rehabilitation of freshwater drains...

Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project

March 2003 Tim Marsden, Garry Thorncraft and Kristen Woods

QUEENSLAND FISHERIES SERVICE ! DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ! 2003

REHABILITATION OF FRESHWATER DRAINS PROJECT i

Information Series QO 003012

Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project

(Restoration of Freshwater Drainage Channels to Provide Stream Habitat for

Juvenile Barramundi Project)

NHT Project No. 2002107 Final Project Report

March 2003

Tim Marsden" Garry Thorncraft" Kristen Woods


REHABILITATION OF FRESHWATER DRAINS PROJECT ii

QO 03012

ISSN 0727-6281

Agdex 470/60

Information contained in this publication is provided as general advice only. For application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of publication. Readers should ensure that they make appropriate enquiries to determine whether new information is available on the particular subject matter. For further information contact: Tim Marsden Fisheries Biologist Queensland Fisheries Service Ph: (07) 49670 724 © The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries 2003 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. Enquiries should be addressed to: Deputy Director General Queensland Fisheries Service GPO Box 46 BRISBANE QLD 4001

Cover Photograph: The first juvenile barramundi captured utilising the rehabilitated drain system soon after the completion of construction.


REHABILITATION OF FRESHWATER DRAINS PROJECT iii

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................... iv

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

Healthy Waterways Program .......................................................................................... 1

Restoration V’s Rehabilitation........................................................................................ 1

Fish Habitat in Urban and Rural Drains ......................................................................... 2

Project Aims.................................................................................................................... 3

Design and Construction .................................................................................................. 4

Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 4

Approvals Process........................................................................................................... 6

Design ............................................................................................................................. 8

Construction.................................................................................................................. 11

Introduction................................................................................................................... 16

Methods......................................................................................................................... 16

Results........................................................................................................................... 17

Stream Geomorphology.................................................................................................. 19

Introduction................................................................................................................... 19

Methods......................................................................................................................... 20

Results........................................................................................................................... 21

Discussion......................................................................................................................... 23

Approvals process......................................................................................................... 23

Design changes ............................................................................................................. 23

Fisheries Assessment .................................................................................................... 23

Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................ 24

Ongoing Site Maintenance............................................................................................ 24

Community Awareness................................................................................................. 24

Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Handbook.......................................................................... 28

Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 29

Appendices....................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1. Bibliography............................................................................................. 29

Appendix 2. Geomorphology of Reference creeks....................................................... 32

Appendix 3. Media Articles and other outputs ............................................................. 35

Appendix 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ......................................................... 40


REHABILITATION OF FRESHWATER DRAINS PROJECT iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms MWNRMG – Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group

HWP – Healthy Waterways Program

NHT – National Heritage Trust

DPI – Department of Primary Industries

QFS – Queensland Fisheries Service

DNR&M – Department of Natural Resources and Mines

EPA – Environmental Protection Authority

MCC – Mackay City Council

IDAS – Integrated Development Assessment System

ASS – Acid Sulphate Soils

PICMA – Pioneer Integrated Catchment Management Association

PCCV – Pioneer Catchment Conservation Volunteers

CQU – Central Queensland University


1

Introduction The Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project was a joint project between the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group (MWNRMG) and the Queensland Fisheries Service (QFS). The project rehabilitated fish habitat along a 200m section of Vines Creek, potentially a significant freshwater nursery habitat in the Lower Pioneer River System. The project also provided an educational focus for freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The project was a success from both a fish habitat rehabilitation and educational point of view, with hundreds of fish successfully utilizing the modified habitat and numerous community and local authority groups visiting the rehabilitation site to see the implementation of freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation technology. As such, the project has become a major focus of the MWNRMG Healthy Waterways Program.

Healthy Waterways Program

The Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project is one of the components of the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Groups, Healthy Waterways program, presently funded by the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT1). The program seeks to improve the management of aquatic resources within the region by improving water quality and habitat within the aquatic systems of the region. As a member of the MWNRMG, the QFS Northern Fish Community and Fishway Monitoring Team are focusing on regional freshwater fisheries issues.

This project is one of three concurrent projects addressing some of these issues, the others being: the Gooseponds Creek Fishways Project (NHT Project No. 2002108); and the Reconstruction of Culverts and Causeways to Assist Migrations of Adult and Juvenile Fish Project (NHT Project No. 2012102). The long-term objective of these three projects was to improve or increase the amount of habitat available to fish and therefore increase the overall fish numbers by allowing species to complete their life cycles.

These projects did not aim to fix all the problems associated with fisheries declines in the region, as the problems are too large to address over a limited time period with limited funding. A primary aim of each project was to increase public awareness of particular issues, and then show how those problems could be addressed. Each project aimed to construct specific demonstration sites (which in a secondary role also facilitate ongoing research by DPI and other groups such as CQU) that illustrate what technologies and techniques can be used to successfully rehabilitate fish habitat.

In this way, community groups interested in addressing local environmental problems can see what the solutions might be, and then be inspired to undertake the works themselves, or to lobby local authorities to take action on their behalf. One overriding objective of all three projects was to ensure that the scope of works undertaken, or the technologies employed, would be within the capacity for local community groups, or local councils, to undertake themselves.

