetlands are not listed under any of the classifications mentioned above they have ecological values and are valuable habitat areas. Even pasture wetlands in agricultural landscapes have been found to have high habitat and biodiversity values (Robson & Clay 2004).

The floodplain wetlands in both the Yea and Yarra River catchments are located in the lowlands of the catchment on the floodplain. Wetlands habitats are not as common in the upland regions of the catchments. The distribution of wetlands within a catchment is due to the characteristics of the catchment. Generally the upland regions of the catchment where the river headwaters are typically steep with narrow fast flowing waterways support few wetland environments.

Wetland systems such as soaks and peat lands may occur in the uplands however they are not expected to exist in the study area. In contrast to the uplands, the lowlands of the catchment are typically flatter with a wider and more meandering waterway that during high flows/storm events may spill onto the floodplain.

Geomorphic processes that shape the river can also result in the formation of billabongs and oxbow wetlands which are separated from the main river channel (Figure 2-6). There are many floodplain wetlands in the Yea River catchment, most of which are located between Devlins Bridge and the Goulburn River (Sections A, B and C). Wetland habitats are most are risk where the pipeline corridors crosses or impinges on the floodplain. None of the pipeline options in Section A are

PAGE 46

expected to directly impact on wetland habitats. The most critical section of the pipeline corridors where there is a threat to wetlands will be between the township of Yea and the confluence of the Murrindindi River and the Yea River (section B). In this section of the pipeline corridor all options will cross the floodplain and therefore potentially impact wetlands areas. Option C2 in section C of the pipeline corridors may potentially impact wetland areas as this option impinges on the floodplain to a greater extent than options C1a & b. Wetland habitats are less likely to be impacted on any of the remaining sections. The catchment above Devlins Bridge includes fewer wetland habitats. The majority of the wetlands in the Yarra catchment are found on the floodplain which extends from Woori Yallock to the mouth of the river in Melbourne on Port Phillip Bay. Some of these wetlands do exist inside the study area on the Yarra River floodplain, but not within the immediate pipeline corridors.

The most obvious wetlands on the Yea River are the Yea Wetlands, a complex of wetlands which are situated on the Yea River floodplain immediately to the east of the Yea township. These wetlands cover an area of 34 hectares on a number of parcels of crown land. The wetlands are part of what was formerly a much larger wetland system that extended along the Yea River floodplain, much of which has now been drained for agricultural production (YWCoM 2007).

The reserve and wetlands (Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8) has become a popular recreational site while also facilitating environmental studies and conservation activities to both the local schools and the wider community (YWCoM 2007).

� Figure 2-6 - View of Floodplain down stream of the Yea Wetlands

PAGE 47

� Figure 2-7 - Dry Billabong in Yea Wetland

� Figure 2-8 - Yea River through Yea Wetlands

2.5.7 Assessment of Potential Impacts Construction activities in and around any wetland habitat will entail some form of risk to the wetland, although in many cases these threats can be minimised with appropriate management and construction techniques. Construction activities may impact wetlands whether the construction occurs in the wetland itself, upstream or downstream the wetland. However the level of risk will vary depending on the location of the construction. The threat matrix (Table 2-15) summarises the types of threats and whether these would be expected to be high, medium, low or not applicable to the wetland, depending on the location of the construction relative to the wetland. The life expectancy of the threat has also been included as short term, medium term or long term.

� Table 2-15 - Construction threats to wetlands.

Threat Location of Works relative to Wetland

Through Upstream Downstream

Drainage Medium Medium Medium Deposition/erosion Medium High NA Damming/flooding Medium Medium Medium Runoff/pollution Medium High NA Changing nutrient levels Medium Medium Low Introduction of non native species High Low Low

* Short term <3 months

Medium Term 3-12 months

Long Term >12 months

Key issues relating to wetlands will be associated with the potential erosion from the construction activities and the potential to introduce sediments to downstream wetlands. Pollution as a result of runoff and poor containment is another major concern for wetlands, such as the introduction of

PAGE 48

weeds to wetland sites, particularly when construction activities are to take place within wetland boundaries. Where construction is outside the wetlands and soil disturbance is not expected to occur within the wetland itself, weed invasion will be a low risk threat.

2.5.8 Mitigation and Management Measures Where construction activities are not taking place directly in the wetland system normal BMP construction techniques should be adequate to prevent and reduce the impact of sediment runoff to wetland environments. It is recommended that the final alignment of the pipeline should avoid wetland environments wherever possible.

Locating the pipeline above the floodplain as proposed between the Goulburn River and Yea township will avoid wetland habitats. Where the pipeline crosses the floodplain then the corridors should be such that wetlands are avoided. However in the unlikely event that construction activity will be required to occur within/through a wetland a site-specific management plan may be required to protect the ecological values of the site. This can only be determined on a site by site basis once the final alignment is confirmed.

2.5.9 Recommended Monitoring Further investigations will be required once a final corridors is confirmed to confirm or infirm the presence of Hemiphlebia mirabilis in and around swamps and billabongs of the Yea Wetlands.

PAGE 49

3. Current Survey Water quality data, instream habitat, fish and macroinvertebrates communities were assessed as part of the field investigations for this project. Sites were selected based on the pipeline corridor and were determined based on the potential crossing of the pipeline with the waterways.

Furthermore a detailed fish survey was conducted at Sugarloaf Reservoir to gain an understanding of the resident fish populations and assess the potential risks of translocation of noxious species from the Goulburn River catchment to Sugarloaf Reservoir.

The results are presented below in the form of tables encompassing all the results collected for each site.

It is of crucial importance to note that RBA methodology and SIGNAL Indices used for the macroinvertebrate survey were designed for flowing rivers and streams and as such should not be used for some of the lentic systems that were assessed as part of this study. However, the use of SIGNAL Index is considered useful for a general indication of waterbody condition (pers. comm, Victorian EPA).

Moreover, the scope of the project (a single season’s data) does not allow for comparison of biological indices to the SEPP guidelines which require the combination of two seasons of macroinvertebrate data (pers. comm., Victorian EPA). Note that following the decision of the final pipeline alignment further investigations will be undertaken.

Furthermore, given the limitations of the scope (single sampling event), comparisons of water quality results made with SEPP guidelines are not relevant but are considered useful for a general indication of stream condition (pers. comm., Victorian EPA).

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Fish Sampling Procedures All surveys were undertaken under Victorian Fisheries Permit (RP891) (Refer to Appendix A). All fish species were identified, counted, measured and weighed in the field and returned to the water at the point of release. No noxious fish species were returned to the water. These were euthanased using AQUI-S solution as per requirements set under the Victorian Fisheries Permit.

The following methods were employed to ensure a rigorous and accurate assessment of community assemblages was undertaken.

PAGE 50

3.1.1.1 Passive Sampling Techniques Fyke Nets and Bait Traps

Single wing fyke nets, dual wing fyke nets and bait traps were deployed as a method of passive sampling. All nets were set to ensure a diversity of structural habitat available to fish was sampled in each waterway (open water, amongst or against vegetation and woody material). The variety of these passive sampling methodologies increases the probability of sampling a wider range of species and size classes. A description of each of the net/trap types employed are provided below

� Single wing fyke (large mesh) nets have a central wing (8m x 1.2m) attached to the first supporting hoop (diameter = 0.65m) with a stretched mesh size of 20 mm.

� Single wing fyke (small mesh) nets have a central wing (8m x 1.2m) attached to the first supporting hoop (diameter = 0.65m) with a stretched mesh size of 5 mm

� Dual wing fyke nets have 2 wings (each 2.5m x 1.2m) attached to the first supporting (diameter = 0.64m) with a stretched mesh size of 20mm.

� Bait traps that have a funnelled opening at each end (0.22m x 0.22m x 0.4m, with 2mm stretched mesh) and are set baited in the littoral zone close to emergent vegetation, submerged macrophytes and woody debris.

The fyke nets were set with the cod-end on one bank with the wing attached to the opposite bank. Nets were set in series so that they funnel fish moving both upstream and downstream.

The cod-end of each fyke was always suspended out of the water to avoid the mortality of captured air breathing vertebrates.

3.1.1.2 Active Sampling Techniques Backpack Electrofishing

All electrofishing activities were undertaken using a NIWA Electric Fishing Machine (EFM300).

Backpack electrofishing enables a two-person crew to operate in shallow, wadable pools and riffles (to a maximum depth of operator hip height). Electricity is provided from batteries and is transferred into the water, as a pulsed DC waveform, via a back-pack unit which is carried by the operator, with portable electrodes. Immobilised fish are dip-netted from the water by an assistant, and placed in a bucket of water for recovery.

