SUGARLOAF PIPELINE PROJECT

AQUATIC ECOLOGY IMPACT ASSESSMENT FEBRUARY 2008

Document History and Status
Revision 3 Date issued 15/2/08 Reviewed by Sugarloaf Project Alliance Approved by Sugarloaf Project Alliance Date approved 15/2/08 Revision type Final

Distribution of Copies
Revision 3 Copy no 1 Quantity 2 (1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy) Issued to Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment Victorian Department of Infrastructure Shire of Yarra Ranges Shire of Murrindindi City of Greater Shepparton Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Printed: Last saved: File name: Author: Project manager: Name of organisation: Name of project: Name of document: Document version:

15 February 2008 14 February 2008 06:40 PM I:\VWES\Projects\VW04160\Technical\Planning\Reports\Specialist Reports\V3 - reports for public comment\Final documents\Penultimate\no tracked changes 4 Sugarloaf Project Alliance Alliance Leadership Team Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance Sugarloaf Pipeline Project Aquatic Ecology Impact Assessment 3

PAGE 2

Contents
Acknowledgements Abbreviations Limitations Executive Summary 1. Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project Purpose and Scope of the Study Study Area

6 7 8 9 11
11 11 13

2.

Desktop Study
2.1
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

17
17
17 19 20 23 24

Instream Habitat
Legislative Requirements Methodology Existing Conditions Assessment of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures

2.2
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6

Water Quality
Legislative Requirements Methodology Existing Conditions Assessment of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Recommended Monitoring

26
26 27 27 31 32 33

2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7

Fish
Objectives and Assessment Criteria National State Methods Existing Conditions Assessment of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures

35
35 35 35 36 38 39 40

2.4
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5

Macroinvertebrates
Legislative Requirements Methods Existing Conditions Assessment of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures

41
41 41 41 42 43

2.5
2.5.1

Wetlands
Legislative Requirements

44
44
PAGE 3

3.7 5.5.7 2.2.1 4.3 4.5 Discussion Conclusion 74 76 5.3 Results Discussion Fish Macroinvertebrates Potential translocation between the Goulburn and Yarra Catchment 52 65 65 65 67 4.2 49 49 49 51 Methods Fish Sampling Procedures Macroinvertebrate Sampling 3.5.5.5.2 Results Spatial Recordings of presence or absence of burrows.Crossing No.2 5.5 2.5.4 5.3.3 5. Search for specimens 4.3.1.5.2.2 4.2 3.1 4.6 5.8 2.3 4.6 2.2. Conclusion 85 PAGE 4 .1 3.1.9 Existing Conditions Internationally Significant Wetlands (Ramsar) Nationally Significant Wetlands Wetlands of Bioregional Significance Other Wetlands of Interest Assessment of Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Recommended Monitoring 44 44 45 45 45 47 48 48 3.10 Goulburn River to Yea (Section A) Yea Wetlands (Section A) Yea River South of Yea Wetlands – Crossing No.1 3.1 3.1 5. 2 (Section C) Kalatha Creek (Section D) Unnamed Dry Creeks (Sections D and E) Yea River – Crossing No.2.2 4.8 5.3.3.5 5.2 3.3 3. Summary of Pipeline Corridors 5. Excavations 70 70 74 4.4 2. Current Survey 3.5.4 4.2. 1 (Section B) Ewing Creek Crossing (Section B) Triangle Creek Crossing and Yea River (Section B) Tea Tree Creek and Rellimeiggam Creek (Section C) Yea River .9 5.1 4.4 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 Background Methods Distribution of crayfish burrows Density of burrows Landform and soil type.2 2. 3 (Section E) 77 77 77 77 80 80 81 82 83 83 84 6.3 2. Targeted Burrowing Crayfish Survey 4.5.

References 90 93 Appendix A – Fish Survey Permit PAGE 5 .7.

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.Acknowledgements The 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. PAGE 6 . These organisations and individuals have been referenced throughout this document where appropriate. Thanks also go to the landholders for their cooperation in allowing us to conduct field investigations in and around their properties.

Abbreviations AUSRIVAS CMA DSE EES EMP EPA EPBC FFG GHD ISC MW RBA SEPP SEPP (WoV) SIGNAL SKM Australian River Assessment System Catchment Management Authority Department of Sustainability and Environment Environment Effects Statement Environment Management Plan Environment Protection Authority Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Flora and Fauna Guarantee 1988 Gutheridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd Index of Stream Condition Melbourne Water Rapid BioAssessment State Environmental Protection Policy State Environmental Protection Policy: Waters of Victoria Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd PAGE 7 .

Limitations
This 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 8

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 9

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 10

1. The project will involve the construction and operation of a water pipeline. The planning.1. 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. which involves modernisation of irrigation infrastructure in the GoulburnMurray Irrigation District. instream habitat. GHD Pty Ltd. Introduction 1. the Goulburn-Broken CMA. 2007).1 The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project The Sugarloaf Pipeline Project aims to deliver additional water supply to Melbourne. The pipeline construction works will potentially disturb an area of 30m wide within the pipeline corridor. This assessment has identified 187 potential waterway crossings where this may occur along the existing alignment (Table 1-1). Our Future The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan (DSE. design and construction phases of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will be undertaken by the Sugarloaf Pipeline Alliance. an alliance comprised of Melbourne Water Corporation. This review is based on data sourced from a range of stakeholders including Melbourne Water. water quality and fish within the waterways that will potentially be impacted by the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project. EPA and information from relevant reports and other documents. and John Holland. which aims to secure Victoria’s water supplies in the face of drought. Water for the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project will be sourced from savings achieved through the Food Bowl Modernisation Project. Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment. Further details on the waterways crossings and issues associated with them are located in the Hydrology. macroinvertebrates. a balancing storage and associated electrical infrastructure to deliver water to Sugarloaf Reservoir. Victorian Water Quality Data Warehouse web site. specifically wetlands.2 Purpose and Scope of the Study This review addresses the aquatic ecology components of the project. SKM Pty Ltd. The Project is a key component of the Victorian Government’s Our Water. DSE. The trenching work will involve the excavation of a 3m wide and 3m deep (minimum) trench. approximately 70km long. climate change and a growing population. PAGE 11 . There are a number of sections of the pipeline alignment where trenching or boring will be required within waterways. pump stations.

PAGE 12 . instream habitat. E C1 & 3 All B1 All All All All B1 All All Section Option Name This report includes a review of current values and potential impacts associated with each ecosystem component (i. 2 & 3 F – all. fish. G – 5 & 6 G1. however a 1km wide zone through which the pipeline could pass has been included in the scope of this report. 2 & 3 C D B D D C C B D B. The requirements for further assessment to assist in identifying potential impacts and subsequently mitigation of impacts have also been documented in latter sections.„ Table 1-1 . This report does not encompass an ecological review of the entire catchments or waterways involved.Waterway crossings of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project corridor. water quality) identified above. G G G.H G G1. an overall summary of the pipeline corridors has been presented. three of the major waterway crossings targeted have not been surveyed due to restricted access. 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. C. Data collection has been limited to the sites specified in the document. In addition to the review. macroinvertebrates. providing comment on each of the major waterway crossings inspected. 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”.e. north and south of the Great Dividing Range Number North of Divide Caraman Creek Eagle Nest Creek Ewing Creek Kalatha Creek Katy Creek Rellimeiggam Creek Tea tree Creek Triangle Creek Wee Creek Yea River Unnamed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 128 South of Divide Dixons Creek Dry Creek Maroondah Aqueduct Steels Creek Unnamed Total 1 1 2 1 52 187 F.

In the upper reaches. which flows into the Yea River upstream of Langs Road. confined in the middle reaches and with extensively cleared areas for agriculture in the lower reaches. the Yea River and tributaries such as Kalatha and Katy Creeks. The major tributary is the Murrindindi River. The Yea River and its tributaries are within the 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. covering over 1. 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. flow through forested hills with native vegetation and includes the north eastern section of the Kinglake National Park and Toolangi State Forest.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 catchment is steep and forested in the headwater reaches. flowing from upstream of Woods Point to Echuca. These pipeline option corridors are referred to in this report as either preferred or non-preferred options corridor1. primarily sheep and cattle. South of Yea. The High Country in the south-east experiences cold winter with persistent snow and an average annual rainfall greater than 1600mm.7% of the total state discharge.1% of the state’s total area. Within this broad study area and along its length.8 ML/ha) representing 13.6 million hectares or 7. Rainfall decreases northward and in the far north of the catchment is less than 450mm per year. The main land use in the lower reaches is grazing. The study area for the project is 2 to 4km wide. to the flat country of the Murray Plain to the north. Within each section. The Goulburn River is 57km long. The river has a mean annual water discharge of 3040 GL (1. 1 PAGE 13 .1. The options are the focus of this report. Rural development of the mid to lower reaches of the catchment has resulted in degraded water quality compared to the upper forested reaches. The terrain varies significantly across the catchment from the high ranges and mountains of the Great Dividing Ranges in the south. All options roughly follow the Melba Highway between Yea and Yarra Glen. the pipeline corridor has been divided into 8 sections (A – H). several pipeline option corridors have been identified. some sections of the study area contain only one option while other sections contain two or more options. At present. 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.

1999). PAGE 14 . 1999). The middle and lower sections of the catchment are almost totally cleared for dairy farming and grape growing. Yarra River tributaries – Steels Creek Steels Creek (Section G) is an intermittent stream originating from the ranges above Yarra Glen. which has contributed to poor water quality especially during cease-to-flow periods (McGuckin.Waters of the Yarra Catchment.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. Steels Creek is a tributary of the Yarra River and therefore falls within the legislation of the SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 . 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.

„ Figure 1-1: Locality Plan showing pipeline sections and pipeline option corridors PAGE 15 .

1999). 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. Sugarloaf Reservoir is fed by the Maroondah Aqueduct and the Yarra River. Sugarloaf Reservoir The Sugarloaf Reservoir (Section H) was developed during the late 1970's to help supplement Melbourne's domestic water supply. however water quality degrades as it moves downstream into cleared areas (McGuckin. Unlike many other reservoirs. which draw their water directly from protected forested catchments. before reaching Melbourne's domestic water supply. which has contributed to poor water quality especially during periods of low flow. The headwaters drain from the edge of the Kinglake National Park and water quality in the upper reaches is considered very good.Yarra River tributaries – Dixons Creek Dixons Creek (Sections F and G) is an intermittent stream originating from the ranges above Yarra Glen. Upon leaving the Reservoir. water is treated at the Winneke Water Treatment Plant to World Health Organisation Guidelines. PAGE 16 . The middle and lower sections of the catchment are almost totally cleared for dairy farming and grape growing.

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. 56. „ Table 2-1 . 43. construction managers need to monitor affected surface waters. Surface Water Management Works. Construction works need to be managed to minimise land disturbance. Within the SEPP Schedule F7 – Waters of the Yarra Catchment. as amended. sediment resuspension and other environmental risks to aquatic habitats are minimised.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). Where construction activities adjoin or cross surface waters. 2003) Legislation and Guidelines State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) Key Requirements Activities relating to pipeline construction in the Yea River and its tributaries to be in accordance with SEPP (WoV) objectives. A summary of the legislative requirements is provided in Table 2-1. Relevance to Project/ Actions Required Part VI Water Management.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.1 Desktop Study Instream Habitat 2. including that provided in the Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (1996). Construction Activities.2. to assess if beneficial uses are being protected. 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. The overarching legislative requirement for instream habitat in Victoria is the SEPP (WoV). 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) . The goals of the SEPP are to protect the beneficial uses of Victoria’s waterways which include protection of aquatic ecosystems. To enable this. as amended and Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (1991). soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and other pollutants to surface waters. To enable this surface water managers need to: Ensure that works within or adjacent to surface waters are managed so that unnatural erosion.Summary of relevant legislative requirements (SEPP 1999. construction managers need to implement effective management practices that are consistent with guidance from the Environmental Protection Authority. 2.1. Operational issues PAGE 17 .