Restoration V’s Rehabilitation

The difference between restoration and rehabilitation needs to be clarified at this point Habitat restoration generally involves returning a modified system to its original pre-


2

impact condition. Habitat rehabilitation however focuses on returning key features or processes, which increase existing habitat values and productivity. Restoration is most often used to preserve representative types of remnant habitat or as part of specific species recovery and management plans. Restoration is seen as an expensive activity, unsuited to broad-scale application across multi-use areas. It may also be impossible to achieve due to a lack of knowledge of pre-impact conditions.

In the case of the Restoration of Freshwater Drainage Channels to Provide Stream Habitat for Juvenile Barramundi Project, restoration was not the intended aim of the project, despite its inclusion in the original project title. Instead, the project team intended to rehabilitate key habitat features that would lead to increased fisheries productivity, whilst maintaining the function of the drains. Rehabilitation in the context of this project (and related healthy waterways projects), involved reconnecting the river to its floodplain, and specifically re-creating particular types of habitat that would boost fisheries production (as well as a wider range of aquatic organisms). The project modified a drain to increase the area and value of habitat (water depth and riparian vegetation) available to all species of fish and also provided dry season fish-refuge areas. In light of the reassessed goals of the project, the projects name was changed to the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project, to better reflect the broad benefits to the whole fish community of the rehabilitation of degraded habitats.

Fish Habitat in Urban and Rural Drains

Of particular concern for the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project was the modification of small floodplain streams in both rural and urban areas into drains. These small streams flow across the floodplain, providing pathways between wetland areas, before joining larger rivers or flowing directly into estuaries. The interconnectivity of the floodplain areas and associated major rivers and estuaries is an important determining factor for the productivity of local fisheries. During the dry season the floodplain areas experience an increase in terrestrial productivity which, when inundated during the wet season, plays an important function for many fish species. These floodplain wetlands and creeks generally give a tremendous boost to fish growth and reproductive success during the wet season. The deeper waterholes in the creeks and wetlands then also provide areas of refuge for many fish species during the subsequent dry season.

In urban and rural areas, these small streams are often modified to control flooding and improve rural production. This typically involves improving the hydraulic efficiency of natural waterways by straightening the channel and removing anything that might impede flow. These modified channels frequently require ongoing management, involving vegetation removal and dredging to remove sediment and to smooth the channel.

The overall effect of these modifications is to reduce flood frequency and duration and to isolate large areas of the former flood plain, with a subsequent loss of fisheries productivity. Another impact on fish is that the deep water holes, that once acted as refuge areas in the dry season are destroyed. Therefore, in the dry season most of the drainage channels dry-up completely, and in the wet when the channels do carry water, suitable habitat for fish is limited by shallow water depths, or access to upstream wetland is prevented by high velocity or structural barriers.


3

The destroyed habitats (Figure 1) were important not only for supporting communities of relatively small native fish species such as gudgeons and rainbow fish, but were also important in the life cycle of larger migratory species, which often have important commercial and/or recreational importance such as mullet and barramundi.

Figure 1. Typical remanent habitat available to freshwater fish in small streams of the Mackay Whitsunday Region.

An example of this is the barramundi, the newly spawned individuals of which move into and through these relatively small freshwater habitats during the first year of their life. The loss of access to these habitats reduces the potential of these small fish to survive and eventually recruit back into the main channels of the larger river systems.

Project Aims

The aim of this project was to rehabilitate a small portion of a trapezoidal urban drain site into a more natural area that would have similar features to natural creek system. By constructing a more varied geomorphology, introducing rocks of varying sizes as habitat for native fish and revegetating the area around the pools, it was hoped that the works would provide a stream habitat for juvenile barramundi and the species they feed on. In general the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project set out to meet a number of aims, these included:

1. Modifying and revegetating a section of a trapezoidal urban drain to resemble a more natural creek system, to increase the amount of stream habitat available for juvenile barramundi and the species that they prey on.

2. Conducting the modifications in such a way as to not affect the drainage function of the drain.


4

3. Educating the community on the importance of fish habitat in small streams.

4. Demonstrating that a variety of low cost/low technology solutions are available to community groups for habitat rehabilitation.

5. Transferring the knowledge required to rehabilitate habitat to the community/local authorities to undertake habitat rehabilitation works.

Design and Construction Site Selection

The Vines Creek drainage system (Figure 2) was chosen for the demonstration site for this project as it had a number of suitable characteristics. These included:

1. The site used to be a natural stream, with historical aerial photography showing the area had a natural watercourse prior to 1990, before being modified into a shallow featureless drain (Figure 3).

2. The site was highly visible to the public, with to two major roads overlooking the site and the surrounding areas having extensive urban development.

3. The site is in a recreational reserve, with the drain being managed by Mackay City Council (MCC). This simplified the permitting process and clearly defined who would maintain the site.

4. The most significant feature of the site was that culverts act as control points during flood events bound the site both upstream and downstream.

The control of flooding by the culverts was seen as critical, as one of the largest potential objections to the works was that they could increase flooding. By choosing this site, the effects of the modifications to the discharge capacity could be assessed in normal and rising flow levels, without increasing the risk of flood damage to surrounding areas. No adverse impacts were expected, but this site gave QFS and MCC a measure of security against possible liability in case of future flood damage occurring in the general area.


5

Figure 2. Location of Vines Creek and rehabilitation demonstration site.

Figure 3. Vines Creek drain demonstration site prior to commencement of rehabilitation works.


6

Approvals Process

A number of determining authorities (government departments that have some jurisdiction over what activities can be undertaken in an area) were consulted about the nature of the proposed project (Table 1).