The purpose of electrofishing is to apply a suitable electrical field to a given body of freshwater in order to attract and induce a temporary state of narcosis in fish within the immediate area. This enables aquatic ecologist’s to carry out tasks such as detailed population studies, live capture and tagging. The most effective output for fish capture is within a voltage range adjustable from 100V to 600V dc.

PAGE 51

All electrofishing was undertaken at an electrical frequency of 100 hertz and pulse width of 4 milliseconds. The voltage used while electrofishing ranged between 100V to 600V.

At each site, two electrofishing transect were conducted. Each transect was standardised to 500 seconds.

All electrofishing was halted within 50m of any animals standing in, or about to enter the water.

While undertaking electrofishing, all care was taken to avoid shocking non-target species including platypus, birds, snakes and other aquatic animals.

All stunned specimens were immediately dip netted and transferred to a holding tank for recovery.

All noxious species were euthanased with AQUI-S Aquatic anaesthetic. AQUI-S is a commercially based aquatic anaesthetic originally developed by the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research for the aquaculture market. The active constituent of AQUI-S is 540g/L Isoeugenol (2-Methoxy-4 – propenylphenol) and is a colourless liquid that needs to be diluted into water at a ratio of 1:10.

3.1.2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Macroinvertebrate sampling was carried out as per the Rapid BioAssessment (RBA) Protocols (EPA 2003). The RBA method aims to collect the widest diversity of macroinvertebrate species possible within defined habitats (riffles and edges) and set timeframes. The samples were collected in a sampling net and the contents were emptied into a sorting tray. The maximum number of taxa and individuals were hand picked over a 30-minute period in the field. The samples were then stored in 70% ethanol and returned to the laboratory for identification.

The macroinvertebrates were identified in the laboratory to family level, however, families containing the threatened species above mentioned, were identified to species level. The number of taxa collected, family richness and SIGNAL (Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level) Index were determined as per the RBA guidelines (EPA 2003).

PAGE 52

3.2 Results Site 1 – Yea Wetlands (Section A – option B1) (E55360559; N5880788)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 0.2 Temperature (oC) (field) 17.6 <2 variation Width (m) 8 pH (field) 6.38 25th percentile �6.4

75th percentile �7.7Flow Good Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 77 <100 Visibility Good Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 6.8 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 38 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) 65 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 220 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 10 Number of individuals Riffle 547 N/A Edge 30 26 Canopy cover (%) 25 Number of families Riffle 29 23 Edge 5.71 5.5 Logs (total number) 5 EPA SIGNAL

Riffle 6.02 5.5 Debris (%) 5 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Mountain Galaxias 2 Pebbles (%) 80 Brown Trout 7 Gravel (%) 20 Redfin 1 Sand (%) Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) Murray Crayfish 10

PAGE 53

Site 5 – Triangle Creek (Section B – all options) (E55364838; N5861567)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 1 Temperature (oC) (field) 14.3 <2 variation Width (m) 12 pH (field) 7.30 25th percentile �6.4

75th percentile �7.7Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 2170 <100 Visibility Good Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 4.3 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 2 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 88 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 35 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 12 26 Canopy cover (%) <10 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 4.9 5.5 Logs (total number) 7 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) 20 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) 100

PAGE 54

Site 6 – Yea River (Section B – option B2) (E55279368; N5761058)


75th percentile �7.7Flow Good Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 63 <100 Visibility Good Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 7.6 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 9 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 123 N/A Vegetation cover (%) <10 Number of individuals Riffle 47 N/A Edge 17 26 Canopy cover (%) 25 Number of families Riffle 20 23 Edge 6.6 5.5 Logs (total number) 19 EPA SIGNAL Riffle 6.7 5.5

Debris (%) 20 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) 10 Brown Trout 1 Pebbles (%) Two-spined Blackfish 2 Gravel (%) Sand (%) 90 Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) Eastern Long Neck Turtle 5

PAGE 55

Site 7 – Tea Tree Creek (Section C – all ooptions) (E55363472; N5870731)


75th percentile �7.7Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 637 <100 Visibility Poor Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 3.5 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 68 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 98 N/A Vegetation cover (%) <10 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 15 26 Canopy cover (%) <10 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.4 5.5 Logs (total number) 5 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) <10 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) 100 Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%)

PAGE 56

Site 9 – Yea River – Devlins Bridge (Section C – all options) (E55364841; N5861554)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 1 Temperature (oC) (field) 16.1 <2 variation Width (m) 20 pH (field) 7.05 25th percentile �6.4


Edge 116 N/A Vegetation cover (%) <10 Number of individuals Riffle 181 N/A Edge 12 26 Canopy cover (%) 25 Number of families Riffle 18 23 Edge 5.2 5.5 Logs (total number) 1 EPA SIGNAL Riffle 5.6 5.5

Debris (%) <10 Bedrock (%) 60 Fish Boulders (%) Brown Trout 6 Pebbles (%) 20 Two-spined Blackfish 5 Gravel (%) Mountain Galaxias 1 Sand (%) 20 Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) Platypus 1 Murray Crayfish >100

PAGE 57

Site 10 – Kalatha Creek (Section D – all options) (E55363464; N5859299)


75th percentile �7.7Flow Low Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 40 <100 Visibility Good Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 8.8 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 9 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 99 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 65 Number of individuals Riffle 70 N/A Edge 13 26 Canopy cover (%) 75 Number of families Riffle 10 23 Edge 6.3 5.5 Logs (total number) 2 EPA SIGNAL Riffle 5.4 5.5

Debris (%) 25 Bedrock (%) FishBoulders (%) Brown Trout 4 Pebbles (%) 100 Two-spined Blackfish 1 Gravel (%) Mountain Galaxias 1 Sand (%) Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) Murray Crayfish 5

PAGE 58

Site 12 – Yea River – Castella Road (Section E – all option) (E55361066; N5847065)



Edge 34 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 25 Number of individuals Riffle 78 N/A Edge 9 26 Canopy cover (%) 75 Number of families Riffle 10 23 Edge 6.2 5.5 Logs (total number) 9 EPA SIGNAL Riffle 6.7 5.5

Debris (%) 20 Bedrock (%) FishBoulders (%) Brown Trout 5 Pebbles (%) 50 Two-spined Blackfish 9 Gravel (%) 30 Sand (%) 20 Silt (%) Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%)

PAGE 59

Site 13 – Dixons Creek (Section F – all options) (E55360279; N5842706)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 0.4 Temperature (oC) (field) 16.7 <2 variation Width (m) 2 pH (field) 5.54 6-9 Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 143 800 Visibility Fair Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 1.6 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Anoxic Turbidity (NTU) (field) 51 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 97 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 25 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 9 20 Canopy cover (%) 75 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.2 5.5 Logs (total number) 6 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) 40 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) 20 Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%) 80

PAGE 60

Site 14 – Steels Creek (Section G – option G1, 2 & 3) (E553571235; N5839215)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 0.6 Temperature (oC) (field) 15.0 <2 variation Width (m) 4.5 pH (field) 5.83 6-9 Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 215 800 Visibility Good Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 2.3 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 12 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 60 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 65 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 13 20 Canopy cover (%) 50 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.6 5.5 Logs (total number) 4 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) 30 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) 30 Sand (%) Silt (%) 70 Additional Aquatic Fauna Clay (%)

PAGE 61

Site 15 – Steels Creek (Section G – option G1, 2 & 3) (E55358159; N5833603)

No photo taken

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 1.1 Temperature (oC) (field) 20.4 <2 variation Width (m) 1.5 pH (field) 6.39 6-9 Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 714 800 Visibility Poor Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 4.9 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 29 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 224 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 65 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 25 20 Canopy cover (%) <10 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.1 5.5 Logs (total number) 2 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) <10 Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) 100 Additional Aquatic FaunaClay (%)

PAGE 62

Site 16a – Dixons Creek - De Bortoli Winery (Section G – G5 & 6) (E55360770; N5837022)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 0.8 Temperature (oC) (field) 15.2 <2 variation Width (m) 1.5 pH (field) 6.67 6-9 Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 450 800 Visibility Fair Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 1.8 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 19 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 141 N/A Vegetation cover (%) >90 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 17 20 Canopy cover (%) 25 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.5 5.5 Logs (total number) 5 EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) 25 Bedrock (%) FishBoulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) 100 Additional Aquatic FaunaClay (%)

PAGE 63

Site 16b – Dixons Creek – Highway Verge (Section G – option G5 & G6) (E55359707; N5834772)

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) 0.2 Temperature (oC) (field) 19.0 <2 variation Width (m) 1.2 pH (field) 6.70 6-9 Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) 2150 800 Visibility Fair Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) 6.6 >6 Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) 250 <5 Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) <10 Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge 376 N/A Vegetation cover (%) 65 Number of individuals Riffle N/A N/A Edge 21 20 Canopy cover (%) 25 Number of families Riffle N/A N/A Edge 5.6 5.5 Logs (total number) EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A N/A