Legislation and Guidelines State Environment Protection Policy (Water of Victoria) Schedule F7 – Waters of the Yarra Catchment Key Requirements Activities relating to pipeline construction in Dixons and Steels Creek to be in accordance with SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 objectives. 24. primary industry and community representatives. and are targeted towards achievement of the objectives of this Schedule. so as to minimise off-site transport of sediment or settleable matter in surface water runoff. 25. Runoff form non-urban land. Relevance to Project/ Actions Required Part V Catchment Management 23. must ensure that approval. and 3) Where clause 24(2) is inadequate to protect beneficial uses. and in particular that1) Runoff from non-urban land is minimised in accordance with current best practice guidelines. 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. Sediment from roads Protection agencies. 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. Protection agencies and occupiers of premises adjacent to waterways must ensure that non-urban land is managed to protect beneficial uses. and 2) Any approval issued by a protection agency for such works or activities contains requirements consistent with this Schedule. 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. Operational issues PAGE 18 . including local government. including local government. 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. and in particular that – 1) Planning permits for developments which propose access to unsealed roads or roads with batters or drains. construction and management of unsealed roads is managed to protect beneficial uses. 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. must ensure that land use or construction activities involving earthworks are managed to protect beneficial uses. Earthworks Protection agencies.

Moreover. Additional information has been sourced from relevant reports.1. aquatic ecologists also assessed conditions during the fish and macroinvertebrate surveys as part of the habitat description. 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 19 .2.2 Methodology Waterways engineers specifically conducted a visual assessment of instream habitat condition of the Yea River and relevant tributaries within the study corridor.

The Yea River and its tributaries contain diverse instream habitat consisting of woody debris. There was good trailing edge vegetation and some undercutting of the banks.E) Instream habitats are an important component of aquatic freshwater systems.aspx). The quality and diversity of these habitats vary throughout the catchment as a result of land use. riffle/run complexes and trailing edge vegetation. Reduce riparian overstorey and cattle access to the river bed has resulted in little instream woody debris. silt and sediment in the riverbed and poor water quality (Ecos. platypus. 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). They provide refuge. water rats and birds. B and C) meanders through a wide floodplain that has been cleared for agriculture.g.net/vicwaterdata/home. breeding areas and feeding grounds for fish. 2002. Devlins Bridge) creating diverse instream habitat and hydraulic diversity. geology. The Yea River environmental flows assessment (Wealands et al. This rating indicates clearing has modified the river at this location. the river is more confined with a narrower floodplain. in the mid reaches of the Yea River. extensive runs. Wealands et al 2007) (Figure 2-3). Further upstream (Sections D and E). pools and riffles.3 Existing Conditions Yea River and tributaries (Sections A .2. (http://www. 2007). 2007) describes the aquatic habitat as variable ranging from shallow riffle/run sequences and shallow pools upstream of Glenburn. deep pools and abundant woody debris near the confluence with Limestone Creek in the lower catchment. The uppermost ISC reach assessed (Reach 57) is located within the forested segment of the Yea River within the Kinglake National Park. The river is controlled by bedrock in some locations (e. turtles.1. Given the relatively good instream habitat and previous records of native fish species present at this site. Generally. 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. 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 20 . The lower reaches of the Yea River (Sections A. it is recommended that boring under the waterway be carried out at this location to reduce the impacts on aquatic ecosystem values.vicwaterdata. changes in the flow regime and anthropogenic activity. to rocky substrate at Devlins Bridge and sandy substrates with some gravels. the lower reaches of the Yea River have poor quality instream habitat. bank erosion. submerged and emergent vegetation. Cattle access was evident on the right bank. instream vegetation. deep pools. This reflects that moderate amounts of native instream woody debris are present or exotic species provide the majority of instream habitat. macroinvertebrates and other aquatic fauna such as frogs. 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. One Index of Stream Condition (ISC) reach is located in the lower floodplain area (Reach 54). The river contains deep pools separated by shallow riffle sections and a significant wetland complex downstream of Yea (Wealands et al.

The upper reaches.net/vicwaterdata/home. One ISC reach is located on Dixons Creek (Reach 20). therefore the instream woody debris they provide does not last as long as the hardier native species.good over-storey and under-storey vegetation that has probably never been cleared (http://www. Steels and Dixons Creeks (Sections F and G) The Steels and Dixons Creeks catchment is located within the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project study corridor. good overhanging and trailing vegetation and instream woody debris and good water quality (VWQMN. Stock access to banks and streams results in poor water quality. PAGE 21 . The main threats to instream habitat are catchment wide and include abundant willows and stock access to streams. 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. 2007). The later two were well forested in their upper catchments and flow out of the Toolangi State Forest. Other waterways in the study area with good instream habitat values included Rellimeiggam Creek.aspx).vicwaterdata. The leaf litter they provide are also an unsuitable food source for instream fauna. 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. These are small streams with dense instream vegetation.aspx). 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.vicwaterdata. trampling of instream and bank vegetation and erosion of banks.e. Kalatha Creek and Katy Creek.net/vicwaterdata/home. which are located in the National Park. (http://www. The assessment rated this site as poor with a Streamside Zone score of 2/10 and a Physical Form score of 6/10. are in a near natural condition with little development (i. The lower reaches of both creeks have been realigned to improve drainage to support increased agricultural production (Melbourne Water 2005a). farm dams) in the upper reaches. Dixons Creek is a tributary of Steels Creek. Steels Creek rises in the Kinglake National Park along with many of its tributaries.

„ Figure 2-2 . looking upstream PAGE 22 .The Yea River at the Melba Highway at Devlins Bridge.Lower reaches of the Yea River near Yea „ Figure 2-3 .

. Results in reduced available habitat. . Sediments are easily transported into streams during rain and can smother habitat. Storm events can result in more sediment from stockpiles. PAGE 23 .1. Impacts may include destruction of instream habitat.„ Figure 2-4 . erosion of banks leading to increased sedimentation and degradation of water quality. looking upstream 2. reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations. The direct and indirect disturbances from the construction of the pipeline are summarised in Table 2-2.exposure and possible loss of instream macrophytes resulting in loss of available habitat. and access to the banks by heavy machinery. 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).Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction Consequence Drying and disturbance of the streambed causing: .Kalatha River at Melba Highway. Runoff from unsealed roads adjacent to waterways can also lead to increased sedimentation.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.exposure of previously submerged habitat such as woody debris. „ Table 2-2 – Potential direct and indirect effects on instream habitat from the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project ACTION DIRECT .4 Assessment of Potential Impacts The main threat to instream habitat is during construction activities such as trenching the streambed. road runoff or eroding banks to be flushed into streams in a short period of time. increase turbidity and contribute to fish kills.

1. Loss of potential long term woody debris recruitment to stream for instream habitat. Possible leaks from machinery (fuels and oils) Riparian zones offer a natural filter for nutrients. preventing them from reaching the stream. The removal of riparian vegetation may slightly increase the concentrations of these components in the stream. Objectives. causing increases in turbidity and suspended solids. Erosion of banks leading to sediment runoff into stream INDIRECT . Alternative methods such as boring under waterways may reduce risks to waterway values at some sites and should be considered. The construction phase poses the greatest threat to instream habitat if excavation of trenches to lay the pipeline is carried out. 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. Where possible. sediments and other potential contaminants. Management and mitigation of any threats are necessary to minimise any adverse impacts. It may result in destruction of bank and instream habitat and bank erosion causing sedimentation of the stream. performance criteria and procedural requirements for management and mitigation measures during the construction phase are summarised in Table 2-3.ACTION DIRECT .release of metals from sediment on rewetting (see above) .Runoff from construction site Sediments and other construction materials may enter the waterway.erosion of banks resulting in loss of bank vegetation and sediment runoff to stream . 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.direct destruction of habitat such as need to remove woody debris and excavate reed beds INDIRECT . Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment.Construction vehicles crossing waterways or working in waterways (trenching) Consequence Disturbance of the streambed causing: .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. degrading water quality and leading to reduced available habitat. PAGE 24 . macroinvertebrates and other aquatic fauna.Removal of riparian vegetation 2. 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. Runoff from roads (particularly unsealed roads).

Includes implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines. 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 Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the banks and beds of waterways. Temporary diversions of the waterways to be managed. 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. Includes implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines. Determine appropriate construction method for pipeline in order to reduce risk to site values. * * * Chemical Spills – pollution of waterways Loss of riparian and instream vegetation and habitat * * * * PAGE 25 Operation . Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Relevant Project Phase Construction Preconstruction 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.„ Table 2-3 . Note the suggested mitigation measures and BMP’s are outlined in the Hydrology. May include boring under stream rather than trenching. 1999).Management and Mitigation Measures. Any new channels will be lined to prevent erosion and scouring of the new stream channel. Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment.

Water quality within these waterways is required to meet the objectives for the relevant segment(s) (Table 2-4 and Table 2-5). with the characteristic of being wet on a regular or semi-regular basis but not included in other segments. with some isolated remnant native forest and substantial urban centres. Yarra. mid river and stream reaches in the Ovens. temperature and dissolved oxygen) were also collected as part of the macroinvertebrate surveys and are presented in a latter section. Waterways in segment Yea River – wetlands and floodplain Rivers and streams Yea River Kalatha Creek Katy Creek Wee Creek Dry Creek Yea River Ewing Creek Tea Tree Creek Triangle Creek Wee Creek Rellimeiggam Creek Caraman Creek Eagles Nest Creek Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains Consists of the upper river and stream reaches of the Campaspe.2 Water Quality 2. Tambo. „ Table 2-4 . The EPA has also collected water quality data in the Yea River however. Loddon. swamps.SEPP WoV segments for Yea River and tributaries crossing the pipeline corridors (SEPP WoV. Avoca. LaTrobe. large open lakes. alpine bogs. Gellibrand and Snowy catchments. This segment has minor disturbance. the Goulburn-Broken CMA and the Victorian Water Quality Data Warehouse website and information from relevant reports and other documents. Goulburn. and the river and stream reaches in the Otway ranges. The review is based on water quality data provided by Melbourne Water. PAGE 26 . floodplains and billabongs. Macalister. Mitchell. In situ water quality data (pH. electrical conductivity. river and stream reaches in the Curdies. Mitchell. Thomson. Forests B: Consists of the upland river and stream reaches in the Ovens. Wimmera and Hopkins catchments. and river and stream reaches in South Gippsland. inland hyper-saline lakes. Macalister. 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. Broken.2. is generally extensively cleared. turbidity. The cleared hills are generally above 200m in altitude and the coastal plains are below 200m in altitude. Segments Wetlands and Lakes Description Consists of surface waters in reservoirs.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. Moorabool. is mostly forested and is generally above 400m in altitude. Tambo and Snowy catchments. Broken and Goulburn Catchments. Werribee.2. Maribyrnong and Western Port catchments. that data was unavailable at the time of this assessment. This segment has a high level of disturbance. lowland river and stream reaches in the Barwon. 2003). mudflats and other water bodies.

„ Table 2-5 .Yarra River Catchment segments for Steels and Dixons Creek crossing the pipeline corridor (SEPP. In addition. 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. Wealands. Values for pH were recorded within the range specified by the SEPP guidelines. 1999).Water quality data (75th percentiles) for Yea River at Devlins Bridge (#405217) Parameter Dissolved oxygen % saturation (25th %tile and max.SEPP WoV Schedule F7 . in situ data were collected using a calibrated TPS 90 FLT water quality meter during fish and macroinvertebrate surveys for the current assessment. 110 ”5 ”100 Max 150.2 11 Range 0. 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).7 SEPP (WoV) objectives (Forests B) 25th percentile •90 Max.3-150. et al. Waterways in segment Steels Creek (headwaters only) Steels Creek. Segments Parks and forested segments Rural Eastern Waterways segment Description Consisting of surface waters of (xiv) the catchment within and upstream of Kinglake National Park 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. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations are probably a reflection of low flows during summer (Ecos. (2007) reported that in previous assessments for environmental flows in the Yea River.2.2 Range 29.) Yea River @ Devlins Bridge (#405217) th 25 percentile 78.8-105 94 Range 52-790 Turbidity NTU Electrical conductivity μS/cm PAGE 27 . No ISC assessments of the Yea River contained water quality data. Data was only available for one site on the Yea River at Devlins Bridge on the Melba Highway (Table 2-6).2. „ Table 2-6 . 2002.2 Methodology Water quality data was downloaded from the Victorian Water Quality Data Network website.3 Existing Conditions Yea River and tributaries Wealands et al.. 2007). Dixons Creek 2. 2. 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.