Table 1. Determining Authorities

Authority Legislation Area of Concern

Departments of Primary Industries

Marine Plants Permit Require permit to undertake any works where marine plants might be disturbed

Department of Natural Resources & Mines

Vegetation Removal Permit

Require permit to undertake any works where riparian vegetation might be disturbed

Environmental Protection Authority

Dredging Permit Require permit to undertake any works where soil is removed and any possible Acid Sulphate Soils issues

Mackay City Council Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS)

Any worked deemed as requiring a development application

Before any works could be done a development application had to be lodged under IDAS. This application required permits from each of the determining authorities, satisfying conditions under their legislation, before council would consider approval of the project.

Although some marine plants were on the site (marine couch) DPI gave approval for the work to be done under their research permit. As there was also no riparian vegetation within the site approval was also given by DNR&M without any further conditions. As the site was below 5m AHD a dredging permit was required from the EPA. EPA raised concerns over the amount of fill being removed from the site and imposed a 250m3 limit on the amount of fill that could be removed from all of the ponds within the site. Once these approvals had been given, MCC required a number of other conditions to be met before giving approval for the rehabilitation of the drain.

Acid sulphate soil testing was required to ensure no acid sulphates were released from the site. DNR&M conducted soil tests at two sites, sites 5 and 147 (refer to appendix 4 for tabulated data), which were located at the top of the eastern bank. The different soil types observed in the ASS test holes were mostly estuarine sands, sand clay and some


7

small pebbles. The bed of Vines Creek exhibited mainly large, coarse-grained estuarine sand. The findings indicated that there were no acid sulphate soils present in the area to be constructed. Refer to appendix 4 for acid sulphate soil test, field test depth and pH readings.

Figure 4. Test site 5 and 147 for Acid sulfate soils conducted on 9 June 2002 and 11 November 2002 respectively.

The council also required an erosion and sediment control plan for the construction phase of the project to be completed to ensure no off-site impacts of the works. Full details of this plan are contained in Appendix 4, a report by the councils consulting engineer. The major component of the plan was the construction of an erosion and sediment control structure in the form of a rock check weir, placed 10m to 15 m downstream of the pond 1. This structure was to slow any flow of water down the drain and prevent the excavated soil from being carried off-site. The structure was constructed of rock covered in geotextile material with a minimum height at the center of 600mm and 800mm at the edges (Figure 5 and 6). After construction was completed this structure was removed and the rocks used to create a riffle zone at the lower end of the rehabilitation site.


8

Figure 5. Plan of erosion and sediment control structure placed downstream of pond 1.

Figure 6. Completed erosion and sediment control structure in place 10m downstream of pond 1.

Design

Previously published reports and design guidelines on habitat restoration and rehabilitation provided ideas on rehabilitation techniques, as well as how to approach and manage this type of project. From these sources, a concept plan was produced to enable the scale and type of works to be visualized during subsequent design and consultation processes (Figure 7). The concept plan consisted of a series of pools surrounded by vegetation, creating shaded deep-water habitat a feature missing from the existing drain. The original concept plan had the pools away from the constructed main flow path of the drain as separate backwater areas (Figure 7).


9

Figure 7. Concept plan for rehabilitation works to be undertaken at the Vines Creek drain.


10

Figure 8. Final design for rehabilitation works to be undertaken at the Vines Creek drain.

However due to various restrictions placed on the project by MCC, especially regarding slopes of pool beds, it was established that the pools needed to traverse the full width of the drain to achieve a maximum depth suitable for fish using the bed slopes available for construction. This led to a chain-of-ponds design that consisted of four pools up to 1.2m deep separated by shallow channels (Figure 8). Each of the pools was lined around the edge with rock to protect the banks and to give a 300mm drop at the pool edge to


11

maximize depth (Figure 9). The bed of each of the pools had a maximum slope of 1:6, this meant that the maximum depth in ponds 1, 2 and 3 was 900mm and pond 4 was 1200mm. These depths are well below the original concept depth of 2000mm and came about after concerns were raised that children from nearby areas may drown in the deeper, steep sloping sided pools. As this is an artificial construction rather than a natural channel it was considered prudent to ensure safety was maintained.

Figure 9. Cross section of a pool from the rehabilitation works undertaken at the Vines Creek drain.

Revegetation of the site with a riparian strip was always a high priority, as without some shade, evaporation rates and temperatures within the pools would be too high. Plantings of native trees and long leaved matrush (Lomandra sp.) were planned from the bed and banks of the drain to provide the necessary shade to successfully maintain the ponds. It was also planned to demonstrate the ability of the drain to maintain its function, while maintaining a healthy canopy that would help water quality and inhibit weed growth.

Construction

The construction of the four ponds and their connecting channels commenced as soon as all approvals were met and was completed in five days, using an excavator for the entire period. Two large tip trucks were also used for three days during the period of soil removal. The order of the works for the excavator was to commence at pond 1 and work upstream to pond 4 in order to minimise disturbance of the site by the heavy equipment. To further minimise the amount of disturbance to the site only the excavator was allowed to enter the drain bed, the two accompanying tip trucks were required to remain on the top of the bank and conduct all of their dealing from there. Materials used during the construction included, 50m3 of 300mm-600mm rock, 20m3 of < 150mm rock and 15m of geotextile material for the sediment trap.

Construction occurred as follows:

1. Site surveyed and engineering plans drawn to MCC specifications.

2. Site marked out as per plans with location of excavated ponds and connecting channels to guide operators during excavation.