Debris (%) 25 Bedrock (%) FishBoulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) 100 Additional Aquatic FaunaClay (%)

PAGE 64

Site 17 – (Section H – all options) Sugarloaf Reservoir

Habitat Description Water Quality SEPPDepth (m) Temperature (oC) (field) N/A Width (m) pH (field) N/A Flow None Conductivity (�S/cm) (field) N/A Visibility Fair Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) N/A Odour (Pres/Abs) Abs Turbidity (NTU) (field) N/A Foaming (Pres/Abs) Abs Algae (%) Macroinvertebrates SEPP

Edge N/A Vegetation cover (%) Number of individuals Riffle N/A Edge N/A Canopy cover (%) Number of families Riffle N/A Edge N/A Logs (total number) EPA SIGNAL Riffle N/A

Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Fish Boulders (%) Roach Golden Perch Pebbles (%) Australian Smelt Mountain Galaxias Gravel (%) Flathead Gudgeon Shortfinned Eel Sand (%) Redfin Silt (%) Additional Aquatic FaunaClay (%)

PAGE 65

3.3 Discussion

3.3.1 Fish In most cases, water quality results fell within the SEPP guidelines apart for some turbidity and dissolved oxygen readings at some sites. The purpose of the collection of water quality data during this phase of the project was not to compare the results with the relevant SEPP but more precisely to establish baseline data to compare with data collected during and after construction.

A total of 160 fish were collected as part of this survey, belonging to 10 species. Two-spined blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) was the most abundant native species sampled within the creeks and rivers whereas Golden Perch and Shortfinned Eels were the most abundant native species recorded in Sugarloaf Reservoir.

Brown Trout was the most abundant exotic species sampled within the creeks and rivers whereas Redfin were the most abundant exotic species recorded in Sugarloaf Reservoir.

Although previous records indicated that Macquarie Perch have been stocked into Yea River at Devlins Bridge, no specimens were recorded during this survey. Similarly, the FFG and EPBC listed Barred Galaxias was not recorded in Steels Creek. The Barred Galaxias has also been recorded in a number of the tributaries of the Yea River which are situated in the Kinglake National Park and are not expected to occur in any of the waterways crossed by the pipeline.

As a consequence there were no listed fish species caught during the course of this survey.

Previous records indicated the presence of Carp, Brown and Rainbow Trout in the Sugarloaf Reservoir. However the current study failed to return any of those species. Instead Golden Perch were found in high abundance. Golden Perch were stocked in the Reservoir until 1999 (pers. comm., Fisheries Victoria), and the presence of small individuals would suggest that there is some recruitment in this system.

3.3.2 Macroinvertebrates The current survey returned 2568 macroinvertebrates belonging to 69 families. The most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa found throughout the entire study were Leptophlebiidaemayflies. The Leptophlebiidae have a sensitivity grade of 10, and are therefore thought to be extremely sensitive to disturbance. They are detritivores with large lateral gills that generally require clear flowing and well oxygenated water to enable respiration as these macroinvertebrates are very active and quite large (up to 15 mm long). These mayflies were collected from all sites except for Site 5.

The omnivorous dipteran family Chironomidae, particularly the Chironominae and Orthocladiidae subfamilies, were frequently collected at all sites, except for Site 5 in which only one Chironominae was obtained. Also, no individuals from the Orthocladiinae

PAGE 66

subfamily were collected at Sites 5, 7 and 13 as well as the edge samples from Site 12. The Chironominae and Orthocladiinae subfamilies have sensitivity grades of 6 and 5, respectively.

The edge samples taken from Sites 12 and 13 yielded the least amount of taxa, with 9 taxa collected. Four of the 9 taxa collected within the edge samples from Site 12 were predatorial, of which 2 were Odonata. Of the 9 taxa collected within the edge samples from Site 13, three taxa were predatorial beetles.

The site with the most diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna was Site 1, with 30 taxa collected within the edge samples and 29 taxa collected within the riffle habitats. The edge habitats had a high diversity of Coleoptera, with 7 different taxa collected. The riffle habitats had a high diversity of Trichoptera and Diptera, each with 7 taxa obtained and there were also 6 coleopteran taxa collected.

Most SIGNAL indices were within the SEPP objectives, reflecting an overall good waterway health. The sites that presented the lower SIGNAL and lower macroinvertebrate diversity were situated in non-flowing creeks surrounded by agricultural lands. Likewise, apart from the Devlins Bridge site, all the sites in the Yea River returned SIGNAL indices between 6 and 7, indicating clean water.

It is noticeable that only the Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus), which is FFG listed, was found during the course of this survey. The caddisfly species of Archaeophylax canarusand the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly were not found as part of this investigation. However, no specific surveys were conducted to target these particular species.

Hemiphlebia mirabilis damselfly, commonly known as the Ancient Greenling, is listed under the FFG Act 1988 as threatened and rare under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red Data Book. It is taxonomically isolated and is the world’s most primitive odonata, retaining venation characteristic of the Permian Period (Hawking 1999). Throughout most of the 20th century Hemiphlebia mirabilis was known locally from a billabong near Alexandra, Victoria. However, in early 1992 it was collected from a billabong beside the Yea River (37o 13’ S, 145o 26’ E) (Trueman et al. 1992). The Ancient Greenling is currently known only from six scattered populations from central-Eastern Victoria to Tasmania (Hawking 1999). The habitats of Hemiphlebia mirabilis are found within riverine billabongs of the Yea Valley (Trueman et al. 1992). Although this species of damselfly has a wide distribution, it is uncommon and is recorded sporadically (Hawking 1997).

The collection of this particular species was never the object of the current study and areas where this species is known to exist were not assessed. It is recommended that any riverine billabongs that could be affected by the construction or ongoing operations of this project have adequate surveys targeting this particular and important damselfly to determine its current presence.

PAGE 67

A specific targeted survey for Burrowing Crayfish was conducted early December 2007 to assess whether or not this species was present in the system. The results from this investigation are presented below.

3.3.3 Potential translocation between the Goulburn and Yarra Catchment Some hypotheses were formulated with regards to the possible translocation of pest species from one end of the pipeline (intake in the Goulburn River) to the other end (Sugarloaf Reservoir). The fish communities of the Goulburn River have been widely studied over the years. The populations living in this system are well known and include some exotic species like Carp, Redfin, Trout, Weatherloach, Mosquitofish, Tench, and Goldfish.

Historically, Carp, Redfin, Trout, Roach and Goldfish have been captured in Sugarloaf Reservoir. As part of this project, a fish survey was undertaken at the reservoir to gain an understanding of the resident fish populations and to confirm or infirm the presence of exotic species in the reservoir. Over 800 hours of fishing effort were deployed, including a combination of fyke nets, gillnets and electrofishing.

The study returned a high abundance of Golden Perch, Shortfinned Eels and Redfin, but failed to return Carp, Trout, Weatherloach, Mosquitofish, Tench or Goldfish. As such, it is evident that the fish communities at the starting and finishing points of the Pipeline are different and a translocation of un-wanted fish from the Goulburn River into Sugarloaf Reservoir could have detrimental impacts in the receiving water.

However, the design of the inlet will be positioned to minimise fish entering the system. The river inlet pipeline and screens will be sized to have an inlet velocity of less than 0.5m/s, and preferably 0.1m/s. This velocity is less than the typical river velocity. Therefore fish will not be ‘sucked’ onto the screens or into the river pumping station, and the screens will be ‘self-cleansing’. In the case that fish swim into the river inlet, they should be able to swim against the inlet current and escape. It is expected that the river pumping station will impart approximately (700kPa) of pressure to pump to the balancing storage.

The balancing storage will encourage some settling out of objects and reduce the objects being transported into the high lift pumping station. The high lift pumping station will have fine screens (with around 30mm openings) to prevent objects entering the pumps and causing blockage or damage to the pumps. The high lift pumps will have a sphere capacity of 40mm. The high lift pumps will impart approximately 220m of head (2,200kPa) of pressure to pump over the Great Dividing Range.

As such, Melbourne Water advised that it is possible that objects smaller than 30mm, such as fish fingerlings and fish eggs could enter the system, and pass through from the Goulburn River to Sugarloaf Reservoir. However, given the high pressure in the pumps and the pipeline (up to 2,200kPa) it is unlikely that any fish or fish eggs would resist such pressure and survive. In addition, Sugarloaf Reservoir is a closed system and it is very unlikely that any fish present in the reservoir could escape into the Yarra River. This could only occur in

PAGE 68

the unlikely event of the reservoir filling and spilling where fish could be entrained in the spillway and enter the Yarra River via the reservoir overflow.