The headwater site in the Kinglake National Park consistently had turbidity within the SEPP objectives.pH units Water temperature 0C (in situ) 25th percentile 6. Gulf Road in Yarra Glen. and the Healesville-Yarra Glen Road. and turbidity.7 <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. Pinnacle Road. which was generally below the recommended guideline value at most sites (except headwaters).25 16. PAGE 28 . Data provided by McGuckin (1999) showed that water quality generally met SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 . which was above the recommend SEPP annual 50th percentile objective at all sites except the headwaters site (Table 2-8). Yarra Glen. Steels Creek. The sites sampled on Steels Creek were located at the picnic ground at the edge of the Kinglake National Park (headwaters site). Exceptions were dissolved oxygen.4 75th percentile 7.5 th 25 percentile •6.4 75th percentile ”7.Yarra River Catchment criteria.

75 Median 11 Range 6-8 Median 8 Range 5-8 Range 7-9 Median 7 Range 7.„ Table 2-7 .1 - - Range 10.020.8 Range <0.11 Range 7-8 Range 2-16 Range 3-110 Range 4-200 Range 2-110 Range 0-200 Range 7-80 Range 0300 Median 4.5 Median 19 Median 10 Median 8 Median 9 Median 16 Median 10 Range 40-60 Range 20-70 Range 20-54 Range 20-60 Range 30-91 Range 40210 Median 50 Median 50 Median 30 Median 40 Median 60 Median 80 Range 40100 Median 19 Range 0-200 Range 0.95 Range 8.2 Range 12.9 Median 12.Summary of historical water quality data provided by Waterwatch (1997-2007).4 Range 8. Dissolved oxygen objectives in SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 Waters of the Yarra Catchment) provide objectives in both mg/L and % saturation.4 Median 11.23 - Katy Creek upstream of confluence with Yea River (KAT010) Yea River at East Anabranch at Cheviot Hills (YEA015) Yea River at Junction of Carey Ck at Castella (YEA020) ”100 Range 0-60 Electrical conductivity (μS/cm) Range 60150 Median 80 Range 30-203 Median 20 Range 7-412 Median 0.080.8 Range 7-25 *Dissolved oxygen is provided as mg/L in WaterWatch data.020.010.06 Range 0.09 Median 0.01-0.3-16.9-19.4 Median 10.714.8 Range 6.2 Range 8.01 10.720.06 Range <0.18 Range 0.1-15.2 Turbidity (NTU) ”5 Range 4-16 Range 9-12 Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.02-0.3-16.514.14 Median 90 Range 60-170 Median 9 Range 0-254 Range 0.12 Range 0. The >6 mg/L objective from SEPP (WoV) F7 is used here as a guide.22 Median 6 Range 3-9.116.710 Median 11.8-24.025 - - Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)* >6 - - Temperature (0C) <2 variation Range 9.020.1 Range 8.1 Range 7. PAGE 29 .04 Range 7-9 Range <0.04 Range 0. Yea River at Toolangi (YEA003 Yea River at Castella (YEA004) Yea River at Gordon Bridge (YEA005) Yea River at Westbridge Rd (YEA006) Yea River behind Hotel at Glenburn (YEA008) Yea River at Devlins Bridge (YEA010) Yea River West Course at Beers (YEA016) Yea River at Providence Bridge (YEA025) SEPP (WoV) objectives (Forests B) Yea River at Toolangi (YEA002) Kalatha Creek upstream of confluence with Yea River (KAL010) Median 20 Range 20-58 Median 7 Range 2-216 Range 0.06-0.4 Range 8-9 Median 9.16 Median 0.6 Median 10.01-0. DO has not been converted to % saturation (as per SEPP WoV objectives).

7. 13. One site was assessed as part of the ISC assessments on Dixons Creek (http://www.Historical water quality from Steels Creek2 (source McGuckin. 40 Median 0.050 Median 0.2 Median 500 Median 93 Median 17.vicwaterdata.7 6-8.5 (maximum variation of 0.aspx). Water quality data was collected in Dixons Creek from sites at Brock Spur Track at the edge of the Kinglake National Park (headwaters site).6 Median 7.5-22.Yarra River Catchment. Old Toolangi Road at Dixons Creek and the Melba Highway at the Melbourne Water aqueduct. 0.046.60 < 2 variation SEPP WoV Schedule F7 Rural Eastern Waterways segment 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.8 Range 6.00-0.net/vicwaterdata/home. Parameter McGuckin May to August 1999 Historical (in McGuckin) March 1973 to October 1978 (MMBW) September 1995 to March 1999 (Melbourne Water) Water temp 0C pH units Conductivity μS/cm Dissolved oxygen % Suspended solids mg/L Turbidity NTU Phosphorus mg/L Nitrogen mg/L Median 8-9 Range 6 -10 Median 7-7. Median 12. 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.„ Table 2-8 .04 Median (TKN) recorded as less than SEPP objective but no data given.05 0. 1999).5 Median 100-550 Median 70-90 Median 3-8 Median 0-45 Median 0. Data provided by McGuckin (1999) showed that water quality was generally within the objectives provided in SEPP (WoV) Schedule F7 . Water quality at this site was given a rating of 2/10 (poor).5) 800 (maximum variation 10%) <80% or 6 mg/L Annual 50th tile 20 Annual 90th tile 40 Annual 50th tile 15 Annual 90th tile 30 0. 30 Median 31. Water quality in Dixons Creek 2 Note: no actual data was provided therefore information in tables is based on discussion in text PAGE 30 .

Sediments are easily transported into streams during rainfall events and can smother habitat. 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. 1999). „ Table 2-9 .05 0.10 Median 7 . The headwaters site had good water quality however runoff from tracks and the Melba Highway may be causing degraded water quality.was similar to Steels Creek. The direct and indirect disturbances from the construction of the pipeline are summarised in Table 2-10.30 Median 0.04 Median (TKN) recorded as less than SEPP objective but no data given. and access to the banks by heavy machinery can lead to the destruction of instream and bank vegetation causing erosion and increased sedimentation.5 Median 100 . reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations.00 . increase turbidity and contribute to fish kills. The rural sections of Dixons Creek had fair water quality (McGuckin.500 Median 50 .18 Median 0 .2.6 SEPP WoV Schedule F7 Rural Eastern Waterways segment < 20C Water quality data collected during this investigation are presented in the next section of the document.85 Median 5 . Construction activities such as trenching of the pipeline in the streambed. 6-9 800 <80% Annual 50th tile 20 Annual 90th tile 40 Annual 50th tile 15 Annual 90th tile 30 0. 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. PAGE 31 . 2. Runoff from unsealed roads adjacent to the waterway can also lead to increased sedimentation and pollution.9 Range 6 . 1999) Parameter McGuckin May to August 1999 Water temp 0C pH units Conductivity μS/cm Dissolved oxygen % Suspended solids mg/L Turbidity NTU Phosphorus mg/L Nitrogen mg/L Median 8 .Historical water quality for Dixons Creek (McGuckin.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts The main threat to water quality during construction is from sediment runoff entering the waterways.0.7.

Release of metals from sediment . performance criteria and procedural requirements for management and mitigation measures during the construction phase are summarised in Table 2-11.Release of nutrients DIRECT .Release of metals from sediment . PAGE 32 . preventing them from reaching the stream.„ Table 2-10 . causing increases in turbidity and suspended solids.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. „ INDIRECT . Potential for runoff of fuel and oil from machinery Riparian zones offer a natural filter for nutrients.Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction Consequence „ Drying and disturbance of the streambed causing: .Runoff from construction site .Release of nutrients Sediments and other construction materials may enter the waterway. The removal of riparian vegetation may slightly increase the concentrations of these components in the stream. Objectives. Management and mitigation of any threats are necessary to prevent adverse impacts. sediments and other potential contaminants. The construction phase poses a threat to water quality. construction materials and chemicals to enter waterways.Removal of riparian vegetation „ „ 2.Potential direct and indirect effects on water quality from the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project Action DIRECT .Increases in turbidity and total suspended solids .2.Construction vehicles crossing waterways or working in waterways (trenching) „ Disturbance of the streambed causing: . maintain the current condition and/or enhance water quality and the follow-on effects to aquatic life.Increases in turbidity and total suspended solids „ INDIRECT . 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. as there is the potential for sediment.

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. Implementation of project EMP. runoff from construction sites. Water Resource and Waterway Crossing Impact Assessment. removal of riparian vegetation. Implementation of project EMP. Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the streambed. Although management and mitigation measures will be employed.6 Recommended Monitoring Preserving water quality is necessary in order to maintain or enhance the beneficial uses of the waterways within the study area. Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Relevant Project Phase Construction Preconstruction Runoff into waterways – increased turbidity Chemical Spills – pollution of waterways Disturbance of Stream bed – 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. establishing site-access for and operation of heavy machinery and/or the potential diversion of the waterways for trenching in the pipeline. riparian and instream vegetation). * * * * * * * * 2. there is a risk that water quality will be affected. 1999). Decision on boring or trenching of waterway needs to be based on the site values (fish.2. Any new channels will be lined to prevent erosion and scouring of the new stream channel. Note the suggested mitigation measures and BMP’s are outlined in the Hydrology. Water quality is generally rated good in the Yea River and its tributaries and any declines may impact adversely on the fish. 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 33 Operation . macroinvertebrate and aquatic vegetation communities inhabiting those waterways. Water quality is easily measured and is very responsive and representative of changes in the stream condition. Construction poses the greatest threat to water quality through activities such as the transport of materials.„ Table 2-11 . macroinvertebrates. Construction chemicals and by-products are stored appropriately and are not allowed to drain into the creek. Temporary diversions of the creek managed. water quality.Management and Mitigation Measures .

waterways. Runoff from construction sites is likely to be event-based . Monthly sampling will not be adequate to detect such events. PAGE 34 .occurring sporadically due to rainfall and/or specific construction activities. and therefore continuous monitoring using data loggers is recommended at a range of sites associated with major crossing points.

management and conservation of Victorian fisheries including aquatic habitats. Water. near threatened or extinct in Victoria is maintained by the DSE. poorly known. This legislation should be considered when assessing the impacts of design and construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project. or is likely to have. 2.3. 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. education. An advisory list of vertebrate taxa that are considered threatened. its recovery is promoted using conservation advice. Once a species is listed under the EPBC Act.2.2 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. 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. recovery plans. Heritage and Arts (DEWHA 2007).3 Fish 2.3. aquaculture. Aquatic fauna in Victoria is protected by national and state legislation. some species listed on the advisory list may also be listed under either or both of the Acts. fish management. a significant impact on a listed threatened species or ecological community.3. will have. If an action has. A permit must be requested from the Secretary for the DPI to take fish for research.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. and the EPBC Act’s assessment and approval provisions. However. compliance or scientific purposes. The FFG Act aims to protect Victoria's communities of flora and fauna and to manage potentially threatening processes. 2.3 State One of the Victorian Government’s principal pieces of environmental legislation is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). Authorisation must be sought from the Parliamentary Secretary for Environment through a licence or permit to take. PAGE 35 . approval must be sought from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment. The Fisheries Act 1995 provides a legislative framework for the regulation. trade in or keep fish which are members of a listed taxon or community of fauna.