3. Erosion and sediment control weir constructed 10m downstream of pond 1 (figure 6).


12

4. Each individual pond excavated and fill removed off-site. To ensure the correct depth was achieved the area excavated was continuously surveyed with theodolite and staff (Figure 10).

5. At the same time as the ponds were constructed, channels linking the pools were also constructed.

6. Each pond had a 300mm deep rock edge placed around the pool edge to protect the banks from erosion, to increase the maximum depth of the pond and to create potential habitat areas for juvenile barramundi and other native fish species (Figure 11).

7. The interconnecting channels between the ponds were rock lined with less than 150mm rock to prevent erosion.

8. The erosion and sediment control weir was removed and the rock used for this structure spread out over the base of the drain to roughen the channel and slow water velocities during flow events.

9. After rain occurred during the wet season, weeds were removed and native vegetation was planted along the banks of the rehabilitated area.

Figure 10. Measuring the depth of the pond to ensure depth and slope criteria were maintained during construction.


13

Figure 11. The partially completed ponds being rocked lined by the excavator during construction.

Figure 12. The completed ponds at the end of construction.


14

Figure 13. The completed ponds filled after the first flow event in the system soon after construction.

Figure 14. The PCCV implementing weed control methods around the pools, to allow the growth of the newly planted Lomandra sp., Melaleuca sp. and Nauclea sp..


15

Figure 15. The completed ponds at the end of the wet season soon after initial planting occurred.


16

Fisheries Assessment Introduction

Assessment of the impacts of the rehabilitation works on the fish community in the study drain was made on the basis of changes in species diversity and abundance. Sites, both in Vines Creek drain, and in natural creeks systems with good remnant riparian vegetation, were chosen to assess natural variability over the period of study and as a benchmark to compare the effect of the rehabilitation works. The results of this study contain only very preliminary post-construction data due to the climatic conditions and reporting time-lines. Further sampling will be conducted into the future to determine the success of the rehabilitation works more fully.

Methods

Sampling was undertaken in three creek systems located to the north of Mackay, Queensland. The Reliance Creek site was situated on Reliance Creek 1.5km downstream of the Habana Road crossing of Reliance Creek. The McCreadys Creek site was located just downstream from the Mackay-Bucasia Road, while the Vines Creek site was located within the area to be rehabilitated downstream of Beaconsfield Road (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Location of sampling sites used for comparison of fish communities in Vines Creek, McCreadys Creek and Reliance Creek.

All sites were sampled using a Smith-Root Model-12B-POW backpack electrofisher operating on 200-400 volt Pulsed DC current and a standard pulse setting (120pps). Sampling was standardised between sites by sampling the same distance of stream (25 metre sections sampled with 150 seconds of power-on electrofishing effort). Six shots were taken at each site, with a minimum distance between each shot of 25 metres. Power on/power off techniques were employed while electrofishing to avoid fish herding. Sites were sampled during daylight hours, encompassing all possible habitat types to maximise number of species sampled. Each site was sampled prior to construction of the


17

rehabilitation works, with only the drain rehabilitation site sampled after construction due to continuing dry conditions.

All fish were identified and recorded on location with measurements taken of each individual to the nearest millimetre (fork length was recorded for fork tailed species, total length recorded for all others). Sub-samples to a maximum of 50 individuals for each species for each shot were measured with any excess being counted as observed and thus not measured. All fish were released unharmed after individual samples were processed.

Results

Sampling at three sites, two natural stream controls (Reliance and McCreadys creeks) and the unmodified drain site, undertaken prior to the rehabilitation of the Vines Creek drain captured a total of 12 species of fish (Table 2). McCreadys Creek had a total of 9 species, with the most abundant species present being the empire gudgeon. Reliance Creek had a total of 11 species and the empire gudgeon was again the most common species captured. The unmodified Vines Creek drain had a total of 2 species, with sea mullet being the most prevalent species.

Table 2. Species captured during sampling of McCreadys Creek, Reliance Creek and the unmodified and rehabilitated Vines Creek drain.

Species McCreadys Creek

Reliance Creek

Unmodified Vines Creek

drain

Rehabilitated Vines Creek

Drain

Oxeye herring 3 12 1

Empire gudgeon 382 138 46

Mosquitofish 11 28 2 68

Rainbowfish 9 32 1

Snakeheaded gudgeon 6 1

Marbled eel 20 9

Guppy 15 7

Fly-specked hardyhead 1

Bullrout 3

Sea mullet 27 6

Pacific short-finned eel 1 1

Spangled perch 8

Barramundi 1

Sailfin perchlet 4

Pacific blue-eye 23

Banded scat 1


18

Catch per unit effort data for each of the species indicates that empire gudgeon were the most common species caught in the two natural creek systems, although a number of other species are capture in good numbers in these creeks. Contrasting to this the CPUE data for the unmodified drain is particularly low, with catch rates well below those encountered at the other natural creek sites (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Catch per unit effort for individual species at each site prior to the rehabilitation of the Vines Creek drain.