PAGE 69

4. Targeted Burrowing Crayfish Survey

4.1 Background A number of species of this genus are known to occur in Victoria, and of these several are thought to occur within the pipeline corridor. Active burrows have been seen in a number of locations; however no detailed investigation of the distribution of the genus along the pipeline corridor has been made.

While the actual number of species present in the area is unknown, the Genus Engaeusappears to be represented in South Eastern Australia by approximately 35 species.

As the pipeline crosses the Great Dividing Range from the Yarra Valley to increasingly dryer regions to the north, it is possible that it also crosses edaphic boundaries that may determine the species complexes that inhabit these distinct areas.

The species of Engaeus that are recorded as occurring within the broader geographical areas surrounding the pipeline corridors are the following:

� Engaeus affinis, E. curvisuturus and E. victoriensis which occur near Warburton, within the Yarra Valley and in the Dandenong Ranges area;

� E. lyelli listed as occurring between the Grampians and Myrtleford;

� E. laevis which occurs in both Victoria and Tasmania;

� E. cymus, which occurs in the Northwards flowing Buffalo River towards the NSW border; and

� E. quadrimanus which occurs along the Southern side of the Great Dividing Ranges between Melbourne and Malacoota and the NSW border.

Other species appear to be located further east in the Gippsland and Wilson’s Promontory areas and would not appear to be associated with the Great Dividing Range grouping. In addition representatives of other genera, such as Cherax spp., may also co-occur within the study area.

The conservation status of many of these species is unknown, however the Victorian Floraand Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Threatened List 2006 lists the following species: E.curvisuturus; E. mallacoota; E. phyllocercus; E. rostrogaleatus; E. sternalis; and E.urostrictus as “Threatened”

The species E. curvisuturus listed as “Threatened” is listed as occurring within the Yarra Valley.

4.2 Methods The survey attempted to document four factors, these being:

� the overall geographic distribution of crayfish burrows;

PAGE 70

� the density of burrows;

� the landform and soil type within which burrows occurred; and

� if possible, to excavate burrows to obtain specimens of the species for identification purposes.

4.2.1 Distribution of crayfish burrows An initial survey of the pipeline corridor between Glenview Road and the potential pump station site at the Goulburn River (Section A – all options) was undertaken to identify likely habitats for burrowing crayfish. Once these areas were identified these areas were then walked to establish presence or absence of burrows. At each location a central GPS point was taken and noted and notes made about the location.

4.2.2 Density of burrows The density of burrows in an overall area of approximately 100m x 5m was obtained and noted.

4.2.3 Landform and soil type. The vegetation type, agricultural or forestry history, grade and soil type were observed and noted. A large number of photographs of individual sites were obtained.

4.2.4 Search for specimens Representative sites were excavated in an attempt to obtain specimens of resident crayfish. In addition a search was also made for any discarded exoskeleton or other identifying feature.

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Spatial Recordings of presence or absence of burrows. Table 4-1 details GPS locations and associated comments on presence or absence of crayfish burrows and burrow density. Where access could not be obtained the areas are marked ‘Unable to Enter Site (UAES)’.

In this circumstance comparable roadside verges were searched and these findings were extrapolated to any likely habitat on the UAES areas that had been observed. Additional comments are provided with respect to landform and other features. Generally the Yea River occupied a wide flood plain south until Tea Tree Creek below Dunn Hill (National Topographic Map Servies Sheet 7923 Yea, ref 636 705), to this point hills to the west of the Melba Highway contained a number of soak lines running downhill towards the valley. It is suggested that these may form a present or former habitat for burrowing crayfish.

South of Tea Tree Creek to Devlins Bridge, hillier country is encountered. If the pipeline follows the river, similar country to that to the north will be encountered, if it follows the Melba Highway, the pipeline will cross a number of creek lines that may form a habitat.

PAGE 71

South of Westbridge (599 539) the ground rises and the pipeline corridors passes through the Toolangi State Forest. Large numbers of burrows are encountered within this forest. The distribution of these burrows is however extremely patchy with large areas with no burrows at all and then areas with a high density of burrows.

Sampling within the Toolangi State Forest occurred on both sides of the Great Dividing Range watershed. Sampling sites were accessed from Glenwood Drive and from the 5 Ways Track (Sections D, E & F). A large excavation was undertaken within the headwaters of a tributary creek to the Yea River. A dense burrow array was followed to below the water table but no specimens were obtained.

Very few burrows were seen within the upper Dixons Creek catchment. Much of the lower Dixons Creek and Steels Creek areas had been significantly modified by agricultural and viticultural practices and by land clearing.

Burrows were observed in dry pasture in Hunts Lane, however excavations failed to produce specimens.

No burrows were observed along Steels Creek or along Glenview Road.

Burrows were observed in the roadside verge in Banksia Court and in the forest opposite on the other side of the Melba Highway.

Moderate to large numbers of burrows were found at locations along Gulf Road and scattered sites South of Gulf Road along the Melba Highway.

� Table 4-1: GPS locations and Burrow Observations. UAES = unable to enter site.

GPSLocation 55

Presence + or absence nil

Burrow density

Observations Section Option

360202 5885821

Uncertain Goulburn River Pump station site. Holes seen but uncertain of their origin

A All

360454 5844627

+ Patchy Toolangi NF Station Dry sclerophyll Forest (DSF)

D & E All

360338 5844579

+ 10+ in groups

In DSF at base of uprooted trees on steep (Stp) hillside, clayey loams (Cl),

F All

360515 5845565

+ V Dense Along a soak line >>100m, identified by Cyathea australis Wet Sclerophyll Forest (WSF)

E All

360611 5845733

+ V Dense Along a soak line, identified by Cyathea australis Wet Sclerophyll Forest (WSF)

E All

360249 5844591

+ Patchy, groups of <50 burrows

Near dam and a drilling site, extends downhill, multiple seepage lines with locally moderate populations in

F All

PAGE 72

GPSLocation 55


Burrow density


discrete patches. 360338 5845400

+ Patchy, groups of <100 burrows

Localised area, both sides of track in DSF, extensive area with few burrows.

F All

360365 5845413

+ Low numbers <50

Near dam, hard clay and stony soil.

F All

357503 5839206

+ Low numbers, <50

Hunts Lane West Along side creek line, grassy paddocks, few dry burrows/ Rocky & stony soil/

G G1, 2 & 3

359216 5839172

+ <300

UAES

Hunts Lane East. Excavation site to >400mm, burrows extending under a hedge. Nil found.Burrows on road verge below a dam, drainage line on steep hill probable habitat Unable to Enter Site UAES.

G G1, 2 & 3

360425 5851890

Nil UAES Marginal Road, stony stream bed area

E All

360168 5853605

Nil UAES Yea River flood plain, (UAES)

E All

360168 5853605

Nil UAES Yea River. flood plain UAES E All

360048 5884185

Possible UAES Yea River flood plain, Killingworth West Rd (Ruined house on hill) damp areas on hill asides probable sites

A All

360682 5881342

Possible UAES Yea Wetlands area, probable areas

A na

361413 5880372

Nil UAES Creek alongside Goulburn Valley Highway E of Yea

A A1 & 2

361109 5880723

+ <50 Creek alongside Goulburn Valley Highway, E of Yea. Exoskeleton found, possibly Cherax sp?.

A A1 & 2

360836 5880812

+ Few holes

Unable to determine if holes created by crayfish

A NA

363016 5876703

Possible UAES Soak areas running down pasture from higher ground on W of road down to abandoned railway on E side of road.

B B1

363298 5874526

Nil Perts Reserve, no burrows seen, tending to flooding area.

B B1

363636 5873327

Possible UAES Soak lines in pasture, saggs (Lomandra longifolia) etc, probable site

B All

PAGE 73

GPSLocation 55


Burrow density


362779 5868985

+ UAES Dead Tree are Old burrows in verge on E side of road, dams etc.

C C2

364336 5863468

Possible UAES Change of country away from flood plain. Soak areas on NW side of road.

C C3 & 1

364956 5861453

Nil Devlins Bridge over Yea. Incised rocky, too deep for crays.

C All

KalathaCreek

Nil Unsuitable on account of deepness and incised nature of creek

D All

Eagles NestCreek


D All

Katy Creek


D All

Glenburn Pub

Possible UAES Large damp areas opposite Glenburn Pub

D All

Wee Creek

Nil Timbered area no burrows D All

360032 585-388

Start of Timber and State Forest

E All

360606 5872910

+ Patchy burrows

State Forest DSF Patch burrows

E All

360633 5852884

+ Patchy burrows


E All

360616 5852956

+ Patchy burrows


E All

360824 5846781

+ ~100 Banksia Court, holes in roadside verge and in forest opposite side of Melba.