Pauls and Dixons Creeks (Raadik 2005). this information was already present in the Aquatic Fauna Database and hence did not constitute additional data.Details of sampling locations for fish and macroinvertebrates surveys Location Yea Wetlands Ross Creek Limestone Creek Ewing Creek Triangle Creek Yea River Tea Tree Creek Rellimeiggam Creek Devlins Bridge Kalatha Creek Katy Creek Yea River Dixons Creek Steels Creek Steels Creek Dixons Creek Dixons Creek Sugarloaf Reservoir Site No. Pauls and Dixons Creeks Environmental Flow Determination (SPDEFTP 2003) as well as surveys undertaken by DSE in Steels. 2 & 3 G5 & 6 G5 & 6 all Option Macroinvertebrates Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Fish Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes PAGE 36 .3.4 Methods Fish distribution data has been collected from the Aquatic Fauna Database (DSE 2007). however. 2 & 3 G1. Snobs Creek (DPI. DPI Freshwater Fisheries Database. 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. Data has been divided into records from north and south of the Great Dividing Range.2. ad hoc sampling undertaken as part of the Steels. „ Table 2-12 . 2007). 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. Data on fish species distribution was also sourced from Melbourne Water. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 18 Pipeline Section A B B B B B C C C D D E F G G G G H NA NA B1 B1 All All All All All All All All G1.

Location of Fish and Macroinvertebrate Survey Sites within the study area PAGE 37 .„ Figure 2-5 .

The exotic species were Brown Trout (Salmo trutta). Seven native species and six exotic species have been recorded south of the Great Dividing Range. The exotic species were Carp. Shortfinned Eel (Anguilla australis).3. The native species were Australian Smelt (Retropinna semoni). PIRVic. Goldfish. Southern Pygmy Perch and Western Carp Gudgeon. Two of the 19 species recorded have a conservation status. which is likely to be a translocation record. While Macquarie Perch were still present in the Yarra River downstream of Yarra Glen. Goldfish (Carassius auratus). Macquarie Perch and Barred Galaxias are both listed under the EPBC Act as endangered and are also listed under the FFG Act. South of the Great Dividing Range. Mosquitofish. Roach (Rutilus rutilus) and Redfin. Barred Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus). Oriental Weatherloach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus). 2007) upstream of barriers which prevent the invasion of trout. Southern Pygmy Perch (Nannoperca australis). 2002). 2007.2. Carp (Cyprinus carpio). There was a single record of Macquarie Perch from Steels Creek in 1917. This species is native to the Goulburn River basin and has been stocked in the Yea River catchment between 1983 and 1993 (ECOS 2002).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). Mountain Galaxias. PAGE 38 . 1996). Mountain Galaxias (Galaxias olidus). Macquarie Perch inhabit riverine and lake habitats and spawn in shallow upland streams in October/November (Harris and Rowland. Macquarie Perch is considered to be endangered while Barred Galaxias is considered critically endangered in Victoria (DSE. Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis). Mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). The native species were Common Jollytail (Galaxias maculatus). This included eight native species and six exotic species recorded north of the Great Dividing Range. clear water of flowing streams with rocky or sandy bottoms (Allen et al. they have not been recorded in tributaries such as Steels or Dixons Creeks since the original translocation. Flathead Gudgeon (Philypnodon grandiceps) Macquarie Perch. Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica). The most recent record north of the Great Dividing Range is from 1995. 2003). Two-spined Blackfish (Gadopsis bispinosus) and Western Carp Gudgeon (Hypseleotris klunzingeri). River Blackfish (Gadopsis marmoratus). Macquarie Perch were translocated to the Yarra River catchment in the early 1900s (Cadwallader 1981). The majority of records of this species are from the Yea River and downstream of Devlins Bridge. Barred Galaxias has a very restricted distribution and is associated with dense vegetation cover in cool. The distribution of this species is restricted to the upper-forested tributaries of the Yea River (DSE.

although it must be noted that a large number of these waterways are ephemeral and only convey water during periods of high rainfall. 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.3. 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. Common name Native Australian Smelt Barred Galaxias Common Jollytail Flathead Gudgeon Macquarie Perch Mountain Galaxias River Blackfish Shortfinned Eel Southern Pygmy Perch Two-spined Blackfish Western Carp Gudgeon Exotic Brown Trout Carp Mosquitofish Goldfish Oriental Weatherloach Roach Rainbow Trout Redfin Salmo trutta Cyprinus carpio Gambusia holbrooki Carassius auratus Misgurnus anguillicaudatus Rutilus rutilus Oncorhynchus mykiss Perca fluviatilis 19/01/1997 15/10/1999 30/04/1992 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 24/10/2007 15/10/1999 7/05/1990 19/01/1997 16/11/1991 4/05/1990 24/09/1998 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Retropinna semoni Galaxias fuscus Galaxias maculatus Philypnodon grandiceps Macquaria australasica Galaxias olidus Anguilla australis Nannoperca australis Gadopsis bispinosus Hypseleotris klunzingeri 16/11/1991 24/10/2007 24/10/2007 19/01/1997 9/09/1998 Undated 2005 26/12/1995 24/10/2007 19/01/1997 17/10/2000 Undated 2005 28/5/2000 Undated 2003 30/04/1992 1/12/1917 13/10/1999 Undated 2005 30/04/1992 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Undated 2005 Species name Inside North Outside Inside South Outside Gadopsis marmoratus 9/04/1997 2. As such only a small number of these defined waterways are PAGE 39 .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.Fish species recorded from the north and south side of the Great Dividing Range indicating date of most recent record.„ Table 2-13 .

5 and 2. The exact number of waterways is likely to change as the final pipeline alignment is selected.capable of supporting fish. PAGE 40 . The impact on the fish community in associated waterways will vary depending on the method of construction employed. while less impact on the waterway is likely to occur if the pipeline is bored under the riverbed. 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. Generally impacts are likely to be greatest if waterways are trenched to allow the pipeline to be laid. 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. Further. 2. 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.5).3.2.1.7 Mitigation and Management Measures Refer to mitigation and management measures for instream habitat and water quality (Sections 2.

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 Archaeophylax canarus 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 Site Yea River @ Castella Yea River @ Glenburn Yea River @ Yea Murrindindi River @ Murrindindi Murrindindi River @ Creeds Road Section E D A B C SIGNAL 6.33 6.48 6.24 6.00 6.29 AUSRIVAS Score/Band -/A 1.04/A 0.83/B 1.03/A 0.88/A Edge SIGNAL 6.22 6.06 5.63 5.96 5.88 AUSRIVAS Score/Band -/A 1.11/A 0.96/A 1.17/X 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 41

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 42

(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 43

or bodies of water .5. Information for the wetlands identified under these classifications is provided below. billabongs.5 Wetlands 2.whether natural or artificial. permanent or temporary” (Environment Australia). mangroves. coral reefs. mudflats. lakes. There are no Ramsar or wetlands within the study area. marshes.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.5. peat lands. 2.2 Existing Conditions Wetlands are a common feature in the landscape and encompass a wide range of ephemeral to permanently inundated environments and include: “swamps. national significance (wetlands listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands). fens.5. Monitoring requirements and offset requirements will be specified at the time of permit issue. 2. salt marshes. and wetlands of bioregional significance (identified in the National Land and Water Resources Audit). Wetlands can be categorised based on their conservation significance and are listed based on international significance (Ramsar listed wetlands). PAGE 44 . 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.2.3 Internationally Significant Wetlands (Ramsar) Internationally significant wetlands are Ramsar listed wetlands.

In contrast to the uplands. While these wetlands are not listed under any of the classifications mentioned above they have ecological values and are valuable habitat areas. The river has significant social values as many recreational activities take place in and around the river. There are many floodplain wetlands in the Yea River catchment. none of the pipeline options impinge on the Yarra River floodplain. Wetland systems such as soaks and peat lands may occur in the uplands however they are not expected to exist in the study area.4 Nationally Significant Wetlands Nationally significant wetlands are listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. 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 36 threatened fauna species found within the river and its corridor of which 5 are listed as nationally vulnerable. the Yea wetlands east of the Yea Township). There are no known wetlands of bioregional significance in the study area. Wetlands habitats are not as common in the upland regions of the catchments.6 Other Wetlands of Interest While there is only one wetland of conservation significance located within the study area (the Yarra River). 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).5. The Southern section of the study site falls within the catchment of the Yarra River. 2. The floodplain wetlands in both the Yea and Yarra River catchments are located in the lowlands of the catchment on the floodplain.5. Generally the upland regions of the catchment where the river headwaters are typically steep with narrow fast flowing waterways support few wetland environments. 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. Even pasture wetlands in agricultural landscapes have been found to have high habitat and biodiversity values (Robson & Clay 2004).5 Wetlands of Bioregional Significance Wetlands of bioregional significance are identified in the National Land and Water Resources Audit. There are 38 threatened flora species found within the river and its corridor of which 11 are nationally listed. While located within the catchment.5. The distribution of wetlands within a catchment is due to the characteristics of the catchment. None of the pipeline options in Section A are PAGE 45 . most of which are located between Devlins Bridge and the Goulburn River (Sections A. the channel. Wetland habitats are most are risk where the pipeline corridors crosses or impinges on the floodplain.2. 2.g. B and C). there are a significant number of floodplain wetlands both mapped and unmapped associated with the Yea River (e.

The catchment above Devlins Bridge includes fewer wetland habitats. The most obvious wetlands on the Yea River are the Yea Wetlands. These wetlands cover an area of 34 hectares on a number of parcels of crown land. 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). a complex of wetlands which are situated on the Yea River floodplain immediately to the east of the Yea township. The wetlands are part of what was formerly a much larger wetland system that extended along the Yea River floodplain. 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). Some of these wetlands do exist inside the study area on the Yarra River floodplain. Wetland habitats are less likely to be impacted on any of the remaining sections. „ Figure 2-6 . 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. but not within the immediate pipeline corridors. In this section of the pipeline corridor all options will cross the floodplain and therefore potentially impact wetlands areas. much of which has now been drained for agricultural production (YWCoM 2007).expected to directly impact on wetland habitats. 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.View of Floodplain down stream of the Yea Wetlands PAGE 46 .

depending on the location of the construction relative to the wetland. medium. The life expectancy of the threat has also been included as short term. However the level of risk will vary depending on the location of the construction. Pollution as a result of runoff and poor containment is another major concern for wetlands.Dry Billabong in Yea Wetland „ Figure 2-8 .7 Assessment of Potential Impacts Construction activities in and around any wetland habitat will entail some form of risk to the wetland.„ Figure 2-7 .5. although in many cases these threats can be minimised with appropriate management and construction techniques. such as the introduction of PAGE 47 . „ Table 2-15 . Threat Location of Works relative to Wetland Through Upstream Medium High Medium High Medium Low Long Term >12 months Downstream Medium NA Medium NA Low Low Drainage Deposition/erosion Damming/flooding Runoff/pollution Changing nutrient levels Introduction of non native species * Short term <3 months Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Term 312 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. The threat matrix (Table 2-15) summarises the types of threats and whether these would be expected to be high. Construction activities may impact wetlands whether the construction occurs in the wetland itself. upstream or downstream the wetland. low or not applicable to the wetland.Yea River through Yea Wetlands 2.Construction threats to wetlands. medium term or long term.

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.5. 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.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. 2. weed invasion will be a low risk threat. This can only be determined on a site by site basis once the final alignment is confirmed.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.5. Where the pipeline crosses the floodplain then the corridors should be such that wetlands are avoided.weeds to wetland sites. Locating the pipeline above the floodplain as proposed between the Goulburn River and Yea township will avoid wetland habitats. 2. PAGE 48 .