19

Whilst post construction sampling will be undertaken during the 2003-4 and 2004-5 dry season some initial post wet season flow sampling within the drains only, already indicate a major change (Table 2, Figure 18). A total of 8 species were recorded from the rehabilitated drain compared to 2 species from the drain prior to rehabilitation. Catch per unit effort data for each of the species for the rehabilitated drain site was also significantly higher than that of the unmodified drain. Empire gudgeons, mosquito fish and pacific blue-eyes were all present in significant numbers. Sea mullet were not captured during the sampling of the rehabilitated drain, although they had be observed in the drain on the previous day

Figure 18. Catch per unit effort for individual species at the Vines Creek drain site before and after rehabilitation of the drain

Stream Geomorphology Introduction

Aerial photos of the local area were examined to determine pre-disturbance conditions at the site (Figure 19), and also typical habitat types found in the local area. Initial


20

inspection of local natural waterways indicated that lack of water depth and loss of riparian vegetation was an obvious difference between remnant healthy creek systems and Vines Creek drain. To establish the required rehabilitation features, detailed goemorphological surveys were conducted in Reliance and McCreadys Creeks by DPI and CQU. The surveys identified stream features essential to a natural stream as well as the typical vegetation present in the local area. This enabled some aspects of these features to be rebuilt in the Vines Creek drain to provide habitat for the wide range of species found in the local creek systems. The Vines Creek drain was also surveyed to identify the features lacking in the drain and to demonstrate the changes that would occur after rehabilitation.

Figure 19. Aerial photo of the drain rehabilitation site from 1960 to 1998 showing how the stream was filled in and modified into a drain.

Methods

In order to rehabilitate the drain site, data was collected from two local natural creek systems, Reliance Creek at Habana and McCreadys Creek at Rural View (Figure 16). Surveys were conducted at the same sites as the fish communities sampling. Each site was divided into cross section transects perpendicular to the creek system. Topography was then surveyed using a theodolite and staff, at the same time the sites also underwent a vegetation survey. Each transect was chosen so that it was no closer than 50 metres from the next. A total of nine transects were surveyed with topographical and vegetation information recorded. Using the theodolite, readings were taken at 1-metre intervals from 0 to 50 metres, which was marked in a straight line by a 50 metre measuring tape. This information was then plotted out in graph format to give an overview of the geomorphology, refer to appendix 2. Also a general account of the different types of vegetation for every metre was recorded during the ground-truthing process and required the sampler to observe the surroundings directly up, down and either side of them. To determine the height of the smaller vegetation a measuring tape was used. For the larger vegetation a 3 and 4 metre theodolite measuring staff was used along with a clinometre


21

for those species larger than the staff. The condition of the waterway was also recorded and it was noted for each transect if the creek was dry, contained stagnant water or if the water was flowing. For those areas with water present, a maximum depth was taken using the measuring staff, this allowed the lowest points of the transect to be determined. A range of water quality information was taken at each site, this included temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity.

Results

Using the geomorphology surveys, a comparison between a natural waterway and the Vines Creek drain was produced. In general, the reference creeks contained a diverse range of geomorphology, vegetation and fish habitats when compared to that of the manmade drain site. Most transects on the natural creeks had a high bank that descended steeply to the pool below, this bank usually then extended to the bed of the pool (Figure 20A). From this low point, the bed of the pool sloped gently to the far bank and then continued sloping gently up onto a small floodplain and up again to the far bank of the stream. On both banks considerable vegetation was found with large trees and palms dominating. Along the banks of the stream smaller palms, shrubs and grasses dominated, especially where the upper canopy was broken. The terrestrial floodplain area was heavily vegetated with large trees and palms and has sparse undergrowth. The fallen branches, logs and palm leaves also contribute to the fish habitat within the stream, providing shelter to many aquatic organisms, including fish. Both of the reference creeks exhibited extensive snag complexes around which many fish were collected during fish sampling. The water quality of the natural streams was quite stable, with moderate temperature, high dissolved oxygen, acid pH and moderate conductivity. Even in the extremely dry conditions that prevailed throughout the survey periods, the water quality maintained suitable conditions for all the fish species naturally found in the creek system.

In comparison, the unmodified Vines Creek drains contained a limited range of geomorphological variation, vegetation and fish habitat. As there were no mature trees in the vicinity, the drain contained no snag complexes such as were common in the reference creeks. Transects of this system identified a typical trapezoidal drain profile, with a flat upper bank, a 1:10 sloping bank and a flat drain bed (Figure 20B). As the drain was mowed on a regular basis there was no significant vegetation found within the site, except grasses and a single large tree located away from the top of the bank. When there was water in the drain (only after rain periods) the quality of the water was quite low, with high temperatures and low do impacting on survivability of fish in the drains.

After rehabilitation, the Vines Creek Drain contained a wider variety of geomorphological variation, vegetation and fish habitat (Figure 20C). The rehabilitation created pools that contained significant water bodies, with good water quality and a variety of fish habitats. It is expected that as the vegetation in the rehabilitation site matures, the site will start to resemble the natural waterways, thereby providing a significant nursery habitat (Figure 20D).


22

Figure 20. Typical geomorphology transects of A) a natural stream (McCreadys Creek at Rural View), B) the unmodified Vines Creek drain, C) the rehabilitated Vines Creek drain immediately after construction and D) the rehabilitated Vines Creek Drain in 10 years time (prediction).


23

Discussion Approvals process

It became obvious during the progress of this project that rehabilitation works are not well catered for in government approval processes. This meant it was very difficult to obtain the appropriate approvals, despite the overall environmental benefit of the program. Each aspect of the program had to be negotiated with the relevant authority, which was very time consuming. It is appreciated that approvals have to be assessed on a precautionary basis however, it would be useful to explore the possibility establishing the environmental credentials of the stream rehabilitation group and obtain a blanket approval for all works future works. The current projects could be used as a blue-print for future projects and detail the approvals process.