E All

356336 5837446

Nil Steels Creek, line between 2 dams, land ries to bush above creek valley. Road runs above creek bottom meadows.

G G1, 2 & 3

356346 5836742

Possible UAES Steels Creek, Saggs and damp areas in pasture

G G1, 2 & 3

356259 5835370

Nil UAES Steels Creek, extensive dams and wet areas below road, Land rises to West.

G All

356577 5833073

Nil UAES Bottom of vineyard G All

Melbourne Water water channel

Nil No burrows seen. G

356084 5832199

Nil UAES S end of Steels Creek Road. No holes seen.

H All

PAGE 74

GPSLocation 55


Burrow density


354926 830596

Nil UAES Glenview Road 1, very modified surface

H All

355158 5831019


H H1,2 & 3

355592 5831620


H H1,2 & 3

356861 5834028

Nil UAES Gulf Road, damp areas, no holes

H G5 & 6

358115 5833834

+ ~ 100 Gulf Road, damp area above bridge. Creekline through vineyard is a probably habbitat

G G5 & 6

358632 5833767

+ >100 Gulf Road. Burrows on low areas and along fence line.

G G5 & 6

359654 5834915

Nil Melba Highway 1, Dixons creek crossing, steep sides, no holes.

G G5 & 6

359814 5835810

+ Few burrows

Melba Highway 2, in low area besides culvert

G G5 & 6

360285 5836862

Nil Melba Highway 3, cricket pitch. No burrows

G G5 & 6

360355 5837577

suspect Melba Highway 4, some burrows of uncertain origin.

G G5 & 6

360035 5838150

Nil Melba Highway 5, Dixons Creek

G G5 & 6

4.3.2 Excavations A total of 5 excavations were attempted in an effort to obtain specimens for identification.

Despite considerable effort excavations were either curtailed by exceptionally hard and rocky ground or the influx of water as the water table was intercepted. No live specimens were obtained.

Exoskeleton remains were obtained from a roadside creek line at Yea, these may have been from moulted skins or an accumulation of remains where individuals had been trapped and eaten by predator species. On first indications these remains, which have been sent for identification, did not appear to be those of Engaeus spp and were possible remains of Cheraxspp.

4.4 Discussion An extensive survey for burrowing crayfish was undertaken. This survey encompassed two separate catchments, including that of the Yea River flowing northwards through floodplain land to eventually join the Goulburn River. The other component comprises the Southwards flowing Dixon’s and Steel’s Creeks which are tributaries of the Yarra River. These systems

PAGE 75

both rise within the Toolangi State Forest and Kinglake National Park areas which are both lie astride the Great Dividing Range.

With the exception of the proposed corridors through the Toolangi State Forest, the landscape has been heavily modified through clearing for pasture in the Yea River system and for pasture and vineyards in the Yarra catchment areas.

The suggested frequency and severity of disturbance to the landscape relates to land use. State forest is likely to be logged over time intervals of tens of years and the lower wetter lying areas within these forests may not be logged at all. The pasture land to the north of the Great Dividing Range is likely to have been infrequently cultivated to improve pasture. Damp drainage areas again may be less frequently disturbed as evidenced by the presence of Saggs (Lomandra longifolia) etc in these areas.

The areas to the south of the Great Dividing Range have been most modified by the development of vineyards, roads, houses and small hobby farms.

Grazing pressure may also be a feature that affects land condition and compaction with grazing by sheep likely to be more common to the north of the Great Dividing Range and by cattle and horses to the South.

Observations have indicated that patchy, but dense populations, of crayfish burrows are found throughout the Toolangi State Forest. There is no obvious reason for the distribution of these burrows with burrows present on high and dry hillsides, in seepage lines and also in swampy flatter lying areas occupied by drainage lines. It was observed that burrows often occurred where a natural disturbance had taken place. For example a tree had blown down and the roots had become exposed. Burrows were frequently seen within the soil at the base of these disturbed areas. Burrows were not however found besides fallen tree trunks. It is interesting to consider how crayfish were able to move into and occupy the niches made available by such disturbances, especially when the nearest population of established burrows appears to be some 100’s of metres distant from these sites.

Overall a large population of crayfish burrows was observed within the Toolangi State Forest. Observations suggest that these burrows will be distributed throughout the forest and that a proportion will occur along the proposed pipeline easement.

In the non-forested areas, smaller populations occur in discrete areas within the Northern and Southern catchments. These populations are significantly affected by land use and land use history.

There are large potential areas for crayfish burrows within the Northern catchment, however the survey team were generally unable to access these sites and validate these observations, due to access permission not being available. Potential habitats appear to be downhill seepage lines formerly occupied by forest but now damp grassed areas within pasture. Burrows do not

PAGE 76

appear to occur in large numbers within the flood plains or within potential flood levels within running creeks.

The distribution of burrows within the Southern catchments is considerably more difficult to predict and the availability of suitable burrow sites appears to be more limited. Suitable burrow habitat within the southern catchments appear to have been significantly affected by modifications to the landscape by intensive farming and viticulture.

4.5 Conclusion There appear to be more Crayfish burrows north of the Great Dividing Range than in the catchments to the south. The large numbers of burrows in the Toolangi State Forest suggest that distribution is more a feature of land use history than any other factor. Crayfish appear to have successfully burrowed in patchy areas alongside highways or other features. These groups may represent isolated groups of survivors of larger groupings destroyed by a major disturbance. As isolated populations, they probably have little contact with other similar groups and are thus more vulnerable than groups in areas such as the Toolangi State Forest. Areas such as vineyards, where cultivation or other activities cause frequent disturbance, appear to be completely devoid of burrows despite the habitat being in other ways suitable. Within these modified areas the distribution of burrow communities is exceptionally patchy.

It is probable that the species found to the north and south of the Great Dividing Range are not the same, moreover it is also probable that the species found within the Dry Sclerophyll Forest areas of the Toolangi State Forest are different to those found within the drainage areas within the Wet Sclerophyll Forest. This observation is based upon the apparent different strategies where some burrows in the Dry Sclerophyll Forest do not appear to reach the water table and may rely upon rainfall to keep them moist. Other burrows, especially those in drainage lines and within the Wet Sclerophyll and in bogs are clearly developed down to the water table.

Of interest is the apparent opportunistic behaviour of the species which appear to be able to travel considerable distances of several hundred metres to create new burrows in areas recently disturbed, for example by the uprooting of trees. It is interesting to speculate on the strategy used by the species to colonise new areas. Like other Crustacea there may be large numbers of juveniles produced of whom only a small number are successful in finding a suitable habitat in which to develop a new burrow system.

In this survey it has not been possible to identify which species are present within the study area or in any particular location. Overall burrow densities would appear to be sufficient to allow for some losses due to disturbance from trenching. This is especially the case in the Toolangi State Forest. Trenching in the southern area has a greater potential to damage small isolated groups than elsewhere within the pipeline corridor.

PAGE 77

5. Summary of Pipeline Corridors A summary of issues associated with each of the crossing points is provided below. Site inspections were conducted in the pipeline corridor with an emphasis on the crossing locations indicated as the pipeline corridor (Figure 2-5).

The preferred option to minimise the risk of adverse impacts on the aquatic habitats involved is to use the direct drilling method to bore under the waterway. However given the large number of waterways involved it is unlikely to be feasible to bore under each waterway crossing. A summary of the crossing points inspected is provided below.

5.1 Goulburn River to Yea (Section A) The pipeline corridor will pass through primarily agricultural land. There are some wetlands located on the floodplain however the pipeline corridor is on the hillslope east of Killingworth Road (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A2 and Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A1) (Figure 5-1) and does not impinge on the floodplain or directly impact on aquatic ecology values in this section, apart from water quality risks associated with runoff from construction activity (this is applicable to all pipeline corridors). Should the pipeline be located through the floodplain on the west side of Killingworth Road (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A3), floodplain wetlands in this area should be avoided.

5.2 Yea Wetlands (Section A) The pipeline corridor will cross the Goulburn Valley Highway near the intersection of Killingworth Road. The pipeline corridors is located to the east of Killingworth Road and is therefore located to the east of the Yea Wetlands and should have little impact on the wetlands (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A2 and Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A1). The Yea Wetlands are a significant community asset and the proposed alignment should avoid the wetlands as much as possible.

5.3 Yea River South of Yea Wetlands – Crossing No. 1 (Section B) The pipeline corridor in this section includes the first crossing of the Yea River. The indicative corridors indicates the pipeline will cross a major anabranch of the Yea River and the Yea River itself (Figure 5-2) south of the crown land and Yea Wetlands located south of the Goulburn Valley Highway. Boring under the river is likely to be the preferred method of construction and monitoring before and after the crossing of this site will be required to assess the potential impacts of construction activities. The presence of the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly which is a FFG Act 1988 listed species in the wetland areas around Yea further supports the option to bore under the river.