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.3.1 Fish Sampling Procedures All surveys were undertaken under Victorian Fisheries Permit (RP891) (Refer to Appendix A). instream habitat. the use of SIGNAL Index is considered useful for a general indication of waterbody condition (pers. measured and weighed in the field and returned to the water at the point of release. However. given the limitations of the scope (single sampling event). Furthermore. No noxious fish species were returned to the water. comm. Victorian EPA). Current Survey Water quality data. comm. comparisons of water quality results made with SEPP guidelines are not relevant but are considered useful for a general indication of stream condition (pers.. The following methods were employed to ensure a rigorous and accurate assessment of community assemblages was undertaken. The results are presented below in the form of tables encompassing all the results collected for each site. Victorian EPA). Sites were selected based on the pipeline corridor and were determined based on the potential crossing of the pipeline with the waterways. Victorian EPA). 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. Moreover. All fish species were identified.1.1 Methods 3. Note that following the decision of the final pipeline alignment further investigations will be undertaken. These were euthanased using AQUI-S solution as per requirements set under the Victorian Fisheries Permit.. comm. 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. PAGE 49 . counted. 3. fish and macroinvertebrates communities were assessed as part of the field investigations for this project.

Nets were set in series so that they funnel fish moving both upstream and downstream.2m) attached to the first supporting hoop (diameter = 0.22m x 0. as a pulsed DC waveform.4m. with portable electrodes. via a back-pack unit which is carried by the operator. The most effective output for fish capture is within a voltage range adjustable from 100V to 600V dc. This enables aquatic ecologist’s to carry out tasks such as detailed population studies. The variety of these passive sampling methodologies increases the probability of sampling a wider range of species and size classes. and placed in a bucket of water for recovery. All nets were set to ensure a diversity of structural habitat available to fish was sampled in each waterway (open water. dual wing fyke nets and bait traps were deployed as a method of passive sampling. Single wing fyke (small mesh) nets have a central wing (8m x 1.1 Passive Sampling Techniques Fyke Nets and Bait Traps Single wing fyke nets. Bait traps that have a funnelled opening at each end (0.2m) attached to the first supporting hoop (diameter = 0. 3. amongst or against vegetation and woody material).65m) with a stretched mesh size of 20 mm. wadable pools and riffles (to a maximum depth of operator hip height). 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 1.3. submerged macrophytes and woody debris. with 2mm stretched mesh) and are set baited in the littoral zone close to emergent vegetation.1. 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.1.2m) attached to the first supporting (diameter = 0.65m) with a stretched mesh size of 5 mm Dual wing fyke nets have 2 wings (each 2.64m) with a stretched mesh size of 20mm. Immobilised fish are dip-netted from the water by an assistant.1. PAGE 50 . „ „ „ The fyke nets were set with the cod-end on one bank with the wing attached to the opposite bank.5m x 1.22m x 0. live capture and tagging. Electricity is provided from batteries and is transferred into the water.1. The cod-end of each fyke was always suspended out of the water to avoid the mortality of captured air breathing vertebrates.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.

The samples were collected in a sampling net and the contents were emptied into a sorting tray.1. The samples were then stored in 70% ethanol and returned to the laboratory for identification. however. were identified to species level. The macroinvertebrates were identified in the laboratory to family level. All stunned specimens were immediately dip netted and transferred to a holding tank for recovery. PAGE 51 .2 Macroinvertebrate Sampling Macroinvertebrate sampling was carried out as per the Rapid BioAssessment (RBA) Protocols (EPA 2003). two electrofishing transect were conducted. 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. or about to enter the water. 3. The voltage used while electrofishing ranged between 100V to 600V. birds. Each transect was standardised to 500 seconds. The number of taxa collected. families containing the threatened species above mentioned.All electrofishing was undertaken at an electrical frequency of 100 hertz and pulse width of 4 milliseconds. The maximum number of taxa and individuals were hand picked over a 30minute period in the field. family richness and SIGNAL (Stream Invertebrate Grade Number Average Level) Index were determined as per the RBA guidelines (EPA 2003). AQUI-S is a commercially based aquatic anaesthetic originally developed by the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research for the aquaculture market. All noxious species were euthanased with AQUI-S Aquatic anaesthetic. At each site. snakes and other aquatic animals. The RBA method aims to collect the widest diversity of macroinvertebrate species possible within defined habitats (riffles and edges) and set timeframes. While undertaking electrofishing. All electrofishing was halted within 50m of any animals standing in. all care was taken to avoid shocking non-target species including platypus.

7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 23 5.2 8 Good Good Abs Abs 65 10 25 5 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle 220 547 30 29 5.71 6.2 Results Site 1 – Yea Wetlands (Section A – option B1) (E55360559. N5880788) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) 0.5 5.02 o SEPP 17.4 75th percentile ”7.6 6.38 77 6.5 Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 5 Fish Mountain Galaxias 80 20 Brown Trout Redfin Additional Aquatic Fauna Murray Crayfish 10 2 7 1 PAGE 52 .3.8 38 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.

30 2170 4.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 N/A 5.5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 53 .9 N/A o SEPP 14.3 7.3 2 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.Site 5 – Triangle Creek (Section B – all options) (E55364838. N5861567) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 1 12 None Good Abs Abs <10 35 <10 7 20 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 88 N/A 12 N/A 4.4 75th percentile ”7.

5 8 Good Good Abs Abs <10 <10 25 19 20 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish Brown Trout Two-spined Blackfish 1 2 123 47 17 20 6.5 5.4 75th percentile ”7.6 6.5 Additional Aquatic Fauna Eastern Long Neck Turtle 5 PAGE 54 .6 6.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 23 5.6 9 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.7 o SEPP 16.97 63 7.Site 6 – Yea River (Section B – option B2) (E55279368. N5761058) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 90 10 0.

Site 7 – Tea Tree Creek (Section C – all ooptions) (E55363472.5 3 None Poor Abs Abs <10 <10 <10 5 <10 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 98 N/A 15 N/A 5.4 75th percentile ”7.5 68 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.10 637 3.8 7.4 N/A o SEPP 12.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 N/A 5.5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 55 . N5870731) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 0.

7 6 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.6 o SEPP 16.5 PAGE 56 .1 7.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 23 5.4 75th percentile ”7.Site 9 – Yea River – Devlins Bridge (Section C – all options) (E55364841. N5861554) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 20 20 1 20 Good Good Abs Abs <10 <10 25 1 <10 60 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish Brown Trout Two-spined Blackfish Mountain Galaxias Additional Aquatic Fauna Platypus Murray Crayfish 1 >100 6 5 1 116 181 12 18 5.5 5.2 5.05 106 8.

5 5. N5859299) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 0.06 40 8.5 PAGE 57 .4 75th percentile ”7.Site 10 – Kalatha Creek (Section D – all options) (E55363464.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 23 5.4 o SEPP 14.5 4 Low Good Abs Abs <10 65 75 2 25 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish Brown Trout Two-spined Blackfish Mountain Galaxias Additional Aquatic Fauna Murray Crayfish 5 4 1 1 99 70 13 10 6.3 5.0 7.8 9 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.

5 5.06 50 9.2 6.3 7. N5847065) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 50 30 20 0.4 75th percentile ”7.Site 12 – Yea River – Castella Road (Section E – all option) (E55361066.3 13 <2 variation 25th percentile •6.5 4 Good Good Abs Abs <10 25 75 9 20 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish Brown Trout Two-spined Blackfish 5 9 34 78 9 10 6.7 <100 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 26 23 5.7 o SEPP 12.5 Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 58 .

Site 13 – Dixons Creek (Section F – all options) (E55360279.5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 59 .6 51 <2 variation 6-9 800 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 20 N/A 5.2 N/A o SEPP 16.54 143 1.7 5.4 2 None Fair Anoxic Abs <10 25 75 6 40 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 97 N/A 9 N/A 5. N5842706) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 20 80 0.

Site 14 – Steels Creek (Section G – option G1.83 215 2. N5839215) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 70 30 0.3 12 <2 variation 6-9 800 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 20 N/A 5.5 None Good Abs Abs <10 65 50 4 30 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 60 N/A 13 N/A 5.0 5.6 4.6 N/A o SEPP 15.5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 60 . 2 & 3) (E553571235.

5 N/A Water Quality Temperature (oC) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) 20.39 714 4. N5833603) No photo taken Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 Additional Aquatic Fauna 1.1 N/A SEPP N/A N/A 20 N/A 5.9 29 SEPP <2 variation 6-9 800 >6 <5 PAGE 61 .5 None Poor Abs Abs <10 65 <10 2 <10 Fish Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle 224 N/A 25 N/A 5.4 6.Site 15 – Steels Creek (Section G – option G1. 2 & 3) (E55358159.1 1.

8 19 <2 variation 6-9 800 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 20 N/A 5.5 None Fair Abs Abs <10 >90 25 5 25 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 141 N/A 17 N/A 5.De Bortoli Winery (Section G – G5 & 6) (E55360770.8 1.Site 16a – Dixons Creek .5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 62 .67 450 1. N5837022) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 0.5 N/A o SEPP 15.2 6.

0 6. N5834772) Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 100 25 0.70 2150 6.5 N/A Additional Aquatic Fauna PAGE 63 .2 1.6 250 <2 variation 6-9 800 >6 <5 SEPP N/A N/A 20 N/A 5.2 None Fair Abs Abs <10 65 25 Water Quality Temperature ( C) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish 376 N/A 21 N/A 5.6 N/A o SEPP 19.Site 16b – Dixons Creek – Highway Verge (Section G – option G5 & G6) (E55359707.

Site 17 – (Section H – all options) Sugarloaf Reservoir Habitat Description Depth (m) Width (m) Flow Visibility Odour (Pres/Abs) Foaming (Pres/Abs) Algae (%) Vegetation cover (%) Canopy cover (%) Logs (total number) Debris (%) Bedrock (%) Boulders (%) Pebbles (%) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) None Fair Abs Abs Water Quality Temperature (oC) (field) pH (field) Conductivity (ȝS/cm) (field) Dissolved O2 (mg/L) (field) Turbidity (NTU) (field) Macroinvertebrates Number of individuals Number of families EPA SIGNAL Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Fish Roach Australian Smelt Flathead Gudgeon Redfin Additional Aquatic Fauna SEPP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SEPP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Golden Perch Mountain Galaxias Shortfinned Eel PAGE 64 .

However the current study failed to return any of those species. Also. comm. Similarly. The omnivorous dipteran family Chironomidae. particularly the Chironominae and Orthocladiidae subfamilies. 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). Previous records indicated the presence of Carp. Golden Perch were stocked in the Reservoir until 1999 (pers. Although previous records indicated that Macquarie Perch have been stocked into Yea River at Devlins Bridge.1 Fish In most cases.3. As a consequence there were no listed fish species caught during the course of this survey. and the presence of small individuals would suggest that there is some recruitment in this system.. These mayflies were collected from all sites except for Site 5. were frequently collected at all 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. 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. the FFG and EPBC listed Barred Galaxias was not recorded in Steels Creek. except for Site 5 in which only one Chironominae was obtained. 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 and Rainbow Trout in the Sugarloaf Reservoir. Instead Golden Perch were found in high abundance. water quality results fell within the SEPP guidelines apart for some turbidity and dissolved oxygen readings at some sites. belonging to 10 species.3 Discussion 3. Fisheries Victoria).3. 3. no specimens were recorded during this survey.3.2 Macroinvertebrates The current survey returned 2568 macroinvertebrates belonging to 69 families. and are therefore thought to be extremely sensitive to disturbance. The Leptophlebiidae have a sensitivity grade of 10. no individuals from the Orthocladiinae PAGE 65 . The most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa found throughout the entire study were Leptophlebiidae mayflies. A total of 160 fish were collected as part of this survey. 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.