Design changes

When the original plans were developed it was considered that a pond depth of 2-3 metres was optimum for fish habitat requirements. However, Mackay City Council raised the issue of children drowning and considered the ponds to be an artificial waterway despite the historical presence of a waterway at that site. For these reasons, council insisted that the slope of the bottom of the pool be no more than 1:6 with a maximum depth of 900mm and a depth of 300mm at the edges. These dimensions mean that less habitat diversity is available at the site, the pools have an increased likelihood of drying out, there may be increased weed growth and reduced water quality. Whilst in this case, despite the reduction in effectiveness compared with the original plans, the rehabilitation works did have a significant positive effect on the environment. However, project planners should be aware that external constraints might result in a rehabilitation project being unable to meet its objectives. This may have major implications for future rehabilitation works in or adjacent to urban areas.

Fisheries Assessment

The sampling conducted to date, although limited by the extremely dry conditions experienced over the last year (the Mackay region is drought declared), have clearly demonstrated the differences between natural streams and drains and between drains and rehabilitated drains. Naturals streams have a greater diversity of habitats, good water quality and retain water through even the driest years. These streams then have a greater number and diversity of fish within them, as was highlighted by the difference in the fish numbers and species between the natural streams (Reliance and McCreadys creeks) and the vines Creek drain. It is obvious from this that rehabilitating a drain to give it some of the essential features of the natural streams, such as riparian vegetation and water depth will lead to an increase in the numbers of fish found in those systems. It was pleasing to note that the modifications did lead to a dramatic increase in the number of species and individuals utilising this habitat. This occurred even though the riparian vegetation has not reached maturity. Future monitoring will identify how fish use this new habitat as it matures, which will help to design future rehabilitation works in the region. Overall it was shown that the project is a success even at this early stage The recruitment of juvenile barramundi this early on in the maturation of the rehabilitated drain is a very


24

positive sign, and showed that even with very minimal rainfall, if habitat is available then the fish will utilise it.

Stream Geomorphology

The data collected during the geomorphology surveys at Reliance Creek and McCreadys Creek along with ongoing advice from DNR&M and PICMA, contributed considerably to the drain rehabilitation project. The natural variation in habitat, good riparian vegetation, good water quality and adequate depth of water to survive a drought, ensure that these two creek systems provide good habitat for a wide variety of fish species. In contrast, the lack of all these features ensured that the Vines Creek drain did not provide much habitat for fish at all. To this end, two major aspects of geomorphology were addressed when rehabilitating the Vines Creek drain. By creating sufficient depth of water and planting riparian vegetation, other aspects of the desired geomorphology would follow naturally. Creating depth of water was undertaken easily by excavation, but the planting of suitable vegetation was a greater challenge in an area where all vegetation had been removed. Given the nature of the drain site, certain plant species had to be used in order to ensure the success of revegetation. Using information collected during the geomorphology survey, a species list of suitable plant species was compiled by QFS in conjunction with DNR&M and PICMA. This list included the species Melaleuca leucadendra, Corymbia tessellaris, Nauclea orientalis, Casuarina equisetifolia and Lomandra sp. Pioneer Catchment Conservation Volunteers (PCCV) in association with PICMA carried out revegetation of these species, ensuring that suitable vegetation to supplement the physical changes to the site were planted.

Ongoing Site Maintenance

Once rehabilitation works are completed, ongoing maintenance will be required to ensure that the site fulfills all the project aims. To this end it is envisioned that MCC will become the prime body to conduct maintenance in the drain after the initial construction maintenance period is completed.

The PCCV volunteers will carry out the maintenance of revegetation in the Vines creek drain from March 2003 to March 2005, while structural maintenance will be conducted by QFS for the same period. After this period, the maintenance role will be passed over to the MCC. A operational Management Plan is being drawn up by council’s consulting engineer, which will outline all aspects of rehabilitation maintenance required to ensure the site continues to provide quality fish habitat and drainage functions.

Community Awareness

The public relations and community awareness benefits of the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project have been significant. The project has generated numerous positive articles in local newspapers (Appendix 3) and on local radio. Media articles published in relation to the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project on both radio and in newspapers include:

ABC Mackay Regional Radio - Radio Segment “Fishy Bits” (since Feb 02 DPI has had a monthly spot providing updates on current DPI projects including the Drains Rehabilitation Project).

Plus:


25

ABC Mackay Regional Radio (September 2002) “Drains Rehabilitation for Mackay”

Channel Seven Mackay Regional News (September 2002) “Mackay Drains Rehabilitated”

The Daily Mercury, Mackay (September 2002) “Biologist Brings Barra Plan to Life”

The Daily Mercury, Mackay (December 2002) “Students Help Barra To Thrive”

The Daily Mercury, Mackay (December 2002) “Fish Call Vines Creek Home”

Channel Seven Mackay Regional News (November 2002) “Brainy Drains”

The Daily Mercury, Mackay (January 2003) “Test Addresses Fears”

Queensland Fisheries Service, Fish Vol 2 Issue 1(Summer 03, p5) “Brain Drain”

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/11469.html

In addition to publicity received through media articles it has been important to give in-depth information to the community about the progress and successes of the project. To this end the project leader has presented information about the project to the community through a number of forums, these include:

1. 2000/2001/2002/2003 Northern Fish Stocking Groups workshops

2. 2001 State Regional Group Collective meeting

3. 2002 Southern Fish Stocking Groups workshop

4. 2002 Mackay Whitsunday Regional Strategy Groups - Healthy Waterways Workshop

5. 2003 Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group – Healthy Waterways Workshop (to be held in May)

The project has also produced a number of other outputs to inform and develop community knowledge of the need for habitat rehabilitation (Table 3)


26

Table 3. List of achievements for the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project.