PAGE 78

� Figure 5-1 –Pipeline Option Corridors with Aquatic Ecological Comments

PAGE 79

� Figure 5-2 - First crossing of Yea River with potential alternative crossing site indicated by purple dotted line

PAGE 80

5.4 Ewing Creek Crossing (Section B) South of Yea, the pipeline corridors run adjacent to the Melba Highway on the west side of the Yea River. One of the corridors (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b) is located on the hillslope above the floodplain, and hence does not impinge on floodplain or wetland values. However, there are a number of small tributary streams that enter the Yea River from the west that could be crossed by the pipeline. Most of these tributaries are shallow intermittent drainage depressions that would only carry water during rainfall events, however several appear to be more permanent in nature. One such example is Ewing Creek (Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4). This creek was not flowing at the time of the survey and consisted of several isolated pools. It appears relatively degraded with a fragmented riparian, eroding banks and poor instream habitat and is typical of a number of similar tributary streams. Under these circumstances, trenching is likely to be a viable option provided suitable controls are in place to minimise disturbance to bed and banks and that effective reinstatement and revegetation occurs following construction. Detailed site inspection will be required when the final alignment is determined is confirmed to confirm the exact location for any crossing in order to minimise potential impacts. Crossing locations that avoid native riparian vegetation and areas of good instream habitat are preferable (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1).

� Figure 5-3 - Ewings Creek � Figure 5-4 - Ewings Creek

5.5 Triangle Creek Crossing and Yea River (Section B) Triangle Creek is located upstream of Ewing Creek. This creek flows through a small wooded nature reserve located to the east of the Melba Highway. Immediately adjacent to the highway there are a powerline and underground phone cable easements (Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6). Within the nature reserve, riparian and instream habitat was in good condition, however, through the easement the stream channel and riparian zone was cleared and degraded. Construction within the nature reserve should be avoided (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1a). The easement trenching is an option due to the existing degraded conditions, alternatively crossing points could be located in cleared agricultural land on the west side of the Melba Highway, or downstream of the nature reserve (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b).

PAGE 81

� Figure 5-5 – Triangle Creek showing power line easement

� Figure 5-6 - Triangle Creek flowing through wooded nature reserve East of the powerline easement

Triangle Creek was dry at the time of the survey; however fish and macroinvertebrate sampling were conducted at the junction of Triangle Creek and an anabranch of the Yea River. Water quality appeared to be good and there was good instream habitat with floating macrophyte and snags present. No fish were collected at the site however large numbers of tadpoles were observed. The power line easement remains the preferred location for the pipeline crossing (Non - Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b). Sampling was not conducted upstream of the Melba Highway.

The Yea River upstream of Murrindindi Road was assessed in this area and has been identified as an alternative crossing location for the pipeline. The river has a silt and sand bottom in this area and there are a large number of snags which provide good habitat values.

5.6 Tea Tree Creek and Rellimeiggam Creek (Section C) Tea Tree Creek was surveyed upstream of the Melba Highway crossing (Non - Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor C1b). The creek was not flowing at the time of the inspection and presented a series of stagnant pools. Immediately upstream of the road the creek was degraded as it passed through grazing land where stock was not excluded. There was little riparian vegetation and the water quality was poor with high turbidity. No fish were identified at the site.

Rellimeiggam Creek was flowing at the time of the inspection and appeared to be a semi permanent waterway. Habitat quality was good, with some LWD and instream vegetation (Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8). While riparian vegetation was sparse there were signs of natural regeneration in the riparian zone. Once the exact location of the crossing point has been determined, the appropriate preferred method of crossing will be determined. A number of native fish species have been recorded in this waterway, and as such it is highly recommended to conduct monitoring of this site before and after construction.

PAGE 82

� Figure 5-7 - Rellimeiggam Creek � Figure 5-8 - Rellimeiggam Creek

5.7 Yea River - Crossing No. 2 (Section C) The Yea River intersects the Melba Highway at Devlins Bridge (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor C3). . This site is the transition zone between the uplands and the lowlands of the catchment. The river intersects bedrock at this point and has a rock and gravel base.

The waterway was permanent and instream habitat quality was good (Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10). Riparian vegetation was sparse on the right bank upstream of the bridge (Figure 5-9) and consisted of native vegetation in the left bank. This crossing will have to be bored under the river or suspended on the bridge. Targeted fish monitoring will need to be conducted before and after construction, as there are a number of listed fish species recorded at this site.

The current site investigation identified Two-spined Blackfish and Trout at this location. Platypus and the Murray Spiny Cray have also been identified. The EPBC listed Macquarie Perch has previously been stocked in the area and while not recorded since stocking ceased in the mid 1990s, the area does contain suitable habitat. It is unlikely that Macquarie Perch are still present however, this cannot be confirmed.

� Figure 5-9 - Yea River (upstream of Devlins Bridge)

� Figure 5-10 - Yea River (upstream of Devlins Bridge)-

PAGE 83

5.8 Kalatha Creek (Section D) Kalatha Creek appeared to be a semi permanent waterway. The site generally had good ecological values. The riparian zone consisted of a native overstorey with an under-storey that included exotic vegetation (Figure 5-11). The creek substrate was rock and gravel and water quality was good (Figure 5-12). Instream habitat included submerged vegetation with little LWD. Current site investigation identified Two-spined Blackfish, Trout and Mountain Galaxias at this site. As this appears to be a permanent stream, the preferred method of crossing is boring (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor D2 and Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor D1a and b).

� Figure 5-11 - Kalatha Creek � Figure 5-12 - Kalatha Creek

5.9 Unnamed Dry Creeks (Sections D and E) Section 9 includes the region where the pipeline corridor enters the Toolangi State Forest, adjacent to the Melba Highway. The pipeline corridor is on the east side of the road through the State Forest (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2). (Figure 5-14).

� Figure 5-13 - Dry unnamed creek (East) � Figure 5-14 - Yea River (West side of Melba Highway) -)

PAGE 84

5.10 Yea River – Crossing No. 3 (Section E) Section 10 is the third crossing of the Yea River. This potential crossing is located just below the ridge of the divide (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2). The river was approximately 6m wide at this point. Water quality and instream vegetation were good near the road at the proposed crossing point (Figure 5-15 and Figure 5-16) however better habitat was present upstream and should be avoided. The site beside the road appeared to be the most appropriate location for the crossing point and construction of a coffer dam and trenching may be a suitable option for this crossing, although tunnelling would be the preferred method to avoid any ecological impacts (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2).

The recent site survey identified Two-spined Blackfish, Brown Trout and the Murray Spiny Cray in this area.

� Figure 5-15- Yea River � Figure 5-16 - Yea River

PAGE 85

6. Conclusion The indirect and direct effect of construction activities on the aquatic values of the waterways involved with the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project have been summarised in Table 6-1. Management and mitigation measures have been summarised along with further monitoring requirements.

Field investigations have confirmed the presence of a number of fish species at locations north of the Great Dividing Range where surveys have been conducted. The EPBC listed species Barred Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus) and Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica)previously identified in the Yea River, have not been identified in the recent survey. However, Barred Galaxias were not expected to be identified as their distribution is outside of the pipeline corridor and is restricted to the headwaters of the Yea River.

However, Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) were observed in the Yea River at Devlins Bridge and the Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus) which is FFG listed was also observed at Devlins Bridge and in the Yea River near the Yea wetlands.

The caddisfly species of Archaeophylax canarus and the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebiamirabilis) damselfly were not found as part of this investigation. However, no specific surveys were conducted to target these particular species.

A number of species of burrowing crayfish (Engaeus spp.) are listed as occurring on the pipeline corridor of which some are FFG listed. While a targeted survey failed to locate live specimens a number of exoskeletons were collected during the field investigation, and a substantial amount of evidence (e.g. burrows) suggests that one or more species of the genus are present within the pipeline corridor.

Most SIGNAL indices were within the SEPP objectives, reflecting an overall good waterway health in waterways along the pipeline corridors. The sites that presented the lower SIGNAL and lower macroinvertebrate diversity were situated in non-flowing creeks surrounded by agricultural lands. Likewise, apart from Devlins Bridge site, all the sites in the Yea River returned SIGNAL indices between 6 and 7, indicating clean water.

Concerns regarding the translocation of species between the Goulburn catchment and the Yarra catchment have been considered and a fish survey was undertaken at the reservoir to gain an understanding of the resident fish populations and to confirm or inform the presence of exotic species in the reservoir. There was a high abundance of Golden Perch, Shortfinned Eels and Redfin, but no Carp, Trout, Weatherloach, Mosquitofish, Tench or Goldfish were sampled from the reservoir. As such, it is evident that the fish communities at the starting and finishing points of the Pipeline are different and a translocation of un-wanted fish from the Goulburn River into Sugarloaf Reservoir could have detrimental impacts in the receiving water, although this is unlikely.