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. with 9 taxa collected. 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 noticeable that only the Murray Spiny Cray (Euastacus armatus).subfamily were collected at Sites 5. The Chironominae and Orthocladiinae subfamilies have sensitivity grades of 6 and 5. Of the 9 taxa collected within the edge samples from Site 13. The riffle habitats had a high diversity of Trichoptera and Diptera. Four of the 9 taxa collected within the edge samples from Site 12 were predatorial. The site with the most diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna was Site 1. Throughout most of the 20th century Hemiphlebia mirabilis was known locally from a billabong near Alexandra. was found during the course of this survey. apart from the Devlins Bridge site. with 7 different taxa collected. The habitats of Hemiphlebia mirabilis are found within riverine billabongs of the Yea Valley (Trueman et al. commonly known as the Ancient Greenling. Most SIGNAL indices were within the SEPP objectives. Hemiphlebia mirabilis damselfly. indicating clean water. in early 1992 it was collected from a billabong beside the Yea River (37o 13’ S. with 30 taxa collected within the edge samples and 29 taxa collected within the riffle habitats. 145o 26’ E) (Trueman et al. Although this species of damselfly has a wide distribution. which is FFG listed. PAGE 66 . Likewise. However. three taxa were predatorial beetles. respectively. The edge samples taken from Sites 12 and 13 yielded the least amount of taxa. The caddisfly species of Archaeophylax canarus and the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly were not found as part of this investigation. retaining venation characteristic of the Permian Period (Hawking 1999). it is uncommon and is recorded sporadically (Hawking 1997). Victoria. reflecting an overall good waterway health. However. The sites that presented the lower SIGNAL and lower macroinvertebrate diversity were situated in non-flowing creeks surrounded by agricultural lands. no specific surveys were conducted to target these particular species. The Ancient Greenling is currently known only from six scattered populations from centralEastern Victoria to Tasmania (Hawking 1999). 1992). The edge habitats had a high diversity of Coleoptera. each with 7 taxa obtained and there were also 6 coleopteran taxa collected. 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. 7 and 13 as well as the edge samples from Site 12. of which 2 were Odonata. all the sites in the Yea River returned SIGNAL indices between 6 and 7. 1992). It is taxonomically isolated and is the world’s most primitive odonata.

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. In addition. and preferably 0.3 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). Redfin. Trout. the design of the inlet will be positioned to minimise fish entering the system. The populations living in this system are well known and include some exotic species like Carp. Sugarloaf Reservoir is a closed system and it is very unlikely that any fish present in the reservoir could escape into the Yarra River.1m/s. and the screens will be ‘selfcleansing’. Over 800 hours of fishing effort were deployed. As such. Weatherloach. 3. 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. However.A specific targeted survey for Burrowing Crayfish was conducted early December 2007 to assess whether or not this species was present in the system. Redfin. including a combination of fyke nets. This velocity is less than the typical river velocity. but failed to return Carp. Carp.200kPa) of pressure to pump over the Great Dividing Range. This could only occur in PAGE 67 .200kPa) it is unlikely that any fish or fish eggs would resist such pressure and survive. Historically. However. gillnets and electrofishing. It is expected that the river pumping station will impart approximately (700kPa) of pressure to pump to the balancing storage.5m/s. Shortfinned Eels and Redfin. The fish communities of the Goulburn River have been widely studied over the years. Trout. The high lift pumps will impart approximately 220m of head (2. The high lift pumps will have a sphere capacity of 40mm. given the high pressure in the pumps and the pipeline (up to 2. As part of this project.3. Melbourne Water advised that it is possible that objects smaller than 30mm. Trout. Tench. Mosquitofish. such as fish fingerlings and fish eggs could enter the system. The study returned a high abundance of Golden Perch. The balancing storage will encourage some settling out of objects and reduce the objects being transported into the high lift pumping station. The river inlet pipeline and screens will be sized to have an inlet velocity of less than 0. they should be able to swim against the inlet current and escape. Tench or Goldfish. 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. As such. The results from this investigation are presented below. Weatherloach. and Goldfish. Mosquitofish. Therefore fish will not be ‘sucked’ onto the screens or into the river pumping station. In the case that fish swim into the river inlet. and pass through from the Goulburn River to Sugarloaf Reservoir. Roach and Goldfish have been captured in Sugarloaf Reservoir.

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.

1 Background A number of species of this genus are known to occur in Victoria. E.2 Methods the overall geographic distribution of crayfish burrows. quadrimanus which occurs along the Southern side of the Great Dividing Ranges between Melbourne and Malacoota and the NSW border. E. rostrogaleatus. and E.. however no detailed investigation of the distribution of the genus along the pipeline corridor has been made. cymus. „ „ „ „ 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. may also co-occur within the study area. E. laevis which occurs in both Victoria and Tasmania. curvisuturus listed as “Threatened” is listed as occurring within the Yarra Valley. phyllocercus. E. 4.4. lyelli listed as occurring between the Grampians and Myrtleford. these being: „ PAGE 69 . Targeted Burrowing Crayfish Survey 4. urostrictus as “Threatened” The species E. curvisuturus and E. victoriensis which occur near Warburton. The survey attempted to document four factors. and of these several are thought to occur within the pipeline corridor. E. and E. curvisuturus. sternalis. however the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Threatened List 2006 lists the following species: E. In addition representatives of other genera. E. it is possible that it also crosses edaphic boundaries that may determine the species complexes that inhabit these distinct areas. The conservation status of many of these species is unknown. E. the Genus Engaeus appears to be represented in South Eastern Australia by approximately 35 species. Active burrows have been seen in a number of locations. As the pipeline crosses the Great Dividing Range from the Yarra Valley to increasingly dryer regions to the north. within the Yarra Valley and in the Dandenong Ranges area. While the actual number of species present in the area is unknown. E. mallacoota. which occurs in the Northwards flowing Buffalo River towards the NSW border. The species of Engaeus that are recorded as occurring within the broader geographical areas surrounding the pipeline corridors are the following: „ Engaeus affinis. such as Cherax spp.

„ „ „ the density of burrows. if it follows the Melba Highway. 4. hillier country is encountered. South of Tea Tree Creek to Devlins Bridge. agricultural or forestry history. Generally the Yea River occupied a wide flood plain south until Tea Tree Creek below Dunn Hill (National Topographic Map Servies Sheet 7923 Yea.2.2. and if possible. The vegetation type. Once these areas were identified these areas were then walked to establish presence or absence of burrows. 4. Table 4-1 details GPS locations and associated comments on presence or absence of crayfish burrows and burrow density. A large number of photographs of individual sites were obtained.3 Landform and soil type. PAGE 70 . At each location a central GPS point was taken and noted and notes made about the location.1 Spatial Recordings of presence or absence of burrows. 4. to excavate burrows to obtain specimens of the species for identification purposes.3 Results 4.3.1 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.2 Density of burrows The density of burrows in an overall area of approximately 100m x 5m was obtained and noted.2. grade and soil type were observed and noted. similar country to that to the north will be encountered. the pipeline will cross a number of creek lines that may form a habitat. 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. In addition a search was also made for any discarded exoskeleton or other identifying feature.2. 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. Where access could not be obtained the areas are marked ‘Unable to Enter Site (UAES)’. 4. If the pipeline follows the river. Additional comments are provided with respect to landform and other features. 4. the landform and soil type within which burrows occurred.4 Search for specimens Representative sites were excavated in an attempt to obtain specimens of resident crayfish.

Much of the lower Dixons Creek and Steels Creek areas had been significantly modified by agricultural and viticultural practices and by land clearing. Along a soak line >>100m. Large numbers of burrows are encountered within this forest. No burrows were observed along Steels Creek or along Glenview Road. identified by Cyathea australis Wet Sclerophyll Forest (WSF) Along a soak line.South of Westbridge (599 539) the ground rises and the pipeline corridors passes through the Toolangi State Forest. Burrows were observed in dry pasture in Hunts Lane. Moderate to large numbers of burrows were found at locations along Gulf Road and scattered sites South of Gulf Road along the Melba Highway. Sampling within the Toolangi State Forest occurred on both sides of the Great Dividing Range watershed. A large excavation was undertaken within the headwaters of a tributary creek to the Yea River. multiple seepage lines with locally moderate populations in A All + + D&E F All All + E All 360611 5845733 360249 5844591 + V Dense E All + Patchy. Burrows were observed in the roadside verge in Banksia Court and in the forest opposite on the other side of the Melba Highway. identified by Cyathea australis Wet Sclerophyll Forest (WSF) Near dam and a drilling site. „ Table 4-1: GPS locations and Burrow Observations. UAES = unable to enter site. E & F). Sampling sites were accessed from Glenwood Drive and from the 5 Ways Track (Sections D. Very few burrows were seen within the upper Dixons Creek catchment. A dense burrow array was followed to below the water table but no specimens were obtained. 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. Holes seen but uncertain of their origin Patchy 10+ in groups V Dense Toolangi NF Station Dry sclerophyll Forest (DSF) In DSF at base of uprooted trees on steep (Stp) hillside. groups of <50 burrows F All PAGE 71 . extends downhill. however excavations failed to produce specimens. Presence + or absence nil Uncertain Burrow density Observations Section Option GPS Location 55 360202 5885821 360454 5844627 360338 5844579 360515 5845565 Goulburn River Pump station site. clayey loams (Cl).

2 & 3 360682 5881342 361413 5880372 361109 5880723 Possible Nil + UAES UAES <50 A A A na A1 & 2 A1 & 2 360836 5880812 363016 5876703 + Possible Few holes UAES A B NA B1 363298 5874526 363636 5873327 Nil B B1 Possible B All PAGE 72 . 360425 5851890 360168 5853605 360168 5853605 360048 5884185 Nil Nil Nil Possible UAES UAES UAES UAES Marginal Road. hard clay and stony soil. UAES Soak lines in pasture. drainage line on steep hill probable habitat Unable to Enter Site UAES. Exoskeleton found. groups of <100 burrows Low numbers <50 Low numbers. Nil found. Perts Reserve. no burrows seen. flood plain UAES Yea River flood plain. few dry burrows/ Rocky & stony soil/ Hunts Lane East. possibly Cherax sp?. 2 & 3 359216 5839172 + G G1. tending to flooding area. <50 <300 UAES Localised area. Excavation site to >400mm. extensive area with few burrows. Killingworth West Rd (Ruined house on hill) damp areas on hill asides probable sites Yea Wetlands area. probable site E E E A All All All All F All 360365 5845413 357503 5839206 + F All + G G1. E of Yea. grassy paddocks. stony stream bed area Yea River flood plain. 360338 5845400 Patchy. saggs (Lomandra longifolia) etc. Burrows on road verge below a dam.GPS Location 55 Presence + or absence nil + Burrow density Observations Section Option discrete patches. (UAES) Yea River. Hunts Lane West Along side creek line. Near dam. probable areas Creek alongside Goulburn Valley Highway E of Yea Creek alongside Goulburn Valley Highway. burrows extending under a hedge. both sides of track in DSF. Unable to determine if holes created by crayfish Soak areas running down pasture from higher ground on W of road down to abandoned railway on E side of road.

Unsuitable on account of deepness and incised nature of creek Unsuitable on account of deepness and incised nature of creek Unsuitable on account of deepness and incised nature of creek C C2 Possible UAES C C3 & 1 Nil C All Nil D All Nil D All Nil D All Possible Nil UAES Large damp areas opposite Glenburn Pub Timbered area no burrows Start of Timber and State Forest D D E E E E E All All All All All All All + + + + Patchy burrows Patchy burrows Patchy burrows ~100 State Forest DSF Patch burrows State Forest DSF Patch burrows State Forest DSF Patch burrows Banksia Court. Land rises to West. Incised rocky. Road runs above creek bottom meadows. G G G1.GPS Location 55 362779 5868985 364336 5863468 364956 5861453 Kalatha Creek Eagles Nest Creek Katy Creek Glenburn Pub Wee Creek 360032 585-388 360606 5872910 360633 5852884 360616 5852956 360824 5846781 356336 5837446 Presence + or absence nil + Burrow density Observations Section Option UAES Dead Tree are Old burrows in verge on E side of road. Bottom of vineyard No burrows seen. 2 & 3 356346 5836742 356259 5835370 356577 5833073 Melbourne Water water channel 356084 5832199 Possible Nil UAES UAES Steels Creek. dams etc. Steels Creek. Change of country away from flood plain. extensive dams and wet areas below road. H All PAGE 73 . holes in roadside verge and in forest opposite side of Melba. too deep for crays. No holes seen. Nil G G1. land ries to bush above creek valley. Saggs and damp areas in pasture Steels Creek. 2 & 3 All Nil Nil UAES G G All Nil UAES S end of Steels Creek Road. line between 2 dams. Devlins Bridge over Yea. Soak areas on NW side of road.