Achievements (product or service) Description Quantity

Total outputs achieved

Project Target

Education and awareness (including adoption of best management practices)

Type of publication (report, brochure, book) or activity (demonstration, field day) and topic

Target audience and location

Quantity

On-site Project Signage Mackay-Whitsunday Region

2 2

Sustaining our Aquatic Environments – Implementing Solutions National Conference

National 1 1

Industry Conference Presentation (4)

Regional 4 1

Scientific Conference Presentation (2)

International 2 1

Healthy Waterway Initiative Workshop

Mackay-Whitsunday Region

1 1

Department of Primary Industries Project Report

Queensland 1 1

Stream Rehabilitation Pamphlet Queensland 1 1

Inclusion in Fish Passage Guidelines (Book)

Queensland 1 1


27

Training

Purpose and type of training activity

Target audience and location

Number of courses/workshops and number of people trained (and target for project)

Vegetation and stream geomorphology survey training

Central Queensland University – 2nd year teachers environmental studies

4 days 30 people

Planning

Name of plan or feasibility study (including project development and marketing strategies) and area of strategy (eg. regional, catchment, subcatchment)

Purpose of plan. Indicate priority issues identified

Number published

Acid Sulphate Soil Survey Identify ASS locations and potential impacts on the project (NR&M).

1

Operational Management Plan Management of vegetation on rehabilitation site

1

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Management of erosion and sedimentation on rehabilitation site

1


28

Involvement

Which groups did those involved belong to? (eg landcare, schools, local or state government, research organisations, indigenous groups)

How many people helped with the project?

In which region did these activities take place?

Mackay City Council 5 Mackay

Central Queensland University 28 Mackay

Natural Resources and Mines 3 Mackay

National Parks 1 Mackay

Environmental Protection Agency 1 Mackay

Pioneer Integrated Catchment Management Ass

5 Mackay

Department of Primary Industries 5 Mackay

The raising of community awareness has given the project a high profile in the local community, this in turn has led to numerous requests from school, local community and council groups for information of fish habitat rehabilitation. In general the Mackay community has become very aware of the need for rehabilitation of freshwater habitats.

Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Handbook

To build on the successes of the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group and Pioneer Integrated Catchment Management Association in conjunction with the Queensland Fisheries Service initiated a project to identify, prioritise and co-ordinate freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation works in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The Mackay Whitsunday Freshwater Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Strategy will bring together information and experiences from the Gooseponds Creek Fish Passage Project, the Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project and the Reconstruction of Culverts and Causeways Project, as well as information from other fisheries projects throughout the state.

This information will be combined to produce a handbook that will outline the past and present condition of fish communities of the region, identify the key threatening processes to these fish communities, prioritise areas in need of rehabilitation, outline the habitat rehabilitation approvals process and provide techniques for successful rehabilitation. This handbook will be the first to provide in-depth information on the condition and rehabilitation strategies for freshwater fish habitats in the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The handbook will provide this information to community groups, local authorities and other Regional Strategy Groups to provide a blueprint for implement


29

freshwater fish habitat rehabilitation strategies in the Mackay Whitsunday Region and other areas throughout the state.

Conclusions The Rehabilitation of Freshwater Drains Project has been an important success for the Mackay Whitsunday Region. The project has become a major cornerstone of the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Groups, Healthy Waterways Initiative, giving vision and hope to groups trying to rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems in the region.

The project has successfully rehabilitated a section of stream that was a featureless drain prior to commencement of the project. This allowed the juveniles of numerous species of fish to spread into this new nursery habitat in the lower Pioneer River System. This will eventually lead to an increase in the productivity of the whole system, resulting in a more healthy fish community in the Pioneer River System.

The project also ensured that the community is well aware of the consequences of degrading local streams. Reducing fish habitat reduces fisheries productivity, as populations are unable to expand to their maximum potential. Having recognised this problem, the community of the Mackay Whitsunday Region have become active in ensuring further rehabilitation works are built to rehabilitate fish habitats in local streams.

The National Heritage Trust funded project in association with the Mackay-Whitsunday Regional Strategy Group’s Healthy waterways Program has helped to ensure that the drain site becomes an example of what can be done to rehabilitate many of the very uniform manmade drains found throughout Queensland, to encourage the return of the native fish found in and around the Mackay Whitsunday region.

Appendices Appendix 1. Bibliography

Askey-Doran, M., Bunn, S., Hairshine, P., Price, P., Prosser, I. & Rutherfurd, I. (1996) Riparian Management 4: River Ecosystems, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Bennett, J., Sanders, N., Moulton, D., Phillips, N., Lukacs, G., Walker, K. & Redfern, F. (2002) Guidelines for Protecting Australian Waterways, Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

Brisbane City Council (2000) Natural Channel Design Guidelines, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.

Brock, M.A. & Casanova, T. (2000) Are there plants in your wetland? Revegetating wetlands, LWRRDC, Canberra.

Chanell, M., Conlon, M., Patten, G. & Chapman, N. (1992) Sydney Coastal Councils Stormwater Pollution Control Code for Local Government, Sydney Coastal Councils, Sydney.