PAGE 86

The operation specification of the pump station and the pipeline suggest that it would be difficult for fish to be translocated between the Goulburn and the Yarra catchment however, it is still theoretically possible for objects up to 30mm in size including fingerlings and fish eggs to be translocated to Sugarloaf Reservoir. It is highly unlikely that any fingerlings and fish eggs that may be translocated to Sugarloaf Reservoir would survive due to the high operating pressure of the pipeline (up to 2,200 kPa), the mechanical action of the pumps and pumping mechanisms and the length of pipeline.

The preferred option for construction is boring under all permanent waterways as it would minimise the disturbance to the site and minimise the risk of detrimental ecological impacts downstream. In most cases where the waterway is permanent, trenching could compromise the ecological values of the waterway. However, where trenching through permanent waterways may be an option, reference has been made in the summary of pipeline section. Where trenching is to occur in waterways, appropriate sediment control will need to be undertaken and will be the primary concern.

Permanent turbidity monitors should be installed in at least two locations on the Yea River. Monitoring should start prior to construction and continue through until after the construction works have been completed and the construction corridor rehabilitated. Monitoring prior to the construction phase will allow for background turbidity levels to be determined and then any increases in turbidity during and after the construction phase can be put into the context of natural variation within the Yea River.

Further monitoring of the fish and macroinvertebrate community is also highly recommended when the final corridors is decided. Monitoring should focus on the exact crossing points within the waterways in order to assess precisely what will be the impacts of the works on the resident populations. Follow up monitoring of the fish and macroinvertebrate community post construction should also be undertaken to assess the potential impacts of the construction process.

PAGE

87

�Ta

ble

6-1

– Po

tent

ial d

irect

and

indi

rect

effe

cts

on e

colo

gica

l (aq

uatic

) val

ues

from

the

cons

truc

tion

of th

e Su

garlo

af P

ipel

ine

Proj

ect i

nclu

ding

m

anag

emen

t and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

and

sugg

este

d m

onito

ring

requ

irem

ents

.

Act

ion

Con

sequ

ence

M

anag

emen

t and

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

Furt

her i

nves

tigat

ions

/mon

itorin

g

DIR

ECT

- Tem

pora

ry

dive

rsio

ns o

f the

w

ater

way

s to

ena

ble

cons

truct

ion

Dry

ing

and

dist

urba

nce

of th

e st

ream

bed

caus

ing:

Ex

posu

re o

f pre

viou

sly

subm

erge

d ha

bita

t suc

h as

woo

dy d

ebris

resu

lting

in

redu

ced

avai

labl

e ha

bita

t for

fish

and

m

acro

inve

rtebr

ates

. E

xpos

ure

and

poss

ible

loss

of i

nstre

am

mac

roph

ytes

resu

lting

in lo

ss o

f av

aila

ble

habi

tat f

or fi

sh a

nd

mac

roin

verte

brat

es.

Rel

ease

of m

etal

s an

d nu

trien

ts fr

om

sedi

men

ts o

n re

wet

ting

resu

lting

in

incr

ease

s in

turb

idity

and

tota

l su

spen

ded

solid

s an

d nu

trien

ts o

n re

wet

ting

caus

ing

smot

herin

g of

hab

itat,

degr

aded

wat

er q

ualit

y an

d in

crea

sed

risk

from

alg

al b

loom

s.

Dire

ct d

estru

ctio

n of

hab

itat f

rom

nee

d to

rem

ove

woo

dy d

ebris

and

exc

avat

e re

ed b

eds.

Wat

er q

ualit

y/m

acro

inve

rteb

rate

s/fis

h Te

mpo

rary

div

ersi

ons

of th

e w

ater

way

s to

be

man

aged

. A

ny n

ew c

hann

els

will

be

lined

to p

reve

nt e

rosi

on a

nd

scou

ring

of th

e ne

w s

tream

cha

nnel

.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

pro

ject

EM

P.

Wet

land

sA

void

con

stru

ctio

n th

roug

h w

etla

nds.

The

fina

l cor

ridor

al

ignm

ent s

houl

d be

suc

h th

at it

avo

ids

the

low

-lyin

g pa

rts o

f the

floo

dpla

in i.

e. lo

cate

the

pipe

line

on th

e sl

ope

as p

ropo

sed

betw

een

the

Gou

lbur

n R

iver

and

Yea

to

wns

hip.

Whe

re th

e fin

al p

ipel

ine

corr

idor

cro

sses

flo

odpl

ain

alig

nmen

t sho

uld

avoi

d w

etla

nds.

M

onito

r im

pact

s du

ring

cons

truct

ion

(SE

PP

, 200

3)

Mon

itorin

g th

e im

pact

s of

con

stru

ctio

n is

a

requ

irem

ent o

f the

Sta

te E

nviro

nmen

t Pro

tect

ion

Pol

icy

(Wat

ers

of V

icto

ria) a

nd S

tate

Env

ironm

ent

Pro

tect

ion

Pol

icy

(Wat

ers

of V

icto

ria) S

ched

ule

F7.

Add

ition

al in

form

atio

n is

requ

ired

on fi

sh a

nd

mac

roin

verte

brat

e po

pula

tions

and

hab

itat a

t key

cr

ossi

ngs

of th

e Y

ea R

iver

(Yea

, Dev

lins

Brid

ge,

Cas

tella

) and

per

man

ent t

ribut

arie

s (R

ellim

eigg

am, K

alat

ha, K

aty,

Dix

ons

and

Ste

els

Cre

eks)

to d

eter

min

e th

e be

st m

etho

d fo

r co

nstru

ctio

n of

pip

elin

e ac

ross

thes

e w

ater

way

s.

Con

tinuo

us tu

rbid

ity m

onito

ring

is h

ighl

y re

com

men

ded

durin

g th

e co

nstru

ctio

n ph

ase.

Fi

sh s

urve

ys a

re re

quire

d to

upd

ate

fish

spec

ies

dist

ribut

ion

in w

ater

way

s w

hich

may

be

affe

cted

by

the

pipe

line.

Th

ere

is li

mite

d in

form

atio

n as

to th

e cu

rrent

st

atus

, pop

ulat

ion

size

or d

istri

butio

n of

Mur

ray

Spin

y C

ray,

the

Arc

haeo

phyl

ax c

anar

us c

addi

sfly

or

the

Anc

ient

Gre

enlin

g (H

emip

hleb

ia m

irabi

lis)

dam

selfl

y w

ithin

the

stud

y ar

ea.

Sur

veys

ne

ar/a

roun

d th

e lik

ely

area

for d

istu

rban

ce a

re

requ

ired

at s

ites

whe

re tr

ench

ing

is p

lann

ed to

de

term

ine

if sp

ecie

s ar

e pr

esen

t at t

hese

site

s.

PAGE

88

Act

ion

Con

sequ

ence

M

anag

emen

t and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

Furt

her i

nves

tigat

ions

/mon

itorin

g

DIR

ECT

- Tem

pora

ry

dive

rsio

ns o

f the

w

ater

way

s to

ena

ble

cons

truct

ion

Dis

turb

ance

of t

he s

tream

bed

caus

ing:

re

leas

e of

met

als

from

sed

imen

t on

rew

ettin

g.

eros

ion

of b

anks

resu

lting

in lo

ss o

f ba

nk v

eget

atio

n an

d se

dim

ent r

unof

f to

stre

am.

dire

ct d

estru

ctio

n of

hab

itat a

s re

sult

of

need

to re

mov

e w

oody

deb

ris a

nd

exca

vate

reed

bed

s.

Dis

turb

ance

of t

he w

etla

nds

caus

ing:

re

leas

e of

met

als

from

sed

imen

t on

rew

ettin

g

eros

ion

of b

anks

resu

lting

in lo

ss o

f ba

nk v

eget

atio

n an

d se

dim

ent r

unof

f to

stre

amdi

rect

des

truct

ion

of h

abita

t suc

h as

ex

cava

tion

thro

ugh

reed

bed

s In

trodu

ctio

n an

d sp

read

of p

est s

peci

es

such

as

wee

ds b

y co

nstru

ctio

n ve

hicl

es.

Wat

er q

ualit

y/m

acro

inve

rteb

rate

s/fis

h S

ite a

cces

s by

con

stru

ctio

n ve

hicl

es is

man

aged

so

as

to c

ause

min

imal

phy

sica

l dis

turb

ance

s to

the

bank

s an

d be

ds o

f wat

erw

ays.