Melba Highway 5. did not appear to be those of Engaeus spp and were possible remains of Cherax spp.GPS Location 55 354926 830596 355158 5831019 355592 5831620 356861 5834028 358115 5833834 Presence + or absence nil Nil Nil Nil Nil + Burrow density Observations Section Option UAES UAES UAES UAES ~ 100 Glenview Road 1. Burrows on low areas and along fence line. these may have been from moulted skins or an accumulation of remains where individuals had been trapped and eaten by predator species. very modified surface Glenview Road 3.2 & 3 G5 & 6 G5 & 6 358632 5833767 359654 5834915 359814 5835810 360285 5836862 360355 5837577 360035 5838150 + Nil >100 G G G5 & 6 G5 & 6 + Nil suspect Nil Few burrows Melba Highway 2. Creekline through vineyard is a probably habbitat Gulf Road. which have been sent for identification. Melba Highway 1. very modified surface Glenview Road 2. damp area above bridge. On first indications these remains. including that of the Yea River flowing northwards through floodplain land to eventually join the Goulburn River.2 Excavations A total of 5 excavations were attempted in an effort to obtain specimens for identification. damp areas. The other component comprises the Southwards flowing Dixon’s and Steel’s Creeks which are tributaries of the Yarra River. in low area besides culvert Melba Highway 3.4 Discussion An extensive survey for burrowing crayfish was undertaken.2 & 3 H1. Exoskeleton remains were obtained from a roadside creek line at Yea. These systems PAGE 74 . H H H H G All H1. steep sides. very modified surface Gulf Road. 4. No live specimens were obtained. no holes Gulf Road. No burrows Melba Highway 4. no holes. This survey encompassed two separate catchments.3. cricket pitch. Dixons Creek G G G G G5 & 6 G5 & 6 G5 & 6 G5 & 6 4. Dixons creek crossing. Despite considerable effort excavations were either curtailed by exceptionally hard and rocky ground or the influx of water as the water table was intercepted. some burrows of uncertain origin.

Potential habitats appear to be downhill seepage lines formerly occupied by forest but now damp grassed areas within pasture. in seepage lines and also in swampy flatter lying areas occupied by drainage lines. due to access permission not being available. 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.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. especially when the nearest population of established burrows appears to be some 100’s of metres distant from these sites. Burrows do not PAGE 75 . For example a tree had blown down and the roots had become exposed. 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. Burrows were frequently seen within the soil at the base of these disturbed areas. There are large potential areas for crayfish burrows within the Northern catchment. Damp drainage areas again may be less frequently disturbed as evidenced by the presence of Saggs (Lomandra longifolia) etc in these areas. however the survey team were generally unable to access these sites and validate these observations. The suggested frequency and severity of disturbance to the landscape relates to land use. smaller populations occur in discrete areas within the Northern and Southern catchments. These populations are significantly affected by land use and land use history. The areas to the south of the Great Dividing Range have been most modified by the development of vineyards. It was observed that burrows often occurred where a natural disturbance had taken place. 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. Observations suggest that these burrows will be distributed throughout the forest and that a proportion will occur along the proposed pipeline easement. Burrows were not however found besides fallen tree trunks. Overall a large population of crayfish burrows was observed within the Toolangi State Forest. Observations have indicated that patchy. In the non-forested areas. There is no obvious reason for the distribution of these burrows with burrows present on high and dry hillsides. houses and small hobby farms. The pasture land to the north of the Great Dividing Range is likely to have been infrequently cultivated to improve pasture. but dense populations. roads. It is interesting to consider how crayfish were able to move into and occupy the niches made available by such disturbances. of crayfish burrows are found throughout the Toolangi State Forest.

PAGE 76 . especially those in drainage lines and within the Wet Sclerophyll and in bogs are clearly developed down to the water table. Trenching in the southern area has a greater potential to damage small isolated groups than elsewhere within the pipeline corridor. 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. they probably have little contact with other similar groups and are thus more vulnerable than groups in areas such as the Toolangi State Forest. These groups may represent isolated groups of survivors of larger groupings destroyed by a major disturbance. It is interesting to speculate on the strategy used by the species to colonise new areas. In this survey it has not been possible to identify which species are present within the study area or in any particular location. 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. This is especially the case in the Toolangi State Forest. As isolated populations. Overall burrow densities would appear to be sufficient to allow for some losses due to disturbance from trenching. Within these modified areas the distribution of burrow communities is exceptionally patchy. appear to be completely devoid of burrows despite the habitat being in other ways suitable. It is probable that the species found to the north and south of the Great Dividing Range are not the same. where cultivation or other activities cause frequent disturbance. 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. 4.5 Conclusion There appear to be more Crayfish burrows north of the Great Dividing Range than in the catchments to the south. Suitable burrow habitat within the southern catchments appear to have been significantly affected by modifications to the landscape by intensive farming and viticulture. 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. Areas such as vineyards. Crayfish appear to have successfully burrowed in patchy areas alongside highways or other features.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. Other burrows. for example by the uprooting of trees. 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.

Should the pipeline be located through the floodplain on the west side of Killingworth Road (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor A3). 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).5. 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. Summary of Pipeline Corridors A summary of issues associated with each of the crossing points is provided below. The Yea Wetlands are a significant community asset and the proposed alignment should avoid the wetlands as much as possible. floodplain wetlands in this area should be avoided. 5. 1 (Section B) The pipeline corridor in this section includes the first crossing of the Yea River.1 Goulburn River to Yea (Section A) The pipeline corridor will pass through primarily agricultural land. Site inspections were conducted in the pipeline corridor with an emphasis on the crossing locations indicated as the pipeline corridor (Figure 2-5). 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. 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.2 Yea Wetlands (Section A) The pipeline corridor will cross the Goulburn Valley Highway near the intersection of Killingworth Road. However given the large number of waterways involved it is unlikely to be feasible to bore under each waterway crossing. 5. apart from water quality risks associated with runoff from construction activity (this is applicable to all pipeline corridors). A summary of the crossing points inspected is provided below. 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. 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. PAGE 77 . 5.3 Yea River South of Yea Wetlands – Crossing No.

„ Figure 5-1 –Pipeline Option Corridors with Aquatic Ecological Comments PAGE 78 .

„ Figure 5-2 .First crossing of Yea River with potential alternative crossing site indicated by purple dotted line PAGE 79 .

5 Triangle Creek Crossing and Yea River (Section B) Triangle Creek is located upstream of Ewing Creek. through the easement the stream channel and riparian zone was cleared and degraded. It appears relatively degraded with a fragmented riparian. One of the corridors (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b) is located on the hillslope above the floodplain.4 Ewing Creek Crossing (Section B) South of Yea. and hence does not impinge on floodplain or wetland values. PAGE 80 . or downstream of the nature reserve (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b).Ewings Creek „ Figure 5-4 . there are a number of small tributary streams that enter the Yea River from the west that could be crossed by the pipeline. 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. Under these circumstances. Immediately adjacent to the highway there are a powerline and underground phone cable easements (Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6). This creek was not flowing at the time of the survey and consisted of several isolated pools. This creek flows through a small wooded nature reserve located to the east of the Melba Highway. „ Figure 5-3 . however several appear to be more permanent in nature. The easement trenching is an option due to the existing degraded conditions. Construction within the nature reserve should be avoided (Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1a). 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.Ewings Creek 5. however. riparian and instream habitat was in good condition. the pipeline corridors run adjacent to the Melba Highway on the west side of the Yea River. However. alternatively crossing points could be located in cleared agricultural land on the west side of the Melba Highway.5. Within the nature reserve. One such example is Ewing Creek (Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4). Crossing locations that avoid native riparian vegetation and areas of good instream habitat are preferable (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1). Most of these tributaries are shallow intermittent drainage depressions that would only carry water during rainfall events. eroding banks and poor instream habitat and is typical of a number of similar tributary streams.

Triangle Creek flowing through wooded nature reserve East of the powerline easement Triangle Creek was dry at the time of the survey. Rellimeiggam Creek was flowing at the time of the inspection and appeared to be a semi permanent waterway.Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor C1b). Water quality appeared to be good and there was good instream habitat with floating macrophyte and snags present. however fish and macroinvertebrate sampling were conducted at the junction of Triangle Creek and an anabranch of the Yea River. The power line easement remains the preferred location for the pipeline crossing (Non . A number of native fish species have been recorded in this waterway. While riparian vegetation was sparse there were signs of natural regeneration in the riparian zone.Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor B1b). the appropriate preferred method of crossing will be determined. Sampling was not conducted upstream of the Melba Highway.„ Figure 5-5 – Triangle Creek showing power line easement „ Figure 5-6 .6 Tea Tree Creek and Rellimeiggam Creek (Section C) Tea Tree Creek was surveyed upstream of the Melba Highway crossing (Non . The Yea River upstream of Murrindindi Road was assessed in this area and has been identified as an alternative crossing location for the pipeline. 5. and as such it is highly recommended to conduct monitoring of this site before and after construction. There was little riparian vegetation and the water quality was poor with high turbidity. Habitat quality was good. with some LWD and instream vegetation (Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8). PAGE 81 . The river has a silt and sand bottom in this area and there are a large number of snags which provide good habitat values. Once the exact location of the crossing point has been determined. No fish were identified at the site. No fish were collected at the site however large numbers of tadpoles were observed. 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.

.Rellimeiggam Creek „ Figure 5-8 . the area does contain suitable habitat.7 Yea River . This site is the transition zone between the uplands and the lowlands of the catchment. The EPBC listed Macquarie Perch has previously been stocked in the area and while not recorded since stocking ceased in the mid 1990s. Platypus and the Murray Spiny Cray have also been identified.„ Figure 5-7 . Riparian vegetation was sparse on the right bank upstream of the bridge (Figure 5-9) and consisted of native vegetation in the left bank. as there are a number of listed fish species recorded at this site. Targeted fish monitoring will need to be conducted before and after construction. The waterway was permanent and instream habitat quality was good (Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10).Yea River (upstream of Devlins Bridge)- PAGE 82 . This crossing will have to be bored under the river or suspended on the bridge. It is unlikely that Macquarie Perch are still present however.Rellimeiggam Creek 5.Yea River (upstream of Devlins Bridge) „ Figure 5-10 . The current site investigation identified Two-spined Blackfish and Trout at this location. The river intersects bedrock at this point and has a rock and gravel base.Crossing No. „ Figure 5-9 . 2 (Section C) The Yea River intersects the Melba Highway at Devlins Bridge (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor C3). this cannot be confirmed.

8 Kalatha Creek (Section D) Kalatha Creek appeared to be a semi permanent waterway. the preferred method of crossing is boring (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor D2 and Non-Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor D1a and b).9 Unnamed Dry Creeks (Sections D and E) Section 9 includes the region where the pipeline corridor enters the Toolangi State Forest.Dry unnamed creek (East) „ Figure 5-14 . adjacent to the Melba Highway.Kalatha Creek „ Figure 5-12 . „ Figure 5-11 . Trout and Mountain Galaxias at this site. „ Figure 5-13 .Yea River (West side of Melba Highway) -) PAGE 83 . The creek substrate was rock and gravel and water quality was good (Figure 5-12). As this appears to be a permanent stream. The pipeline corridor is on the east side of the road through the State Forest (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2). The riparian zone consisted of a native overstorey with an under-storey that included exotic vegetation (Figure 5-11). The site generally had good ecological values. Current site investigation identified Two-spined Blackfish. Instream habitat included submerged vegetation with little LWD.5.Kalatha Creek 5. (Figure 5-14).