Clarke, A. & Tyson, L. (1997) Cairns Waterway and Wetland Rehabilitation Guide, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns.


30

Clarke, A., Tyson, L., Richards, W. & Coles, R. (1996) Cairns Drainage Waterway Management Report, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns.

Coastal Cooperative Research Centre (2002) Flowing Estuaries Needed for Healthy Fisheries, Exploring Coastal Science, Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Indooroopilly.

Cotterell, E. (1998) Fish Passage in Streams: Fisheries Guideline for design of stream crossings, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

Davis, J., Froend, R., Hamilton, D., Horwitz, P., McComb, A., Oldham, C. & Thomas, D. (2001) Environmental Water Requirements to Maintain Wetlands of National and International Importance: Environmental flows initiative technical report, Report number 1, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries (undated) Wetland Rehabilitation for Fisheries Purposes Objectives, Techniques and Contacts, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.

Gaboury, M. & Wong, R. (1999) A Framework for Conducting Effectiveness Evaluations of Watershed Restoration Projects, Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 12, British Columbia.

Grodecki, A., Gooch, M. & Weld, M. (1999) DNR Vegetation Facts: Native vegetation – Monitoring, Mapping and Conservation Status, Department of Natural Resources, RSK & RM, Queensland

Hogan, D.L., Bird, S.A. & Wilford, D.J. (1996) Channel Conditions and Prescriptions Assessment (Interim Methods), Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 7, British Columbia.

Hopkins, E., White, M. & Clarke, A. (1998) Restoration of Fish Habitats: Fisheries Guideline for Marine Areas, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

James Cook University, (undated) Sustainable Stream Management in North-East Queensland: Stabilisation for Rehabilitation, James Cook University, Townsville.

Marsden, T. (2001) Implementation of Strategic Fish Habitat Restoration Strategy for the Mackay Whitsunday Region, National Conference: Sustaining our Aquatic Environments – Implementing Solutions, 63 pp., The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries, Indooroopilly.

Mackay Cit Council (2001) IPA Planning Scheme: Statement of Proposals, Mackay City Council, Mackay.

Mallen-Cooper, M. (2001) Fish Passage in Off-Channel Habitats of the Lower River Murray, Fishway Consulting Services, St Ives Chase.

McDowall, R. (1996) Freshwater Fishes of South-Eastern Australia, South China Printing, Hong Kong.

Moffatt, D. & Voller, J. (2002) Fish and Fish Habitat of the Queensland Murray-Darling Basin, The State of Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.


31

Newbury, Dr. R., Gaboury, M. & Watson, Dr. C. (undated) Field Manual of Urban Stream Restoration, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield.

Nunnally, N.R. (1978) Stream Renovation: An Alternative to Channelization, Department of Geography & Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

Sale, M.J., Cada, G.F., Chang, L.H., Christensen, S.W., Railsback, S.F., Francfort, J.E., Rinehart, B.N. & Sommers, G.L. (1991) Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects: Volume 1. Current Practices for Instream Flow needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho.

Staunton-Smith, J., Halliday, I., Sellin, M. & Robins, J. (2002) Using Current Age-structure of Commercial Catches to Help us Understand the Importance of Freshwater Flow for Barramundi Recruitment, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Deception Bay.

Tapsall, S., Beumer, J., Couchman, D. & Marohasy, J. (2000) Cane Growers on-Farm Maintenance of Drains with Marine Plants: For use with Strategic Permits issued Under Section 51 of the Fisheries Act 1994, The State of Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

Telfer, D. (1998) DNR River Facts: What Causes Bank Erosion? Department of Natural Resources, Water and Catchment Management Unit, Queensland.

Tikkanen, P., Laasonen, P., Muotka, T., Huhta, A., & Kuusela, K. (1994) Short Term Recovery of Benthos Following Disturbance for Stream Habitat Rehabilitation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Belgium.

Thorncraft, G. & Harris, J.H. (2000) Fish Passage and Fishways in New South Wales: A Status Report, Office of Conservation, NSW Fisheries, Sydney.

Treecare Extension Officers (1996) DNR Tree Facts: Plants Suitable for Salty Soils, Department of Natural Resources, Community Education and Extension Support, Queensland.

Treecare Extension Officers (1996) DNR Tree Facts: Weed Control for Tree Planting, Department of Natural Resources, Community Education and Extension Support, Queensland.

Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Healthy Rivers Healthy Communities & Regional Growth: an Overview of the Victorian River Health Strategy, McLaren Press, Victoria.

Victoria Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Healthy Rivers Healthy Communities & Regional Growth: Victorian River Health Strategy, McLaren Press, Victoria.

Vivash, R. (1999) Manual of River Restoration Techniques, Arca Press Ltd, Bedford.


32

Appendix 2. Geomorphology of Reference creeks

Reliance Ck Transect #1

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Stream Cross Section (m)

Vert

ical

Hei

ght

(m)

Geomorphology of Reliance Creek transect number 1


0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



01234

0 5 10 15 20 25


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



33


012345

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



0

2

4

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



0

2

4

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



34

McCreadys Ck Transect #1

01234

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght

(m)

Geomorphology of McCreadys Creek transect number 1


01234

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



01234

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


Vert

ical

Hei

ght (

m)



35

Appendix 3. Media Articles and other outputs


36


37


38


39


40

Appendix 4. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

rehabilitation of freshwater drains...

Documents