Im

plem

enta

tion

of E

MP

. W

etla

nds

Avo

id c

onst

ruct

ion

thro

ugh

wet

land

s. C

orrid

or

alig

nmen

t sho

uld

be s

uch

that

it a

void

s Th

e lo

w-ly

ing

parts

of t

he fl

oodp

lain

i.e.

loca

te th

e pi

pelin

e on

the

slop

e as

pro

pose

d be

twee

n th

e G

oulb

urn

Riv

er a

nd Y

ea

tow

nshi

p. W

here

pip

elin

e co

rrido

r cro

sses

floo

dpla

in

alig

nmen

t sho

uld

avoi

d w

etla

nds.

Act

ion

Con

sequ

ence

M

anag

emen

t and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

Furt

her i

nves

tigat

ions

/mon

itorin

g

IND

IRE

CT

– R

unof

f fro

m c

onst

ruct

ion

site

S

edim

ents

and

oth

er c

onst

ruct

ion

mat

eria

ls m

ay e

nter

the

wat

erw

ay,

caus

ing

incr

ease

s in

turb

idity

, su

spen

ded

solid

s an

d nu

trien

ts.

Pot

entia

l flo

w o

n ef

fect

s to

fish

hea

lth

and

habi

tat.

Pot

entia

l flo

w o

n ef

fect

s to

hea

lth o

f in

stre

am m

acro

phyt

es a

nd re

ed b

eds.

Wat

er q

ualit

y/m

acro

inve

rteb

rate

s/fis

h/w

etla

nds

Sed

imen

t con

trols

are

impl

emen

ted

to p

reve

nt o

ff-si

te

trans

port

of s

edim

ent o

r set

tleab

le m

atte

r in

surfa

ce-

wat

er ru

noff

from

the

cons

truct

ion

site

(SE

PP

, 199

9).

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

EM

P a

nd b

est p

ract

ice

guid

elin

es.

Con

stru

ctio

n ch

emic

als

and

by-p

rodu

cts

are

stor

ed

appr

opria

tely

and

are

not

allo

wed

to d

rain

into

the

cree

k.M

onito

r im

pact

s du

ring

cons

truct

ion

(SE

PP

, 200

3)

PAGE

89

Act

ion

Con

sequ

ence

M

anag

emen

t and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

Furt

her i

nves

tigat

ions

/mon

itorin

g

IND

IRE

CT

– R

emov

al

of ri

paria

n ve

geta

tion

Red

uctio

n in

filte

ring

capa

city

of r

ipar

ian

zone

to fi

lter n

utrie

nts,

sed

imen

ts a

nd

othe

r pot

entia

l con

tam

inan

ts a

nd

prev

entin

g th

em fr

om re

achi

ng th

e st

ream

.In

crea

sed

conc

entra

tions

of s

edim

ents

, nu

trien

ts a

nd c

onta

min

ants

in th

e st

ream

, lea

ding

to d

egra

ded

wat

er

qual

ity a

nd re

duce

d av

aila

ble

habi

tat f

or

fish

and

mac

roin

verte

brat

es.

Loss

of p

oten

tial l

ong

term

woo

dy

debr

is re

crui

tmen

t to

stre

am fo

r in

stre

am h

abita

t. Er

osio

n of

ban

ks le

adin

g to

sed

imen

t ru

noff

into

stre

am.

Wat

er q

ualit

y/m

acro

inve

rteb

rate

s/fis

h/w

etla

nds

Site

acc

ess

by c

onst

ruct

ion

vehi

cles

is m

anag

ed s

o as

to

cau

se m

inim

al p

hysi

cal d

istu

rban

ces

to th

e ba

nk

vege

tatio

n, b

anks

and

bed

s of

wat

erw

ays.

D

ecis

ion

and

loca

tion

of b

ank

vege

tatio

n re

mov

al is

ca

rried

out

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith v

eget

atio

n sp

ecia

list a

nd

thei

r ass

essm

ent f

or th

is p

roje

ct.

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

EM

P a

nd b

est p

ract

ice

guid

elin

es.

Det

erm

ine

appr

opria

te c

onst

ruct

ion

met

hod

for p

ipel

ine

in o

rder

to re

duce

risk

to s

ite v

alue

s. M

ay in

clud

e bo

ring

unde

r stre

am ra

ther

than

tren

chin

g.

PAGE 90

7. References Allen, G.R., Midgley, S.H. and Allen, M. (2002). Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia.

Cadwallader, P. L. 1981. Past and present distributions and translocations of Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica (Pisces: Percichthyidae), with particular reference to Victoria.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 93:23 - 30.

Cottingham, P., M. Stewardson, D. Crook, T. Hillman, J. Roberts, and I. Rutherfurd. 2003. Environmental flow recommendations for the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 01/2003.

Dean, J.C., St Clair, R.M. & Cartwright D.I. (2004) Identification keys to Australian families and genera of caddis-fly larvae (Trichoptera). Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology Identification and Ecology Guide No. 50. Thurgoona: NSW.

DPI (2007). Freshwater Fisheries Database, Snobs Creek. Department of Primary Industries, Victoria.

DSE (2003) Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in Victoria - 2003. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE. 2005. Index of Stream Condition: The Second Benchmark of Victorian River Condition. Department of Sustainability and Environment.

DSE (2007) Aquatic Fauna Database. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

Ecos (2002). Local waterway health strategy for the Yea and Murrindindi Rivers. Draft Report prepared for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority.

EPA (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Management – Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. Publication Number 604.1.

GBCMA (2006). Priority Wetlands in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (Draft) September 2006. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority.

Harris, J.H. and S.J. Rowland. (1996). Family Percichthyidae. Australian freshwater cods and basses. In R.M. McDowall (ed.) Freshwater fishes of South-Eastern Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood. 150-63

Hawking, J. H. (1997). The conservation status of dragonflies (Odonata) from South-Eastern Australia. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria, 56, 537 - 542.

PAGE 91

Hawking, J. H. (1999). An evaluation of the current conservation status of Australian dragonflies (Odonata). The Other 99%. The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates. (ed. Winston Ponder and Daniel Lunney), pp. 354 - 360.

Holmes, J (2001) Victoria. In a directory of important Wetlands in Australia – Third Edition(2001). Edited by Geoff Larmour, Sarah Young and Kathy Eyles. Published by Environment Australia.

McGuckin, J., (1999). Water Quality of Steels, Dixon and Pauls Creeks (Tributaries of the Yarra River). Report prepared for Waterways and Drainage Melbourne Water Corporation.

Melbourne Water (2004). Melbourne's Rivers and Creeks 2004. Melbourne Water, Melbourne.

Melbourne Water (2005). Melbourne Water Social and Environment Data 2005/2006.Melbourne Water, Melbourne.

MW (2005a). Water Supply Protection Area Stream Flow Management Plan 2005 (Draft).Melbourne Water, Melbourne.

Raadik, T. (2005). Aquatic Fauna Assessment of Steels, Dixons and Pauls Creeks, Yarra Glen, Victoria. Report prepared for Melbourne Water Corporation.

Robson, B.J. & Clay, C. J. (2004). Local and regional macroinvertebrate diversity in the wetlands of a cleared agricultural landscape in South-Western Victoria, Australia. Aquatic Conserrvation: Marine and Freshwater ecosystems.

SPDEFTP (2003). Environmental Flow Determination of the Steels, Pauls and Dixons Creek Catchments: Part A – Issues Paper. Unpublished report for Steels, Pauls and Dixons Creek Environmental Flows Technical Panel, to Melbourne Water Corporation, Melbourne.

Stacey, M. and A. Wealands (2007). Determination of environmental flow requirement for the Yea River: Site Paper. Report produced by Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton, Victoria.

SEPP (1999). Variation of State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) – Insertion of Schedule F7. Waters of the Yarra Catchment. Victorian Government Gazette, No. S 89 June 1999.

SEPP (2003). Variation of State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). Victorian Government Gazette, No. S 107 June 2003.

Trueman, J.W.H., Hoye, G. A., Hawking, J.H., Watson, J.A.L. & New, T.R. (1992) Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys: new localities in Australia and perspectives on conservation(Zygoptera: Hemiphlebiidae). Odonatologica.21: 367 - 374.

PAGE 92

Wealands, A, Boon, P., Doeg, T., and Arnott C. (2007). Determination of environmental flow requirement for the Yea River: Issues Paper. Report produced by Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton, Victoria.

Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. & Collins, N.M. (eds.) (1983) The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

VWQMN (2007). Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network, data warehouse website http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx

Yea Wetlands Committee of Management (2007) Yea Wetland Draft Management Plan.

PAGE 93

Appendix A – Fish Survey Permit

Contoh Destop Lihat Di Bab 2...

Documents

kinglake national

domestic water

toolangi state

streamside

physical form

final pipeline

degrading

water quality