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. „ Figure 5-15. 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.Yea River „ Figure 5-16 .Yea River PAGE 84 . Brown Trout and the Murray Spiny Cray in this area. although tunnelling would be the preferred method to avoid any ecological impacts (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2). The river was approximately 6m wide at this point. The recent site survey identified Two-spined Blackfish. This potential crossing is located just below the ridge of the divide (Preferred Pipeline Option Corridor E1 and 2). 3 (Section E) Section 10 is the third crossing of the Yea River.5.10 Yea River – Crossing No.

indicating clean water. reflecting an overall good waterway health in waterways along the pipeline corridors. but no Carp.) are listed as occurring on the pipeline corridor of which some are FFG listed. 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. PAGE 85 . Most SIGNAL indices were within the SEPP objectives. all the sites in the Yea River returned SIGNAL indices between 6 and 7. 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. although this is unlikely. Trout. and a substantial amount of evidence (e. As such.6. 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. The EPBC listed species Barred Galaxias (Galaxias fuscus) and Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica) previously identified in the Yea River. Mosquitofish. A number of species of burrowing crayfish (Engaeus spp. Likewise. The sites that presented the lower SIGNAL and lower macroinvertebrate diversity were situated in non-flowing creeks surrounded by agricultural lands. have not been identified in the recent survey. apart from Devlins Bridge site. However. 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. There was a high abundance of Golden Perch. burrows) suggests that one or more species of the genus are present within the pipeline corridor. Shortfinned Eels and Redfin. 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. no specific surveys were conducted to target these particular species. Weatherloach. Management and mitigation measures have been summarised along with further monitoring requirements. 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 (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly were not found as part of this investigation.g. Tench or Goldfish were sampled from the reservoir. While a targeted survey failed to locate live specimens a number of exoskeletons were collected during the field investigation. However.

Follow up monitoring of the fish and macroinvertebrate community post construction should also be undertaken to assess the potential impacts of the construction process. trenching could compromise the ecological values of the waterway. However. where trenching through permanent waterways may be an option. appropriate sediment control will need to be undertaken and will be the primary concern. 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. the mechanical action of the pumps and pumping mechanisms and the length of pipeline. 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. In most cases where the waterway is permanent. Where trenching is to occur in waterways. PAGE 86 . it is still theoretically possible for objects up to 30mm in size including fingerlings and fish eggs to be translocated to Sugarloaf Reservoir.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. 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. Monitoring should start prior to construction and continue through until after the construction works have been completed and the construction corridor rehabilitated. reference has been made in the summary of pipeline section. Permanent turbidity monitors should be installed in at least two locations on the Yea River. Further monitoring of the fish and macroinvertebrate community is also highly recommended when the final corridors is decided. 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.200 kPa).

Where the final pipeline corridor crosses floodplain alignment should avoid wetlands. DIRECT . 2003) Action Consequence Further investigations/monitoring Monitoring the impacts of construction is a requirement of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) and State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) Schedule F7. Katy. population size or distribution of Murray Spiny Cray. Any new channels will be lined to prevent erosion and scouring of the new stream channel. Continuous turbidity monitoring is highly recommended during the construction phase. Additional information is required on fish and macroinvertebrate populations and habitat at key crossings of the Yea River (Yea.Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction Drying and disturbance of the streambed causing: Exposure of previously submerged habitat such as woody debris resulting in reduced available habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates.e. Fish surveys are required to update fish species distribution in waterways which may be affected by the pipeline. Devlins Bridge. Release of metals and nutrients from sediments on rewetting resulting in increases in turbidity and total suspended solids and nutrients on rewetting causing smothering of habitat. Wetlands Avoid construction through wetlands. Direct destruction of habitat from need to remove woody debris and excavate reed beds. Management and Mitigation Measures Water quality/macroinvertebrates/fish Temporary diversions of the waterways to be managed. PAGE 87 . The final corridor alignment should be such that it avoids the low-lying parts of the floodplain i. the Archaeophylax canarus caddisfly or the Ancient Greenling (Hemiphlebia mirabilis) damselfly within the study area. Implementation of project EMP. Castella) and permanent tributaries (Rellimeiggam. Surveys near/around the likely area for disturbance are required at sites where trenching is planned to determine if species are present at these sites. locate the pipeline on the slope as proposed between the Goulburn River and Yea township. Exposure and possible loss of instream macrophytes resulting in loss of available habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. Kalatha. There is limited information as to the current status. degraded water quality and increased risk from algal blooms.„ Table 6-1 – Potential direct and indirect effects on ecological (aquatic) values from the construction of the Sugarloaf Pipeline Project including management and mitigation measures and suggested monitoring requirements. Dixons and Steels Creeks) to determine the best method for construction of pipeline across these waterways. Monitor impacts during construction (SEPP.

Implementation of EMP. Potential flow on effects to health of instream macrophytes and reed beds. 2003) Further investigations/monitoring INDIRECT – Runoff from construction site Sediments and other construction materials may enter the waterway. causing increases in turbidity.Action Water quality/macroinvertebrates/fish Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the banks and beds of waterways. Disturbance of the wetlands causing: release of metals from sediment on rewetting erosion of banks resulting in loss of bank vegetation and sediment runoff to stream direct destruction of habitat such as excavation through reed beds Introduction and spread of pest species such as weeds by construction vehicles. suspended solids and nutrients. Corridor alignment should be such that it avoids The low-lying parts of the floodplain i. 1999). erosion of banks resulting in loss of bank vegetation and sediment runoff to stream. locate the pipeline on the slope as proposed between the Goulburn River and Yea township. PAGE 88 . direct destruction of habitat as result of need to remove woody debris and excavate reed beds.Temporary diversions of the waterways to enable construction release of metals from sediment on rewetting. Monitor impacts during construction (SEPP. Where pipeline corridor crosses floodplain alignment should avoid wetlands. Potential flow on effects to fish health and habitat. Construction chemicals and by-products are stored appropriately and are not allowed to drain into the creek. Avoid construction through wetlands. Action Consequence Management and mitigation measures Water quality/macroinvertebrates/fish/wetlands Sediment controls are implemented to prevent off-site transport of sediment or settleable matter in surfacewater runoff from the construction site (SEPP. Wetlands Consequence Management and mitigation measures Further investigations/monitoring Disturbance of the streambed causing: DIRECT . Implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines.e.

Erosion of banks leading to sediment runoff into stream. Implementation of EMP and best practice guidelines. Consequence Management and mitigation measures Further investigations/monitoring INDIRECT – Removal of riparian vegetation Reduction in filtering capacity of riparian zone to filter nutrients. PAGE 89 . Increased concentrations of sediments. sediments and other potential contaminants and preventing them from reaching the stream. Decision and location of bank vegetation removal is carried out in consultation with vegetation specialist and their assessment for this project. Loss of potential long term woody debris recruitment to stream for instream habitat. May include boring under stream rather than trenching. Determine appropriate construction method for pipeline in order to reduce risk to site values. leading to degraded water quality and reduced available habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. banks and beds of waterways. nutrients and contaminants in the stream.Action Water quality/macroinvertebrates/fish/wetlands Site access by construction vehicles is managed so as to cause minimal physical disturbances to the bank vegetation.

J. Department of Sustainability and Environment.2003.R. St Clair. Freshwater Fisheries Database. 56. P. Harris. Local waterway health strategy for the Yea and Murrindindi Rivers. M. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology Identification and Ecology Guide No. Environmental flow recommendations for the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon. & Cartwright D. Department of Sustainability and Environment. EPA (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Management – Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. GBCMA (2006). Priority Wetlands in the Goulburn Broken Catchment (Draft) September 2006. D. Australian freshwater cods and basses. (2004) Identification keys to Australian families and genera of caddis-fly larvae (Trichoptera). 1981.J.H. 2005. Dean. Chatswood. (1997). Perth. J. East Melbourne. Rutherfurd. Index of Stream Condition: The Second Benchmark of Victorian River Condition.. Stewardson.542. DSE (2003) Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in Victoria .30. J. with particular reference to Victoria. Reed Books. Victoria. DSE (2007) Aquatic Fauna Database. L. and S.C. Publication Number 604.7. T. S. 93:23 . East Melbourne. Crook. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Department of Primary Industries. McDowall (ed. In R. J. 2003. Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority.M. 50. H.I. References Allen. Hillman. Past and present distributions and translocations of Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica (Pisces: Percichthyidae). P. R. Ecos (2002). and Allen. Snobs Creek. Western Australian Museum.1. Cottingham. and I. Midgley. Department of Sustainability and Environment. Family Percichthyidae. PAGE 90 . The conservation status of dragonflies (Odonata) from South-Eastern Australia. (2002). G. Thurgoona: NSW. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria. Cadwallader. 150-63 Hawking.H. Roberts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. DSE. Western Australia.M. Rowland. 537 . Draft Report prepared for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority.) Freshwater fishes of South-Eastern Australia. DPI (2007).. (1996). M. CRC Freshwater Ecology and CRC Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 01/2003..

Melbourne Water Social and Environment Data 2005/2006. T.. J (2001) Victoria. Dixons and Pauls Creeks. B. The Other 99%. Shepparton. Aquatic Conserrvation: Marine and Freshwater ecosystems. Report produced by Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. S 89 June 1999. Water Quality of Steels. Aquatic Fauna Assessment of Steels. Odonatologica.A. Variation of State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) – Insertion of Schedule F7. Dixon and Pauls Creeks (Tributaries of the Yarra River). SPDEFTP (2003). Victorian Government Gazette. No.R. 354 . C. Wealands (2007). to Melbourne Water Corporation. (2004). Melbourne. (1992) Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys: new localities in Australia and perspectives on conservation (Zygoptera: Hemiphlebiidae). Winston Ponder and Daniel Lunney). (1999). & New. Melbourne Water.374. pp. An evaluation of the current conservation status of Australian dragonflies (Odonata). Raadik. Variation of State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria). (2005). Melbourne.. In a directory of important Wetlands in Australia – Third Edition (2001). Report prepared for Waterways and Drainage Melbourne Water Corporation.21: 367 . The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates. J. Sarah Young and Kathy Eyles. MW (2005a). Unpublished report for Steels. T. Water Supply Protection Area Stream Flow Management Plan 2005 (Draft). Robson.J. SEPP (2003).L. Environmental Flow Determination of the Steels. McGuckin.. Australia. Victoria. & Clay. Melbourne.360. (1999). PAGE 91 . M. G. Pauls and Dixons Creek Environmental Flows Technical Panel. Waters of the Yarra Catchment. Melbourne. Melbourne Water. Determination of environmental flow requirement for the Yea River: Site Paper. Victoria. No. H. Edited by Geoff Larmour. (ed. Melbourne Water (2005).H. J. Stacey.. Holmes. Watson. Report prepared for Melbourne Water Corporation. Local and regional macroinvertebrate diversity in the wetlands of a cleared agricultural landscape in South-Western Victoria. A.W.Hawking. Published by Environment Australia. Hawking. S 107 June 2003. and A. Hoye. J. Victorian Government Gazette.H. Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water (2004). Melbourne's Rivers and Creeks 2004. J. J. J. Trueman. Yarra Glen. SEPP (1999). Pauls and Dixons Creek Catchments: Part A – Issues Paper.

M. Determination of environmental flow requirement for the Yea River: Issues Paper. Victoria. Shepparton. Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network. PAGE 92 .. (2007).M. T.M.net/vicwaterdata/home. and Arnott C. P. (eds. Switzerland: IUCN. Gland.) (1983) The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. N.Wealands. A. Wells. data warehouse website http://www. & Collins. S. Pyle. Report produced by Alluvium Consulting Pty Ltd for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority. Boon.aspx Yea Wetlands Committee of Management (2007) Yea Wetland Draft Management Plan. VWQMN (2007). R. Doeg..vicwaterdata..

Appendix A – Fish Survey Permit PAGE 93 .